|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Fun Fact: Watch out if you see someone using bluescreen nowadays, they're likely one of the reptilian overlords who secretly rule this country and are trying to avoid an embarrassing greenscreen gaffe. On the plus side, they're probably not secretly dead.
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:22 |
|
|
penismightier posted:They developed it from Superman in 1978 because Superman has a blue costume, they kept doing it because there's no green in the human skin. I saw what you did there. Smoking ladies is frowned upon 'round here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:I saw what you did there. Thought this was Gen Chat, popped it on into the proper place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:Why the switch from Blue to Green? My best guess is that a green reflection, or the green outline/halo is easier to hide/touch up/avoid than blue. Very simplified answer: Digital cameras pick up green a lot better. Film picks up blue better. Very simplified answer pt. 2: Even before digital acquisition was commonplace, digital compositing had been standard for years, i.e. shoot on film but scan VFX elements digitally for compositing in computer software. The scanners, and the compositing tools, also like green better than they like blue. What this means is that there was a period where you'd be compromising no matter what. You'd want to hang blue because your film neg would be cleaner and easier to key but you'd want to hang green because your compositors would have an easier time of it. During this period a lot of stuff was shot with green instead of blue simply because green is "easier" to light - you need less light hitting the screen to pull a clean key, and it's easier to make the light uniform. The problem with that is the green is so reflective that it tends to spill everywhere, and to my eye the spill is uglier and more obvious. Blue is still the color of choice in a lot of applications, especially shooting human beings, regardless of acquisition (film or video). But I'm honestly trying to think of a single blue screen element I've ever seen on all the features I've worked on though, and I can't think of any. I'm sure there have been a handful, but it's not many. And that's out of thousands of elements. These days where most VFX heavy shows are shot digitally, or at the very least the VFX elements are shot digitally, green rules the day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Green reacts less with flesh tones and seems to work better with digital processes. I think it depends on what the lighting requires and the action. Some of the effects in Independence Day were shot with red screens. The old sodium vapor process used on Mary Poppins and The Birds, which utilized yellow screens and in-camera mattes (bipack film). The use of blue actually originated from compatibility with 3-strip Technicolor. It was easier to use one color channel that way since Tech negatives were filtered to yellow, cyan, and magenta. By using blue screens, the matte would be produced from the yellow strip of film. This is a pretty interesting post but I take issue with your very first sentence. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with "Green reacts less with flesh tones" but I can't think of a single interpretation which would put you in the right. The fact is, when you shoot a human in front of green screen and you later key out the green, you can end up with pretty nasty side effects. Blue give you much, much better results in terms of preserving their skin and hair colors and it's much easier to do (the effect requires less tweaking).
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Man, turns I don't know poo poo about Superman & compositing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Man, turns I don't know poo poo about Superman & compositing. The DVD (and Blu-Ray) has an awesome 30 minute documentary just on the special effects. They even show all the failed test footage like launching a Superman dummy out of an air (yes, it looks awful) or using dolls in front of a fan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:The DVD (and Blu-Ray) has an awesome 30 minute documentary just on the special effects. They even show all the failed test footage like launching a Superman dummy out of an air The Captain Marvel serial does this and it rules. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK9m8SHpCLk
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Can someone who has seen Grand Piano explain the business with the key for me. I must have missed something there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
penismightier posted:The Captain Marvel serial does this and it rules. I always love it when superheroes just ruthlessly gun people down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
morestuff posted:I always love it when superheroes just ruthlessly gun people down. There's a part later on where he wants to beat up some guy in a locked room, so just throws another guy through the door to get to him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
How does A Passage to India compare with David Lean's other films?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Ego-bot posted:How does A Passage to India compare with David Lean's other films? One of his best films. Especially worth seeing since the Blu-Ray is fantastic. It's a bit different from his other films - the funding came from multiple studios (Columbia, EMI, United Artists, and HBO), so it's a bit smaller in scale. More interesting is that it's the only film Lean not only directed, but wrote and edited himself as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
Is there a filmic term for the concept of anti-satire? I've been thinking of situations where there's a clear satiric point being presented, but the audience either sees it 'straight', or sees the message and actively rejects it because that message isn't integral to their viewing. Examples: - Godzilla represents the emotions of Japan after the gently caress you, stop talking, we're at the point where Big G uses his nuke breath on the building, which is why I put the DVD in - If they don't put the goddamned Robotic Cop back on the screen shooting people, instead of this corporate yak-fest, I'm done. I know the Goon Answer is  People Not Getting It, , but I'm curious if there's a real term for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
I think the term is good satire.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:I think the term is bad satire. Is the Nut Job worth watching on an ironic level? Cuz Goddamn those are some bad reviews
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Is there a filmic term for the concept of anti-satire? You don't have to analyze satirical movies while you watch them. Just enjoy the movie and think about it afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:You don't have to analyze satirical movies while you watch them. Just enjoy the movie and think about it afterwards. And a movie might have arch or ironic notes while still playing things straight for the most part. Still, I think that if the issue is the audience refusing to acknowledge or make sense of available evidence within the text, you'd just call that an incomplete or weak reading of the material.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Is there a filmic term for the concept of anti-satire? No, there's a general term: "subtlety."
