9 ms·

>Have you ever watched an old TV show and despaired how unwatchable it is because of low quality of image? Yes, that's the same thing -- our tastes change. I'v

>Have you ever watched an old TV show and despaired how unwatchable it is because of low quality of image? Yes, that's the same thing -- our tastes change. I've had the opposite reaction - I'd watch something I've seen before in 4k remastered or something and it would be a worse experience because the extra details reveal the low quality tricks you can get away with on lower reproduction quality. I've even noticed poor acting a lot more on higher def. It took away from immersion IMO.

bostik 5y ago
Hah. I've had that experience but with sound. Long time ago, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth and AMD K8 was the pinnacle of technology, I invested in a basic home theater setup. A decent AV receiver, a subwoofer, two studio-quality monitor speakers. A friend warned me that the speakers I had picked were "crisp, but unforgiving". All of a sudden DVDs sounded wonderful. The audio tracks in TV programmes became clear. The warnings made no sense. Until I watched a classic TV show episode from 1980's. Bad mixing. Flipped stereo channels. Stuffy voiceovers. Everything sounded ... wrong. Suddenly, it all made sense. I understood.
- PaulHoule 5y ago
  In images they call that the difference between being "scene referred" vs "display referred". There is no generally accepted theory of stereo sound, instead there are at least three theories: (1) a method for mastering sound recordings intended to be played by two speakers that are right next to each other (two sides of a TV, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Retrieval_System for some theory) (2) mastering sound records so that 'left means left' and 'right means right' which means your speakers are on opposite sides of the room and you're near the middle. That can cast sounds effectively to the left and right but falls down casting them to the middle (3) Ambisonics, which doesn't really work because the coherence in natural sound sources badly damages the timbre of natural sounds and the concept of 'represent natural soundfield' doesn't really mix with 'record instruments individually in dead environments', 'add reverb', and 'repeat' which is how 'quality' sound in the judgement of the industry is attained. One way to think about a 5.1 system with a modern layout (FL, FC, FR, R, and L, nothing in back) is that you put the FL and FR close to the FC, expect to play back type I content on the FL and FR, and play type 2 content on the L and R. Often DVDs were mixed under the assumption that they couldn't trust the receiver (e.g. no center channel); blu-rays sound a lot better not just because they allocate more bits to sound, but because the mixing is more aggressive... they don't feel they have to copy dialog on the L and the R because they know many people don't have a working C.
  - bostik 5y ago
    Thank you for that. I was only vaguely aware of (1) and in retrospect have had an intuition about (2). I am delighted to be one of today's lucky 10000: https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/
liminal 5y ago
I'm reminded of Scott McCloud's abstract vs realistic dimension in Understanding Comics. Basically, abstraction allows us to focus on the relevant details, while realism adds a lot of details that aren't relevant to the use case (in this case, it's following the story/emotions). Here's a write up of that section of the book here (but the whole book is amazing!): https://theteachingtree.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/comics-and-the-big-triangle/ https://theteachingtree.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/comics-and-...
evandev 5y ago
Turn off motion smoothing on your TV. It's also called the "Soap Opera Effect".
- saiya-jin 5y ago
  This so much. People either don't use it and then its unwatchable with it (my case), or get used to it since its default setting on TV and +-don't notice it after some time. Every time I go back visiting parents, which have TV with this on, anything on TV feels surreal and not in a good way. Which isn't bad, watching TV instead of interacting with my parents is stupid waste of time anyway and TV itself actively helps with that
  - FredPret 5y ago
    What a hilarious bug-and-yet-a-useful-feature on the part of their TV
- pier25 5y ago
  I have a 65'' OLED TV and 24fps content is unwatchable without motion smoothing. When the camera pans, the "jumps" between frames are too distracting. I only use it at about 10-20% though, not at 100% which I think is the default setting and I agree is vomitive.
  - astrange 5y ago
    There's two levels of motion smoothing, one from 24 to 60fps and one from 60 to 120fps. The second is important for OLED to avoid judder (uncomfortable panning). I think the people complaining about the first are whiners and as a digital video expert I will allow you to leave it on.
- sumtechguy 5y ago
  What is more fun is the latency those effects add to images. Found that out the hard way playing some twitchy 'have to be just right' on the controls games. In my case it was almost 1/4-1/2 of a second. Even with all of the settings 'off' there is still a decent latency on the screen (down to about 70ms) which is just enough to mess me up on some games but not all.
jclardy 5y ago
I had this experience watching the Hobbit in high frame rate - it felt like I was watching a play, a bunch of actors on a stage.
- pier25 5y ago
