|
Standard practice is replace street light bulbs with cinema bulbs anyway, as the standard bulbs don't photograph as well. Same goes for lights in houses/offices/etc. We can still use whatever bulbs we want. Edit: it will change super low budget films and still photography. Bugblatter fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Dec 19, 2014 |
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:40 |
|
|
The real issue is that it changes wide shots of the city. They can't replace all the bulbs. Also, it's silly to make it out to be a big thing, because cities change over time, period. It's no different from a new big construction project changing the skyline.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
Everblight posted:If someone was appearing in The Interview as their first speaking role, would they lose their SAG card since it isn't coming out anymore? I actually asked this question. or one similar in this thread a while ago. As for shorts, it may just not be worth the time and money (unless you are Disney/Pixar) to design, write and animate a ten minute short to go in front of your 90 minute movie. According to Wired, it takes 7 hours on average to render a single frame of Toy Story 3. Some took up to 39 hours. Per frame. So, on the short end, that's 7 hours per frame. 24 frames per second, so each minute of film is 1440 frames, times 10 minutes is 14,400 and then times seven hours for rendering is about 100,000 hours. Granted, there are hundreds of computers running simultaneously 24/7, but it still takes a lot of time if you are going to do that high quality. Toy Story took over 3 years, just to render. And that's just rendering. That doesn't even go into design, writing, animation...all the other things you would need to do for a normal film short. And back to the rendering, if you are doing this for a short to go in front of another Pixar movie, it's processing time you are taking away from another project. CzarChasm fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Dec 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:I actually asked this question. or one similar in this thread a while ago. Yeah, but short films win Oscars, and give younger, untrained directors an opportunity to hone their skills before taking on a full picture. There are plenty of intangible benefits for doing a short like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:Yeah, but short films win Oscars, and give younger, untrained directors an opportunity to hone their skills before taking on a full picture. There are plenty of intangible benefits for doing a short like that. Most major animation studios still make animated shorts, they just don't release them theatrically. Instead they bundle them with the DVD/BluRay releases, sometimes just with the special editions or with special retailer-exclusive bundles because  .And Disney and Pixar still do animated shorts before their feature animated films.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Feast was awesome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Klungar posted:Feast was awesome. When Disney finally figures out how to make a feature-length film using the tech they've been showing off with Paperman and Feast it's going to be goddam incredible, I tell you what.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:I actually asked this question. or one similar in this thread a while ago. I'd love to see this article, because everything you're attributing to it is so laughably wrong. It's absurd.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:I'd love to see this article, because everything you're attributing to it is so laughably wrong. It's absurd. http://www.wired.com/2010/05/process_pixar/all/
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Haha. Gotta love Wired. I would hope everyone knows by now to take what they say with a huge grain of salt, especially with stuff like this. Just do the math for yourself and you'll see how preposterous the claim is. There are 144,000 frames in a 100 minute movie. Double that if it's 3D (Toy Story 3 is in 3D.) Just go ahead and do the math. They are orders of magnitude off. Source: common sense, but also I work in visual effects and can assure you that whoever did the reporting and editing on that article is colossally confused, or doesn't care about accuracy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Good thing we have you here to tell us that we're idiots and nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Those kinds of numbers have been floating around for years and the understanding has always been that yes each frame takes a long time to render but they have a poo poo ton of computers rending various frames at once so it doesn't take that long to actually make the entire film. Is just completely off the mark or something? It makes sense to me....
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Cage posted:Good thing we have you here to tell us that we're idiots and nothing else. lol just lol if you trust any reporting ever. as an example, a recent story that was in the media: there were several factual mistakes. welp, tschüss!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
Do actors in pornography get SAG credit?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
The North Tower posted:Do actors in pornography get SAG credit? No, but they get sag credit! (I'm sorry)
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
The North Tower posted:Do actors in pornography get SAG credit? I think they have to be SAG films to count (i.e. they need to have SAG actors in them) but I'm not sure. I do know you aren't required to join SAG until you've been in a certain number of films. (four maybe, it's so if a random person cameos in something, they don't have to join and pay dues, because they aren't actually an actor professionally). Anybody know if Sasha Grey or James Deen are SAG?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
Pardon if this is incredibly naive, as I don't have much knowledge of the VFX workflow. At some point, once a 3D environment is created, are any of the animators or modelers or whatever able to actually fly around the 3D space and manipulate assets in real time? Is it a simplified version of the finished product or are they able to view the environment in anything approaching the detail and lighting that the final film will have? This is sort of related and may be even a dumber question but what the hell. I've never really understood how they're releasing the incredibly detailed games, games that look 10 times better than the pre-rendered cutscenes of the PS1 era, which are rendered in real time, yet when I hear about VFX rendering, whether for live action or animation, it's always with these crazy processing times. I understand that these things aren't totally analogous, that presumably VFX is dealing with a lot higher resolutions, more complicated lighting, reflections etc, yet it still seems like I'm missing something big. What is it about these things that takes so much time to render solitary frames?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I think they have to be SAG films to count (i.e. they need to have SAG actors in them) but I'm not sure. I do know you aren't required to join SAG until you've been in a certain number of films. (four maybe, it's so if a random person cameos in something, they don't have to join and pay dues, because they aren't actually an actor professionally). Anybody know if Sasha Grey or James Deen are SAG? Based on a Wikipedia browse, I'd say that Grey probably is, because she's been steadily doing a movie or two a year for the past five years or so (and apparently isn't doing porn anymore), and Deen probably isn't, because aside from The Canyons, he hasn't done anything in Hollywood proper.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
