4 ms·

> Just look at iphone bokeh Does the human eye have bokeh? Or are you just enamored with an artifact produced by existing sub-par technology after having been

> Just look at iphone bokeh Does the human eye have bokeh? Or are you just enamored with an artifact produced by existing sub-par technology after having been exposed to it for long enough that you now have Stockholm syndrome?

mmaunder 5y ago
Ever wondered why modern digital film is still shot at 24fps and a shutter speed of 1/48th of a second when a faster shutter and higher frame rate would produce a technically superior product? It’s because audiences are enamored with the feeling that sub par technology created decades ago and want that feeling to continue. It’s also why guitarists use tube amps and digital tube amp emulators are so popular. Art is context and film and photo has over a century of context.
- Zak 5y ago
  A faster shutter speed would not produce motion blur that looks similar to how human vision perceives it in reality. A higher framerate without changing the shutter speed (i.e. 48 FPS with a 1/48s shutter duration) produces a smoother result with the same motion blur, but may still be rejected by audiences because "that's not how movies should look".
Zak 5y ago
> Does the human eye have bokeh? Yes. When your eye is focused on something close, point sources of light in the background will look larger and blurry. You'll also see two of them if you have two eyes open and have a sense of depth that a single lens projecting the scene onto a flat sensor cannot capture in the same way. 3D photography using two lenses has existed for a while, but viewing the result requires compromises relative to a print on paper or conventional screen technologies. The ability to have a shallow depth of field is valuable as a compositional tool to focus the viewer's attention where the photographer wants it. Bokeh - how the defocused area looks is an artistic quality, and so far the digitally-created version I've seen produced by smartphones is not aesthetically pleasing to me. I imagine that will change as the algorithms get better. I think some of the trends currently popular in photography using dedicated cameras are driven by what smartphones can't do, which includes (optical) shallow depth of field.
lm28469 5y ago
> existing sub-par technology It's pure physics, every lens based optical system has them including your eyes. Also, photography is art, bokeh is considered pleasing for portraits, that's a fact of life and it doesn't look like it's going away, it's so visually pleasing that phones are trying to replicate the effect. There is a reason why hollywood movies aren't shot on iphones, and also a reason why "shot on iphone" rigs look like that https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/06/shotoniphone-800x465.jpg https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/06/shotoniphone-80...

mmaunder 5y ago

Ever wondered why modern digital film is still shot at 24fps and a shutter speed of 1/48th of a second when a faster shutter and higher frame rate would produce a technically superior product? It’s because audiences are enamored with the feeling that sub par technology created decades ago and want that feeling to continue. It’s also why guitarists use tube amps and digital tube amp emulators are so popular. Art is context and film and photo has over a century of context.

Zak 5y ago
A faster shutter speed would not produce motion blur that looks similar to how human vision perceives it in reality. A higher framerate without changing the shutter speed (i.e. 48 FPS with a 1/48s shutter duration) produces a smoother result with the same motion blur, but may still be rejected by audiences because "that's not how movies should look".

Zak 5y ago

> Does the human eye have bokeh? Yes. When your eye is focused on something close, point sources of light in the background will look larger and blurry. You'll also see two of them if you have two eyes open and have a sense of depth that a single lens projecting the scene onto a flat sensor cannot capture in the same way. 3D photography using two lenses has existed for a while, but viewing the result requires compromises relative to a print on paper or conventional screen technologies. The ability to have a shallow depth of field is valuable as a compositional tool to focus the viewer's attention where the photographer wants it. Bokeh - how the defocused area looks is an artistic quality, and so far the digitally-created version I've seen produced by smartphones is not aesthetically pleasing to me. I imagine that will change as the algorithms get better. I think some of the trends currently popular in photography using dedicated cameras are driven by what smartphones can't do, which includes (optical) shallow depth of field.

lm28469 5y ago

> existing sub-par technology It's pure physics, every lens based optical system has them including your eyes. Also, photography is art, bokeh is considered pleasing for portraits, that's a fact of life and it doesn't look like it's going away, it's so visually pleasing that phones are trying to replicate the effect. There is a reason why hollywood movies aren't shot on iphones, and also a reason why "shot on iphone" rigs look like that https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/06/shotoniphone-800x465.jpg https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/06/shotoniphone-80...