|
Lizard Combatant posted:I think that's a trend born out of bad choreography or directors (studios more likely) not able or willing to commit to the kind of precision you get from Hong Kong flicks. CA Civil War actually does have great choreography but they intentionally went for a chaotic style, which to me worked for the most part. Especially when they actually let the take roll. Lots of quick cuts and close ups usually means the fight scene didn't look great on the day. It's also much cheaper. That ... makes a lot of sense, actually.
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 11:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 03:05 |
|
|
Bruce Lee was asked to slow down his moves because the camera couldn't capture them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
I thought that story was apocryphal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 11:44
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:I think that's a trend born out of bad choreography or directors (studios more likely) not able or willing to commit to the kind of precision you get from Hong Kong flicks. CA Civil War actually does have great choreography but they intentionally went for a chaotic style, which to me worked for the most part. Especially when they actually let the take roll. Lots of quick cuts and close ups usually means the fight scene didn't look great on the day. It's also much cheaper. Or to put it another way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1PCtIaM_GQ
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 12:04
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Or to put it another way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1PCtIaM_GQ Pro-click. Jackie Chan is the master of action.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 12:14
|
|
|
I think the reason why The Hobbit looked like poo poo is because they insisted on a lower shutter speed. I think I remember Peter Jackson saying it looked "silky" and while it does look novel it makes it really hard to track movement in the frame without feeling a bit ill. While motion blur looks pretty good at lower framerates, there's a lesson to be learned from video games: the higher the framerate, the less motion blur is actually desirable. I think in order to work, high framerate cinematography needs to be used in conjunction with short shutter speed in order to decrease motion blur in each frame.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
I may be wrong but I think they used a 360° shutter which actually increases the blur.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:I may be wrong but I think they used a 360° shutter which actually increases the blur.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
SwissCM posted:Which was a pretty stupid decision but I guess at that point no one had really made a HFR movie. Someone had to try it. Yeah, I mean they would have done a tone of camera tests and that's what Jackson liked, but I wasn't a fan of the results.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:Yeah, I mean they would have done a tone of camera tests and that's what Jackson liked, but I wasn't a fan of the results. Once the independent scene gets a hold of cameras capable of this, that's when we'll see it done well just in time for big names to realise what they did to make it work and transfer it to cinema.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
It's a shame they didn't shoot The Hobbit at 24 and do post 3D as so many technical hurdles came up. 24fps hides many smoke and mirror effects so at 48 suddenly prosthetics and sets look horridly cheap even if they are made by some of the best people in the industry. I think it's why The Hobbit films have that fantasy grade over them as it's trying to soften the issues present. They try to pass it off as "the films are set in a golden time". There also was the issue of having to compensate for loss of saturation so everything on set was painted in a slightly sickly tone to compensate. I did hear through the grapevine that Andrew Lesnie was quite fed up with having all of these technicalities in the way and having to rely on people operating the cameras remotely that he never really felt like he was shooting the film. Plus HFR added twice the amount of work in post as you're animating everything at 48 frames not 24 so you can't really cheat as much. On top of that the workload at WETA was utterly insane. Sometimes not helped by instances when the second unit director's utter faith in the ability to fix it in post hit reality. Being pushed up against a deadline meant shots with an errant light passing past someone's hair facilitated having to re-do the whole hair in 3D whereas the shot was meant to be a simple composite. That is not cheap on time and manpower. Time was really the big issues with The Hobbit as the New Line/WB lawsuit held things up along with the leaving of Del Toro and industrial disputes. In this case the VFX were a forced necessity as a time saver as it meant less set build time and being able to use every stage booked as much as possible as the actors were right up against their other schedules. Jackson by all accounts genuinely loves making movies and his passion is a blessing and a curse. But at the end of the day you kind of need these madcap directors who go "but what if..." to push the boundaries. The wheel may not have been reinvented but it's opened up new possibles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
Good post, the loss of contrast in HFR is really interesting. I hated the films but I'll have to watch the making-ofs, even if they'll end up being the exact opposite of the LoTR trilogy extras.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
The making ofs are pretty much on the same lines and are surprisingly candid. Also don't forget there's a bunch of web making ofs on the facebook page that go into more detail regarding how the 3D cameras were utilised. One thing that does come through is that everyone did care deeply about wanting to make a good film but it really got down to the wire. There's an insane moment where they're finishing the final sound mix for Desolation and they realise that owing to time zones they are able to cheat in a few more hours. Jackson is a perfectionist who cares and likes to challenge his crew. It's a bit cheap to compare him to Lucas as the people I know who worked with him on Clones were not really impressed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
