211–220 of 230 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it strange how people accepted much bigger changes like sound and color but are now balking at higher frame rates?
Those came much earlier in the history of film and have a much more significant qualitative impact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup, notice that as well. A blurry vignette. Needle sharp in the center, but objects that are the same distance are blurry at the edges of the frame. At first I thought they use vintage lenses, but it's probably done in post. I sometimes do something similar on photos, where I darken the edges a bit.
> I sometimes do something similar on photos, where I darken the edges a bit. Which is also an emulation of the shortcomings of older/worse technology.
Avoiding vignetting is a trade off between complexity, cost, weight, and other optical flaws. That said modern optical design and manufacturing has made it a lot easier to have nearly flawless (clinical) designs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But FLAC is compressed. Don't forget 13 channels. Only the best! Probably 192 khz.
Even though op wrote "uncompressed" you should be able to deduce from context that they meant not lossy compressed.
> This grain, formed from tiny particles during the film’s development, is more than just a visual effect. It plays a key role in storytelling by enhancing the film’s depth and contributing to its realism. I never understood the “grain = realism” thing. my real eyes don’t have grain. I do appreciate the role of grain as an artistic tool though, so this is still cool tech
[flagged]
There's no need for low-quality comments cutting and pasting from your favourite LLM. You can literally just type it into your browser's search bar and learn what it is, or spend a minute reading the wiki page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1 ).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
no i will be watching 24fps films for the remainder of my life, which may be 40 more years. if all new films went up 1fps per year i would still go out to the movies in 20 years and be like “wtf is this crap?” it would take a generation or more to eradicate this cultural context. casablanca is never going to be in 48fps.
That is a very very silly attitude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is a very very silly attitude.
It’s not an attitude, it’s the reality of the world we live in. Cinema and film has shaped our society for a century.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not an attitude, it’s the reality of the world we live in. Cinema and film has shaped our society for a century.
No. You are no different than someone refusing to watch color movies because they were in black and white initially.
If they start making films in higher frame rates today, that won’t change that fact. Do you think people are going to stop watching films from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s?
It would take a concerted effort, beginning now, at least an entire generation (30-50 years) to remove or reduce the cultural impact of the 24 frames per second widescreen tradition. No such effort is presently underway, because higher framerates don’t help movies’ visual storytelling, and they may hurt it.
The Hobbit was Peter Jackson’s attempt. It went nowhere.
https://gizmodo.com/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. You are no different than someone refusing to watch color movies because they were in black and white initially.
Where did I refuse to watch anything? No amount of this attitude is going to make Casablanca or The Godfather or Pulp Fiction or Infinity War or Star Wars or Fight Club or 2001 or Top Gun be in any framerate other than 24fps. If they start making films in higher frame rates today, that won’t change that fact. Do you think people are going to stop watching films from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s? It would ta…
The Hobbit looked great at 48fps. Higher FPS failed only because reactionary people as yourself irrationally rejected it because "it looks weird!".
You need to understand that 24fps is a compromise chosen to save film. It is the bare minimum frame rate to have smooth motion under most but not all circumstances. It really hurts action films because anything moving too fast has excessive motion blur.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If a director/producer wants film grain added to their digital content, that's where it should be done in post. Not by some devs working for a streaming platform. The use of grain or not is a creative decision made by the creators of the work. That's where it should remain Why? If you're spending a significant chunk of your bits just transmitting data that could be effectively recreated on the client for free, isn'…
> Why? If you're spending a significant chunk of your bits just transmitting data that could be effectively recreated on the client for free, isn't that wasteful? Sure, maybe the grains wouldn't be at the exact same coordinates, but it's not like the director purposefully placed each grain in the first place. I'm sorry your tech isn't good enough to recreate the original. That does not mean you get to change the orig…