|
digital video existed but it was really expensive and still looked worse than 16mm film. a digital video camera that allowed the same control over the image as a movie camera (manual focus, swappable lenses, manual exposure, etc) was way more expensive than renting a 16mm film camera and still looked worse. but none of these students were complaining about any of that. just that film was “too hard.”
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:08 |
|
|
Doc Block posted:digital video existed but it was really expensive and still looked worse than 16mm film. a digital video camera that allowed the same control over the image as a movie camera (manual focus, swappable lenses, manual exposure, etc) was way more expensive than renting a 16mm film camera and still looked worse. yeah film was way too hard and sucked and was dead. should have dropped it entirely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
i think 28 days later looks cool. who gives a poo poo what medium or whatever you put your moving pictures on as long as theyre good
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
but the pixels
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
BONGHITZ posted:a. about 3 million. you can make a good 3-minute movie
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
Last Chance posted:i think 28 days later looks cool. who gives a poo poo what medium or whatever you put your moving pictures on as long as theyre good I looks like garbage especially the lower light scenes but it's a decent movie regardless
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
I was entertained and hardly noticed the apparent look problems
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 12:08
|
|
|
the first time i saw it was on a 17" crt as a 650mb divx ;-) 3.11 file so it looked ~unusual~ rather than straight up lovely cant stand the blown out highlights nowadays tho. that used to be the worst thing about digital films Aix fucked around with this message at 13:21 on Oct 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
Here's (the slides from) a cool talk from an engineer at Vimeo about the poo poo people upload and expect their transcoder to deal with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Aix posted:the first time i saw it was on a 17" crt as a 650mb divx ;-) 3.11 file so it looked ~unusual~ rather than straight up lovely i remember seeing my first divx clip, it was about the same size as an mpeg but it looked razor sharp in comparison and it blew my mind
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
Mr.Radar posted:Here's (the slides from) a cool talk from an engineer at Vimeo about the poo poo people upload and expect their transcoder to deal with. brb uploading a bunch of my multi-track mp4s to see how vimeo deals with them
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 10:09
|
|
|
i'm going to upload a 7z file inside an mkv and complain really loudly about it
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Mr.Radar posted:Here's (the slides from) a cool talk from an engineer at Vimeo about the poo poo people upload and expect their transcoder to deal with. i'd love to see a list of all 39 container formats people submit stuff in. the wikipedia list only has 29 and that includes really obscure stuff like roq and svi.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
lamo why wouldn't they spend money CGing 18 frames?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Aix posted:the dvd has loving chroma subsampling!!! my thoughts exactly
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Doc Block posted:it was a movie but shooting it was a mistake. fixed
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
josh04 posted:if no-one made films with the bad digital cameras which were available at the time, it's hard to see where the drive towards decent quality digital cameras would have come from. incorrect, there have always been good and bad digital cameras like you wouldnt shoot on a gopro for your million dollars per finished minut...oh
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Doc Block posted:meh nope, sony had a good 1080P camera in 1999 for Star Wars EP1 and it was panavised so that focus puller still had a job
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
The_Franz posted:i would imagine that a significant chunk of blair witch being shot on hi-8 and still making a mountain of money had something to do with it nope it grossed only 140 Million domestically, which isnt that great for a tentpole franchise http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=blairwitchproject.htm
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Last Chance posted:i think 28 days later looks cool. who gives a poo poo what medium or whatever you put your moving pictures on as long as theyre good motherfucker do you know where u are?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Mr.Radar posted:Here's (the slides from) a cool talk from an engineer at Vimeo about the poo poo people upload and expect their transcoder to deal with.  i want to marry this person
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Doc Block posted:digital video existed but it was really expensive and still looked worse than 16mm film. a digital video camera that allowed the same control over the image as a movie camera (manual focus, swappable lenses, manual exposure, etc) was way more expensive than renting a 16mm film camera and still looked worse. it’s always been about learning about the limitations of things and how to work with it. you still gotta get a grip truck to light stuff with film or digital (unless you’re that guy who covertly shot a movie at Disney World). Sound is still sound.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