  I watched the second Hobbit movie in 48fps and it was a horrible experience. Everything looked fake, which is how I imagine it actually looked in real life. Props seemed made of plastic, makeup looked like makeup, etc. Also, when there was a cut to a new scene, for a few seconds my brain thought the movie was playing faster. Like those old black and white movies of the early 20th century.
  - sp332 5y ago
    That weird speed effect is because they kept the shutter open longer on each frame, so there's more motion blur.
    - touisteur 5y ago
      Oh thanks now I understand some specific sensations of uneven speed in movies. I thought it might be linked to the player (not), the codec (not)...
- NikolaNovak 5y ago
  Second that; Hobbit in particular seemed like a mid-budget British made-for-TV show. I get that it's all psychological, that I'm used to deliberate Hollywood motion-blur look... but I still couldn't bear it. But clearly we learned something or there was something special about Hobbit, because that hasn't necessarily been my experience with all 4k / high-frame shows or movies...
  - stormbrew 5y ago
    I think to a large extent people overestimated how much this feeling, specifically in the Hobbit films, came from the high frame rate vs. how much came from other artistic, creative, and budget choices they made. I saw them in both normal frame rate and HFR as they were coming out and it looked kinda low-budget, weirdly lit/color corrected, and generally just clunkier than the LotR films did in the moment.
infofarmer 5y ago
Sweat. Beads of sweat on everyone. They were invisible at 720p and in cinematic projection, but 1080p and especially 4K remasters at close range at home reveal more about human skin than I cared to know.
- iamacyborg 5y ago
  I don't know how true this is but I always found it interesting that new makeup was developed (HD foundation) as a result of the switch towards high definition tv/cinema formats.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    There was also a resurgence in Soft F/X type filters until the Photoshop in a Can type of makeups came out.
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    It's 100% true. HD changed everything from the makeup to how sets are constructed, painted and lit. Even at the level of your local newscast.
    - N1H1L 5y ago
      Did it also change air conditioning? I have been on sets thrice in my life, and everytime it has been uncomfortably hot.
      - viraptor 5y ago
        It reminded me of a trivia: shows shot in Melbourne gave actors ice to put in their mouths - because everyone knows Australia is always hot and sunny so you can't show the steam of their breath. (when they filmed on a cold day)
      - andreareina 5y ago
        In photo studio work we call the continuous (as opposed to strobe) lights hot lights for good reason. I imagine the lighting requirements for film/video isn't too much different. This was ~10 years ago though, don't know how LEDs have changed things.
pier25 5y ago
I'm a 4K HDR fanboy, but IMO most movies shot in 35mm film should remain in 1080p. 70mm film looks great in 4K though (2001, Nolan movies, etc). It's a shame there is no 1080p HDR content. 35mm movies would benefit a lot more of higher color bit depth that higher resolution. Anyone knows if this is a codec limitation?
- jaywalk 5y ago
  1080p HDR does exist (video games, mostly) but the lack of it is basically tied to the fact that there are no consumer TVs that can do HDR but not 4K.
- dylan604 5y ago
  I think 35mm->4k scans can look amazing. There's a lot going on though with film to digital scanning. The film stock itself has a lot to do with it. From the condition it has been stored as well as the actual type of film stock. The choice in a physical scanner also makes a difference. Single pass realtime captures vs slow speed triple flashed scans. Single pass is usually on a CMOS type sensor, where the triple flashes are typically on a CCD sensor. There's a whole list of things that are involved that makes one 35mm->4k transfer not like the next. Typically, you as a consumer, will be receiving an H.264 or H.265 stream that your cable box or streaming device decodes. These have all been updated with levels/profiles to allow for things like 3D, 4K, HDR, and 10bit encodes. The shoehorn used to shove new features into these formats has been put to heavy use.
  - pier25 5y ago
    35mm -> 4K can look amazing in terms of color, but I've yet to see a film where the added detail is not mostly film grain (exaggerated by sharpening). Do you have a good example?
    - dylan604 5y ago
      This was the point of the type of film stock used. The film grain is why pretty much everyone will wince when you ask to do a 16mm->4K. Hell, 16mm->HD was rough. I don't have any examples on hand. But with large amount of time I have found myself with over the past year to watch a lot of content, I too have noticed even some of the last episodics to be shot on film (2005-2010 range) are very noticeable. I have also seen some features from the 90s that looked really clean in comparison. Lots of things go into that, from how much the camera department "cared", what film stock was used, what film processor was used, etc. Towards the end of mass film production, there were fewer and fewer labs left. During they heyday, the soups used in the processing where in constant use. As demand lowered, the soups kind of stagnated especially in the shops financially strapped. Film is fickle to be sure.
seanicus 5y ago
The Thing is probably my favorite movie and the practical creature effects are still largely considered the gold standard of the craft. But in 2K the artificiality is getting a lot more noticeable and while I will certainly be getting it in 4K I'm starting to realize that maybe 720p is the best way to view it for the sake of full immersion. YMMV.
