|
Generic Monk posted:$70796 according to my extensively researched wikipedia calculations well there you go, you shouldn't have watched the movie in the first place
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 11:40 |
|
|
l m a o kill me, im ded now!! that was so much dumber than I had ever even imagined lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
wow i wonder how they did the water in real-time oh its a movie? oh wow
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
gettin real i, claudius era bbc drama vibes from that poo poo like 'yeah it's fake, gently caress you'
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
I never saw any of the Hobbit movies but watching that clip is, like, distressing to me on some visceral level. Like my brain keeps trying to reject it
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
how did peter jackson get hold of my theme park water ride videos???
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
it looks like a loving video game, and not in a good way
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
that must have been...something...seeing it in a hfr 3d theater
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
the gopros were always horrible trash but i maintain that the hobbit movies don't make sense without 48fps also man, hi-8. i transferred a bunch of hi-8 tapes earlier this year and they are a bad, bad format.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
its loving bullshit garbage that the hobbit was shot in 48 fps instead of a proper 60 fps
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
Should have gone the full Billy Lynn and gone 120fps 48fps is a fun framerate since it's completely unsupported on Blu-ray and UHD Blu-ray. Peter Jackson should do a truly classic New Zealand release at 50fps with PAL speedup.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
yeeah it's 48fps so they could half it and mush it up a little bit for the 24fps version, which sucks. 120fps would have been better but billy lynn was pushing the boundaries out even for today. still mad i didn't get to see the preview showing of a scene in 120fps/HDR/3D
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
josh04 posted:also man, hi-8. i transferred a bunch of hi-8 tapes earlier this year and they are a bad, bad format. I think there's still a couple of 767s which are close to retirement that have Hi-8 decks for inflight movies because it didn't make financial sense to put "modern" inflight systems in them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
josh04 posted:the gopros were always horrible trash but i maintain that the hobbit movies don't make sense without 48fps same actually. rescued some family memories that would have wasted away with that terrible format. i used a camcorder i bought from an amazon seller and it worked well
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
josh04 posted:yeeah it's 48fps so they could half it and mush it up a little bit for the 24fps version, which sucks. 120fps would have been better but billy lynn was pushing the boundaries out even for today. still mad i didn't get to see the preview showing of a scene in 120fps/HDR/3D right but there's no point to that, the 24 fps release i mean. all the digital projection systems already in place could at least handle 30 fps display, film distribution was nearly entirely dead, etc. Jimmy Carter posted:I think there's still a couple of 767s which are close to retirement that have Hi-8 decks for inflight movies because it didn't make financial sense to put "modern" inflight systems in them. and of course a cheap projector for the wall display of the movie but they rarely use that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
fishmech posted:its loving bullshit garbage that the hobbit was shot in 48 fps instead of a proper 60 fps if you are making your film look like a video game might as well go all the way. make sure to drop frames when it gets really intense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
fishmech posted:right but there's no point to that, the 24 fps release i mean. all the digital projection systems already in place could at least handle 30 fps display, film distribution was nearly entirely dead, etc. there's a lot of grody film types in hollywood who are convinced 24fps is a totally unique, magic frame rate. they're generally people who are pretty unhappy with the advent of digital capture/distribution full stop.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
josh04 posted:there's a lot of grody film types in hollywood who are convinced 24fps is a totally unique, magic frame rate. they're generally people who are pretty unhappy with the advent of digital capture/distribution full stop. yeah but peter jackson could have told them to go to hell at that point
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
he's probably one of them
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
ALDS Postseason branding package looks like someone left one of the component video cables unplugged on a plasma TV circa 2006 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
Displeased Moo Cow posted:he's probably one of them wouldn't have done the 48 fps shooting then
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
josh04 posted:there's a lot of grody film types in hollywood who are convinced 24fps is a totally unique, magic frame rate. they're generally people who are pretty unhappy with the advent of digital capture/distribution full stop. pagancow on collision course, brace brace brace
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 06:47
|
|
|
pagancow is an ad guy/gal though
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
Displeased Moo Cow posted:pagancow is an ad guy/gal though definitely a guy
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
cows are girls
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
can I shoot a good movie on a lovely camera?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Displeased Moo Cow posted:cows are girls paganbull pagansteer?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
BONGHITZ posted:can I shoot a good movie on a lovely camera? you can shoot a bad movie on a good camera, same thing right? known directors sometimes get up to weird projects, visitor q (i'm not calling it "good" but it's competently put together for what it is, and what it is is seriously hosed up) which i mentioned earlier was the result of some sort of bet/stunt between takeshi miike and some other directors where they would make a full-length movie using only a minidv camera and some tiny budget (i heard $3k but i'm not sure if that's right and can't find specifics at work), although this was specifically done when digital film was just getting into affordable territory and largely as an exploration of that shooting on film back in the day was expensive as gently caress (especially in color but b&w could be pretty pricey too) and was notoriously hard to experiment or do independently because of the costs involved on your recording medium alone
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
BONGHITZ posted:can I shoot a good movie on a lovely camera? what's your budget?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
a. about 3 million. b. I'm Neil breen
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
univbee posted:shooting on film back in the day was expensive as gently caress (especially in color but b&w could be pretty pricey too) and was notoriously hard to experiment or do independently because of the costs involved on your recording medium alone this is me being zen and not having flashbacks of all the whiny film students I used to have to deal with that just couldn’t believe they had to shoot their movies on film and that the cameras weren’t just like their dad’s camcorder that they shot their little action/gangster short “films” on when they were 15.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Doc Block posted:this is me being zen and not having flashbacks of all the whiny film students I used to have to deal with that just couldn’t believe they had to shoot their movies on film and that the cameras weren’t just like their dad’s camcorder that they shot their little action/gangster short “films” on when they were 15. I, too, believe that cultural production should be the exclusive realm of the wealthy (and those poors with wealthy patrons).
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
film looks like poop from a butt and doesn't even have 4ks
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
I'm amazed that movies were able to be made in the 20th century
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
there was only ever one hobbit movie made and it's the Rankin/Bass one
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Schadenboner posted:I, too, believe that cultural production should be the exclusive realm of the wealthy (and those poors with wealthy patrons).  you’ll never guess what societal class film students overwhelmingly belong to.  16mm film wasn’t that expensive, B&W 16mm film was even cheaper (both the film and the processing), Kodak gave film students a discount, and the school had a discount from FotoKem for film processing so the students used the school’s account. these were dumbass (mostly) rich kids over 15 years ago whose main complaint was that shooting on film was ~too hard~ and why can’t they shoot on video like they did for all the little shorts they made when they were 15, it’s so much easier etc etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
we're all living on video and film skills are worse than useless hth
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
cool yeah ityool 2017 not so much in 1999/2000. like I said, over 15 years ago. but go ahead and make a big deal about an offhand remark I made about rich kids not wanting to have to learn anything or put in any effort back in 2000. “you expect us to shoot on film at a time when even TV shows are still shot on film?  “
Doc Block fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Oct 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 11:40 |
|
|
Doc Block posted:cool yeah ityool 2017 learn for the future not the past. digital video already existed. film's days were already numbered. gently caress lugging around all that film poo poo for a bunch of toy projects which is all they'd ever have been doing in class.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 01:17
|
|