5 ms·

The 3:2 pulldown judder that the author grew up watching is unrelated to the "look" of 24ps. The soap-opera effect is purely a frame-rate issue. It's also unre

The 3:2 pulldown judder that the author grew up watching is unrelated to the "look" of 24ps. The soap-opera effect is purely a frame-rate issue. It's also unrelated to the artifacts resulting from "motion interpolation". Again, it's purely related to frame-rate. High frame-rates look real, and therefore like soap-operas. 24fps content (e.g. most films) look "unrealistic" which is a good thing. In the same way a van Gogh painting looks "unrealistic". Impressionism is actually a valuable art form, and is actually appealing to the brain. It's not something that needs to be "engineered" away as Peter Jackson thought. Only an engineer would look at a masterpiece of impressionistic painting, and think "Hmm, if only the painter used a finer brush we'd get more detail! Say this painting could really use some up-rez'ing." 24fps video is precisely "impressionistic". It's distinctly not what our brain perceives in the real world. It's what makes movies look slightly "other-worldly". And that's a GOOD THING. In fact it's one of the reasons it's been such a hugely successful art form for 100 years. Impressionism is a fantastic form of art, whether you're talking about broad brush strokes, or low frame-rate video. Can we all stop (looking at you Peter Jackson [1], Ang Lee [2], and James Cameron [3]) wishing van Gogh used a finer brush? [1] http://www.thehobbit.com/hfr3d/faq.html http://www.thehobbit.com/hfr3d/faq.html [2] http://variety.com/2015/film/news/ang-lee-shooting-billy-lynns-long-halftime-walk-at-120-frames-per-second-in-3d http://variety.com/2015/film/news/ang-lee-shooting-billy-lyn... [3] http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/could-avatar-sequels-be-first-732772 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/could-avatar-...

santaclaus 11y ago
The transition from film to digital was a bit jarring at first, as well, but after acclimating over the years, movies shot on film look a bit old-timey. Who is to say frame rate isn't a similar issue? Other-worldly 24fps could just be what we are used to and thus temporarily comforting.
Afforess 11y ago
I disagree. I do look at impressionistic paintings, and wish they looked good on large high-definition displays. I am not sure why you think a finer brush would destroy the impressionistic qualities of artwork. That seems like saying we've lost our appreciation for good lighting, because we use LED light bulbs instead of wax candles. Artists can easily canvas on 4k, 8k, or larger resolutions with modern tools, and achieve vistas that will outshine most previous artwork in fidelity. I'm not trying to compare contemporary digital art to pre-modern paintings, because there would be no point. But we can compare the quality of the canvas medium, the fidelity of the work. I am certain anyone who has spent any amount of time creating a digital college, set of high quality wallpapers, etc, has noticed that pre-digital artwork is often vastly lacking in terms of resolution. This contrast is difficult to notice in a museum, where artwork is displayed alongside its peers; it is obvious when comparing it to digital styles of art. There is nothing wrong with wishing for more detail. You can have impressionistic artwork in 16k resolution, and enjoy it too.
- djur 11y ago
  > as noticed that pre-digital artwork is often vastly lacking in terms of resolution Non-digital artwork has infinite resolution (well, down to the Planck length, I suppose). The texture of the painting surface and of the brushstroke is relevant in the creation of art. In fact, you are demonstrating exactly what the previous poster said: impressionism consciously chose to omit the finer details that other schools included as a stylistic decision, but that lower level of detail in the depiction does not imply a lower level of fidelity unless your only definition of fidelity is accurate depiction of an object.
- joe5150 11y ago
  Huh? A painting has no inherent resolution that means anything in the context of digital displays. Are you talking about the resolution of photographs of paintings?
pandaman 11y ago
I notice the very wide depth of field of a typical video camera much more than the frame rate, which does not bother me much. Even on a static scene I can tell a TV camera from a film camera by the lack of depth in the TV picture.
wodenokoto 11y ago
You could make a similarly stupid argument against talkies or color film. Yes, there is still room for low frame rate movies and black and white pictures, but there are plenty of special effects that audiences are missing because studios aren't willing to invest in high-frame rate pictures. And the reason they are afraid to invest is because they've been stuck on low frame rates while computer and TV have actually advanced and now they think their backwardness as a hallmark. Imagine if TV had converted to color decades before cinema and then people claiming that colors would break the "other-worldly" look of "expressionist" cinema.

santaclaus 11y ago

The transition from film to digital was a bit jarring at first, as well, but after acclimating over the years, movies shot on film look a bit old-timey. Who is to say frame rate isn't a similar issue? Other-worldly 24fps could just be what we are used to and thus temporarily comforting.

Afforess 11y ago

I disagree. I do look at impressionistic paintings, and wish they looked good on large high-definition displays. I am not sure why you think a finer brush would destroy the impressionistic qualities of artwork. That seems like saying we've lost our appreciation for good lighting, because we use LED light bulbs instead of wax candles. Artists can easily canvas on 4k, 8k, or larger resolutions with modern tools, and achieve vistas that will outshine most previous artwork in fidelity. I'm not trying to compare contemporary digital art to pre-modern paintings, because there would be no point. But we can compare the quality of the canvas medium, the fidelity of the work. I am certain anyone who has spent any amount of time creating a digital college, set of high quality wallpapers, etc, has noticed that pre-digital artwork is often vastly lacking in terms of resolution. This contrast is difficult to notice in a museum, where artwork is displayed alongside its peers; it is obvious when comparing it to digital styles of art. There is nothing wrong with wishing for more detail. You can have impressionistic artwork in 16k resolution, and enjoy it too.

djur 11y ago
> as noticed that pre-digital artwork is often vastly lacking in terms of resolution Non-digital artwork has infinite resolution (well, down to the Planck length, I suppose). The texture of the painting surface and of the brushstroke is relevant in the creation of art. In fact, you are demonstrating exactly what the previous poster said: impressionism consciously chose to omit the finer details that other schools included as a stylistic decision, but that lower level of detail in the depiction does not imply a lower level of fidelity unless your only definition of fidelity is accurate depiction of an object.
joe5150 11y ago
Huh? A painting has no inherent resolution that means anything in the context of digital displays. Are you talking about the resolution of photographs of paintings?

pandaman 11y ago

I notice the very wide depth of field of a typical video camera much more than the frame rate, which does not bother me much. Even on a static scene I can tell a TV camera from a film camera by the lack of depth in the TV picture.

wodenokoto 11y ago

You could make a similarly stupid argument against talkies or color film. Yes, there is still room for low frame rate movies and black and white pictures, but there are plenty of special effects that audiences are missing because studios aren't willing to invest in high-frame rate pictures. And the reason they are afraid to invest is because they've been stuck on low frame rates while computer and TV have actually advanced and now they think their backwardness as a hallmark. Imagine if TV had converted to color decades before cinema and then people claiming that colors would break the "other-worldly" look of "expressionist" cinema.