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.
It’s starting to feel we are in some conflation with video game discussions and cinema in regards to frame rates.
That is another entirely broad spectrum of discussion.
Because nobody experiences stuttering at 24 frames per second.
That is more akin to a gaming discussion, which envolves opening another framing of this altogether. As it should, as a different medium. Where even the sensation of velocity is discussed with high frame rates in gaming eliminating the exciting vertigo feeling in high speed driving games vs gaining clarity in First Person Shooters for example. This is a whole different can of worms to open. It’s a long long discussion.
Regarding focus. The depth of field changes just with choice of lenses, so nobody suggests this as mimicking of how sight behaves exactly. Just that sight behaves through this process. And yes, Filmmakers use it to guide the eye of the viewer.
Which is one of the (many) reasons 3D in cinema failed in the times it was attempted. Focus exacerbates its’ attempted illusion.
Just like going higher than 24 frame rates does to how we experience witnessing movement unfold.
Which is why it is to be contested 24 frames per second as arbitrary. It isn’t. It has been toyed with and returned to many times for many reasons. And convention is not the reason it remains. Just like 3D never took off. These are inate reasons to how our perception of the world feels comfortable when watching a film. Plenty of “jarring” innovations were added to cinema and they stuck, from sound, to colour, to different resolutions and even something as unnatural as slow motion for example. Which requires to be essentially shot at higher frame rates to avoid stuttering when deployed. The higher the frame rate the slower you can display it. (Obvious, I know)
But people also got tired of that, and with reason. The way most also did of the shaky camera too. But these are still in a toolbox if anyone cares to use them. And they do. Just like Black and white is still there too.
We could be having this discussion regarding high resolutions just as well. It contains many of the same undertones. There’s a reason many reject 4k and resolutions beyond it too.
It’s not a clean cut discussion, no. But there are scientific underlinings we should highlight amongst all the subjective foils of these discussions.
Next time you watch a film, look out for times when the camera is panning. Most pans are either really quick, so it’s just a complete incomprehensible blur, or really slow. Why nothing in between? Because you can see the stuttering effect. If you spot a faster pan, you will absolutely see it.
There is a rule of thumb in filmmaking that a pan should rotate the camera any faster than it takes to cover the width of the image in 7 seconds. This is because any faster than that, at 24 fps and with 180 degree shutter angle, stuttering (or juddering, or whatever you want to call it) because more apparent.
Now, focus your eyes on your finger and move it back and forth at a fast speed (such that you can still follow it with your eyes). Do you notice any stuttering in the background behind your finger? Of course not. Eyes don’t work like that.