|
I don't even own a TV
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
Does it come flat and you just bend it into your preferred curvature?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:the gap between computer monitors adn tvs is closing fast enough that i just prefer my desktop I'm waiting to see what happens with FreeSync before I buy any new monitors. My 40" 60hz LCD is doing fine for the living room. I'm actually dreading upgrading because all those 240hz TVs make everything look like dog poo poo. Yes, please interpolate at whatever loving frame rate you feel like I don't mind.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
The reviews are lol
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
special concave glasses
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Let me be the first to say I'd rather have a 12mbps 720p file than a 12mbps 4k file. This race to the top on resolution is loving garbage if the bitrate can't support it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
a bone to pick posted:can we all at least agree that the war for frame rate in films is worse than the war for resolution? like, make the loving resolution as high as you want I don't give a gently caress, but don't give me some bullshit 48fps it looks like loving garbage. You are wrong and everything will be 60p+ in the future because we aren't neanderthals. The problem is conditioning. You expect theatrical releases to be 24p, so the look weird when they aren't. But you've never heard someone complain about Planet Earth or a sports broadcast being in 60i/p because that's what we are conditioned to accept. It is so goddamn superior it hurts my brain.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
a bone to pick posted:yeah but it makes modern cgi and special effects look like loving garbage. seeing as how cgi is being used exponentially more every year I don't think it's going to be adopted any time soon. CGI is temporally agnostic to frame rate beyond render time. hth
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
a bone to pick posted:whatever stream of words you just poured onto your keyboard is a load of horse poo poo lol, the higher the fps the harder it is for the cgi artists to make it believable, you can believe what you want but that's a fact. Not so much, keyframes aren't bound to frame numbers, they are bound to time. What package do you use?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 09:29
|
|
|
GrrrlSweatshirt posted:its temporally agnostic to frame rate where cgi is concerned u dumb rear end fucker!!! You can cut up a second into as many arbitrary segments as you want, but that doesn't affect the underlying physical simulation. What are we even talking about :S
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 09:45
|
|
|
We should forget this ever happened and talk about curved TV screens Edit: If I weren't drunk I would have said: "Keyframes don't get more or less difficult to set at a higher FPS. It's all based on physics simulations anyway. Adding more fps does virtually nothing to animation time, but does increase the rendering time. You can turn a 24fps sequence into 100fps and it doesn't require any extra steps. If you started at 100fps your animation wouldn't be janky comparitively." Does that help? root of all eval fucked around with this message at 09:58 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
site posted:does the jump from 24 to 48/60fps mean an increase in frames needing rendered ---> longer post production time ---> more expensive to make a given scene? yes
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
pwn posted:Framerate is a tool in the artists toolkit, so the choice of what to use is broadened by new technology, not supplanted. Colorizing B&W films looks like poo poo because they're lit to look good in B&W. Use the framerate you need to use for the picture you're making. To treat it as a bigger number = better affair is fallacy indicative of ignorance,. look at this poo poo. look at it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 08:29
|
|