- aconbere 5y ago
  Contrasting that to the digital remaster (presumably first for DVD) which is AMAZING. They did an incredible job restoring the image.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    What resolutions have you watched it in? Since DVD itself is way below 720p.
agumonkey 5y ago
What I feel is that digital medium is too pristine, I dearly miss analog limits that gave glare and blurry trails on spotlights. Even tone often added to the pictures (another instance is Kodachrome). It wasn't a defect imo
xgulfie 5y ago
I was watching F.R.I.E.N.D.S. in HD and there is the occasional out-of-focus shot you would never have noticed at the intended resolution
- realityking 5y ago
  Same with early seasons of House. Really interesting to see what you used to be able to get away with.
m463 5y ago
I think HDR can sometimes look ... different. Maybe it's like the early 3d stuff where you got weird motion artifacts until they figured it out. I watched Gemini Man in 4k HDR and some of the scenes seemed a little like a video game. I think there was sort of an "uncanny valley" sort of thing where you could see detail into the deepest shadow and it looked fake. On the other hand, 2001 in 4k was awesome.
DavidVoid 5y ago
hbomberguy made a pretty decent video about this a few years ago [1]. From around the 10-minute mark he talks about how many horror/thriller films worked much better on VHS than they did in the cinema, because on VHS there weren't enough details to make out if there was a monster lurking in the background or not, and you also couldn't see how unrealistic the old cgi effects were. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbZMqS-fW-8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbZMqS-fW-8
jxramos 5y ago
I had the opposite reaction too. One weekend an old friend was watching Back to the Future in High Def. It took away from the experience, it was like watching a play the resolution was so sharp. I couldn't enter into the fiction of the story any longer, it prevented the suspension of disbelief because it was so realistic. I think that grainier lower quality medium facilitated the imagination somehow, much like reading a book does.
- hellbannedguy 5y ago
  Yea---I feel there's a happy medium. People here blame it on age, but very high resolution always screams it was shot on video. I don't need to see every pore on an actor's face. I'm usually wanting to get away from reality when watching a movie, or a tv show too. I am very content with the visual quality film gave us. I love black, and white film for the same reasons, and others, even more.
acomjean 5y ago
They do some real time image processing now, I noticed when I went to a taping of the view. You can see the two screens on the camera (taking during a break). I'm not sure what they're doing exactly. https://www.flickr.com/photos/acomjean/35581239466/in/photostream/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/acomjean/35581239466/in/photos...
alasdair_ 5y ago
The 4K issue may actually be the “soap opera effect” https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/what-is-the-soap-opera-effect-in-tvs-and-how-to-turn-it-off/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/what-is-the-soap-... Basically, we (over the age of about 25 anyway) are used to associating 24 FPS with “high quality” content like movies and higher FPS with cheap content like soap operas.
- wl 5y ago
  I'm in my 30s I associate 24 fps with jerky pans and unwatchable action sequences. And if we're talking 2:3 pull down in something that was never intended for theaters, I think, what a pointlessly detrimental affectation.
hilbert42 5y ago
"and it would be a worse experience because the extra details reveal the low quality tricks you can get away with on lower reproduction quality" I'd especially emphasize the 'tricks you can get away with' in low resolution television. A few months ago I was watching a rerun of an early 1960s B&W sitcom on a TV sub-channel running at normal 1080 HD resolution. The program was My Favorite Martian which is a spoofed up science fiction comedy series. The program features a Martian who can disappear and levitate objects so it's not unusual to see things either moving or floating in midair. Anyway, the tricks employed to levitate things were embarrassingly obvious in standard HD/1080 resolution as it was dead easy to see that they had been suspended on nylon fishing line. When the show was first aired the most common TV standards were 405, 525 and 625 lines so the series producers were betting that the limiting resolution of these TV systems would hide the lines—which clearly they did. BTW, as a young kid I used to watch the show [on 625 B&W], and if I'd have seen that fishing line then I've made a big deal out of the fact. Incidentally, the early series were in black & white and filmed on 35mm film which meant the original negatives would have been dazzlingly sharp in comparison to the then TV systems. It's interesting to note the present video quality of this series—unlike so many others from the time—is excellent (and that includes the later color episodes). Clearly, the recent transfer/digitization was done from negatives have been archived well. It's especially obvious in the color series which are of exceptionally good color quality given the passage of time (there's not a trace of fade, cross-coupling of color dyes or color bleed which plagues so many old films).

