Can we please just get rid of the 'noise' look and embrace digital acuity already? This might be one reason I tend to prefer animated content over live action.
I’d say it is more like asking musicians to stop adding feedback — another phenomenon that began as an error but became an artistic tool — to their songs. Or requesting that sound engineers stop the engaging in the loudness wars.
what's the benefit of doing this? you waste your time and you lose color option, I see no advantages over just adjusting saturation
Same if someone wanted to make a silent movie or ask me to join a dating site where all the profile photos are daguerreotypes.
The meaning of art is up to the viewer, not the artist. There's nothing wrong with having a preference, like using things like temporal denoising or increasing/decreasing saturation. Even an IMAX movie theater isn't enough because that's not what the film was graded with. Pretending that art shouldn't be modified because it moves away from the artist's intent is a bad faith argument. There were certain House of Dragon color grading decision that made me feel very disappointed, and I was watching in Dolby Vision on a nice high dynamic range TV.
Artists' intent is useless if 99.999% of the population can't enjoy the actual art.
https://www.vulture.com/article/why-house-of-the-dragon-epis...
To address your second- I think that’s an example of the “slippery slope” fallacy. I’m stating only that film noise and grain is a big part of the atmosphere of many movies and shouldn’t be removed; I’m not suggesting that a viewing experience needs to be done in a world-class theater under perfect conditions to capture artistic intent. Anyone with a basic HD television can see analog noise and grain.
There is an endless list of poor Bluray and UHD Bluray transfers where the the film grain makes it unwatchable. The unfortunate thing is that the nicer the display is, the sharper the image and the more distracting the grain. In some cases, I would trust the AV1 endcoder decoder to do a better job at adding a more reasonable amount of grain than the 4k transfer did. It's not a slippery slope, bad transfers and poorly color graded films/shows already exist. Mistakes exist in both directions, the UHD remaster release of Terminator 2 is a exceptionally horrible example of too much DNR. In my opinion T2 is bad enough to bring real actors into the uncanny valley.
The developers aren't doing anything different from what films do when going through an analog to digital transfer.
Jesus. Every engineer who's worked on color implementation just choked on their drink.
You can literally scroll down a little further and find blog posts on how iMessage green vs blue saturation creates tiny changes in readability. The human experience matters a lot more than what engineers (who can't tell apart two shades of women's fingernail polish) decides matters.
Readability is dependent on screen brightness and difference in contrast between background and foreground colors. These decisions aren't based on what engineers assume matters, it's dependent mostly on A/B testing and perception psychology. It's the same kind of research that went into making the OPUS audio codec and deciding which parts people will notice missing and which parts don't really make a difference. Tiny to moderate changes in visibility/readability make a much smaller difference than you imagine.
https://www.colorblindnesstest.org/farnsworth-munsell-100-hu...
The hobbit doesn't feel like a film in 60fps. it feels like a play, or something from TV.
Now. to your point, that motion smoothing stops this, its not strictly true. There are still artefacts that happen because its film. this then becomes the marker for "film".
> The meaning of art is up to the viewer, not the artist.
yes, but the delivery is key. your point about imax doesn't really add up. Unless you are printing out IMAX prints (which most people don't) they you'll at least do a technical grade for the IMAX to make it look like the version that the DoP/director agreed.
The House of Dragons chose to make it look like that. Mainly because I suspect the director was trying to chase the fashion for removing colour from everything. Grading, like most things is prone to fashions, and pushing against "what came before" is par for the course. Some people do it well, others are shite.
Before I got my Shure SE215-es I ended up doing a lot of research to figure out which headphones were actually going to give me a reasonable balance between treble and bass.
The Aonic 3 is my daily, although using the cable that came with the 425 (EAC64BKS - more pliable than the transparent one)
Sure, but I don't see where I said the opposite! I didn't say the SE215 was the op of the line, just that I did a lot of research first :)
Part of that research included finding out that the SE215 was only 80 quid, but the SE425 was 300+ quid...
If used as element to paint the scene noise is fine and can work well, but the trend to just slap the grain on anything "coz that's how movies looked before" is just silly.
Alternatively you can paint/airbrush every set piece to add that used/worn look, but I don’t think it’s economically feasible.
He told us how shabby the set looked like in reality. But none of that was visible on PAL tv.
I guess that's the opposite of the effect you were talking about.
It leaves gaps in the image for you brain to “fill in the gap” and add perceived detail.
Interleaved scanlines are a great trick to increase the temporal resolution, but don't do much for (or against) spatial resolution.
Or what do you mean by scanline effect?
Adding extra fake noise to the movie solves a few problems such as ensuring a consistent look from scene to scene, as well as avoiding video artifacts like banding.
It’s also an artistic choice just like the choice to use telephoto lenses that blur backgrounds into fuzzy balls of light.
2004 Collateral and 2009 Public Enemies were early all digital movies full of digital noise, it looks BAD.
(kidding)
Total tangent here, but in my opinion, most HPPD are optical/perceptual defects that everyone experiences all the time, but normally our minds block, filter, or compensate for. Taking psychedelics makes people aware of these defects, and once you notice them, you can't "unsee" them.
My personal experience with this is that very mild astigmatism causes diffracted halos around light sources. I never noticed these until taking psychedelics. Now I always notice them, but they're certainly caused by defects in my eyes' lenses and not by some permanent direct effect of psychedelics. Similar with floaters, visual snow, POV effects and so on.
Many of these effects/defects become exaggerated whilst tripping and hence get noticed, then when people sober up and still notice them, they think it's something new, rather than realizing it's something that's been going on unnoticed the whole time.
That is an interesting way to frame it. I see it more as an expert use of 35mm film and lighting, and the grain is just present because it is inherent to the medium.
[1] https://www.hdnumerique.com/dossiers/962-test-4k-ultra-hd-bl...
E.g. the non-digital aesthetics of Tarintino films contribute a lot to their style in my opinion.
Plastering fake film grain ontop of something is not really my ideal, but going full film is also probably not something people can really afford in terms of time and budget...unless you're someone like Tarintino who's already at the top
Digital production methods are great at producing data in very predictable, reliable ways. But our brains our great at spotting patterns, and they can tell really quickly if something is unchanging and can be ignored. So while the challenge in the analogue world was creating order (a faithfully reproduced signal) from chaos, in the digital world it's flipped. We need to find ways of adding some chaos to make the resulting signal interesting to our brains.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealityIsUnreali...