How the f*ck do Users tolerate digital shit with jitters, Judders, and Stutters without getting a headache?
Reign_of_Floof said: @ColourWheel You didn't go concrete though, GrumbleDango noticed the transfer but never complained about the animation in those anime, that's a concrete example that contrasts with the hypotheticals. ColourWheel said: Now, contrast that with the endless parade of posts across MAL, Reddit, and random forums where someone happily marathon-rips a copy that looks like it was smeared with pixel paste, vomit-colored gradients, and crushed blacks, yet they’ll instantly complain the “animation looks stiff” or “janky.” How often do people post both the exact version they watched plus those critiques? That's the part you are linking up yourself. Inevitably some such people exist, sure. But is this actually an omnipresent issue, is there actual evidence for that? Ah, I see what you’re saying… you want receipts where someone explicitly posts the exact version they watched and complains about the animation while ignoring fidelity issues. Sure, that’s a very narrow, almost forensic standard for “evidence”. I don’t have MAL threads with timestamps and ISO hashes for every example, because, surprise, most people don’t bother documenting that shit in excruciating detail. I would think anecdotal evidence would be fucking enough.... And quite frankly even if i did take the time to hunt down all the shit I have read about this, just online from the past... Likely if you don't accept me telling you about the shit from my experience... your just going to brush the shit off anyways as just some random peoples opinions, even if I brought receipts. lol The pattern I’m pointing out doesn’t require a perfect match of metadata... the shit is observable in the behavior (even if you don't notice it). Scroll through any anime forum, Reddit thread, or MAL episode discussion... people will say “animation looks stiff”, “this episode was janky”, or “why is the motion off?” while the underlying transfer could be crushed, blurry, or vomit-colored garbage. They rarely post “I watched the 2006 ADV DVD, here’s a frame-by-frame comparison, but also note my complaint about timing”. That’s why I call it selective perception... brains flag motion first, fidelity second. GrumbleDango noticing the transfer but not complaining about the animation proves the other side of the pattern... some brains notice fidelity first, some notice motion first, some ignore both, some notice everything. The point isn’t that every single person does X... it’s that the pattern is real and repeatable across decades of forum posts, stream observations, and personal experience. In other words... yes, some “concrete” examples will appear anecdotal, but the pattern itself is the actual evidence. That’s how brains work, and that’s who these people are. lol deg said: @ColourWheel video encoding is all about psychovisual optimization aka brain tricks so motion smoothing on tv is part of that youre just a purist Ah, so now we’re in “psychovisual optimization” land. lol Sure, motion smoothing and frame interpolation are brain tricks… but let’s be fucking real... no amount of fancy processing can fix actual broken motion in a source. You can trick your eyes into thinking it’s smooth, but the underlying timing, spacing, and cadence errors are still there. I call that putting lipstick on a pixel pig. lol Being a “purist” isn’t about hating tech... it’s about noticing the difference between a motion problem and a perceptual band-aid. If you’ve only ever seen a smeared, vomit-gradient rip through motion smoothing, your brain’s fine with that shit… but that doesn’t mean the problem magically disappeared. lol |
ColourWheel9 hours ago
 |
deg said: @ColourWheel ye im sure you always watch lossless encodes because psychovisual optimizations are for lossy encodes like internet streaming hence youre a purist but majority of people are fine with it Sure, I get it… “majority of people are fine with it.” Congrats, you’ve just described the bar for mediocrity. lol Yes, psychovisual optimizations help lossy encodes look less awful, but again that doesn’t magically fix broken motion, timing hiccups, or jitter that actually exists in the source. You can call me a purist… I call it noticing the difference between “acceptable brain trick” and “the actual content is broken”. Most people being fine with it doesn’t make it not broken. It just means selective perception is alive and thriving. Some brains flag timing instantly, some don’t... But again that doesn’t mean the problem magically vanished either. lol Even going back to VHS Bootlegs, People would still actively tried their hardest to get an official physical release of the shit. Today such sources are plentiful yet so called seemingly hardcore fans these days don't even bother with fidelity is fucking fascinating. lol valico said: ColourWheel said: I’m not claiming everyone suddenly thinks a show is “badly animated” because of frame-rate conversion hiccups. Your first response to my initial reply about human adaptability (the first reply in this thread) was saying: ColourWheel said: “People adapt” doesn’t explain animation complaints. So, yes, you're right, I'm not understanding what you're talking about, because you have not maintained a consistent point from the get go. Is this entire thread just you wrestling with the fact that humans individually have different levels of critical observation towards visual media? LMFAO... Not wrestling, just documenting patterns I actually see in the wild. Humans absolutely have different thresholds for noticing shit... that’s the point. “People adapt” explains why some shrug and say “it plays”, but it doesn’t explain why others instantly go alarm, alarm over timing, cadence, or stiff motion. That’s selective perception in action, not fucking inconsistency. lol If you want to call that shit “wrestling with human observation”, fine… but I call it noticing who’s blindfolded, who’s hyper-aware, and who’s just somewhere in between. The examples, the anecdotal evidence, the posts... those are the concrete proof. Not a fucking hypothetical. lol |
|
deg said: @ColourWheel you do not get the point of psychovisual optimization at all anyway purist or perfectionist like you are a small market now like discs are dying media I get psychovisual optimization is just fucking fine… it’s literally why Netflix streams look “acceptable” while still mangling half the fidelity. I also get that discs are dying... doesn’t change the fact that a bad encode is still fucking bad, no matter how much your brain tries to smooths that shit over. lol Just because the majority’s fine with pixel paste, crushed blacks, and vomit-colored gradients doesn’t make it “good” or fix the underlying motion or timing issues. Some of us still like to actually see what’s on screen instead of pretending it doesn’t exist. lol |
ColourWheel8 hours ago
|
Magpareddi said: As someone who recently watched a digitally encoded 90s OVA; has to be probably never noticed or knew, because it looks totally fuckin' alright to me, like what I expect a 90s anime to look like and that never diminish my enjoyment at all Your perception of that digitally encoded OVA will be likely crushed the moment anyone shares an Official Physical copy of that shit with you one day. lol deg said: anyway again discs market is dying so you will consume fake lossy encodes soon You assume too much with this statement. I have been collecting physical media since the 80s. Over 40 years later still buy and collect physical media. Someone once said the very same thing to me about music back in 1998. To this day I still listen to music on record vinyl. Back in late 2000s, A friend bet that I would be selling off my DVDs when shit started streaming on Netflix and movies could be purchased to rent on a cable box. Well it's coming up to two decades now and still buying vinyl, CDs, DVD, Blu-ray, and even occasionally pick up an extremely rare Laserdisc from time to time. lol |
ColourWheel8 hours ago
|
I've a Bitchin' VCR that i Gobsmacked Haruhi Suzumiya onto a Shitty S-VHS Tape with. I'm Telling you It Ain't for Shit... And I'm Dead-Ass-to-Rights Serious about this;      |
 |
