I suck at drawing but I can sorta see things. However the pictures may be more emotions than objects with actual dimensions because I can't recreate them. I feel the details but on closer examination I don't know what they are and were probably my remembered reaction to them. Can I picture something? Yes, but don't test me.
If you ever wanted to, since you are clearly not clinically aphantasia you could improve your visualization. It's actually quite easy. Modern neurology has reasonably established that visualization is something that you can exercise. There seems to be some evolutionary reason some people don't specialize into using it (current theories are along the lines of thinking that doesn't prioritize visuals is faster, this is largely true in my experience) but the brain matter is still all there.
Yeah. You just have to keep on drawing and "force" the visualization and gradually keep trying to make it more detailed and whole. At least that's the method I've always been told about.
There's also thought streaming, if you haven't heard of that.
Also meditation, there are no shortage of stories on /x/ about visualization being improved with meditation. Meditation is how I went from 3-4 to a 5, and how I developed my inner ear to be able to compose music in my head. It's pretty fun.
I think it was mainly news reports with the overuse of stock footage, but you could argue the Jeremy Brett Sherlock has a touch of that too, and for the better. The Caesars 1968 also has this brilliant Shakespearean way of letting the lead (usually Tiberius) speak his thoughts loud, like a poetic monologue. I don't think the latter production is too demonstrative but it's so visually cohesive for the time it could be a graphic novel.
The Kenneth More Father Brown is terrific visually... it seems like using videotape (?) would've freed up the camera far more. It's the way digital should be shot really.
Wtf do you mean by zero internal visualization?
You mean people who can't visualize an apple in their head?
That's like 1% of the population.
So approximately 70% of Cinemaphile anons, according to the last thread that brought it up
It's 3%. Roughly 10 million people in the US have no internal visualization.
i riked it
i suck at drawing as well lel
I suck at drawing but I can sorta see things. However the pictures may be more emotions than objects with actual dimensions because I can't recreate them. I feel the details but on closer examination I don't know what they are and were probably my remembered reaction to them. Can I picture something? Yes, but don't test me.
I have photographic memory, helpful on tests. Annoying when remembering traumatic experiences
If you ever wanted to, since you are clearly not clinically aphantasia you could improve your visualization. It's actually quite easy. Modern neurology has reasonably established that visualization is something that you can exercise. There seems to be some evolutionary reason some people don't specialize into using it (current theories are along the lines of thinking that doesn't prioritize visuals is faster, this is largely true in my experience) but the brain matter is still all there.
Yeah. You just have to keep on drawing and "force" the visualization and gradually keep trying to make it more detailed and whole. At least that's the method I've always been told about.
There's also thought streaming, if you haven't heard of that.
Also meditation, there are no shortage of stories on /x/ about visualization being improved with meditation. Meditation is how I went from 3-4 to a 5, and how I developed my inner ear to be able to compose music in my head. It's pretty fun.
Everything this dude has made
Ok explain why you people bash on snyder all the time?
To spite Rajesh, Kumar and Pajeet? I doubt they have a sense of internal visualization too.
What does it mean if I can't visualize an apple in my head, but my internal monologue is strong?
And this one too. I forgot that Cinemaphile STILL doesn't allow multi-image posting.
You have a mind built for radio rather than television.
Granada TV in Britain was notorious for this...every spoken image had to be represented. One of the best companies to ever broadcast BTW.
This, so much this! It's just so boring when they tell and don't show. Makes the whole programme asinine to watch in retrospect.
I think it was mainly news reports with the overuse of stock footage, but you could argue the Jeremy Brett Sherlock has a touch of that too, and for the better. The Caesars 1968 also has this brilliant Shakespearean way of letting the lead (usually Tiberius) speak his thoughts loud, like a poetic monologue. I don't think the latter production is too demonstrative but it's so visually cohesive for the time it could be a graphic novel.
Or stock imagery.
The Kenneth More Father Brown is terrific visually... it seems like using videotape (?) would've freed up the camera far more. It's the way digital should be shot really.
>Zero Internal Visualization
Oooh, a fresh new meme has appeared in the wild.
unironically better than the original.
plebs stay filtered.
You only say that because it has more fanservice for certain blueberry flavors of SICK FRICKS
If that were true they would've shown the BBC shot in full instead of leaving it on the cutting room floor.
>they would've shown the BBC shot in full instead of leaving it on the cutting room floor.
you just know they filmed it though...
RELEASE THE BBC CUT, BEN!
>tfw internal vizmaxxed
>tfw internal monologuemaxxed
Charlie and The Chocolate Factory is slop. My version I thought up is better
My Black. I watched Once Upon A Time In Hollywood last night in my head and that was probably better than the actual movie.