3 ms·

Expanding the capabilities of the tools seems important even if literally photorealistic results isn’t the goal of the creative team. It’s hard to go wrong by h

Expanding the capabilities of the tools seems important even if literally photorealistic results isn’t the goal of the creative team. It’s hard to go wrong by having the ability to render light in physically realistic ways, have realistic character animations, etc. It’s a bit like complaining about cameras with higher resolution and dynamic range because “I have zero interest in movies that simply portray how reality looks as accurately as possible.”

jfengel 4y ago
It’s a bit like complaining about cameras with higher resolution and dynamic range because “I have zero interest in movies that simply portray how reality looks as accurately as possible.” That's exactly what happened. People complain about the way high-frame-rate cameras look cheap. The language of cinema is always unreal. Even the most "natural" performances are always highly stylized. Camera motion, lighting, makeup, etc are all very different from real life. You can see it even in behind-the-scenes footage; everything looks so fake. It's designed to feel right in the captured image, and that's the only goal. They'll use whatever tools they have for it. This might be a good tool, but it's hard to predict. They never really worked out a good use for 3D in film, even though it's also more "natural" than a moving 2D image. It's a different kind of uncanny valley: it didn't resemble real life enough, but you were content with the really unrealistic language of 2D cinema.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  As to the 24 FPS feel of cinema, it's entirely what one is accustomed to. Much like classical music gets associated with grandeur and emotion, yet only in some cultures. I for one love 300x200 graphics of my youth, and still have come to appreciate higher resolutions -- even in games with pixel art assets. Newer generations growing up with 30+ FPS and better animation will develop different tastes.
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    > As to the 24 FPS feel of cinema, it's entirely what one is accustomed to. Yep, and it’s also mistakenly assumed to be a necessary ingredient of all the great films you remember, rather than a nearly unavoidable ingredient. After all, those great films were all 24 FPS! And they used that medium in really creative and technically proficient ways! And that’s true and great. But all the bad films were also 24 FPS, and it would be weird to say “imagine how much worse that terrible low budget film from 1978 would have been if they had modern professional digital cameras and shot in 48 FPS.”
- tshaddox 4y ago
  > People complain about the way high-frame-rate cameras look cheap. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, especially regarding aesthetics. But this is pretty much the same sort of complaint that I was criticizing. You can have a genuine steadfast aesthetic preference for black and white films, or silent films, or SD digital video, but I disagree with extending that to anything of the form “technology X is undesirable because it makes films more realistic and films are not supposed to be realistic.”
  - jfengel 4y ago
    I'd say it's not so much that "films are not supposed to be realistic" as that films simply aren't realistic. Any additional change to make them more "realistic" is really an aesthetic choice, which may or may not work for people. People liked some things, like talkies. And they rejected other things, like 3D. I could come up with an after-the-fact rationalization for why some things worked and some didn't, but it's pretty much impossible to tell beforehand.
vlunkr 4y ago
Right. I still think these kind of tools are valuable. You can do motion capture and convert it into a style that is not photorealistic. It's arguably a more compelling demo to take live action and instantly turn it into something highly stylized. Then no one is going to complain about how the skin on the characters face doesn't stretch correctly or whatever.

jfengel 4y ago

It’s a bit like complaining about cameras with higher resolution and dynamic range because “I have zero interest in movies that simply portray how reality looks as accurately as possible.” That's exactly what happened. People complain about the way high-frame-rate cameras look cheap. The language of cinema is always unreal. Even the most "natural" performances are always highly stylized. Camera motion, lighting, makeup, etc are all very different from real life. You can see it even in behind-the-scenes footage; everything looks so fake. It's designed to feel right in the captured image, and that's the only goal. They'll use whatever tools they have for it. This might be a good tool, but it's hard to predict. They never really worked out a good use for 3D in film, even though it's also more "natural" than a moving 2D image. It's a different kind of uncanny valley: it didn't resemble real life enough, but you were content with the really unrealistic language of 2D cinema.

paulryanrogers 4y ago
As to the 24 FPS feel of cinema, it's entirely what one is accustomed to. Much like classical music gets associated with grandeur and emotion, yet only in some cultures. I for one love 300x200 graphics of my youth, and still have come to appreciate higher resolutions -- even in games with pixel art assets. Newer generations growing up with 30+ FPS and better animation will develop different tastes.
- tshaddox 4y ago
  > As to the 24 FPS feel of cinema, it's entirely what one is accustomed to. Yep, and it’s also mistakenly assumed to be a necessary ingredient of all the great films you remember, rather than a nearly unavoidable ingredient. After all, those great films were all 24 FPS! And they used that medium in really creative and technically proficient ways! And that’s true and great. But all the bad films were also 24 FPS, and it would be weird to say “imagine how much worse that terrible low budget film from 1978 would have been if they had modern professional digital cameras and shot in 48 FPS.”
tshaddox 4y ago
> People complain about the way high-frame-rate cameras look cheap. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, especially regarding aesthetics. But this is pretty much the same sort of complaint that I was criticizing. You can have a genuine steadfast aesthetic preference for black and white films, or silent films, or SD digital video, but I disagree with extending that to anything of the form “technology X is undesirable because it makes films more realistic and films are not supposed to be realistic.”
- jfengel 4y ago
  I'd say it's not so much that "films are not supposed to be realistic" as that films simply aren't realistic. Any additional change to make them more "realistic" is really an aesthetic choice, which may or may not work for people. People liked some things, like talkies. And they rejected other things, like 3D. I could come up with an after-the-fact rationalization for why some things worked and some didn't, but it's pretty much impossible to tell beforehand.

vlunkr 4y ago

Right. I still think these kind of tools are valuable. You can do motion capture and convert it into a style that is not photorealistic. It's arguably a more compelling demo to take live action and instantly turn it into something highly stylized. Then no one is going to complain about how the skin on the characters face doesn't stretch correctly or whatever.