4 ms·

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

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.

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.