|
Blu-Ray is especially bad as a preservation medium because of the DRM used to make it difficult to copy and convert to other formats. It has been broken, but this is still technically against the law in the US so it's not a process that could be used by any legitimate archiving service. An uncompressed HD movie is several hundred gigabytes, so it's only feasible to store it on devices like hard drives and tapes which are full of complex mechanisms and moving parts that have to operate to get the data back off it, so their shelf lives are tiny compared to a purely physical format like film.
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:44 |
|
|
haveblue posted:An uncompressed HD movie is several hundred gigabytes, so it's only feasible to store it on devices like hard drives and tapes which are full of complex mechanisms and moving parts that have to operate to get the data back off it, so their shelf lives are tiny compared to a purely physical format like film. Yeah cause there aren't solid state drives out there with steadily dropping prices, building redundancy into hard drive and tape backups is so difficult and film has never been known to decay or otherwise get damaged. We're not quite be at the point where digital preservation is economically feasible on a large scale, but we're rapidly approaching it and it's already technically feasible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 19:36
|
|
|
I just rented Dark City and I heard some time ago that there's some specific thing you need to do with the audio in order to avoid ruining the movie or something. I believe you're supposed to mute the audio up until a specific point when the opening narration has finished? Can somebody spell this out to me in a non-spoilery way?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 20:59
|
|
|
qntm posted:I just rented Dark City and I heard some time ago that there's some specific thing you need to do with the audio in order to avoid ruining the movie or something. I believe you're supposed to mute the audio up until a specific point when the opening narration has finished? Can somebody spell this out to me in a non-spoilery way? If you have the director's cut, there shouldn't be a problem (and, really, it probably won't absolutely ruin the movie either way). Otherwise: quote:New Line Cinema forced Alex Proyas to include the opening narration by Kiefer Sutherland, which Proyas objected to, saying it was unnecessary. The narration gives away several key plot twists and consequently many fans of the film prefer to watch it with the sound turned off during the narration until Sutherland looks at his pocket watch. Unsurprisingly, the director's cut omits this opening narration.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 21:05
|
|
|
morestuff posted:If you have the director's cut, there shouldn't be a problem (and, really, it probably won't absolutely ruin the movie either way). Otherwise: It's such a horrible horrible addition to the movie. Imagine if Empire Strikes Back began with a narration that Vader is Lukes dad. It's about like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 21:23
|
|
|
Aorist posted:We could back up every DVD on the market today and preserve them for 50 years, but being able to translate that information back into moving pictures would mean recreating an old-rear end decoding system in a wildly different technical environment, when it's much more feasible for business to keep rolling out new systems to match the evolution of hardware and software, and only carrying over the content they can sell. I wouldn't want to back up the DVDs but rather something of a much, much higher quality than that. Do you think there is a theoretical limit concerning the quality of audio and video that we will reach? Aorist posted:Everything may go the way of the cloud, but the method of delivery and the format of the movies will keep changing, and the stuff that isn't profitable will fall by the wayside, just like it did with the move from VHS to DVD, and is doing with the move from DVD to Blu-ray. Most likely. I'm sure the list of things that have disappeared on wax cylinders, phonographs and 8-tracks is gargantuan. Aorist posted:The documentary Into Eternity looked at the information storage problem with regards to preserving the technical documentation for a nuclear waste vault for future generations, if you're interested. It's more grandiose than Herzog, but it's worth a watch. OK I added that to Netflix. Aorist posted:Replace "movie" above with "language", and you see how big the problem is. A language can change a lot over fifty years, especially the language of a smaller group under first-world influence. It's clearly impossible in the short-term. I'm envisioning and conjuring up a more theoretical possibility in this regard. Literally AI that was perpetually evolving (like humans) that could swiftly and succinctly translate from language to language would be the only way to facilitate this. We do this occasionally by releasing improved subtitles for certain foreign films.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 21:23
|
|
|
Zogo posted:Do you think there is a theoretical limit concerning the quality of audio and video that we will reach? Let's look at modern technology: Humans have a limit to how many colors they can recognize. As it stands a computer can display/recognize around 11 million variances in color (using HEX), we just can't see differences that minute. Similarly, human eye speed is only able to compute so much information before it starts to blend. So technologically, film today, is recorded and replayed at optimum viewing - in general. There is a human limit that will be reached first (Is this red redder than that red?) There are people who feel that different film speeds give a better presentation (24fps vs. 45 vs. 60), but that might be more an artistic choice rather than technological. There's still the whole 2D/3D debate as well. But as a 2D kind of presentation, modern technology is pushing perceptible quality pretty good. So, really, what more are you looking for? I mean if you map "technology" and "Entertainment" on a timeline and push out until they meet at the very top, you've reached "Holodeck" levels of quality, so I guess, yes, that might be the theoretical limit. CzarChasm fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Jul 16, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 03:10
