4 ms·
More than anything it's about color correction and color grading. This video explains it nicely I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAh83khT1no https://ww
by pen2l 3y ago
More than anything it's about color correction and color grading.
This video explains it nicely I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAh83khT1no https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAh83khT1no
If you are starting out with good data (e.g. 32bit exr workflow), you would be amazed how powerfully and easily you can control what you want and what the possibilities are, with tools like MagicBullet (which offer presets to get you the cinema look with just a mouse click). But if you work long enough in this area you can discover your own workflow and pull it off without these tools, e.g. play with hue&sat, white balance adjustments, the curves, introducing an S-curve for example, color wheels, etc.
- Eduard 3y ago> More than anything it's about color correction and color grading. to my (literal) perception, using a framerate of 24 frames per second is an even more significant requirement to get the "cinematic Hollywood look".
- maven29 3y agoIsn't the 180 degree shutter angle more crucial than the distinction between 24 and 30?
- slhck 3y agoBoth. The 180 degree rule just makes sure motion blur looks as intended and is a mostly artistic choice that can vary depending on the scene. E.g. for action sequences or particularly smooth motion in a dreamy scene, you can break this rule. Or, if there's moving water, you might want to choose a particular shutter in relation to the preset frame rate. The overall frame rate gives you the distinction between a typical movie vs a TV-style documentary. The overall frame rate stays fixed across a movie and should normally not be changed.
- dannyw 3y agoMy artistic choice is shooting 60FPS at 360 degrees (shutter: 1/60th of a second). It gives motion blur more comparable to 30FPS (which is closer to 24FPS), with the responsiveness and fluidity of 60FPS.
- varispeed 3y agoWhy 24 fps format is still being used? I personally can't stand it. It's like watching a slide show. I can't wait when Hollywood moves to 120fps or better.
- alexvitkov 3y agoI'm sure the people masking shit out frame by frame can't wait to do it in 120 FPS either!
- CamperBob2 3y agoThey don't exactly have any job security. They will eventually be employed doing something else.
- Joeboy 3y agoEvery now and then somebody makes a high frame rate movie and everybody complains it looks bad, so they don't do it again.
- kuschku 3y agoIMO a 48 fps movie at 1/48 shutter speed looks just as dreamy as a 24fps movie at 1/48 shutter speed, but is much less stuttery.
- lancesells 3y agoI think 48 fps gains more detail but makes things look cheaper. The Hobbit looked like a BBC TV show compared to LOTR. That said, I don't pay enough attention to film these days so maybe people have gotten better at it and I'm watching 48 fps all the time.
- kuschku 3y agoThe hobbit had a 1/96 shutter, which is what made it feel like a TV show. The actual fps barely had an effect on its look.