bostik 5y ago

Hah. I've had that experience but with sound. Long time ago, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth and AMD K8 was the pinnacle of technology, I invested in a basic home theater setup. A decent AV receiver, a subwoofer, two studio-quality monitor speakers. A friend warned me that the speakers I had picked were "crisp, but unforgiving". All of a sudden DVDs sounded wonderful. The audio tracks in TV programmes became clear. The warnings made no sense. Until I watched a classic TV show episode from 1980's. Bad mixing. Flipped stereo channels. Stuffy voiceovers. Everything sounded ... wrong. Suddenly, it all made sense. I understood.

PaulHoule 5y ago
In images they call that the difference between being "scene referred" vs "display referred". There is no generally accepted theory of stereo sound, instead there are at least three theories: (1) a method for mastering sound recordings intended to be played by two speakers that are right next to each other (two sides of a TV, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Retrieval_System for some theory) (2) mastering sound records so that 'left means left' and 'right means right' which means your speakers are on opposite sides of the room and you're near the middle. That can cast sounds effectively to the left and right but falls down casting them to the middle (3) Ambisonics, which doesn't really work because the coherence in natural sound sources badly damages the timbre of natural sounds and the concept of 'represent natural soundfield' doesn't really mix with 'record instruments individually in dead environments', 'add reverb', and 'repeat' which is how 'quality' sound in the judgement of the industry is attained. One way to think about a 5.1 system with a modern layout (FL, FC, FR, R, and L, nothing in back) is that you put the FL and FR close to the FC, expect to play back type I content on the FL and FR, and play type 2 content on the L and R. Often DVDs were mixed under the assumption that they couldn't trust the receiver (e.g. no center channel); blu-rays sound a lot better not just because they allocate more bits to sound, but because the mixing is more aggressive... they don't feel they have to copy dialog on the L and the R because they know many people don't have a working C.
- bostik 5y ago
  Thank you for that. I was only vaguely aware of (1) and in retrospect have had an intuition about (2). I am delighted to be one of today's lucky 10000: https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/

