• deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh, I get that aspect. It’s just an objectively better experience without the artifacts of the technical limitls of a physical camera and lens.

    It’s as if it’s driven by an idiot that thinks if it looks like there are lens flares, abberation, vignette, etc. that it was look cinematographic, completely ignoring the actual art of composition, framing, lighting, depth of field, etc… the actual arts of cinematography.

    Though, given that I’m the one controlling the vital camera with my mouse or controller, apparently it should suck as much as a real camera.

      • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I used objectively literally.

        Avoiding flares, aberration etc makes an image objectively better. You might subjectively prefer either the objectively better or objectively worse image.

        • 0ops@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lol it’s literally an “objectively better experience” and if your experience was different then you’re literally objectively wrong.

          Look sorry about the sass, I know know I’m being a pedantic ass right now. But experience is by definition subjective. If you specified that the image clarity was objectively better, well then you’d be totally right. But that’s not what you said.