|
FreudianSlippers posted:Does anyone in the first world, under the age of 70, still own a 4:3 TV? Yo. Granted, it's because it's my parents' and it's a 36-incher, so, as long as it works, we aren't moving it.
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 04:00 |
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:For the 1.33:1 stuff, what's the resolution? Is it standard def, or are you doing HD transfers cropped to 1.33:1? It's HD footage cropped to 1:33, then it depends on what they want delivered. More often than not, they'll ask for the HD footage center cut, so we'll deliver the 1:33 version with pillar bars. Other times they'll ask for an NTSC SD version and we'll have to downconvert it. I cut my teeth in this business in tape rooms, and growing up, I used to love opening up VHS tapes and playing with their guts, so a lot of this stuff is second nature to me, but holy poo poo was there a learning curve when dealing with codecs and file formats and poo poo. Luckily for me I also went to film school so it was just a matter of relearning all that crap that I forgot after college. It sucks because I don't think we'll ever get a standard in this industry. I'm working on a few different shows at the moment and the deliverable specs are completely different on all of them. One network still has us conform their sequences so that their titles and lower thirds 4x3 safe. Another network delivered us a 23.98 sequence, but had half the timeline was 29.97 footage because their lazy offline editor learned how to use the AMA button without bothering how to properly transcode the footage so it doesn't look like poo poo. Another network had their editors cut their show at 29.97 progressive, but when we deliver, it's converted to 1080i 59.94. It's completely loving nuts and everything more and more is starting to fall on the Online Editor, because nothing is ever a locked cut anymore, and with budgets shrinking more and more and every year, a bad producer will skyrocket up the food chain because they know how to nickel & dime their way through all the things that would usually make delivering a show a breeze.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Does anyone in the first world, under the age of 70, still own a 4:3 TV? I just got rid of my 4:3 just over a year ago, because it died. I kept delaying getting an HD tv, because improvements seemed to be coming out yearly and I wasn't sure where to dive in. Just when the older stuff started to get cheaper than some advancement would come right after that seemed appealing. Aside from the 4k stuff, regular HD tvs short of leveled out recently. I'm really happy I missed the first wave of HD tvs, to be honest, they sort of sucked in the long run. Some people just do not put a priority on buying a new tv when the one they have works perfectly fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
This is a great tangent. I love reading from insiders. One thought... what's done with "special" aspect ratio films from recent years? I'm curious to how channels like HBO show films like The Artist and The Grand Budapest Hotel. Did they even bother with a 1.33:1 extraction of The Hateful Eight?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:It's HD footage cropped to 1:33, then it depends on what they want delivered. More often than not, they'll ask for the HD footage center cut, so we'll deliver the 1:33 version with pillar bars. Other times they'll ask for an NTSC SD version and we'll have to downconvert it. I cut my teeth in this business in tape rooms, and growing up, I used to love opening up VHS tapes and playing with their guts, so a lot of this stuff is second nature to me, but holy poo poo was there a learning curve when dealing with codecs and file formats and poo poo. Luckily for me I also went to film school so it was just a matter of relearning all that crap that I forgot after college. Why do you think there's a lack of a standard? Like, is anyone aware of what they did during the days of film and videotape? Is the fact that we used to have two ways of producing things part of all of this madness?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:One thought... what's done with "special" aspect ratio films from recent years? I'm curious to how channels like HBO show films like The Artist and The Grand Budapest Hotel. Whatever they do, it can't be any worse than my local multiplex's mauling of Grand Budapest. Everything fine for about 15 minutes, then I guess something automated kicked in when it saw black bars and adjusted the framing and never thought to look back. I can't wait to watch my Blu-Ray copy just so I can watch it without grinding my molars into dust.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