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:So, really, what more are you looking for? I mean if you map "technology" and "Entertainment" on a timeline and push out until they meet at the very top, you've reached "Holodeck" levels of quality, so I guess, yes, that might be the theoretical limit. I myself right now would just like all the Godzilla films in their proper aspect ratio with English subtitles  We'll continue to improve movie technology. Yes, I could see people sitting in flying Holodeck chairs zooming around a real landscape experiencing some sort of "film." Like the Holodeck or The Danger Room in the X-Men universe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 04:48
|
|
|
In Star Wars, why does Anakin continue to be a dick after Padme dies? As I understand it he knew Palpatine was evil but went along so he could save her. When she dies anyway shouldn't he call him out for lying or something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 04:55
|
|
|
drunken officeparty posted:In Star Wars, why does Anakin continue to be a dick after Padme dies? As I understand it he knew Palpatine was evil but went along so he could save her. When she dies anyway shouldn't he call him out for lying or something? Because George Lucas has this extremely black and white view of morality and the Force so once Anakin becomes evil he just stays evil.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 05:00
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Because George Lucas has this extremely black and white view of morality and the Force so once Anakin becomes evil he just stays evil. This is the ultimate answer. But, Anakin is tricked into thinking he choked Padme to death so he's all guilty and poo poo and Palpatine just keeps manipulating him to do more Darth Vader things. The movie tried to show Anakin actually believing that the Jedi were threats to the republic and stuff, which would explain why he keeps serving the emperor. The movie didn't work and it's a big plot hole.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 07:08
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:Let's look at modern technology: Humans have a limit to how many colors they can recognize. As it stands a computer can display/recognize around 11 million variances in color (using HEX), we just can't see differences that minute. Similarly, human eye speed is only able to compute so much information before it starts to blend. So technologically, film today, is recorded and replayed at optimum viewing - in general. There is a human limit that will be reached first (Is this red redder than that red?) Maddox has a hilarious article from like 1998 where he breaks down the color swatches on a lipstick website, and shows the hex values are all the same or like one digit off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 13:46
|
|
|
Why in Kill Bill vol 1 is Beatrix's name censored out? Is it another homage to kung-fu/revenge flicks, or was it just a random choice by QT? Is it still censored in the "whole bloody affair" where the film is shown in its entirety?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 16:04
|
|
|
drunken officeparty posted:In Star Wars, why does Anakin continue to be a dick after Padme dies? As I understand it he knew Palpatine was evil but went along so he could save her. When she dies anyway shouldn't he call him out for lying or something? It's too late to go back at that point, or so he probably thinks. He's already killed a bunch of kids and innocent people, he's basically lost everything. From that moment he's a shell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 16:10
|
|
|
volumecontrol posted:Why in Kill Bill vol 1 is Beatrix's name censored out? Is it another homage to kung-fu/revenge flicks, or was it just a random choice by QT? Is it still censored in the "whole bloody affair" where the film is shown in its entirety? It's censored in volume 2 as well, until she is buried alive and presumed dead. If I had to guess, I'd say it's to reinforce the persona of "The Bride" as a heroic force rather than an angry woman with a sword.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 17:09
|
|
|
drunken officeparty posted:In Star Wars, why does Anakin continue to be a dick after Padme dies? As I understand it he knew Palpatine was evil but went along so he could save her. When she dies anyway shouldn't he call him out for lying or something? In Attack of the Clones there are some brief exchanges where we find that Anakin feels that he deserves more than he has and that the goody-two-shoes Jedi are holding him back, and also that those in power deserve to rule and he's kind of down with military fascism. They never really develop it and it's dropped entirely in Revenge of the Sith but it's a more believable reason for why he would continue to be the right-hand man of an evil despot for 20+ years than "Wanted to save my girlfriend but she died anyway and now... I'm gonna be evil I guess?" Also there's the idea that the dark side is more than just a tool for shooting lightning, and once you kinda become evil there's some active thing (a FORCE???) that twists you and helps you become more evil. However, the films (wisely) never make it clear whether that's really a thing, if the force takes an active role in influencing people or if that's just a metaphor/excuse for human nature. "He really loves me, it's just this Dark Side keeps making him hit me." The books go back and forth but who gives a gently caress. Tender Bender fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Jul 16, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 18:28