valico said: ColourWheel said: “People adapt” explains why some shrug and say “it plays”, For the record, this is the basis of this entire thread. Go back and read your OP, or even just the title of the thread. ColourWheel said: but it doesn’t explain why others instantly go alarm, alarm over timing, cadence, or stiff motion. This idea is not addressed whatsoever in your OP. ColourWheel said: That’s selective perception in action, not fucking inconsistency. Your shifting of the topic at hand to suddenly being about exploring selective perception very much is inconsistent with the very explicitely and specifically asked question of how people tolerate imperfect quality in the OP. Yes, those topics are related, but no, that is not how you framed this topic. You are acting like we're all morons for answering the very simple question you asked. We are not mind readers, old man. If you want to talk about selective perception, maybe make your thread about that in the first place. Look, the the premise asked why people tolerate imperfect quality. I answered that… and then went further because it’s all connected... some tolerate, some instantly notice. That’s literally part of the same discussion. Selective perception is how people tolerate... or fail to tolerate... imperfections. If you want me to dumb it down to a step-by-step “People tolerate X. That’s it”. I can, but I also like giving the nuance that actually explains why they tolerate it differently. The instant alarm over timing, cadence, and stiff motion? That’s literally the other side of the coin. Ignore it, and the premise is half-answered shit. But also... Old man? Sure. But I’m not here to treat the internet like the shits fucking kindergarten. lol Vipadus said: I know pirated content can very often be low fidelity and thus everyone assumes you always get worse quality from piracy, but actually, the very best encodes can surpass the quality of any official release. So, to answer the question at the end of your post, I do actively hunt down quality but not by seeking official sources. I tend to compare all releases above a certain size for any given show, take many screenshots, but I don't stop there -- I even zoom in to note minor differences in detail and artifacts, deliberately choosing scenes susceptible to detail loss and artifacting. I always choose the highest quality release or the one with the best tradeoffs in quality without care for size. In other words, yes, it's a disease and I'm probably more picky about it than you are. If you don't care if you watch at 240p with stuttery video, all the more power to you and I'm actually kinda envious. I wish I could just pick any old release and be happy with it. Don't be like me. Ah, a kindred spirit finally surfaces. lol Yes, pirated content can be garbage, but your method is literally the one I endorse... measure, compare, scrutinize. Screenshots, zoom-ins, artifact checks... basically doing the legwork to make sure what you consume isn’t a steaming pile of pixel paste. Some of us can’t just shrug and say “it plays” because our brains have been wired to flag timing, cadence, and fidelity issues instantly. the fucking thing is that takes time, time people don't have to spend hours just hunting down at random for fidelity roulette, In that amount of time, if one can find something descend, I could just go online find the shit on an official physical release, and make 10 times the income it took to pay for that shit while I wait for it to be dropped off at my door step within the next few days... Rinse and repeat this same process over and over again each time I want to watch something old and not fucking officially available for official streaming. The envious part? I get it. Being able to just watch something at 240p with vomit-colored gradients and crushed blacks and actually enjoy it is a level of bliss most of us never attain. You’ve basically unlocked a superpower... selective blindness. Meanwhile, the some are here squinting at lineart, dithering over motion quirks, and questioning life choices. lol So yeah… one could say don’t be like you, don’t be like me, but admire the chaos that selective perception brings to the table. It’s what keeps this hobby fun too. lol Calling that shit "hyperbole" doesn’t undo the premise you just admitted. If discs are a niche market, then saying "discs are dying" isn’t exaggeration... it’s a compressed description of market reality. Hyperbole is when you stretch the truth for emphasis, not when you accidentally state the conclusion and then pretend it was theatrical fucking flair. lol That’s like yelling ‘THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE’ and, after everyone sees the flames, going "Relax, I was just being dramatic". The presence of hyperbole doesn’t negate the fucking fire there. lol So no... this doesn’t weaken the point. It actually confirms it. You’ve just reframed the shit as a stylistic choice. lol valico said: Vipadus said: @Vipadus I'll reply for ColourWheel here, give those sore fingies a break, jiisan.With regard to stutter specifically, I naturally pick up on it right away and is probably my least favorite artifact. These days I don't have to deal with it though since all of the releases I end up comparing never have the issue (and the rare one that does is immediately discarded). Encoders who know what they're doing with old anime won't have that problem, also given they choose the best source. "You seem to be misunderfuckingstanding. Just because you don't pick up on that shit, doesn't mean the shit isn't fucking there. If you had a laserdisc fucking copy of the shit you'd immediatly shit and cum your fucking pants because your blinders would be fucking off finally. It's called selective perception and it's the whole shit here. I have a boner right now but my fingers are too sore from typing on my ergo keyboard so my Viagra pill is gonna go to waste because I can't fucking jerk my shit thanks to carpal fucking tunnel. Fucking kids these days watching pirated shit call themselves real fans but never spend a dime on a single DVD or VHS to even know what quality is. I own laserdiscs btw and never get rid of anything. So trust me when i fucking say that the shit you aren't seeing is fucking there and all it takes is three easy payments of $19.99 and you can be the proud fucking owner of shit that will blow your little god damned fucking mind. lol" I think I got that right. Please excuse any typos, I don't use autocorrect and type on my phone. I never asked for anyone with an arrogant stick shoved up their ass speak on my behalf in the 1st fucking place. lol |
ColourWheel6 hours ago
|
Reply to ColourWheel
Reign_of_Floof said:
@ColourWheel
You didn't go concrete though, GrumbleDango noticed the transfer but never complained about the animation in those anime, that's a concrete example that contrasts with the hypotheticals.
How often do people post both the exact version they watched plus those critiques? That's the part you are linking up yourself. Inevitably some such people exist, sure. But is this actually an omnipresent issue, is there actual evidence for that?
@ColourWheel
You didn't go concrete though, GrumbleDango noticed the transfer but never complained about the animation in those anime, that's a concrete example that contrasts with the hypotheticals.
ColourWheel said:
Now, contrast that with the endless parade of posts across MAL, Reddit, and random forums where someone happily marathon-rips a copy that looks like it was smeared with pixel paste, vomit-colored gradients, and crushed blacks, yet they’ll instantly complain the “animation looks stiff” or “janky.”
Now, contrast that with the endless parade of posts across MAL, Reddit, and random forums where someone happily marathon-rips a copy that looks like it was smeared with pixel paste, vomit-colored gradients, and crushed blacks, yet they’ll instantly complain the “animation looks stiff” or “janky.”
How often do people post both the exact version they watched plus those critiques? That's the part you are linking up yourself. Inevitably some such people exist, sure. But is this actually an omnipresent issue, is there actual evidence for that?
Ah, I see what you’re saying… you want receipts where someone explicitly posts the exact version they watched and complains about the animation while ignoring fidelity issues. Sure, that’s a very narrow, almost forensic standard for “evidence”. I don’t have MAL threads with timestamps and ISO hashes for every example, because, surprise, most people don’t bother documenting that shit in excruciating detail. I would think anecdotal evidence would be fucking enough.... And quite frankly even if i did take the time to hunt down all the shit I have read about this, just online from the past... Likely if you don't accept me telling you about the shit from my experience... your just going to brush the shit off anyways as just some random peoples opinions, even if I brought receipts. lol
The pattern I’m pointing out doesn’t require a perfect match of metadata... the shit is observable in the behavior (even if you don't notice it). Scroll through any anime forum, Reddit thread, or MAL episode discussion... people will say “animation looks stiff”, “this episode was janky”, or “why is the motion off?” while the underlying transfer could be crushed, blurry, or vomit-colored garbage. They rarely post “I watched the 2006 ADV DVD, here’s a frame-by-frame comparison, but also note my complaint about timing”. That’s why I call it selective perception... brains flag motion first, fidelity second.
GrumbleDango noticing the transfer but not complaining about the animation proves the other side of the pattern... some brains notice fidelity first, some notice motion first, some ignore both, some notice everything. The point isn’t that every single person does X... it’s that the pattern is real and repeatable across decades of forum posts, stream observations, and personal experience.
