5 ms·

I think you're expecting 3 decades of cinema tech knowledge to be dumped on you in a comment. No one shoots true 24. Anymore. Nor does any modern studio want t

I think you're expecting 3 decades of cinema tech knowledge to be dumped on you in a comment. No one shoots true 24. Anymore. Nor does any modern studio want to. That doesnt mean content isnt finalized at 24... 18k is impressive, thats a-lot of heat. 12 people running a standard high res RAID, is not impressive and puffed up for press.

CyberDildonics 3y ago
No one shoots true 24. Anymore. Nor does any modern studio want to. This is not true, where are you getting this information? Converting a high frame rate to a lower frame rate is not like resampling a high res image to a lower res image. You have to interpolate or throw out frames, both of which are terrible compared to just shooting in the frame rate you want.
- vardump 3y ago
  Unless it’s an integer multiple. Shrug.
  - CyberDildonics 3y ago
    Nope, if it's an integer multiple you still have to throw out frames and those frames could have been part of the motion blur of other frames instead. It isn't the same because instead of taking a single exposure for half the time the frame elapses you would have two frames, each exposed for a fourth of that same time.
    - Kirby64 3y ago
      Or you just interpolate between frames if you want the same motion blur. It’s just like downsampling from 4k to 1080p. The process is clean since you can directly map 2 frames to 1 frame (or, 4 pixels to 1 pixel for resolution conversion).
      - CyberDildonics 3y ago
        Absolutly not. Once again, interpolating frames is not "just like downsampling" an image. Things move and obscure each other, you will get artifacts. Again, there is also motion blur and missing information. A frame exposure might be for half the time of the frame (which is common). Two frames would then be have their exposures broken up over time. Imagine four units of time. One frame fills up two next to each other and the next two are blank. Two frames would fill up one, the next would be blank, the next would be filled, the next would be blank. Anyone telling you that you can "just" interpolate frames has never done it before.

CyberDildonics 3y ago

No one shoots true 24. Anymore. Nor does any modern studio want to. This is not true, where are you getting this information? Converting a high frame rate to a lower frame rate is not like resampling a high res image to a lower res image. You have to interpolate or throw out frames, both of which are terrible compared to just shooting in the frame rate you want.

vardump 3y ago
Unless it’s an integer multiple. Shrug.
- CyberDildonics 3y ago
  Nope, if it's an integer multiple you still have to throw out frames and those frames could have been part of the motion blur of other frames instead. It isn't the same because instead of taking a single exposure for half the time the frame elapses you would have two frames, each exposed for a fourth of that same time.
  - Kirby64 3y ago
    Or you just interpolate between frames if you want the same motion blur. It’s just like downsampling from 4k to 1080p. The process is clean since you can directly map 2 frames to 1 frame (or, 4 pixels to 1 pixel for resolution conversion).
    - CyberDildonics 3y ago
      Absolutly not. Once again, interpolating frames is not "just like downsampling" an image. Things move and obscure each other, you will get artifacts. Again, there is also motion blur and missing information. A frame exposure might be for half the time of the frame (which is common). Two frames would then be have their exposures broken up over time. Imagine four units of time. One frame fills up two next to each other and the next two are blank. Two frames would fill up one, the next would be blank, the next would be filled, the next would be blank. Anyone telling you that you can "just" interpolate frames has never done it before.