Comment by eviks
16 hours ago
> It's very possible that a "wrong" frame in isolation is the best looking one in a real-time context.
For example?
16 hours ago
> It's very possible that a "wrong" frame in isolation is the best looking one in a real-time context.
For example?
Parent comment already mentions motion blur in movies.
In animation (2d, 3d, stop motion) there are smear frames: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smear_frame
In this thesis you can find examples from different media, including games: https://theses.fh-hagenberg.at/system/files/pdf/Lendenfeld18...
I'm not aware of any normal software intentionally using nonsensical frames in their UI to aid perceiving motion.
That was an analogy, and about art and artistic effect. What does it exploit in human vision??
Your example is even worse - it's a cost-driven degradation of quality
> smear frames helped to reduce production costs
> I'm not aware of any normal software
Ok, but that was the question to shift from some generic theory about how human vision isn't perfect and dynamic vs static to a practical example we can see and evaluate - just like the examples in the blog, where you can clearly see the issues both dynamically and statically
???
No, artists (of every animated media: 2d, 3d, stop motion, video game) intentionally put extra effort into creating ugly frames.
Not based on theory, but based on taste (artists' personal taste, or measured).
It's not a cost cutting method, not anymore. It actually requires extra effort, and it makes the product more expensive.
Maybe in animated media it is an acquired taste/coconut effect and not a way to exploit our visual system.
Either way this does not say much about whether youtube should have only sensible frames or not. But it points to the direction that (intentionally) broken, nonsensical frames in UI are worth exploring--they are everywhere in animated arts. As GP has said: "It's very possible".
6 replies →