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.
Yeah, 24fps + blur is just less data given to the viewer in scenes of motion vs 60fps.
A monster running by? No, the reason you didn’t see it wasn’t bcs it was that fast, you didn’t see it properly just bcs of a limitation of the medium (had the viewer been there irl with the same pov the monster would have been clearly seen).
I’m sad that the industry pushed 4k (and even 8k) instead of using the same digital bandwidth for HD@60fps.
I know, shooting on analog film doesn’t require more physical film to get from SD to 4k whereas going from 24 to 60 frames per second does require 2.5× as much film (some big productions even did film in 60fps iirc … ?).
However once having 60fps that would actually deliver that additional (2.5× more) visual data to the customer (unless they intentionally added extra blur in post, but that would be very very noticeable), unlike todays 4k content that is either encoded or stylised mostly in a way that there is only minimal difference between HD and 4k on average so you don’t actually get 4× more visual content (not to even mention, how few ppl can appreciate the difference even in best case scenarios due to various other limitations).
We didn’t. The specs for UHD / 4K TV purposely included 60 fps.
It’s good for sports and natural history, but elsehwere, creatives don’t like it, and they mostly believe that audiences don’t like it. The only thing with any budget behind it was the couple of Ang Lee projects, and they flopped.
In a more practical sense, you have generations of filmmakers who produce visually excellent material in 24fps. You can’t just turn a knob and get great looking 60fps content. It takes intent, desire, and technical skill to be able to do it at higher frame rates, and the lack of creative desire is what prevents it, not any industry push (or lack of).
Well, my personal opinion is that basically all 24fps content would look better in 60fps without any additional concerns (but production costs would have been bigger, notably so in old movies especially, technical skills insulted), no additional art mastery needed in most cases (again, this is imho for my content consumption).
Besides, the industry adapted to much bigger art changes than it would have been a move to 60fps - eg how much they had to adapt to HD (they had to change sets, clothes, props, etc), or all the things to digital postprocessing and other CGI special effects (now half the set is green screen or a led wall - how much the required art skills changed there vs practical effects).
It’s def not as simple as ‘just turn a knob to switch to 60fps’ but if it were that easy, I bet a lot more movies would have been shot that way, maybe even for the viewers to choose between the two modes.