|
ok do you want to do lossless or lossy
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 08:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:40 |
|
|
daveftw posted:that was true back when you were viewing 2006 websites, but pretty much every major 'portal' except google has been bitten by the 'HOLY poo poo MAKE IT MULTIMEDIA' bug and in addition to the 15 flash videos playing as soon as you load the site, the guy who wrote the javascript tested it on his dev box and said 'yep, fast enough' no they had redraw problems before you ever loaded a page. getting then to print a doc from explorer was hell
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 08:46
|
|
|
At my job I get to work with lovely rear end openmax encoders that still can't do loving slicing let alone SVC. A shameful dsp.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 09:55
|
|
|
peepsalot posted:guys lets just make our own codec Goon project, I'll start the wiki etc. Why isn't there a porn-optimized codec? You know half the content on BitTorrent is porn, the bandwidth and disk space savings could be huge. It would be optimized for repetitive motion, human skin tones, and scenes that resume between cuts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
The Management posted:Goon project, I'll start the wiki etc. What are the savings we're looking at here?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
The Management posted:Goon project, I'll start the wiki etc. serious answer, porn visuals are too highly detailed and don't lend themselves well to compression shortcuts anime and videogames since they have big areas of truly uniform color both have ideal, sometimes even lossless codecs that give off really tiny filesizes, like a full-length 1080p film only having a 2 gig video track, or an nes game having lossless video at a few megs a minute porn actresses are airbrushed but not THAT airbrushed
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
univbee posted:serious answer, porn visuals are too highly detailed and don't lend themselves well to compression shortcuts Clearly hentai is the future of porn
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
are you telling me I need to switch to, ugh, ETHNIC porn to get some god drat compression efficiency around here?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
japanese porn compresses the best because it is blocky to begin with amirite guys loll
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
when hd porn came out people were like "i dont want to see pimples on her ringpiece" but i think thats because they were living in a fantasy where porn was made with non-human humanoids who had no flaws but now porn is flaws and all and i wonder if its better for the warped sexualisation of teenagers
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
i watch my hd porn with a lowpass filter and then guassian blur to get that sweet 2002 streamin vid look
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
high frequency details require the most bits to compress. As you increase the cameras resolution you get more high frequency detail (Assuming optics can handle it) what makes the problem even worse is that modern sony camcorders uses a noise generator in the y portion of the image to fight banding, and to force the encoder to distribute the bits more evenly. Something a simple matrix adjustment would fix but o well. ~my 8 bit dithering~
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Don't bother making your own video codec, there are the worlds smartest engineers working on this poo poo and it's all patented to hell. Just wait for HEVC h.265 to come out this year and then be optimized by open sores community to be better than anything around. Maybe by them we'll have 10-bpc playback standard (something that will be useful for high resolution screens and digital cinema cameras with no noise)
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
pagancow posted:qua qua qua quad post!!! looks cool, anyone tried it? also dam snips u a babby
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Jim Silly-Balls posted:looks cool, anyone tried it? not as young as anal volcano lmao
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
pagancow posted:As you increase the cameras resolution you get more high frequency detail (Assuming optics can handle it) Pretty sure the optics can handle it, 65mm is closer to 8K than 4
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 08:41
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:Pretty sure the optics can handle it, 65mm is closer to 8K than 4 Isn't it more about sensors and noise since nobody uses film we did a music video today with a 7D and some nice glass. it's cool how much you can do with cheap equipment these days
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 08:46
|
|
|
ahmeni posted:Isn't it more about sensors and noise since nobody uses film Yeah the SNR is more the limit now than anything but 65/70mm is still in use for a lot of bigger productions (The Dark Knight)
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 08:54
|
|
|
Sensor size also affects your viewing angles so 65mm tends to have shallower depth of field bokeh because you have to use a longer lens to get the same viewing angle. Using that sized film can be a creative choice even if you only scan at 2k The longer your lens the more selective your focus will be. It's like how medium format has a different artistic look than 35mm even though you may scan them in at the same low resolution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
above is a gross over simplification of those topics, but there are actual reasons for using larger/better sensors other than "HURRR RESOLUTION!!!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 15:14
|
|
|
I am a horrible luddite who still shoots MF film because of that very effect
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
