We've been stuck with the same old 24fps in films since the 1920s, and really the only restriction there was cost and sound technology. However, 24fps still works pretty effectively, despite slight "strobing" during high action it still keeps the film within a realm of realism, so why spend a whole lot of money on something not really needed? Well, because there's no restrictions anymore, so why the hell not?
The reason why we haven't advanced before this film is because people generally don't like to be put out of their comfort zones. There were many upon many other technological advances that were predicted to be the "death of cinema", for example, colour, and with 24fps being the norm for approximately 90 years, it's a awfully large comfort zone. I feel it's about time cinema started advancing. We have a wider aspect ratio, and along with it, 70mm horizontal reels. It is about time frame rate followed... Jackson was actually smart about keeping it divisible by 24 I found, as it can be screened at 24fps if needed to after cinematic distribution, so just because the film is of higher technology than most, we won't need some special equiptment to see the film again.
I hear it's supposed to be quite odd to look at for around the first 30 minutes, as it's much crisper and smoother than any other action that's been placed on the screen before... I am almost more excited for the visuals than see the adaption of the story. That being said, I've brushed up on all my LOTR films, and I'm pretty ready to be wowed!
No comments:
Post a Comment