|
Scorpion and the Frog: Moto GP Edition
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2022 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:56 |
|
|
WTF happened with elevator guy there?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 00:35
|
|
|
TotalLossBrain posted:WTF happened with elevator guy there? Carrying a glass pane. Elevator door closed on it and it shattered when the elevator started moving down and the edge of the pane hit the ceiling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 00:37
|
|
|
Ror posted:When I die please mummify me in the silage wrapper. Wow, farming is already one of the leading causes of global warming gasses... how can we add mass amounts of plastic waste to it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 00:39
|
|
|
It isn't wasted! It's recycled into plastic microbeads and then dumped into the ocean.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 00:45
|
|
|
McGavin posted:It isn't wasted! It's recycled into plastic microbeads and then dumped into the ocean. Otherwise the batteries would be lonely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 00:58
|
|
|
Fozzy The Bear posted:Wow, farming is already one of the leading causes of global warming gasses... how can we add mass amounts of plastic waste to it? That's a lot of plastic in that operation, but the alternative is your cows get anthrax
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 01:06
|
|
|
Mae posted:That's a lot of plastic in that operation, but the alternative is your cows get anthrax Like see Anthrax live, or just steam the music?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 01:24
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/mT0jBq7.mp4 Not sure whether that guy is ok.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 01:25
|
|
Glory to Italia!
|
McGavin posted:It isn't wasted! It's recycled into plastic microbeads and then dumped into the ocean. Nah they just burn it
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 01:30
|
|
|
Pigsfeet on Rye posted:Like see Anthrax live, or just steam the music? The Married with Children episode
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 01:49
|
|
|
ILL Machina posted:https://i.imgur.com/mT0jBq7.mp4 He survived, didn't even lose his leg. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2318206/Dramatic-moment-garage-falls-builder-knocks-supporting-wall-removing-roof-first.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 01:49
|
|
|
Pigsfeet on Rye posted:He survived, didn't even lose his leg. Ok but that roof was clearly removed BEFORE the wall fell. How can we trust this lying article?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 01:53
|
|
|
shaka, the walls fell
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 01:56
|
|
|
Uthor posted:Recently watched this on Gemini Man, which was filmed in 4k, 3D, 120 fps. Jesus Christ. I have a cursory understanding of film production... am I correct in saying that even at traditional framerates, one of the main reasons sets are lit so brightly is so that the camera can operate at the lowest possible ISO to avoid noise (obviously taking into account desired depth-of-field)? You can always darken things in post ('day for night', etc.) but you can never gain information that isn't there in the frame. So if you're running at five times the framerate, what loving kind of lights do you have to use to ensure that each of those frames gets lit adequately?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 02:24
|
|
|
Couldn't you use a bigger CCD, thus giving more collecting area?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 02:53
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Couldn't you use a bigger CCD, thus giving more collecting area? If arbitrarily shallow focus is O.K. and your limitation is lens design, sure. For a desired depth of field, no. So you double the dimensions of the sensor. You’re collecting light with four times the area. That’s great, right? Replace that lens of focal length of seventy millimetres with lens of focal length one hundred and forty millimetres. Now we have the same angle of view. Then we just need to dial in the aperture to get the same depth of field. Go to the charts for that one and we find that for equivalent depth of field, if we were at f/2 before, we need f/4 now. Hmm… It’s no coincidence here that f/2 on a 70 mm lens and f/4 on a 140 mm lens have the same physical diameter. Oh dear. We’re collecting light across four times the area, but the intensity is a quarter as much. We have gained nothing. There can still be reasons to do this, a 140 mm f/4 lens is a less demanding optic than a 70 mm f/2, and larger sensors may also their practical advantages, but we cannot cheat light itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 03:17
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Couldn't you use a bigger CCD, thus giving more collecting area? If you use a bigger sensor, the lenses won't cover it. As is, the sensors usually used are smaller than a 35mm still camera frame for varied historic reasons. Sensors and film are much better now, old films were extremely slow. There are a lot of cine lenses out there for the existing three and four perf image sizes and very few for vistavision. The only real way to go bigger would be to go all in and go for around the 65 format but there is the issue of cost and bulk. Plus there is the love DPs have for s16 so bigger sensor, camera, and lenses has to compete with a smaller, cheaper, lighter and more ~cinematic~ film camera.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 03:25
|
|
|
ILL Machina posted:https://i.imgur.com/mT0jBq7.mp4 someone edit half-life sounds into this plz
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:45
|
|
|
And that all ignores the fact that 30-ish FPS is comparable to the amount of motion blur the human eye naturally experiences, so it looks "right" to us on screen (combined with it being what we're used to seeing as "cinematic" motion pictures). Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD. High frame rates are great for sports, documentaries, or other things where trying to capture a cinematic style isn't the purpose and a higher frame rate/flatter picture plane is fine. It still weirds me out that they have those so-called "4K" cameras for sports now where there's a seemingly artificial depth of field applied (I don't know how the technology works, feel free to tell me). I'm not sure if I find it stupid because it doesn't need to be like that, or because it feels like they're faking a cinema look.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 07:54
|
|
|
The "soap opera effect" is a thing from high refresh rates and motion smoothing, apparently. https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/what-is-the-soap-opera-effect-in-tvs-and-how-to-turn-it-off/
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 08:07
|
|
|
Monkey Fracas posted:
We kept the ruins of one of our explosions. There's a museum and you can rent it for weddings or whatnot.  I got to visit one of the highest offices overlooking the ruins at night once, but early enough in the evening that it was still lit up. It was a sweet view. 
