Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

A Thread About Movies

1444547495099

Posts

  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    The thing is though, there's nothing wrong with 24fps. There's no reason to go for a higher framerate. Higher frame rates are nothing new; they've been around basically since the dawn of film. Over the past century, with plenty of options in both directions, people have mostly decided that 24 looks the best. Yes, if a film is good enough, people could probably 'get past' it looking weird, but there's no reason they should have to.
    The higher frame rate is the main reason why I haven't switched to Blu-Ray yet:
    Currently at least, it typically has more to do with settings on the TV. I watch films on BluRay all the time, and they're always the correct frame rate.

    24 fps was chosen because it's easy to divide into parts of seconds and it was the lowest acceptable framerate which cut film costs. It wasn't chosen because it looks best.
    Over the years though, higher frame rates have been tried, and people have always gone back to 24. Whatever the reason it was originally chosen, there's a reason we're still using it for the vast majority of films in 2012.

    As was pointed out earlier, part of it has to do with the uncanny valley. This isn't as much of an issue for films in realistic settings with people doing realistic things, but as soon as you start adding effects, specialized sets, etc, it makes it easy for the increased detail to take the viewer out of it. That slight motion blur causes it to be just far enough from 'real' looking that our brains can make the distinction and process it as its own thing. It's why so many people think higher frame rates look 'wrong' or 'fake'. Not just because they're used to 24.

  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    Heisenberg wrote: »
    Blu-Ray has nothing to do with framerate, it's all on the TV or how the movie itself was filmed.

    I'm firmly in the camp that no proper film should ever be higher than 24 frames per second. It just destroys immersion once you go higher, and there's no point. There's a reason why it's worked for a century. Doesn't surprise me that The Hobbit's 48 fps was panned. I don't know why the idea of increasing it was ever presented in the first place. It's like filmmakers got bored and decided to try to fix what isn't broken.

    You can do a lot more trickeration when you literally have more frames to work with?

    Also the Great Gatsby in 3D eh?

    Well ok.

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • DeaderinredDeaderinred Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Its all to do with getting people to go the cinema to see new shit they can't get at home. They thought 3d was it and it wasn't, 48fps and imax are the next "big" things and i think imax has more of a shot of being the future of cinema after this 48fps mess.

    They just need to start using it with more than an hours worth of footage and cinema chains (well mine anyway) need to stop putting a surcharge on those films it shows in the imax screens when not a single frame has been filmed at imax 70mm, that pisses me off more. I actually have to check imdb to make sure if any of it was shot that way before putting down for an imax ticket, otherwise the picture is just blown up and blurrier.

    Deaderinred on
  • ThomamelasThomamelas Now you run on home to your mother, and tell her tell her everything's all right. And there aren't any more guns in the valley. Registered User regular
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    The thing is though, there's nothing wrong with 24fps. There's no reason to go for a higher framerate. Higher frame rates are nothing new; they've been around basically since the dawn of film. Over the past century, with plenty of options in both directions, people have mostly decided that 24 looks the best. Yes, if a film is good enough, people could probably 'get past' it looking weird, but there's no reason they should have to.
    The higher frame rate is the main reason why I haven't switched to Blu-Ray yet:
    Currently at least, it typically has more to do with settings on the TV. I watch films on BluRay all the time, and they're always the correct frame rate.

    24 fps was chosen because it's easy to divide into parts of seconds and it was the lowest acceptable framerate which cut film costs. It wasn't chosen because it looks best.
    Over the years though, higher frame rates have been tried, and people have always gone back to 24. Whatever the reason it was originally chosen, there's a reason we're still using it for the vast majority of films in 2012.

    As was pointed out earlier, part of it has to do with the uncanny valley. This isn't as much of an issue for films in realistic settings with people doing realistic things, but as soon as you start adding effects, specialized sets, etc, it makes it easy for the increased detail to take the viewer out of it. That slight motion blur causes it to be just far enough from 'real' looking that our brains can make the distinction and process it as its own thing. It's why so many people think higher frame rates look 'wrong' or 'fake'. Not just because they're used to 24.

    It's not an uncanny valley effect, it's the elimination of jutter and some other artifacts that came from accepting a system that was good enough. That's what people are decrying as not looking like film. Shooting at 48 fps doesn't eliminate motion blur, it does reduce it, and it increases the clarity of detail during movement. You're generally always going to get some blur during motion as long as you use a system involving a shutter.

