|
Just because I feel like it, here's that other frame , as well: Also, if you go literally 5 frames in either direction, the action of this fight is clear as day, it's just that the residual light from the flash of lightning in the background is somewhat washing out the lights from Cherno and the silhouettes of the Kaiju.
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:13 |
|
|
I don't remember the movie too well, and so even staring at that image all I get is 1998 Godzilla head-butting or climbing some kind of metal tower thing in the water while a beetle-monster seems to watch from the right. Or is the metal tower thing a robot hand, as the robot falls back into the water? Could you post one of those clearer frames?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Habibi posted:Yes, I had noticed that you had moved the goalposts from "clear" to "relative degrees of clear," but wasn't going to point it out. Concepts like clarity are always already implicitly relative you goofball.* Neowyrm posted:
 Here's a quick paint-over explanation of the composition. All the light-blue lines have been traced in red. As you can see, they all point towards Hero Guy's elbow (which I've marked with a green dot). The elbow then travels up along the dotted line. The elbow is the focus because that's the point where the arm is hooked to the chair. The lines are not pointing towards his hand or body at all. Secondary elements in the composition are marked in blue. They do kinda hint towards the arms and face, but central element of the composition is that red vortex of arrows. These compositional elements do not change if you up the resolution. I am talking about cinematography, not resolution. *goofball relative to a normal person
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Concepts like clarity are always already implicitly relative you goofball.* I don't always agree with you, SMG, but this is a drat good post and I applaud your effort. Edit: I should say that I am a little confused about what is even being argued at this point, though. Not just on your end. Neowyrm fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Jun 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
I'm not sure I agree with the direction of the arrows, converging on the same spot like that. I feel like it's actually a pair of discs, centered on each pilot, spinning counter-clockwise as the Jaegers are viewed from the side like presented in this particular shot. I think we have run where our own view goes into the ground at this point so I think something more interesting beyond where we, the audience, gaze is where the pilots themselves are gazing under the influence of this thrust vector.  
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, I wish we could have discussions with diagrams and markups like this in all the movie threads, this is pretty loving cool. But then I am a shill for anything involving discussions of mise en scène, so
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Come to think of it, Gypsy Danger MK1 has literal spinning blue circles approaching each pilot as its UI, doesn't it? And a spinning blue circle on the pilot's hand when he does the little hand-punch gesture that was in all the trailers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
You're highlighting things that have no contrast in the actual shot. We consciously 'know' that there are arms there, but they are not a major part of the composition at all. They are extremely de-emphasized. Returning to the GIF:  The main thing that moves is the huge, brightly lit chair-arm. It extends along that green, dotted line I marked earlier. The characters are looking at the palms of their hands, but only their faces are lit. in other words, the only important part of the shot is how their thoughts are transmitted to the chair. Neowyrm posted:I should say that I am a little confused about what is even being argued at this point, though. Not just on your end. Random tangential nitpicking is a good obfuscatory tactic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
quote:The main thing that moves is the huge, brightly lit chair-arm. It extends along that green, dotted line I marked earlier. ...which follows Raleigh's left arm, which has a series of orange lights drawing your eyeballs to it, has one character looking at it, and has a second character trying to mimic it (unsuccessfully). The focus is on the arm and the harness. You didn't answer my question by the way. RBA Starblade fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Jun 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Oh, I was highlighting motion and their focus shifting, not worrying about the way light fell on a still picture. That's not helpful when we're talking about a motion-picture except in the context of non-panning landscape shots. It's interesting to note that the phallic center console itself doesn't actually move in that it's not actuated, but due to camera motion its shape gives the impression of motion along with Riley shifting his weight forward-and-up towards it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Concepts like clarity are always already implicitly relative you goofball.* Only in the sense that your posts get less clear as time goes on. Otherwise, clarity can have an absolute value (like yes or no), but surely you know this. Surely. Nice arbitrary arrows BTW.