I'm not very experienced with a rotary shutter, but I will try and help.
The 360° shutter is relative, so it is tricky to explain what it does in general terms. A 360° shutter is no shutter at all. It never closes, making your shutter speed equal to the frame rate; at 24 FPS it is 1/24th of a second and at 48 FPS it is 1/48th of a second. So if you were comparing a "normal" exposure of 180° @24fps (1/48th) to 48fps @ 1/48th you would be looking at a 360° shutter, or an exposure twice as long as you expect, so you would see more blur than you expect.
Is that right or exactly wrong?
Last edited by Scott Crawley; 04-25-2012 at 09:47 AM.
Dylan goes electric ( :
For me 48fps is terrible. For this simple reason: it kills the suspension of dis-belief. Cinema is an abstraction of reality, it has to be if we are to believe in aliens, dinosaurs and gremlins...
If the image is too life-like it destroys the illusion, high resolution can hamper that goal too, but 48fps is the surest way to break the spell - and as others have mentioned, cheapen a movie. 24fps is a step closer to our imagination...
I'm very glad Ridley Scott chose to shoot Prometheus in 24p. That is one great looking trailer.
I was not comparing Lawless to the Hobbit, I was comparing it to Public Enemies. Sorry if I did not make that clear. Both Lawless and Public Enemies use digital cameras to shoot films about gangsters during the depression. One opts for a more traditional 180 degree shutter (Lawless) while the other tries to shake things up with a 360 degree shutter (Public Enemies) which produces very ugly digital looking images. Lawless looks normal and quite pretty in my opinion while Public Enemies looked like crap, so much so that it ruined my enjoyment of the film. The example was designed to illustrate the fact that making a big change to the way a film appears to the audience can have a negative effect on the film if the audience hates the look. The 360 degree shutter did nothing for Public Enemies except make it look ugly and it sounds like 48fps has done the same thing with The Hobbit. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I am used to 24fps and I am not ashamed of it. Jackson, Cameron and Lucas can tell me till their blue in the face that higher frames looks better but I will still think it looks like crap. What we need are higher resolution projectors, not higher frame rates which represent motion in an odd and distracting manner. Distracting is never a good thing. You should never be thinking about how odd the footage looks.
Other advancements in motion picture history that met with mixed reaction:
Why should a frame rate change be any different?
Hmmmm, I'm kinda of the opinion if it isn't broken, don't fix it.
2D 24fps definitely isn't broken.
However 3D at 24fps is broken - it looks bloody awful. Upping it to 48fps will solve it's problems. But will it actually make 3D good? I'll wait until I see it - but I doubt it.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|