|
I don't know where to ask this question, but I've been wondering about it since I saw First Man in IMAX. What is the gap between IMAX (which I believe is the best commercial-grade display technology) and our actual vision? An IMAX display is incredible, but it's also obviously not lifelike. I wonder: is it the resolution of the display? Is it the level of detail that a camera can capture in the first place? Is it that a film displays a much lower frames-per-second than our eye can process while we're just looking around a room? Is it something else entirely? surf rock fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Oct 13, 2018 |
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:47 |
|
|
It's not the resolution, our eyes are pure trash I'd say it's the lack of depth except 3D movies dont look very real neither
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 21:37
|
|
|
I would guess the dynamic range of brightness is a big factor; when’s the last time you were completely blinded by a movie screen to the point where you couldn’t see anything else? (Not that we really want want movies like that...)
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
I think part of it is that in reality, we can choose what to focus on. Focus your eyes on something close, and background objects blur, and vice versa. But with a film, that focusing decision is made for us, and we can’t “look around the scene” or whatever. This also makes me wonder if VR could address this with eye tracking software - figure out what the viewer is looking at and blur the fore-/background appropriately.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
_aaron posted:I think part of it is that in reality, we can choose what to focus on. Focus your eyes on something close, and background objects blur, and vice versa. But with a film, that focusing decision is made for us, and we can’t “look around the scene” or whatever. Completely unrelated question - why are movies so goddamn long nowadays?? I saw Bad Times at the El Royale today. It was... fine, entertaining, but nothing that will really change your life or give you that much to think about. That movie is 2 hours and 20 minutes long. Why!? I think it would have been much snappier and more fun as a 90-100 minute movie. Movie theaters would certainly prefer shorter movies to pack in more showings, and, once upon a time, I know studios really cared about this too and trimmed down movies with that in mind. I can understand something like the giant Marvel movies where Disney doesn’t even have to care, but something like El Royale? Who decided it was OK to give a movie like that a 140 minute runtime?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:that one chaplin short where he keeps flashing his browny 1911 is weird. i cant help but think of that as a modern gun. Which short is this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
_aaron posted:I think part of it is that in reality, we can choose what to focus on. Apparently on those giant 8K displays, this is something that gets picked up on. It’s supposed to be like looking through a window, but if the camera is wide open then it messes with the head as it’s choosing the focus. Read about it when NHK shot the 2012 Olympics. And yeah I’d say dynamic range is a big part of it, cameras just don’t expose in the same way we do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2018 04:03
|
|
|
Frame rate is a huge deal too. Anyone see Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk at 120FPS? This podcast episode has a good discussion of the topic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2018 04:39
|
|
|
So in No Country For Old Men, Josh Brolin's character gets a room at a motel with the satchel of money and puts it into an air duct. He later returns to the motel and realizes someone is in his room, which we learn are three Mexicans that had a tracking device tied to a signal coming from the satchel. Javier Bardem's character also has a tracker which he uses to locate the money, and storms the motel room and kills the three Mexicans who had been posted up in the room. My question is, what were the Mexicans doing in that hotel room the entire interval where they were in there? They knew the money was nearby because they had the tracker, but they were seemingly just sitting around and waiting. They didn't retrieve the money because Josh Brolin's character books the room on the other side of the wall where the vent is and takes it out that way, during the aforementioned attack. It took Bardem's character all of ten seconds to realize where the money was (and that it had been taken), so did the Mexicans just not figure it out?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2018 15:09
|
|
|
I just finished the book and it provides no extra insight into that scene. But more or less, they didn’t find it and were waiting for Moss to come back. They did find his gun under the mattress, but it didn’t occur to them to check the vent. The movie is far more clear on how the Mexicans find Moss at the end. In the book Moss’ death is as anti-climax as in the movie, but it doesn’t say how they found him without a transponder. The film has that scene where the assassin talks to the mother-in-law about where she’s going.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2018 15:17
|
|
|
Sand Monster posted:My question is, what were the Mexicans doing in that hotel room the entire interval where they were in there? They knew the money was nearby because they had the tracker, but they were seemingly just sitting around and waiting. Probably waiting for Brolin Sand Monster posted:It took Bardem's character all of ten seconds to realize where the money was (and that it had been taken), so did the Mexicans just not figure it out? It does show him searching the room first, so it's not like he knew off the cuff where it'd be hidden. I'm guessing he finds it relatively quickly because he's a supernatural kill monster
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
i assumed the mexicans thought he had found the tracker in the satchel and hid it somewhere in the room but had the money with him so all they could do was wait. the real point was to show the real threat to moss was chigur, and i think even made his death more anti-climactic when he is killed by the mexicans off-camera. i should really read the book, that movie has inched its way in to top 3 territory for me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
Well in the book, there's this country, see. And old men? It is no place for them. In the end the butler did it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:Well in the book, there's this country, see. And old men? It is no place for them. Oh no you’ve got that all wrong, it’s a typo. McCarthy doesn’t use as much punctuation so they didn’t realize. It’s No! Country for Old Men?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