A surprising number of hotels I've stayed in over the past couple of years have not only still had 4:3 TVs in the rooms, but they've been CRTs. This is in Europe, too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
I know HBO showed Grand Budapest in its proper aspect ratio.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Why do you think there's a lack of a standard? The ease of technology and automation. Final Cut and Adobe started it, but you can pretty much drag and drop in any program and start editing. The problem is you have editors taking a quick 8 hour course at the Apple Store or some crash course avid class and the workflow isn't drilled into them. They quickly forget what a 3:2 pulldown is or how to adjust for field issues or frame blending when converting media. Nowadays, you can AMA (stands for Avid Media Access, pretty much Avid's version of drag and drop) youtube footage into an HD Avid sequence, because why the hell not. As long as theres picture and audio, great, who cares. They don't take into account when it's time to online the footage (most shows cut in a super low res version, then uprez only the final sequence at full HD resolution), it's going to look like poo poo because those AMA'd clips weren't converted to the right frame rate properly. It's both a blessing and a curse. Like I said, who would ever have thought that we'd get to a point where you can pretty much rip an .mp4 from youtube and drop it into a program like Avid and start rocking. Of course, that means that gives the producers on these shows the leeway to shoot with whatever they want. Shooting Sony XDCam? GREAT. Red footage? Even better! GoPro? Eh... it's not going to look as good as that Red footage you shot, but okay... what's that, you also have an old Sony MiniDV cam that you shot footage with? Uh, okay. And DVCam? They still make that? And you're handing me a harddrive with... Iphone footage. You want me to cut IPhone footage into your show? Anything else? Oh, by the way, your editor imported your graphics in at the wrong color space. What's that? You've already fired your graphics guy because you didn't have the budget to pay him longer than a few days? Awesome, when are we delivering this? Less than a week? Cool, excuse me for one moment please. *runs out door, never comes back* Basically, this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MJlFt8vxvA ruddiger fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
One thing I stumbled upon is that films occasionally had alternate credit sequences. The old DVD of 2001: A Space Odyssey, which wasn't even 16x9 enhanced, featured a credit that said "in Cinerama" - on the Blu-Ray, that credit is missing and in its place is just "Filmed in Super Panavision". Apparently, the ancient letterboxed transfer was made from the camera negative (!) while the Blu-Ray used a 35mm reduction element. Around the World in 80 Days and It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World also had slightly different sources. 80 Days has a visible jump in quality for the card during the end credits for Todd-AO and Technicolor. All videos have been from 35mm, so I don't have any reference for what 70mm prints would have looked like. Here's some grabs from the Mad World reconstruction on Criterion's Blu-Ray: Extended Cut Reconstruction (Criterion):  General Release Cut (MGM):    Also, here's a few examples of shots where deleted footage was blended back in within shots:     The deleted footage existed only as totally faded 70mm print fragments and an early 90s letterboxed NTSC transfer. The color was overlaid the faded 70mm. The transfer was unfortunately not captured full area, so the color doesn't cover the entire 70mm image. Also, here's the original intermission title for Around the World in 80 Days, which only resurfaced on the DVD (and streaming) edition: 
Egbert Souse fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Does anyone in the first world, under the age of 70, still own a 4:3 TV? A lot still do especially since 4:3 includes gigantic projection TVs that haven't all died. Egbert Souse posted:One thought... what's done with "special" aspect ratio films from recent years? I'm curious to how channels like HBO show films like The Artist and The Grand Budapest Hotel. There's no consistency. I've seen The Martian on HBO in 16x9 and 2.35:1. It's like they flip a coin to decide on a daily basis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Does anyone in the first world, under the age of 70, still own a 4:3 TV? I've got a 21" 4:3 CRT in my home office / workout room, and we have an ancient 19" CRT at our family property in northern Wisconsin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Payndz posted:A surprising number of hotels I've stayed in over the past couple of years have not only still had 4:3 TVs in the rooms, but they've been CRTs. This is in Europe, too. It seems like the US is the only one that upgrades their TVs. I was in a place in China that looked exactly like a decent quality US hotel, minus the TV.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
