|
When D. W. Griffith made Intolerance, was it more like "Hey, sorry for being so racist with A Birth of a Nation, let's talk about how intolerance is bad," or was it more like "Ugh, why are you all being so intolerant of me? Let me show you how bad you are for being intolerant of my racism!" (a.k.a., the Orson Scott Card approach)? I've heard both.
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 07:15 |
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:It could've been filmed from the back of a truck, and then the image stabilized in post later. It does have that weird fluidity to that stabilized video has.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
How would you stabilize it in post?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 05:52
|
|
|
effectual posted:How would you stabilize it in post? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZploGEADsQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo-leRJUVjc From what I understand, video editing software (via a plugin or w/e) does edge detection to identify persistent objects within each video frame and analyzes the movement or w/e of the camera, then modifies the video frame by frame to maintain smooth movement. A side effect is that the result may be cropped a bit, depending on how much camera movement there was.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 06:10
|
|
|
effectual posted:How would you stabilize it in post? You track certain elements during the shot, and then use a software package (or by hand, if you're adventurous) to smooth the motion. A tracked point may start at location X/Y, and then end at another X/Y location, but between those two points it jumps all over the place because of camera movements, prop movements, character movement, etc etc. The software will then try to plot a smoother path for that point, so to the viewer it will eventually appear as smooth, judder free movement. Of course, you have to do this dozens, or hundreds of times for a long shot, smoothing bits here and there and making sure they all work together. The tech's getting more advanced all the time though. Even Youtube now has an option to auto-smooth camera motion when you upload a vid. Sometimes it works and give good results, other times..... it makes it looks like the walls are melting and your dropping acid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 06:20
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:Sometimes it works and give good results, other times..... it makes it looks like the walls are melting and your dropping acid. Result of stabilizing footage with a heavy rolling shutter. Anyway, as others have said the shot is truck + some kind of physical stabilization, most likely a steadicam. I don't think there was any post stabilization in this case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 07:15
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:other times..... it makes it looks like the walls are melting and your dropping acid. I'd love to see an example. Also, did people manually do this way back when? Or just not bother?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 08:29
|
|
|
How do they do those shots where an actor appears to be in place, but everything around him moves as he walks? "Inside Man" had one of these.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
Steadicam mounted on the actor and pointing at their face.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
ynohtna posted:Steadicam mounted on the actor and pointing at their face. Doesn't Spike Lee actually put the actor on a dolly so that they aren't even walking?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
Snak posted:Doesn't Spike Lee actually put the actor on a dolly so that they aren't even walking? I think the dvd has a behind the scenes clip and it is precisely that. Denzel just standing on a cart with a camera in his face as hes being pulled along for the shot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
Snak posted:Doesn't Spike Lee actually put the actor on a dolly so that they aren't even walking? Yep.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
Is Sharknado what I keep seeing referenced everywhere? I had it figured for a lovely made for ScyFy, or whatever they call themselves now, movie. Figured I'd give it a watch if nothing else was on or I needed to pick an awful movie for date night. I've been hearing a bunch of shark references on morning news programs though, and none of them have anything to do with Shark Week.  I figure I owe it to myself to see whatever it is that has morning news using memes all of a sudden, but I'm not sure if it's Sharknado or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
Yeah it's Sharknado.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
I passed a flower store the other day that mentioned something about Sharknado baked goods or something on its sign? It's gotten more press than other Asylum films for whatever reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
Well drat, I guess they finally struck gold. Suppose I'd better see it as soon as I can.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
You don't need to see it. The movie doesn't do anything better than what the title already does. Asylum movies are boring-bad not fun-to-watch-bad. Asylum is a bit like The Onion in that regard; often you only need the headline and you got everything out of the joke worth getting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
The Onion is not like that at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
effectual posted:I'd love to see an example. Also, did people manually do this way back when? Or just not bother? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-UOqYbOrQA This is an example of a stabilized video filmed with a mobilephone. You can see some of the warping in the background.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
Monkeyseesaw posted:You don't need to see it. The movie doesn't do anything better than what the title already does. Asylum movies are boring-bad not fun-to-watch-bad. ...unless you're with friends ready to make fun of it the whole time. But yeah, trying to enjoy it alone, especially stone sober, is probably not worth it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
Trump posted:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-UOqYbOrQA Just chiming in to say that I do a lot of stabilizing and VFX and what you're seeing there isn't necessarily a byproduct of a rolling shutter. It happens with any cheap/quick single pass 2D stabilization on very shaky or complex movement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
Snak posted:Doesn't Spike Lee actually put the actor on a dolly so that they aren't even walking? This has long been one of his visual trademarks. I hate the effect and can't think of any other director who does it this way off the top of my head. Completely different look from what you get mounting the camera to the actor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
effectual posted:I'd love to see an example. Also, did people manually do this way back when? Or just not bother? Before computers did it you had to get it in camera. It's why the operators are some of the highest paid guys on a crew. Dolly grips and crane/jib guys also make a lot. Smooth camera moves have always been tough. The Steadicam was a HUGE, revolutionary innovation. So was "moco" (preprogrammed motion controlled by electronics).