In other words... yes, some “concrete” examples will appear anecdotal, but the pattern itself is the actual evidence. That’s how brains work, and that’s who these people are. lol
deg said:
@ColourWheel video encoding is all about psychovisual optimization aka brain tricks so motion smoothing on tv is part of that youre just a purist
@ColourWheel video encoding is all about psychovisual optimization aka brain tricks so motion smoothing on tv is part of that youre just a purist
Ah, so now we’re in “psychovisual optimization” land. lol Sure, motion smoothing and frame interpolation are brain tricks… but let’s be fucking real... no amount of fancy processing can fix actual broken motion in a source. You can trick your eyes into thinking it’s smooth, but the underlying timing, spacing, and cadence errors are still there. I call that putting lipstick on a pixel pig. lol
Being a “purist” isn’t about hating tech... it’s about noticing the difference between a motion problem and a perceptual band-aid. If you’ve only ever seen a smeared, vomit-gradient rip through motion smoothing, your brain’s fine with that shit… but that doesn’t mean the problem magically disappeared. lol
ColourWheel said: people will say “animation looks stiff”, “this episode was janky”, or “why is the motion off?” while the underlying transfer could be crushed, blurry, or vomit-colored garbage. And my point is that you don't know what the underlying transfer actually was like in almost any of the cases, so most cases that you were taking as examples are actually just based on your own assumption in linking the two things together, that's the issue here, you know that in some cases the transfer is bad, and you know in some cases people complained about the animation, what you don't actually know is how many times these two things actually match up with one another, but you're latching on to it as a supposedly common pattern. |
Reign_of_Floof said: And my point is that you don't know what the underlying transfer actually was like in almost any of the cases, so most cases that you were taking as examples are actually just based on your own assumption in linking the two things together, that's the issue here, you know that in some cases the transfer is bad, and you know in some cases people complained about the animation, what you don't actually know is how many times these two things actually match up with one another, but you're latching on to it as a supposedly common pattern. Sure, I don’t have exact numbers for every single transfer ever made. And yes, some of this is pattern recognition rather than controlled statistics. That’s literally how humans notice trends... by comparing what’s observable. If we waited for perfect data, we’d never comment on a fucking thing, ever. Observing that transfer quality often correlates with complaints about animation isn’t a claim about universal causation... it’s a practical guide to noticing problems when they happen. Calling it an "assumption" is like saying a meteorologist shouldn’t tell you it might rain tomorrow because they don’t have measurements from every cloud in the fucking sky. lol |
|
valico said: No need to dumb things down. Your new shift to hyper awareness is, what, you asking why you are the way you are? Again, are you just biting thewiru's style? Presumably at your age you might have enough of an understanding of yourself that you don't need MAL users to help you in your self-discovery journey. Maybe this is a good wake up call to the fact that your "humorous" word choice often presents itself as demeaning. When you talk like a pre-teen who finally decided he didn't care that his mom and dad might ground him for saying "fuck" and so enacts a mandatory twice-per-sentence quota for the word, people are going to read into your replies as either hyper defensive or on the offensive, depending on the context. Not a great way to promote productive discussion. I say this bit with all seriousness, by the way. Half the time you have valuable input on topics, but you undermine yourself with your obsessive swearing. Also I think I recall you might not be a native English speaker (you don't swear like one, at least), so I want to at least provide some constructive feedback for yiu. Ah, thank you for the fucking TED talk, Valico. I now understand that I’ve been inadvertently running a "pre-teen swearing quota" program on MAL. I will strive to reduce my profanity to a mere once-per-sentence, lest my "hyper defensive" aura frighten the delicate sensibilities of my fellow discourse connoisseurs. lol In the meantime, I will continue to make observations based on empirical patterns, regardless of the emotional reactions triggered by my lexical choices. If my words are demeaning, then I guess the universe has finally invented a law where syntax offends more reliably than fucking logic. lol |
|
Reply to ColourWheel
Reign_of_Floof said:
And my point is that you don't know what the underlying transfer actually was like in almost any of the cases, so most cases that you were taking as examples are actually just based on your own assumption in linking the two things together, that's the issue here, you know that in some cases the transfer is bad, and you know in some cases people complained about the animation, what you don't actually know is how many times these two things actually match up with one another, but you're latching on to it as a supposedly common pattern.
And my point is that you don't know what the underlying transfer actually was like in almost any of the cases, so most cases that you were taking as examples are actually just based on your own assumption in linking the two things together, that's the issue here, you know that in some cases the transfer is bad, and you know in some cases people complained about the animation, what you don't actually know is how many times these two things actually match up with one another, but you're latching on to it as a supposedly common pattern.
Sure, I don’t have exact numbers for every single transfer ever made. And yes, some of this is pattern recognition rather than controlled statistics. That’s literally how humans notice trends... by comparing what’s observable. If we waited for perfect data, we’d never comment on a fucking thing, ever.
Observing that transfer quality often correlates with complaints about animation isn’t a claim about universal causation... it’s a practical guide to noticing problems when they happen. Calling it an "assumption" is like saying a meteorologist shouldn’t tell you it might rain tomorrow because they don’t have measurements from every cloud in the fucking sky. lol
| @ColourWheel Except to notice a pattern you have to identify many true examples of that pattern, I never said all, you don't even have that though, because the link between A. the transfer is bad, and B. they complained about the animation, is almost never being verified. |
Reign_of_Floof said: @ColourWheel Except to notice a pattern you have to identify many true examples of that pattern, I never said all, you don't even have that though, because the link between A. the transfer is bad, and B. they complained about the animation, is almost never being verified. Sure, no one is claiming we’ve sampled the entire universe of transfers. But humans literally function by noticing patterns from the available data. Meteorologists don’t wait for every cloud to be measured before predicting rain, and doctors don’t ignore symptoms because they haven’t scanned every fucking cell. lol Observing that bad transfers often coincide with animation complaints isn’t a statistical proof of universality... that shit is literally pattern recognition. Pretending it’s invalid until verified in every case is like demanding a census before acknowledging gravity exists. lol |
|
valico said: This is what I was getting at as well. Regardless of the specific version of a release/transfer, there's no way to confidently correlate the complaints of "bad animation", or whatever other vapid complaint a viewer might have, to the artifacts generated in the transfer process. It could just as likely be that they said "bad animation" because they don't like a character design. We're already assuming they're attributing "bad animation" to a potential reality of "bad transfer", so why not assume their misattribution of "bad animation" is actually in reference to any other aspect of the show. It's all incorrect either way, but one focuses in on a specific problem that OP happens to care about. Sure, maybe someone said "bad animation" because they hate a character’s hairstyle. Or maybe the sky is made of green cheese. Either way, noticing patterns in observable evidence doesn’t require a confessional from every fan who ever watched the shit. lol |
|
Reply to ColourWheel
Reign_of_Floof said:
@ColourWheel
Except to notice a pattern you have to identify many true examples of that pattern, I never said all, you don't even have that though, because the link between A. the transfer is bad, and B. they complained about the animation, is almost never being verified.
@ColourWheel
Except to notice a pattern you have to identify many true examples of that pattern, I never said all, you don't even have that though, because the link between A. the transfer is bad, and B. they complained about the animation, is almost never being verified.