I reconstructed one of my college films a few years ago. While I was at it, I made both 16x9 (1.66:1) and 4x3 versions. It was shot 4x3 with a Canon XL-1, so I couldn't have frame mode (24fps) and 16x9 enhancement at the same time. The footage was shot with 16x9 in mind, but I adjusted the whole thing on a shot by shot basis to get a good composition. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlkzSZnRQXw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFGO_SRMvsI Egbert Souse fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Aug 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Does anyone in the first world, under the age of 70, still own a 4:3 TV? They must because we still have to worry about them. A couple years ago I asked our Post Super about it and he said there was still a fairly sizable percentage that used 4:3 tv's. At this point 80-90% of households probably have at least one HDTV, but just a few years ago it was still around 50%. And even if 100% of households have an HDTV, you still have to consider that they may also have an SDTV they still use. ruddiger posted:The ease of technology and automation. This is why I wouldn't want to be an online editor for anything other than features or narrative tv. I used to explain to friends that Avid was "harder" to work with because it was focused on workflow down the pipe and the reason they thought FCP was so great was because they never actually onlined anything or worked with a lot of departments trying to get things done for broadcast quality. If you were working with a bunch of different formats and frame rates Avid let you know that you were going to be causing headaches for yourself. Now I suppose with AMA it's a little easier to bring in anything and everything, but I really haven't had to deal with a bunch of weird formats coming in to the edit without prep since working in documentary. We'll use ipads and gopros for style or stunts but all of that gets processed through dailies before it hits us. Documentary is pretty much always a ton of overcutting of re-processed archival and old-format footage that has to be fixed up. But that sort of goes with the territory. If you're talking non-doc productions then that sounds incredibly frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:It's HD footage cropped to 1:33, then it depends on what they want delivered. More often than not, they'll ask for the HD footage center cut, so we'll deliver the 1:33 version with pillar bars. Other times they'll ask for an NTSC SD version and we'll have to downconvert it. I cut my teeth in this business in tape rooms, and growing up, I used to love opening up VHS tapes and playing with their guts, so a lot of this stuff is second nature to me, but holy poo poo was there a learning curve when dealing with codecs and file formats and poo poo. Luckily for me I also went to film school so it was just a matter of relearning all that crap that I forgot after college. I worked on a show that shot in 59.94 and 23.98 and wanted the sequences in 59.94 to preserve the video look, despite the fact that the majority of the show was 23.98. Avid doesn't let you group different frame rates of multicam stuff that don't match the project frame rate, so we had to workaround that to create multicam clips of most of the footage. The post house kept asking if they were SURE they wanted to have 59.94 sequences because it would make certain deliverables look worse when converted for international, but it's what the producers wanted. I had to make sure there was a test run of a sequence online to make sure there were no weird hiccups and if there were, they'd know about it before we started onlining. That was just two frame rates that created a bunch of meetings and tests of something everyone already understood as a potential issue they all had some experience with. I dread the idea of being and online editor and having sequences with multiple issues plopped right in front of me with no warning. At the same time there's often a time crunch in the edit room and people don't actually want to spend the upfront time of fixing things because it slows down the initial edit. They'd rather go into overage in the online. I know if I were an assistant and had to explain that a lot of my day would be transcoding before I could actually deliver anything to the editors the producers might just say "then don't."
