4 ms·
A part of this that's missing is the effects of HD filming on practical effects. Back in ye old days of the 90's, props didn't need to be super good looking un
by octokatt 5y ago
A part of this that's missing is the effects of HD filming on practical effects.
Back in ye old days of the 90's, props didn't need to be super good looking unless there was a close-up. Now in the days of 4k, every prop needs to look gorgeous or the suspension of disbelief gets pinged. Same reason why you have people going through the Marvel weightlifting program and shaving _everything_.
The increase in film detail happened from the same technological push that made CGI. Now folk are trying to figure out what to do with this hugely different film-making world, and you can see the cracks.
That said, I agree with a lot of the author's ideas, particularly about Dune.
- frazbin 5y agoThis only for TV though, right? Film was high resolution from the beginning.
- layer8 5y agoNot quite. They once did a measurement of the effective resolution of actual analog movie theaters (sometime in the 2000’s IIRC), and the result was in the ballpark of 720p, so halfway between (anamorphic) DVD and Blu-ray.
- CyberDildonics 5y ago35mm film comes out to about the same sharpness as a 1.5k CG image. Even with the best lenses and scanning, 35mm scanned at any resolution still doesn't get sharper than a crisp 1.5k upscaled to be at the same resolution. Even middle of the road RED cameras have exceeded large format film in their sharpness and sensitivity.
- spc476 5y agoNot really. I watched "Star Trek II" and "Ronin" on HDTV and found it painful. The sets on STII looked cheap and the uniforms looked like costumes. "Ronin" looked like a soap opera. I found it hard to watch old movies on HD.
- gigaflop 5y agoAh, like when Kumail suddenly sprouted muscles after he signed on for an MCU movie? Sipping on that 'Hero Juice'?