"hyper realism" of what? Cameras,photos or how we see the world?
Even if you use googles that have cracked glasses you won't see the cracks after a while.
The world will look perfect despite what you have in front of your eyes.
Popularity doesn't mean "good".
Having to adjust the effect shots to the real shots is one of the things i can understand and have no problem.
But putting the same things "always"to shoots that doesn't have those kind of problems is laziness and just because of"they like these" attitude and has nothing to do with art in general. For me at least. But as i said they have their places of course.
Technical limitations of the past (and now) are one of the problem that some things are still considered for some ok.
With 4K and maybe latter 8K you will look at movies done today and say 40 years later"Wow what shit have they done to that movies?".
You can't use the same techniques (at least at the same pixels levels) on 4K movies. It wouldn't look "hyperrealist" it would look bad.
My eyes have those kind of imperfections. When you add those imperfections to what i see those imperfections get doubled.
Show me how it should be as clear as it can be. Then my own imperfections will do the rest already.
There are more nuances of course.
Can you go more realistic then a documentary? When i look at the word documentary something like these come up:
*- Which serves to document (record and: or illustrate) a subject of, related to, or based on documents
*- A film, TV program, publication etc. which presents a social, political, scientific or historical subject in a factual or informative manner
presented objectively without the insertion of fictional matter
*- A factual and objective presentation
Would you add those imperfections (or use even black and white today) to a documentary to get "hyperrealism" (I hate that word too by the way
) ?