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
Posted this in the doc thread, but it deserves a mention here. A doc about my favorite theater and also a little bit of history about the artform itself. A bunch of ugly people in this trailer tho (I recognize half of them as regulars at the New Bev.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtPZxrjE2vE Official Trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gehulRoAFw0 The New Beverly also just updated their website, so they have a bunch of articles, blog posts, reviews, and an archive of their past calendars (my favorite part about the new design). http://thenewbev.com
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:Posted this in the doc thread, but it deserves a mention here. A doc about my favorite theater and also a little bit of history about the artform itself. Looking through this thread reminded me of how I miss VHS covers: http://thenewbev.com/forums/topic/vhs-archive/
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
I'm no expert but honestly it WAS a little ridiculous how convoluted old versions of Avid were. Like, when you're a student, are you going to learn how to press an intricate series of keys to get a clip into the timeline when in any other program you could just drag and drop? It looks better now tho, they seem to have taken the right lessons from FCP and whatnot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 10:29
|
|
|
This has been a fun thread to read through. It's neat to recall how much film reels used to be messed with. I remember one of the main reasons my family used to see films opening weekend was because that's when the film actually looked the best, and if we waited a few weeks to see it at the cheaper re-run theater, the print would be scratchy, there would be jump cuts, and everything would get fuzzy in the lead-up and follow-through on the reel changes. I even remember seeing one of the Harry Potter movies for the nth time and thinking to myself how beat up it had gotten. It's funny that seeing a film on film now is actually a treat. Two good memories: -Seeing a screening of The Matrix in the late 2000s that had had an entire five minute chunk taken out of the climax. I'd never seen it before, so I didn't really know what happened but half the audience moaned with despair, like the audience at Scorsese's first exposure to Tales of Hoffmann rising in a fury at the deletion of the third act. -Seeing a screening of Tarkovsky's Solaris that had, at some point, been fiddled with by someone in Russia or Eastern Europe, because halfway through the movie - the exact halfway point, interrupting a scene - up came a big swirling pink screen that said something like "Антракт", so we all went out into the lobby for a few minutes. Egbert Souse posted:Gone with the Wind was released in 70mm in 1967, which cropped the film from 1.37:1 to 2.20:1. What did that even look like? Egbert Souse posted:The overture wasn't meant to be the start of the film exactly (with exceptions), but served the same purpose as the overture to an orchestral piece or stage production. In a theater, the curtain would be closed and the lights would be dimmed slightly. It was basically a way to get everyone in the theater and be ready for the start of the film. A few films broke tradition by having images during the overture. Most notable would be West Side Story and My Fair Lady, which have filmed graphics. This was presumably to get people to shut up and listen, especially for West Side Story.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
I saw Eyes Wide Shut in 35mm in 2007 and the print was quite scratched up. Though, the actual color and image quality were amazing. By contrast, the 35mm prints of Casablanca, Citizen Kane, and The Wizard of Oz that I saw looked quite clean. Oz was dye-transfer from the late 90s. Casablanca had some scratchiness at reel changes, but otherwise a beautiful print. I saw one of the restoration prints of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly back in 2006 and it looked fresh out of the lab. I also saw the mid-2000s UCLA restorations of Safety Last! and The Freshman in 35mm. They obviously had printed-in damage from the sources they were restored from, but I was surprised how detailed and sharp the prints looked. As for Gone with the Wind in 70mm, Widescreen Museum has a picture of one frame and it's hard to tell the quality, but it must have looked horrific. Although, I've heard the 1998 re-issue prints were fairly bad. They were dye-transfer, but used separations created from an Eastmancolor dupe rather than the original negative. Worse, they were released pillarboxed anamorphic for some strange reason. They projected through a scope lens, but the picture was 1.37:1 centered in the 2.35:1 area. Probably the best idea since I saw Casablanca and The Wizard of Oz cropped to 1.85:1. They had to take out the aperture plate to show Safety Last! in the correct 1.33:1.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
