Why is the Soap Opera Effect Considered Such A Bad Thing? - Page 12 - AVS Forum
First ... 10  11  12
OLED Technology and Flat Panels General > Why is the Soap Opera Effect Considered Such A Bad Thing?
Auditor55's Avatar Auditor55 12:05 AM 05-13-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt L View Post

With the comments made I can see why you would not "get" Citizen Kane. Art is an expression, a concept, an feeling, not cold hard lines. Unfortunately there are too many like you out there who think that the fake interpolation is "fantastic" because it makes everything look so real.

Whatever. I'll enjoy the feelings and emotions art imparts, you can look at snapshots. I'm as happy in my world as you seem to be in yours.

I got Citizen Kane, its just so clearly dated and remote. I don't think I mentioned whether or not a I had preference for FI.

HogPilot's Avatar HogPilot 12:11 AM 05-13-2012
Auditor55, you've made some banal statements over the years, but this is definitely close to the top of the list. And no, I'm not going to tell you why you're wrong, just like I wouldn't waste my time telling you that the sky is not yellow or that the sun doesn't set in the east, no matter how much you want those to be true simply because you have a personal preference for watching it on your TV that way.
taichi4's Avatar taichi4 05:09 AM 05-13-2012
8mile13's Avatar 8mile13 05:33 AM 05-13-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebernazz; View Post

Did you even bother to google what are the fine arts?

I would do it for you but I have to go tell my nephew that his degree that says Master of Culinary Arts is wrong. Come to think of it I will also have to write a letter to the critic who reviewed his craft and wrote that he was a "master artist at his best" and tell him to print a retraction.

Here us a little help though. Many arts have their ideal place to showcase the creativity and expressionism of ART.

Architecture - Where is was built.
Culinary Arts - A 5 start restaurant.
Dancing / Performing Arts - a stage.
Film Art - A movie screen.
etc.
etc.
etc.
Painting - A wall (maybe that's the reason museums have those and not some of the others....)

You are talking about art in a broad sense. When you are talking about art in the narrow sense you are mainly talking about painting, drawings, scupture's and objects, stuff folks create who studied at the art academy.

I reallly do not believe that hollywood movies or arthouse movies are art, nonsense imo.
HogPilot's Avatar HogPilot 07:43 AM 05-13-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

You are talking about art in a broad sense. When you are talking about art in the narrow sense you are mainly talking about painting, drawings, scupture's and objects, stuff folks create who studied at the art academy.

Says who? At best there is a lot of debate as to where the line between art and entertainment is drawn within the film world - or even if there is a line between art and entertainment. The Wikipedia article from which you lifted several of your references (or just coincidentally mirrored) also lists film as art (not just as part of the broader "the arts").
8mile13's Avatar 8mile13 09:04 AM 05-13-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot; View Post

Says who? At best there is a lot of debate as to where the line between art and entertainment is drawn within the film world - or even if there is a line between art and entertainment. The Wikipedia article from which you lifted several of your references (or just coincidentally mirrored) also lists film as art (not just as part of the broader "the arts").

there where no references in my post.

To me some movie stuff is art-ish but i wouldn't consider movies to be art. So it is my personal opinion.
rare example of a art-ish movie imo 'What dreams may come' ->
http://www.google.nl/search?q=what+d...w=1178&bih=579


Being a european i can tell you that the cultural elite over here go's to the opera / listen to classical music, ballet and the art museum, they visit expositions and read books, go to a play in the theatre, not alot of movie goers/ tv fans among them. Movies, not for snobs!
HogPilot's Avatar HogPilot 09:29 AM 05-13-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

there where no references in my post.

I was saying that there were portions of your posts that were interestingly simliar to the Wikipedia article, but that there were still significant differences - including your striking of film from the list of accepted types of "art."

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

To me some movie stuff is art-ish but i wouldn't consider movies to be art. So it is my personal opinion.
rare example of a art-ish movie imo 'What dreams may come' ->
http://www.google.nl/search?q=what+d...w=1178&bih=579

Exactly what requirements must any work (I'm not talking about movies, I'm talking in the very general sense) meet in order for you to personally consider it "art"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

Being a european i can tell you that the cultural elite over here go's to the opera / listen to classical music, ballet and the art museum, they visit expositions and read books, go to a play in the theatre, not alot of movie goers/ tv fans among them. Movies, not for snobs!

