|
Just finished reading this thread from start to finish, that was a wild ride. Highlight: British Railways chat, anything with big dials and switches Low point: every time mp3 player chat started, excruciating.
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 14:24 |
|
|
And it looks like rear end. It may be cultural conditioning but suspension of disbelief just does not work at high frame rates for me. Nature documentaries would look great though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
Humphreys posted:I had the opportunity to keep a full set of reels for that movie. I passed as I couldn't be arsed carrying it to my car 50 metres away. As it was a lovely movie - I'm not that annoyed. But as I love random poo poo - I want it now. Oh poo poo, I would definitely have kept that. Don't remember the film but I would have done something with submarine bits.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:Same here. Back when they (Best Buy?) had display TVs showing off 120 fps interpolation with U-571 it made everything look like it was a bunch of cosplayers making a movie in their basement. I'd watch hockey on it though. That would have been hz not fps. Shouldn't 23/24 fps look all right at 120hz? That divides nicely. Or is it still 3:2 pull-down for some reason?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2016 11:05
|
|
|
Elsa posted:I agree with this. A bit of blur between frames makes the motion look better. 48 and especially 60 make the scenes look like obvious movie sets. I end up feeling like I'm sitting on the camera boom. It turns out I don't want a perfect reproduction of what the camera sees at high shutter speeds. Exactly this. You can still get motion blur with higher frame rates of course, it's all about shutter angle. But 23.976 with a 180 shutter angle looks good with normal human motion. People are welcome to their opinion on what they prefer, but saying there's no difference is just wrong, as someone who works with frame rates everyday. Lizard Combatant has a new favorite as of 17:17 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Depends where you're watching them, but let's assume you mean at the movies. The judder from panning shots is the DP not doing a perfect job of the pan (whether due to time constraints or whatever). Cameras are tricky beasts and there are critical speeds where things will appear to judder. You may have noticed credits crawls occasionally looking janky as well. Different frame rates handle vertical and horizontal movement differently. Without getting into too much detail, you're noticing it in 24fps movies more because there's overwhelmingly more of them.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:IMO it's mostly because the footage is a blurry mess thanks to 24fps and corresponding exposure so it's uncomfortable to look at. Same thing can happen IRL if you move your head/eyes around too quickly so we generally don't do that. What? What does exposure have to do with anything? e: do you mean shutter speed like on a dslr? With film cameras that's shutter angle. You realize you can shoot at whatever shutter speeds you like with 24fps yes? People just generally stick with 180° (or 1/48th of a second in dslr terms) because it's pleasing to the eye, but plenty films vary it up for different effects. Lizard Combatant has a new favorite as of 18:34 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:It’s party the cinematographer’s fault for panning too fast, but also party 24 fps fault for making pans janky unless they’re executed at a glacial pace. That's an oversimplification (there's lots of other things to consider, such as lens focal lengths) but sure, it's a limitation. But there are trade offs with absolutely anything you do and temporal aliasing is absolutely still present in higher frame rates. e: again, I don't mind what people prefer I'm just glad folks are discussing the merits of each instead of writing it off as "no difference" or "something you stop noticing after 10 minutes". Lizard Combatant has a new favorite as of 19:19 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Humphreys posted:I got in trouble for a loving orange in my drawer, and having the Top Gun soundtrack. Imagine a full NAVY MOVIE! Yes but was it the viewing material or the orange you were loving to it that they objected to?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Remulak posted:Watching action movie type stuff on 120 for a few days then going back to 24 is painful. Ok again, frame rate and refresh rates aren't the same thing. What action films have you seen that were shot at 120fps? I like high frame rates for sports and documentaries btw. e: sorry I did misread that, you did say action movie type stuff. What do you mean by that, is it stuff shot at 120fps? Lizard Combatant has a new favorite as of 20:17 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Remulak posted:Yep, lots of test footage, not a feature. Seen a lot of stuff in 60 too, but the more the better. Which I'm very excited to see. Anyway, sorry for the massive poo poo fit everyone but current frame rates ain't obsolete! You may commence mp3 chat now Lizard Combatant has a new favorite as of 05:14 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
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. Cinema's all smoke and mirrors, upping the frame rate certainly removes a lot of the smoke which is most of the problem for me. A high frame rate kung fu movie could look incredible, if they nail it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2016 11:00
|
|
|