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Edit: Wrong thread, sorry
Hbomberguy fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Feb 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Heard around the lunchroom today that there was a Hollywood movie camera that was used for a very short while that worked similar to an x ray machine. Is this truth or fiction?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
Where do you guys go for film reviews? Any critics in particular you would recommend? I occasionally read reviews from the paper and SA for entertainment, and while I enjoy the writing and different perspectives, they are terrible as a barometer for whether I will enjoy a film or not. Some of my favourite movies from 2013 got tepid reviews and I would have missed out on them if a friend hadn't insisted. Edit: Preferably actual articles. Aggregate sites like Rotten Tomatoes make my eyes glaze over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
I've never been able to use reviews as a metric for how I'll enjoy a film. I just don't think that sort of thing is possible. Reviewers and journalists put up far more against a film than purely the experience of seeing and hearing, which is almost always an inaccurate review of something. There's not a single film critic I've ever respected or agreed with. Judgment of creative media is too personal. Just base whether you want to see something on previous works of the people involved, and what they've shown you so far in trailers and content.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Fruits of the sea posted:Where do you guys go for film reviews? Any critics in particular you would recommend? Tim Brayton is the one living critic I follow religiously.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Slim Killington posted:I've never been able to use reviews as a metric for how I'll enjoy a film. I just don't think that sort of thing is possible. Reviewers and journalists put up far more against a film than purely the experience of seeing and hearing, which is almost always an inaccurate review of something. I totally agree, but it must be possible to find a reviewer with similiar tastes or, barring that, similiar dislikes. Hell, maybe just recommend some entertaining critics and I'll work it out from there 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Similar dislikes, hell yes, I have plenty of people I can go to that can dependably tell me, "don't waste your time." I just haven't found the right reviewer whose general output lines up with mine, like you said, and got tired of trying after years of reading reviews.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
While I don't always agree with him, I can usually tell if I'm going to like a movie based on A.O. Scott's review, him and Manohla Dargis are the main reason I ever pay attention to the New York Times. If you just want a barometer, rate a couple hundred movies on criticker, you'll start getting decent predictions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
I usually read Wesley Morris' reviews at Grantland after I've seen a movie and come away with a new perspective.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
I generally don't read reviews until after I've seen a film and I want to see if other people loved or hated it as much as I did, and if they did for the same reasons. This is partially my own shallow need to validate my opinions, but also because I often hate popular films for reasons that no one else seems to care about, and I read reviews to see if I'm just crazy or if I'm not the only one. Sometimes I won't like a film on the first viewing, but someone will point out things that I hadn't thought of with completely change the way I view the film and how I feel about it. In the last 8 or so years, the way in which I view films and think about them has "matured" considerably, and I am reasonably confidant in my opinions. These forums are my primary source of information about and reviews of films.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Mark Kermode's radio reviews are entertaining to listen to and I find myself agreeing with him quite often. "If you saw Little Man, shame on you" is the one of the funniest spoken sets of words ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Minclark posted:Heard around the lunchroom today that there was a Hollywood movie camera that was used for a very short while that worked similar to an x ray machine. Is this truth or fiction? Given the mechanics of how x-ray machines work, this seems unlikely. Film cameras work by gathering in light through a lens which focuses that light onto the film contained behind the lens. X-ray machines work by shooting out radiation from the "camera" at a distant piece of film which is sensitive to that type of radiation, and materials that are too hard for the x-rays to penetrate as well (bone, for instance) that are in the way block some of that radiation so they show up, kind of like a shadow, on the film. That is, movie cameras gather while x-ray machines send out. Entirely different mechanisms, and I'm not sure how or why Hollywood would use the latter type of machine to make a movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:While I don't always agree with him, I can usually tell if I'm going to like a movie based on A.O. Scott's review, him and Manohla Dargis are the main reason I ever pay attention to the New York Times. Seconding these two, and I also read David Denby and Dave edelstein.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
I mean, you could back-light a scene with a large x-ray source and probably make it work, but it would be like, really unhealthy to just be showering the entire set with x-rays...
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Mark Kermode's radio reviews are entertaining to listen to and I find myself agreeing with him quite often. "If you saw Little Man, shame on you" is the one of the funniest spoken sets of words ever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61UolzFTVPI Probably one of my favorite movie reviews ever, and I agree with everything he says.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:Given the mechanics of how x-ray machines work, this seems unlikely. Film cameras work by gathering in light through a lens which focuses that light onto the film contained behind the lens. X-ray machines work by shooting out radiation from the "camera" at a distant piece of film which is sensitive to that type of radiation, and materials that are too hard for the x-rays to penetrate as well (bone, for instance) that are in the way block some of that radiation so they show up, kind of like a shadow, on the film. He might be thinking of Cineradiography. That's capturing moving images with a camera and a fluoroscope. I wouldn't be surprised if filmmakers had messed around with fluoroscopes in the early days of film before the deadly effects of long-term x-ray exposure where known.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Fruits of the sea posted:Where do you guys go for film reviews? Any critics in particular you would recommend?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:He might be thinking of Cineradiography. That's capturing moving images with a camera and a fluoroscope. I wouldn't be surprised if filmmakers had messed around with fluoroscopes in the early days of film before the deadly effects of long-term x-ray exposure where known. I've got a hunch that they were talking about infrared photography and just kinda took one step too far. Just a guess tho
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 12:35
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:I've got a hunch that they were talking about infrared photography and just kinda took one step too far. Probably right. People certainly did gently caress around with x-rays a lot though, and not all that long ago. My parents remember being taken to buy new shoes when they were kids, and some shoe shops would measure your feet with a "Shoe-Fitting Fluoroscope". Those things were still in operation up into the early 70's, being ran by shoe-salesman with little training other than "stick their feet in there, then turn it on". The machines were extremely poorly constructed as well, and x-ray leakage was a given.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 12:57
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope Not as bad as stuff like the radium water, but still pretty odd it made it as far as it did. This part of the timeline amused me: Wikipedia posted:Late 1970s: Last recorded sighting of a shoe-fitting fluoroscope in service in Boston. As if the device was some endangered species last seen prowling the suburbs of Boston.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:22 |
|
|
If we're talking about reviewers, I think Vince Mancini from https://www.filmdrunk.com is doing an excellent job.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 10:39
|
|