Gemini Man 4K UHD 60fps (2019)

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by pbz06

I don't want anything, it just looks fake and breaks the immersion even though it's going for the opposite.

No, it achieves looking less fake because it is less fake. You don't like the look of it because you're used to and prefer a look that is more fake.

[DJR662]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

No, it achieves looking less fake because it is less fake. You don't like the look of it because you're used to and prefer a look that is more fake.

Which IMO is exactly the problem at hand: movies do not need to look this realistic, it completely destroys the illusion of watching a movie in the first place.

Personally, why anyone would want their movies to look more like what we're actually seeing in real life, and less than that "fake" movie magic is completely beyond me. But that's just me...

I think this is great for sports, documentaries and maybe even found footage movies, who knows? I'd be willing to give that a try.

[XavierTheaterPotato]

Originally Posted by solarrdadd

when looking at something from any HDMI input, press the OK button on your remote and it will tell you what the video source is being sent to the tv. keep in mind, this cannot be done when streaming apps that originate from the tv itself.

i have a 6 series 65" and my blu-ray player was sending 4K/60hz/DV as the tv said the input was. can't speak to what the xbox is sending. just hit that OK button and you will know

Just did as you suggested and it does say 4k/60hz/HDR10. Thanks for the Tip!

[pbz06]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

No, it achieves looking less fake because it is less fake. You don't like the look of it because you're used to and prefer a look that is more fake.

Yes, I understand the philosophy whatever you're trying to say. I don't care, it looks terrible and fake (to me) and it's baffling to me that people like it or prefer it

Just leave it at that.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by pbz06

Just leave it at that.

You can call it semantics, but I think the language (and thought process) is important here. This format is higher fidelity to the way the eye actually sees. Dislike it all you want, but the reason is that you're used to "fake", not because this (which is less fake) is "fake".

People made similar statements when color was introduced on a large scale- some preferred the 'remove' that monochrome enforced, keeping the film at arm's length from "reality". Similarly, color did not make movies "fake"; it made them less fake.

[Schwartzy]

In my opinion 60 or 120fps doesnt look anything Like real life... Wondering what fps real life runs at

[Richard Graham]

State of the art high tech involved, and the filmmakers still used the ol

[Show spoiler]you might be wearing a wire

to get

[Show spoiler]MEW in her underwear.

[Tenny80]

Originally Posted by pbz06

I don't want anything, it just looks fake and breaks the immersion even though it's going for the opposite.

What display did you watch it on?

[pbz06]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

You can call it semantics, but I think the language (and thought process) is important here. This format is higher fidelity to the way the eye actually sees. Dislike it all you want, but the reason is that you're used to "fake", not because this (which is less fake) is "fake".

People made similar statements when color was introduced on a large scale- some preferred the 'remove' that monochrome enforced, keeping the film at arm's length from "reality". Similarly, color did not make movies "fake"; it made them less fake.

That's a reach. Like I said, it looks terrible no matter what we call it. Fake, less fake, more real...whatever. I'm sure if I eat enough cauliflower, I'll come around to the taste and texture not being nasty. But until then, it's just nasty and I hope it doesn't become a staple in my diet.

[pbz06]

Originally Posted by Tenny80

What display did you watch it on?

77" Sony A9G

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by pbz06

That's a reach. Like I said, it looks terrible no matter what we call it. Fake, less fake, more real...whatever.

It's not a reach; it's a fact. And that's what I'm trying to do here: separate fact from your opinion.

It is correct that your opinion is that HFR does not look as good as 24fps.

It is not correct that HFR is more "fake".

[LoSouL]

There's two 4K 60 movies on UHD. Why so shook?

[DJR662]

Originally Posted by LoSouL

There's two 4K 60 movies on UHD. Why so shook?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoYZ...ature=youtu.be

[LoSouL]

Originally Posted by DJR662

[Show spoiler]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoYZ...ature=youtu.be

All day

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-QS4CTtltg

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

It's not a reach; it's a fact. And that's what I'm trying to do here: separate fact from your opinion.

It is correct that your opinion is that HFR does not look as good as 24fps.

It is not correct that HFR is more "fake".

