Even the 24FPS blu-ray was way too smooth. I think 60FPS is the highest they should go when it comes to convincing HFR... 120 is just too much. Also, aren't there one like a handful of theaters worldwide who can screen it in 4K/120FPS/3D? Doubt any of those are even in Europe.
Also yeah, 3D looks a lot more pleasing in HFR but it still does not make me care for it. I hope Lee goes more experimental with his direction and framing like he was with Life of Pie rather than with Long Halftime Walk.
Looking forward to Smith's performance though.
I don't think framerate actually matters nearly as much as people believe. It's jarring because people are unused to it. Just like if sound was realistically designed, only coming from the camera's perspective, even if extremely high-quality and audible, it would seem cheap and unfinished—because it's different.
Are people forgetting Michael Mann's Collateral? It kinda imitate a HFR and I love that stylish look to it making it feel real. I hope there will be a theater in my area be showing this at a HFR because I want to experience it. I sure things on screen going to have a real impact feeling when stuff exploding, stuff flying at you, actors hitting one another and falling and ect.
I actually really liked the HFR in the Hobbit films. The movement was very pleasing. It's just that so many filmmaking aspects such as hair/make-up, production design, VFX and so on have to be made with even more care. The hair needs to be real, objects or sets made of foam or plastic quickly come across as such, VFX are more noticeable etc. It's not that they can't master it, like was done with sound in films or how the cameras became less static and cumbersome etc. It just looks like they haven't fully mastered it. And tbh, the environment in this film looks rather stale. I think environments with a lot of movement, be it the wind blowing through the trees or being near/at sea or stuff like that will show the strength of the format.
I'm all for 48/60FPS but 120 still seems a bit excessive imo. I wasn't able to see Billy Lynn in 120FPS (not in HFR at all sadly) but I hope I will be with this film.
The Hobbit was the only film that I enjoyed the 3D from beginning to end because of the HFR. When things start moving in motions and with 24fps everything look flat and the 3D become a blur(out of focus) and you get freaking dizzy from it.
Well it took James Cameron's Avatar to push 3D into theaters. So it will take James Cameron once again to push theaters to upgrade to HFR if Avatar prove that HFR is the future for watching certain type of movies that can take advantage of the technology.
i just wanna see ang lee do 120 cause thinks it's a good idea god bless em. even if it's awful it will at least be something weird and new which in my twisted books means good
I think Billy Lynn works very well in 2D 60fps but this seems like the perfect fit. Those kinds of action scenes in 3D 120 fps 4K (although they shot on the Alexa, so 3.2K technically) should be really phenomenal.
Note that Paramount has been working for a while with theaters worldwide to make sure they can show HFR, whether it's 2K 120fps 2D, 60fps 3D, 4K 120fps 2D, etc.
Laser IMAX can show 120fps 2D and 60fps 3D, not sure about the resolution. Seems to be the same for Dolby Cinema theaters, so this bodes VERY well for most folks being able to see this in HFR.
