The technical limitations of the past century should not define what constitutes a film.
What next, gonna complain resolution is too high and you can see costume seams ?
The film IS the burger, you said it yourself, it shows off where the movie cheapened on things. If you want a steak you need steak framerate
They literally had to invent new types of makeup because HD provided more skin detail than was previously available.
It’s why you’ll find a lot of foundation marketed as “HD cream”.
I'm a filmmaker. Yes, it was.
> What next, gonna complain resolution is too high and you can see costume seams ?
Try playing an SNES game on CRT versus with pixel upscaling.
The art direction was chosen for the technology.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jh2ssirC1oQ
> The film IS the burger, you said it yourself, it shows off where the movie cheapened on things. If you want a steak you need steak framerate
You don't need 48fps to make a good film. You don't need a big budget either.
If you want to take a piece of art and have it look garish, you do you.
You can see cheap set decoration at 48 fps. It disappears at 24 fps.
>I'm a filmmaker. Yes, it was.
What you are is dishonest. Quote my entire sentence not cut it in half changing its entire meaning
> The choice wasn't intentional, it was forced by technology and in turn, methods were molded by technological limitation.
There was no choice unless you think "just make it look bad by ignoring tech limitations" is realistic choice of someone actually taking money for their job.
>> What next, gonna complain resolution is too high and you can see costume seams ?
>Try playing an SNES game on CRT versus with pixel upscaling.
>The art direction was chosen for the technology.
There was no choice involved. You had to do it because that was what tech required from you for it to look good.
The technology changed, so art direction changed with it. Why can't movie industry keep up while gaming industry had dozen of revolutions like this ?
> You don't need 48fps to make a good film. You don't need a big budget either.
But you can take it and make it better.
> If you want to take a piece of art and have it look garish, you do you.
"Don't have budget to double the framerate" is fair argument. Why you don't use that instead of assuming anything made in better tech will be "garish" ?
Your argument is essentially saying "I don't have enough skill to use new tech and still make it look great"
I was being civil, but you're taking this too far. I was wary of engaging with your first comment given the bombastic tone, but I thought you might appreciate my domain experience. I disagree with everything you're saying, but I am not going to engage with you further.
And it's time for the art direction of films to take advantage of modern technology just like we have games made for HD resolutions toady - including ones that are made to evoke the feel of older systems while smoothing off the rough edges.
> You don't need 48fps to make a good film. You don't need a big budget either.
And you don't need HD resolutions either, but they do make it look even better - and so do high frame rates when the production is up to it.
Did you read an interview with the cow’s creator?
If you watch at a higher frame rate, the mistakes become obvious rather than melting into the frames. Humans look plastic and fake.
The people that are masters of light and photography make intentional choices for a reason.
You can cook your steak well done if you like, but that's not how you're supposed to eat it.
A steak is not a burger. A movie is not a sports event or video game.