This is B.S., no offense. It definitely was more fake for me, and I'll tell ya why: movies are fake. They are people moving in choreographed ways, fight scenes acted out by people who can't fight, car chases done at 20mph, CGI tweaks and stunt replacements, etc. 60fps, for me, made this all much more obvious. 24fps is part of the magic of movie-making like editing is, it creates a disconnect that makes the very fake things happening feel more real and believable.

Two best examples in the first half are: 1) Mary Elizabeth Winstead fighting a big burly dude in a small space. In 60fps it looks much more like the heavily choreographed dance routine it is, the added motion clarity doing the deception no favors. And 2) the bike chase/fight scene. In 60fps it is much more obvious the bikes are moving slower, the man driving the bike is usually not Will Smith, and CGI has been used to connect different cuts and stunts together.

Even if you disagree with that though, it IS opinion. No more of this "herp derp it's objectively more real" nonsense please.

[pbz06]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

This is B.S., no offense. It definitely was more fake for me, and I'll tell ya why: movies are fake. They are people moving in choreographed ways, fight scenes acted out by people who can't fight, car chases done at 20mph, CGI tweaks and stunt replacements, etc. 60fps, for me, made this all much more obvious. 24fps is part of the magic of movie-making like editing is, it creates a disconnect that makes the very fake things happening feel more real and believable.

Two best examples in the first half are: 1) Mary Elizabeth Winstead fighting a big burly dude in a small space. In 60fps it looks much more like the heavily choreographed dance routine it is, the added motion clarity doing the deception no favors. And 2) the bike chase/fight scene. In 60fps it is much more obvious the bikes are moving slower, the man driving the bike is usually not Will Smith, and CGI has been used to connect different cuts and stunts together.

Even if you disagree with that though, it IS opinion. No more of this "herp derp it's objectively more real" nonsense please.

He wants to be right instead of getting it right.

[eddievanhalen]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

No, it does not look fake; you want it to look fake, but it looks less fake.

I 100% agree.

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

This is B.S., no offense. It definitely was more fake for me, and I'll tell ya why: movies are fake. They are people moving in choreographed ways, fight scenes acted out by people who can't fight, car chases done at 20mph, CGI tweaks and stunt replacements, etc. 60fps, for me, made this all much more obvious. 24fps is part of the magic of movie-making like editing is, it creates a disconnect that makes the very fake things happening feel more real and believable.

Two best examples in the first half are: 1) Mary Elizabeth Winstead fighting a big burly dude in a small space. In 60fps it looks much more like the heavily choreographed dance routine it is, the added motion clarity doing the deception no favors. And 2) the bike chase/fight scene. In 60fps it is much more obvious the bikes are moving slower, the man driving the bike is usually not Will Smith, and CGI has been used to connect different cuts and stunts together.

Even if you disagree with that though, it IS opinion. No more of this "herp derp it's objectively more real" nonsense please.

Isn't this basically what Rossi already said? That 60fps looks more real than 24fps, therefore you may find it harder to buy into the disconnect and illusion - the "fake"ness - of the movie? Kinda seems like an issue of semantics, almost.

[Tenny80]

Originally Posted by pbz06

77" Sony A9G

Nice TV! I had thought maybe it was because people viewed it on cheap sets that it didn't look good.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

Isn't this basically what Rossi already said? That 60fps looks more real than 24fps, therefore you may find it harder to buy into the disconnect and illusion - the "fake"ness - of the movie? Kinda seems like an issue of semantics, almost.

Nah dog, he's specifically saying it's not semantics...

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

You can call it semantics, but I think the language (and thought process) is important here. This format is higher fidelity to the way the eye actually sees. Dislike it all you want, but the reason is that you're used to "fake", not because this (which is less fake) is "fake".

He thinks it's objectively not more "fake." He also implies it's all about what you're "used to." These are silly arguments. I literally just upgraded my PC and monitor for high framerate gaming and LOVE IT. It's totally transformational, and I dig every aspect of it. I went into Gemini Man hoping for a similar experience, and instead it was a completely different thing... much worse looking, much more fake.

You guys can disagree with that all day long, and I respect it, but don't trying telling me I'm objectively wrong for using the term fake, and don't tell me it's because I'm scared of change. Don't be the guys who think disagreement is solely about ignorance.