Sure, no one is claiming we’ve sampled the entire universe of transfers. But humans literally function by noticing patterns from the available data. Meteorologists don’t wait for every cloud to be measured before predicting rain, and doctors don’t ignore symptoms because they haven’t scanned every fucking cell. lol
Observing that bad transfers often coincide with animation complaints isn’t a statistical proof of universality... that shit is literally pattern recognition. Pretending it’s invalid until verified in every case is like demanding a census before acknowledging gravity exists. lol
| @ColourWheel ColourWheel said: Observing that bad transfers often coincide with animation complaints You haven't been doing this though, because the connection of the two is something that you are inventing yourself as opposed to being there in almost any of the examples. I never demanded that it's verified in every case, I claimed that you have to be able to verify it in at least a decent amount of cases, but you are almost never going to know why someone complained about the animation unless they elaborate further, and to count as an example of this pattern they would have to mention what transfer they watched and you would have to know that that transfer is bad, which again is almost never the case, and you would have to know that that was what they were identifying as bad animation and not some other feature, as Valico mentioned above. This is where the bad epistemology is coming in. |
valico said: @ColourWheel Up to you bro. If you want to continue having to explain yourself over and over again and exacerbate those hand problems by unnecessarily starting arguments because you can't help but talk like you're pissed off, have at it. I was genuinely offering you some advice on how to maybe have more productive conversations, just to be clear. And I'm so, so sowwy if my comments bovvered you. I hope a few words from a wee lad such as myself weren't too aggwessive... Ah, Again thank you, Wee Lad Valico, for your invaluable guidance from the pinnacle of infantile wisdom. I will make sure to measure each word against your proprietary “hyper-sensitive MAL reader” scale, lest my lexical aggressiveness trigger any further carpal-tunnel incidents or upset your delicate sensibilities. lol I appreciate your thoughtful flowchart of permissible expressions, the “Pre-Teen Swearing Quota™” you so carefully constructed, and your sage advice on how to not talk like I’m "pissed off"... all of which I will dutifully follow while taking notes with a quill dipped in the tears of offended wee lads. lol And again, in the meantime, I’ll continue observing empirical patterns, making points, and enjoying discussions that happen to upset your fragile equilibrium, because apparently, logic, pattern recognition, and actual content are far too aggressive for a wee lad such as yourself. lol Reign_of_Floof said: @ColourWheel ColourWheel said: Observing that bad transfers often coincide with animation complaints You haven't been doing this though, because the connection of the two is something that you are inventing yourself as opposed to being there in almost any of the examples. I never demanded that it's verified in every case, I claimed that you have to be able to verify it in at least a decent amount of cases, but you are almost never going to know why someone complained about the animation unless they elaborate further, and to count as an example of this pattern they would have to mention what transfer they watched and you would have to know that that transfer is bad, which again is almost never the case, and you would have to know that that was what they were identifying as bad animation and not some other feature, as Valico mentioned above. This is where the bad epistemology is coming in. By your logic, we should never notice anything unless we have a complete census of the fucking universe’s knowledge. I’m afraid this means I must retire immediately from all pattern recognition, stop predicting weather, diagnosing diseases, and generally living life. lol valico said: ColourWheel said: Sure, maybe someone said "bad animation" because they hate a character’s hairstyle. Or maybe the sky is made of green cheese. Either way, noticing patterns in observable evidence doesn’t require a confessional from every fan who ever watched the shit. lol The point was that you're noticing patterns in observable evidence and asserting those correlated observations as having a causal relationship. It is a premise based on correlation fallacy, which is worth pointing out. LMFAO... The sacred incantation... “correlation fallacy.” Pulled out like a fucking fire extinguisher because someone noticed smoke and dared to wonder if fire might be involved. lol At no point did I assert a proven causal law of the universe. I pointed out a recurring coincidence between degraded transfers and complaints about animation quality. That’s not a fucking fallacy... that’s literally how hypotheses begin. Correlation fallacy only applies when someone says “therefore this must be the sole cause.” I didn’t. lol What you’re arguing for here isn’t good epistemology... it’s epistemic paralysis. Under this framework, no observation is allowed unless it arrives with a notarized intent statement from every viewer, a verified transfer lineage, and a peer-reviewed paper stapled to the Blu-ray. If correlation may never be mentioned unless causation is already airtight, then congratulations... you’ve just outlawed pattern recognition, diagnostics, and half of human reasoning. Meteorology, medicine, and forensic analysis would like their refunds. lol Pointing out that sometimes complaints about “bad animation” align with objectively bad transfers isn’t declaring causality... it’s saying “hey, maybe these things aren’t unrelated”. Treating that as a logical sin is like accusing someone of arson because they noticed the room keeps getting warmer near the fire when shit starts really burning. lol So no... this isn’t a correlation fallacy. It’s an observation. The only thing being asserted with certainty here is that some people confuse “you haven’t proven everything” with “you’re not allowed to notice anything”. lol |
ColourWheel7 hours ago
|
| As someone who doesn't watch much old anime and doesn't know much about video quality, here's my 2 cents. It just doesn't register most of the time. Out of the examples you posted, #2 and #3 look alright to me. I can see the jittering, yes, but only because you mentioned it. #1 looks pretty bad, probably because the jitter looks different in the top part of the screen versus the bottom part. The characters look like they're jiggling their heads and not their torsos. In general, the jittering just feels like a part of the aesthetic. I know it's a thing, but old anime is just "supposed to look like that." Kind of like film scratches/spots or mono sound. The thing is, I don't know what it's actually supposed to look like. I haven't seen whatever you've seen (or are expecting) in a high-quality transfer. So the amount of research and searching necessary to find a better version of the anime (if there even are any) is just not worth it. And when I do see a high-quality transfer, I don't notice anything - that's the point. |
Reply to ColourWheel
valico said:
@ColourWheel Up to you bro. If you want to continue having to explain yourself over and over again and exacerbate those hand problems by unnecessarily starting arguments because you can't help but talk like you're pissed off, have at it.
I was genuinely offering you some advice on how to maybe have more productive conversations, just to be clear.
And I'm so, so sowwy if my comments bovvered you. I hope a few words from a wee lad such as myself weren't too aggwessive...
@ColourWheel Up to you bro. If you want to continue having to explain yourself over and over again and exacerbate those hand problems by unnecessarily starting arguments because you can't help but talk like you're pissed off, have at it.
I was genuinely offering you some advice on how to maybe have more productive conversations, just to be clear.
And I'm so, so sowwy if my comments bovvered you. I hope a few words from a wee lad such as myself weren't too aggwessive...
Ah, Again thank you, Wee Lad Valico, for your invaluable guidance from the pinnacle of infantile wisdom. I will make sure to measure each word against your proprietary “hyper-sensitive MAL reader” scale, lest my lexical aggressiveness trigger any further carpal-tunnel incidents or upset your delicate sensibilities. lol
I appreciate your thoughtful flowchart of permissible expressions, the “Pre-Teen Swearing Quota™” you so carefully constructed, and your sage advice on how to not talk like I’m "pissed off"... all of which I will dutifully follow while taking notes with a quill dipped in the tears of offended wee lads. lol
And again, in the meantime, I’ll continue observing empirical patterns, making points, and enjoying discussions that happen to upset your fragile equilibrium, because apparently, logic, pattern recognition, and actual content are far too aggressive for a wee lad such as yourself. lol
Reign_of_Floof said:
@ColourWheel
You haven't been doing this though, because the connection of the two is something that you are inventing yourself as opposed to being there in almost any of the examples. I never demanded that it's verified in every case, I claimed that you have to be able to verify it in at least a decent amount of cases, but you are almost never going to know why someone complained about the animation unless they elaborate further, and to count as an example of this pattern they would have to mention what transfer they watched and you would have to know that that transfer is bad, which again is almost never the case, and you would have to know that that was what they were identifying as bad animation and not some other feature, as Valico mentioned above. This is where the bad epistemology is coming in.
@ColourWheel
ColourWheel said:
Observing that bad transfers often coincide with animation complaints
Observing that bad transfers often coincide with animation complaints
You haven't been doing this though, because the connection of the two is something that you are inventing yourself as opposed to being there in almost any of the examples. I never demanded that it's verified in every case, I claimed that you have to be able to verify it in at least a decent amount of cases, but you are almost never going to know why someone complained about the animation unless they elaborate further, and to count as an example of this pattern they would have to mention what transfer they watched and you would have to know that that transfer is bad, which again is almost never the case, and you would have to know that that was what they were identifying as bad animation and not some other feature, as Valico mentioned above. This is where the bad epistemology is coming in.
By your logic, we should never notice anything unless we have a complete census of the fucking universe’s knowledge. I’m afraid this means I must retire immediately from all pattern recognition, stop predicting weather, diagnosing diseases, and generally living life. lol
valico said:
The point was that you're noticing patterns in observable evidence and asserting those correlated observations as having a causal relationship. It is a premise based on correlation fallacy, which is worth pointing out.
ColourWheel said:
Sure, maybe someone said "bad animation" because they hate a character’s hairstyle. Or maybe the sky is made of green cheese. Either way, noticing patterns in observable evidence doesn’t require a confessional from every fan who ever watched the shit. lol
Sure, maybe someone said "bad animation" because they hate a character’s hairstyle. Or maybe the sky is made of green cheese. Either way, noticing patterns in observable evidence doesn’t require a confessional from every fan who ever watched the shit. lol
The point was that you're noticing patterns in observable evidence and asserting those correlated observations as having a causal relationship. It is a premise based on correlation fallacy, which is worth pointing out.
LMFAO...
The sacred incantation... “correlation fallacy.”
Pulled out like a fucking fire extinguisher because someone noticed smoke and dared to wonder if fire might be involved. lol
At no point did I assert a proven causal law of the universe. I pointed out a recurring coincidence between degraded transfers and complaints about animation quality. That’s not a fucking fallacy... that’s literally how hypotheses begin. Correlation fallacy only applies when someone says “therefore this must be the sole cause.” I didn’t. lol
What you’re arguing for here isn’t good epistemology... it’s epistemic paralysis. Under this framework, no observation is allowed unless it arrives with a notarized intent statement from every viewer, a verified transfer lineage, and a peer-reviewed paper stapled to the Blu-ray.
