login/register

Snip!t from collection of Alan Dix

see all channels for Alan Dix

Snip
summary

And oddly, this coincides with reports that an audience ... reacted badly to test footage from Peter Jackson's forth... movie. The Hobbit is shot at 48 frames per second – tw... as standard films. The studio claims this gives it an un... fluidity. T

What is the difference between The Hobbit and the news? Not as much as there should be | Charlie Brooker
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/ap.../difference-hobbit-news-not-much

Categories

/Channels/digial media

[ go to category ]

For Snip

loading snip actions ...

For Page

loading url actions ...

And oddly, this coincides with reports that an audience of cult movie buffs reacted badly to test footage from Peter Jackson's forthcoming Hobbit movie. The Hobbit is shot at 48 frames per second – twice as many frames as standard films. The studio claims this gives it an unparalleled fluidity. The viewers complained it was too smooth – like raw video. Some said it looked like daytime TV. What they meant, I guess, is that it seemed too "real", and therefore inherently underwhelming. The traditional cinematic frame rate lends everything a comforting, unreal and faintly velvety feel, whereas the crisper motion of video seems closer to reality, and therefore intrinsically more harsh and pedestrian.

HTML

And oddly, this coincides with reports that an audience of cult movie buffs <a href="/film/2012/apr/25/the-hobbit-first-screening-cinemacon?newsfeed=true" title="" data-link-name="in body link">reacted badly to test footage from Peter Jackson's forthcoming Hobbit movie</a>. The Hobbit is shot at 48 frames per second &#x2013; twice as many frames as standard films. The studio claims this gives it an unparalleled fluidity. The viewers complained it was <em>too</em> smooth &#x2013; like raw video. Some said it looked like daytime TV. What they meant, I guess, is that it seemed too "real", and therefore inherently underwhelming. The traditional cinematic frame rate lends everything a comforting, unreal and faintly velvety feel, whereas the crisper motion of video seems closer to reality, and therefore intrinsically more harsh and pedestrian.