|
ahmeni posted:my mother in law has a 42" led tv that she watches DVDs on a bluray player connected by a composite cable a shameful son in law
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:01 |
|
|
Sweevo posted:i like it when old people buy a huge widescreen high-def tv and then use it to watch vhs tapes in 4:3 stretched to fill the screen fatovision
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:would you prefer they watched their 4:3 VHS tapes on a 14" CRT? Yes because i dont trust that the TV can do a proper rec.601 to rec.709 colorspace conversion. also interlaced media looks best on an interlaced device.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 00:25
|
|
|
Socracheese posted:a shameful son in law i set it up originally as hdmi I don't know what the hell happened but if I change it again Ill be responsible for it
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 06:15
|
|
|
I propose that the scene uses .MXF containers instead of .MKV
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
this thread sucks tbqh
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
when are we going to get film shot regularly at super high resolution and at high fps so that I can feel like I am watching the movie through my window and not like i am watching a movie. I basically want my tv to be recessed into my wall and then i can look through it into a world of magic movies that look real. is there any good reason it has taken this long to get to 48fps which afik was just so that you had 24hz per eye besides the film industry being weird. Like is there a real benefit to lower FPS
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
Cryin Burnigan posted:when are we going to get film shot regularly at super high resolution and at high fps so that I can feel like I am watching the movie through my window and not like i am watching a movie. I basically want my tv to be recessed into my wall and then i can look through it into a world of magic movies that look real. film spergs will tell you that 24fps is the only way to properly experience the magic illusion of cinema also that it has to be shot on film and not digital, 24fps at digital ruins the illusion
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
Cryin Burnigan posted:when are we going to get film shot regularly at super high resolution and at high fps so that I can feel like I am watching the movie through my window and not like i am watching a movie. I basically want my tv to be recessed into my wall and then i can look through it into a world of magic movies that look real. i imagine its mostly cost. you need new production equipment, new methods for transmission, new playback devices, etc... to do 48fps. i mean theres only 1 theater near me that even does 48fps and that's cause its the newest one. as old gear is replaced it'll become more common. i don't think anyone is gonna run out and upgrade all their poo poo just for higher framerates when its not that important. also wouldnt 48fps be 48hz/eye? theres probably some magic the brain does at 24fps to fill in the gaps that makes it appealing, or maybe its just that we're used to it. idk. high framerate(48/60) stuff still isn't the same as real life. what we need is a framerate that's gonna bypass whatever it is in our brains that can distinguish video from reality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
Cryin Burnigan posted:is there any good reason it has taken this long to get to 48fps which afik was just so that you had 24hz per eye besides the film industry being weird. Like is there a real benefit to lower FPS because film spergs iirc there was no real reason for 24fps. ~90 years ago the industry decided to use a standard framerate and arbitrarily chose 24fps
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
Sweevo posted:because film spergs wrongo. they chose it because it was the minimum acceptable speed to get a decent sounding optical track on the side of the film. Films before sound were 16-20 fps. hth I personally am one of those film spergs who believe in 24fps for fiction. The good news is that framerate isn't a dictation, its a creative choice now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
you can put any framerate into .mxf too including non SMPTE ones so still saying we should use MXF theatre projectors take MXF format. Imagine putting your troll video for an entire theatre to see and you didn't have to pay an expensive house to format it for you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
pagancow posted:I personally am one of those film spergs who believe in 24fps for fiction. why? real reasons please, not "qq it looks like tv", or "its just better"
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
What is stopping us from getting ultra realism out of movies? Is it resolution, color depth, framerate? A combination of all of them? I want some uncanny valley poo poo where its uncomfortable to look at a movie
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
There are also cinematography concerns with going to 48 fps. Shooting at 48 FPS cuts the exposure time for each frame in half. Which means you need twice as much light, either by opening up the aperture by one stop (which lessens your depth of field) or increasing the brightness of the scene. You're also doubling the amount of data generated, which is a problem for any production.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
can't you use a higher ISO or something disclaimer: i know nothing about photography other than reading like half a book on it
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
Yes, but that has trade offs too, like noisier images.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 02:09
|
|
|
Cryin Burnigan posted:What is stopping us from getting ultra realism out of movies? Is it resolution, color depth, framerate? A combination of all of them? I want some uncanny valley poo poo where its uncomfortable to look at a movie it's because no one gives a poo poo about it
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
pagancow posted:you can put any framerate into .mxf too including non SMPTE ones so still saying we should use MXF over the course of this thread pagancow you have become my new love/stalk interest good work
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
Sweevo posted:"its just better" when something is subjective like movies n poo poo then "it just loooks better" is about as good of a reason as any anyway i wonder if any of you guys have heard of the "theatre" and instead of taking picture of people, people themselves just stand at te front and chat about poo poo to others sometimes wearing weird poo poo! i know right
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