I'm sure the "cultural elite" (I'm not sure what that is, really) love to look down their noses at the "common man" but they hardly hold a monopoly on the definition of "art." Whether or not certain groups want or consider film to be considered art, it is still commonly accepted as such.

And since you seem to have strong opinions on art, how about this gem:

Quote:


Art is supposed to imitate real life.

Thoughts/opinions?
Otto Pylot's Avatar Otto Pylot 10:03 AM 05-13-2012
Arguing about what is, or isn't art, is useless. There are no hard and steadfast rules that define art, and least not that I'm aware of. A lot of discussions on AVS eventually come down to personal preference and interpretation, "what is art" is one of them. To get back to the topic, I keep it simple. For television, and that includes movies shown on television, I sometimes use motion interpolation (SOE) because I like it. Period. However, if I'm watching a movie, new/old DVD or BD, I keep all enhancements off and just enjoy it as it is. I figure that is pretty much how the director wanted it distributed/shown and what ever his "artistic" intent was, his name is on the box so I'm not going to mess with the contents. Makes my life easier. I don't have to think about anything and can just enjoy the movie.
Phase700B's Avatar Phase700B 11:25 AM 05-13-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto Pylot View Post

Arguing about what is, or isn't art, is useless. There are no hard and steadfast rules that define art, and least not that I'm aware of.

A lot of discussions on AVS eventually come down to personal preference and interpretation, "what is art" is one of them.

To get back to the topic, I keep it simple. For television, and that includes movies shown on television, I sometimes use motion interpolation (SOE) because I like it. Period. However, if I'm watching a movie, new/old DVD or BD, I keep all enhancements off and just enjoy it as it is. I figure that is pretty much how the director wanted it distributed/shown and what ever his "artistic" intent was, his name is on the box so I'm not going to mess with the contents. Makes my life easier. I don't have to think about anything and can just enjoy the movie.


+1 Agree and good to see a sane return to the actual topic. This kind of thing sadly can go on and on with the Charley Sheen types of AVS who believe the more words and dialog thrown into a thread establishes "winning".
Auditor55's Avatar Auditor55 11:33 AM 05-13-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phase700B View Post

+1 Agree and good to see a sane return to the actual topic. This kind of thing sadly can go on and on with the Charley Sheen types of AVS who believe the more words and dialog thrown into a thread establishes "winning".

You have understand, some folks are making those arguments to justify their resistance to change and progress.
8mile13's Avatar 8mile13 01:51 PM 05-13-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot; View Post

I was saying that there were portions of your posts that were interestingly simliar to the Wikipedia article, but that there were still significant differences - including your striking of film from the list of accepted types of "art."

I haven't read the wikipedia article, didn't use it, just took a quick look.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot; View Post

Exactly what requirements must any work (I'm not talking about movies, I'm talking in the very general sense) meet in order for you to personally consider it "art"?

What art-skool students/ those who studied on the art-skool/ art-skool autodidacts come up with i consider to be art, that is the association i make when i think of art.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot; View Post

I'm sure the "cultural elite" (I'm not sure what that is, really) love to look down their noses at the "common man" but they hardly hold a monopoly on the definition of "art." Whether or not certain groups want or consider film to be considered art, it is still commonly accepted as such.

It really is the cultural elite who determins whats art and whats not - It go's even further than that. I'm dutch. In Holland there is a group of people who determines wether or not a painting is a Rembrandt. A Rembrandt painting becomes worthless the moment they deside that it is not a Rembrandt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rembrandt_Research_Project -

In general one could say that in all fields of expertise there is a small group of people with great influence, those groups of people in the fields of opera, poetry, painting etc..and their like-minded/followers is the cultural elite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot; View Post

And since you seem to have strong opinions on art, how about this gem:
Quote:
Art is suppost to imitate real life

Thoughts/opinions?

When you see a angry face in a painting you easily could say that the painter saw a angry face in the real world and is imitating this real world angry face in his painting. This is simplistic imo, at best one could say that its kind of a imitation of real life. Its more like a slight alteration, deformation of whats real. Imitation is all about exact reproduction, thats not what art is about.
HogPilot's Avatar HogPilot 01:56 PM 05-13-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto Pylot View Post

To get back to the topic, I keep it simple.

I'm glad to see your concern for posting on topic has returned! I completely support your effort to remove yourself from the peanut gallery, which it appears has flared up again as they have (once again) nothing meaningful or OT to say.
HogPilot's Avatar HogPilot 02:15 PM 05-13-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

I haven't read the wikipedia article, didn't use it, just took a quick look.