    Effectively we've trained ourselves to think 24 fps is best, that doesn't mean there is some reason that actually makes it best.

  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    Its all to do with getting people to go the cinema to see new shit they can't get at home. They thought 3d was it and it wasn't, 48fps and imax are the next "big" things and i think imax has more of a shot of being the future of cinema after this 48fps mess.

    So true. The 3D thing cracks me up. It didn't work in the 50s, it didn't work in the 80s, they need to quit trotting out this horse every thirty-some-odd years. Let that old paint sit in the pasture where it belongs.

    And even IMAX isn't that big of a deal. It's really not appreciably more amazing than Cinerama was as a concept.


  • AtomikaAtomika Suicide Squab Registered User regular
    Its all to do with getting people to go the cinema to see new shit they can't get at home. They thought 3d was it and it wasn't, 48fps and imax are the next "big" things and i think imax has more of a shot of being the future of cinema after this 48fps mess.

    So true. The 3D thing cracks me up. It didn't work in the 50s, it didn't work in the 80s, they need to quit trotting out this horse every thirty-some-odd years. Let that old paint sit in the pasture where it belongs.

    And even IMAX isn't that big of a deal. It's really not appreciably more amazing than Cinerama was as a concept.

    Agreed.

    While I'll cop to having a soft spot for the early FX work George Lucas pioneered with ILM, all of that was in the service of creating a more tactile and plausible setting for your story. Simply put, 48fps solves a problem no one is having. All the other advances in projections since the inception of cinema have solved visual problems or enhanced the viewing experience, even Cinerama (which was ridiculously complicated). The 16fps of the Silent Era was shot too slow, resulting in exposure blowout and movement that appeared too fast. The small aspect lenses of the early Talkies didn't take in enough light. Sound was introduced because, fuck it, we wanted to hear movies, not read them. Full scope finally let movies take up the full breadth of the human visual field, which also changed the visual narrative methods of film forever. Digital projection finally removed all impurities that can affect projected celluloid, like light degradation, scratches and dust, poor syncing, and overuse.


    48fps doesn't affect cinema the way those other changes do. No one is asking for it. No one has a problem with the current standard. It doesn't change the narrative, it doesn't improve the scope or visual field. It's just different. Change has to be necessitated for anyone to buy in, and I just don't see it.

  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    48fps doesn't affect cinema the way those other changes do. No one is asking for it. No one has a problem with the current standard. It doesn't change the narrative, it doesn't improve the scope or visual field. It's just different. Change has to be necessitated for anyone to buy in, and I just don't see it.

    You need to see my response in The Hobbit thread. It sounds like 48fps worsens the experience.

    Also, I'm a fogey regarding film in that I actually like film. I'm tired of people not knowing how to shoot digitally. Roger Deakins is seemingly the only guy of note who can get it to be "filmy." If I see one more digital movie that varies between movie-like and home-video-esque or is tinted green I could spit.

    Mad King George on
  • DracomicronDracomicron Registered User regular
    Alien: Ressurection's key failing is that I did not care about any of the characters, really. The rogues were not lovable. Ripley wasn't even Ripley (a point they drive home with the cloned failures scene). The only person I had any empathy for was the Winonadroid.

    Spoilered because not everyone wants to see me get this off my chest.
    But, beyond that, there were so many missed opportunities for a great action sequence that they just let slip by. Like, there's a segment where they make a huge deal about how it's a hundred yards to the ship, and someone else expresses doubt that they can make it that far.

    Then, instead of an Aliens-style running battle frought with gunfire, danger, and general awesomeness, not-Ripley gets sucked through the floor for alien twincest and a disgusting reprise of the final battle of the first two movies. Everyone else pretty much gets to the ship without incident.

    What? I understand that subverting expectations is a fun thing that can happen, but there's a right way and a wrong way to do it, and they pretty much took exactly the wrong way for the kind of movie it was supposed to be.

