Electric cameras have RUINED movies. SMH my head can't believe cameramen these days are too lazy to crank the camera. Theres that subtle, imperfect look that you just DON'T GET with modern gimmicks like "stable images" (postmodernist drivel)
Electric cameras have RUINED movies. SMH my head can't believe cameramen these days are too lazy to crank the camera. Theres that subtle, imperfect look that you just DON'T GET with modern gimmicks like "stable images" (postmodernist drivel)
I don't have strong feelings about CGI but the difference I see is that better video technology increases fidelity (realness), while CGI isn't real to begin with.
That's the interesting thing though, I remember back when they first released the 60fps version of Jackson's Hobbit, and everybody was mad because at that degree of fidelity they could tell that the prosthetic noses for the Dwarves were obviously fake.
Do dwarf noses jiggle or something? Weird that frame rate would reveal the fakery rather than resolution or something. At any rate (pun intended) it still increases the fidelity of what you're actually recording.
You lose a lot of detail to motion blur. Higher framerates means higher motion clarity means more detail overall.
That's neat, but were there not shots of motionless dwarves in the original trilogy?
The resolution was probably better, too, but if we're being honest it's rose-tinted glasses about the original trilogy. I remember distinctly seeing Return of the King in theaters and thinking "man Ian McKellen's wizard beard glue is really obvious" and that was in 2003.
We just need rose-tinted camera lenses.
CGI is fine in its place. See Jurassic Park, Terminator 2 where they used early CGI extremely effectively and to its strengths. I don't like everything being CGI just for the hell of it.