liminal 5y ago

I'm reminded of Scott McCloud's abstract vs realistic dimension in Understanding Comics. Basically, abstraction allows us to focus on the relevant details, while realism adds a lot of details that aren't relevant to the use case (in this case, it's following the story/emotions). Here's a write up of that section of the book here (but the whole book is amazing!): https://theteachingtree.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/comics-and-the-big-triangle/ https://theteachingtree.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/comics-and-...

evandev 5y ago

Turn off motion smoothing on your TV. It's also called the "Soap Opera Effect".

saiya-jin 5y ago
This so much. People either don't use it and then its unwatchable with it (my case), or get used to it since its default setting on TV and +-don't notice it after some time. Every time I go back visiting parents, which have TV with this on, anything on TV feels surreal and not in a good way. Which isn't bad, watching TV instead of interacting with my parents is stupid waste of time anyway and TV itself actively helps with that
- FredPret 5y ago
  What a hilarious bug-and-yet-a-useful-feature on the part of their TV
pier25 5y ago
I have a 65'' OLED TV and 24fps content is unwatchable without motion smoothing. When the camera pans, the "jumps" between frames are too distracting. I only use it at about 10-20% though, not at 100% which I think is the default setting and I agree is vomitive.
- astrange 5y ago
  There's two levels of motion smoothing, one from 24 to 60fps and one from 60 to 120fps. The second is important for OLED to avoid judder (uncomfortable panning). I think the people complaining about the first are whiners and as a digital video expert I will allow you to leave it on.
sumtechguy 5y ago
What is more fun is the latency those effects add to images. Found that out the hard way playing some twitchy 'have to be just right' on the controls games. In my case it was almost 1/4-1/2 of a second. Even with all of the settings 'off' there is still a decent latency on the screen (down to about 70ms) which is just enough to mess me up on some games but not all.

jclardy 5y ago

I had this experience watching the Hobbit in high frame rate - it felt like I was watching a play, a bunch of actors on a stage.

pier25 5y ago
I watched the second Hobbit movie in 48fps and it was a horrible experience. Everything looked fake, which is how I imagine it actually looked in real life. Props seemed made of plastic, makeup looked like makeup, etc. Also, when there was a cut to a new scene, for a few seconds my brain thought the movie was playing faster. Like those old black and white movies of the early 20th century.
- sp332 5y ago
  That weird speed effect is because they kept the shutter open longer on each frame, so there's more motion blur.
  - touisteur 5y ago
    Oh thanks now I understand some specific sensations of uneven speed in movies. I thought it might be linked to the player (not), the codec (not)...
NikolaNovak 5y ago
Second that; Hobbit in particular seemed like a mid-budget British made-for-TV show. I get that it's all psychological, that I'm used to deliberate Hollywood motion-blur look... but I still couldn't bear it. But clearly we learned something or there was something special about Hobbit, because that hasn't necessarily been my experience with all 4k / high-frame shows or movies...
- stormbrew 5y ago
  I think to a large extent people overestimated how much this feeling, specifically in the Hobbit films, came from the high frame rate vs. how much came from other artistic, creative, and budget choices they made. I saw them in both normal frame rate and HFR as they were coming out and it looked kinda low-budget, weirdly lit/color corrected, and generally just clunkier than the LotR films did in the moment.

infofarmer 5y ago

Sweat. Beads of sweat on everyone. They were invisible at 720p and in cinematic projection, but 1080p and especially 4K remasters at close range at home reveal more about human skin than I cared to know.

