3 ms·
Kind of weird that you associate motion blur with realism.
by elzbardico 3y ago
Kind of weird that you associate motion blur with realism.
- ac2u 3y agoOf course it seems weird... if you read what I said I implied it's not really rational. But no one's brain is saying "wow the lack of motion blur really affects the realism here". I walk into a house and see a TV show playing on a TV with interpolation turned on and it just looks weird because of how TV looked growing up. I mean that's just the simple reality of it. I understand when film nerds come along and explain motion blur etc but that's all very "system 2" thinking. I'm talking about pure system 1 subconscious processing. What's even weirder is how some folks can never seem to grasp why their explanations of how motion blur is bad can't convince others to suddenly like interpolation.
- prometheus76 3y agoIt's not the motion blur that is a problem for me. For me, interpolation seems to make the actors "pop" from the background. It separates them from the background and makes them look like they are "over-lit".
- cityofdelusion 3y agoI think its as simple as the blurriness of 24 fps hides props/backdrops/etc better than at higher frame rates. Its the same with resolution. More detail makes the fake things more obvious. An old film shown on a CRT from the 90s vs. an HD remaster on a modern OLED can be almost distracting in how obvious movie props are. This is a big component of the "soap opera effect", where props and scenes become more obvious and feel "less real", despite the higher detail. With time, higher quality sets should balance this back out.