HDTV: Realism vs. Spectacle

June 14, 2005 4:33 AM

Not Readyfor Their Close-Up. Quote: "On the brighter side, TV will lose a certain amount of its power over us - I can promise you that. HD won't do advertisements quite the same way. Ask any Catholic priest, or Jung, or Scott McLoud about the power of icons, and they'll explain it the same way. Too much detail, and they lose their ability to induce our identification."
posted by gsb (41 comments total)

Somebody will create software that blurs only fleshtones over a "live" feed. They'll patent it in the US and make a fortune.

On preview: didn't read the last article. :)
posted by infowar at 5:08 AM on June 14, 2005

I don't know abou this. I've had an HDTV for about 18 months now, and I think a lot of this is overblown.

For one thing, the folks at onhd.tv have been making PR hay from that list for a long time, now, and while, yes, some people don't look as good, the onhd descriptions totally overstate the ravages of hi-def detail. To read their list, you'd think you'd run screaming the first time you saw HDTV.

I also don't find the added definition anywhere near as disconcerting as Rushkoff describes on a narrative/figurative level. I watch Deadwood, too, and I make a _point_ of watching it in HD...while I think it's a clever idea that Rushkoff is putting out, I personally think it's overreaching to say that the detail "detracts from their iconic significance". You could make the same basic argument about color, too--that's a pretty important level of detail. While you can absolutely say that B&W has distinct figurative qualities because it's so clearly not reality, it's not like color films can't represent the "mythological, iconic shape" of a story.
posted by LairBob at 5:20 AM on June 14, 2005

'When she walked in here,' Lesesne says, ' 'high-def' was the first thing that came out of her mouth.'

I usually start with "Hello".
posted by Bugbread at 5:27 AM on June 14, 2005

The editors of OnHD.TV examined several dozen stars and compiled a list of heartthrobs who (they claim) wither under the unblinking gaze of high-def, including Cameron Diaz ('littered with unfortunate pockmarks'), Jewel (whose makeup 'looks like it was done by Ringling Brothers') and Bill Maher ('scary').

Oh that hearththrob Maher... if he's scary, he's scary hawt.
posted by mek at 5:29 AM on June 14, 2005

"The actor was once considered a Hollywood sex symbol. But now, in HDTV, he looks more like Kirk Douglas than Michael Douglas."

Non-snarky question: wasn't Kirk Douglas also considered a sex symbol?
posted by Bugbread at 5:30 AM on June 14, 2005

This is only true when we're talking about actual HD video, so it's mostly a problem for people who appear on "live" television -- local newscasters, talk show hosts, etc. Your favorite sitcoms, drama series, etc. are mostly shot on film, and the intervening filter of cinematography will keep Ms. Diaz et. al. looking radiant and unnaturally gorgeous. After all, we go to see them on movie screens that show their faces 100 times larger than life and they don't look like smallpox survivors there.
posted by briank at 5:39 AM on June 14, 2005

How will this affect porn and the attendant consumption of Cheetos?
posted by nofundy at 5:45 AM on June 14, 2005

Natalie Portman gets an honorable mention in the 2nd article for being a hottie in high def, but I have to say, seeing star wars ep 3 in a digital theater, there were a couple times that I thought - wow, either her skin's rougher than I thought or she is wearing way too much makeup - either one is not good.

Shallow and stupid, I know. I'm sure if Natalie Portman saw a close up of me this morning she could make a few comments too.
posted by selfmedicating at 5:53 AM on June 14, 2005

'When she walked in here,' Lesesne says, ' 'high-def' was the first thing that came out of her mouth.'

They failed to mention that Cap's nickname is "Def."
posted by effwerd at 5:54 AM on June 14, 2005

That should be Scott McCloud, by the way...
posted by jpburns at 6:05 AM on June 14, 2005

The transition from silent movies to talkies destroyed many actors' careers, as did the shift from black-and-white to color.

Which actors in particular looked OK in black-and-white but terrible in colour?
posted by TheophileEscargot at 6:23 AM on June 14, 2005

Thanks jpburns.
posted by gsb at 6:26 AM on June 14, 2005

Which actors in particular looked OK in black-and-white but terrible in colour?

Pasty McDougal, see you've never heard of him, nor "Zits" Johnson for that matter, though Richard "Sweathog" Nixon actually came out better in the color days.

This is silly. Not all HD TVs will be the size of a garage door nor will all shots be close-ups. Our eyes are simply not good enough to catch every blemish otherwise. Besides, nobody's ever heard of photoshop? I hear they are actually thinking of using computers to help make movies now!
posted by Pollomacho at 6:31 AM on June 14, 2005

'in high-def, Halle Berry's skin is so beautiful and flawless, she's almost a genetic freak.'

