Plus the frame doubling that all modern TVs seem to have on by default! I can not watch anything but sports like that but nobody else seems to care.
I like it. People need to get over their obsession with low frame rates being "better". A whole generation of people will grow up without thinking that moves are "supposed" to be 24fps, and that sensible frame rates "look wrong". And I say good riddance.
Well, no, but aspect ratio isn't just about square-meterage. An artist doesn't randomly choose the aspect ratio of a canvas and a scene of, say, a desert stretching for miles isn't "the same" if you add a couple more feet of sky to the top and a couple more feet of empty sand to the bottom.
Now, with 48fps and a 180° shutter, you're shooting at 1/96ths a second. What does this mean? ... 2) Objects move half the distance in 1/96sec than they would in 1/48sec. This has the effect of reducing motion blur in the frame, and there is a big difference between 1/48 and 1/96.
1) You have half the light striking the film. You have to compensate either with more light, which makes the shot harder on the actors and more expensive, or you have to increase the aperture, which shortens your depth of field.
If 480p is insufficient for your youtubing, you are a "cinephile". In the bad sense.
...a trivial violation, particularly when it gains me so much more visual information.
« Older "Adrift is a love letter to the fog of the San Fra... | Hayden Thorpe and Jon Hopkins ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt