Help
"We're used to seeing films at 24 fps; we're used to watching telecasts at 30 fps; we're used to playing Call of Duty at 60 fps. These distinctions are mostly accidents of history, yet they've come to stand in for a hierarchy of artistic production. As Julie Turnock points out in her essay, not all forms of moving pictures have the same prestige; some are deemed more sophisticated than the others. So a movie shot in HFR suffers from its likeness to less vaunted forms of entertainment: soap operas, sporting events, video games."
From The Wertzone blog:
"I also wrote a proposal for a Malazan videogame [...] Erikson wanted something more akin to a first-person shooter."
Does CGI suffer less (than props and makeup do) from higher frame rates? What if more realistic props were used?
If the author's right about actors' feigned facial expressions (non-genuine smiles) being more obvious, I wonder if higher frame rate could encourage the replacement of actors with fine-tuned hyper-realistic CGI, whose faces behave more perfectly like humans than actual humans playing humans (or, alternately, extreme forms of method acting and more borrowing from reality TV or technologically-aided means of getting "authentic" facial muscle contractions which hold up at 120 FPS).
This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 21 October 2016 - 06:54 PM