Doc Block posted:There are also cinematography concerns with going to 48 fps. Shooting at 48 FPS cuts the exposure time for each frame in half. Which means you need twice as much light, either by opening up the aperture by one stop (which lessens your depth of field) or increasing the brightness of the scene. welp i remember watching "gladiator" and the action scenes were staccato or hard to describe and it turns out that yeah like youre talking about you have flexibility, on 24fps you can choose to record each frame from 1sec/24 (or slightly less) and get motion blur or you can record each frame for much less and actually record much less information than happened, less motion blur, and a different effect! wow imagine the world we live in
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
Sweevo posted:why? There's a bunch of words other than "It feels better" that I could say, but this guy really mirrors my feelings: http://www.macvideo.tv/camera-technology/interviews/?articleid=3213230 Keep in mind this interview was shot around 2009 24fps 1/48th shutter is a creative choice that looks great and if you don't like it sorry about your crippling aspergers pagancow fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Jan 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
ugh thanks for the link but why cant people transcribe their videos so i dont have to spend 10 minutes of my life watching it when i could be skim reading it and only spend 2
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:welp i remember watching "gladiator" and the action scenes were staccato or hard to describe and it turns out that yeah like youre talking about you have flexibility, on 24fps you can choose to record each frame from 1sec/24 (or slightly less) and get motion blur or you can record each frame for much less and actually record much less information than happened, less motion blur, and a different effect! wow imagine the world we live in Yes, they made a creative choice to get less motion blur. For going from 24 to 48 FPS, to get the "normal" amount of motion blur you're getting 50% less exposure time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
a lot of editors and visual effects artists are lazy and do frame-by-frame compositing and animation and editing bcuz our tools suck and nobody can write "good" software so asking them to say "oh hey now you have to do three times the frames and ha ha we're not paying you more" is not a good idea also a lot of the tricks that they learned for film composition are tricks that only work in 24fps, like how much motion blur to add to a swish pan transition to make it look realistic
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 03:24
|
|
|
RZApublican posted:also that it has to be shot on film and not digital, 24fps at digital ruins the illusion (i havent either, just sayin)
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 04:14
|
|
|
Doc Block posted:Yes, they made a creative choice to get less motion blur. it was just vaguely interesting as it was clearly an "effect" but until someone explained it i certainly couldnt really even describe how it was different
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
Progressive JPEG posted:these are people whove never needed to deal with physical film I've made some short films on actual film a few times, both directing and as DP, and it isn't nearly as hard as video people make it out to be. No, you can't see the results instantly, but so what? If your DP is any good, if you actually talked with your DP about the look and style you want beforehand, and if you did even just a couple of camera tests, then you'll have a pretty good idea of what your movie will look like. Besides, if you're shooting your video in RAW like a non-scrub, or even if you aren't but are planning on doing color correction later, what you see on the video monitor isn't indicative of your movie's final look anyway. Doc Block fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Jan 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 04:47
|
|
|
Doc Block posted:it isn't nearly as hard as video people make it out to be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
yes i have found all the video professionals on yospos trap sprung
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 06:10
|
|
|
sort of glad super 8 the film didn't exactly shoot the price of super 8 up i like super 8 for some reason but also 35mm
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 06:15
|
|
|
sports posted:sort of glad super 8 the film didn't exactly shoot the price of super 8 up whats the cost per foot to get an HD telecine of super8?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
Doc Block posted:Yes, they made a creative choice to get less motion blur. idk i just know that i w atched the hobbit in hfr 3d and was like "whoa" -neo, the matricks and i watched it in lfr 2d and it gave me a headache because its jumpy and has tons of motion blur and you couldnt see details that w ere clearly there before
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
pagancow posted:whats the cost per foot to get an HD telecine of super8? more than you can afford pal
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
IDK about super 8, and I don't know how it is these days, but for 16mm and 35mm the charge was per hour that you were there in the telecine booth, because you can sit there a long rear end time tweaking each shot. Was something like $150-200 per hour for the low end telecine machines at Fotokem back in the early 2000s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
Doc Block posted:IDK about super 8, and I don't know how it is these days, but for 16mm and 35mm the charge was per hour that you were there in the telecine booth, because you can sit there a long rear end time tweaking each shot. What do you need to tweak? I thought you just pulled it in log space in format of your choice and tweak at home where it's cheaper? oh wait.... 2000.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
Yeah, back in those days if you were shooting on film but finishing on video, your only option for decent color correction was to do it in the telecine booth. Sure, you could do a little color correction once you had it on video, but you'd list a lot of information by then so to get the best results it was done during the telecine. That was back when people transferred to tape formats like DVCPro, DigiBeta, or D1.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
I hate how post houses charge you extra for the 4:2:2 master, its as if they don't want you being able to fix their mistakes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
my favorite fact about 48fps is that bluray doesn't support it (it does 50 or 60 only, and even then only at 720p), should make some interesting sperging when the bluray is announced gj peter
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:01 |
|
|
do those lovely tvs that enable smoothing aka fake high-fps bullshit support things filmed and received in true 48fps
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2013 04:47
|
|