Intoluene posted:Once the independent scene gets a hold of cameras capable of this, that's when we'll see it done well just in time for big names to realise what they did to make it work and transfer it to cinema. They kind of do, even dslrs can shoot 120fps at 1080p and the Arri Amira can do 100fps at 4k (well, upscaled internally from 3). As WebDog mentioned, higher frame rates is a huge amount of extra work for crew and post. Makeup in particular, even at 24fps something as simple as a certain shade of blue light can make prosthetics or make up look like crap. And ironically, a lot of indie work tries to mimic old school film look anyway so for them the more smoke the better. It's a crazy business.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
WebDog posted:The making ofs are pretty much on the same lines and are surprisingly candid. Also don't forget there's a bunch of web making ofs on the facebook page that go into more detail regarding how the 3D cameras were utilised. Oh absolutely, that's a rough comparison. My biggest gripe with the hobbit films though still the scripts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
The biggest crime of the Hobbit was cargo culting Lord of the Rings and being a trilogy instead of a single movie. The book is a pretty short and light read and there's just no excuse for that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:The biggest crime of the Hobbit was cargo culting Lord of the Rings and being a trilogy instead of a single movie. The book is a pretty short and light read and there's just no excuse for that. Agreed. There exists a 4 hour cut of the three movies that condenses them down to just what came from the original book - the Tolkien edit. It's an improvement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
I kind of understand expanding it a little bit to include some of the stuff happening in the background. The books work well when you read the hobbit first and then let the LotR expand on all the hinted-at backstory. Having to make the movies in the opposite order had to be a balancing act between being true to the book and acknowledging the larger story. Still, there's at least one movie too much in that trilogy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 11:14
|
|
|
treiz01 posted:Agreed. There exists a 4 hour cut of the three movies that condenses them down to just what came from the original book - the Tolkien edit. It's an improvement. They took all the heart out of the book and tried to make it a fantasy epic. Which is what the LOTR books are, an epic saga written as an epic saga. They tried their level best to make a financially successful movie in the mold of movies that had already been financially successful, source material be damned. Peter Jackson did the best job he could with the job he was given. He was a hired gun with a mission. This is a strange derail in the thread that is all about pictures of old cell phones, monitors, and forgotten electronics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 11:43
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:disney's cars 4, now with nvidia g-sync You don’t need g‐sync. A 120 Hz screen gives you the option of 24 fps, 30 fps, 60 fps, 120 fps, and more obscure rates.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 11:50
|
|
|
And if your framerate slips down to 59fps for a few frames, welcome to judder town. Variable sync is worthwhile for just about any use case. It'd be cool to see a film made without any restriction on framerate, too. Being able to increase or decrease the frame rate of footage at will could be a powerful tool. SCheeseman has a new favorite as of 12:02 on Aug 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 11:58
|
|
|
SwissCM posted:And if your framerate slips down to 59fps for a few frames, welcome to judder town. If you’re making a film and your camera drops frames, you have a serious problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 12:15
|
|
|
Or it's being done for effect. Plenty of filmmakers mess with framerates to achieve different visual outcomes, variable sync would allow for far more flexibility.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
I hate when movies use a low frame rate as a lovely slow motion effect, or as a "technology" visual effect or whatever the hell. Maybe that's not actually low fps being used. Whatever it is, it's ugly to me. I'm failing to think of any examples right now but I've seen it quite a few times in random things. Like I guess it's justifiable if your not-terminator is low budget in-story and thus has lovely camera eyeballs that don't update very fast but if you're doing that then you had better drat well use it as a weakness in the movie too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
I'm happy with the softer look of 24 fps and hope it sticks around until I die. I feel like what I see through my own eyes is much closer to film/24 than it is to video/60. I understand that everyone is different and that preferring 24 for movies makes me some kind of troglodyte caveman rear end in a top hat, but so be it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Light Gun Man posted:I hate when movies use a low frame rate as a lovely slow motion effect, or as a "technology" visual effect or whatever the hell. Maybe that's not actually low fps being used. Whatever it is, it's ugly to me. I'm failing to think of any examples right now but I've seen it quite a few times in random things. Maybe the opening battle of Gladiator? When the battle sound drops out and the score rises up? That kind of look? Or more like the stuttery bits in the Omaha Beach opening of Saving Private Ryan? The only other thing I can think of is when someone decides a shot that wasn't shot for slow mo now needs needs to be slow mo in post.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:The only other thing I can think of is when someone decides a shot that wasn't shot for slow mo now needs needs to be slow mo in post. I think this is more what I'm talking about yeah. Or like sometimes it's used to represent psychedelic drugs or rocking out on a guitar or something?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Yeah, I get what you're saying. I think it's a cheap way to get slow motion out of a shot that was filmed at a normal frame rate, and it ends up looking awful. Hopefully we'll see less of that as digital cameras are able to more easily and commonly shoot at high frame rates so even a layman can get reliable slow motion. iPhones do it already.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
