LOL @ HD-DVD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valgar

The feature that makes movies look like they are filmed "live" is anti-judder. Sony calls it Motion Flow, Samsung calls it Movie Plus.

http://ecoustics-cnet.com.com/4520-6...6792632-1.html

I don't particularly care for it, and the consensus is split among my friends. However, it is amazing with animated films.

---

I've seen the Pirates thing he was talking about at Best Buy. It looks just like it is playing at a higher-than-film framerate. When I first saw it, I thought it was a behind-the-scenes feature rather than the movie itself. Outside of being a shitty way to present a movie, it hurt my eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wildkat

I was at CES and it was kinda of sad really. The HD-DVD booth was right next to the Blu-ray booth. The Blu-ray booth was lively while the HD-DVD booth seemed like everyone was ready for a funeral.

There were HD-DVD ads everywhere, on Taxis, on buildings, banners hanging all over the convention center. Should saved that money and paid warner off.

---

Mind you, they had this all planned before the WB announcement and start of CES. Once WB announced they were going to Blu-Ray, HD DVD camp decided to not mention what they had planned originally whether its breaking news or any new announcements and decided to evaluate the situation on how the WB switch would impact them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valgar

The feature that makes movies look like they are filmed "live" is anti-judder. Sony calls it Motion Flow, Samsung calls it Movie Plus.

http://ecoustics-cnet.com.com/4520-6...6792632-1.html

I don't particularly care for it, and the consensus is split among my friends. However, it is amazing with animated films.

---

I think thats it, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valgar

The feature that makes movies look like they are filmed "live" is anti-judder. Sony calls it Motion Flow, Samsung calls it Movie Plus.

---

Every time a discussion like this pops up I have to wonder... Why the fuck are we filming movies at 24 fps in 2008?


You'd think somewhere along the line somebody would have seen that this television thing is well-received by the masses. Might as well make movies and TV compatible with each other. Hmmmmm... 30 is a greater number than 24. Let's go with that standard!

And that shit should have happened in 1960!
In 2008 both video and film should be 60 fps or something.



But here we are, shooting at a frame rate that is not only fundamentally shitty, but a frame rate that works for the first 6-12 weeks of a movie's life and then causes all sorts of incompatibility problems for decades to come after that. Makes sense to me!

Because they haven't upgraded the refresh rate of the human eye yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YellerDog

Because they haven't upgraded the refresh rate of the human eye yet?

---

Everybody here can tell the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps.

And even if nobody could see anything faster than 24 fps, people sure as hell can see the artifacts 3:2 pulldown causes when film is transferred to video. Shooting films in 30 fps would be worth it just to avoid that.

I like the look of film. 24 FPS looks... professional, in a movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YellerDog

I like the look of film. 24 FPS looks... professional, in a movie.

---

Well, if frame rates had evolved like they should have then I'm sure they would have variable frame rates a few years ago when digital TVs took over. Then a director could film however he wanted.

Disagree. Standards matter. 30fps feels completely wrong for a movie, which is a big part of why a lot of shot-on-video films feel cheap.

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_of_vision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_r...in_video_games

for the infos.


edit: I think there's very good reason shows like The Sopranos or Deadwood shoot on film. There's a very, very specific feel to 24fps.

Jerky slow-pans drive me nuts. 24 fps isn't good enough.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.