Why Movies Just Don't Feel "Real" Anymore
www.youtube.com
Start your free month of great cinema now at https://mubi.com/likestoriesofold Why don't movies feel "real" anymore? A deep dive into the first principles of...

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.

  • FishFace@piefed.socialEnglish
    3·
    11 days ago

    Because nobody experiences stuttering at 24 frames per second.

    Next time you watch a film, look out for times when the camera is panning. Most pans are either really quick, so it’s just a complete incomprehensible blur, or really slow. Why nothing in between? Because you can see the stuttering effect. If you spot a faster pan, you will absolutely see it.

    There is a rule of thumb in filmmaking that a pan should rotate the camera any faster than it takes to cover the width of the image in 7 seconds. This is because any faster than that, at 24 fps and with 180 degree shutter angle, stuttering (or juddering, or whatever you want to call it) because more apparent.

    Now, focus your eyes on your finger and move it back and forth at a fast speed (such that you can still follow it with your eyes). Do you notice any stuttering in the background behind your finger? Of course not. Eyes don’t work like that.

      • FishFace@piefed.socialEnglish
        2·
        11 days ago

        I get what you mean “seeing detail in motion”, I think: if you go to a completely blacked-out room and throw a ping-pong ball containing a small light, if fix your eyes on something else (some other point of light, say) then the ping-pong ball will be seen as a smoothly blurred trail.

        If you film it at 24fps with 180 degree shutter angle, you will get a blurred trail chopped into individual blurred streaks. About half of the trail your eyes see will be visible. If you keep a 180 degree shutter angle but film at 48fps, you will see shorter streaks, and they won’t look as blurry, but they’ll still occupy about half of the trail.

        But if you shoot at 48fps (or 24, or anything else) on a digital camera with 360 degree shutter angle the trail of the ping pong ball will be unbroken.

        This is often not practical at 24fps, because if something is still for 1/48th of a second and then move for 1/48th of a second, capturing with an open shutter at 24fps will show it as blurry for a full 1/24th of a second, rather than still for 1/48th and moving for 1/48th. The standard 180 degree shutter has been settled on alongside 24fps to produce a reasonable amount of motion blur; increasing it on its own doesn’t work. But a higher framerate with an open shutter is more akin to reality. It has not stuttering, and no detail in the motion that shouldn’t be there.