With Private Ryan that was changing the shutter speed from 180 to 45 or 90 during explosions to get a crisper image. The film still runs at 24fps, just when the shutter is changed it will expose each frame for more or less time. At smaller numbers each frame is being exposed for less time to the point where a spinning object will look frozen in time. You do need more light on your scene to compensate as the image will get less light. The slow mo knocked by blast effect is done with the shutter open higher so light is being "double exposed" (lazy term) and motion becomes a blur and things look slower. They also might have undercranked a bit then conformed back to 24fps. Lots of really cool lo tech stuff like using drills to get camera shake on that film. Digital is a bit different as it's not a revolving circle over the film, its software simulating one, so you can have a 360 shutter which means it's open completely every frame. Gladiator and Braveheart and a few others actually remove frames in post to get a more kinetic effect. More info here: https://cinemashock.org/2012/07/30/45-degree-shutter-in-saving-private-ryan/
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Spielberg very deliberately tried to match the look of Robert Capa’s photos. A mistake in the darkroom gave them a unique look.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Spielberg very deliberately tried to match the look of Robert Capa’s photos. A mistake in the darkroom gave them a unique look. That guy braved the first wave of assault to get spectaular images. Only for the darkroom guy to accidentally bake all by one roll of them. And the ten other photographers who were there? A colonel dropped all their film overboard when getting onto a ship.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
There was also a uncensored documentary created several days after the landings for Allied high command, which was subsequently lost in the US Army Signal Corps archives until a couple years ago. https://unwritten-record.blogs.archives.gov/2014/09/09/the-first-d-day-documentary/ quote:A letter in the OSS personnel folder for Capt. John Ford recommends him for the Distinguished Service Medal on the strength of his activities documenting the D-day invasion, specifically mentioning: “The returning film was assembled under his directions, and an overall D-Day report, complete with sound, was competed on D plus 5, and was shown to Mr. Winston Churchill. Copies were also flown to President Roosevelt and Mr. Stalin.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcggNe-SEXU
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
George Miller likes to mess with frame rates (from Wikipedia): "The frame rate was also manipulated to achieve a desired effect. "Something like 50 or 60 percent of the film is not running at 24 frames a second, which is the traditional frame rate," said Seale. "It'll be running below 24 frames because George, if he couldn't understand what was happening in the shot, he slowed it down until you could. Or if it was too well understood, he'd shorten it or he'd speed it up back towards 24. His manipulation of every shot in that movie is intense.""
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Spielberg very deliberately tried to match the look of Robert Capa’s photos. A mistake in the darkroom gave them a unique look. Except Spielberg did the opposite of that, shorter shutter angle than normal for the framerate, getting close to but not quite the Ridley Scott strobe effect of real small shutter angle. Saving Private Ryan just looks crisp, and you're thinking "did I just see that?" As opposed to the Scott brothers, who take that effect a bit too far and it looks like stop-motion (cf. Gladiator.) But it's the same general thing. As opposed to Capa's stills, which are blurred all to hell and back. Spielberg still nails the chaos of Capa's photos, but the other way 'round.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 03:44
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Sony had some pretty terrible ideas when it came to portable PCs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGIGUBYJLn8
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Tubesock Holocaust posted:Sony had some pretty terrible ideas when it came to portable PCs. that dude's voice holy poo poo. he sounds like a screechy old woman from a Monty Python sketch
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
Elsa posted:that dude's voice holy poo poo. he sounds like a screechy old woman from a Monty Python sketch Yeah but that was amazing. I'd heard of that guy before but watching it - actual knowledgeable teardowns and unboxings of poo poo? Yes please.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
Elsa posted:that dude's voice holy poo poo. he sounds like a screechy old woman from a Monty Python sketch
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
Elsa posted:that dude's voice holy poo poo. he sounds like a screechy old woman from a Monty Python sketch Yeah, I'm an Auusie and that "sing songy" raising the pitch and the end like they're asking a question accent some of us have annoys me too. gently caress that and the nasal accent some of us have. Eventually I got used to it, not just with him but also I remember the old "craft brewer" podcast host was the same, plus of course with some people in real life (but it seems more common in the eastern states like queensland than here in the west with the exception of WA country people like in the Bunbury to lake grace area in the mid south west) People around me are whiny fuckers in other ways or gruff loud people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 03:05 |
|
|
Arivia posted:Yeah but that was amazing. I'd heard of that guy before but watching it - actual knowledgeable teardowns and unboxings of poo poo? Yes please. Dave Jones and the EEVblog are pretty great. His voice never bothered me. He does tend to repeat the same phrases over again to the point where I know what he's going to say before he even says it. "In like flynn" "none of the 'X' rubbish" etc. That's starting to get a little annoying. But his teardowns are awesome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 14:42
|
|