MisterOblivious fucked around with this message at 08:43 on Jan 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 08:38
|
|
that if things just get... too dusty in certain situations it creates the conditions necessary for an enormous thermobaric explosion
|
drat, filmchat is satisfying. Now I know why there are tons of super-expensive cine lenses available in weird sensor formats.Dirt Road Junglist posted:And that all ignores the fact that 30-ish FPS is comparable to the amount of motion blur the human eye naturally experiences, so it looks "right" to us on screen (combined with it being what we're used to seeing as "cinematic" motion pictures). This too. When friends started bragging about their 60fps gaming rigs, I even had my doubts because the prevailing wisdom, maybe? was that we only need ~24fps to fool our brains into thinking we're seeing a continuous image - Nyquist theorem for our eyes, basically. But there IS a marked difference with gaming at least, between 24 and 48 etc... I just don't know how the hell that works. 'True Motion'/'soap opera effect'/'puke mode' (frame interpolation on a modern TV) definitely has its place if your gaming console or NHL LeafsTV box isn't spitting out >30fps already. I didn't think it was true either but it does make sports or gaming look better. But on movies or television shows, yeesh. Big red flag if someone just leaves that poo poo on. I feel nauseous just thinking about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 08:57
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:drat, filmchat is satisfying. Now I know why there are tons of super-expensive cine lenses available in weird sensor formats. I've recently gotten into trying to "fake" the cinematic look on mobile phone and GoPro cameras. The lack of lenses with depth of field is a problem, but you can do a lot with the right software, newer lenses, and diffusion filters to take the "digital" edge off of things. It's not the same as a true film camera, but if I'm just doing 1080p music videos for funsies out of driving and nature footage I take, I dunno what the problem is. Moment has some cool poo poo if you're willing to spend money on things that bolt onto an iPhone. Turns out, saving a fuckton of money over the past two years by not going to shows or floating someone else's record label expenses means I can afford a couple nice toys. Mister Speaker posted:Big red flag if someone just leaves that poo poo on. I feel nauseous just thinking about it. This.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 09:08
|
|
|
It depends on the content but sometimes I use HFR, especially on YouTube vlogg-y things, but that's cus they're usually already shot at 60 fps or I'm watching videogame content because it makes FPS camera movements less disconcerting to me. I'm sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 09:16
|
|
|
Wasabi the J posted:It depends on the content but sometimes I use HFR, especially on YouTube vlogg-y things, but that's cus they're usually already shot at 60 fps or I'm watching videogame content because it makes FPS camera movements less disconcerting to me. Let me correct myself: when I worked at Blockbuster in the early days of DVDs and consumer widescreen, I would talk poo poo about anyone who told me, "I don't like how the DVDs cut off the top and bottom of movies." But the one guy who came in and said, "I get fullscreen because I have an old 4:3 TV I like, and I know it's not the cinema experience, but I prefer it if the picture fills the frame"? He's cool. He gets a pass. If you have a good reason for doing a thing, I don't mind. If you're doing it because you don't know better, like...let me help you understand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 09:21
|
|
|
CaptainSarcastic posted:The "soap opera effect" is a thing from high refresh rates and motion smoothing, apparently. Okay, I've spent 30 years wondering why you can instantly tell the soap operas when flipping through channels. But what caused the original effect on analog equipment?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 09:40
|
|
|
Groda posted:Okay, I've spent 30 years wondering why you can instantly tell the soap operas when flipping through channels. high framerate. "soap opera effect" is when the tv is making up frames between the frames that exist, i.e. interpolation. actual soap operas were shot on higher framerate video instead of film because it was cheaper; https://web.archive.org/web/20090815124547/http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/08/12/help-key-why-hd-video-looks-weird/ a tv without interpolation will look off when showing any content at high framerate. a tv WITH interpolation (enabled) will look off when showing any framerate, because it's artificially making it high framerate. e: was wrong HarmB fucked around with this message at 10:48 on Jan 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 09:57
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/kb2AhYQ.mp4
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 10:08
|
|
|
Those poor monkeys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 10:15
|
|
|
