11 ms·

> do you mostly enjoy media and activities particular to a time when you were younger, or do you have a penchant for novelty despite your age? I have negative

> do you mostly enjoy media and activities particular to a time when you were younger, or do you have a penchant for novelty despite your age? I have negative interest in the superhero movies, so there's that. I don't care for the modern style of shifting the colors to blue/orange. Movies from the 70's have a natural look to the colors. I prefer 1970s music. Autotune is for whippersnappers. I yell at clouds a lot, too.

readthenotes1 2y ago
Somewhat ironically, HD killed cinematography. Because there's enough clarity to see set errors, everything important is filmed in the dark. Examples: just about every fight scene since 2018; Castle first season vs last. One of the reasons why Shogun was so appealing is they did something different.
- mrmuagi 2y ago
  And "modern" TVs have motion smoothing which make so many things look so synthetic and dizzying.
  - horacemorace 2y ago
    We’ve got the minority opinion; most don’t even notice. I make a point to ask whenever around others near one.
  - nunez 2y ago
    First thing I turn off when I get new TVs. It destroys old cartoons especially. Neutral color profile too. RTINGS tells you how to do it.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  On the other hand a surprising amount of modern movies are still filmed on kodak movie film then scanned for digital distribution.
- drewcoo 2y ago
  > Somewhat ironically, HD killed cinematography. Imagine Wild Strawberries in HD. I think it would seem bleaker. Or Blue Velvet. It would make Blue Velvet creepier. It would also make any Corman film seem classier. HD didn't ruin cinema. It only ruins beauty.
- betterThanTexas 2y ago
  HD is lower quality than film. Maybe this is true for home entertainment, but we take less advantage of darkness than ever from my perspective. It's the video-game CGI that kills me.
  - layer8 2y ago
    There was an experiment maybe 15 years ago, where they sent film material through the whole printing and distribution process, and measured the vertical resolution that could still be resolved on an actual cinema screen using analog projection. The result was around 700p IIRC, below full HD in any case.
    - rightbyte 2y ago
      700p? Are you sure? I don't belive cinemas had about the same resolution as PAL at 576p. 720p is blurry too on big screens.
      - layer8 2y ago
        See the PDF kindly linked by the sibling (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43919991 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43919991): • “The highest resolution that the expert assessors could discern in the highest performing movie theater was about 875 L/PH. • “The horizontal resolution averaged over the six multi-burst groups measured on the screens of the six selected movie theaters was about 715 L/PH.” L/PH = lines per picture height, i.e. vertical resolution This was for 35 mm film. Also, well-mastered DVDs with anamorphic widescreen can look astonishingly good on an output device that doesn’t interpolate its lines.
    - BizarroLand 2y ago
      Yeah, I'm gonna need to see some receipts. From what I remember super35 film should approach 8k resolution under ideal conditions.
      - betterThanTexas 2y ago
- WalterBright 2y ago
  > filmed in the dark House of Dragon was so filmed in the dark, with poor contrast, and color-corrected to be all blue and orange, is almost painful to watch. I have a hard time even seeing what is happening.
alabastervlog 2y ago
I'm "only" 40 and strongly prefer films made when they still shot and edited on film. The peak as far as visual quality and overall effect of film, for me, was probably the 60s through early 90s, though I love a bunch of films older or newer than that. The constraints of not being able to color-grade the whole film with a slider or two, of every cut in the edit taking time to do, and of effects that weren't in-camera being relatively expensive, tended to lead to better and more-interesting filmmaking, even in middling films. I appreciate what the right people can do with modern tools—I enjoy and even love plenty of newer films, and it's undeniably brought some cool stuff within reach of smaller, cheaper productions—but overall I see it as making cinema worse. "We did it in a computer" being the answer to every "how'd they do that?" isn't movie magic, it's boring as hell. It's why even a film that tries to avoid that to some degree, like the new Dune duology, is in some important respects—though setting aside overall quality of the film on some other dimensions—just less interesting than broadly similar films like Lawrence of Arabia or Star Wars (or even, if I may be so bold, David Lynch's Dune). I think this sort of opinion is fairly common among film-fans of all ages, due to interest in film making itself as much as output of the process per se. Not sure most movie watchers care, and they may well prefer the newer stuff because of the ultra-fast editing and tuned-to-be-cotton-candy-appealing color schemes and unconstrained video-game camera of fully CGI scenes and all that. > I prefer 1970s music. Autotune is for whippersnappers. Hard agree. I can't friggin' believe the heavy-handed autotune in children's media, especially (Daniel Tiger! Fred Rogers would be so unhappy with it). Let's teach them that natural human singing voices, like their own, sound wrong and bad. WTF.
- unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
  > The peak as far as visual quality and overall effect of film, for me, was probably the 60s through early 90s, though I love a bunch of films older or newer than that. Those movies were real. The stories were made up, scenes were sets, but ... the images are of real people in meat-world locations, standing near other people, speaking things they mostly really spoke, doing things they mostly really did. It's jarring by juxtaposition just how ... fake modern hyperreal CGI appears on screen.
  - 2y ago
UncleOxidant 2y ago
> Autotune is for whippersnappers. Yeah, WTF is up with that. It's autotune everywhere now. It was originally intended for some limited uses and it wasn't supposed to be obvious. And now it's obviously everywhere. I suspect it's going to make it easier for AI vocalists to take over.
- mtalantikite 2y ago
  You can thank T-Pain for it [1], but the hilarious thing is he can actually sing [2] unlike most of the others using it. [1] https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/06/t-pain-usher-ruined-music-auto-tune-depression-netflix-this-is-pop https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/06/t-pain-usher-ruined... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIjXUg1s5gc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIjXUg1s5gc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91ck0vJBygo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91ck0vJBygo
  - BizarroLand 2y ago
    Almost every popular artist can sing far better than the average person. It's not a question of skill or talent, it's a question of perfect or imperfect. The hype train does not allow for imperfection, nor does it stop for anything that isn't better than human.
- WWLink 2y ago
  AFAIK lots of new remasters of classic albums are auto-tuning the vocals as well. https://www.reddit.com/r/audioengineering/comments/1bfxj2d/why_do_so_many_recent_remixesremasters_of_classic/ https://www.reddit.com/r/audioengineering/comments/1bfxj2d/w...
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    I avoid the remasters.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  With a few notable exceptions, today musicians need to be good looking in order to be marketable. It's much easier to take a beautiful or handsome model who doesn't have musical talent and use technology to manufacture a musician out of them, than it is to take a homely but talented musician and manufacture a star out of them.
tremon 2y ago
I'm mostly a child of the 90s, and I prefer 70s music too. The music scene of the 80s and 90s was soulless (pun intended), at least when it comes to mainstream cultural presence. When I think of the music of my youth, the terms that come to mind are vapid imaging, bland instrumentation, and unimaginative lyrics. I guess you could say I was old the day I was born :) The music did not get better with age either; that music is now old enough to enter "classics" radio stations, which means those stations now alternate between nostalgia and nausea for me. The only redeeming quality those songs seem to have is that they can get even worse, as judged by recent covers/remakes of earlier failures (really, how barren must your musical taste be choose to cover Liquido by Narcotic?) That's not to say that nothing good came from that period; it's just that good music from that time was not successful. I had great fun in the 2000s and 2010s discovering the bands and artists that should have been big in the 90s. I have no problems with the movies nor the cartoons of my youth though, those are still the best cinema ever produced.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  Checkout Rocky&Bullwinkle from the 60's. It was allegedly targeted at kids, but there's a lot of sly adult humor in it. Sort of like the first season of SpongeBob. Get the old used VHS tapes of it from Ebay, not the DVD. The re-releases of it replaced the music and destroyed it. The Jetsons is fun to watch, as it predicted a lot of the gadgets we actually have today.
- nunez 2y ago
  So much great dance music from the 80s. Also, David friggin Bowie!

