You cannot just get "cinematic" frames by using every fifth frame. The shutter speed at 120 fps is much higher than shooting film at 24 fps hence a lot less motion blur that is part of the "cinematic look".
The shutter speed and frame rate are not necessarily linked. Unless you’re using an ND filter (or an undesirably high f-stop) specifically because you want to be able to have more motion blur, most well-lit scenes would surely be blown out at 1/24 of a second (or the usual 1/48 or 1/60), even at the lowest ISO, so digital cameras compensate by shooting individual frames at higher shutter speeds, reducing or eliminating motion blur anyways.
Under optimal conditions, maybe you’re right… but I would personally lump the desire for tons of motion blur in with the nostalgia that causes people to use 24 fps in the first place.
It’s not like people originally wanted to shoot at a noticeably low frame rates… it’s just what they had to do. Then it became a standard that resisted change. Now people artificially restrict themselves to be bug-for-bug compatible with old technology. In fact, a lot of silent films were shot at 16 fps. Why does no one clamor for the return of 16 fps? Arguably, 16 fps is 33% more cinematic!
There are plenty of reasons that I’m not a professional cinematographer… but for the same reason that no one would prefer to watch a film captured in 10 fps, it follows logically that 24 fps is not actually “better” than higher frame rates. It’s just what people have been taught to see as better through experience when they contrast traditional, high budget films shot at 24 fps with low budget TV shows that were broadcast at 60 fps. It’s probably going to be decades before people unlearn this low frame rate preference, but I predict people a hundred years from now will be far less impressed with 24 fps footage than some people today.
I have plenty of other unpopular opinions available too. :P
Regardless, it doesn’t seem beyond belief to imagine that someone could combine the 5 frames of 120fps -> 24fps into individual “long exposure” shots that produce a similar motion blur effect as a single frame taken with a slower shutter. The necessary data is (mostly) all there, if someone took advantage of it. A well-proven technique similar to this is used in astrophotography to create artificially longer exposures, but it is combined with an alignment step to avoid the motion blur of the Earth spinning relative to the stars, which is why astrophotographers don't just extend the length of the exposure, and why they bother with combining multiple exposures. Obviously, applying this technique to create motion blur would mean skipping the alignment step, at a minimum, but this is probably one of those things that would be relatively simple for a properly trained neural network to do a good job with smoothing out, to avoid the gaps of motion blur between the frames that are available... each of which would likely be individually shot with a shutter speed faster than 1/120 anyways.
> On cockatoos: One of my neighbours have been keeping a white cockatoo as pets for 10+ years, the bird start to lose feather on tis chest...
It's not "losing" feathers, it's likely pulling them out due to living in a confined space without appropriate social ties and thus behaving like this.
Can be also Psittaccine beak and feathers disease, a relatively common and non treatable disease of cockatoos caused by (who would suspect that) a circovirus. This birds were born to be the avian version of the Jocker (and a really good one).
Old drivers have issues with XWayland. There's nothing fishy about that statement whatsoever. Hell, NVidia only JUST got XWayland working, though that's probably more an issue of corporate stubbornness.
I think NVidia have every incentive to oppose Wayland. The graphics and post-production studio market mostly uses NVidia Quadro cards on linux workstations. They choose NVidia because only NVidia has a fast, stable, minimal-artifact implementation of X11. Being able to code drivers for X11's crazy architecture is actually a competitive advantage.
Absolutely agree, text has a very real limit to its width before it is hard to read.
Taking reddit as an example they stack the title and the image above each other then all the links for comments, share, save ... below that. So the entire design is vertical for each post. More than that the trending is at the top and the selector for whether you want hot/new all above it. Even on 1440p I reckon about 40% of the top of my screen goes to tab/url/boomarks and the headers of the page, none of it I care about the moment I want to read that site.
Reddit puts a bit of secondary stuff on the right but nothing on the left of the content at all. The content is literally 25% of the width of the screen, its mostly grey space and yet they have this entirely vertical design for every post and all their controls are at the top. It isn't the only possible way to do this and its terrible for wide screens of any type. The old design utilises widescreens a heck of a lot better which is I presume why it is quite popular.
Are you also complaining about other parts of societal funding that does not benefit everyone? You could argue about so many things that might not affect you directly (schools, police, roads, …) but at the end of the day you may also profit indirectly from those as well (more educated people, fewer crimes, proper goods distribution, …).
Schools? Police? Roads? Seriously? You gave probably the worst examples you could have. You only missed firemen and hospitals.
But even then, why so expensive? It is a lot of money. Germany has 80 million people, assuming 4 persons per house, that is 20 million homes times 18 times 12 is 4 billion euros per year to pay for shitty tv shows.
How could you possible live in Germany and not benefit in someway from the roads? And everyone pretty much relies on the existence of the police/hospitals, even if they rarely need their services.
A million miles from what is mostly a luxury good with lots of competition.
As written down below: to prevent the government from controlling the public television which they easily could if that fee was just another expense in the yearly tax spending budget.
