You don't combine fallacies like that and no, they are separate things. If both exist in an argument, you expose them individually. The rest of it is just saying a lot without saying much (and yes he does say having motion artifacts in movie theaters is unacceptable, it's a rhetorical question).
I'll make it simple.
He doesn't like the artifacts from frame generation and doesn't think the industry should be going down this path. He doesn't think we should accept the visual artifacts and issues with frame generation in high fidelity visual media. That's it, simple. I happen to agree with him. He actually gave some props to the improvements in DLSS4 in terms of upscaling (though maybe a little back handed, hard to tell tone) so he seems to be in favor of upscaling in general but against frame generation.
Who is combining fallacies here. Straw man arguments often utilizes some for of false equivalency, if you can't understand that then there is no need for us to talk anymore. I wasn't trying to combine fallacies, I was merely breaking down the multiple faults in his argument, one part of which was drawing a false equivalency between the role of visual fidelity in a Movie Threatre vs PC gaming.
Definition of strawman:
Exaggerating an opponent's argument:
Opponents argument: certain amounts of upscaling/MFG artifacts are okay in PC graphics
Exaggeration: certain amounts of upscaling/MFG artifacts are okay in Movie Theatre screenings
Attacking the exaggerated version: certain amounts of upscaling/MFG are NOT okay in Movie threatre screenings.
You obviously disagree, so rather than try to spend a thousand words dismissing someone's opinion, why not simply disagree and say why you think the artifacts are worth what you consider to be the advantages of the technology? You'd save everyone a ton of time and be arguing in good faith versus trying to appeal to censure and coming across as overly emotional about a rendering technology.
My original post literally did exactly what you said, I simply disagreed and stated that in my personal opinion upscaling technology is useful and the artifacts aren't distracting enough to warrant a complete writing off of it's usefulness. I wrote a singular message pointing out that I felt that he was a bit too critical of DLSS not just of it's flaws, but of it's actual benefits for consumers. All this other discussion is merely me responding to people like you who didn't like me calling out the flaws in his argument.
Don't be mistaken here, much of his discussion is about upscaling too, in the first place around half of his screenshots are regarding upscaling artifacts, and his discussion about AI never being able to reach the correct answer is in direct response to Nvidia's upscaling advances with their shift from a CNN to Transformer model.