readthenotes1 2y ago

Somewhat ironically, HD killed cinematography. Because there's enough clarity to see set errors, everything important is filmed in the dark. Examples: just about every fight scene since 2018; Castle first season vs last. One of the reasons why Shogun was so appealing is they did something different.

mrmuagi 2y ago
And "modern" TVs have motion smoothing which make so many things look so synthetic and dizzying.
- horacemorace 2y ago
  We’ve got the minority opinion; most don’t even notice. I make a point to ask whenever around others near one.
- nunez 2y ago
  First thing I turn off when I get new TVs. It destroys old cartoons especially. Neutral color profile too. RTINGS tells you how to do it.
kjkjadksj 2y ago
On the other hand a surprising amount of modern movies are still filmed on kodak movie film then scanned for digital distribution.
drewcoo 2y ago
> Somewhat ironically, HD killed cinematography. Imagine Wild Strawberries in HD. I think it would seem bleaker. Or Blue Velvet. It would make Blue Velvet creepier. It would also make any Corman film seem classier. HD didn't ruin cinema. It only ruins beauty.
betterThanTexas 2y ago
HD is lower quality than film. Maybe this is true for home entertainment, but we take less advantage of darkness than ever from my perspective. It's the video-game CGI that kills me.
- layer8 2y ago
  There was an experiment maybe 15 years ago, where they sent film material through the whole printing and distribution process, and measured the vertical resolution that could still be resolved on an actual cinema screen using analog projection. The result was around 700p IIRC, below full HD in any case.
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    700p? Are you sure? I don't belive cinemas had about the same resolution as PAL at 576p. 720p is blurry too on big screens.
    - layer8 2y ago
      See the PDF kindly linked by the sibling (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43919991 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43919991): • “The highest resolution that the expert assessors could discern in the highest performing movie theater was about 875 L/PH. • “The horizontal resolution averaged over the six multi-burst groups measured on the screens of the six selected movie theaters was about 715 L/PH.” L/PH = lines per picture height, i.e. vertical resolution This was for 35 mm film. Also, well-mastered DVDs with anamorphic widescreen can look astonishingly good on an output device that doesn’t interpolate its lines.
  - BizarroLand 2y ago
    Yeah, I'm gonna need to see some receipts. From what I remember super35 film should approach 8k resolution under ideal conditions.
    - betterThanTexas 2y ago
WalterBright 2y ago
> filmed in the dark House of Dragon was so filmed in the dark, with poor contrast, and color-corrected to be all blue and orange, is almost painful to watch. I have a hard time even seeing what is happening.

alabastervlog 2y ago

I'm "only" 40 and strongly prefer films made when they still shot and edited on film. The peak as far as visual quality and overall effect of film, for me, was probably the 60s through early 90s, though I love a bunch of films older or newer than that. The constraints of not being able to color-grade the whole film with a slider or two, of every cut in the edit taking time to do, and of effects that weren't in-camera being relatively expensive, tended to lead to better and more-interesting filmmaking, even in middling films. I appreciate what the right people can do with modern tools—I enjoy and even love plenty of newer films, and it's undeniably brought some cool stuff within reach of smaller, cheaper productions—but overall I see it as making cinema worse. "We did it in a computer" being the answer to every "how'd they do that?" isn't movie magic, it's boring as hell. It's why even a film that tries to avoid that to some degree, like the new Dune duology, is in some important respects—though setting aside overall quality of the film on some other dimensions—just less interesting than broadly similar films like Lawrence of Arabia or Star Wars (or even, if I may be so bold, David Lynch's Dune). I think this sort of opinion is fairly common among film-fans of all ages, due to interest in film making itself as much as output of the process per se. Not sure most movie watchers care, and they may well prefer the newer stuff because of the ultra-fast editing and tuned-to-be-cotton-candy-appealing color schemes and unconstrained video-game camera of fully CGI scenes and all that. > I prefer 1970s music. Autotune is for whippersnappers. Hard agree. I can't friggin' believe the heavy-handed autotune in children's media, especially (Daniel Tiger! Fred Rogers would be so unhappy with it). Let's teach them that natural human singing voices, like their own, sound wrong and bad. WTF.

unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
> The peak as far as visual quality and overall effect of film, for me, was probably the 60s through early 90s, though I love a bunch of films older or newer than that. Those movies were real. The stories were made up, scenes were sets, but ... the images are of real people in meat-world locations, standing near other people, speaking things they mostly really spoke, doing things they mostly really did. It's jarring by juxtaposition just how ... fake modern hyperreal CGI appears on screen.
- 2y ago

UncleOxidant 2y ago

> Autotune is for whippersnappers. Yeah, WTF is up with that. It's autotune everywhere now. It was originally intended for some limited uses and it wasn't supposed to be obvious. And now it's obviously everywhere. I suspect it's going to make it easier for AI vocalists to take over.

mtalantikite 2y ago
You can thank T-Pain for it [1], but the hilarious thing is he can actually sing [2] unlike most of the others using it. [1] https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/06/t-pain-usher-ruined-music-auto-tune-depression-netflix-this-is-pop https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/06/t-pain-usher-ruined... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIjXUg1s5gc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIjXUg1s5gc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91ck0vJBygo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91ck0vJBygo
- BizarroLand 2y ago
  Almost every popular artist can sing far better than the average person. It's not a question of skill or talent, it's a question of perfect or imperfect. The hype train does not allow for imperfection, nor does it stop for anything that isn't better than human.
WWLink 2y ago
AFAIK lots of new remasters of classic albums are auto-tuning the vocals as well. https://www.reddit.com/r/audioengineering/comments/1bfxj2d/why_do_so_many_recent_remixesremasters_of_classic/ https://www.reddit.com/r/audioengineering/comments/1bfxj2d/w...
- WalterBright 2y ago
  I avoid the remasters.
ryandrake 2y ago
With a few notable exceptions, today musicians need to be good looking in order to be marketable. It's much easier to take a beautiful or handsome model who doesn't have musical talent and use technology to manufacture a musician out of them, than it is to take a homely but talented musician and manufacture a star out of them.

tremon 2y ago

I'm mostly a child of the 90s, and I prefer 70s music too. The music scene of the 80s and 90s was soulless (pun intended), at least when it comes to mainstream cultural presence. When I think of the music of my youth, the terms that come to mind are vapid imaging, bland instrumentation, and unimaginative lyrics. I guess you could say I was old the day I was born :) The music did not get better with age either; that music is now old enough to enter "classics" radio stations, which means those stations now alternate between nostalgia and nausea for me. The only redeeming quality those songs seem to have is that they can get even worse, as judged by recent covers/remakes of earlier failures (really, how barren must your musical taste be choose to cover Liquido by Narcotic?) That's not to say that nothing good came from that period; it's just that good music from that time was not successful. I had great fun in the 2000s and 2010s discovering the bands and artists that should have been big in the 90s. I have no problems with the movies nor the cartoons of my youth though, those are still the best cinema ever produced.

WalterBright 2y ago
Checkout Rocky&Bullwinkle from the 60's. It was allegedly targeted at kids, but there's a lot of sly adult humor in it. Sort of like the first season of SpongeBob. Get the old used VHS tapes of it from Ebay, not the DVD. The re-releases of it replaced the music and destroyed it. The Jetsons is fun to watch, as it predicted a lot of the gadgets we actually have today.
nunez 2y ago
So much great dance music from the 80s. Also, David friggin Bowie!