|
DNS posted:I believe you, but then why does a blu-ray projected in a theater look worse than a great quality 35mm print on the same screen? If I had to guess, I'd say it's because analog degrades more gracefully as the limits of resolution are approached. Depending on your eyesight and whatnot, you can probably pick up on digital artifacts like the screen door effect or harder / sharper transitions between neighboring pixels, whereas analog film does not have those issues and its quality issues at the limits are more of mild blurriness that may be unnoticeable if marginal.
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
That sounds a lot like "supersampling" in video graphics terms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:If I had to guess, I'd say it's because analog degrades more gracefully as the limits of resolution are approached. Depending on your eyesight and whatnot, you can probably pick up on digital artifacts like the screen door effect or harder / sharper transitions between neighboring pixels, whereas analog film does not have those issues and its quality issues at the limits are more of mild blurriness that may be unnoticeable if marginal. That sounds like it could be it. I sit close to the screen when I go to a theater, and being occasionally reminded that I'm looking at a bunch of dots on a screen just niggles at me. I guess the resolution in film isn't as sharp, but it still looks good to me and more importantly it's an experience you can't get anywhere else. 4k looks great, no two ways about it, but I often can't shake the feeling that I'm just watching a giant TV - ie. getting a jumbo-sized version of an experience I could have at home. Maybe that's stupid of me but there it is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 21:07
|
|
|
DNS posted:I believe you, but then why does a blu-ray projected in a theater look worse than a great quality 35mm print on the same screen? I've never see a Blu-Ray projected in a theater. My guess is that if you have seen one that way, the setup and conditions weren't optimal. That said, Blu-Rays are compressed far more than theatrical DCPs, which at 2K (only about 6% more lines than 1080p) can run in the hundreds of GB vs a typical 30GB disc. But even theatrical DCPs do look subjectively "worse" than 35mm to some eyes. This is more a limitation, again, of hardware and calibration. I've read terrible things, for example, about how Sony's 4K projectors handle black and white DCPs. Someone else has already touched upon the apparent harshness of digital pixels vs. film grain. There's also the way light interacts with emulsion grains on celluloid. There were a lot of people who preferred the analog lines and color of laserdiscs to the "superior" (numerically) pixels and digital compression of DVDs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
csidle posted:How the hell does that work? I assume uprezzing refers to resizing the image. Shouldn't that logically reduce the quality of the image? [CSI]Can you zoom in and enhance that reflection?[/CSI] Uprezzing is in fact a real thing, but of course it's not magic wizard poo poo like it's portrayed to be. Just as there are "lossless" data compression-decompression algorithms (codecs) the vendors who do 4K -> 2K -> 4K workflows have their patented secret sauce that gives great results. For as well as image enhancing tech works at creating detail where none was immediately apparent, it works even better when it is essentially putting back what it took out. The recipe for taking it out and putting it back in is the same every time, so the results don't vary much. It's just a really complicated recipe. It ain't the "unsharp mask" photoshop filter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
I walked past the electronics department at Wal-Mart today. Toy Story was playing on all the TVs on Blu-Ray. One of the TVs was one that artificially increases the frame rate. It was loving horrible, especially being able to compare side by side. It looked like a cut scene from one of the Lego Star Wars games. Why do these TVs exist?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:I walked past the electronics department at Wal-Mart today. Toy Story was playing on all the TVs on Blu-Ray. One of the TVs was one that artificially increases the frame rate. It was loving horrible, especially being able to compare side by side. It looked like a cut scene from one of the Lego Star Wars games. Why do these TVs exist? Sports. And video games.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:I walked past the electronics department at Wal-Mart today. Toy Story was playing on all the TVs on Blu-Ray. One of the TVs was one that artificially increases the frame rate. It was loving horrible, especially being able to compare side by side. It looked like a cut scene from one of the Lego Star Wars games. Why do these TVs exist? This is the most annoying meme-that's-not-a-meme on the internet. It's not the framerate that is the issue. In fact, high framerate will make movies look more like they do in a theater because you don't have 3:2 pulldown that creates judder when 24 fps movies are played on a 60 hz television. What you're seeing is the motion interprolation that creates extra frames by averaging the frames before and after. The TVs exist to make movies look better. The motion feature (each company has their own name for it -- as a general rule, combine any two of True, Smooth, Flow, Motion to find the terms they call it) is for sports and videogames primarily. regulargonzalez fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Jun 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:This is the most annoying meme-that's-not-a-meme on the internet. It's not the framerate that is the issue. In fact, high framerate will make movies look more like they do in a theater because you don't have 3:2 pulldown that creates judder when 24 fps movies are played on a 60 hz television. What you're seeing is the motion interprolation that creates extra frames by averaging the frames before and after. Yeah the interpolation is what I meant. Every time I've ever seen a movie on a TV that does that, it's looked like total rear end. It's just that today is the first time I've really been able to take notice of a side by side comparison. I'm sure it's fine for sports and vidyagames but holy poo poo this looked