Forum - View topic

Answerman - Is It Worth Seeing 35mm Prints of Ghibli Movies?

(And yes, there probably is something wrong with you; I've never ever heard of somebody getting sick from 24 FPS)

Odd, I was wondering why you misunderstood me but it's my own fault! I wrote "practically made me feel nauseated" but I didn't mean that I actually felt nauseated or about to pass out. I should have written "practically made me feel [or rather: think] [as if I was] nauseated." Think of it like how on a train you can shortly be under the impression that you're moving in the opposite direction than you actually are, except the entirety of film is a sensory illusion of sorts so that analogy breaks down a bit too quickly.

Some moving shots are so blurry that I think there must be something wrong with me, but a quick look away from the screen suffices to assure that it's the projection and/or the film itself that's wrong.

It doesn't actually make me feel sick, but one time when I passed out from pain my vision took on a quality similar to that before fading white. It wasn't very different either when going under narcosis in the hospital. I suppose if you never experienced losing your consciousness you wouldn't know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, I think that before Jurassic Park I'd only seen a few cartoons in theater (Little Mermaid, Beauty & the Beast) and what I probably failed to convey is that Jurassic Park is the first time I remember seeing this. It hasn't bothered me intellectually since because it's just how it is, but I've always thought of a lot of motion blur as a displeasing bug, not a feature. It's possible that it's more of an issue with the physical properties of film and exposure time than with framerate though.

Being one of the elders here, I recall my earliest animated film in theaters probably being Bambi or Snow White in the early 80's. Seeing things too sharp and fluid just doesn't work for me as it's probably the opposite of what you feel (nauseating in this case).

I suppose I don't really noticed that visual problem at all, but I've been near-sighted for most of my life so none of that was an issue for me. I suppose I'm not susceptible to that sort of thing you notice. I know some people find it difficult being near a Cathode-Ray tube due to the sort of sounds it emits that isn't audible for most.

Yeah, you can see it reflected today in video games too: They intentionally put in motion blur now because, without it, it can be disorienting and can make the movement appear choppier than it actually is. (You encounter this the most in racing games.)

I've definitely liked the motion blur effect in some games (like Need for Speed: Most Wanted and Burnout for the original Xbox) but as a rule of thumb I prefer to disable those blur and bloom effects due to overuse. Not to mention that you need a stronger GPU, thus enabling them can lead to actual noticeable choppiness. (There's no difference when your GPU is strong enough for it not to really matter.) In the current decade that's been less of an issue, but I've never seen it as anything other than an aesthetic choice.

Btw, people write papers about this sort of thing. These researchers found no difference either. I vaguely wonder if there are any who did.
https://people.csail.mit.edu/lavanya/PDF/sharanetal13_MIG.pdf

Incidentally, gamers think that my preference for UHD is a "serious concession" because there's no such thing as 120 Hz or 144 Hz UHD displays. They swear by 144 Hz@1440p and I can't blame 'em since fast-motion games look better that way. But while I do occasionally play a game on it, my monitor's not for gaming, I'm more into adventure games anyway, and sharper text is worth much, much more than frame rate.

(Another thing some gamers can get upset about wrt UHD is playing at a lower resolution, like 1080p, to attain playable frame rates… maybe it's some kind of generation gap.)