i just use an SD sony recorder thing and my iphone family memories supremacy
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
really want a dslr to do videos and pictures. i like taking phone pictures but lol phone cameras in high school i really liked being in media but i wasnt able to do anything but lovely news stories or lovely funny assembly videos where i had three hours to film+edit but editing took an hour and a half (gently caress DV tape and 1st gen intel imacs) and my partners were uncooperative. so i wanna real camera to make silly videos without time constraints
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
As you get more expensive/better gear, the filming process gets harder becuase the whole thing gets more complicated. Honestly shooting on your iPhone and doing the edit there is easier than the earlier scenario you described, or even now with a modern dslr becasue lol focus/lol transcoding/lol lighting. Everybody wants to shoot pretty images, but if people learned how to shoot/edit compelling content we might not have a problem with people going "lol over 30 seconds not clicking" when seeing a video on youtube. pagancow fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Jan 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
similar realtalk, keep shooting on your iphone and make good-rear end content. so many dudes have 5DMKII's and make total poo poo all day. content is king, gear is secondary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
i was throwing around using my nexus 4 to do that poo poo because people use iphones to film movies and the camera on the n4 is pretty nice but theres no way to mount it unlike the iphone plus loving android doesnt have any filming apps or anything and doing it with the camera app would be hell without focus and white balance lock my roommate has a t2i and does some pretty sick videos but he's really unmotivated and only does stuff for assignments or for portfolio stuff. i'd just want to make bullshit youtube videos to shoot the poo poo in my spare time because i've always loved editing video. i guess blowing a couple hundos on a camera when i have a cell phone camera thats better than most point and shoots is dumb
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
Jim Silly-Balls posted:similar realtalk, keep shooting on your iphone and make good-rear end content. so many dudes have 5DMKII's and make total poo poo all day. this is truth because gear is goddamn expensive
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:i watch my hd porn with a lowpass filter and then guassian blur to get that sweet 2002 streamin vid look i run it through soft focus and vignette filters then i pour some chablis and settle in for some classy jerkin
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
do you jizz into a brass fondant
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 05:55
|
|
|
Jonny 290 posted:we are the hdtv makers, we are the screeners of screens
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
everyone who has stolen a movie or a song should be executed by the state
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
Good thing copyright infringement isn't theft, then!
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 06:45
|
|
|
Guido van Possum posted:everyone who has stolen a movie or a song should be executed by the state even at a cost of $567,000 per death it still comes in cheaper than the RIAAs estimate of the cost of piracy
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 06:49
|
|
|
pagancow posted:also interlaced media looks best on an interlaced device. troof deinterlacing always seems to be a gamey proposition at the best of times why its such a pain in the nuts i have no idea
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 07:44
|
|
|
If everything had high frame rate it would never have been a problem. Bring on the 60 fps feature films, Hollywood! Addendum: If you disliked The Hobbit because "it looked weird" then you are dumb and gay and you should get better eyes and/or a better visual cortex.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 08:08
|
|
|
fukc you buddy i havent seen it but youre discounting a subjective opinion of an art form good work being "that guy"
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 08:26
|
|
|
oh no this movie looks more realistic therefore it looks less realistic i r logic -reviewers everywhere
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 08:32
|
|
|
lol at u getting caremad because people are pointing out that peter jackson's trip back to the well looks like poo poo at 48 fps (AKA the "let's come up with a gimmick to get people into the theaters because the movie on its own isn't that impressive" framerate).
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 09:04
|
|
|
It doesn't look like poo poo though. I thought the action scenes looked way better than anything I've seen in any other movie. I'd go higher than 48 even, if I had the choice; I could still see a bit of flickering in certain places when the camera was moving. Nowhere near the stutterfest that is the typical 24 fps movie though, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 09:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:40 |
|
|
I still wonder about the whole framerate thing. People that like 24fps is because it simulates motion blur better or something? Would your eyes still perceive a blur from fast motion of a projected image, if it was at some ludicrously high(infinite for all intents and purposes) framerate? Doesn't the brightness of the projection affect perception of blur, and i dunno, the fact that it's all on one focal plane and maybe some other poo poo. Is it possible that 24fps blurriness played back on screen is more realistic to how we would see things in the real world compared to 48fps?
peepsalot fucked around with this message at 09:28 on Jan 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 09:23
|
|