If correlation may never be mentioned unless causation is already airtight, then congratulations... you’ve just outlawed pattern recognition, diagnostics, and half of human reasoning. Meteorology, medicine, and forensic analysis would like their refunds. lol
Pointing out that sometimes complaints about “bad animation” align with objectively bad transfers isn’t declaring causality... it’s saying “hey, maybe these things aren’t unrelated”. Treating that as a logical sin is like accusing someone of arson because they noticed the room keeps getting warmer near the fire when shit starts really burning. lol
So no... this isn’t a correlation fallacy. It’s an observation. The only thing being asserted with certainty here is that some people confuse “you haven’t proven everything” with “you’re not allowed to notice anything”. lol
ColourWheel said: By your logic, we should never notice anything unless we have a complete census of the fucking universe’s knowledge. No, we just have to notice that the pattern is instantiated a decent amount of the time, you keep equivocating between issues with how you are coming to counting the individual examples of your pattern with demanding a universal necessary connection, no one has demanded the latter, we have only pointed out that your means of coming to the former is flawed, ColourWheel said: I pointed out a recurring coincidence between degraded transfers and complaints about animation quality This is what is being called into doubt: that the people who are complaining about bad animation quality are in fact watching bad transfers a significant amount of the time, it's very rare that you are going to know what transfer someone was watching when they complain about the animation quality, you only know that bad transfers exist and that people are complaining about animation quality, what you don't know is if those complaints about animation quality are coming from cases of people who are watching the bad transfers. |
| haven't watched many old anime but whenever this happened to me, it made my brain hurt. i thought something was wrong with my eyes at first and just ignored it |
Reply to perseii
As someone who doesn't watch much old anime and doesn't know much about video quality, here's my 2 cents.
It just doesn't register most of the time. Out of the examples you posted, #2 and #3 look alright to me. I can see the jittering, yes, but only because you mentioned it. #1 looks pretty bad, probably because the jitter looks different in the top part of the screen versus the bottom part. The characters look like they're jiggling their heads and not their torsos.
In general, the jittering just feels like a part of the aesthetic. I know it's a thing, but old anime is just "supposed to look like that." Kind of like film scratches/spots or mono sound.
The thing is, I don't know what it's actually supposed to look like. I haven't seen whatever you've seen (or are expecting) in a high-quality transfer. So the amount of research and searching necessary to find a better version of the anime (if there even are any) is just not worth it. And when I do see a high-quality transfer, I don't notice anything - that's the point.
It just doesn't register most of the time. Out of the examples you posted, #2 and #3 look alright to me. I can see the jittering, yes, but only because you mentioned it. #1 looks pretty bad, probably because the jitter looks different in the top part of the screen versus the bottom part. The characters look like they're jiggling their heads and not their torsos.
In general, the jittering just feels like a part of the aesthetic. I know it's a thing, but old anime is just "supposed to look like that." Kind of like film scratches/spots or mono sound.
The thing is, I don't know what it's actually supposed to look like. I haven't seen whatever you've seen (or are expecting) in a high-quality transfer. So the amount of research and searching necessary to find a better version of the anime (if there even are any) is just not worth it. And when I do see a high-quality transfer, I don't notice anything - that's the point.
perseii said: As someone who doesn't watch much old anime and doesn't know much about video quality, here's my 2 cents. It just doesn't register most of the time. Out of the examples you posted, #2 and #3 look alright to me. I can see the jittering, yes, but only because you mentioned it. #1 looks pretty bad, probably because the jitter looks different in the top part of the screen versus the bottom part. The characters look like they're jiggling their heads and not their torsos. In general, the jittering just feels like a part of the aesthetic. I know it's a thing, but old anime is just "supposed to look like that." Kind of like film scratches/spots or mono sound. The thing is, I don't know what it's actually supposed to look like. I haven't seen whatever you've seen (or are expecting) in a high-quality transfer. So the amount of research and searching necessary to find a better version of the anime (if there even are any) is just not worth it. And when I do see a high-quality transfer, I don't notice anything - that's the point. I took the time to take my physical copy of The Anime using WinX premium platinum to convert into an ISO then converted it using handbrake using all the filters variation possible and the shit still came out looking like this shit. Where this type of stutter isn't present when watching it on official physical copies... The shit turned out almost identical to this "Example 01" which according to my real life friend is the only existing quality that exists in public domain. lol Either way spending the time messing around with this shit earlier today, when my friend was over while we were drinking beers, we came to the definitive conclusion that 9/10 Anime titles after downloading everything that was available for those titles, is absolute garbage. This is what I did on my 1st day off from working this holiday season, which was debating this shit with my friend in my mancave. lol I swear we ended up downloading about 2tb of Anime for the same 10 old titles. lol Either way even shit pressed on DVDs (which is digital by nature), were sometimes never meant to be digitally converted either. lol Reign_of_Floof said: ColourWheel said: By your logic, we should never notice anything unless we have a complete census of the fucking universe’s knowledge. No, we just have to notice that the pattern is instantiated a decent amount of the time, you keep equivocating between issues with how you are coming to counting the individual examples of your pattern with demanding a universal necessary connection, no one has demanded the latter, we have only pointed out that your means of coming to the former is flawed, ColourWheel said: I pointed out a recurring coincidence between degraded transfers and complaints about animation quality This is what is being called into doubt: that the people who are complaining about bad animation quality are in fact watching bad transfers a significant amount of the time, it's very rare that you are going to know what transfer someone was watching when they complain about the animation quality, you only know that bad transfers exist and that people are complaining about animation quality, what you don't know is if those complaints about animation quality are coming from cases of people who are watching the bad transfers. Right... and this is exactly where the disconnect keeps fucking happening. lol No one is “counting individual examples” the way you’re describing, because this was never framed as a formal dataset with strict inclusion criteria. What’s being discussed is inference under incomplete information, which is how literally all real-world media analysis operates. You keep treating “we don’t always know which transfer someone watched” as if that invalidates any attempt to connect observable outcomes to known upstream variables. That standard would make it impossible to reason about anything that isn’t exhaustively documented... including fan reception, broadcast-era releases, or historical home video quality in general. To be very precise: - We know bad transfers exist. - We know bad transfers introduce artifacts that can resemble animation issues (stutter, judder, smeared motion, cadence problems). - We know viewers frequently describe technical artifacts imprecisely as “bad animation”. From that, it is not fucking irrational, or epistemically flawed... to hypothesize that some non-trivial portion of those complaints may be transfer-related. That does not require knowing the exact transfer in every case, just like doctors don’t need a genome sequence to suspect dehydration when someone presents with dizziness. What you’re effectively arguing is that unless attribution is explicitly declared by the viewer, no probabilistic reasoning is allowed. That’s not caution... that’s demanding courtroom-level proof for casual observational claims. So yes, the specific linkage is what’s being questioned... but questioning it doesn’t magically erase the plausibility of the connection. It just means the conclusion remains tentative, not imaginary. At this point, the debate isn’t really about evidence... it’s about whether we’re allowed to acknowledge likely relationships without pretending we’re publishing a meta-analysis. And refusing to do that doesn’t make the reasoning cleaner... it just makes the shit sterile. lol |
ColourWheel6 hours ago
|
Reply to ColourWheel
perseii said:
As someone who doesn't watch much old anime and doesn't know much about video quality, here's my 2 cents.
It just doesn't register most of the time. Out of the examples you posted, #2 and #3 look alright to me. I can see the jittering, yes, but only because you mentioned it. #1 looks pretty bad, probably because the jitter looks different in the top part of the screen versus the bottom part. The characters look like they're jiggling their heads and not their torsos.
In general, the jittering just feels like a part of the aesthetic. I know it's a thing, but old anime is just "supposed to look like that." Kind of like film scratches/spots or mono sound.
The thing is, I don't know what it's actually supposed to look like. I haven't seen whatever you've seen (or are expecting) in a high-quality transfer. So the amount of research and searching necessary to find a better version of the anime (if there even are any) is just not worth it. And when I do see a high-quality transfer, I don't notice anything - that's the point.