iamacyborg 5y ago
I don't know how true this is but I always found it interesting that new makeup was developed (HD foundation) as a result of the switch towards high definition tv/cinema formats.
- dylan604 5y ago
  There was also a resurgence in Soft F/X type filters until the Photoshop in a Can type of makeups came out.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  It's 100% true. HD changed everything from the makeup to how sets are constructed, painted and lit. Even at the level of your local newscast.
  - N1H1L 5y ago
    Did it also change air conditioning? I have been on sets thrice in my life, and everytime it has been uncomfortably hot.
    - viraptor 5y ago
      It reminded me of a trivia: shows shot in Melbourne gave actors ice to put in their mouths - because everyone knows Australia is always hot and sunny so you can't show the steam of their breath. (when they filmed on a cold day)
    - andreareina 5y ago
      In photo studio work we call the continuous (as opposed to strobe) lights hot lights for good reason. I imagine the lighting requirements for film/video isn't too much different. This was ~10 years ago though, don't know how LEDs have changed things.

pier25 5y ago

I'm a 4K HDR fanboy, but IMO most movies shot in 35mm film should remain in 1080p. 70mm film looks great in 4K though (2001, Nolan movies, etc). It's a shame there is no 1080p HDR content. 35mm movies would benefit a lot more of higher color bit depth that higher resolution. Anyone knows if this is a codec limitation?

jaywalk 5y ago
1080p HDR does exist (video games, mostly) but the lack of it is basically tied to the fact that there are no consumer TVs that can do HDR but not 4K.
dylan604 5y ago
I think 35mm->4k scans can look amazing. There's a lot going on though with film to digital scanning. The film stock itself has a lot to do with it. From the condition it has been stored as well as the actual type of film stock. The choice in a physical scanner also makes a difference. Single pass realtime captures vs slow speed triple flashed scans. Single pass is usually on a CMOS type sensor, where the triple flashes are typically on a CCD sensor. There's a whole list of things that are involved that makes one 35mm->4k transfer not like the next. Typically, you as a consumer, will be receiving an H.264 or H.265 stream that your cable box or streaming device decodes. These have all been updated with levels/profiles to allow for things like 3D, 4K, HDR, and 10bit encodes. The shoehorn used to shove new features into these formats has been put to heavy use.
- pier25 5y ago
  35mm -> 4K can look amazing in terms of color, but I've yet to see a film where the added detail is not mostly film grain (exaggerated by sharpening). Do you have a good example?
  - dylan604 5y ago
    This was the point of the type of film stock used. The film grain is why pretty much everyone will wince when you ask to do a 16mm->4K. Hell, 16mm->HD was rough. I don't have any examples on hand. But with large amount of time I have found myself with over the past year to watch a lot of content, I too have noticed even some of the last episodics to be shot on film (2005-2010 range) are very noticeable. I have also seen some features from the 90s that looked really clean in comparison. Lots of things go into that, from how much the camera department "cared", what film stock was used, what film processor was used, etc. Towards the end of mass film production, there were fewer and fewer labs left. During they heyday, the soups used in the processing where in constant use. As demand lowered, the soups kind of stagnated especially in the shops financially strapped. Film is fickle to be sure.

seanicus 5y ago

The Thing is probably my favorite movie and the practical creature effects are still largely considered the gold standard of the craft. But in 2K the artificiality is getting a lot more noticeable and while I will certainly be getting it in 4K I'm starting to realize that maybe 720p is the best way to view it for the sake of full immersion. YMMV.

aconbere 5y ago
Contrasting that to the digital remaster (presumably first for DVD) which is AMAZING. They did an incredible job restoring the image.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  What resolutions have you watched it in? Since DVD itself is way below 720p.

agumonkey 5y ago

What I feel is that digital medium is too pristine, I dearly miss analog limits that gave glare and blurry trails on spotlights. Even tone often added to the pictures (another instance is Kodachrome). It wasn't a defect imo

xgulfie 5y ago

I was watching F.R.I.E.N.D.S. in HD and there is the occasional out-of-focus shot you would never have noticed at the intended resolution

realityking 5y ago
Same with early seasons of House. Really interesting to see what you used to be able to get away with.

m463 5y ago

I think HDR can sometimes look ... different. Maybe it's like the early 3d stuff where you got weird motion artifacts until they figured it out. I watched Gemini Man in 4k HDR and some of the scenes seemed a little like a video game. I think there was sort of an "uncanny valley" sort of thing where you could see detail into the deepest shadow and it looked fake. On the other hand, 2001 in 4k was awesome.