The Maestro posted:Oh no you’ve got that all wrong, it’s a typo. McCarthy doesn’t use as much punctuation so they didn’t realize. It’s No! Country for Old Men? Is that the one where they aren’t sure what music the seniors want so they try hip hop?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
Krispy Wafer posted:I just finished the book and it provides no extra insight into that scene. The book does explain it. There's a short scene at the end of the chapter VII, right after when Carla Jean calls Bell, where one of the Mexicans has just finished listening to the phone call and that's how they get the address where Moss is. He hands it off to the man in the black Barracuda who then goes and finds them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
Detective Thompson posted:The book does explain it. There's a short scene at the end of the chapter VII, right after when Carla Jean calls Bell, where one of the Mexicans has just finished listening to the phone call and that's how they get the address where Moss is. He hands it off to the man in the black Barracuda who then goes and finds them. Well poo poo. I was listening to the audiobook and I think something was distracting me at about that time. I do recall the Barracuda but I must have been lacking in my comprehension. Also to anyone reading the book the ending has a different take on Chigur that I really didn’t expect. Not a huge change, but more of a WTF scene.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 00:17
|
|
|
I've seen/read both the movie and book twice and dont remember this; mind pointing it out in spoiler tags so I can feel dense?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 12:27
|
|
|
Jack B Nimble posted:I've seen/read both the movie and book twice and dont remember this; mind pointing it out in spoiler tags so I can feel dense? In the final scene, he goes on a killing spree while singing "Oh honey, *doot* *doot* *doot* *doot* *doot* *doot*, oh Chigur Chigur, you are my candy girl, and you got me killin' you!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 15:37
|
|
|
I guess maybe it would be the interview Bell has with the high school kid but I can't recall it's meaning aside from reinforcing that Bell is overmatched.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 16:58
|
|
|
I've been trying to find any information regarding the soundtrack of the Japanese horror movie Occult. Anybody have any suggestions? My Google is failing me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
a new study bible! posted:I've been trying to find any information regarding the soundtrack of the Japanese horror movie Occult. Anybody have any suggestions? My Google is failing me. The Koji Shiraishi movie? Not helpful, but his movie Curse uses music from John Carpenter's The Thing. Lol. I will see if I can figure out the music from Occult tho E: Had to just pull up the movie and dig in the credits Pop Bottakuri Hard Marchen Wild Hair Style Two Things.... and Harmony AM 5:00+ Hair Stylistics are the bands in the credits. MacheteZombie fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Oct 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:The Koji Shiraishi movie? Not helpful, but his movie Curse uses music from John Carpenter's The Thing. Lol. I will see if I can figure out the music from Occult tho Thanks so much! First artist was the one I was looking for, but I'm excited to check out the others. I watched a few of his movies this weekend and was way into everything in them, but the sound had me in a strong way. a new study bible! fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Oct 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
Jack B Nimble posted:I guess maybe it would be the interview Bell has with the high school kid but I can't recall it's meaning aside from reinforcing that Bell is overmatched. No, it was Chigur bringing the money back to the top guy and applying for a full time job. Guess he was tired of being an independent contractor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
Any more examples of actors/actresses with names that sound more like a character rather than a real name, like Moon Bloodgood?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 08:00
|
|
|
FeastForCows posted:Any more examples of actors/actresses with names that sound more like a character rather than a real name, like Moon Bloodgood? Rip Torn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 08:07
|
|
|
FeastForCows posted:Any more examples of actors/actresses with names that sound more like a character rather than a real name, like Moon Bloodgood? Tyrone Power Thurl Ravenscroft Joaquin Phoenix (and his brother River Phoenix) Plus you have Slim Pickens though that’s more obviously a stage name
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 08:30
|
|
|
Mover posted:Joaquin Phoenix (and his brother River Phoenix) Several of his earliest films he was credited as Leaf Phoenix as well. That was a name he gave himself at the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 08:41
|
|
|
FeastForCows posted:Any more examples of actors/actresses with names that sound more like a character rather than a real name, like Moon Bloodgood?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 09:03
|
|
|
Not an actor, but Speed Weed. Edward Woodward should have been the name of a whimsical fairy tale character, not some real bloke. Teenage Fansub fucked around with this message at 10:40 on Oct 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 10:32
|
|
|
Teenage Fansub posted:Edward Woodward should have been the name of a whimsical fairy tale character, not some real bloke. Morecambe and Wise used to have him on their show regularly because they enjoyed referring to him as "Edwood Woodwood" and he was a good sport about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 10:44
|
|
|
FeastForCows posted:Any more examples of actors/actresses with names that sound more like a character rather than a real name, like Moon Bloodgood? Tom Cruise. Although his last name is actually Mapother IV? WTF?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 12:24
|
|
|
Wesley Snipes
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 12:42
|
|
|
Nick Blood
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 13:04
|
|
|
FeastForCows posted:Any more examples of actors/actresses with names that sound more like a character rather than a real name, like Moon Bloodgood? Armie Hammer
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 13:18
|
|
|
Zazie Beetz
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 13:25
|
|
|
Tim Thomerson Tuesday Knight
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 13:55
|
|
|
Powers Booth
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 13:59
|
|
|
Woody Allen sounds one of those games where you make up your creepy sex personae name by combining two different categories. Ends up his first name is Heywood, which is honestly the coolest thing I've heard about Woody Allen in 30 years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 14:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:47 |
|
|
Is his last name Jablowme
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 14:12
|
|