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.

  • lime!@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    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.

    • FishFace@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      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

      • lime!@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        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.