3 ms·
after my eyes were actually adapting to the 48 frames/s i really liked the experience. what i found strange though was, that when displaying landscapes there wa
by mars 14y ago
after my eyes were actually adapting to the 48 frames/s i really liked the experience. what i found strange though was, that when displaying landscapes there was actually a depth-of-field in the movie - which did not make it a fully "real" visual experience. i guess this is rather a technical limit of the cameras the movie was shot with than intended. anyone got some details on this?
- wahnfrieden 14y agoWhat makes you think filmmakers are interested chiefly in visual "realness"? There's very little in the medium of cinematography that your mind accepts readily as "real" besides sound, depending.