Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DVD' started by Panavision70, Jan 5, 2016.
No it won’t.
You may be correct, but you may be wrong.
Time will tell. I'm sure many believe current norms are unchangeable.
Spin back a few decades, many things were ingrained and deemed standard. Now they are not.
Going on my experience, the younger the viewer, the less attached to 24 FPS they are.
The current exponents of film convention will retire and die.
The medium will be inherited by a new generation, raised on games where the clarity of a game console will migrate to film.
You could be correct, but I suspect not.
What someone likes and dislikes doesn't dictate the way things evolve, because eventually the majority will win out. I suspect a younger generation will be thinking differently in future, and they will have the say.
Unfortunately, I think you're right. It's many years away and I don't know that I'll live long enough to see it (and I'm not even 40) but eventually the horrible HFR video game look will take over.
One thing that gives me hope is that there hasn't been any movies since The Hobbit to use it so clearly few were impressed by the fake look of it. It might have changed but my understanding is that James Cameron will be shooting the Avatar sequels in HFR but I don't expect that to change any filmmaker's opinions either.
I'm sure I heard somewhere, a cinema had the ability to screen a 24 FPS movie at 60 FPS, and one audience member demanded a refund.
Being a fan of HFR, I'd like more screenings to be either or. Just like you can currently choose either 2d or 3d.
That way we'd all be happy.
Umm, does that imply that others who happen to agree with OP, are somehow, Stupid? Pretty condescending statement to make.
No Richard, it means he understood what I was saying. I neither intimated nor implied that anyone here is stupid. The issue at hand is respect for the artist's intent vs. individual customization of an artist's work, not IQ.
There was at least one: Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk. But you're basically right, 5 years after The Hobbit introduced HFR and it's gone nowhere.
HFR is basically the massive flop 3D should have been out of the gate. The kind of flop even Jim Cameron can't salvage since he's the one who foisted it on us and by the time Avatar II emerges it'll be too little too late.
Cameron didn’t foist HFR, Jackson did.
I saw it in imax that way and loved it.
Cameron was already talking about shooting Avatar II at 60FPS as early as 2011.
I totally understand what the OP is talking about. For musicals with lots of dancing and smooth camera moves all over the place, interlacing like this is actually an improvement. If you want to see something pretty amazing, take the ballet dream sequence from the Todd AO roadshow version of Oklahoma and put a slight "soap opera" effect on it. Todd AO was 30 fps, and the soap opera effect interlaces it up to 60. With the leaping and dancing, it's stunning. There is a place for these sorts of things. You just have to know how to use them intelligently.
The movies I'm talking about were never intended to be on video and shown in the home either. But I'm glad I am able to cheerfully violate the intent of the creator to enjoy the film the way I want it to look instead of the way it was intended to look. If I can make it better than the way the creator intended, I will definitely do it. It's my home theater.
You're not making it better than the way the creator intended. You're just making it look the way you want it to look. That's your prerogative. You can buy the Mona Lisa, hang it on your wall and draw a mustache on her. That's your prerogative too. That doesn't make it look better than Da Vinci intended.
If it looks better to me and the people watching the movie with me, then it looks better.
There's a funny story about "the intent of the creator" that applies here... There was a great concert pianist named Arthur Schnabel who was famous for his performances of Beethoven Sonatas. He turned down offers to record many times explaining, "I can't make a record without thinking that somewhere someone is sitting at the kitchen table in his undershirt listening to my music while he eats a ham sandwich. I have too much respect for the greatness of Beethoven to allow that to happen."
Creators expected all kinds of things... They expected their film to be played in theaters, not in homes. They expected that the film would play uninterrupted, not pause for bathroom breaks. They expected the film to be screened from a 35mm film print, not a video disc. They expected that there would be trailers and short subjects shown before the feature. They expected the theater to be pitch black, not normal living room lighting. They never expected that we would have a remote control so we could skip back and forth in the movie.
We're free to change these things to suit our own convenience and to please ourselves. We're the audience. We bought the movie. We can do whatever we want with it. We don't have any obligation to do anything but try to enjoy the film. That's a lot easier if you please yourself, not don a hair shirt to please someone who's been dead 25 years.
However in the case of Oklahoma, turning on the interlacing is *exactly* what the creators wanted. They shot the film with a higher frame rate than normal to make the movements smooth. I'm sure they wouldn't object at all to enhancing that effect a bit on playback. The same effect can be very useful for silent films with jittery frame rates. There's nothing wrong with the tool if it's used properly.
I figure the only thing that she film maker expects is that their film is seen by as many people as possible, preferably at a theatre. However, when it really comes down to it, having their film seen is their biggest expectation, regardless of screen size or frame rate.
SOE looks odd to me, so I try to eliminate it. If someone else likes the effect then more power to them. It is up to the individual to decide what looks best for them in their home environment. Me saying what your TV should look like is like me saying what kind of pictures are acceptable to hang on your walls,
I guess I've viewed Soap Opera Effect and Colorization in the same ballpark as Commentaries
Two are frowned upon, the other is embraced. In my mind, all violate the 'intent of the creator' (unless the intent was to actually entertain the audience - provide a pleasurable experience)
For me, having someone talk over and obscure the audio of a film is a more serious violation, that's only my opinion.
Of course, I haven't seen the clause from the HTF Mission Statement brought out in like a sledgehammer when commentaries are praised.
I almost returned my 4K display because the interpolation was still active when it was off. After trying every setting possible, I found out that "Standard" preserved the original frame rate while "off" still converted the signal to 240Hz. It was especially distracting on 3-D Blu-rays. Strange choice on Samsung's part.
The problem I have with interpolation is that you're letting a machine decide how to convert a 24Hz signal into 60/120/240Hz. At least with similarly unnecessary processes like remixing mono to 5.1 or flat to 3-D, there's someone making decisions.
I don't see commentaries or SOE as violating creator intent. Both of the former are under control of the user. SOE can be eliminated and commentaries can be turned off. Colorization cannot be turned off or eliminated because it is applied at the source's base level. Colourization is not a violation if the original black and white source is available alongside the colourized version. It is a violation if the colourized version is the only one made available for viewing.
No one is contesting your right to do whatever you want to to what you're watching. Turn the color off and watch Gone With The Wind in B&W if you want to, turn the brightness level up to eliminate all the shadowy cinematography in film noir, watch Dreyer's silent Passion Of Joan Of Arc using Barry Manilow albums as the soundtrack. Hell, I'm sure if there was a colorization button or 3D button on TVs, people would watch Sunset Boulevard in color and Vertigo in 3D! What I find amusing is your attempt to justify your choices when you don't need to justify it A simple "It's my TV and I'll do what I damn well please!" is sufficient. You cannot justify the deliberate alteration of an artist's intent. You should just be pleased that you're able to do it, you don't need to convince us. Unlike you, I've never had the opportunity to speak with Fred Zinnemann or Rodgers & Hammerstein so I'll take you at your word that turning on the "interlacing" on Oklahoma! is what they wanted.