As someone who doesn't watch much old anime and doesn't know much about video quality, here's my 2 cents.
It just doesn't register most of the time. Out of the examples you posted, #2 and #3 look alright to me. I can see the jittering, yes, but only because you mentioned it. #1 looks pretty bad, probably because the jitter looks different in the top part of the screen versus the bottom part. The characters look like they're jiggling their heads and not their torsos.
In general, the jittering just feels like a part of the aesthetic. I know it's a thing, but old anime is just "supposed to look like that." Kind of like film scratches/spots or mono sound.
The thing is, I don't know what it's actually supposed to look like. I haven't seen whatever you've seen (or are expecting) in a high-quality transfer. So the amount of research and searching necessary to find a better version of the anime (if there even are any) is just not worth it. And when I do see a high-quality transfer, I don't notice anything - that's the point.
I took the time to take my physical copy of The Anime using WinX premium platinum to convert into an ISO then converted it using handbrake using all the filters variation possible and the shit still came out looking like this shit. Where this type of stutter isn't present when watching it on official physical copies... The shit turned out almost identical to this "Example 01" which according to my real life friend is the only existing quality that exists in public domain. lol
Either way spending the time messing around with this shit earlier today, when my friend was over while we were drinking beers, we came to the definitive conclusion that 9/10 Anime titles after downloading everything that was available for those titles, is absolute garbage. This is what I did on my 1st day off from working this holiday season, which was debating this shit with my friend in my mancave. lol
I swear we ended up downloading about 2tb of Anime for the same 10 old titles. lol
Either way even shit pressed on DVDs (which is digital by nature), were sometimes never meant to be digitally converted either. lol
Reign_of_Floof said:
No, we just have to notice that the pattern is instantiated a decent amount of the time, you keep equivocating between issues with how you are coming to counting the individual examples of your pattern with demanding a universal necessary connection, no one has demanded the latter, we have only pointed out that your means of coming to the former is flawed,
This is what is being called into doubt: that the people who are complaining about bad animation quality are in fact watching bad transfers a significant amount of the time, it's very rare that you are going to know what transfer someone was watching when they complain about the animation quality, you only know that bad transfers exist and that people are complaining about animation quality, what you don't know is if those complaints about animation quality are coming from cases of people who are watching the bad transfers.
ColourWheel said:
By your logic, we should never notice anything unless we have a complete census of the fucking universe’s knowledge.
By your logic, we should never notice anything unless we have a complete census of the fucking universe’s knowledge.
No, we just have to notice that the pattern is instantiated a decent amount of the time, you keep equivocating between issues with how you are coming to counting the individual examples of your pattern with demanding a universal necessary connection, no one has demanded the latter, we have only pointed out that your means of coming to the former is flawed,
ColourWheel said:
I pointed out a recurring coincidence between degraded transfers and complaints about animation quality
I pointed out a recurring coincidence between degraded transfers and complaints about animation quality
This is what is being called into doubt: that the people who are complaining about bad animation quality are in fact watching bad transfers a significant amount of the time, it's very rare that you are going to know what transfer someone was watching when they complain about the animation quality, you only know that bad transfers exist and that people are complaining about animation quality, what you don't know is if those complaints about animation quality are coming from cases of people who are watching the bad transfers.
Right... and this is exactly where the disconnect keeps fucking happening. lol
No one is “counting individual examples” the way you’re describing, because this was never framed as a formal dataset with strict inclusion criteria. What’s being discussed is inference under incomplete information, which is how literally all real-world media analysis operates.
You keep treating “we don’t always know which transfer someone watched” as if that invalidates any attempt to connect observable outcomes to known upstream variables. That standard would make it impossible to reason about anything that isn’t exhaustively documented... including fan reception, broadcast-era releases, or historical home video quality in general.
To be very precise:
- We know bad transfers exist.
- We know bad transfers introduce artifacts that can resemble animation issues (stutter, judder, smeared motion, cadence problems).
- We know viewers frequently describe technical artifacts imprecisely as “bad animation”.
From that, it is not fucking irrational, or epistemically flawed... to hypothesize that some non-trivial portion of those complaints may be transfer-related. That does not require knowing the exact transfer in every case, just like doctors don’t need a genome sequence to suspect dehydration when someone presents with dizziness.
What you’re effectively arguing is that unless attribution is explicitly declared by the viewer, no probabilistic reasoning is allowed. That’s not caution... that’s demanding courtroom-level proof for casual observational claims.
So yes, the specific linkage is what’s being questioned... but questioning it doesn’t magically erase the plausibility of the connection. It just means the conclusion remains tentative, not imaginary.
At this point, the debate isn’t really about evidence... it’s about whether we’re allowed to acknowledge likely relationships without pretending we’re publishing a meta-analysis. And refusing to do that doesn’t make the reasoning cleaner... it just makes the shit sterile. lol
| @ColourWheel ColourWheel said: We know bad transfers introduce artifacts that can resemble animation issues (stutter, judder, smeared motion, cadence problems). This bit is false, there isn't any good reason to mistake any of this as coming from something that the animator was doing when they were drawing out the animation, it's very easy to tell the difference between melting animation, like when the douga is inconsistent or when the whole image itself is actually shaking, the background itself will shake with the character when the latter happens, if it was an issue with the animation then any sense of melting or stuttering would be limited to the character who is actually being animated where the background would stay static. ColourWheel said: - We know viewers frequently describe technical artifacts imprecisely as “bad animation”. This bit is false, we don't get that information unless we know that the complainer watched a bad transfer, which is rare. |
Reign_of_Floof said: @ColourWheel ColourWheel said: We know bad transfers introduce artifacts that can resemble animation issues (stutter, judder, smeared motion, cadence problems). This bit is false, there isn't any good reason to mistake any of this as coming from something that the animator was doing when they were drawing out the animation, it's very easy to tell the difference between melting animation, like when the douga is inconsistent or when the whole image itself is actually shaking, the background itself will shake with the character when the latter happens, if it was an issue with the animation then any sense of melting or stuttering would be limited to the character who is actually being animated where the background would stay static. ColourWheel said: - We know viewers frequently describe technical artifacts imprecisely as “bad animation”. This bit is false, we don't get that information unless we know that the complainer watched a bad transfer, which is rare. Classic... “background vs. character” police, combined with the “you can’t know what the viewer meant without forensic transfer-level CSI” argument. I see the Kamasutra gymnastics going on here. lol First, the stutter/judder/melting argument... yes, a trained eye can sometimes distinguish between a douga-induced meltdown and a telecine- or encode-induced stutter. Like saying, "No shit Sherlock"... But that doesn’t magically erase the fact that bad transfers literally produce artifacts that resemble animation issues. It’s not some mystical anomaly... it’s documented, reproducible, and can be verified with extremely minimal effort (see: my WinX -> ISO -> HandBrake pipeline from earlier). So the claim isn’t “every judder is a fake transfer issue”... it’s fucking transfer artifacts can resemble animation problems. That’s like saying, “Yes, sometimes clouds are actually clouds, but sometimes it rains cats and dogs anyway”. Both statements can be true fucking simultaneously. Second, the “we don’t know what transfer the complainer watched” chestnut... yes, it’s technically true that we can’t identify which exact version every forum poster consumed. But again here’s the thing... humans don’t communicate in perfect audit logs. Fans call judder “bad animation,” smear “poor drawing”, and interlaced chaos “a betrayal of God Himself” whether they know the transfer or not. That’s called practical observation, and it is how literally all real-world media analysis works. I fucking hate going back to this shit all the time but... Meteorologists don’t wait for every cloud to be measured before predicting rain, doctors don’t scan every single cell before diagnosing dehydration, and we don’t need a signed affidavit from every anime fan to notice patterns in complaints. lol In other fucking words:
So go ahead and tell me again that all of this is “false” because my argument isn’t airtight like a NASA launch checklist. I’ll just sip my beer in the mancave, marvel at the 2TB of anime I’ve painfully tested because I was bored today and wanted to test out a new PC with a friend, and quietly note that pattern recognition still works even when you want it to fail spectacularly for the sake of pedantry. lol In short... your objections are technically fastidious, but logically irrelevant. They’re like arguing that the sky isn’t blue because you haven’t personally counted every photon. lol |
|
| I kind of get it, because I have experienced analogue TV from different sources (lets ignore antenna receiving problems) - live air, VTR recordings, BETCAM recordings (yes, CAM, not MAX) and VHS recordings. Those looked way better than the analogue to digital transfers we are familiar nowadays. I don't think many anime fans are familiar with similar analogue experience and we are talking with pristine equipment, not with some beaten decades old stuff and chew up rental cassettes. Another cause for some of the old anime looking bad on digital is the way those were archived - on U-matic (think VHS, but worst). VTRs were way too expensive and constantly reused. That said I prefer the rescanned/remastered/restored from the original 35 mm source (when available) anime, because: 1. Those are closer to the old movie experience than the old TV experience. 2. Some problems with the deterioration of the source can be dealt with, like discoloration of the movie tapes and decay of the magnetic tapes. 3. Fixing some animation and editing errors. 4. Opportunity to have a different audio mix, for example the surround sound version with changed insert songs for the OG Gumdam movies (original tracks available with that release too). 5. Yeah and I hate movie grains in video. Pretty glad when those are removed. |
alshu5 hours ago
Reply to DesuMaiden
@krautnelson how did you know the OP's post contains 5,000 words? His post may be long, but I don't think it is 5,000 words long. Also, there is plenty of good anime to watch, and the old content is usually of good visual quality, contrary to what the OP states.
