Hacker News Reader

Comment by wholinator2 | Hacker News Reader

The showcase of frames at the end really broke something through for me. It's easy to simply sit in a theater or on your couch and watch the movie as a movie. But while the theater screen is large, you don't get to pause it. So nearly all of the incredible detail gets blurred in a way that makes it easy to be immersed in the movement and story, but also forget the art of visuals. Seeing those specific frames laid out, each one of those would be an incredible art piece on their own! They would all be extremely difficult to create for an individual and take so so much time. I always wondered what those 1000+ people in the credits were actually doing, now i know! I never realized the incredibly depth and thought and time and art that goes into every frame of an animated movie.

View on HN

There's an old, semi-retired YouTube video essay channel called "Every Frame a Painting". I disagreed with several of its essays, enjoyed many of them, but the biggest takeaway/agreement I got from that channel was that core spirit in the title itself. It is something I still find very useful reminder when thinking about films and/or criticizing them. The medium of a movie (or a TV show) is 12 or 24 (or more rarely 60) frames per second. We don't always reflect on how everyone of them in (even a "bad" movie) is essentially a painting. Art was involved to get that shot, that frame of the shot. Often art by lots of people, very few of them are the people you see on that screen, yet their fingerprints and hard work still shows through. "Every frame a painting" is a good sentiment to remember, I think. Especially for animation, but for any movie.

Thank you for sharing this - it reminds of the film adaption of "The Peasants" novel which uses a painted animation technique made up of thousands and thousands of paintings. Quite literally, nearly "Every Frame [is] a Painting".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Peasants_(2023_film)#Produ...

Such a great channel. I think it's fully retired now (again?).

https://youtube.com/@everyframeapainting

I really appreciate the still images at the end of the Mandalorian episodes. I'm not sure if they were used for set design or created afterward, but they are really stunning and gives you more time to appreciate the world building, costumes, and creativity that goes into production.

Also a huge fan of that channel. I think he came back recently to do some more episodes. There's a new channel I found that offers similar reflections upon cinema - willbryanfilms - definitely worth checking out!

For me it's also the style of animation.

For some reason, if I don't think about it, instinctually I would always describe Overwatch (to take a gaming example) and Zootopia as "simple" graphics. My mind recalls big swathes of primary colours in relatively flat yet cheerful lighting, rounded/smoothed shapes, relatively little complex texturing or surface detail.

It's when I pause overwatch that I start realizing 1. how much detail there is, and 2. How quickly and flawlessly it's rendered on relatively slow computers. And then I start truly appreciating the relentless optimizing work to make it "seem simple and fast" :).

Same thing with Zootopia - I've enjoyed the movies (doesn't hurt that I have two young kids), but they would not come to mind if I were asked to name breakthrough or particularly well animated movies. Yet the detail and work is clearly there once you pause and examine :)

> I would always describe Overwatch (to take a gaming example) and Zootopia as "simple" graphics.

I think an art director would describe them as "readable". When there's a lot of detail and quick motion, it's important that the audience can very quickly recognize what they're looking at and what's happen. Otherwise, it just turns into a big jumble of chaos that the viewer can't follow, like in Michael Bay's Transformer movies.

A big part of the art of movie making is telegraphic a sense of rich realism and complexity while still having everything clearly visually parsable. Doing that when cuts and action are fast is quite difficult.

Doing it well affects every level of the production: the colors assigned to characters so they are separated from the background, wardrobe choices to also keep characters distinct, lighting, set design, texture, animation, focus, the way the camera moves. It all works together to produce one coherent readable scene.

A nice example of this is shown in Figure 2 of the paper "Illustrative Rendering in Team Fortress 2" [1] from Valve. It shows how they tried to make the silhouettes of each character class distinct and readable. (And the paper also discusses the choices that went into the color palette.)

[1] https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/apps/valve/2007/NPAR07_Illus...

In case of games, that's pretty much optional. Many games (e.g. Battlefield) take the opposite approach where spotting the enemy in the chaos is intentionally hard and a skill to master. I'm sure there are also intentionally less readable movies or at least scenes, although no immediate example comes to mind.

Then they threw all of that out the window in the name of selling hats.

Like the best special effects ever - if it's done right the audience doesn't even really realize it happened.

Makes you wonder why the need for the incredible detail if we are just fine with blurry details.

We are "just fine" with blurry details, on some level... but a lot of processing a movie holistically comes from that level of detail being present. Even if few people walking out of the theater could put their finger on why the world felt vibrant, it'll come down to the fact those details were there.

So much of movie making is like that. No normal person comes out of a theater saying "wow, the color grading on that movie really helped the drive the main themes along, I particularly appreciated the way it was used to amplify the alienation the main character felt at being betrayed by his life-long friend, and the lighting in that scene really sent that point home". That's all film nerd stuff. But it's the lighting, the color grading, the camera shots, all this subtle stuff that the casual consumer will never cite as their reason for liking or disliking the movie that results in the feelings that were experienced.

They aren't necessary. People still connect with the original Snow White, and while it may have been an absolute technical breakthrough masterstroke for the time, by modern standards it is simple. But used well the details we can muster for a modern production can still go into the general tone of the film; compare the two next to each other while looking for this effect and you may be able to "feel" what I'm talking about.

Fair enough, I agree with the sentiment, especially about the lighting, colour grading, shots and similar details that form the overall "feel" of the movie.

With my comment I was referring to some things that end up being indistinguishable even if insane number of hours were put into it being photorealistic. For example, take a shot where background is heavily blurred. Maybe those assets took a lot to render, compute, used fancy hair simulations and had a lot of details, but they were very far in the distance and camera choice made them indistinguishable from a static background. This is what I am wondering - where is the balance of not doing things that are bound to not be noticed by anyone.

We were fine watching movies on VHS tapes and small CRT TVs, but watching a high-quality encoding on a 4k TV is much better.

Analog on the order of 480i60 is a good bit different from even digital 640x480p60.

However it's a lossy compression of sorts, and the transform is of a different nature than we're now used to estimating for digital codecs.

I think there's a bit of rose tinted glasses going on with our memories of SD TV, too. A decade or so ago I plugged an old PS2 into my 50" plasma TV (which I bought just after plasma TVs got suddenly cheap :D ) and then spent a good 10-15 minutes trying to find a setting to increase the resolution before realising that, no, that's just how things looked back then, except now it's magnified so it's really blurry.

I recently put together a system that trained a model to identify "background worthy frames" of TV shows. Animated shows scored often quite highly with a many frames being valid, I suppose an essayist would be able to explain why.

Barry Lydon is probably the finest example of this.

Every frame of that movie is an oil painting that could live on a museum wall. Absolutely astounding effort by the crew that made it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com