←back to thread

252 points CharlesW | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.52s | source
Show context
jedbrooke ◴[] No.44457031[source]
> This grain, formed from tiny particles during the film’s development, is more than just a visual effect. It plays a key role in storytelling by enhancing the film’s depth and contributing to its realism.

I never understood the “grain = realism” thing. my real eyes don’t have grain. I do appreciate the role of grain as an artistic tool though, so this is still cool tech

replies(20): >>44457115 #>>44457176 #>>44457190 #>>44457304 #>>44457366 #>>44457589 #>>44457682 #>>44457732 #>>44457872 #>>44457896 #>>44457993 #>>44458409 #>>44458653 #>>44459145 #>>44459768 #>>44463102 #>>44463118 #>>44464123 #>>44464590 #>>44471828 #
UltraSane ◴[] No.44457896[source]
Film grain and 24fps are both examples of people being far too attached to the technical limitations of film.
replies(1): >>44458277 #
supertrope ◴[] No.44458277[source]
23.976 fps has been put on a pedestal as the "correct" look. Just look at the reaction to The Hobbit. However it does provide some objective advantages. 60 fps requires more lighting. Adding more lights means more electric setup and heat for actors in heavy makeup and costume. In post production that's more frames to edit.
replies(4): >>44460324 #>>44460423 #>>44461286 #>>44463203 #
1. account42 ◴[] No.44463203[source]
If that were an argument then frame rates would have increased with more efficient lighting.