The other day I read an interesting piece about screen masking at theaters, somewhat related to film formats/ratios: http://screencrush.com/theaters-screen-masking/ Basically, movies are increasingly using projected black bars instead of physical curtains, as they traditionally would, to box up the projected image. The image is still the same size and shape, but digital bars are a bit more distracting than curtains.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:They projected through a scope lens, but the picture was 1.37:1 centered in the 2.35:1 area. That sounds like a nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:The other day I read an interesting piece about screen masking at theaters, somewhat related to film formats/ratios: When I saw Anomalisa it was letterboxed in a 1.85:1 projected image, scaled to fit in the center of a 2.35:1 screen. The movie took up roughly 1/4 of the screen, with black bars on all sides. I was mortified.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Hibernator posted:When I saw Anomalisa it was letterboxed in a 1.85:1 projected image, scaled to fit in the center of a 2.35:1 screen. The movie took up roughly 1/4 of the screen, with black bars on all sides. I was mortified. That sounds like a screwup. The only times I've seen non-standard projection is Lawrence of Arabia (2.20:1 slightly pillarboxed in 2.40:1) and Jurassic World (2.00:1 letterboxed in 1.85:1). I still don't get why Jurassic World was done in 2:1 since it only resulted in a lower resolution/screen size in theaters. At least stuff shot on the RED like House of Cards makes sense to maintain 2:1, but it was shot entirely on film.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:
That's just the intermission. The version I saw also had it but over here every single movie theater except one imposes intermissions on all movies a to sell more candy and allow people to piss. The movie just cuts off randomly in somewhere around the middle and then fades back in after a few minutes. The theater I saw it at is the only one that doesn't do that but since the intermission was built in to this particular film they probably just went with it. Maybe intermissions are standard practice in Russia as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
I do think Solaris always had an intermission. It's over three hours after all. This does remind me of the indie theater I frequented in Columbia, MO, which due to some quirk of their projector always had to have a film break in a film of any normal length.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
It probably did, but it was funny how it came in literally in the middle of a scene. I don't think it cut off a line of dialogue but it might as well have.FreudianSlippers posted:That's just the intermission. The version I saw also had it but over here every single movie theater except one imposes intermissions on all movies a to sell more candy and allow people to piss. The movie just cuts off randomly in somewhere around the middle and then fades back in after a few minutes. The theater I saw it at is the only one that doesn't do that but since the intermission was built in to this particular film they probably just went with it. Maybe intermissions are standard practice in Russia as well. Yeah, I've read about that, where do you live? One of my favorite Spalding Gray bits is where they take Swimming to Cambodia to a film festival in Russia, where all the translation was done live by a single person, and the translator completely mangles the opening to the movie because Spalding speaks too quickly. Some other foreign goons have talked about that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:That sounds like a screwup. The only times I've seen non-standard projection is Lawrence of Arabia (2.20:1 slightly pillarboxed in 2.40:1) and Jurassic World (2.00:1 letterboxed in 1.85:1). The director wanted a wider image than 1.85:1 would allow, but also wanted something taller than 2.35:1 since he's dealing with dinosaurs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Here's one of the widest images ever in cinema: (from Abel Gance's Napoleon)
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Here's one of the widest images ever in cinema: I'm hopeful this is coming to blu-ray at some point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
As great as this is, it must look very odd on a TV screen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Zogo posted:I'm hopeful this is coming to blu-ray at some point. BFI is releasing a 3-disc set on Nov. 21. Final specs aren't out yet, but it features a newly recorded orchestral score by Carl Davis in 7.1. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Napoleon-3-Disc-Blu-ray-Albert-Dieudonne/dp/B01J7WSDEQ/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1475096916&sr=8-2&keywords=napoleon (Obviously, you'll need an all region player) Samuel Clemens posted:As great as this is, it must look very odd on a TV screen. Not the largest image, but on a huge display or projection system, it should look impressive. I bet the US edition will end up "smileboxing" the image like the Cinerama films to maximize detail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:BFI is releasing a 3-disc set on Nov. 21. Final specs aren't out yet, but it features a newly recorded orchestral score by Carl Davis in 7.1. "The triptych ending for this film is made up of 3 separate 1.33:1 images, resulting in a presentation ratio of approx. 4:1."  My patience is paying off apparently. I suppose I'd settle for smileboxing but I wouldn't mind 4:1 at all. On a 16x9 TV that's still nearly half (44.4%) of the screen. Not too different from watching 2.39 on a 4x3 TV.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
