Re:The contagious visual blandness of Netflix
by ClumsyPilot on Sunday January 22, 2023 @12:10PM
(#34479551)
> GP was arguing that frame rate is a choice artists can use to tell their stories, that 24fps is Impressionism and 48fps is realism
Okay, where is 77 FPS movie for surrealism, 12 FPS movie for abstractionism, 174 FPS for cubism?
The whole argument is fictitious
Re:The contagious visual blandness of Netflix
by matt-attack on Monday January 23, 2023 @12:00PM
(#34491538)
Well that's just not how the physics works. It's a single dimension that slides from hyper-impressionism (at low low Frame rates) to hyper-realism at high ones. And BTW it's been shown to top out around 75-80fps. Any higher and there's no additional perception of realism. Realism is just the single axis.
Re:The contagious visual blandness of Netflix
by Nursie on Sunday January 22, 2023 @08:34PM
(#34484372)
> GP was arguing that 24fps is a genuine artistic choice
Yes, and I'm saying that's spurious argument because if it were an artistic choice we'd have a lot more variation of said choice.
> cross examining (e.g. "so, you're saying...")
Where did I do that?
That's not what GP said. GP was arguing that 24fps is a genuine artistic choice, and that an argument that 48fps is intrinsically superior is absurd. GP was arguing that frame rate is a choice artists can use to tell their stories, that 24fps is Impressionism and 48fps is realism.
Also, cross examining (e.g. "so, you're saying...") is against HN policies. Misrepresenting what someone said is also not great.