141–150 of 479 posts
Don’t watch Netflix movies. Watch actual lower budget/indie movies like Red Rocket that still look and feel like movies..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will never accept the hate for 48 FPS. 24 FPS looks like garbage. Panning shots are a stuttery mess. 24 FPS looks somewhat okay when the camera is still and only the people in it are moving, but the ridiculous choppiness ruins any moment with camera movement. A higher refresh rate is simply an objective improvement. I don't care that you associate it with bad soap operas.
At the end of the day I can’t really fault someone for having a genuine aesthetic preference one way or the other. And yet it’s difficult for me to understand complaints about HFR as a genuine aesthetic preference distinct from the complaints that likely existed about talkies, color film, HD video, etc.
24 fps feels best to me. Better than 30, 15, 16, 12, 6, 4. Better than 60+. Even slightly better than 25.
Those numbers may seem odd and random, but doing a lot of animation using various framerates, 24 matches up with reality more closely than other framerates to me. Might be subjective, who knows. But when I'm noticing persistence of vision, for running, cycling, driving, I like 24 fps.
Pans & scans & tracking shots & dolly moves & steadicams, and how they convey motion via the aperture & ISO speeds & f-stops, will determine if the images will have more blur, or be sharper.
In Saving Private Ryan, Spielberg made the settings be super sharp so each image has no blur and is in great detail, to give the sense of like, kinda being on edge and your focus is super sharp to your surroundings. I think Chris Doyle in Chungking Express does some crazy open-aperture stuff with super low frame rates, creating a kinda like, trippy surreal staccado blur, sorta kinda on the opposite end of the spectrum of what Spielberg did.
I dunno. I'd only go for other framerates if projects demand it. But 24 feels great to my eyes because it seems to feel the most natural in persistence of vision in motion.
On a related note, why is Netflix's interface so locked down? Why would it be bad for me to turn off autoplay for trailers? Why can't I say "never show me this show again, I'm never going to watch it"? And why, in this age of AI, and they still putting white text over a white background? That last one, especially, made me say "do people at Netflix eat their own dogfood"?
How about Netflix stops showing me movies I’ve already watched at the screen expense of discovering new content? Just keep all those movies in the “Watch it again” banner and out from everywhere else?
I've said it and I say it again, most or some of the reasons why it looks weird to us (people who grow up with a TV) come down to camera quality. Most TV camera setups were about lighting and the needed amount. Since a few years cameras are so good, we have almost real blacks and real whites sometimes even in the same frame and its naturally filmed and does not look like total shit. We have crazy aperture sizes and w…
Couldn't have put it better (about lighting). I'm from the younger generation and have always kinda felt that movies from the 90s are too bright
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you're saying is equivalent to: "Impressionism is objectively worse than realism. Look at a Van Gogh painting, there's hardly any detail. It looks coarse, and grainy and the brush strokes are so wide I can hard tell what's what. Starry Starry Night would be objectively such a better painting if he had just reach for a finer brush and included more detail. Adding more detail would have made it far more realistic,…
It’s more like complaining about higher resolution reproductions of a Van Gogh, because you grew up with dial-up internet and could only view highly compressed JPEG reproductions of Van Gogh so “that’s just how Van Gogh is supposed to look, these high fidelity digital reproductions look like desktop wallpaper.” No one is saying that filmmakers couldn’t use lower frame rates as a deliberate stylistic device, similar t…
I have not seen any of these films
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Star Trek The Next Generation was famously shot on film. The HD scans are so good that the props can be seen to be fake in many places. Later franchise shows that were shot in digital simply cannot be released in HD as there is no HD source material.
This is completely incorrect. Later shows like Voyager and DS9 were also shot on film. However, all post-production happened in standard definition, so all special effects, editing and colour correction would have to be redone, which is incredibly expensive. They did that with TNG, but since those blurays didn't sell enough, they didn't bother doing the same for DS9/VOY.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Couldn't have put it better (about lighting). I'm from the younger generation and have always kinda felt that movies from the 90s are too bright
I always thought it was about visual clarity. Yes we can have very dark scenes now but why would you want to when you can't tell what's happening. Prime example being Battle of Helms Deep vs Battle of Winterfell. I get the feeling of nighttime from both of them but in one I can actually tell what's happening.
The final episode of Midnight Mass comes to mind. And much of The Vvitch. Both aren't totally ideal -- they can be difficult to follow at times -- but I think they use the range to convey chaos and fear of the unknown in a meaningful way.
Curious if anyone has other examples of this pulled off well.
On a related note, why is Netflix's interface so locked down? Why would it be bad for me to turn off autoplay for trailers? Why can't I say "never show me this show again, I'm never going to watch it"? And why, in this age of AI, and they still putting white text over a white background? That last one, especially, made me say "do people at Netflix eat their own dogfood"?
>On a related note, why is Netflix's interface so locked down? Partly this the fault of Apple. They championed the idea that UI is an artistic expression and therefore 'configurability' and 'customizability' is akin to heresy. This view has now infected many existing products. Part of the reason why many companies jumped on this bandwagon is also because 'customizability' is hard(er) to build in, and certainly more e…
It's also harder to A-B test with so many variables. If tests aren't statistics significant, the value of user analytics and UX experimentation decreases from a "% lift" perspective. It's harder to know if a feature change or a user defined config had a causal relationship to some other metric.
It may be the A-B testing tail wagging the dog.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is nothing film can do that digital photography cannot do today. Any claims of film superiority must be based on subjective interpretation and existing familiarity with film like look. Digital cinema can 100% emulate film like look if they wish to add rendering artifacts.
Why is digital trying to look more like film instead of the other way around?
It's the same reason you'll still find scenes and photos shot in sepia tone and black and white. People prefer the way film looks even though it's less true what was actually shot.
People like typewriters, vacuum tube amplifiers, and Vinyl records; Not because they are better than their more modern counterparts, but because of nostalgia and a preference for the "feel" of these things.
But, it just so happens that it's easy enough to recreate film effects that actual film ends up being just a masochistic activity.