DesuMaiden said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolehow did you know the OP's post contains 5,000 words? |
ColourWheel said: This is something that boggles my mind... If people are truly so hardcore about this medium, why the fuck they don't spend the extra money on a proper official release on physical media to enjoy the shit they claim to love this shit so much? The other day I was talking to a friend about "Lost Universe", immediately I asked them what physical release did they watch the shit on... "Was is the ADV or The Right Stuff International release?", they just said it was a ripped copy off the internet... I shrugged and then asked their opinion, They said they didn't like it. I then asked if it the obvious question "Did it look broken?" they said "Yes". The shit can be bought in their original volumes for chump change these days. I even let my friend borrow my own copies of the Anime. Their opinion of the series drastically changed after that shit. lol It's more like something they decided to give a chance to because they ran out of seasonal slop to watch, and half the time they'd drop it after a few episodes anyway. Besides if I were in that conversation, I couldn't even watch that physical release, PCs don't come with optical drives anymore. I really don't get why people like merch in general anyway, that's so alien to me. |
Reply to alshu
I kind of get it, because I have experienced analogue TV from different sources (lets ignore antenna receiving problems) - live air, VTR recordings, BETCAM recordings (yes, CAM, not MAX) and VHS recordings.
Those looked way better than the analogue to digital transfers we are familiar nowadays. I don't think many anime fans are familiar with similar analogue experience and we are talking with pristine equipment, not with some beaten decades old stuff and chew up rental cassettes.
Another cause for some of the old anime looking bad on digital is the way those were archived - on U-matic (think VHS, but worst). VTRs were way too expensive and constantly reused.
That said I prefer the rescanned/remastered/restored from the original 35 mm source (when available) anime, because:
1. Those are closer to the old movie experience than the old TV experience.
2. Some problems with the deterioration of the source can be dealt with, like discoloration of the movie tapes and decay of the magnetic tapes.
3. Fixing some animation and editing errors.
4. Opportunity to have a different audio mix, for example the surround sound version with changed insert songs for the OG Gumdam movies (original tracks available with that release too).
5. Yeah and I hate movie grains in video. Pretty glad when those are removed.
Those looked way better than the analogue to digital transfers we are familiar nowadays. I don't think many anime fans are familiar with similar analogue experience and we are talking with pristine equipment, not with some beaten decades old stuff and chew up rental cassettes.
Another cause for some of the old anime looking bad on digital is the way those were archived - on U-matic (think VHS, but worst). VTRs were way too expensive and constantly reused.
That said I prefer the rescanned/remastered/restored from the original 35 mm source (when available) anime, because:
1. Those are closer to the old movie experience than the old TV experience.
2. Some problems with the deterioration of the source can be dealt with, like discoloration of the movie tapes and decay of the magnetic tapes.
3. Fixing some animation and editing errors.
4. Opportunity to have a different audio mix, for example the surround sound version with changed insert songs for the OG Gumdam movies (original tracks available with that release too).
5. Yeah and I hate movie grains in video. Pretty glad when those are removed.
| @alshu Movie grains are so bad, but then people add them back in post to the movies they shot on a digitally... Or even to games, like who doesn't turn that off immediately? |
JaniSIr said: I really don't get why people like merch in general anyway This is to fake satisfy your hoarding instinct. Gives you a sense of fake security. On the other hand, physical copies are quite practical, especially nowadays when entire streaming services are being destroyed on purpose and shows disappear, because nobody cares the renew their licenses. JaniSIr said: Movie grains are so bad, but then people add them back in post to the movies they shot on a digitally I guess it's artistic choice...but I hate those too, especially in anime where it's used for flashbacks. |
alshu4 hours ago
Reply to alshu
JaniSIr said:
I really don't get why people like merch in general anyway
I really don't get why people like merch in general anyway
This is to fake satisfy your hoarding instinct. Gives you a sense of fake security.
On the other hand, physical copies are quite practical, especially nowadays when entire streaming services are being destroyed on purpose and shows disappear, because nobody cares the renew their licenses.
JaniSIr said:
Movie grains are so bad, but then people add them back in post to the movies they shot on a digitally
Movie grains are so bad, but then people add them back in post to the movies they shot on a digitally
I guess it's artistic choice...but I hate those too, especially in anime where it's used for flashbacks.
| @alshu I don't particularly hoard though. |
Reply to alshu
JaniSIr said:
I really don't get why people like merch in general anyway
I really don't get why people like merch in general anyway
This is to fake satisfy your hoarding instinct. Gives you a sense of fake security.
On the other hand, physical copies are quite practical, especially nowadays when entire streaming services are being destroyed on purpose and shows disappear, because nobody cares the renew their licenses.
JaniSIr said:
Movie grains are so bad, but then people add them back in post to the movies they shot on a digitally
Movie grains are so bad, but then people add them back in post to the movies they shot on a digitally
I guess it's artistic choice...but I hate those too, especially in anime where it's used for flashbacks.