Sort of. They can manipulate the scene in a crappier (but still usually good) view. You don't really fly around but you can rotate the environments and shift your view, zoom move left/right/up/down etc. How it actually looks in the shot depends on where you place/the path of the camera/s. How fast it is to move around depends on how complex the scene is- the machines can chug or crash the software if you try to do too much. The processing times are long partly because people don't optimise (they're cranking things out to a deadline and machine time is something you blame another department for unless you're being obviously hugely ridiculous with your jobs) and/or the big numbers people throw about are often for older movies- which had slower computers, smaller render farms, and crappier renderers. Or they'll pick something out like a water sim which can take over a day and use that to 'boast' about huuge numbers because our movie is so technically advanced (but you only do it a few times). I also suspect that sometimes the numbers include every rendered version (artists will render out quick nasty versions to check for any obvious problems- eg forgot to turn the lights on, camera is facing nothing), which is not how long the final frames took, but includes all the prototyping for approval, then minor adjustments made. You also have to do multiple passes and render out bits separately. The first passes may take hours, but then you might have the final actual frame take a minute or two - but that's fairly legit counting except that some bits are only rendered once for the entire shot and if you count it for each frame you end up with inflated numbers. Lighting and shadows are so far in advance of real time rendered video games that if you think they're comparable... well, no. But that is indeed where a lot of the processing time is. Also, are you talking real-time or prerendered scenes in games? Prerendered scenes are that way because the console can't do stuff that nice in realtime. Realtime stuff looks nowhere anywhere even vaguely in the same league as modern movie vfx. TV stuff that just has a bit of comping or cleanup usually takes a few minutes a frame. I suspect you only hear about those large numbers when they're from a movie boasting about its vfx as a way to wow people and are probably doing quite new, complex stuff. Oh also, render farm machines don't have graphics cards. EDIT: except when the artists go home for the night and you put their workstations on the farm because they're far better machines. Strong Convections fucked around with this message at 07:59 on Dec 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
Bolek posted:This is sort of related and may be even a dumber question but what the hell. I've never really understood how they're releasing the incredibly detailed games, games that look 10 times better than the pre-rendered cutscenes of the PS1 era, which are rendered in real time, yet when I hear about VFX rendering, whether for live action or animation, it's always with these crazy processing times. I understand that these things aren't totally analogous, that presumably VFX is dealing with a lot higher resolutions, more complicated lighting, reflections etc, yet it still seems like I'm missing something big. What is it about these things that takes so much time to render solitary frames? Basically, this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0MK7qz13bU looks a lot better than this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RswxxH_a9wo in terms of lighting, textures, shadows, and facial movements on individual characters, plus clipping of polygons is non existent in modern computer animated films.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 10:17
|
|
|
The North Tower posted:Do actors in pornography get SAG credit? No because the production companies don't sign up to the SAG basic agreement. They are non-union/guild productions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 10:21
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:clipping of polygons is non existent in modern computer animated films.  
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 12:42
|
|
|
Okay, I've watched this like 50 times and I'm still not seeing it. Where should I be looking?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
JohnSherman posted:Okay, I've watched this like 50 times and I'm still not seeing it. Where should I be looking? Follow her braid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:Follow her braid. drat, I should have seen that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
It's a magic ice braid she just forms it there geez
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Does Tony Gilroy prefer writing to directing or is there another reason he didn't really do much directing after Michael Clayton? It seems like he should have made a lot more movies after that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
MrBling posted:Does Tony Gilroy prefer writing to directing or is there another reason he didn't really do much directing after Michael Clayton? It seems like he should have made a lot more movies after that. He directed Duplicity which did terribly, but then he also directed Bourne Legacy which was kind of a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:He directed Duplicity which did terribly, but then he also directed Bourne Legacy which was kind of a big deal. Bourne Legacy was an excellent Universal Soldier film. I recommend this viewing order: Universal Soldier -> Universal Soldier: Regeneration -> The Bourne Legacy -> Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning Pretend that no other Universal Soldier films exist. The next Bourne film will determine whether I think The Bourne Legacy was a good addition to the Bourne series...
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Finally got around to watching Synecdoche, New York. So uhhhh....... 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
IMO Michael Clayton is one of the best spy thrillers of late, reminds me of Three Days of Condor in some weird way.Bloody Hedgehog posted:Finally got around to watching Synecdoche, New York. I walked out on that one, too up its own rear end & Hoffman wasn't very interesting in it either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
It took me at least a year to realize it's a play on "Schenectady".
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Boatswain posted:I walked out on that one, too up its own rear end & Hoffman wasn't very interesting in it either. you have poor taste
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
Fayez Butts posted:you have poor taste I'd like to think I've got excellent taste  It is just that I dislike his movies that aren't Being John Malkovich or Adaptation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 13:11
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:Finally got around to watching Synecdoche, New York. I liked the subplot of the entire world falling apart and Caiden doesn't notice because he's so far up his own rear end about his play.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
Do actors from Rocky Horror Picture Show continue to get residuals from all the midnight movie showings?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:Do actors from Rocky Horror Picture Show continue to get residuals from all the midnight movie showings? Theatrical showings don't trigger residuals. Residuals refer to residual markets after theatrical exploitation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Does that count as a "theatrical showing" though? It's not like the box office is going up every time its shown.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
A dumb question, but I'm watching Into Darkness for the first time and either there's something really wrong with my TV or they made Kirk's lips super pink, bordering on purple. Is it just my TV? I can't seem to adjust it away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:40 |
|
|
Martytoof posted:A dumb question, but I'm watching Into Darkness for the first time and either there's something really wrong with my TV or they made Kirk's lips super pink, bordering on purple. Is it just my TV? I can't seem to adjust it away. Turning down the contrast and/or switching your TV to movie mode would be my best guess, but if you've already done these things I have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 06:34
|
|