It's worth noting that Napoleon isn't the only film to use multiple projectors besides the Cinerama films. For worlds fairs and expos, many films were shot in special formats. To Be Alive! was shot and edited with three 1.33:1 35mm images side-by-side. You can actually see this in a special theater at the S.J. Johnson headquarters. It won an Oscar for Best Short Film in 1965, apparently they used the same system of copying the three 35mm images to a single 70mm frame. It was originally shown at the 1964 World's Fair. In the Labyrinth was funded by the National Film Board of Canada. Though, it's unique in that it features five 35mm images. Three in the center and one each on the top and bottom, in a cross configuration. Originally shown at Expo '67. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1BT1xt6yq8 A Place to Stand was also shown at Canada's Expo '67, though it features variable images within a 70mm frame: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt-5tAWJxvU There's also the Circle-Vision 360 films shown at the Disney parks. I saw the one about China and it was quite impressive, though, they intentionally keeps the screens divided rather than attempt a seamless panorama.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
A new cut supervised by Terrence Malick of Voyage of Time is coming out in 3.60:1 "ultra-widescreen" Seems like it'll also lose the voice-over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:Final Cut and Adobe started it, but you can pretty much drag and drop in any program and start editing. The problem is you have editors taking a quick 8 hour course at the Apple Store or some crash course avid class and the workflow isn't drilled into them. I despise the Avid interface, but the forced nature of its media management is nice, definitely. My company has held onto FCP7 for years, and now uses Premiere, and the footage headaches I've encountered in both have been just nightmarish. Fortunately, my company's footage ingest is fairly comprehensive and we tend to impose a standard even though these platforms don't require it. But freelance editors having no internalized standards makes every project a crapshoot. Cleaning up sequences and sorting out idiosyncrasies with mixed formats is a constant struggle...particularly with Premiere, which is codec-agnostic until export, so you may not realize there's a major problem until you start onlining/finishing. My current bane is client delivery "for social," because the parameters for that seem all over the goddamn map and are almost never discussed as part of a scope of work. Weird aspect ratios, composition changes for graphics/subtitles, hard-subs vs. SRT's...whatever intentionality behind compositional choices made by the DoP, director, editor, graphic designer, etc., can be totally up-ended on zero notice. "We need this recomposed for 4x3 with hard-subs added to post to social by EOD." Welp, hope none of those parties were invested in the piece looking a certain way, because marketing decided [thing] for [reasons]. It's frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Marketing should probably be shot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Does anyone in the first world, under the age of 70, still own a 4:3 TV? A question from four months and one page ago  , but I still own a 17" 4:3 CRT specifically for use with my old game consoles, so that I can, without irony, experience them as in my glorious 90s childhood: coming through an RF or composite signal onto a 480i screen.Surprisingly, for some games, this can actually matter. Blaster Master is perhaps the best known example, but there are a number of other titles (Mega Man 2, several Castlevanias, Actraiser, etc) which actually had their color balancing done with an eye for what the end product coming through RF/composite would look like. (You can view some comparisons here, though it's a pretty old site.) While I know some folks are obsessive about RGB modding old consoles, that isn't actually what a lot of developers intended as the final display - they knew what kind of actual display color space the vast majority of consumers were going to be working with, and they adjusted the colors in the renderer to produce the actual color balance they desired at the end. Blaster Master is the big example again, but that game actually doesn't look right unless it's "suffering" the color crushing from RF. A number of colors don't even match correctly without it. So leading back to more film-like chat, on that note: were there any television shows or other made-for-TV filmed media that did something similar? Theatrical film, I imagine, never had this problem because of this magical device called the film projector, as it turns out, but between 1962 and 1995 or so, everyone involved in television must have known that whatever the initial edit looked like was going to go through the hell of RF before reaching people's eyeballs. So are there notable stories of films or shows factoring this in to their production? I would imagine there are, I just don't know of any. ruddiger posted:I once got an HDCam in and was told to digitize it and re-export for file delivery. Cool, what format, frame rate, etc? I get an email with just one word. Anamorphic. It's been said, but fuckin'  . Anamorphic, sure, I'll get right on that, chief.Xealot posted:My current bane is client delivery "for social," because the parameters for that seem all over the goddamn map and are almost never discussed as part of a scope of work. That's also great because yeah, "for social" is meaningless. Do they want a Facebook post? Twitter? Youtube? All of the above (and that might require different ARs, depending on how you want it to look)? SpaceDrake fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 04:00 |
|
|
I love watchin old talk shows & the backdrop is supposed to be like a bookcase or somethin but is clearly completely flat
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 06:27
|
|
