> The text-book reason filmmakers add makeup to actors and then light them brightly is that film is not as sensitive as the human eye, so these aids compensated for the film's deficiencies of being insensitive to low light and needing the extra contrast provided by makeup. These fakeries were added to "correct" film so it seemed more like we saw. But now that 48HFR and hi-definition video mimic our eyes better, it's like we are standing on the set, and we suddenly notice the artifice of the previously needed aids. When we view the video in "standard" format, the lighting correctly compensates, but when we see it in high frame rate, we see the artifice of the lighting as if we were standing there on the set.
This sounds entirely wrong to me, regardless of his appeal to experts.
There was no "film" versus "high definition". So far as I know, the Hobbit was not filmed in both 48 and 24, nor both in film and in digital: I think it was filmed on RED in 48fps HD digital and converted to 24 HD digital in post, by adding motion blur. Thus there was only one sensor type, aperture, shutter speed (likely 1/96), and ISO setting for both film versions. The blogger's description above seems to make assumptions which are simply not true.
If this guy saw some difference in lighting, this difference must be solely due to the 24fps motion blur conversion.
There was no motion blur conversion, the 24fps version was made by taking every second frame.
The film was shot at 48fps with a 270 degree shutter angle, which is equivalent to a shutter speed of 1/72s. This was done to balance the look of the motion blur midway between the look that you'd get shooting 24 and 48 with a standard 180 degree shutter angle (1/48s and 1/96s respectively). So the motion blur should still be a bit sharper than a usual film, when watching the 24fps version, but not as extremely sharp as it would be at 1/96s since it would cause more stuttering and strobing.
I believe the author's point is not that the lighting was different, but that it 'appeared' different, which I agree with. The difference in the appearance I put down to getting twice as much visual information per second. Even though the spatial resolution is the same for each frame, you're getting twice as much. For example a small detail like a facial pore may not resolve between two 24fps frames, but you can see it in the 'in-between' extra frame. This could be especially an issue since the original plates were shot at 5k, resized down to 2k, potentially 'anti-aliasing' away details.
This is probably having a similar effect to when HD spatial resolution came in for television, everything looked more 'real' and productions had to adjust makeup and lighting techniques.
(disclaimer: I work in the visual effects industry)
This sounds entirely wrong to me, regardless of his appeal to experts.
There was no "film" versus "high definition". So far as I know, the Hobbit was not filmed in both 48 and 24, nor both in film and in digital: I think it was filmed on RED in 48fps HD digital and converted to 24 HD digital in post, by adding motion blur. Thus there was only one sensor type, aperture, shutter speed (likely 1/96), and ISO setting for both film versions. The blogger's description above seems to make assumptions which are simply not true.
If this guy saw some difference in lighting, this difference must be solely due to the 24fps motion blur conversion.