HFR is just a messenger. It's no fault of HFR if filmmakers don't know yet how to make it "cinematic". HFR is the future, it must be - and filmmakers WILL learn how to use it.
>HFR is the future, it must be - and filmmakers WILL learn how to use it.
I fail to see why "it must be" -- or why you assume there is something there to be learned.
Art, including cinema, is not about capturing reality perfectly.
Nobody considers a photo-perfect painting better than an expressionist painting (except a bunch of naive people). And nobody thinks Citizen Kane is worse than Horror Movie 2, because the latter is in color.
(Not to mention that most people are mighty fine with their mp3 or listening to music through web streaming, when the CD standard of 3 decades ago had better technical quality).
And while the absence of motion blur can be good for action sequences, it feels bad for normal scenes.
Even 3D games, which run at 60fps (mainly for the extra responsiveness for user actions), have been putting virtual "motion blur" to make them look better.
I fail to see why "it must be" -- or why you assume there is something there to be learned.
Art, including cinema, is not about capturing reality perfectly.
Nobody considers a photo-perfect painting better than an expressionist painting (except a bunch of naive people). And nobody thinks Citizen Kane is worse than Horror Movie 2, because the latter is in color.
(Not to mention that most people are mighty fine with their mp3 or listening to music through web streaming, when the CD standard of 3 decades ago had better technical quality).
Now, besides the absence of motion blut, HFR doesn't buy you much. E.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u...
And while the absence of motion blur can be good for action sequences, it feels bad for normal scenes.
Even 3D games, which run at 60fps (mainly for the extra responsiveness for user actions), have been putting virtual "motion blur" to make them look better.