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:This has long been one of his visual trademarks. I hate the effect and can't think of any other director who does it this way off the top of my head. Completely different look from what you get mounting the camera to the actor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
ynohtna posted:Steadicam mounted on the actor and pointing at their face. The proper term for this is Snorricam thank you very much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
Spermando posted:How do they do those shots where an actor appears to be in place, but everything around him moves as he walks? "Inside Man" had one of these. The usual term for this is "SnorriCam", by the way. ...and also, Purple Gromit posted:He's completely wrapped in thick rope from his ankles to his shoulders. That's a lot harder to break than the one chain link he breaks at the start. I'm not denying that this is a true fact, but is that really the reason? The film isn't mundane and logical like that. It seems weird to focus so carefully on One breaking out of things and then when there's a golden opportunity to show his stuff, there isn't even a hilarious joke to explain why he can't this time. I'd buy "One is too sad to even try to escape" over that. qntm fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Aug 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:The Onion is not like that at all. I disagree!
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
Monkeyseesaw posted:I disagree! I used to read it faithfully back in the 90s or whatever but it eventually became clear that they did such a good job titling the articles that actually reading them became redundant. In most cases. I mean, I had to know what was going on with Jim Anchower, and Herbert Kornfeld and so forth but it got to the point where the premises, while often brilliant and hilarious, pretty much laid it all out. Which is actually a hallmark of good reporting. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:I used to read it faithfully back in the 90s or whatever but it eventually became clear that they did such a good job titling the articles that actually reading them became redundant. In most cases. The Onion lost a lot of gravitas after its editor T. Herman Zweibel rocketed off into space. I miss those articles most of all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
Chrtrptnt posted:I think the dvd has a behind the scenes clip and it is precisely that. Denzel just standing on a cart with a camera in his face as hes being pulled along for the shot. FreudianSlippers posted:The proper term for this is Snorricam thank you very much. Ah cool. I love replacing my vague ignorance with proper info. Cheers, folks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 09:28
|
|
|
DetoxP posted:When D. W. Griffith made Intolerance, was it more like "Hey, sorry for being so racist with A Birth of a Nation, let's talk about how intolerance is bad," or was it more like "Ugh, why are you all being so intolerant of me? Let me show you how bad you are for being intolerant of my racism!" (a.k.a., the Orson Scott Card approach)? I've heard both. I'm not a serious Griffith scholar, but I'd steer closer to the former.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 14:27
|
|
|
Griffith's racism is an interesting subject. He was essentially a liberal reform-type guy who wanted social progress and world peace and compassion for the poor and so on, but he was also a proud Southerner who absorbed most of the racial prejudice of his time. He had sort of a paternalistic view of black people, he "loved" them but thought they obviously clearly weren't yet the equal of the white man (though he did have a very kneejerk fear of miscegenation.) He actually at one point thought of adding a postscript to Birth of a Nation showing the "progress" of the Negro since Reconstruction, like they weren't ready for the vote back then but were much better now. With Intolerance he shows more of his compassionate reformer side and less of the Dixiecrat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 14:42
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:I'm not a serious Griffith scholar, but I'd steer closer to the former. The specific story according to The Whole Equation, a book that covers early Hollywood, is that Griffith was actually somewhat unaware of how his film was received - or that he had even made something so virulently racist in tone. It was only after one of his help, who had become a good friend to DW in the time he had worked for him, had seen it and asked Griffith "why on earth did you make that?" that Griffith became aware of what he had done. Intolerance was his apology to black people, and him saying in absolute terms that he was not racist. My favorite story about Birth of A Nation is that it was the first movie that Louis B. Mayer ever distributed, and he bought the New England distribution rights to it without seeing the drat thing himself. But without it, he probably wouldn't have made the money to eventually make Metro Pictures and Mayer Pictures, which would eventually lead to the existence of MGM. A hell of a chance to take.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
I've always thought Griffith was rattled by the realization that he WAS a white supremacist, and many of his films straight on til Abraham Lincoln sort of walk on eggshells because he was afraid to let loose his id.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 03:57
|
|
|
I had a documentary in my netflix queue but I can't find it now and it's driving me crazy. It had a foreign name for the title, which may have started with a S or a B. It was something about people living in a trash and garbage dumps, or just living in hellish places. I *know* it is NOT Waste Land. It looked very bleak and I wanted to see it, but kept putting it off. Now, I can't remember it and can't find it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 07:40
|
|
|
clockworkjoe posted:I had a documentary in my netflix queue but I can't find it now and it's driving me crazy. It had a foreign name for the title, which may have started with a S or a B. It was something about people living in a trash and garbage dumps, or just living in hellish places. I *know* it is NOT Waste Land. It looked very bleak and I wanted to see it, but kept putting it off. Now, I can't remember it and can't find it. Is it The Tijuana Project?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
penismightier posted:I've always thought Griffith was rattled by the realization that he WAS a white supremacist, and many of his films straight on til Abraham Lincoln sort of walk on eggshells because he was afraid to let loose his id. IMDB says one of his 1911 Biograph films had the Klan as the villains of the story.  I can't find anything detailed on it, nor on YouTube, so it may be apocryphal. Although, I did find that Griffith was portrayed by Charles Dance in the movie Good Morning, Babylon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:IMDB says one of his 1911 Biograph films had the Klan as the villains of the story. The thing about Birth Of A Nation is that it's based on The Clansman, which was an incredibly popular play that argued for the importance of segregation. It's why this idea that Griffith was somehow caught off guard by accusations of racism were always suspect to me. He knew why that play was so popular and knew what he was doing when he made that film. I always saw his post Nation career as him coming to terms with being wrong, but it's hard to say.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:IMDB says one of his 1911 Biograph films had the Klan as the villains of the story.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 07:15 |
|
|
There's also a few shorts where the Union are the heroes, but they don't have any charge to them. He can't find any romance in the Union army.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 02:51
|
|