awful. And I'm not sure what you mean when you say the framerate isn't the issue when it seems that adding extra frames where there weren't any is precisely why it looks like rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:This is the most annoying meme-that's-not-a-meme on the internet. It's not the framerate that is the issue. In fact, high framerate will make movies look more like they do in a theater because you don't have 3:2 pulldown that creates judder when 24 fps movies are played on a 60 hz television. What you're seeing is the motion interprolation that creates extra frames by averaging the frames before and after. I don't quite understand (full disclosure: I don't know much about this stuff). So interpolation essentially creates "fake" frames between the real frames, right? And the result is that you have more frames in a given second when you include these fake frames. So you then have a higher frame rate. So doesn't that mean that it IS, in fact, the frame rate that causes the strange effect (this is the much derided "soap opera effect", I assume)? If all this is correct, why is it not accurate to say that the issue is caused by an increased frame rate? Sure, it's an artificially increased frame rate, but an increased frame rate nonetheless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
caiman posted:I don't quite understand (full disclosure: I don't know much about this stuff). So interpolation essentially creates "fake" frames between the real frames, right? And the result is that you have more frames in a given second when you include these fake frames. So you then have a higher frame rate. So doesn't that mean that it IS, in fact, the frame rate that causes the strange effect (this is the much derided "soap opera effect", I assume)? If all this is correct, why is it not accurate to say that the issue is caused by an increased frame rate? Sure, it's an artificially increased frame rate, but an increased frame rate nonetheless. After doing some research, I'm going to attempt to answer my own question. The reason interpolation is the cause of the soap opera effect rather than a higher frame rate is because, no matter what, a 60hz TV is always showing 60 "frames" per second. The difference is whether the frames are repeated (in a 3:2 pattern in the case of 24fps content), or interpolated, in the case of the gimmicky motion smoothing settings. The repeating of frames doesn't itself cause the SOE, the insertion of artificial intermediate frames does. Did I get it right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
That's right, though I'll address the outcome in a bit more detail. Specific examples will better illustrate. For 24 fps there are three main use cases: 1) Displayed on a 60 hz tv set. You'll have 3:2 pulldown, which creates judder (particularly noticeable in panning shots. Affects some people and not others. I think it's like vocal fry -- if you don't know about it you can happily be oblivious for the most part, but once you know you'll notice it a lot and it'll drive you insane) 2) Displayed on a 120 hz tv set with interpolation on. One 'real' frame will be displayed, then four 'made up' frames, repeat. This gives it an unnaturally smooth look, even if the made up frames are great since we are so used to movies having only 24 different images displayed each second 3) Displayed on a 120 hz tv set with interpolation off. Each real frame will be displayed 5 times in a row (for a total of 5/120ths of a second). This does away with the disadvantages of 1 and 2; since there are still only 24 different displayed frames per second and since there is no stutter of 3 frames than 2 frames than 3 frames as in 3:2 pulldown, the movie will look like it does in a theater, with neither too smooth nor too stuttery a display. (Of course this also holds true for 240 hz sets and, in Europe, 100 / 200 hz sets). Why 120? It's the smallest number that 24 and 30 (and by extension 60) will all divide into, which are the framerates for virtually all media you might be expected to view.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 02:35
|
|
|
A TV I'm looking at includes a 96hz mode. This will essentially produce the same result as your #3 example, correct? Since it's a multiple of 24. Only it'll show each frame 4 times instead of 5 times. Should there be any noticeable difference between a 120hz mode and a 96hz mode when viewing 24fps content?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
caiman posted:A TV I'm looking at includes a 96hz mode. This will essentially produce the same result as your #3 example, correct? Since it's a multiple of 24. Only it'll show each frame 4 times instead of 5 times. Should there be any noticeable difference between a 120hz mode and a 96hz mode when viewing 24fps content? That's right, it should be exactly the same. I'm unfamiliar with that particular implementation but I would assume it detects 24 hz content and switches to 96 hz mode automatically? If it is a user toggle for whatever reason, the only thing to be aware of is not to use that mode for 30/60 hz content. And of course be sure to turn off the interpolation feature (it'll be called something like SmoothFlow, TrueMotion, etc)
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 10:11
|
|
|
Why is Big Trouble in Little China so universally loved? I've tried going through it at least 3 times now, and I can't get past the gross CG Beholder Out Of Nowhere and how inconsistent the tone of it is, with slapstick just thrown in a few shots for, well, fun, I guess. The pacing really shits the bed once they get kidnapped, too. Maybe I just don't like fun. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
Quad posted:Why is Big Trouble in Little China so universally loved? I've tried going through it at least 3 times now, and I can't get past the gross CG Beholder Out Of Nowhere and how inconsistent the tone of it is, with slapstick just thrown in a few shots for, well, fun, I guess. The pacing really shits the bed once they get kidnapped, too. I don't know what a Beholder is but there is absolutely zero CG in Big Trouble.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
penismightier posted:I don't know what a Beholder is but there is absolutely zero CG in Big Trouble. This fun little guy:  Claymation, I assume.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