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Habibi posted:Only in the sense that your posts get less clear as time goes on. Otherwise, clarity can have an absolute value (like yes or no), but surely you know this. Surely. Nice arbitrary arrows BTW. Except for the arrows related to the lighting he has the flow of action down about right. It's on the motion of the arm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Except for the arrows related to the lighting he has the flow of action down about right. It's on the motion of the arm. Not really. There is enough motion there that you can draw a lot of different lines to support different paths of motion/focus/framing, first of all. Second of all, he demonstrates exactly this by having arrows for the characters' left arms going in opposite directions (one originating from the shoulder, the other from the hand) despite them moving in the same way. Weird. e: fwiw, I'm basically of Chronojam's opinion that the lines and motion frame the pilots. But regardless, this is already far more explanation regarding an SMG post than is healthy. Habibi fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Jun 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
I like that all the jaeger interior lighting colours match the exterior. You instantly know which is which. And holy poo poo an animated series could be fantastic and I really hope they throw enough money at it for it to be absolutely gorgeous, I think the design ideas of the jaegers and kaiju will translate really well to animation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
We rely heavily on pattern recognition. Different people will notice different patterns. Sometimes that makes things clearer to them than to others. It's cool to see discussion about it but not when it's framed within a pissing contest. Why are some of you using screenshots of scenes with motion? That is just stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
I imagined your avatar in response to the gif you quoted
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Random tangential nitpicking is a good obfuscatory tactic. Ok? I don't see why people are going through hoops to say the way this shot is staged is perfectly clear. It isn't; SMG is right about that. But what I don't understand is, how is this lack of visual clarity a flaw in the filmmaking? The pilots are *supposed* to appear to be part of this interwoven lattice of robot-innards. They're part of the machine. Their bodies are purposefully being abstracted as one component of the machinery. There's a lack of visual clarity for the same reason Giger's designs are a jumble of biomechanical shapes. Complaining that the actors' eyes are looking at their hands is pedantic, though, because that's a single frame and their gaze shifts forward across the shot. The relevant action of the shot is the mechanical "ka-chunk" movement of their arms, connected to the giant metallic wings behind them. The shot is doing exactly what it's supposed to, which is demonstrating how the pilots are part of this mesh of metal-sinew and wire/tube/vein crap inside the robot's head. It's similar to the metallic spine-insert thing with its tiny grasping claws in the prologue scene in Alaska. There's this invasive, cyberpunk aspect to the technology, where jaegers are these giant assemblages of weird and arcane parts, to set them against the slimy, cthuloid viscera inside the kaiju.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Xealot posted:Ok? Because they're looking for some sort of objective measure that the opposing perspective is capital-W Wrong, like a showstopping slam-dunk piece of contradicting evidence in a sensationalistic trial. "If the hands aren't well-lit, your criticism's poo poo!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
I don't know, I think if you're going to argue something about the visuals of a thing you should make sure to have things that back that statement up, or back them up for more than apparently one frame.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Xealot posted:Ok? As noted earlier, the insides of the robot cockpits are actually these huge cavernous spaces. If the idea is that the characters get absorbed into a machine, it doesn't really happen.  There are wires and complex devices behind the characters, but there is nothing in front of them except a big empty space full of holograms. Also, the huge mess of machinery that they are actually connected to is colored bright blue. If the idea is to have the characters merge with the machine, they should be a bright blue as well, right? Or at least, in that shot, their forearms should be. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
You realize surely that things could be visualized and interpreted in different wa- oh, that's right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Because they're looking for some sort of objective measure that the opposing perspective is capital-W Wrong, like a showstopping slam-dunk piece of contradicting evidence in a sensationalistic trial. "If the hands aren't well-lit, your criticism's poo poo!" It goes both ways though- it was SMG who posted the screencap that "proved" how lovely the movie looks. And specifically saying that a film's action sequences are incomprehensible means that it's fair for people to argue that they understood what was going on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Instead of whining about how I think you're wrong but everything's relative - it's just your opinion, I can't judge you, blah blah blah - just write something substantive.Maxwell Lord posted:It goes both ways though- it was SMG who posted the screencap that "proved" how lovely the movie looks. And specifically saying that a film's action sequences are incomprehensible means that it's fair for people to argue that they understood what was going on. People are going to weird extremes. When I say something is unclear, someone actually got mad that I was literally calling it invisible. When I explain that unclear and invisible mean different things, I'm accused being intolerant of other people's opinions. I can post an image that is essentially a huge blue cloud with an arm sticking out of it, saying it's not very easy to comprehend, the reply is "it's not 100% incomprehensible! I comprehend that it's a cloud with an arm!" C'mon now. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Instead of whining about how I think you're wrong but everything's relative quote:just write something substantive. Habibi fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