Gee, ya think? Aren't all of the beautiful people freaks? Otherwise why would they stand out?
posted by djeo at 6:39 AM on June 14, 2005

'When she walked in here,' Lesesne says, ' 'high-def' was the first thing that came out of her mouth.'

Hemingway is not rolling over in his grave. That's because he's dead. And corpses don't move around unless someone else does the moving.

Another thing that's dead is journalism.
posted by nervousfritz at 6:43 AM on June 14, 2005

Having worked for a post production company I've seen first hand a Flame op sitting down in front of an artists face removing acne... All that will happen is that producing for HDTV will mean an extra level of post for the Ugger actors out there. Or they will just simply hire those actors who look good on HDTV...
posted by Meccabilly at 6:44 AM on June 14, 2005

Gee, ya think? Aren't all of the beautiful people freaks? Otherwise why would they stand out?

Um, well just a guess here, but I think the thesis is that this tech will reduce the already scant "beautiful" population from whatever it is, say 1%, to fraction of that, so the "freaks" will stand out even more. Seems like the writer is reacting to the fact that in all/most of these other cases, you suddenly see all these blemishes, and then you look at Halle and... nothing. Not that this will improve her acting ability, of course. Great, another wave of talentless beauty.
posted by dreamsign at 6:50 AM on June 14, 2005

TV will lose a certain amount of its power over us - I can promise you that. HD won't do advertisements quite the same way.

The author greatly underestimates the ability of marketers to take advantage of change. HD advertisements will continue to hold power over us...probably more so.
posted by rocket88 at 6:59 AM on June 14, 2005

Blame it all on the Male Gaze.
posted by kozad at 7:19 AM on June 14, 2005

"We'll fix it in post".

Seriously, it a couple years, we'll have winkle-removing software. I gai-ron-tee it.
posted by delmoi at 7:29 AM on June 14, 2005

So what say we set up a death pool for the careers of the facially cratered who previously got by on pancake?
posted by warbaby at 7:42 AM on June 14, 2005

Bullshit!
posted by mischief at 7:42 AM on June 14, 2005

Blame it all on the Male Gaze.

Wow, Freud was such a hack.

Also, I kinda understand what they're talking about. Even in real life you're never going to see that much detail, you're never going to see someone's face at greater then 1:1, whereas on HDTV you're going to see it super-close.

Oh well, maybe we'll just have reformed standards of beauty.

I never found cameron diaz all that hot, personaly.
posted by delmoi at 7:44 AM on June 14, 2005

Can't we, and I know this is a crazy idea, but can't we have actors that are less than perfect?
posted by drezdn at 7:56 AM on June 14, 2005

Seriously, it a couple years, we'll have winkle-removing software. I gai-ron-tee it.

Anyone tries to remove my winkle will get a swift kick in theirs.
posted by papercake at 7:57 AM on June 14, 2005

Robert Plant only sings with some kind of filter that became his trademark years ago, back in the Shire. Same with Ozzy. So maybe Cameron packs a CD full of code that recognizes her face in any given scene and automatically corrects it to the degree she and the software geek have tweaked. Its part of her contract and simple for post production to run. Jolie runs MoleNot 1.1 and bang! she's rebeautified.
Too late for Michael Jackson. Coulda saved a ton of money just by tweaking his gamma curve. But think of the money and embarrassment saved in porn once anal bleaching is no longer needed. Just zero in on the barking spider and zap it.
posted by hal9k at 8:20 AM on June 14, 2005

yhbt. this is just like the 4 hour erection warning in the cialis ad.
posted by quonsar at 8:21 AM on June 14, 2005

There. I just trademarked it: AssWhite (beta) I wanted to protect the brand name but I plan on releasing it as... (wait for it)... open source. A RunTime version will not be available.
posted by hal9k at 8:25 AM on June 14, 2005

That should be Scott McCloud, by the way...
posted by jpburns at 6:05 AM PST on June 14

No, no, "Scott McLoud" is much more accurate.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:40 AM on June 14, 2005

So that's why billboards don't work...they're too real!
/sarcasm
posted by odinsdream at 8:51 AM on June 14, 2005

No, no, "Scott McLoud" is much more accurate.

Agreed. McCloud is great when he's doing what he does best, that being analysis of the art of comics. Understanding Comics has lost none of its insight and luster since its original publication way back when. In recent years, sadly, he's just gone monomaniacal.
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:56 AM on June 14, 2005

Blame it all on the Male Gaze.