|
|
|
volumecontrol posted:Why in Kill Bill vol 1 is Beatrix's name censored out? Is it another homage to kung-fu/revenge flicks, or was it just a random choice by QT? Is it still censored in the "whole bloody affair" where the film is shown in its entirety? Tarantino loves to bring attention to the fact that you're watching a movie. Inglourious Basterds is the same way with the random narration to outline and explain a plot Mcguffin.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
volumecontrol posted:Why in Kill Bill vol 1 is Beatrix's name censored out? Is it another homage to kung-fu/revenge flicks, or was it just a random choice by QT? Is it still censored in the "whole bloody affair" where the film is shown in its entirety? It's because of her last name, Kiddo. Before they reveal her full name in Vol. 2, there are several flash backs in which bill calls her 'Kiddo'. On first viewing, this seems like a term of endearment. It gives the sense that Bill and the Bride are very close, possibly considering each other family. The reveal retroactively changes those scenes so that Bill is referring to her only by her last name in one on one conversations, changing their perceived relationship to one where Bill talks to the Bride with a professional distance between them, emotionally.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 19:24
|
|
|
Another Kill Bill Vol 1 question: in the kitchen fight scene, did any theatres show a version where the lower half of the screen was obscured at any point? This sounds like a dumb question but when I saw the film for the first time, as the movie started and it was clear something was up, I heard the guy behind me say he was going to complain. He came back a minute or two later and said to his friends that 'they said it's part of the film and people complain at every screening'. Moments later the shadow of a large hand came down from the top of the screen and removed the obstruction. What has had me doubting whether this was just a case of a sloppy projectionist combined with bullshitting cinema staff or actually one of Tarantino's little jokes is that the removal of the obstruction was perfectly timed to reveal something (I can't remember what - a weapon? a funny box of cereal? a subtitle?) and it played out like a very clever visual gag. The whole audience laughed and it was a major point of discussion afterwards. I've not heard or found any mention of this weird little thing in the whole time since the movie came out so I'm guessing it was just coincidence but, man, it honestly made the movie better and it seems like a great little way to gently caress with an audience by breaking the 4th wall- make it look like the film is set up badly, get people muttering, fix the 'problem' and reveal a hidden twist that changes how the scene is understood. Has that been done before?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 21:25
|
|
|
^^^^^^ That's definitely not part of the movie.Ninja Gamer posted:It's because of her last name, Kiddo. Before they reveal her full name in Vol. 2, there are several flash backs in which bill calls her 'Kiddo'. On first viewing, this seems like a term of endearment. It gives the sense that Bill and the Bride are very close, possibly considering each other family. The reveal retroactively changes those scenes so that Bill is referring to her only by her last name in one on one conversations, changing their perceived relationship to one where Bill talks to the Bride with a professional distance between them, emotionally. This is cool, but it's not entirely true. You can see that she is most often referred to by first name only if you read the lips.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 21:34
|
|
|
You can see her last name on the plane ticket in the first movie just fine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 22:23
|
|
|
the Bunt posted:^^^^^^ That's definitely not part of the movie. Is her name censored at any time other than the fight with Vernita Green?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2011 00:49
|
|
|
Ninja Gamer posted:Is her name censored at any time other than the fight with Vernita Green? When O-Ren sees her and when Bill warns Budd.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2011 00:55
|
|
|
I've never seen any of Jean Renoir's American films. How urgently should I rectify this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
penismightier posted:I've never seen any of Jean Renoir's American films. How urgently should I rectify this? I am a happier person for having seen The Southerner.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 01:38
|
|
|
penismightier posted:I've never seen any of Jean Renoir's American films. How urgently should I rectify this? Not too urgently but This Land Is Mine is a pretty good film that captures the turn on your neighbor mood at the height of WWII.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 03:36
|
|
|
Tenterhooks posted:Another Kill Bill Vol 1 question: in the kitchen fight scene, did any theatres show a version where the lower half of the screen was obscured at any point? I don't recall seeing anything like that when I saw kill bill in theaters, but Gremlins 2 had an audience "Gotcha" like that. Three if memory serves. Basically at a part shortly after all hell breaks loose, the film "breaks", and only a white screen is shown for a few seconds. This is quickly followed by gremlin sound effects, and an impromptu shadow puppet show, and order is soon restored. They even went so far as to change the distortion for the VHS release, and I think even the DVD release had a custom "film break" specific to its release. While I wouldn't put it past Tarantino, I just don't recall that happening. I do wish more movies would do things like that, but it really only works in a kids/comedy movie. I wouldn't expect to see something like that happen in The Avengers for example, but pixar could get away with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 03:38
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:While I wouldn't put it past Tarantino, I just don't recall that happening. I do wish more movies would do things like that, but it really only works in a kids/comedy movie. I wouldn't expect to see something like that happen in The Avengers for example, but pixar could get away with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 16:44
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:Basically at a part shortly after all hell breaks loose, the film "breaks", and only a white screen is shown for a few seconds. This is quickly followed by gremlin sound effects, and an impromptu shadow puppet show, and order is soon restored. They even went so far as to change the distortion for the VHS release, and I think even the DVD release had a custom "film break" specific to its release. The DVD version did not have a specific one unfortunately. It just had the theater one (with the VHS one hidden on the disc). However, a fan made this beautiful, beautiful thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REGCV6z3VkM Crows Turn Off posted:It happened in Grindhouse. Planet Terror had Rose McGowan about to show actual nudity then, bam, missing reel gag. Death Proof did the same exact gag for some strip-tease so it wasn't as clever the second time. It happened in Death Proof because the film was running too long. There is an actual striptease scene but Grindhouse is long as it is and some cuts had to be made. Tarantino liked the gag in Planet Terror so he stole it to cut down his films run time. axelblaze fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Jul 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 16:48
|
|
|
axleblaze posted:It happened in Death Proof because the film was running too long. There is an actual striptease scene but Grindhouse is long as it is and some cuts had to be made. Tarantino liked the gag in Planet Terror so he stole it to cut down his films run time. I always thought it was an extension of the same gag. It's not just that Tarantino copied it, it's that throughout both features the view gets cockteased and then denied. The missing reel in Death Proof is basically saying "Ha, we got you again!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 21:35
|
|
|
axleblaze posted:The DVD version did not have a specific one unfortunately. It just had the theater one (with the VHS one hidden on the disc). Some people are just too damned talented. Wauw!
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 00:52
|
|
|
David Cross's mortician character died in Men in Black, right? Is his video-store owner character in Men in Black II supposed to be related to him?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2011 02:08
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:David Cross's mortician character died in Men in Black, right? Is his video-store owner character in Men in Black II supposed to be related to him? I think he was just glued to the ceiling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2011 02:12
|
|
|
morestuff posted:I think he was just glued to the ceiling. Yeah, you can see him moving his eyes around frantically if you look carefully.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2011 03:44
|
|
|
Oh, wow. I always thought he was playing an entirely different character.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2011 20:10
|
|
|
Barometer posted:Oh, wow. I always thought he was playing an entirely different character. He has the same name on imdb so... I guess he's the same guy? This is way more thought than I ever meant to put into MiB II. I caught it last night, and it's actually got some decent scenes and really funny lines. It's a shame they didn't just get Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith together and make a new movie, instead of doing the Comedy Sequel thing where you rehash the plot and every gag from the first film while also tripling the screentime of all the side characters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2011 20:20
|
|
|
I had to leave X-Men First Class early last night. I left right after *spoilers incoming* Mystique went to join Magneto on the beach, and Charles read her mind and told her that he knew she wanted to go with Magneto. It seemed like it was right about at the end, but did anything notable happen afterwards?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
the posted:I had to leave X-Men First Class early last night. I left right after *spoilers incoming* Mystique went to join Magneto on the beach, and Charles read her mind and told her that he knew she wanted to go with Magneto. It seemed like it was right about at the end, but did anything notable happen afterwards? Magneto breaks Emma Frost out and Charles starts up the academy in his house. I think that's about it. e: oh, and Charles wipes the memory of the CIA agent girl. computer parts fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Jul 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2011 23:08
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:He has the same name on imdb so... I guess he's the same guy? The only funny joke in the movie is when you discover the purpose of those mysterious silver cylinders you see all over the city that no one ever seems to be using for anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2011 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:44 |
|
|
Question about Rango: Rango had the bullet in his gun at the beginning of the showdown with the snake. When did he remove it? I assume it was during the bat/fake hawk scene since he had no fear of killing the snake since his gun was unloaded. The other possibility is that he somehow palmed it before he surrenderd the gun to the mayor. Which is it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2011 00:20
|
|
