|
Munkeymon posted:I'm happy that pagancow will be able to enjoy a Taika Waititi film now that Ragnarok is out why couldnt she have enjoyed what we do in the shadows boy is also good esp at the start
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
i saw 300 at the imax and at the end when he gets arrowed the pixels were big enough around the cgi that i could see them doing their little dither dance thing from where i was sitting
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Corla Plankun posted:i saw 300 at the imax and at the end when he gets arrowed the pixels were big enough around the cgi that i could see them doing their little dither dance thing from where i was sitting Is there a master list somewhere of "ruined by the theatrical IMAX upgrade" movies, where they were expecting everyone to watch it with a lower-end projector at 2K resolution and then a studio head was like "hey this would look great in IMAX" and everyone on the production staff who did a shortcut like this that is really obvious at higher resolution/quality shat themselves?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:why couldnt she have enjoyed what we do in the shadows it didn't cost nearly enough to make duh
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
univbee posted:Is there a master list somewhere of "ruined by the theatrical IMAX upgrade" movies, where they were expecting everyone to watch it with a lower-end projector at 2K resolution and then a studio head was like "hey this would look great in IMAX" and everyone on the production staff who did a shortcut like this that is really obvious at higher resolution/quality shat themselves? No IMAX tickets command 15+ dollars and it's more revenue for the same film. Don't spend time doing anything but letting the scaler in the projector room do something with the 2K DCP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
lolololol i just had a thanksgiving meal conversation about star wars "star wars 7 is an objectively good movie because they did everything real with it which is why it looked good" buuuuuulllllllSSHHHHIIIITTTTT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgzxrwXHCoU
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
pagancow posted:lolololol i just had a thanksgiving meal conversation about star wars they went outside a few times unlike the george lucas prequels lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
lol they build more sets in prequels because computer graphics were bad back then https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-myaAkkQPc&t=1840s
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
akadajet posted:they went outside a few times unlike the george lucas prequels lol yeah there was a massive advertising push around "look, we have real sets, not just green screen rooms!" but really at the end of the day the only advertising they needed was "this movie is not directed by george lucas"
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Just look at the massive elaborate set they build for EP1, and then on EP7 its like "welp lets just let bob from VFX do it" because it looks better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
pagancow posted:lol they build more sets in prequels because computer graphics were bad back then I assume Lucas made the real sets look like terrible CG in ep2 to blend in?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
pagancow posted:Just look at the massive elaborate set they build for EP1, and then on EP7 its like "welp lets just let bob from VFX do it" because it looks better. Ep2 and 3 are the bad ones for that, it’s clear in 1 they ran out of money after the “roger roger” droids and jar jar
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
A lot of the original team from 4-5-6 were on 1-2-3 and they built a lot of practicals just like back then, and it was tedious and had several limitations until they unlocked layers in the computer now they are doing stuff real time in game engine like things and they can iterate faster and thus make better films but no lets build everything because of ~~~my nostalgia for an old 70s movie built for kids~~~~
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I assume Lucas made the real sets look like terrible CG in ep2 to blend in? actually he made the groundbreaking CG look more artificial to fit in with the extremely soft first-gen digital cinema cameras
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Ep2 and 3 are the bad ones for that, it’s clear in 1 they ran out of money after the “roger roger” droids and jar jar lol yes they ran out of money in a $137 million dollar non-union production lollllllll do you even know how money works?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
josh04 posted:actually he made the groundbreaking CG look more artificial to fit in with the extremely soft first-gen digital cinema cameras physically based rendering didn't exist in 1999 it is what makes all surfaces actually shiny and properly reflect bounce light. before then it was just artists faking it thats why moves after 2006 have passible graphics
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
think the reason pagan cow doesn’t like thor is that there is more than two colours
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:think the reason pagan cow doesn’t like thor is that there is more than two colours they must love bvs then
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
blue and orange are the only colors computers can generate properly
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
wrong it’s the orange and teal color space I’m defining in this bitch
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
the original texas chainsaw massacre was shot on 16mm and they released a uhd bluray of it pagancow does this make sense
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
Samuel L. ACKSYN posted:the original texas chainsaw massacre was shot on 16mm that part maybe, but the disc also has dolby atmos AND auro3d which sure as poo poo wasn't in 1974 theaters
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
univbee posted:that part maybe, but the disc also has dolby atmos AND auro3d which sure as poo poo wasn't in 1974 theaters it was originally mono wasnt it im not seeing much of a video difference here http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=882&y=317&d1=11095&d2=4769&s1=108821&s2=44339&l=1&i=4&go=1
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
