- Aug 18, 2010
Sorry, but i find this quote stupid. We're supposed to "fill in the blanks" of action in-between each frame? That's just stupid. When people say stuff like that, they are usually referring to leaving things to the viewers imagination, which makes sense. Sometimes people can imagine things far better than a movie/game/whatever can portray them, and the fact that it is left for the viewer to imagine makes it have an even greater effect than if they showed the scene on-screen.Kragg said:cool quote at the bottomNumachuka said:
"No way should films and TV be shot at 30fps. Unless you want No Country for Old Men to look like Days of Our Lives.
The goal of motion pictures is not to recreate reality, it's not even to show reality. I want to create a little psychic link between you and my pictures. I want to suck you into the world of the story, suspend your disbelief and make you forget about yourself and your life and just be in the moment of the film.
By not showing enough visual information, we force the brain into filling in the gaps... it draws you in even more. It's part of how you let go to the point where you can laugh or cry or feel tense or afraid or elated."
This does not apply to the frames between the frames we see on the screen. We aren't imagining extra frames between the frames that already exist. The only on-screen difference of having a higher frame-rate is that actions will appear slightly less jittery, and more lifelike. We lose nothing in having a higher frame-rate.
Maybe I'm just not understanding the quote fully, but it seems to make no sense. Please, correct me if I'm wrong with all this.