3 ms·

Unless the fidelity of the material (be it visual or audial) exactly matches that of the real world[0], there is no truly accurate depiction of reality you can

Unless the fidelity of the material (be it visual or audial) exactly matches that of the real world[0], there is no truly accurate depiction of reality you can convey to the observer—and with any lossy representation you have to make choices as to how to represent it. You will have adopted a “look” whether you want it or not; it is very much part of your creative effort (the less of it, the more work and creative choices are left up to the observer to filter). Basing your look on the preexisting and familiar is good because your work does not exist in vacuum; your observers carry common cultural baggage in context of which it is perceived. The look furthers your creative goals—conveys a mood or a feeling, focuses observer’s attention on what you consider important, etc. Here, fidelity works against you. All the figurative flare—be it compressing dynamic range, selecting your color palette, artificially lowering the frame rate, adding motion blur, film grain, lens artifacts and literal flares, etc.—lowers it selectively. That particular kind of flare can absolutely be misplaced, sure. For example, cartoon animation styles is an example of another extreme but quite well-established look, and arguably incompatible (the fidelity is already very selective from the get-go). Less extreme is 3D animation, where lens flare and the like can sometimes look uncanny. The case of dead butterflies, similarly, exists in cultural context. In some (most?) cultures, the symbol of the butterfly would represent something very far from death. However, once the awareness of the difference between a dead and alive butterfly is widespread enough, then one simply must adapt and adopt that new context because you are risking the dead butterfly to be interpreted as an intentional statement. [0] Which is not going to be technically possible for some time, and likely not at all even in theory due to the good old map-territory conflict.

Terr_ 3y ago
> there is no truly accurate depiction of reality A bit of a nirvana fallacy there. This isn't about limitations in technology, nor (directly) about artistic choices to set a mood. What I'm annoyed at is the combination of (A) things which are not technological limitations that are deliberately simulated and (B) how I've seen them tie into factually false beliefs about "realism" among the audience. Consider: "Oh, I got one of those new e-books, and it's about Romeo and Juliet. Some of the text contains ink that is blotted or runny, which makes their relationship extra-realistic."
- strogonoff 3y ago
  I get what you mean, and I would have probably agreed a few years back, but I believe the matter is slightly more complex than that. First, even with your book example, which I do agree is cheesy, still—this is part of the message. I’d not be surprised if such an ebook existed, though it definitely wouldn’t be for me (even if I liked the genre). Second, part of my point was that simulating technological limitations has its uses. If you want to convey a mood, obscure unnecessary detail, etc., you have such tools at your disposal that will not look weird to the audience[0] and that resonate with the larger cultural context—which none of us exist outside of. [0] Unless someone else like yourself is in said audience, I suppose :)
  - thfuran 3y ago
    >you have such tools at your disposal that will not look weird to the audience Much of the moviegoing audience is so confused that they somehow think increasing frame rate from a paltry 24fps makes things look worse.
    - Gormo 3y ago
      It doesn't make them look worse, it makes them look too realistic: I think this one is an inversion of the trend, in that people expect movies to look like movies, not like reality.
    - strogonoff 3y ago
      I am not sure most people would notice 24 to 30 fps increase, but let’s say it’s 60 fps. You may be wrong in thinking they are confused. To paraphrase, the audience is always right. If they are confused, then you’ve failed. As I wrote above, what we see is anchored to our previous experience and cultural context. The ways it is broken inevitably attract attention to themselves and detract from the story, at least in the beginning, so you have to do it carefully and generally avoid breaking expectations unless that serves to achieve the desired effect. Otherwise you’d just be self-gratifying and compromise the message, making it subordinate to the medium. By the way, breaking these expectations can go both ways. You can go higher fps just as well as you can go lower. Once you veer off the default, which way you go is not automatically better than the other; it all depends on what your creative goals are.

Terr_ 3y ago

> there is no truly accurate depiction of reality A bit of a nirvana fallacy there. This isn't about limitations in technology, nor (directly) about artistic choices to set a mood. What I'm annoyed at is the combination of (A) things which are not technological limitations that are deliberately simulated and (B) how I've seen them tie into factually false beliefs about "realism" among the audience. Consider: "Oh, I got one of those new e-books, and it's about Romeo and Juliet. Some of the text contains ink that is blotted or runny, which makes their relationship extra-realistic."

strogonoff 3y ago
I get what you mean, and I would have probably agreed a few years back, but I believe the matter is slightly more complex than that. First, even with your book example, which I do agree is cheesy, still—this is part of the message. I’d not be surprised if such an ebook existed, though it definitely wouldn’t be for me (even if I liked the genre). Second, part of my point was that simulating technological limitations has its uses. If you want to convey a mood, obscure unnecessary detail, etc., you have such tools at your disposal that will not look weird to the audience[0] and that resonate with the larger cultural context—which none of us exist outside of. [0] Unless someone else like yourself is in said audience, I suppose :)
- thfuran 3y ago
  >you have such tools at your disposal that will not look weird to the audience Much of the moviegoing audience is so confused that they somehow think increasing frame rate from a paltry 24fps makes things look worse.
  - Gormo 3y ago
    It doesn't make them look worse, it makes them look too realistic: I think this one is an inversion of the trend, in that people expect movies to look like movies, not like reality.
  - strogonoff 3y ago
    I am not sure most people would notice 24 to 30 fps increase, but let’s say it’s 60 fps. You may be wrong in thinking they are confused. To paraphrase, the audience is always right. If they are confused, then you’ve failed. As I wrote above, what we see is anchored to our previous experience and cultural context. The ways it is broken inevitably attract attention to themselves and detract from the story, at least in the beginning, so you have to do it carefully and generally avoid breaking expectations unless that serves to achieve the desired effect. Otherwise you’d just be self-gratifying and compromise the message, making it subordinate to the medium. By the way, breaking these expectations can go both ways. You can go higher fps just as well as you can go lower. Once you veer off the default, which way you go is not automatically better than the other; it all depends on what your creative goals are.