3 ms·

At its core, tastes are subjective, and this is no exception. The appearance of video is harsh and artificial. It's cold, but also at times exceptionally clean

At its core, tastes are subjective, and this is no exception. The appearance of video is harsh and artificial. It's cold, but also at times exceptionally clean, crisp and vivid. Music videos (as the very term suggests) often display a mastery of this style of production, which, when met with intent, can prove evocative in its own way. If you approach movies knowing that the motion smoothing is a side effect of the monitor, it's actually an interesting way to rewatch old movies and shows. It has a surreal effect, and the movies themselves are otherwise impossible to truly change. It is unquestionably the technology introducing a new layer of distortion. Which can only mean one thing: the preference is generational, and with time it might just so happen that a generation gap will erase all knowledge of the way things were, and there will arrive a new normal, distorted and alien to those who grew up exposed to the original norms.

jgalentine007 7y ago
I don't really agree. I think motion smoothing is a gimmick. Like 3d and curved TVs before it. It gave another metric (besides size) for manufacturers to compete on - 60hz, 120hz, 240hz etc. Motion smoothing just doesn't look better, especially when it is poorly implemented (the norm) - the motion tends to speed up and slow down, which is worse than the judder it is supposed to fix. Even properly sourced hi frame rate material looks bad - I saw the Hobbit in HFR and it was difficult to watch the seemingly fake production - my mind could no longer be tricked because there was so much detail in each second for it to reason with. Nevermind the extra lengths that Peter Jackson had to go through to properly light the film, and the extra detail needed in the set work, costumes and makeup. Change my mind!
- dTal 7y ago
  It's still a generational, subjective, relearn-able thing. Assuming it's true that high framerates make it harder to trick the eye - so what? Nobody complained about Yoda blatantly being a puppet. There are lots of dimensions in which you can suspend your disbelief. If your assertion is true, it simply means we have to suspend our disbelief in makeup, set design etc just a little bit more, in exchange for vastly more realistic motion and artistic space in which to put detail. I think it's a win - I bet set design got a lot harder with the switch to color, too.
FlagsAreFun 7y ago
I mainly play video games at 60-144FPS. Panning shots in movies now look absolutely terrible and some shots have become basically unwatchable, looking jerky and unrefined. I feel like I'm missing a lot of information such as reading signs. That said, content needs to be authored with higher frame-rates in mind. Movies shot at 24FPS are reviewed, edited and produced according to the expectation it will be viewed that way.
- pfranz 7y ago
  > Panning shots in movies now look absolutely terrible and some shots have become basically unwatchable, looking jerky and unrefined. I feel like I'm missing a lot of information such as reading signs. Like you were implying, they were shot, edited, and delivered with those limitations in mind. Of course, they were done for the cinema and home theater is a close approximation. I remember hearing cinematographers talk about working with IMAX and panning was something they specifically brought up. If you shot something in a way you would for 35mm (normal movies), things may jump 10+ feet between each frame. So you have to go much slower or choose not to use a pan. The same attention would be done if they used other tools like shooting digital or on video or were shooting for television.

jgalentine007 7y ago

I don't really agree. I think motion smoothing is a gimmick. Like 3d and curved TVs before it. It gave another metric (besides size) for manufacturers to compete on - 60hz, 120hz, 240hz etc. Motion smoothing just doesn't look better, especially when it is poorly implemented (the norm) - the motion tends to speed up and slow down, which is worse than the judder it is supposed to fix. Even properly sourced hi frame rate material looks bad - I saw the Hobbit in HFR and it was difficult to watch the seemingly fake production - my mind could no longer be tricked because there was so much detail in each second for it to reason with. Nevermind the extra lengths that Peter Jackson had to go through to properly light the film, and the extra detail needed in the set work, costumes and makeup. Change my mind!

dTal 7y ago
It's still a generational, subjective, relearn-able thing. Assuming it's true that high framerates make it harder to trick the eye - so what? Nobody complained about Yoda blatantly being a puppet. There are lots of dimensions in which you can suspend your disbelief. If your assertion is true, it simply means we have to suspend our disbelief in makeup, set design etc just a little bit more, in exchange for vastly more realistic motion and artistic space in which to put detail. I think it's a win - I bet set design got a lot harder with the switch to color, too.

FlagsAreFun 7y ago

I mainly play video games at 60-144FPS. Panning shots in movies now look absolutely terrible and some shots have become basically unwatchable, looking jerky and unrefined. I feel like I'm missing a lot of information such as reading signs. That said, content needs to be authored with higher frame-rates in mind. Movies shot at 24FPS are reviewed, edited and produced according to the expectation it will be viewed that way.

pfranz 7y ago
> Panning shots in movies now look absolutely terrible and some shots have become basically unwatchable, looking jerky and unrefined. I feel like I'm missing a lot of information such as reading signs. Like you were implying, they were shot, edited, and delivered with those limitations in mind. Of course, they were done for the cinema and home theater is a close approximation. I remember hearing cinematographers talk about working with IMAX and panning was something they specifically brought up. If you shot something in a way you would for 35mm (normal movies), things may jump 10+ feet between each frame. So you have to go much slower or choose not to use a pan. The same attention would be done if they used other tools like shooting digital or on video or were shooting for television.