A few comments that can give an idea what the video is about
Watched this earlier this morning and it was a great in depth video. It’s not digital vs film. Biggest complaints seem to be everything being shot with shallow depth of field, which is the current cinematic fashion.
Biggest issue though is everything being shot as evenly, and blandly, as possible to make it easier to change everything in post, rather than making sure everything looks as great as possible in camera.
”We’ll fix it in post” is the worst thing that happened to cinematography. Edit: Yeah not just that but the same mentality has been detrimental to all creative work.
Great watch and fully agree. Always blows my mind that Jurassic Park from 1993 looks so much better than the modern day Jurassic World films.
Well yeah, The Hobbit was a pile of garbage for many reasons…
if you say so. point being that it was a pioneer of “high frame rate” recording, at 48 frames per second. industry professionals really wanted to push it, and the public hated it. that’s not indicative of everyone in the public having bad taste in movies, it’s about some psychological effect. again, there’s something there.
They got the most criticism because they were bad, which can come from anyone with a brain.
They got some criticism for being higher framerate, but that, I contend, did come from people who associated it not necessarily with soaps but with stuff shot on video which was historically cheap stuff.
from what i’m reading it was the other way around. performances, score, and visuals were praised, while most criticism centered on pacing and the high frame rate.
Most criticism was of the script and pacing. I’ve had numerous conversations with people about them who are not that kind of film buff and they bring up love triangles and an adaptation of a children’s book that goes on for hours, without mentioning framerate (or anything that could be attributed to it).
Yes there are people who pick up on it, but it’s not universal. Because hatred of high framerate is not universal, because if it were, people would hate it in TV dramas as well.
i mean, people do. that’s also part of the soap opera effect. the reason you don’t hear as much about it is that there aren’t really any programmes being shown in 24 frames per second, since that would look terrible on most tv’s as it’s not as clean a divisor of 50 as it is of 60, and so would not work in most of the world.
24fps film was generally just shown at 25fps on a 50Hz video system. 2:3 pulldown for display at 30/60fps is much more complicated even though the numbers look better.
Our eyes don’t see the world at stuttery 24fps. It was a standard that was “good enough” and now people treat it as if it was arrived at as a pinnacle
it’s not really a matter of “fps of the eyes” which as you say is not a thing, but the psychological effect. it could very well be trained away.