| @alshu Do you mean "physical or PHYSICAL" because I bought terabytes of storage. Nobody is fucking taking my anime from me. Not even western companies that sell physical copies. |
  |
JaniSIr said: I really don't get why people like merch in general anyway Not everyone is a fucking minimalist monk living in a sock drawer. Technically, you only need one pair of underwear, one pair of socks, one shirt, and maybe pants that don’t smell like shit and despair... but somehow people end up with closets that could host a small orchestra. You don’t need ten sets of dishes, three cars that never see daylight, or a collection of things that make IKEA weep. lol Part of the fun of having money is spending it on dumb shit, like buying another pair of shoes that will sit next to the first pair judging your life choices, or getting a collectible anime figure that stares at you accusingly when you forget to dust it. Not everyone is a startup CEO pumping every cent back into some business and if we all were anyways... some of us just like to have fun and treat our wallets like a pinata. Plus, it’s merch that has defined this medium to begin with, and has kept it strong. Without it, half the anime you love likely wouldn’t even exist. Buying the official release, snagging a figure, hoarding a keychain... it’s not just waste, it’s a declaration... "I like this thing enough to make the people who made it not hate their lives". Let’s be real... if everyone only stuck to the "one pair of socks, one shirt" philosophy, the world would be a lot less fun. Merch is the confetti of fandom, the rubber chicken of the collector’s shelf, the slightly ridiculous proof that having money sometimes means doing absolutely pointless things that make you happy. that’s exactly how you keep a hobby alive for decades... and usually the people who act like they don't like the shit, are the ones who could never afford the shit to begin with (reminds me of a dude I went to college with Jocking on the idea of me owning so much Anime on physical copies at the time. Only a decade later after college, getting together with them to hang out once, the fucker had an entire room basically filled with DVDs, CDs, and other collectable shit in their own mancave once they were very successful in life lol). lol Buying shit is just a way everyone declares their wealth in style, whether they make minimum wage or a fucking billionaire. Walk into someone’s house and see they barely own anything... no pictures on the walls, a single sad chair in the corner, maybe a table that’s more decoration than function... and most people assume they’re fucking broke and all their shit got repossessed. Meanwhile, the person with shelves groaning under figures, stacks of DVDs, multiple Shelves with books, and a chair that doubles as a shrine to snacks? That's fucking rich culture. Consumerism is what keep capitalism alive and prevents the existence of only one crappy flavor soda and the need to wait in line just to get a roll of toilet paper like it's fucking rations. lol alshu said: JaniSIr said: On the other hand, physical copies are quite practical, especially nowadays when entire streaming services are being destroyed on purpose and shows disappear, because nobody cares the renew their licenses.I really don't get why people like merch in general anyway Exactly this too! |
ColourWheel2 hours ago
|
JaniSIr said: I don't particularly hoard though. I am not into merch...but here some products tend to disappear periodically, so one tends to hoard an extra box just for case. ComeInReiAsuka said: because I bought terabytes of storage That's one of the ways I guess. |
| As someone who watched NGE for the first time in 240p - you work with what you have. I mean, would I have enjoyed it more in high quality? Yeah, sure. But truth is, the technical aspect for me runs parallel to the enjoyment of the show itself. If I were to make an analogy, I'd say it's like reading a book that's falling apart or a comic book (if you want to fixate on the visuals being key) that's seen better days. Will it make the consumption of the media more difficult and impede it in some way? Yeah, but again, unless it's a MAJOR issue, it's just an inconvenience, not a deal breaker. |
Reply to ColourWheel
Reign_of_Floof said:
@ColourWheel
This bit is false, there isn't any good reason to mistake any of this as coming from something that the animator was doing when they were drawing out the animation, it's very easy to tell the difference between melting animation, like when the douga is inconsistent or when the whole image itself is actually shaking, the background itself will shake with the character when the latter happens, if it was an issue with the animation then any sense of melting or stuttering would be limited to the character who is actually being animated where the background would stay static.
This bit is false, we don't get that information unless we know that the complainer watched a bad transfer, which is rare.
@ColourWheel
ColourWheel said:
We know bad transfers introduce artifacts that can resemble animation issues (stutter, judder, smeared motion, cadence problems).
We know bad transfers introduce artifacts that can resemble animation issues (stutter, judder, smeared motion, cadence problems).
This bit is false, there isn't any good reason to mistake any of this as coming from something that the animator was doing when they were drawing out the animation, it's very easy to tell the difference between melting animation, like when the douga is inconsistent or when the whole image itself is actually shaking, the background itself will shake with the character when the latter happens, if it was an issue with the animation then any sense of melting or stuttering would be limited to the character who is actually being animated where the background would stay static.
ColourWheel said:
- We know viewers frequently describe technical artifacts imprecisely as “bad animation”.
- We know viewers frequently describe technical artifacts imprecisely as “bad animation”.
This bit is false, we don't get that information unless we know that the complainer watched a bad transfer, which is rare.
Classic... “background vs. character” police, combined with the “you can’t know what the viewer meant without forensic transfer-level CSI” argument.
I see the Kamasutra gymnastics going on here. lol
First, the stutter/judder/melting argument... yes, a trained eye can sometimes distinguish between a douga-induced meltdown and a telecine- or encode-induced stutter. Like saying, "No shit Sherlock"... But that doesn’t magically erase the fact that bad transfers literally produce artifacts that resemble animation issues. It’s not some mystical anomaly... it’s documented, reproducible, and can be verified with extremely minimal effort (see: my WinX -> ISO -> HandBrake pipeline from earlier).
So the claim isn’t “every judder is a fake transfer issue”... it’s fucking transfer artifacts can resemble animation problems. That’s like saying, “Yes, sometimes clouds are actually clouds, but sometimes it rains cats and dogs anyway”. Both statements can be true fucking simultaneously.
Second, the “we don’t know what transfer the complainer watched” chestnut... yes, it’s technically true that we can’t identify which exact version every forum poster consumed. But again here’s the thing... humans don’t communicate in perfect audit logs. Fans call judder “bad animation,” smear “poor drawing”, and interlaced chaos “a betrayal of God Himself” whether they know the transfer or not. That’s called practical observation, and it is how literally all real-world media analysis works. I fucking hate going back to this shit all the time but... Meteorologists don’t wait for every cloud to be measured before predicting rain, doctors don’t scan every single cell before diagnosing dehydration, and we don’t need a signed affidavit from every anime fan to notice patterns in complaints. lol
In other fucking words:
- Yes, artifacts can be distinguished by trained eyes. But they still fucking exist.
- Yes, we don’t know every transfer every complainer watched. But tendencies, patterns, and probabilistic inference are still fucking valid.
- Demanding both perfect identification of the transfer and perfect attribution from the viewer is like insisting that I can’t know it’s raining unless I’ve measured every drop falling from every cloud in the Northern Hemisphere. It’s not rigor... it’s fucking epistemic overkill. lol
So go ahead and tell me again that all of this is “false” because my argument isn’t airtight like a NASA launch checklist. I’ll just sip my beer in the mancave, marvel at the 2TB of anime I’ve painfully tested because I was bored today and wanted to test out a new PC with a friend, and quietly note that pattern recognition still works even when you want it to fail spectacularly for the sake of pedantry. lol
In short... your objections are technically fastidious, but logically irrelevant. They’re like arguing that the sky isn’t blue because you haven’t personally counted every photon. lol
| @ColourWheel ColourWheel said: it’s technically true that we can’t identify which exact version every forum poster consumed. But again here’s the thing... humans don’t communicate in perfect audit logs. Fans call judder “bad animation,” smear “poor drawing”, and interlaced chaos “a betrayal of God Himself” whether they know the transfer or not. The problem is that you can't identify whether they watched a bad transfer or not 99%+ of the time, I'm not looking for 100% rigorous verifications, I'm looking for you actually being able to know with some degree of likelihood 2 to 5% of the time, which is pretty unlikely given what we've agreed the amount of information that people will actually give on this stuff when they make the complaints about the animation. ColourWheel said: Fans call judder “bad animation,” smear “poor drawing”, and interlaced chaos “a betrayal of God Himself” whether they know the transfer or not. That’s called practical observation, No, that's called you making things up based on random internet posts about bad animation in older anime. as you've mentioned you are not seeing cases where fans are making a complaint and you are able to actually identify that what they are watching has these things and that that is what they are actually talking about, it's something that absolutely could happen, but just because it's something that could happen doesn't mean that it is actually happening to a significant degree. ColourWheel said: But that doesn’t magically erase the fact that bad transfers literally produce artifacts that resemble animation issues. Except that it doesn't, because animators don't produce the entire image, only the parts they draw that are composited into the total image, transfer issues objectively do not resemble animation issues. These aren't actual responses, they're irrelevant deflections. Good day, I'm done. |
| My plebeian brain can't register it so it never really bothered me. |
Reply to Richard_drizzle
My plebeian brain can't register it so it never really bothered me.
| @Richard_drizzle actually it isn't nearly as bad as the OP describes, so it is perfectly tolerable. |
 |
More topics from this board
» Is second-monitoring anime actually considered watching the anime?Dragevard - Yesterday |
12 |
by Ih4t34nime
»»
47 seconds ago |
|
» Your top 5 favorite waifu in orderRaiYou - 6 hours ago |
11 |
by Little_Sheepling
»»
7 minutes ago |
|
» what part of the anime community do you love and hate the most?Ymir_The_Viking - Dec 14 |
16 |
by BerriesSan
»»
9 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Are you a monster who watches anime at 2x speed?tanjiromybaby - 2 hours ago |
16 |
by _ohara
»»
12 minutes ago |
|
» Is it possible to be deep into anime and a hyper-normie at the same time?thewiru - Yesterday |
47 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
18 minutes ago |