|
use a higher bitrate, porblem solved
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2012 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 04:25 |
|
|
Sniep posted:the dvd rental service where after opening the package they began to degrade so after a while they wouldnt play They weren't DVDs (though somebody did make DVDs that would start to degrade after being exposed to open air). They were discs encoded with the DivX codec instead of MPEG-2, and used a different copy protection system IIRC. You had to have a DivX player, and they had built-in modems and had to be connected to a phone line to work. The reason for the modem was that the player would phone home every time you watched a movie. You'd buy DivX discs for only $5 or $10 or something like that, but the player would only let you watch them for 48 hours after the initial viewing. If you wanted to watch them again after that you had to put in your credit card info and pay more money. The whole scheme was invented by Circuit City, so the discs and players were only sold there. I think once they realized that being Circuit City exclusive was hurting DivX they started selling the players and discs in other stores, but I might be remembering wrong. IIRC Disney was one of the only major studios to sign on. For a good while their movies weren't available on DVD, because of the money they stood to make had DivX won; every time somebody's kids wanted to watch Beauty and the Beast again their parents would have to pay more money. Doc Block fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Dec 31, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2012 17:45
|
|
|
Just regular DVDs, but intentionally made so that they would start to degrade after being exposed to the air, giving you about 48 hours to watch them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2012 17:57
|
|
|
DivX discs didn't go bad, read the article you posted.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2012 18:05
|
|
|
ultimateforce posted:I said video not stills. LOL if you aren't shooting on a camera that can record video in RAW.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2012 18:59
|
|
|
ultimateforce posted:Wait, I didn't know that was an option. on "digital cinema" cameras like the arri alexa and the red cameras? yes. on a DSLR? no.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2012 20:24
|
|
|
adobe treating non-windows platforms as second-class citizens? you don't say!!! edti: and yeah, if you're gonna use a mac for creative stuff, use a mac with an nvidia GPU so you can take advantage of all the CUDA-enabled stuff, since apparently OpenCL is slower and badly supported on windows so not as many apps support it. Doc Block fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Dec 31, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2012 22:15
|
|
|
Jim Silly-Balls posted:i do premiere on a windows box precisely becasue adobe hates apple now. i also have a GTS450 fermi whatever, which makes it render HD video faster than realtime, so I dont think its the card. either way, it only stutters erry once ina while, so its nbd. just fyi adobe has always been this way re: apple.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2012 22:46
|
|
|
canon is better than nikon, especially if you're using the camera to shoot video. sorry, that's just a True Fact.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
well obviously the best canon camera isn't going to hold a candle to an arri alexa or a red epic, but still...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2013 02:51
|
|
|
rotor posted:I will paypal you $5 to never talk about photography in yospos ever again i will still talk about photography, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2013 06:39
|
|
|
dude, her fat p frame friend totally macroblocked me!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2013 06:05
|
|
|
ahmeni posted:I want dork room to have a fyad lite because I can't discuss anything seriously any more whatever room you're in is the dork room 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
megan fox was way hotter than the chick they replaced her with in transformers 3, IMHO. pro tip: do not say the movie's director is like hitler when the movie's executive producer is the guy who made schindler's list.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2013 13:15
|
|
|
There are also cinematography concerns with going to 48 fps. Shooting at 48 FPS cuts the exposure time for each frame in half. Which means you need twice as much light, either by opening up the aperture by one stop (which lessens your depth of field) or increasing the brightness of the scene. You're also doubling the amount of data generated, which is a problem for any production.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
Yes, but that has trade offs too, like noisier images.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2013 02:09
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:welp i remember watching "gladiator" and the action scenes were staccato or hard to describe and it turns out that yeah like youre talking about you have flexibility, on 24fps you can choose to record each frame from 1sec/24 (or slightly less) and get motion blur or you can record each frame for much less and actually record much less information than happened, less motion blur, and a different effect! wow imagine the world we live in Yes, they made a creative choice to get less motion blur. For going from 24 to 48 FPS, to get the "normal" amount of motion blur you're getting 50% less exposure time.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
Progressive JPEG posted:these are people whove never needed to deal with physical film I've made some short films on actual film a few times, both directing and as DP, and it isn't nearly as hard as video people make it out to be. No, you can't see the results instantly, but so what? If your DP is any good, if you actually talked with your DP about the look and style you want beforehand, and if you did even just a couple of camera tests, then you'll have a pretty good idea of what your movie will look like. Besides, if you're shooting your video in RAW like a non-scrub, or even if you aren't but are planning on doing color correction later, what you see on the video monitor isn't indicative of your movie's final look anyway. Doc Block fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Jan 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2013 04:47
|
|
|
IDK about super 8, and I don't know how it is these days, but for 16mm and 35mm the charge was per hour that you were there in the telecine booth, because you can sit there a long rear end time tweaking each shot. Was something like $150-200 per hour for the low end telecine machines at Fotokem back in the early 2000s.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
Yeah, back in those days if you were shooting on film but finishing on video, your only option for decent color correction was to do it in the telecine booth. Sure, you could do a little color correction once you had it on video, but you'd list a lot of information by then so to get the best results it was done during the telecine. That was back when people transferred to tape formats like DVCPro, DigiBeta, or D1.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:when hardware makers include a h264/vc1 decoder chip in they hardware, do they pay licenses on top of that or do the licenses come bundled with the chip? the chip manufacturer licenses the patents and pays the royalties. the patent is then considered exhausted, which means that the patent holder can't also go after the company buying the chips and putting them in devices. or, at least, that's how it's supposed to work, but dammit if motorola isn't trying to get around that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
