4 ms·

I find it strange insisting on "flickering" screens. No "artist" desired it (as in "let's make this movie, but it has to flicker!") it was always just the limit

by acqq 11y ago

I find it strange insisting on "flickering" screens. No "artist" desired it (as in "let's make this movie, but it has to flicker!") it was always just the limitation of the technology. If you'd want the "whole original effect" you'd have to insist on the 35mm films and their projection in the movie theater. The only thing that is true is that with the limitations of the technology, some "corny" scenes looked more acceptable, as our brain actually got less information and in more unnatural form so then our brain turned on its "more tolerance" mode while watching, reimagining the scene better than what it saw. Also: http://www.projectorcentral.com/judder_24p.htm http://www.projectorcentral.com/judder_24p.htm On another side, what I fully understand is that the older frame interpolation algorithms did very poor job for moving scenes, so people turned it off because of that, but it seems that the algorithms got noticeably better.

lmm 11y ago
The artist created something for the limitations of the technology they were working with. It's unfair to look at it through a different technology, where careful effort will end up looking worse than someone who threw it in. E.g. good pixel art often looks worse when upscaled than sprites where the artist didn't pay any attention to the pixels.
- acqq 11y ago
  You know the sound of very old records, most people today can't listen to them. Now, imagine there were technology to make them sound clear, and that therefore you hear errors by musicians. It can break the illusion you had about the music of that particular record, but it actually reflects more exactly the event that was recorded. It's the same with the films. With our new algorithms, what was once flickering "action" suddenly becomes "some people doing something that is obviously in studio, and wow I can see how sloppy their make-up is too." Which is something that we can more easily see even in the movies actually fully produced with the modern equipment and from the start with the higher frame rate: we see them more like they looked like at the set where they were filmed (not counting the CGI that now tries as hard as possible to remove or modify that). So it is somewhat the opposite of your pixel artist example: it's that the production then didn't have to care for the details we easily see now as they were unnoticeable because of the limitations of the presentation then. An exception to that "we don't have to worry about the details" approach: Kubrick producing 2001: A Space Odyssey. Looks great on Blue Ray with as many frames as it's possible, as it was produced to look good in high resolution. And today it would be extremely hard to organize that projected "as it was produced to be shown" (Super Panavision 70, using 70 mm prints). Other examples welcome.

by acqq 11y ago

lmm 11y ago

The artist created something for the limitations of the technology they were working with. It's unfair to look at it through a different technology, where careful effort will end up looking worse than someone who threw it in. E.g. good pixel art often looks worse when upscaled than sprites where the artist didn't pay any attention to the pixels.

acqq 11y ago
You know the sound of very old records, most people today can't listen to them. Now, imagine there were technology to make them sound clear, and that therefore you hear errors by musicians. It can break the illusion you had about the music of that particular record, but it actually reflects more exactly the event that was recorded. It's the same with the films. With our new algorithms, what was once flickering "action" suddenly becomes "some people doing something that is obviously in studio, and wow I can see how sloppy their make-up is too." Which is something that we can more easily see even in the movies actually fully produced with the modern equipment and from the start with the higher frame rate: we see them more like they looked like at the set where they were filmed (not counting the CGI that now tries as hard as possible to remove or modify that). So it is somewhat the opposite of your pixel artist example: it's that the production then didn't have to care for the details we easily see now as they were unnoticeable because of the limitations of the presentation then. An exception to that "we don't have to worry about the details" approach: Kubrick producing 2001: A Space Odyssey. Looks great on Blue Ray with as many frames as it's possible, as it was produced to look good in high resolution. And today it would be extremely hard to organize that projected "as it was produced to be shown" (Super Panavision 70, using 70 mm prints). Other examples welcome.