morestuff posted:This fun little guy: From the way it moves, I'd guess animatronic, but either way, no CGI. Big Trouble was '86, way too early in the game for that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
The floating eyeball monster is a beholder, although I'll concede that maybe Chinese mythology has something akin to it or whatever. But yeah, it just seemed like a grounded practical effect movie until the beholder and then the wolfman or whatever showed up (it's been a while). CG or not, they were super out-of-place, but maybe that's supposed to shift the movie into poo poo JUST GOT REAL mode, I dunno. It was still worth seeing in my Journey of John Carpenter, but poo poo, nothing beats The Thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
Quad posted:The floating eyeball monster is a beholder, although I'll concede that maybe Chinese mythology has something akin to it or whatever. But yeah, it just seemed like a grounded practical effect movie until the beholder and then the wolfman or whatever showed up (it's been a while). CG or not, they were super out-of-place, but maybe that's supposed to shift the movie into poo poo JUST GOT REAL mode, I dunno. It was still worth seeing in my Journey of John Carpenter, but poo poo, nothing beats The Thing. I mean there's a solid chance it just ain't your movie, but have you watched it more than once? I found I liked it more every time because all of the weird out of place things sorta cohere better when you expect them from the beginning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
Quad posted:The floating eyeball monster is a beholder, although I'll concede that maybe Chinese mythology has something akin to it or whatever. But yeah, it just seemed like a grounded practical effect movie until the beholder and then the wolfman or whatever showed up (it's been a while). CG or not, they were super out-of-place, but maybe that's supposed to shift the movie into poo poo JUST GOT REAL mode, I dunno. It was still worth seeing in my Journey of John Carpenter, but poo poo, nothing beats The Thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
I always just took it as this poo poo being commonplace in Chinese mythology, you just don't know poo poo about Chinese mythology just like Jack, so it all has no point of reference for you. In short, the world of Big Trouble in Little China does not exist for you to "get it".
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
Mescal posted:For some reason I'm fascinated by the boring topics of 1. the history of film formats and technology and 2. film preservation. Does anybody know about good sites (other than Wiki) to read about this stuff? Or documentaries about them, preferably on Netflix streaming? I don't know about general overviews, but in the last year IMDB added the ASC's information on stocks and camera systems to the technical pages of just about every major film from the '60s to the present day, so that's handy if your curious about specific films. You'll need to familiarize yourself with Kodak and Fuji's stocks and naming schemes to make sense of it though. Also, I get drawn into conversations about nerdy nitty gritty details like that easily, so if you have a specific question you could just ask questions here or in general chat and I'll probably get sucked in. Five Cent and I idly talked about creating a proper thread for the technical side of film last year when people were getting confused by the frame-rate hubbub with The Hobbit, but there didn't seem to be a huge amount of interest and hahaha that would be so much work. [Edit: Oh hey, people said nice things about me. Thanks guys!] Bugblatter fucked around with this message at 11:13 on Jun 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
The hairy monster in Big Trouble is based on the Yeren, a legendary Chinese apeman kind of thing. I don't know why a beholder ended up in the movie. I guess Carpenter must have been playing a lot of D&D at the time. Don't forget, Lo Pan is a wizard basically, so he can probably summon up whatever Chinese monster he wants. But I wouldn't really say they're that out of place. The Three Storms are already doing their crazy poo poo by the time we see the monsters. They're different, of course, but we've already been assured by the movie that stuff like this exists. And the eyeball monster was a puppet that was shot separately and added in post.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 06:55
|
|
|
The blu ray is supposed to be good for Big Trouble in Little China, ill have to check that out. I also just read that there was a C64 game of it. Definitely checking that out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
Are films released with an equivalent of serial numbers, given that a movie might have many theatrical and video versions (even if never officially re-released?) Those tiny edits here and there, a few frames censored, how do you keep track of those--is there a unique code in the credits of each version?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 05:34
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:That said, Blu-Rays are compressed far more than theatrical DCPs, which at 2K (only about 6% more lines than 1080p) can run in the hundreds of GB vs a typical 30GB disc. So I was vaguely curious and looked it up, and it looks like there wasn't a maximum bitrate change for 48fps DCPs. Which means that The Hobbit at 48fps 3D has a per-eye video bitrate almost down in the Blu-Ray basement: 62.5MBit/s for either left or right, versus the Blu-Ray maximum video bitrate of 40MBit/s. Couldn't tell you how the compression schemes compete in quality at that point though, what with one being a sequence of individual JPEG2000 images and the other generally being AVC.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
There are also factors like the polarized lenses cutting down the color and luminance that gets to your eyes and higher frame-rates creating the illusion of additional sharpness and information, so it's hard to say how much a loss in bit-rate per-frame would actually make a perceived optical difference. (Any chance you know of any studies about this Five Cent? Panaflex and Trumbell did some similar studies in 2D for color-space, definition, latitude and framerate, but I haven't read any for compression and frame-rate, and definitely nothing that takes the glasses for 3D into account.)