That much is apparent, which is why I pointed the loose connection out. It appears your "quick look" missed a couple key points that conveniently don't support your position...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

What art-skool students/ those who studied on the art-skool/ art-skool autodidacts come up with i consider to be art, that is the association i make when i think of art.

Defnite art-skool[sic]. There are a lot of schools out there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

It really is the cultural elite who determins whats art and whats not - It go's even further than that. I'm dutch. In Holland there is a group of people who determines wether or not a painting is a Rembrandt. A Rembrandt painting becomes worthless the moment they deside that it is not a Rembrandt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rembrandt_Research_Project -

I didn't ask how one determines whether a work is authentic, I asked how one determines whether it is art - the two subjects are at best mildly interconnected. Exactly what gives this "European cultural elite" the authority to determine what is and isn't art on your continent? I guess we will get to that point in a second...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

In general one could say that in all fields of expertise there is a small group of people with great influence, those groups of people in the fields of opera, poetry, painting etc..and their like-minded/followers is the cultural elite.

I find your "like-minded/followers" definition to be at a basic conflict with the creative nature of art, which is about anything but conformity. And why exactly is a someone whose expertise is opera any more qualified to speak on the artistry of film than is a director to speak on the artistry of opera?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

Imitation is all about exact reproduction, thats not what art is about.

I think most people (save a couple with odd agendas) would agree with this assessment within the context of art specifically being required to reproduce reality. Faithfully reproducing or presenting a piece of art (for those that can be, such as symphonies, opera, and film and music) is of the utmost importance if we want to glean what the creator was trying to communicate/think/feel.
8mile13's Avatar 8mile13 05:00 PM 05-13-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot; View Post

Defnite art-skool[sic]. There are a lot of schools out there.

In Holland it is called art academy - fine arts
http://www.kabk.nl/pageEN.php?id=0003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hogpilot; View Post

I didn't ask how one determines whether a work is authentic, I asked how one determines whether it is art - the two subjects are at best mildly interconnected. Exactly what gives this "European cultural elite" the authority to determine what is and isn't art on your continent? I guess we will get to that point in a second...

Kids go to school, learn a bit about art. When they become more interested they go to Art Academy or study art history. In those studies kids will be told what is art and why that is art. The way i see it international art school dogma's , heavily influenced by a small group past/present authoritative art experts (who are part of the cultural elite) , dictate whats art and why that is art.

There is not just the cultural elite there is also the upper class - people with a lot of influence , politicians and rich people - part of them use (abuse), support, wanne be part of high culture, as it is called, because it will give them status.

High Culture, wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_culture
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hogpilot; View Post

And why exactly is a someone whose expertise is opera any more qualified to speak on the artistry of film than is a director to speak on the artistry of opera?

Let's just say that a opera expert is taken more serious than a movie expert because opera is high culture and cinema (in general) is considered to be low culture, which will give him more weight on any subject, basicly.
specuvestor's Avatar specuvestor 06:47 PM 05-13-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

Do you make mock. Apparently some of you folks have a hard time understanding that concept.

In all areas of art, the goal is always to imitate life. For movies, its audio, video, scripting writing, storyline, directing, acting, etc. all must be true to life or you won't believe it. Advances in technology helps an artist create a more realistic picture. In the past, artist did not access to what artist have today, they did the best with what they had.

When I look at a movie like Citizen Kane, which I only watched one time because it was brutal to sit through. I can look at that and see how much acting and directing has improved in todays time. Movie directors don't instruct actors to act that way anymore. Those folks in those times overacted and the acting for the most part was melodramatic.

As usual, once a while Auditor55 will spew something that destroys his credibility

Art is NEVER to reproduce reality. If that is the purpose artists should just take photos rather than draw. And they should forget about the lens filters.

We can probably argue 48fps is to be closer to reality but MCFI is just a tech to address specific technological issues as much as upscaling is a tech. Nothing more nothing less.

If you have a hard time understanding the difference in concept, maybe should talk to more artists in their respective fields. You can start simply with Blu Ray supplements where directors talk a lot about their intent. The aim of videophile displays is to reproduce the intent of the native content faithfully. If it is BBC documentary then it should look real life. If it is cinema it should be somewhat surreal, even for real life events... that's why cinematographers, editors, etc have a job
HogPilot's Avatar HogPilot 11:43 PM 05-13-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

In Holland it is called art academy - fine arts
http://www.kabk.nl/pageEN.php?id=0003

Kids go to school, learn a bit about art. When they become more interested they go to Art Academy or study art history. In those studies kids will be told what is art and why that is art. The way i see it international art school dogma's , heavily influenced by a small group past/present authoritative art experts (who are part of the cultural elite) , dictate whats art and why that is art.