lol at u getting caremad because people are pointing out that peter jackson's trip back to the well looks like poo poo at 48 fps (AKA the "let's come up with a gimmick to get people into the theaters because the movie on its own isn't that impressive" framerate).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2013 09:04
|
|
|
also it's legacy stuff from the analog video days for mixing video feeds for live broadcasts and stuff. like, you'd have a hardware mixer box with, say, 2 video inputs. it would show video feed 1, except anywhere feed 1 was pure black it would let feed 2 show through. so you had to make sure there was never any pure black except anywhere that was supposed to be transparent, or the little news segment you had cut together for airing on the nightly news might accidentally have something else showing through, depending on what they ran it through in the control room during broadcast. Doc Block fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Jan 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
Cardboard Box A posted:Original DVD version in cardboard case before they made it all super green tinted supremacy yep, kinda wish i still had mine
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
No, when the sequels came out on DVD and Bluray they remastered the original movie with the colors adjusted to be more like the sequels. So now all you can get on disc is the new version. Somebody even did a side-by-side comparison, and the new one is way more tinted green. Also, compression artifacts.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
crank up the contrast + make it darker, and throw in an unneeded color regrade and somehow it's better? I'd rather have it look as close to what was shown in the theaters as possible than changed to look like the two asstastic sequels. Doc Block fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Jan 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
pagancow posted:black should be black, not grey. The grade is like a per shot telecine that makes it match the contrast that was seen in theatres, not a lazy 1 light LUT for the whole film because welp. it should look like what was shown in the theaters, which the new transfers do not IMHO. remember that the matrix was done in 1999, before digital color grading was a thing. the color grading was done with answer prints and changes to the film processing, which meant if you wanted your shot to be tinted greenish brown then your highlights and shadows were going to be tinted greenish brown too. from what i've seen of the new transfers, it looks like somebody discovered the histogram tool and went "hey, if I just crush all the shadows to black, it looks better!" because more contrast = MORE BETTAR!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 03:21
|
|
|
pagancow posted:You would be correct if your eyes saw linear light as linear. what does that have to do with what i wrote? and yes, i know about logarithmic vs linear light.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 04:08
|
|
|
pagancow posted:Film captures light linearly, so when you project it back, you will still percieve it log. So that means that crushing the blacks to 0 IRE in the signal is technically correct for viewing in a dark theatre. film doesn't record light linearly bro. that's why we have 10-bit log in the first place. all i was talking about was how the original transfer was a lot closer to how the movie looked in theaters, and why the pure black/white, untinted shadows and highlights they went for in the new transfer aren't accurate. honestly, a lot of the shots in the new transfer look like they just said, "No, the blacks MUST be black" and decreased the brightness of the shot regardless of the loss of detail.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
pagancow posted:I stand corrected. for things that are supposed to be black, sure, but not to the point where you crush the shadows solely so you can say "my blacks are PURE BLACK". with the new matrix transfers, they've basically killed all detail in the shadows.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 05:17
|
|
|
LOL at u for using linux
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
pagancow posted:You buy a hardware coloremeter that is appropriate for your display, attach it to the monitor, and run the software. P sure you need a spectrophotometer for an LED-backlit LCD, but yeah, you put a colorimeter/spectrophotometer in front of your monitor and run the calibration software for it, and it generates a color profile. But to answer the dude's question, last time I used windows for long enough to care about color management there was a thing in the monitor settings or some poo poo where you could set the monitor's color profile, and it had a thing that would let you do calibration by eye, which isn't as good as an actual spectrophotometer-generated profile, but is better than 99% of the default color profiles that monitors come with.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
mlyp
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2013 03:26
|
|
|
I watched the stupor bowl on DirecTV at my sister's house and the quality was terrible. Way way way over compressed, macro block city. Even when the camera was still and nothing much was happening on screen it was YouTube quality at best. "B-b-but it's digital HD! Satellite! It's gotta be good." was my sister and brother-in-law's response whenever anyone asked why the picture was "so blocky."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Netflix on a 360 with a Kinect is loving aces though. because you can give it voice commands, and the one time in ten that it works correctly you feel like you are living in Star Trek. i wish you really were living in a galaxy far, far away.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2013 06:32
|
|
|
~Coxy posted:star wars is the far away galaxy trap sprung
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2013 08:34
|
|
|
AKA just like you should, LOL if you record audio in-camera.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
yeah, lemme just go and move the camera right up into the actor's face like some 13 year old with his dad's video camera because it's the only way you can get decent levels with an on-camera microphone. also, lemme just go and make the cameraman also be the audio guy, it's cool, i like it when the levels are off and none of the voices are on-mic.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
idk, i think for the time they were fine. not movie quality, but back in the day they were good enough for fmv sequences in games and poo poo, esp. true motion.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2013 08:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 04:25 |
|
|
She is obviously a non-technical woman, so...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2013 16:35
|
|