48 frames per second is something you have to get used to. I've got absolute belief and faith in 48 frames... it's something that could have ramifications for the entire industry. 'The Hobbit' really is the test of that.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
The wonderful thing about 48 fps is the integration of live action and CG elements; that is something I learned from 'The Hobbit.' We are so used to 24 fps and the romance of celluloid... but at 48 fps, you cannot deny the existence of these CG creations in the same time frame and space and environment as the live action.
Forty-eight frames per second is a way, way better way to look at 3D. It's so much more comfortable on the eyes.
Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out.
A picture story just doesn't run like a film. It doesn't have 24 frames per second. It doesn't deal with this illusion of movement.
With TV, the pace is so fast, the scripts are coming at you, the directors are firing things at you, it's breathtaking.
It takes great skill to tell a compelling story in under 60 seconds. These five directors have mastered the format, using their talent, craft and imagination to provide us with some of the most innovative filmmaking out there today.
The learning curve is 'The Hobbit' is being shot in 3D.
I have no opinion on 48 frames a second at all. I'd be completely unsuitable to talk about that.
Jean-Luc Godard said that cinema is the truth 24 frames a second. I think cinema is lies 24 frames a second.
I didn't want people to sit there and watch 10 minutes of film,and all they write about is 48 frames.