Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I don't think many cinematographers would agree with you. We have the technology to make films at higher framerates, yet few choose to do so.

Interestingly, David Lynch shot Inland Empire at 60fps interlaced, but the film was released at 24fps.




anything with cgi will be much more expensive at higher frames right? I also have absolutely no idea how any of that works.


I would think so, double the render time for 48fps, which is how Cameron shot Avatar II.


Is the final render time really the major cost factor for CGI?




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: