|
WebDog posted:The other method was to do this in camera, on set by painting it onto glass and putting it up in front of the camera. The limits were obvious, you had to make sure no one moved in order to keep the illusion of perspective. Didn't Cameron do something like this for Aliens? I seem to remember hearing that he attached small models to the front of the camera for some shots as an alternative to building a huge set.
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
Ninja Gamer posted:Didn't Cameron do something like this for Aliens? I seem to remember hearing that he attached small models to the front of the camera for some shots as an alternative to building a huge set. That's more forced perspective but it's a similar principle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 20:18
|
|
|
Both techniques, when done well, are pretty much seamless. For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMyDYyg0FBA the drop-off on the left side doesn't really exist
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 20:50
|
|
|
Ninja Gamer posted:Didn't Cameron do something like this for Aliens? I seem to remember hearing that he attached small models to the front of the camera for some shots as an alternative to building a huge set.  Front projection is a improved method, it's sharper and takes up less space. It's somewhat based off the Schüfftan process (used extensively in Metropolis) which takes it's cues from Pepper's Ghost. I wish there was a cool video to show off how the effect is used (like Superman flying), but all I can find related to front projection is weird moon landing videos that claim Stanley Kubrick was hired by NASA to film moon landings based purely off the notion that the landscape used in the ape scene was the same in NASA's studio.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 00:59
|
|
|
Ray Harryhausen movies are a good example of front projection. For him it was a way of avoiding constructing expensive miniature sets, and he used a lot of mirrors and cut-outs so that a stop motion monster could walk between live-action elements without having to do mattes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 01:14
|
|
|
WebDog posted:Diagrams like this always confuse me. How does the reflected background image not hit the actors/other liveground elements and reflect off them?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 01:15
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Diagrams like this always confuse me. How does the reflected background image not hit the actors/other liveground elements and reflect off them? As I understand it - which is probably wrong - it does, but there's so little light that you can barely tell. The backdrop is Scotchlite, that crazy reflective poo poo workmen wear on the highway. It's also the material the used to make lightsabers out of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 01:21
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Diagrams like this always confuse me. How does the reflected background image not hit the actors/other liveground elements and reflect off them?  This is so sensitive to light that you barely need much luminance to make it reflect. The ratio is roughly 1 foot candle to a foreground light of 200 footcandles. The projection is then softened further with the beam splitter. When filmed the exposure level is set so that any remaining projection that is bouncing off the actor isn't perceptible. Unlike the human eye a camera cannot dynamically adjust to varying exposures, so it simply has it's exposure set to hide anything below a certain range.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 01:44
|
|
|
WebDog posted:When filmed the exposure level is set so that any remaining projection that is bouncing off the actor isn't perceptible. Unlike the human eye a camera cannot dynamically adjust to varying exposures, so it simply has it's exposure set to hide anything below a certain range. Ahhhh. Many thanks. I have read about front projection being used for blue screens, just to project a "pure" blue image that doesn't get messed up by the lighting of other elements. (My local library has bound collections of Cinefex from 1980 to about 1993. It's nifty.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 02:26
|
|
|
It's crazy how good the front projection in 2001 looks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 02:43
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:It's crazy how good the front projection in 2001 looks. Reading in general about some of the techniques Kubrick insisted on using to make the FX work as well as they did, it's amazing that MGM gave him that kind of leeway, even with two hits behind him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 04:14
|
|
|
I just saw Last Man Standing and I had two questions. How many movies are based on Yojimbo? And are there any straight up adaptations of Red Harvest, I thought Last Man Standing would be closer to the book since it's set in the same era, but it's beat for beat the same movie as Yojimbo, the credits even say it's based on a story by Kurosawa.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 07:54
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I just saw Last Man Standing and I had two questions. How many movies are based on Yojimbo? My film lecturer said 'lots'. I don't know how you'd look this up because obviously the films all have different titles and they don't all credit Kurosawa. This was about two years ago so I didn't ask him for any examples, but I remember he said that Yojimbo was an incredibly influential film that spawned lots of copy-cat films. e: Other than the Leone film A Fistful of Dollars, but everyone knows that one. Starshark fucked around with this message at 09:23 on Sep 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 09:21
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:And are there any straight up adaptations of Red Harvest, I thought Last Man Standing would be closer to the book since it's set in the same era, but it's beat for beat the same movie as Yojimbo, the credits even say it's based on a story by Kurosawa. Not really. The closest thing I can think of is Miller's Crossing by the Coens, but even that one removes the private eye aspect. Plot-wise, Brick kinda feels like a cross between Red Harvest and The Maltese Falcon. According to Wikipedia, Bertolucci considered adapting it in the early '70s with Warren Beatty. That would've been interesting to say the least.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 12:55
|
|
|
csidle posted:For me, someone who doesn't let themselves be pulled in and manipulated by films while watching them cannot have a valid opinion about a film, because they literally haven't seen the whole thing. Your friends and family are probably just as annoyed with you for making them watch something they don't want to see, otherwise they wouldn't be distracted and messing around right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 18:10
|
|
|
fenix down posted:Your friends and family are probably just as annoyed with you for making them watch something they don't want to see, otherwise they wouldn't be distracted and messing around right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 19:08
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:Not really. The closest thing I can think of is Miller's Crossing by the Coens, but even that one removes the private eye aspect. Plot-wise, Brick kinda feels like a cross between Red Harvest and The Maltese Falcon. I always figured Miller's Crossing was closer in story to The Glass Key, though I'm sure the Coens read both.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 19:45
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I always figured Miller's Crossing was closer in story to The Glass Key, though I'm sure the Coens read both. The Glass Key is actually the only thing by Hammett I haven't read, so I can't attest to that. I really need to get around to that one, it was Hammett's favorite of his own works if I'm remembering right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 19:49
|
|
|
I remember a couple years ago someone posted a screed against fullscreen versions of movies, including a shot from what I think was a Die Hard sequel that showed a guy walking down a hallway, with a bad guy waiting to ambush him in the foreground, who would be cut off if the film was watched in fullscreen. Does anyone remember that thread/what movie that was?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 20:35
|
|
|
User-Friendly posted:I remember a couple years ago someone posted a screed against fullscreen versions of movies, including a shot from what I think was a Die Hard sequel that showed a guy walking down a hallway, with a bad guy waiting to ambush him in the foreground, who would be cut off if the film was watched in fullscreen. Does anyone remember that thread/what movie that was? That's Die Hard 1, when Al Powell's investigating Nakatomi before his car gets shot up. One of the bad guys is hiding behind a wall with a machine gun, and Powell starts walking down the hallway towards him, but stops before the end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
That always annoyed me with my first VHS copies of Ghostbusters and the sequel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 02:44
|
|
|
This is probably the post you were thinking of from the Die Hard thread. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3248704&pagenumber=3#post370514598
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 03:07
|
|
|
Do they even make full screen versions of movies anymore? Seems like that battle was won.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 03:58
|
|
|
This is most definitely the wrong thread for this, I suppose, but its movie-related: I've got some videos on my PC (legitimate ones, although I don't blame you if you think otherwise, paradoxically, because I made a point to say they were) that I've randomly decided that I want to burn to DVDs. Not as data, that'd be easy, but as watching-on-a-DVD-player DVDs. Menus, the whole shebang. I've never really thought about it (posting this on my phone, on a whim, so I've no idea what sort of programs to do this. I vaguely recall there being a program in Windows that does this, but I'm that curmugeon that still uses XP. What's an ideal program for this, or at least a better place to ask?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 04:15
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:Do they even make full screen versions of movies anymore? Seems like that battle was won. A lot of kids movies that I've watched (for nostalgia) on DVD recently are only available in FS.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 05:00
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:This is most definitely the wrong thread for this, I suppose, but its movie-related: Any recent full version of the Nero suite is capable of this. Not sure about any free options though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 07:14
|
|
|
I always use ConvertXtoDVD, but if you want a freeware option, Avi2Dvd is pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 15:58
|
|
|
I was watching the old Stephen King movie, Sleepwalkers, which contains a lot of scene with domestic house cats. This got me wondering about how you would even train a cat to stand in place for a length of time while surrounded by a bunch of other cats?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 16:52
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:Do they even make full screen versions of movies anymore? Seems like that battle was won. The next battle is 4:3 television getting horrible 16:9 releases on bluray. It's not going to stop, ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 17:03
|
|
|
Vakal posted:I was watching the old Stephen King movie, Sleepwalkers, which contains a lot of scene with domestic house cats. The same way you train them to do stuff like this
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 17:21
|
|
|
Vakal posted:I was watching the old Stephen King movie, Sleepwalkers, which contains a lot of scene with domestic house cats. You can train pretty much any reasonably intelligent animal to do at least some things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 18:12
|
|
|
I'd imagine the cats are probably all female. After that, that's basically what cats do is lay around doing nothing. I don't think it would be hard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 18:17
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:Do they even make full screen versions of movies anymore? Seems like that battle was won. I just had to watch a Video On Demand fullscreen version of Hannah the other night. There were options to switch to letterbox/stretch/etc but the default was fullscreen, but unfortunately either it wasn't working on my dad's particular box, or the options were only available for the HD broadcasts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 19:09
|
|
|
Starz really likes to crop the poo poo out of movies they put on Netflix Instant, so there's that too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 19:19
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Starz really likes to crop the poo poo out of movies they put on Netflix Instant, so there's that too. Why do they do this and why does Netflix accept it? If Netflix supposedly wants to make streaming their primary service, shouldn't there be some sort of quality control? Currently streaming is a nice add-on but as a standalone service it's kind of bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 20:12
|
|
|
Well it does not matter anymore since Starz is removing all there stuff
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 20:15
|
|
|
Hi, I have a question that bugs me for the past 25 or so years. When I was a kid (mid 80s) i remember one night watching TV and there was this movie with a scene that is branded to my mind. I could never find the name of the movie, and every now and then I still try to figure out, but to no avail. Anyway, here's the bits I remember: - It's about an AI (artificial intelligence) entity that somehow creates a body for itself. That body is not a body per say, but really an Octahedron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Octahedron.svg) - IIRC, there's some romance in the story (not sure if the AI is based on a dead guy coming after his wife) - The scene that is branded on my skull has this Octahedron transforming/unfolding into tetrahedrons/whatever spatial shape, wrapping itself around a guy's neck and pretty much decapitating him - I believe the movie was from the late 70s/early 80s Hopefully that movie exists and it's not a figment of my imagination. thx
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 20:34
|
|
|
You might be thinking of Demon Seed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
Sizzlechest posted:You might be thinking of Demon Seed. Checked wikipedia and it's very likely the name of the movie. Thanks for solving my 25 year old mystery.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 00:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Well it does not matter anymore since Starz is removing all there stuff Oh poo poo when is this happening? I need to finish party down!
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 00:42
|
|
