WORTH WATCHING

i know it was a 24fps movie...as are all digital films...but normal 24fps films typically have a shutter of 1/48th...whilst digital films these days make the exception of utilising 1/30th, simply because it works better in lower light conditions. Some movie makers prefer this aesthetic because having their sets lit with less lights makes their scene look more naturalistic...but the compromise is that there is more motion blur to the movement within the frame. For an extreme example, compare the techniques of filming between Michael Mann's "Public Enemies", compared to David Fincher's "The Social Network". Both are filmed on digital, yet they both look different with the amount of shutter and motion blur in frame. Mann shoots at 24fps under 1/30th because he wants to film under gaslight and bring out the details of the night, like the human eye would. He's done this since "Collateral". But through this technique, he compromises the look of the film, giving it an overall fluid, but blurry motion to movement in the frame. Fincher, however, uses digital as a cost effective approach but aims to mimic the conventions of traditional film. He shoots at 24fps, but he puts his shutter to 1/48th. Yes, as a compromise he needs more light to light his scenes, but the trade off is that his footage appears to be exactly like film stock. Do you understand now what I'm getting at? Life of Pi was obviously shot in digital, you can tell. The shutters aren't always fixed, it depends on what the director wants. That's what digital is about, it's about more visual freedom. One of the main reasons people shoot with digital (beside the cost effective nature of it) is because it absorbs/reads light in a totally different way to traditional film cameras. This does include shooting at lower shutter speeds, with less light, and lower 'motion blur'...but nonetheless there is still some motion blur remaining...and it's distracting. thats my one gripe with digital