I tried writing substantive things in this thread many times, they were apparently not substantive enough, but you can't say I never tried. And I think the specific kind of subjectivity I'm talking about here is more than just "that's just, like, your opinion man." Just as we all learn better in a number of ways, I think there are differences in how we process visual information such that for some, Pacific Rim's action sequences make sense but those in Transformers don't, or vice versa. There's definitely bad cinematography and bad editing but there is a level on which the observer matters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Here's a shot of 'dirty slut' from the end of the film. Here's the 'alien queen' from Aliens.  Which shot is more clear? Maxwell Lord posted:I tried writing substantive things in this thread many times, they were apparently not substantive enough, but you can't say I never tried. It is not, and has not been, a question of 'does it make sense y/n?' I am not claiming the film is utterly 100% incomprehensible, so 'I understood the plot' is not a real response. And, so far, that has been your only response. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Someone who isn't on their phone should post a few screenshots from the opening battle, when the pilots wore kickass white suits instead of the boring black ones. Everything in that scene was far easier to see. I didn't like Gypsy 2.0's cockpit visuals as much. It was too busy and too dark. I agree with SMG on that front. We should also post cockpit views of the other pilots for comparison because I don't remember them that well. I don't agree with the argument against the first screenshot posted though with Leatherback jumping onto Cherno. The whole point of that shot is "oh crap, Cherno is hosed. It feels fitting that Cherno is struggling with one massive water splash vaguely shaped like a monster and then gets enveloped by another and almost vanishes completely into the mist. Considering how the movie likes to present the Kaiju as forces of nature, it fits thematically with that idea. Cherno is a monster of completely human construct being enveloped by nature. During a storm, no less. That shot and that action were just fine to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
That text under SMGs name sure is good advice. It was fun for a while watching him sperg the gently caress out about shapes and visuals but it's beyond tedious now. 2/5 Just re-watched the movie to celebrate the sequel news. It's like the third time I've seen it and it's still an easy couple of hours to sit through. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
These are relatively minor issues that are exacerbated by the editing. Immediately after that shot of Hero Guy clenching his fist, there's a match cut to the exterior of the robot, with lens flares all over, the camera is suddenly circling the action to the right, and there's a a totally different lighting and color scheme. Then they cut back inside the cockpit, and it's pretty much the opposite angle, with Hero Guy facing the opposite direction. As noted earlier on the thread, this is like cutting from a baseball being thrown, to an establishing shot of the house the ball is in, to the ball actually flying through the air. What you might see instead, on Speed Racer or something, would be a split-screen effect of some sort, allowing for clear simultaneous action. It'd be cheesy, but look at the movie we're talking about here. Conveying the man-machine interface with a brief match-cut is both overly flashy and kinda rudimentary. Same with the 'drift' being a bunch of flashing, rapidly-edited, monochrome footage with a glow effect slathered overtop. I'd argue that's not a good way to do what's effectively a dream sequence. Like, just imagine a direct neural interface with another person. What would that be like? How would you convey that to someone who's never done it (I.e. an audience)? Obviously the technology doesn't actually exist, but we've seen it in countless films. How many resorted to the rapid-fire montage? I don't see what people have against the film being better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Mako should learn English for the sequel
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
quote:Which shot is more clear? Discounting the low quality capture? And you still didn't answer my question. quote:And I think you know that. It's important to keep in mind on at least one occasion he's declared his posts absolute Truth. quote:It was fun for a while watching him sperg the gently caress out about shapes and visuals but it's beyond tedious now. 2/5 I've learned nothing is too tedious for when I'm at work. RBA Starblade fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
There is such a thing as a stupid question. Here is your question: "So, could you see anything in the shot clearly SMG?" This is the post you were responding to: "The hydraulic robot chair ... is perfectly visible in light blue." You asked a question when you were already provided an unambiguous answer. This is a good example of how what I write is truthful, while others engage in obfuscation and deception.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