There is not just the cultural elite there is also the upper class - people with a lot of influence , politicians and rich people - part of them use (abuse), support, wanne be part of high culture, as it is called, because it will give them status.

High Culture, wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_culture

Let's just say that a opera expert is taken more serious than a movie expert because opera is high culture and cinema (in general) is considered to be low culture, which will give him more weight on any subject, basicly.

Far be it for me to disregard an anachronistic caste-type system, but all I can say is that I'm glad that there is no strict analog to the European cultural elite in the US. I wholeheartedly agree that it is a highly closed and dogmatic system - as such I'm comfortable dismissing their paradigms regarding art.
Auditor55's Avatar Auditor55 09:54 AM 05-14-2012
Quote:


Art is NEVER to reproduce reality. If that is the purpose artists should just take photos rather than draw.

I did not say art was to reproduce reality, that's an impossibility. I said art is supposed to imitate real life. That is the goal of the artist and that is what we expect from artist or we wouldn't have art critics.

For example, If you go to a play or watch a movie, on a sad scene, such as a tragic incident or a lost of a love one, if the actors are incapable of bringing out the dramatics of how a person would respond in real life to such a situation (i.e tears or sadness) we would deem that actor to have done a poor job of acting. The reason being is because, in our own minds, consciously or subconciously, we are judging the acting based upon how we would act in real life.

This also why you see 3D, the movie producers are trying make the movie expirence as close to real life as possible.
Gary McCoy's Avatar Gary McCoy 11:16 AM 05-14-2012
99% of the movies released are not Art. They are business ventures with moviemakers, studios, and investors trying to make a buck.

My guess is that 95% of the time, nobody is even trying to be an artist. Then of those that are trying, 4 out of 5 times they miss the mark. Thus the 99% figure.

If anybody doubts that, I'd like to see a list of what you consider Art movies. To keep this manageable, let us confine the discussion to the recent past, and discuss just movies released in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. Older than that or 2012 just does not count (straight calendar years). Yeah, I know art is entirely subjective, and when we have 10 or more responses, I will count art vs. make-a-buck. Only one rule: Art must be original, so no direct remakes. I'll start:

2007: No Country For Old Men (I bought it), There Will Be Blood (boring)
2008: The Dark Knight (just OK), Gran Torino (I bought it), WALL-E (boring)
2009: Up (I liked it), Avatar (I bought it)
2010: Inception (I bought it), Black Swan (I liked it), The King's Speech (I liked it)
2011: Hugo (boring), The Artist (mixed feelings)
hughh's Avatar hughh 12:06 PM 05-14-2012
Mozart's Die Zauberflote was performed in Dallas at the same time it was shown in the largest HiDef screen in the world to around 15,000 movie goers at the Dallas Cowboys home in Arlington, a couple of weeks ago. The Dallas opera goers were all dressed-up and saw the live performance, as usual. The Arlington crowd saw the live performance on the TV screen, ate popcorn, hot dogs, etc. and dressed comfortably. Which would be considered art and which would be considered entertainment?

I recall reading many times way back, that Jerry Lewis movies were considered art by the French. To me, plain, great entertainment.

If movie makers are not interested in making movies look like real life, why do they shoot on location?

How can any of you be certain that you are watching a particular movie "the way the director intended"?

Just wondering...
Otto Pylot's Avatar Otto Pylot 12:53 PM 05-14-2012
The Mona Lisa is considered art, so is Andy Warhol's silk screen of a can of Campbell's Tomato soup.

The discussion of what is art obviously means different things to different people and/or cultures. The Soap Opera Effect (remember, the focus of this thread?) is an artificial enhancement that some like and some don't. Their reasons, either way, are personal and my guess is that most don't think much further than they either like it or they don't. The very definition of video art (movies) is going to change as we develop better and better ways to manipulate the image to our liking. That's why I'm a chemist, and not an art (video) critic. I just like movies and the way they make me feel/think. Who cares what the Director's intent was or his "art" image. If I walk out of that theater feeling good or moved, I'm happy, and his job was done, regardless of how "artsy" it was.
HogPilot's Avatar HogPilot 01:40 PM 05-14-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by hughh View Post

Mozart's Die Zauberflote was performed in Dallas at the same time it was shown in the largest HiDef screen in the world to around 15,000 movie goers at the Dallas Cowboys home in Arlington, a couple of weeks ago. The Dallas opera goers were all dressed-up and saw the live performance, as usual. The Arlington crowd saw the live performance on the TV screen, ate popcorn, hot dogs, etc. and dressed comfortably. Which would be considered art and which would be considered entertainment?

