combatentropy
Veteran
At my new gym are TVs hanging from the ceiling. I started to watch one, which was showing a movie trailer, which by the looks of it was shot on the Viper or something. Then on came a TV show that normally is shot on film but looked like they had switched to video. By the time the channel started showing Twister, I realized that it was the TV.
120 Hz to me is an anti-feature. It turns expensive 35mm film into video footage.
Twister looked exactly like those low-budget BBC movies, or a soap opera, where the lighting is professional but it still looks totally fake.
A while back, in debating video vs. film, I remember these supposed experts trying to tell us that the film look is mainly achieved by lighting. Not so, because Twister had Hollywood lighting. All it took was a high-enough frame rate (and maybe some bad color settings) and you're back to looking like you were shot on a news camera.
120 Hz to me is an anti-feature. It turns expensive 35mm film into video footage.
Twister looked exactly like those low-budget BBC movies, or a soap opera, where the lighting is professional but it still looks totally fake.
A while back, in debating video vs. film, I remember these supposed experts trying to tell us that the film look is mainly achieved by lighting. Not so, because Twister had Hollywood lighting. All it took was a high-enough frame rate (and maybe some bad color settings) and you're back to looking like you were shot on a news camera.