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 may be wrong but I think they used a 360° shutter which actually increases the blur.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
I really don't know how they're going to spin this one as anything but a blatant cash grab, the idea that the 3.5mm connection is obsolete is underpants on the head crazy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
But this is the obsolete technology thread and a company is trying to convince everyone that a daily used piece of tech is obsolete. You might want to sit this one out.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
XYZ posted:Fax machines. The fax machine was replaced with something cheaper, easier, higher quality and more efficient.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:Well you would think that. I'm not on trial here!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
Johnny Aztec posted:Actually, you are. *bangs gavel* Allow me a moment to prepare my defence 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
Right? If it's not cheaper, better quality or more efficient it's not an upgrade. Especially since wireless headphones are currently an option and not a requirement.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
You joke, but that's a sure fire get rich
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
Humphreys posted:If I were ever in the position of being put on a lie detector I'm sure my stress levels would be through the roof. Mostly in fear of being falsely found guilty. It would be a vicious cycle. Just be so stressed that every answer makes the needle peak. They'll have no baseline.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
Frobbe posted:Getting back into obsolete technology, i'd like to show off this very nice typewriter i bought this weekend. Always liked the look of olivettis, my Lettera 22 in the same color is my favorite.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
How long would it take modern software to crack an enigma message out of curiosity. Keep in mind that I have no idea how such software works. Would it need a crib even?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:Modern cryptoanalysis software could probably break an Enigma message in a few seconds, especially if they knew it was coming from an Enigma. With an electronic model of an Enigma machine as a base, your average desktop PC could break an Enigma code pretty much instantly, it already handles much more complex ciphers on a day to day basis. Cool!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Aristophanes posted:Oh, I used to have the first Harry Potter movie on video, and it had a commercial for DVD, showing off the interactive menu. It blew my little mind! Got to love the attempt to advertise improved sound and picture quality on the existing medium though. "The picture is sharper!" train hits car "The sound is clearer!" banging piano Wow! That looks and sounds awe- oh.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
Not a game developer, but in vfx or motion graphics you absolutely keep in mind how people are going to view your stuff. You'd be crazy not to.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
Please excuse the cellphone picture, but I was just now given the wonderfully obsolete Panasonic F15 CCD video camera with 10-150mm TV zoom. Behold, the champion of public access television.  All in working order, I'll probably just use it as a prop unless anyone on here has any tips for making it usable.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:Wait for the red light to come on and then start loving like crazy. Now that you mention it, there is a tape still in the deck from the previous owner. I should watch that first to see how it's done.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
I need to find S video cables first.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:
I love the design of this thing, and I'd also love one for work since I deal in time code a lot - but really just because it's so Weyland Yutani looking.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:I have a whole bunch of S Video cables I was about to recycle, if you actually want one let me know. Thanks, but I'm in Australia. I can track one down, but out of interest were there two sizes for coaxial video? I tried using my current antenna cable and it didn't fit.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Humphreys posted:In Australia there was the 300 ohm twin wire then it went to 75ohm push-in type then the screw in F-Type. There are cable sizes like F59 and F6 but that wouldn't be your issue. Another possibility was it uses a female push in with a thinner inner core as used in car radio antenna a number of years ago (if it's this, buy a PS0614 from Jaycar, gut the inner and use the bare core as your inner point!) Thanks, here's a side by side with a female coaxial adaptor I had lying around.  It is smaller but not as much as it looks because of the perspective.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
Elliotw2 posted:Those are BNC connectors, you'll need an F Female to BNC converter or cable to hook it into a regular coax input. Cheers! I feel like I should have known that...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 14:24 |
|
|
Humphreys posted:I feel stupid for not thinking of BNC for something that was used semi-professionally. Although in my defence The only BNC stuff I have used is for radios or SDI/HDSDI for video editing decks (which makes me doubly stupid) Ah I should have said, it's for the little deck that came with it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 12:28
|
|