341–350 of 479 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the thing I'm talking about though. I don't care that you associate better motion with bad soap operas.
I don't associate it with bad anything. I just don't like the way it looks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with higher frame rates is the same as higher resolution. It emphasizes even more the poor quality of the content. The low fidelity masks some of this, leaving more to your imagination (which is how impressionism works). If the content were of higher quality then it wouldn't be as much of an issue.
On the other hand, low frame rates put a ceiling on some measures of quality, just as low resolution does. A fast-paced fight scene or a panning shot over a field of gras in the wind is very limited by what 24fps can show.
The race to shove more crap at the screen to the appreciation of a younger and younger demographic to chase other tertiaries like toys, collectables, games etc.. means that the films are almost unwatchable by older people. I guess they're making their money so whatever, but it means that films feel more dead than ever before for myself. Admittedly, this may be more biased by aging out of existing target demos anyways, so shrugs.
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.
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,…
I also like my wine expensive and with nice labels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I watched the new Avatar movie with HFR. Some scenes were in 24fps, some in 48. Everytime it switched to 24fps it became unpleasant for a few seconds. Like playing a video game and getting a frame drop. Sometimes they switched like 5 times a minute. The effect going from 24fps to 48fps was very satisfying though. I don't understand how people can think 48fps looks bad or "fake".
To me, 48 fps per se doesn't look fake -- it's the fake stuff in the shots that 48 fps reveals to be fake. The first Hobbit movie set me against 48 fps for this reason. The weapons on the characters backs bounced around as if they were made of foam -- because they presumably were made of foam. 24 fps hides this imperfection and lets your brain fill in with a more appropriate interpretation. The same bugs me about rer…
But I found myself filming (as in home videos) mostly in 4K/60fps now, because it just looks more realistic.
Another aspect of this is staffing. It doesn't immediately seem tech related, but it is. There's less people in the background as extras, less people making background scenes or setting up. It can mostly filled in by production technology if necessary. Some movies just seem so empty, and they look "cheap" if you see it in this angle. Some big hollywood production like for example Passengers where there are barely mor…
I wonder if they simply think background details aren't important when viewing on a 6" screen.
Another aspect of this is staffing. It doesn't immediately seem tech related, but it is. There's less people in the background as extras, less people making background scenes or setting up. It can mostly filled in by production technology if necessary. Some movies just seem so empty, and they look "cheap" if you see it in this angle. Some big hollywood production like for example Passengers where there are barely mor…
I noticed the increasing "emptiness" as well but my initial thought was that it is a COVID thing. Less people on set less risk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with higher frame rates is the same as higher resolution. It emphasizes even more the poor quality of the content. The low fidelity masks some of this, leaving more to your imagination (which is how impressionism works). If the content were of higher quality then it wouldn't be as much of an issue.
On the other hand, low frame rates put a ceiling on some measures of quality, just as low resolution does. A fast-paced fight scene or a panning shot over a field of gras in the wind is very limited by what 24fps can show.
Another aspect of this is staffing. It doesn't immediately seem tech related, but it is. There's less people in the background as extras, less people making background scenes or setting up. It can mostly filled in by production technology if necessary. Some movies just seem so empty, and they look "cheap" if you see it in this angle. Some big hollywood production like for example Passengers where there are barely mor…
This is quite apparent in the most recent Law & Order season. Compare/contrast an episode from season 22 which aired in 2022 vs season 1 which aired in 1990. There are scenes in the original that have like a 15-20 people on screen doing a highly complex choreography for a crime scene with different actors playing uniformed cops, detectives, evidence specialists, witnesses, bystanders, just every one that you would ex…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
its nothing to do with LEDs all shots are conformed before they are graded. That means that they shoot a macbeth chart every time they change the lighting, allowing for people to make all the shots look the same before they start to fiddle with the colours.
This is only partially true. The problem with LED lights is that they deviate quite a bit from a Planck and/or daylight frequency curve. So you can end up with colors looking different even if the color chart looks right. And even the best Aari LED lights have ssi scores of only ~75. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a part of the effect the author describes.
Not only that, but you can micro adjust the colour of these lights to suit your needs, which means you can have much richer colours on set and not worry about colour cast.
if it was such a burden on the film maker, and limited artistic expression, then we'd see holdouts for tungsten lights (in film making). When was the last time you hear someone in film go: "yeah, these filament lamps are so much greater than LEDs, so much more real."
If you're on location then you can have >5 times the amount of light for the same power/heat budget. No one is going to sniff at that.
Anyway, the first thing you do when you get film/footage in through the door is conform it. you need to have everything at a base grade before you can add "artistic colour" to it. so subtle difference in colours are always obliterated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO, that's part of what made Game of Thrones fall off a quality cliff. It wasn't just subpar writing on the main plot lines when the source material ran out. The world itself became hollowed out, and the main characters stopped existing within an organic world. It turned into an avengers movie, where the leads were largely alone on screen only interacting with each other (except for designated Crowd Scenes).
> where the leads were largely alone on screen only I feel like that is many movies now. The worlds are small and the consequences / events are just there for the primary actors to respond to and seem entirely disconnected from any kind of universe. Massive events happen just for the sake of having a hero mug for the camera. But no consideration otherwise. At this point in the Star Wars universe I expect the regular…
Maybe the EU novels have such stories, but I haven't read those.