DavidVoid 5y ago

hbomberguy made a pretty decent video about this a few years ago [1]. From around the 10-minute mark he talks about how many horror/thriller films worked much better on VHS than they did in the cinema, because on VHS there weren't enough details to make out if there was a monster lurking in the background or not, and you also couldn't see how unrealistic the old cgi effects were. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbZMqS-fW-8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbZMqS-fW-8

jxramos 5y ago

I had the opposite reaction too. One weekend an old friend was watching Back to the Future in High Def. It took away from the experience, it was like watching a play the resolution was so sharp. I couldn't enter into the fiction of the story any longer, it prevented the suspension of disbelief because it was so realistic. I think that grainier lower quality medium facilitated the imagination somehow, much like reading a book does.

hellbannedguy 5y ago
Yea---I feel there's a happy medium. People here blame it on age, but very high resolution always screams it was shot on video. I don't need to see every pore on an actor's face. I'm usually wanting to get away from reality when watching a movie, or a tv show too. I am very content with the visual quality film gave us. I love black, and white film for the same reasons, and others, even more.

acomjean 5y ago

They do some real time image processing now, I noticed when I went to a taping of the view. You can see the two screens on the camera (taking during a break). I'm not sure what they're doing exactly. https://www.flickr.com/photos/acomjean/35581239466/in/photostream/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/acomjean/35581239466/in/photos...

alasdair_ 5y ago

The 4K issue may actually be the “soap opera effect” https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/what-is-the-soap-opera-effect-in-tvs-and-how-to-turn-it-off/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/what-is-the-soap-... Basically, we (over the age of about 25 anyway) are used to associating 24 FPS with “high quality” content like movies and higher FPS with cheap content like soap operas.

wl 5y ago
I'm in my 30s I associate 24 fps with jerky pans and unwatchable action sequences. And if we're talking 2:3 pull down in something that was never intended for theaters, I think, what a pointlessly detrimental affectation.

hilbert42 5y ago

"and it would be a worse experience because the extra details reveal the low quality tricks you can get away with on lower reproduction quality" I'd especially emphasize the 'tricks you can get away with' in low resolution television. A few months ago I was watching a rerun of an early 1960s B&W sitcom on a TV sub-channel running at normal 1080 HD resolution. The program was My Favorite Martian which is a spoofed up science fiction comedy series. The program features a Martian who can disappear and levitate objects so it's not unusual to see things either moving or floating in midair. Anyway, the tricks employed to levitate things were embarrassingly obvious in standard HD/1080 resolution as it was dead easy to see that they had been suspended on nylon fishing line. When the show was first aired the most common TV standards were 405, 525 and 625 lines so the series producers were betting that the limiting resolution of these TV systems would hide the lines—which clearly they did. BTW, as a young kid I used to watch the show [on 625 B&W], and if I'd have seen that fishing line then I've made a big deal out of the fact. Incidentally, the early series were in black & white and filmed on 35mm film which meant the original negatives would have been dazzlingly sharp in comparison to the then TV systems. It's interesting to note the present video quality of this series—unlike so many others from the time—is excellent (and that includes the later color episodes). Clearly, the recent transfer/digitization was done from negatives have been archived well. It's especially obvious in the color series which are of exceptionally good color quality given the passage of time (there's not a trace of fade, cross-coupling of color dyes or color bleed which plagues so many old films).