It's almost like I was referring back to it after your conversation about how unclear it was, and right after a post about how it could have been more clear, or something. I wonder why you didn't notice that while mentioning obfuscation and deception. Context matters Truthspeaker.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Conveying the man-machine interface with a brief match-cut is both overly flashy and kinda rudimentary. Honestly, rudimentary is good when it comes to mecha. What matters the most is conveying the key moments of the pilot, rather than trying to inform the audience of every action that they take. Here's the (untranslated) fight against Shamshel in Evangelion 1.0. The cockpit is incredibly simple: it's got a viewport and a pilot's chair, and that's it. The design of it falls apart if you think about the basic premise behind an Evangelion (it responds primarily to your conscious thought), which begs the question of why you'd even bother having the chair with the controls sitting there. The controls are merely meant to give intuition to the movement of the Evangelion. No one has controlled a robot with their thoughts, but they have driven a car or an airplane or something similar, and understand the connection of a set of controls with the movement of the machine. It's rudimentary, but very effective at conveying the control that the pilots have over their machines. The match cuts here work well to express the mood of Shinji, though they generally abstain from actually showing him performing an action matched by Unit 01, aside from when it's intimate (e.g., as he's brutally stabbing Shamshel at the end). Generally, match shots go from Unit 01 to Shinji (Unit 01 gets knocked to the ground, Shinji is flat on his back...), representing piloting one as a terrible alien trauma (rather than him gleefully moving the Evangelion around, with it reacting according to his will). The viewport's also critical, because it creates a direct connection between the events outside with the events inside the mecha itself. There's a fantastic set of shots during Asuka's battle with the Mass Production Evas where she picks up a gigantic, unwieldy sword. The viewport gives a view to the outside to see just how much weight is being put behind each swing, accurately conveying its force. I think match shots work quite well for mecha, but that it's dependent upon cockpit design that establishes a clear, intuitive connection between the world "inside" and the outside world, as well as between the pilot and the machine. I'm not sure that split-screen would work well for mecha, simply because it would create a severing of what's supposed to be an intimate connection between the pilot and their machine by representing them as two separate characters. Vermain fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Vermain posted:The match cuts here work well to express the mood of Shinji, though they generally abstain from actually showing him performing an action matched by Unit 01, aside from when it's intimate (e.g., as he's brutally stabbing Shamshel at the end). Not to dis your good post, but I was referring to that latter sort of graphic match cut, where compositional elements in both shots align almost perfectly.  You can see how the bright line on both arms is located on pretty much the exact same spot on the screen. The video you posted actually doesn't really much of this sort of match-cutting, being more conventionally edited. What would normally be close-ups of the robot's face are simply replaced with close-ups of the protagonist's face. When showing the cut in the above gif, you can see how the sudden introduction of camera movement is distracting. The camera dollies to the right, causing the lights in the background to zip around. The arm is mostly, again, an extremely dark shape on a dark background with just a little band of light on top, so the background actually gets more of the focus. The arm itself is practically negative space. In any case, it's obvious that the predominant color is black. That little gif screen is essentially a black rectangle with spots. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
Ah, yeah, I can see your point. I do wonder why del Toro went along with such a dark aesthetic for the whole thing. My only guess is that he was trying to conjure up the persistent mood of a tempest, with darkened skies and constant rain (though that'd seem to be a good excuse to light up the jaegers more, considering the whole theme of the film is about fighting back against the tempest).
Vermain fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
But then you have a film that's literally about killer tornados, and it looks like this:
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
All the coolest scenes of Twister were dark and overcast.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:13 |
|
|
Chronojam posted:All the coolest scenes of Twister were dark and overcast. If you can find a shot that looks like a typical Pacific Rim shot, post it. Here's one I dug up:  Notice the reds, greys and greens. It's dark, but there's very little black. Also note the lack of little super-bright lights everywhere, clouds of fog, etc. This scene depicts a hailstorm, but everything's pretty well visible. Another example from Jurassic Park, where the T-Rex is directly related to the tropical storm going on (chaos and whatnot):  It may be foggy, but the fog is used to make the rex stand out against the background. It passes the squint test. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 06:07
|
|