3 ms·

Makes you wonder why the need for the incredible detail if we are just fine with blurry details.

by elAhmo 9mo ago

jerf 9mo ago
We are "just fine" with blurry details, on some level... but a lot of processing a movie holistically comes from that level of detail being present. Even if few people walking out of the theater could put their finger on why the world felt vibrant, it'll come down to the fact those details were there. So much of movie making is like that. No normal person comes out of a theater saying "wow, the color grading on that movie really helped the drive the main themes along, I particularly appreciated the way it was used to amplify the alienation the main character felt at being betrayed by his life-long friend, and the lighting in that scene really sent that point home". That's all film nerd stuff. But it's the lighting, the color grading, the camera shots, all this subtle stuff that the casual consumer will never cite as their reason for liking or disliking the movie that results in the feelings that were experienced. They aren't necessary. People still connect with the original Snow White, and while it may have been an absolute technical breakthrough masterstroke for the time, by modern standards it is simple. But used well the details we can muster for a modern production can still go into the general tone of the film; compare the two next to each other while looking for this effect and you may be able to "feel" what I'm talking about.
- elAhmo 9mo ago
  Fair enough, I agree with the sentiment, especially about the lighting, colour grading, shots and similar details that form the overall "feel" of the movie. With my comment I was referring to some things that end up being indistinguishable even if insane number of hours were put into it being photorealistic. For example, take a shot where background is heavily blurred. Maybe those assets took a lot to render, compute, used fancy hair simulations and had a lot of details, but they were very far in the distance and camera choice made them indistinguishable from a static background. This is what I am wondering - where is the balance of not doing things that are bound to not be noticed by anyone.
wat10000 9mo ago
We were fine watching movies on VHS tapes and small CRT TVs, but watching a high-quality encoding on a 4k TV is much better.
- mjevans 9mo ago
  Analog on the order of 480i60 is a good bit different from even digital 640x480p60. However it's a lossy compression of sorts, and the transform is of a different nature than we're now used to estimating for digital codecs.
- taneq 9mo ago
  I think there's a bit of rose tinted glasses going on with our memories of SD TV, too. A decade or so ago I plugged an old PS2 into my 50" plasma TV (which I bought just after plasma TVs got suddenly cheap :D ) and then spent a good 10-15 minutes trying to find a setting to increase the resolution before realising that, no, that's just how things looked back then, except now it's magnified so it's really blurry.

Makes you wonder why the need for the incredible detail if we are just fine with blurry details.

by elAhmo 9mo ago

Makes you wonder why the need for the incredible detail if we are just fine with blurry details.

jerf 9mo ago

We are "just fine" with blurry details, on some level... but a lot of processing a movie holistically comes from that level of detail being present. Even if few people walking out of the theater could put their finger on why the world felt vibrant, it'll come down to the fact those details were there. So much of movie making is like that. No normal person comes out of a theater saying "wow, the color grading on that movie really helped the drive the main themes along, I particularly appreciated the way it was used to amplify the alienation the main character felt at being betrayed by his life-long friend, and the lighting in that scene really sent that point home". That's all film nerd stuff. But it's the lighting, the color grading, the camera shots, all this subtle stuff that the casual consumer will never cite as their reason for liking or disliking the movie that results in the feelings that were experienced. They aren't necessary. People still connect with the original Snow White, and while it may have been an absolute technical breakthrough masterstroke for the time, by modern standards it is simple. But used well the details we can muster for a modern production can still go into the general tone of the film; compare the two next to each other while looking for this effect and you may be able to "feel" what I'm talking about.

elAhmo 9mo ago
Fair enough, I agree with the sentiment, especially about the lighting, colour grading, shots and similar details that form the overall "feel" of the movie. With my comment I was referring to some things that end up being indistinguishable even if insane number of hours were put into it being photorealistic. For example, take a shot where background is heavily blurred. Maybe those assets took a lot to render, compute, used fancy hair simulations and had a lot of details, but they were very far in the distance and camera choice made them indistinguishable from a static background. This is what I am wondering - where is the balance of not doing things that are bound to not be noticed by anyone.

wat10000 9mo ago

We were fine watching movies on VHS tapes and small CRT TVs, but watching a high-quality encoding on a 4k TV is much better.

mjevans 9mo ago
Analog on the order of 480i60 is a good bit different from even digital 640x480p60. However it's a lossy compression of sorts, and the transform is of a different nature than we're now used to estimating for digital codecs.
taneq 9mo ago
I think there's a bit of rose tinted glasses going on with our memories of SD TV, too. A decade or so ago I plugged an old PS2 into my 50" plasma TV (which I bought just after plasma TVs got suddenly cheap :D ) and then spent a good 10-15 minutes trying to find a setting to increase the resolution before realising that, no, that's just how things looked back then, except now it's magnified so it's really blurry.