Originally Posted by BigBlue83
I’m sure the filmmakers intent isn't a blurry mess that looks like it was shot using a potato. These high end TVs look like crap with everything turned off. You want a basic picture, buy a basic TV.
Film in a movie theatre, compared to what we are used to seeing on tv is quite different. Television shows are bright, crisp, and full of awesome color. I like this for shows, sports, and nature videos where I want to "be there" with them, up close and real.
The traditional look of film for the last 100 years, even going toward the present, is far from "real". The flat look of film has nothing to do with a 3D pop/depth look. The motion is blurry-something inherent in 24fps - a standard we have had for around 100 years. This was firmly established in 1927 and has been with us ever since, along with the resulting flat look and motion blur.
So yes, you are quite correct. This look people are after here, when compared to other formats is, whether they want to admit it or not, is quite flat, dull, and not very sharp looking. Attend a movie in an actual theater today and no matter the resolution of the film, it WILL look 720p tops. This is for the simple fact that the film has to travel from a tiny square in the back of the theatre and then project its size many times over all the way across the room.
The dichotomy here is that this look of film, when compared to reality, is FAR from accurate. But for those who like this traditional look, there exist "standards" and "rules" for a lack of better words, to achieve this traditonal look.
Film traditionalists want to view the outside real world through the lens of a movie theatre. Setting your sharpness at zero and keeping your brightness down etc is both a representative and quantitative "extension" of this goal.
Others see this attempt and goal as a very antiquated and "contrived", resulting from set of standards from the 1930s that were established and governed not by a "standard preference" or some "accurate settings rules" but rather by the limitations of the tech back then as well as budget concerns. The odd result is attempting to "preserve" something that is not representative of real like and then call it "accurate". This is a source of the confusion. If you are comparing this to real life, it isn't accurate. If you are comparing this to the look of film, it is to be judged by a set of standards resulting from decades of film.
What has happened is that "look" has taken hold in our culture and has been sought after ever since.
When tvs were invented, movie companies in an effort to bring people back to the theater came out with widescreen movies such as CinemaScope - a breath taking aspect ratio that one could not get on their tvs at home. Superior theater sound advancements followed.
For years, people have wanted and sought to be able to "experience" this movie theater look, sights, size, and sound at home. Up to now, the theater was the only place where one could experience this. The younger generation today, those that grew up being content with BlockBuster, HBO at home, and streaming, don't realize that both experiencing and replicating a movie theater experience was and is highly prized.
What has taken place today is that modern tvs can accomplish TWO very different things. They have the ability to bring that "cinematic" experience to the home and they also have the ability to bring the outdoor world to your home with blazing brightness, HDR, sharpness, etc. There is even a movement to ditch 24fps and go with 44fps like the directors Peter Jackson and James Cameron have done. The result is an unbelievable level of smoothness and clarity.
Purists hate the presence of 44fps and I personally question the merits of HDR. HDR is not a "look" that has been a part of the film world going back for decades and decades. Not having Gone with the Wind or 2001 in HDR is just fine by me. HDR has been included with 4K movies in part for the simple fact that, while 4K on paper is twice as clear as 2k, the eye cannot really resolve those differences. So the inclusion of HDR "sweetens" the purchase. But HDR does
make a movie more "life-like" and representative of real life.
I personally applaud your preference and take on this as well as all those who seek to have a "traditional" film look.
People often talk about the "directors intent". Enthusiasts just want to "see" the movie from the frame of mind that the director envisioned when he made his movie, knowing in advance how it would look in a movie theatre.
For purists, it would be like taking a Picasso painting and then "dolling it up" by adding color and sharp lines to it.
For purists, film, its look, and a directors intent is a "work of art" that must be both "preserved" and "replicated" as closely as possible. The look of film IS evolving. But purists don't want to move beyond
each director's intent.
But if one doesn't understand the actual "history" of all of this, it can appear quite strange that people would set their tv with less brightness, less color, less sharpness, 24p on, and somehow call it "accurate".
But make no mistake here. Traditionalist enthusiasts aren't content to see a 1927 "penny arcade" presentation. The new tvs, with their robust tech provide a welcome addition of massive size, sound, contrast, black levels, etc, that are in no way antithetical to what purists are after. So these new tvs have something to offer for everyone
We are in the middle of a big transition with the advent of these high tech tvs. There is a growing movement of people who aren't interested in the "art" and "historical preservation" of all of this for the simple reason that, for the first time, these tvs have the ABILITY to recreate REAL life with all its colors, brightness, pop, and 3D look. 60fps anyone?
The confusion and dichotomy rests in what each side is "measuring". And no I'm not speaking of zero on a sharpness slider. Rather I'm taking about a "macro-measurement"- (cinema or real life), two very different types of experiences.
Depending on which side of the coin you are, will determine the "micro-measurements" that you will use and speak to on this forum.
The "correct" answer to all of this lay in the question, "What are you measuring?"