Samuel L. ACKSYN posted:the original texas chainsaw massacre was shot on 16mm in general 16 mm film's grain qualities means you won't get much meaningful increase in picture quality going above ~2200 pixels across, just like standard 35 mm film's grain qualities means you won't get much meaningful increase in picture quality going above ~5000 pixels across at absolute most. and most 16 mm shot film could be completely handled by like ~1500 pixels across and most 35 mm shot film doesn't really give you anything beyond ~3500 pixels across. however, very high res scanning can make it easier to handle things like cleaning up actual damage to the origin film you scanned, help to recover additional detail, and other things like that.so it's not really a waste to scan a 16 mm film at 4k and put your eventual output on the disc at 4k, you are getting a little marginal increase in detail over the standard 1080p, and having done said scan now there's a high quality digital source to use for future stuff in case the film degrades too much or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
fishmech posted:in general 16 mm film's grain qualities means you won't get much meaningful increase in picture quality going above ~2200 pixels across, just like standard 35 mm film's grain qualities means you won't get much meaningful increase in picture quality going above ~5000 pixels across at absolute most. cool yeah it was scanned and restored at 4k, i have the bluray version and it looks great (for a 16mm low budget 70s film sidenote i love how many crap movies are on bluray *eyes shelf of 88 films and vinegar syndrome releases* tho im still salty about the Killer Workout bluray, the best source they could get was betacam SP
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
Sniep posted:blue and orange are the only colors computers can generate properly pagancow posted:wrong it’s the orange and teal color space I’m defining in this bitch Both wrong bithces, it's green and amber.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 09:43
|
|
|
pagancow posted:lolololol i just had a thanksgiving meal conversation about star wars vfx breakdowns makes me realize how fuckin dirt cheap industry must percieve vfx manhours to be
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 12:19
|
|
|
Samuel L. ACKSYN posted:the original texas chainsaw massacre was shot on 16mm 16mm film looks good at 1080. UHD-BluRays are getting upscaled from 1080P sources because y'all sit too far away from the TV like UHD res resolve is around 5.5 feet for a 60" tv, get closer nub
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Samuel L. ACKSYN posted:cool this is your chance to get all angry about a film that was changed from its original theatrical projection because faded colors you perceived on a rec.601 master or reduced dynamic range is how the movie should look instead of clean pixels
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
why don't you get all huffy and make a remastered version where you pull sources of the film from the oldest dirtiest laserdisc prints you can find and say thats the definitive source because how could a director know anything after they made money
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
then you spend a whole year color grading a film in adobo after effects (pirated lol) and somehow claim you're result is better from the 8-bpc 4:2:0 laserdisc captures on some el gato than the DPX scans from a negative in some vault lolololool pagancow fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Nov 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
and then you're going to hand paint in stars in the sky because they just aren't the same from the original!!!!! as if LPF doesn't mean a thing on different viewing devices!!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
oh and heres the real kicker, you'll compress it 8-bpc 4:2:0 and lose the grain anyway
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
oh yeah, a month-ish ago an enterprising hacker got into some important poo poo at hasbro and, knowing what was most important, stole a fuckton of my little pony stuff including a 129 gig DNxHD copy of the new movie (although still only at 1080p resolution)
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
AtomD posted:vfx breakdowns makes me realize how fuckin dirt cheap industry must percieve vfx manhours to be they don't pay them very much. I think I saw a story earlier this year about how vfx companies basically die out as soon as their first film is in the can because they're run on almost no margin to be competitive
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
univbee posted:oh yeah, a month-ish ago an enterprising hacker got into some important poo poo at hasbro and, knowing what was most important, stole a fuckton of my little pony stuff including a 129 gig DNxHD copy of the new movie (although still only at 1080p resolution) this is certainly a proxy which is below mpeg-2 quality lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
pagancow posted:this is certainly a proxy which is below mpeg-2 quality lol probably. all i know about it is it's a .mov file with a CBR of like 175 megabits/second part of me is surprised these types of leak don't happen more often but maybe studios are actually pretty good about not having unencrypted copies of their just-got-a-theatrical-release movies sitting around on a system hackers manage to get into
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
You're talking about assets worth millions so I would be in no way surprised if they have fairly elaborate chain of custody systems that are extremely auditable
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
BangersInMyKnickers posted:You're talking about assets worth millions so I would be in no way surprised if they have fairly elaborate chain of custody systems that are extremely auditable I've never worked for any proper company in the movie industry but it was always my understanding that this stuff is always encrypted out the rear end so any playback has to be done in a super-heavily controlled way with plenty of DRM checks. This was a completely unencrypted loose file that people were able to straight playback offline, throw into handbrake to get a more reasonably-sized file or whatever. I figured if you worked for a studio internally and somehow obtained an unencrypted file of a finished version of a movie while working for a major studio and you weren't, like, the head of the company (not even the director), regardless of whether or not anything bad came of it, you and anyone else who assisted you in getting that file would be lucky if the worst thing that happened to them is getting fired and blacklisted. but then I know that in a lot of companies "super-serious" rules are often ignored univbee fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Nov 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
encryption stuff is usually handled by the same company that actually squirts out the files to movie theater networks to be shown. the studio doesn't particularly need the movie heavily encrypted while its being produced, and should always have unencrypted versions around for various internal uses
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 20:49
|
|