Bugblatter fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Jun 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
Quad posted:Why is Big Trouble in Little China so universally loved? I've tried going through it at least 3 times now, and I can't get past the gross CG Beholder Out Of Nowhere and how inconsistent the tone of it is, with slapstick just thrown in a few shots for, well, fun, I guess. The pacing really shits the bed once they get kidnapped, too. It's certainly no Golden Child. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
weekly font posted:It's certainly no Golden Child. Please refrain from speaking ill of The Golden Child. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:Please refrain from speaking ill of The Golden Child. Thank you. BROTHER NUMSY!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
weekly font posted:BROTHER NUMSY! 'The BluRay for 'THE GOLDEN CHILD' currently has no release date.' Someone over at Paramount doesn't have his or her priorities straight 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
Quad posted:Why is Big Trouble in Little China so universally loved? I've tried going through it at least 3 times now, and I can't get past the gross CG Beholder Out Of Nowhere and how inconsistent the tone of it is, with slapstick just thrown in a few shots for, well, fun, I guess. The pacing really shits the bed once they get kidnapped, too. You realize that Kurt Russel is suppose to be the side kick to the actual hero? Also, you may have to go to church it appears you have no soul. Big Trouble in Little China is like one of my favorite movies EVER.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
Back in highschool I had a friend that was obsessed with Big Trouble in Little China and two of our female friends rented it to see what all the fuss was about. Apparently they got all confused because they rented Big Trouble instead, and were upset at how much that movie sucked. ONLY BIG TROUBLE IS A loving GREAT MOVIE so who knows what the gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 06:42
|
|
|
I need some advice about making my own subtitles. Here's the situation: I bought a hard-to-find movie that was only available with German audio and Italian subtitles. I bought the DVD knowing this. I've scoured the internet and there are no English subs available. So my plan was to encode the movie into an xvid, rip the subtitle file as an srt or whatever, run the srt through Google Translate, and replace the old Italian file with the new English file. Here's the problem I wasn't counting on: THE SUBTITLES ARE BURNED IN! gently caress. So, being the obsessive, overly patient person I am, I'm going to make my own subtitles from scratch. I'll play-pause-play through the whole movie, transcribing the subtitles into an srt file, then run it through Translate. The kicker is that this is a 4 hour movie . Can you guys think of ANY simpler way to accomplish this? Or just any advice to make this as painless as possible? Comedy response: Learn German.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
Are there any German or other .srt files out there you could use?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:Are there any German or other .srt files out there you could use? I see no subtitles whatsoever. The film in question is actually a TV-mini series that Werner Herzog made in 1991 called Filmstunde, aka Film Lesson, aka Lezioni di Cinema (the version I have). It's quite obscure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
Hmm, apparently there's a program called SubRip that can extract hardcoded subtitles using optical character recognition. I wonder how well it actually works? No harm in trying I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
caiman posted:Hmm, apparently there's a program called SubRip that can extract hardcoded subtitles using optical character recognition. I wonder how well it actually works? No harm in trying I guess. That + machine translation sounds like a recipe for absolute gibberish. I'd be interested in hearing the results. And in my experience, Bing translate is slightly better than Google. At least for Dutch. regulargonzalez fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
I tried that once with Osceola and the subs were totally incomprehensible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 22:56
|
|