Enough for me. Unsubscribing...Originally Posted by Bertzie
Hehe, chronic masturbation on the other hand ISN'T...
But hey, this conversation went from saying more frames per second is better for 3D to jerking off being good for you... I think the train went way off the rails here.
Popularity wins out.
Hate is a strong word. I will say that most any action film to date would have been MUCH better at even 48fps.
Scripts, plots, props, ratings, box office grosses and other such things have nothing to do with this discussion. Don't cloud the issue. What you have here are some major action movie creators all saying the same thing.... this archaic 24p crap has to go because it's holding up modern movie making and technology.... and I'm in 100% agreement. In this day and age of flat screen tv's, higher home-movie watching rates, higher scan rates, better theater equipment, incoming 3D, etc.... it's time for this money-saving, war era, old and decrepit 24 frame rate to hit the highway.
But, that seems to be an important part of the "film look" so many here strive for - even though they don't always know what it is...
Personally, I've always preferred smooth motion.
In 3D especially, any time parallax will mess with your eyes/brain. I looked at one of the most expensive Sony 3D TVs recently, and the 3D image was just horrible. Nothing beats the old dual 70 mm technology... especially if run at a higher frame rate than 24 fps!
He certainly isn't in UK where he made a reputation for himself as an unholy terror during the shooting of Aliens.
More equipment than talent
[QUOTE=Bob Sanders;424900]
Originally Posted by HueyNRolf
Sure they make movies that a lot of people like and McDonald's sells a lot of burgers too.
Well there we have it.
The Korova milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence.
Or here we have three popular but bad movie makers saying the same thing. Don't cloud the issue.
The Korova milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence.
Well if the brain stops developing at 12-years old. Hacking the goofy becomes the measure.
The Korova milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence.
I've also always preferred smooth motion. I've felt that way LONG before the advent of HD and all the latest video innovations. I"ve gone to the theater and seen action movies and thought, man, that's just so blurry! Later I leaned it was "judder" from 24 fps, and I don't really like it.But, that seems to be an important part of the "film look" so many here strive for - even though they don't always know what it is...
Personally, I've always preferred smooth motion.
This is what I think is going on. Video started off looking like utter crap. The "soap opera" effect that no one likes, the bad video of the 80's.
Then we got better video, and people started trying to make video look like film to avoid the soap opera effect.
So what did we do? First came the SD DVX cameras with some better color options, going for a "neutral" look, then tweaking it in post to get closer to a film color. Then you put a DoF adapter on it to get some shallow depth of field like film, and finally you want the 24 fps, 24p, so you can get the same film judder to fool the eye and make it look as much as possible like film.
Hey, if it's blurry like film, it must not be crappy soap opera video!
But then came the HD cameras with better color space, DSLR's with lenses so no need for DoF adapter, and much more dynamic range and better contrast ratios.
We start finding out that you don't need to copy film, you can actually create a pretty image that is not film, but also not crappy soap opera video. Does it look just like film? No. Is it still pretty? Yes!
And we can drop the 24fps and the judder, and still create something that looks great. We don't need to fool people and make them believe it's not crappy soap opera video by making it blurry like film. It already looks good with expanded color space, dynamic range, contrast ratio, without having to add the exact blur of film.
PLUS! with the new low light capabilities of modern video cameras we can get closer to a film look in lighting without a million dollars worth of lighting equipment and 10K HMI's.
That doesn't mean you want no blur. With no blur you start to get the Private Ryan effect, and that's good for action sequences, but you dont' want to shoot the whole movie like that. But do you need the 24fps blur of film ot make a pretty image? No, I don't think so.
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
Intended or not, but this is a beautiful sentence.chronic masturbation on the other hand
"It is dark the other side. Very dark!" - "Oh, shut up and eat your toast!"
You can think they're bad all you want. Hell, there are people out there that think Fred Phelps is a good person. But the fact remains that until you make something worth caring about, their opinion is worth more than yours.
What opinion is that? All I'm saying is that I don't like their movies, that's my taste it's neither right nor wrong.
The Korova milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence.
That's your opinion and it's not sharered by the MILLIONS who paid to watch... and bought the dvd/blu ray. But again this is not the issue... stop clouding it. 24p MISSES... OMITS....SKIPS...DELETES valuable information that would otherwise be viewed and seen if a better frame rate was chosen.... and VIEWING a film is what it's all about.
Really? So why now? Showscan has been around since the 70s, if the consumer, the MILLIONS who paid to watch... and bought the dvd/blu ray, were that dissatisfied with 24p, the industry would've gone broke a long time ago.
The Korova milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence.
So many 'here' strive for?? Not me.
You get the "film look" by shooting on film. This is the digital era... we don't use film anymore.... and if you think the 24p coming (for example) from the HV20 looks anything like film then you have a screw loose. The cameras they use in Hollywood produce that "film look" not just by frame rate either. You can mimic a "film look" from 60p if the cam is expensive enough and the editing is done PROPERLY.
Clearly stated in the video. 3D is the driving force and it has shown 24p's weak side. No one has bothered to look seriously at other alternatives...... UNTIL now.
Last edited by Bob Sanders; 2012 January 6th at 20:07.
And when this latest renaissance of 3D goes the way of the dodo?
"And lastly, the question of immersion. 3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective" relationship to the image. It is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas if the film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" the picture in a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with.
So: dark, small, stroby, headache inducing, alienating. And expensive. The question is: how long will it take people to realize and get fed up?
All best wishes,
Walter Murch"
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html
The Korova milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence.
Crap is a strong word.
Vice President, Team HVFF - http://hvfffollowfocus.webs.com/ HV Follow Focus
Proud owner CamDolly - Modular Camera Dolly and Slider System
I'd be very interested in a screening of a 10 minute action piece in 24p followed by the same thing in Showscan. I mean a screening in a theatre. I like to critically view them, one after the other. Preferably 'Game of Death'.
Name a feature film that received a wide release that was filmed on Showscan. Showscan failed for one very obvious reason: it's bloody expensive. The switch now makes sense, because it's all being shot digital, and digital is an asston and a half cheaper. It's only been the last couple years that cameras even capable of shooting high enough resolution at those framerates have been available.
Utter nonsense more like.
The Korova milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence.
But is there a need? Mrs HnR goes to the movies and she says that modern movies look terrific at the cinema, she had no idea about the frame rate and hasn't noticed any of the adverse effects discussed here. I wonder what the MILLIONS who paid to watch... and bought the dvd/blu ray would say?
The Korova milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence.
Of course there isn't a need. We don't need movies at all. But why settle for what's acceptable, when you can make it even better? How many people have HDTVs, but don't even watch HD content? Most cars today can go over 100mph, but most of them will never break 80.
When it comes to entertainment, the question isn't why. It's why not?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
