I had the exact same experience watching Goodfellas on my parents' TV. It felt like a cheap soap opera and I was thoroughly confused about what's happening. Afterwards I did some research and learned about motion interpolation in modern TVs.

▲

bbarnett 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

Back when there was a lot of 4x3 on TV, 20 years ago, my parents had their TV set to auto stretch. Why?

Because they felt they were being ripped off, with all that unused space. They paid for widescreen!

Didn't matter that people looked all fat in the face, or that the effect was logarithmic near the edges. A car driving by got wider as it neared the edge of screen!

Nope, only mattered it was widescreen now.

And until I mentioned it, they did not even notice.

When I thought of it, I realised this sort of matches everything. Whether food, or especially politics, nuance is entirely lost on the average person.

I feel, as a place for tech startups, we should realise this. If you plan to market to the public, just drop the nuance. You'll save, be more competitive, and win.

▲

pratnala 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

I feel this so much. Despite telling her umpteen times till date, my mom will stretch photos only along one dimension to "fill the space" when writing docs or making slides. It drives me absolutely insane. She doesn't even realize till I tell her that the faces (and people) are stretched or squished too much.

	▲	incone123 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		Not to defend her preference, but faces (and everything else) can also look different depending on the focal length of the lens used and the distance from lens to subject, _and most people won't realise_.

▲

layer8 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I feel, as a place for tech startups, we should realise this. If you plan to market to the public, just drop the nuance. You'll save, be more competitive, and win.

Do you really want this to be the world we live in? It's just hurting the people who do care about nuance.

	▲	bbarnett 6 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Do you really want this to be the world we live in? No. But I also don't want to go bankrupt. If I want to make a niche market product, for the discerning consumer, well that's different. But from what I see, that's not even one in a thousand... so best be careful.
	▲	SturgeonsLaw 6 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It's already the world we live in

▲

whycome 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

One of my pet peeves of the opening scene in Star Trek (2009?) was when the ‘bad guy’ shows up on the monitor, his video is stretched wide to fill the view screen. wtf kind of future is that?!

▲

loudmax 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

A few years ago I was playing around with upscaling options in ffmpeg. For my starting point, I used my DVD of The Road Warrior that I bought in 1999, and wasn't particularly well mastered. I applied some filters to remove film grain, and raised the frame rate to 120 fps by inserting artificial interstitial frames.

Firstly, the filter that removed grain from the film also removed grain from the road, the sand, and Mel Gibson's stubble, all of which there's a lot of in the Road Warrior. Everything looked quite a bit too clean.

But the super high frame rate gave the video a hyper-realistic quality. Not realistic in the sense that I'm watching actual post-apocalyptic survivors. Realistic in the sense that I'm looking at what are clearly actors wearing costumes, and it's hard not to imagine the camera and rigging crew standing just out of frame.

An interesting exercise, but not how I want to experience that movie. Having said that, this was my experience just playing around with ffmpeg on my desktop PC. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that a dedicated professional using the right tools (presumably also ffmpeg) could manage a set of adjustments and upscaling processes that really do create a better experience than the original film.