Are you really saying that drawings can't convey emotion?

No he's saying that biology textbook diagrams are trying to convey information.

It's pretty much the same reason why most biology books prefer drawings over pictures. When you use full detail (like a picture for biology or color image for film), you're wasting the viewer's attention with stuff you quite possibly didn't mean to. By reducing the number of variables, you can be a lot more certain you will get the message through (in the case of biology, a particular anatomical feature that would be lost in the background noise; and in the case of film, a shadow play that would be lost in the background hue noise).

1. There's a difference there because the biology book is meant to convey information. Not convey emotion.

Are you really saying that drawings can't convey emotion?

2. You are not giving enough credit to true professionals who know all of this, and meticulously frame, light, and pick colors and color filters for shots.

And there are professionals that know that sometimes any color at all is distracting from what they want to convey.

I heard a several minute piece about the demise of movie film on NPR the other day and laughed a bit when one of the people lamenting film going away gave "film grain" as one of the reasons she would be sad to see it go.

Film grain isn't always a bad thing. In moderation, it adds texture to a shot. Besides, its equivalent still exists in digital photography — try shooting in low light conditions at high ISOs and you'll get noise in the image, very much like the analogue equivalent.

It is fast going away. The sensor in the Dragon is pretty insane. You can shoot low light, 2000 ISO, and with no processing have scant noise. With processing, it's incredibly pristine. There was a demo on the previous sensor for the Epic where Leonardo DiCaprio lit a match which was the only light source in the image. There was barely a shred of noise in the darks with no processing at 2000 ISO.

It's pretty much the same reason why most biology books prefer drawings over pictures. When you use full detail (like a picture for biology or color image for film), you're wasting the viewer's attention with stuff you quite possibly didn't mean to. By reducing the number of variables, you can be a lot more certain you will get the message through (in the case of biology, a particular anatomical feature that would be lost in the background noise; and in the case of film, a shadow play that would be lost in the background hue noise).

1. There's a difference there because the biology book is meant to convey information. Not convey emotion.

2. You are not giving enough credit to true professionals who know all of this, and meticulously frame, light, and pick colors and color filters for shots.

I heard a several minute piece about the demise of movie film on NPR the other day and laughed a bit when one of the people lamenting film going away gave "film grain" as one of the reasons she would be sad to see it go.

Film grain isn't always a bad thing. In moderation, it adds texture to a shot. Besides, its equivalent still exists in digital photography — try shooting in low light conditions at high ISOs and you'll get noise in the image, very much like the analogue equivalent.

Because, umm.

Wow.

Those clouds are the most convincing I've seen in a game. Usually they're 2D textures (like Destiny) but those are clearly volumetric. Crazy driving games with their ultra-realism…!

But.

Hopefully the camera control from gamescom winds up in DriveClub's shipping product.

Because, umm.

Wow.

It's difficult to effectively sneak up on clickers.

Fixed that for you.

I heard a several minute piece about the demise of movie film on NPR the other day and laughed a bit when one of the people lamenting film going away gave "film grain" as one of the reasons she would be sad to see it go.

I'm not laughing. Why is black and white often more evocative than color? There is more to visual art than pixel perfect representations of reality.

I rarely find black and white more evocative than color. With black and white, you are playing with light and shadow. In color, you can play with light and shadow PLUS the dimension of color. You are simply afforded more tools to make your art.

I heard a several minute piece about the demise of movie film on NPR the other day and laughed a bit when one of the people lamenting film going away gave "film grain" as one of the reasons she would be sad to see it go.

I'm not laughing. Why is black and white often more evocative than color? There is more to visual art than pixel perfect representations of reality.

On the same subject… I thought the chromatic aberration effects of Destiny

No joke: I thought my video equipment was broken.

I HATE that. Stop ruining my image quality!

On the same subject… I thought the chromatic aberration effects of Destiny looked cool from screenshots, but it turns out when I'm playing I can't tell whether they're post-processing effects or my glasses (which tend to add chromatic aberration fringing at the edges of my vision anyway). Net result: the effects might as well not be there.

Beautiful - but the old 'dust on the camera' during the lens flare moments gets old very quickly.

I HATE that. Stop ruining my image quality!

Beautiful - but the old 'dust on the camera' during the lens flare moments gets old very quickly.

I can't remember which CGI film it was, but I remember a cinematographer getting very irate at the programmers putting lens flare IN to the scene, when he'd spent his entire life taking it OUT

Isn't that the irony? Here you have a CGI film, which is free from the effects of light bouncing in the various lens elements to create a flare. It is free from film grain or noise. Things that remind you that you are seeing something captured. Yet, we add these things back in.

Maybe on some level we enjoy knowing it's fake.

Or maybe it makes it feel more real. I highly recommend the making of featurette. They talk explicitly about how they introduce imperfections, and leave in camera bumps, moments of focus adjustment, etc. Despite the fact that they can make it perfect, they don't because if they do something feels off.

Real in the sense of "created by humans", not real in the sense of "this is actually happening". Would you want film grain or bad focus pulls on your holodeck?