Groda posted:Okay, I've spent 30 years wondering why you can instantly tell the soap operas when flipping through channels. They were shot with video cameras, not film at twenty‐four films per second, telecined with three‐two pulldown.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 10:29
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:drat, filmchat is satisfying. Now I know why there are tons of super-expensive cine lenses available in weird sensor formats. Ultimately it's all about latency and reaction time; at 24fps your minimum latency between making an input and seeing that input reflected in-game is up to 1/24th of a second, vs eg. 1/144th of a second with a modern gaming display. Worse than that, the peak latency can be an entire 12th of a second on top of any network latency - eg someone fires a missile at you, and it gets processed locally just after a frame gets sent to the screen, so you wait 1/24th of a second to even see it, and 1/12th in total before you can see any reaction you might have taken to it. The whole '24fps is enough' thing has never really been true, honestly, at least not in the concrete '24fps is all you ever need' way people commonly effectively treat it as. It was just chosen as the bare minimum frame rate that could provide an acceptable illusion of motion back when film was enormously expensive, and at that it only really works in a darkened room where persistence of vision lets your brain stitch it all together into motion. Also, there's the whole black frame time thing (which some modern TVs add with BFI), not to mention display rise and fall time (which gives a modest degree of interpolation on nearly any LCD display), and so on. Personally I find that strict 24fps in a brightly lit room is far more visually juddery and uncomfortable to watch than motion interpolated, though I've basically grown up with gaming at ever-increasing framerates so I'm also used to smooth motion being the norm; these days I watch with motion interpolation on 95% of the time except when I'm dimming the lights at night. I know that I absolutely couldn't use mirrorless camera viewfinders up until they started providing 120fps+ because it just felt completely wrong after using SLRs for decades. VR is the nail in the coffin for low frame rate displays - there's a reason why VR headsets are pushing towards 200+fps to prevent nausea, and that reason is basically that if your field of view isn't responding to your head movements to within single digit milliseconds you end up feeling some level of vertigo. The animation in the content may be a lower frame rate with little issue, but the viewport needs to be ultra-quick to respond.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 10:47
|
|
|
poo poo I can barely process a wall of bricks falling on me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 11:03
|
|
|
Dirt Road Junglist posted:Let me correct myself: when I worked at Blockbuster in the early days of DVDs and consumer widescreen, I would talk poo poo about anyone who told me, "I don't like how the DVDs cut off the top and bottom of movies." But the one guy who came in and said, "I get fullscreen because I have an old 4:3 TV I like, and I know it's not the cinema experience, but I prefer it if the picture fills the frame"? He's cool. He gets a pass. One of the worst examples of fuckery I've ever seen: Filmed (on film) 1.78:1 CGI in 4:3 DVD transfer crops 4:3 cgi shots and stretches them into 16:9, cutting off large parts of the original broadcasted frame There may have been some pan and scan on composite shots just to get that nonsense to work Poorly cropped transfer gets upscaled and sold digitally or on streaming My last Babylon 5 rewatch was the originaly broadcast 4:3 format over the air digital tv, in standard definition. That was the best version up until they unfucked that nonsense they did in 2001 described above. They finally gave it a reasonable remastering cleanup and color correction, did what they could with the old cgi, and ditched the 2001 aspect ratio fuckery to present it in 4:3 as intended.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 11:06
|
|
|
amoeba posted:The whole '24fps is enough' thing has never really been true, honestly, at least not in the concrete '24fps is all you ever need' way people commonly effectively treat it as. It was just chosen as the bare minimum frame rate that could provide an acceptable illusion of motion back when film was enormously expensive, and at that it only really works in a darkened room where persistence of vision lets your brain stitch it all together into motion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 11:19
|
|
|
 Maybe don't do that there, or at least not right then..? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 12:30
|
|
|
It would be a lot less impressive without the train, imo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 13:44
|
|
|
Do a composite shot, but do it at a different time of day so you ron’t have to fake the shadow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 14:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:56 |
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/tU9ZK9Z.mp4
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 14:35
|
|