A question I asked (rhetorically) and to which I have yet to receive a rational answer. Thus far any attempt at a simple black-and-white type answer has resulted in purely subjective and illogical lines being drawn in the sand in a futile effort. Your repeat of the question has been the best answer that I've seen

Quote:
Originally Posted by hughh View Post

Not much more to say about them. If movie makers are not interested in making movies look like real life, why do they shoot on location?

There are a myriad of reasons that directors would want to shoot on location. An important distinction here that people are missing is that no one has said that movies can't have elements of realism in them; however that is quite different than saying that all movies must reflect reality. Anyone could quite easily argue that a VanGogh or Michelangelo has a much greater connection to reality than does say the Star Wars movies or Moon...yet the former are considered art while the latter are not because why? The only reason I see for such a categorization is out of convenience in order to ignore certain basic tenants of reproducing a film (i.e. doing it accurately) in order to convey the director's intent. Or out of some misplaced sense of elitist snobbery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hughh View Post

How can any of you be certain that you are watching a particular movie "the way the director intended"?

The short answer would be that you'll get the closest on a calibrated display. But that's what is being argued here...people are trying to "prove" that movies aren't art. Once movies are no longer art, these people are insinuating the creator's intent is no longer important, and they (the end users) can justify any processing or alterations that result in all of this "more real" drivel that keeps getting thrown around. Of course then there are others that are claiming that all art needs to mirror reality, so again they can impose their personal likes and dislikes for certain "looks" (i.e. end-user, real-time processing) as being "correct." The idea that most directors aren't heavily involved with the creation of their film on a myriad of levels - and that they'd actually want others to see the end result as they intended for it to be seen - is almost laughable. As I said before, this whole discussion is akin to trying to convince someone that the sky isn't yellow - the idea is absurd and not rooted in any fact to begin with, so how would one reason that person out of a position into which they did not reason themselves in the first place?
8mile13's Avatar 8mile13 01:42 PM 05-14-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy; View Post

99% of the movies released are not Art. They are business ventures with moviemakers, studios, and investors trying to make a buck.

My guess is that 95% of the time, nobody is even trying to be an artist. Then of those that are trying, 4 out of 5 times they miss the mark. Thus the 99% figure.

If anybody doubts that, I'd like to see a list of what you consider Art movies. To keep this manageable, let us confine the discussion to the recent past, and discuss just movies released in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. Older than that or 2012 just does not count (straight calendar years). Yeah, I know art is entirely subjective, and when we have 10 or more responses, I will count art vs. make-a-buck. Only one rule: Art must be original, so no direct remakes. I'll start:

2007: No Country For Old Men (I bought it), There Will Be Blood (boring)
2008: The Dark Knight (just OK), Gran Torino (I bought it), WALL-E (boring)
2009: Up (I liked it), Avatar (I bought it)
2010: Inception (I bought it), Black Swan (I liked it), The King's Speech (I liked it)
2011: Hugo (boring), The Artist (mixed feelings)

Writing a song, making an album, making a movie, its all about creating something . To me the level of creative achievement is more important than wether or not something is art.

To me personally the Battlestar Galactica series 2004 -2009 <- remake, not a movie ) is among the best in the period 2000 -2010 in terms of creative achievement.
hughh's Avatar hughh 02:02 PM 05-14-2012
Thanks HogPilot. Good answers to my questions. Who is to say that the old movies by Abbot & Costello were not art? Then we take a look at a movie like Tora, Tora, Tora with the nit picking attention to realism and detail and say that it was too real to be art.

As far as I am concern, I am with Otto in that if a movie entertained me, the director succeeded. If not, well...good try!

As far as "artificial enhancements" (SOE), like Otto mentioned, some like it and some don't. Just like art, some are higher thought of than others. I favor Italian Opera over German Opera. To me, Italian Opera is generally speaking the pinnacle of these musical genres. I understand why opera is never performed using electronics enhancements. However, I also understand why, the same type of music can be performed in concert using the electronic enhancements and feel that "it has not lost anything in the translation".