pagancow posted:nope it grossed only 140 Million domestically, which isnt that great for a tentpole franchise ...on a budget of 60,000, which is... good?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
Generic Monk posted:...on a budget of 60,000, which is... good? the worldwide take was $258 million in 1999 dollars. not too shabby
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
pagancow posted:nope, sony had a good 1080P camera in 1999 for Star Wars EP1 and it was panavised so that focus puller still had a job EP1 was shot on 35mm, except for literally 1 or 2 shots that were done as a test. George Lucas reportedly was booed at a DGA screening of EP1, after he said a lot of it was intentionally shot ever so slightly out of focus because he was already planning to shoot EP2 digitally & didn’t want it to look worse than EP1 in terms of resolution and detail. they didn’t go to shooting full digital until EP2, in 2002.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
george lucas is such a loving troll, i love it
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
I think the word you're looking for is hack
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Doc Block posted:EP1 was shot on 35mm, except for literally 1 or 2 shots that were done as a test. George Lucas reportedly was booed at a DGA screening of EP1, after he said a lot of it was intentionally shot ever so slightly out of focus because he was already planning to shoot EP2 digitally & didn’t want it to look worse than EP1 in terms of resolution and detail. yes but the reels were transferred to hdcam sr and those are the official masters. Lucas was right that 1080p was better than film because a completely optical workflow for film means you get to barely see 800ish lines of resolution during projection with the best optical practices. shooting 1080 and digitally projecting digital 1080 gives you 1080 lines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
also noise is lower because each transfer of film means a doubling of grain as you transfer from medium to medium from camera negative to projection on screen it's a minimum of 3 generation of reprints until it ends up on your movie screen and with a movie like Star Wars it would be more like 5 optical reprints due to effects and compositing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
pagancow posted:also noise is lower because each transfer of film means a doubling of grain as you transfer from medium to medium i thought some of the stuff they got up to with the original star wars was like 10 layers deep on effects, compositing, and then the theater prints
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Jimmy Carter posted:it’s always been about learning about the limitations of things and how to work with it. is there a video format equivalent to the "loudness war" with CDs?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:is there a video format equivalent to the "loudness war" with CDs? no because people see good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
but don't even show me your ditch quality indie film bullshit unless it's 4K hdr and in a 4:2:2 codec
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
lol if u shoot 1080p my CELL PHONE (based off technology where cell towers were taken down over a decade ago) shoots 4K (actually UHD-1) in a 4:2:0 codec lol your neighbor shoots his family videos at a better quality than that bullshit u watch on Netflix
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
pagancow posted:no because people see good. surely something like over-saturation would be the equivalent? Like when people go shopping for TVs and they tune the saturation way up so the sales guy can be like ‘and look at how vivid these colours are’, because people prioritise LOUD over dynamic range.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
AS A CONNOSEUR OF CODECS, I think u are basically doing it wrong if you don't have a $3,000 recorder strapped to your belt at all times to bypass any 4:2:0 compressed garbage like srs just don't even let those files touch your HD
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Ocrassus posted:surely something like over-saturation would be the equivalent? Like when people go shopping for TVs and they tune the saturation way up so the sales guy can be like ‘and look at how vivid these colours are’, because people prioritise LOUD over dynamic range. loudness wars comes from professionals mastering. you stuck son frame interpolation comes from display manufacturers and can be turned off if you have a working brain. big difference.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
your eyes are capable of seeing this huge cie chart why would you let anything less than Rec 2020 in? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CIExy1931_Rec_2020.svg
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
even movie theatres have ducking lasers and p3 gamut and anybody can pay a few bucks to see last decades technilogy?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:08 |
|
|
and LOL if u think those rec.601 masters of Star Wars are some how George lucases original version of the film that old 1977 reel has so much film grain ud 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 01:00
|
|