4 ms·

Why? Seriously. This sounds as crazy to me as someone saying: "I, for one, don't want to watch movies that aren't 320p."

lrem 7y ago
Yet, black and white photography is alive and well
- rowanG077 7y ago
  What's your point? Outhouses are still alive and well as well. Doesn't mean modern sanitation is vastly superior. Not sure what that has to do with this discussion.
  - lrem 7y ago
    You seemed to have doubted that rational people might be choosing limited tech in the very post I replied to. So I provided an example of well respected class of art, where much of the image information is discarded, ignoring decades of progress.
    - rowanG077 7y ago
      I don't doubt rational people choose limited tech in specific circumstances. I doubt rational people choose limited tech in all circumstances. What would you think about someone that only wants to see black and white photography and won't even take a look at full color photographs?
- plorkyeran 7y ago
  There's a big difference between appreciating black and white photography and thinking that color photography should not exist.
sneak 7y ago
Higher resolution is unambiguously better. Higher frame rates are not.
- rowanG077 7y ago
  Why? Every single time I see 60fps content it feels like higher quality then standard.
  - sneak 7y ago
    Most people who are into film do not agree with you, hence the fact that higher frame rates being better is ambiguous at best. Nobody is disputing that higher resolution is better. You have most of an industry screaming about the terrible trend of higher frame rates. I’m glad that you prefer it, but that doesn’t make it an unambiguous benefit.
    - rowanG077 7y ago
      Where do film people scream about higher framerates? I know at least that James Cameron want to move to 60 [1]. [1] https://www.cinemablend.com/new/James-Cameron-Still-Making-The-Push-For-60-Frames-Per-Second-On-Film-26857.html https://www.cinemablend.com/new/James-Cameron-Still-Making-T...

lrem 7y ago

Yet, black and white photography is alive and well

rowanG077 7y ago
What's your point? Outhouses are still alive and well as well. Doesn't mean modern sanitation is vastly superior. Not sure what that has to do with this discussion.
- lrem 7y ago
  You seemed to have doubted that rational people might be choosing limited tech in the very post I replied to. So I provided an example of well respected class of art, where much of the image information is discarded, ignoring decades of progress.
  - rowanG077 7y ago
    I don't doubt rational people choose limited tech in specific circumstances. I doubt rational people choose limited tech in all circumstances. What would you think about someone that only wants to see black and white photography and won't even take a look at full color photographs?
plorkyeran 7y ago
There's a big difference between appreciating black and white photography and thinking that color photography should not exist.

sneak 7y ago

Higher resolution is unambiguously better. Higher frame rates are not.

rowanG077 7y ago
Why? Every single time I see 60fps content it feels like higher quality then standard.
- sneak 7y ago
  Most people who are into film do not agree with you, hence the fact that higher frame rates being better is ambiguous at best. Nobody is disputing that higher resolution is better. You have most of an industry screaming about the terrible trend of higher frame rates. I’m glad that you prefer it, but that doesn’t make it an unambiguous benefit.
  - rowanG077 7y ago
    Where do film people scream about higher framerates? I know at least that James Cameron want to move to 60 [1]. [1] https://www.cinemablend.com/new/James-Cameron-Still-Making-The-Push-For-60-Frames-Per-Second-On-Film-26857.html https://www.cinemablend.com/new/James-Cameron-Still-Making-T...