Whenever my professor would say that, I would repeat it in my head as "Male Gays" and have a little chuckle.

Maybe you have to read it for that to be funny.
posted by ludwig_van at 9:23 AM on June 14, 2005

Natalie Portman gets an honorable mention in the 2nd article for being a hottie in high def, but I have to say, seeing star wars ep 3 in a digital theater, there were a couple times that I thought - wow, either her skin's rougher than I thought or she is wearing way too much makeup - either one is not good.

I saw Star Wars Ep. II on an IMAX screen a couple years back. You could see the edges of the pancake makeup on her and everyone else. And woo! the zits.
posted by me3dia at 9:27 AM on June 14, 2005

Who's going to be hurt by the transition to 3D-tv.
posted by NewBornHippy at 10:15 AM on June 14, 2005

In high-def, Halle Berry's skin is so beautiful and flawless, she's almost a genetic freak.

Trust me, she's retouched.

In person, she's hairier than a monster's ball.
posted by OhPuhLeez at 10:37 AM on June 14, 2005

ludwig-van: that's funny. (BTW, "male gaze" gets 45K Google hits, 11K for "female gaze." And "male glaze" gets 6; "female glaze" gets 1. Almost the same proportion. On the other hand, "doughnuts" gets less than a million hits, while "donuts" gets more than two million. That's wack. Oh, you think I should just get back to work, do you?)
posted by kozad at 10:38 AM on June 14, 2005

OnHDtv's 10 Scariest Celebs: Keith Richards and Steven Tyler.

Wow, because they look so *good* on my regular 19-inch TV.

BTW could anyone comment on what it's like to watch sports on HDTV. I assume athletes getting all grubby look wretched too.

And I wonder - when "the man on the street" realizes what they'll look like in HDTV, will we see fewer witnesses/victims, etc., agreeing to those (often inane) on-the-spot, "how do you feel?" interviews on local news.

Reading the links actually turns me off a bit on the idea of having HDTV. I'd like a bigger-screen telly than the small ones I have now, but I'm not sure I want *any* broadcast image that's a lot larger.

And perhaps that reflects long-term conditioning: for someone my age, movies in a theatre and TV at home are two different kinds of experiences. It'd be an adjustment to watch it so big, so piercingly clear. (But if anyone wants to give me a free HD TV, I'll grudgingly try.)

hal9kit's almost the opposite in the world of pop/rock music. Many so-called music stars have gotten away with covering up huge vocal deficiencies through the miracle of electronics.
posted by NorthernLite at 11:47 AM on June 14, 2005

NorthernLite : "BTW could anyone comment on what it's like to watch sports on HDTV. I assume athletes getting all grubby look wretched too."

From what I've seen in the store displays: I'd never thought about it before, but you very seldom get cameras really close to people's faces in sports footage (or, I dunno, maybe you occasionally do (I don't watch sports, so I don't know), but not frequently enough for me ever to notice it on the sports displays), so the camera is far enough away that it pretty much looks the same, except:

- In baseball, you can see that they're not running on green carpet, but actual grass
- In pretty much any sport, you can make out the athletes' numbers much more easily when the camera is panned wide

So, not much to worry about unless helmet cams become insanely popular.

NorthernLite : "Reading the links actually turns me off a bit on the idea of having HDTV. I'd like a bigger-screen telly than the small ones I have now, but I'm not sure I want *any* broadcast image that's a lot larger. "

There are small HDTVs. They just don't look as impressive in stores, so the widescreens are what catch your eye. You can have a slightly bigger TV than the small one you have, and with HDTV, without having to worry about giant heads invading your living room.
posted by Bugbread at 12:12 PM on June 14, 2005

oh, i can't resist...

I, for one, welcome our new giant-headed living-room-invading high-definition overlords.


there. I did it. I can rest easy now.

Oh, and PS, lay off Scott McCloud. He's a real nice guy, and far from a monomaniac. He's just passionate about the ideas he's working on.
posted by zoogleplex at 12:21 PM on June 14, 2005

Who the heck watches Edward James Olmos (listed in a link off the second link) for his looks? You watch him because he's a damn fine actor.

Same goes with most of their list - Cameron Diaz is funny and Renee Zellweger good in comedy or drama. Jamie Lee Curtis is actually more beautiful when not made up, and a very good actor. Anyone who can hold their own with John Cleese, Michael Palin and Kevin Kline is pretty amazing.
posted by jb at 1:26 PM on June 14, 2005

bugbread writes "but you very seldom get cameras really close to people's faces in sports footage"

Baseball seems to be about 30% extreme closeups.
posted by Mitheral at 12:26 PM on June 15, 2005