Same thing with movies, I can enjoy a particular movie that IMO demands realism, such as Tora (x-3) with a low level of SOE or watch an old movie such as Casa Blanca and enjoy it better without the enhancements!

In other words, like Otto observed, it's a personal thing and I am ok with all...I'm just glad it can be controlled by me!
specuvestor's Avatar specuvestor 02:29 PM 05-14-2012
@Gary and Auditor you guys should visit the AVS blu ray forum more frequently. Like I said you can start with watching the blu ray supplements which has interviews with well known directors, creative/ art directors, sound engineers etc and see how they view their work as art, and also their passion. They can explain it much better than I can.

Imitation to real life is primarily to have a basis of connection to the viewer. When the viewer don't connect, the art is lost. And there is no denial as well that many movies nowadays are focused on tech and CGI rather than artistic expression per se. But rotten tomatoes does not mean they weren't grown from tomatoes.

But MCFI has nothing to do with all this. Ketchup are tomatoes, but I wouldn't say they resemble the original native. But you are certainly free to enjoy ketchup.
HogPilot's Avatar HogPilot 10:41 PM 05-14-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by hughh View Post

Thanks HogPilot. Good answers to my questions. Who is to say that the old movies by Abbot & Costello were not art? Then we take a look at a movie like Tora, Tora, Tora with the nit picking attention to realism and detail and say that it was too real to be art.

If realism is a disqualifier for being considered art, why are a myriad of paintings, sculptures, etc. from the Renaissance period considered art? That period was marked by a return to science and reason - that mindset is clearly reflected in the realistic, detailed art of the time, yet we consider it art. Is it just because it's old? Once Tora, Tora, Tora becomes a certain age, will you consider it art too?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hughh View Post

As far as I am concern, I am with Otto in that if a movie entertained me, the director succeeded. If not, well...good try!

As others have pointed out, entertainment can be found in many forms - I've been entertained by going to operas, symphonies, plays, and movies alike - and I don't pretend some imaginary line exists between any of them. Sure, I have my personal opinions upon the quality of each of them, but they are still all art nonetheless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hughh View Post

As far as "artificial enhancements" (SOE), like Otto mentioned, some like it and some don't. Just like art, some are higher thought of than others. I favor Italian Opera over German Opera. To me, Italian Opera is generally speaking the pinnacle of these musical genres. I understand why opera is never performed using electronics enhancements. However, I also understand why, the same type of music can be performed in concert using the electronic enhancements and feel that "it has not lost anything in the translation".

Same thing with movies, I can enjoy a particular movie that IMO demands realism, such as Tora (x-3) with a low level of SOE or watch an old movie such as Casa Blanca and enjoy it better without the enhancements!

In other words, like Otto observed, it's a personal thing and I am ok with all...I'm just glad it can be controlled by me!

It appears you've missed a great deal of this thread. Never once have I advocated that end users HAVE to do anything with their displays; it is their display and they must be pleased while watching it. That being said, what I have advocated against are a small number of people who claim that using SOE is the proper way to watch movies or TV because it adds a sense of "realism" (their words, not mine) to the material, and that all material should look like real life (again, their words, not mine). I've listed quite a number of reasons why using SOE is anything but correct in a general sense; however on a personal preference level, I could care less what people do with their displays. This is a distinction that seems to be lost on some, which has resulted in numerous repetitive strawman arguments being propped up within this thread and others.
hughh's Avatar hughh 11:07 PM 05-14-2012
It appears you've missed a great deal of this thread. Never once have I advocated that end users HAVE to do anything with their displays; it is their display and they must be pleased while watching it. That being said, what I have advocated against are a small number of people who claim that using SOE is the proper way to watch movies or TV because it adds a sense of "realism" (their words, not mine) to the material, and that all material should look like real life (again, their words, not mine). I've listed quite a number of reasons why using SOE is anything but correct in a general sense; however on a personal preference level, I could care less what people do with their displays. This is a distinction that seems to be lost on some, which has resulted in numerous repetitive strawman arguments being propped up within this thread and others.

I was not referring to you. Just making my feelings known to the choir.
HogPilot's Avatar HogPilot 06:34 AM 05-15-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by hughh View Post

I was not referring to you. Just making my feelings known to the choir.

My apologies - in that case, I agree with your sentiments regarding how people view their displays in their own homes.
First ... 10  11  12

Up
Mobile  Desktop