openmic.social is an uncensored community. You may encounter strong language, controversial opinions, and mature or NSFW material. You must be 18+ to browse. Illegal content is prohibited and removed on sight — please report it. By continuing, you accept that you may see content you personally disagree with.
Oh don’t get me started on lensflares or motion blur. So many people think we need to keep them in order to know we’re watching a movie because “that’s how it’s always been”. I don’t get why limited technology of the past should be the standard. Should we go back to black and white only again? Why do we have sound? Never used to. You had an organist to tell you you’re in a movie.
I always think about old school star wars for space. There is not a single doubt in my mind they’re in space during those fighter battles, but I can see everything without getting blinded or having to strain.
Motion blur is necessary for movies. They don’t run at 60fps, they run at 24fps. They would feel stuttery if they didn’t have motion blur. That’s why even computer animated movies have fake motion blur added to them.
Except they could run at 60+ fps. I watched The Hobbit in High Frame Rate and it was glorious. It didn’t take off because too many people complained of it not looking like a movie. The exact same complaints they had when movies switched to HD. Only this time the complaints sunk it for the most part instead of studios taking the time to adjust to new production methods. We get like one HFR movie a year now.
Wasn’t the problem that you got more information in the same time so that the footage had to be sped up and that looked silly ?
It’s more because there was no blur covering everything so you definitely saw some of the tricks they used. Saw it was just costumes and stuff.
It wasn’t major or like in your face in my opinion but it was there, and people couldn’t accept a transition time as studios figured out how to make stuff look good at the higher frame rate. Better or different makeup or add more oomph to costumes or whatever.
If you go and look at old forum comments about movies like, I want to say The Prestige (2006), some of the first ones to hit Blu-ray, they said similar stuff. The higher pixel counts revealed when rocks were fake and sets and stuff.
The issue is the fake CGI motion blur. It’s overdone. It’s not at all natural the way real motion blur on a film camera is.
I blame the digital workflows where everything is shot in RAW at high shutter speed and then digitally motion blurred and colour graded all to crap. Watch old movies that were shot on film and they look a million times better than the brown haze we got with Dune.
I think they’re talking about overdone motion blur. You wouldn’t notice it if it wasn’t overdone.
No, I’m taking about higher frame rate which makes motion blur completely outdated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_frame_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_with_high_frame_rates
But then what happens to movies not done at the higher fps? You have to compensate somehow for the older films or the hardware that doesn’t accept it. I know AI does a really shitty job about compensating for higher fps movies brought down and lower brought up.
You don’t have to do anything. Those movies can still be played by high frame rate equipment but at their original frame rate and nothing stops those processes from working to make lower fps movies.
Avatar: Fire and Ash was actually a mixed frame rate movie, shot in 48fps but some scenes done in 24 fps. You can just hold frames for twice as long or half as long as needed.
Motion blur only started cropping up in action movies in the 90s to hide bad choreography and lens flare is just something a few directors started doing in the 2000s. Tons of well lit and colorful movies have existed since movies started to be filmed in color and there are plenty without either of those two things.
Anyone who thinks that is ‘how it has always been’ is extrapolating it from a few directors and their blockbuster movies.
confidently incorrect there, buddy