411–420 of 834 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
for me it ruins cinematic content, for sports i don't mind
It ruins it for me as well but from my understanding many people can't tell the difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The choice wasn't intentional, it was forced by technology and in turn, methods were molded by technological limitation. What next, gonna complain resolution is too high and you can see costume seams ? The film IS the burger, you said it yourself, it shows off where the movie cheapened on things. If you want a steak you need steak framerate
> The choice wasn't intentional, I'm a filmmaker. Yes, it was. > What next, gonna complain resolution is too high and you can see costume seams ? Try playing an SNES game on CRT versus with pixel upscaling. The art direction was chosen for the technology. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jh2ssirC1oQ > The film IS the burger, you said it yourself, it shows off where the movie cheapened on things. If you want a steak you…
>I'm a filmmaker. Yes, it was.
What you are is dishonest. Quote my entire sentence not cut it in half changing its entire meaning
> The choice wasn't intentional, it was forced by technology and in turn, methods were molded by technological limitation.
There was no choice unless you think "just make it look bad by ignoring tech limitations" is realistic choice of someone actually taking money for their job.
>> What next, gonna complain resolution is too high and you can see costume seams ?
>Try playing an SNES game on CRT versus with pixel upscaling.
>The art direction was chosen for the technology.
There was no choice involved. You had to do it because that was what tech required from you for it to look good.
The technology changed, so art direction changed with it. Why can't movie industry keep up while gaming industry had dozen of revolutions like this ?
> You don't need 48fps to make a good film. You don't need a big budget either.
But you can take it and make it better.
> If you want to take a piece of art and have it look garish, you do you.
"Don't have budget to double the framerate" is fair argument. Why you don't use that instead of assuming anything made in better tech will be "garish" ?
Your argument is essentially saying "I don't have enough skill to use new tech and still make it look great"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The choice wasn't intentional, it was forced by technology and in turn, methods were molded by technological limitation. What next, gonna complain resolution is too high and you can see costume seams ? The film IS the burger, you said it yourself, it shows off where the movie cheapened on things. If you want a steak you need steak framerate
> What next, gonna complain resolution is too high and you can see costume seams ? They literally had to invent new types of makeup because HD provided more skin detail than was previously available. It’s why you’ll find a lot of foundation marketed as “HD cream”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
author's intentions for how stuff should be watched are overrated ...that being said motion interpolation is abomination
At the end of the day the viewer should get to see what they want to see. But in my case I usually want to see what the author had in mind, and I want my TV to respect that preference.
From the first four episodes released before Christmas, I feel far more worried if the season is worth watching at all, not what TV settings to use. The tone felt considerably different: constant action, little real plot, character interaction felt a shallow reflection of prior seasons, exposition rather than foreshadowing and development. I was cringing during the “Tom, Dick and Harry” section. From body language, t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
24 fps looks like terrible judder to me in the cinema too. I'm not afraid to admit it even if it will ruffle the feathers of the old 24 fps purists. It was always just a compromise between film cost and smoothness. A compromise that isn't relevant any longer with digital medium. But we can't have nice things it seems, because some people can't get over what they're used to.
>It was always just a compromise between film cost and smoothness. I think the criticisms of The Hobbit when it came out in 48fps showed that it's not just that.
Last time I heard this reasoning about bad TV settings was during the infamous GoT episode that was very dark.
Producers generally don't warn about TV settings preemptively as if to warn, so it makes me a bit concerned.
Stranger Things already face complaints about S5 lately, having viewing issues on the finale would be the cherry on top.