Originally Posted by espodo
"The footage I saw looked terrible … completely non-cinematic," wrote Devin Faraci at Badass Digest. "The sets looked like sets … sets don’t even look like sets when you’re on them live, but these looked like sets. The magical illusion of cinema is stripped away completely.”
I look at the end goal of Audio/Visual giving the perception of the user visually being in the movie and audibly hearing what they think is real sound produced by what is going on in the movie. Fighting against this evolution seems counterintuitive and will only hurt the progression of technology.
3D is a prime example. Poor implementation back in 19XX turned a lot of people off and portrayed it as simply a gimic. Since Avatar, 3D popularity has exploded and there is now enough consumer interest (demand) to drive production of said technology. Now, if 3D would have been implemented better way back in the day and enough interest would have been generated for companies to realize profit potential, maybe at this point in time today we would have 3D displays without the need of glasses… Individuals with an audience, such as Devin Faraci, who interpret the technology based on their own shallow interpretation, obviously have some industry influence. It’s game changers and pioneers (think Steve Jobs) who have a vision on the end game in mind that end up changing the industry. Peter Jackson needs put less stock in what a few “industry professionals” or focus groups have to say and press forward if he wants to truly make his mark.
Originally Posted by gremmy
Film is a very literal medium. The more closely that medium approximates reality, the more literal it becomes. This becomes a real problem when we are trying to get an audience to suspend disbelief while viewing subject matter often plucked from literature, which of course is a FAR LESS LITERAL medium.
But on a movie taking place in a fantasy world populated by wizards and dragons and Hobbits, the additional visual realism can easily interfere with our ability to appreciate what we are seeing. In other words, we begin to feel like we are watching actors performing on a set instead of characters experiencing life in an imagined world.
Guess our feeble minds aren’t ready for that yet.
Originally Posted by Bob McLaughlin
Whatever keeps me in the story and in the film. If 48fps takes me out of the picture, I don't want it, at least not right now. However, I think this may be a case of filmmaking technique needing to catch up with the technology. In the early days of sound (and color, for that matter) the sheer novelty of the new technology was jarring not just to viewers, but the people creating the films--it took a while to make it an effective tool in the arsenal of the filmmakers.
Excellent post! As with any new technology it may take a few attempts to perfect a certain technique. Take the iPhone and compare the original iPhone to the 4S. 5 Years separate the iPhone from the 4S but they literally seem worlds apart from tech advancement standpoint. The key is to implement the 48fps techinique now, go through a few lessons learned and improve the implementation for future releases. Everything has a learning curve and there is constant room for improvement.
Sorry for my rant… I just hate to see technology/techniques meant to advance a field get shut down because people are scared of it… Look back in history, I bet cavemen freaked
when that one guy showed them how to make fire.
OOOoooo it's Magic