    Gary Gygax wrote:
    ''The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.''
  • AtomikaAtomika Suicide Squab Registered User regular
    48fps doesn't affect cinema the way those other changes do. No one is asking for it. No one has a problem with the current standard. It doesn't change the narrative, it doesn't improve the scope or visual field. It's just different. Change has to be necessitated for anyone to buy in, and I just don't see it.

    You need to see my response in The Hobbit thread. It sounds like 48fps worsens the experience.

    Also, I'm a fogey regarding film in that I actually like film. I'm tired of people not knowing how to shoot digitally. Roger Deakins is seemingly the only guy of note who can get it to be "filmy." If I see one more digital movie that varies between movie-like and home-video-esque or is tinted green I could spit.

    Yeah, the whole digital revolution has largely been dominated by people using the medium because it's cheaper and faster, not better.

    I remember when they bragged a few years ago that House, MD was now being shot on the Canon 5DMKII, like that was some improvement on the previous method. The blacks were still blown out and the contrast was poor.

  • mnihilmnihil Registered User regular
    I don't mean to interrupt the Hobbit/framerate discussion, but I just saw Cabin in the Woods (I know I'm about two pages late to that party), and don't quite get it, I believe. Either I don't get the movie, or the furore.
    Please correct me if I'm wrong any step of this way: It essentially relies on two twists, number one being its post-modern meta schtick, number two that the corporation isn't actually evil, because they're effectively saving the world.
    Regarding the latter, I just don't see it. By the end of the movie, I still considered them the villains. They are detached, it's their "job" to kill people on a regular basis. They bet on the creatures, effectively making it a game. They have several of these games going on at a time, in at least one instance involving little school girls they are rooting against - how is that not evil? Especially considering how each game is just a contingency plan to the other games going on - all the other rituals have failed, meaning that it just takes one of these rituals to be successful to keep the Ancient Ones sealed away. So while the fun and games surrounding the horrific events could be explained away as a coping mechanism, I guess, the rest of it really can't be, in my opinion. Leaving these guys plainly evil.
    But what if that doesn't matter? What if that isn't the intended second big twist. Well... the first twist, how the horror is controlled by this corporation... that much was obvious from the trailer. The horror film genre deconstruction via corporation = film maker analogy was handled well, I think, but not so well that it warrants such euphoria from critics and the audience. Not that success is a bad thing, but treating this like nothing short of the reinvention of the wheel? Because ultimately I just don't know what this movie is or wants. You can't root for the supposed heroes (the five), because they are utterly powerless (whenever they realize what's happening or want to do something smart, the corporation simply intervenes), and you can't root for the ... actual? heroes, because they're evil fucks. I found that pretty frustrating. And if you're supposed to root for the Ancient Ones, I guess that's pretty much to ask, if you spend over an hour not even knowing of their existence.
    It's weird.

  • Delta AssaultDelta Assault Registered User regular
    mnihil wrote: »
    I don't mean to interrupt the Hobbit/framerate discussion, but I just saw Cabin in the Woods (I know I'm about two pages late to that party), and don't quite get it, I believe. Either I don't get the movie, or the furore.
    Please correct me if I'm wrong any step of this way: It essentially relies on two twists, number one being its post-modern meta schtick, number two that the corporation isn't actually evil, because they're effectively saving the world.
    Regarding the latter, I just don't see it. By the end of the movie, I still considered them the villains. They are detached, it's their "job" to kill people on a regular basis. They bet on the creatures, effectively making it a game. They have several of these games going on at a time, in at least one instance involving little school girls they are rooting against - how is that not evil? Especially considering how each game is just a contingency plan to the other games going on - all the other rituals have failed, meaning that it just takes one of these rituals to be successful to keep the Ancient Ones sealed away. So while the fun and games surrounding the horrific events could be explained away as a coping mechanism, I guess, the rest of it really can't be, in my opinion. Leaving these guys plainly evil.
    But what if that doesn't matter? What if that isn't the intended second big twist. Well... the first twist, how the horror is controlled by this corporation... that much was obvious from the trailer. The horror film genre deconstruction via corporation = film maker analogy was handled well, I think, but not so well that it warrants such euphoria from critics and the audience. Not that success is a bad thing, but treating this like nothing short of the reinvention of the wheel? Because ultimately I just don't know what this movie is or wants. You can't root for the supposed heroes (the five), because they are utterly powerless (whenever they realize what's happening or want to do something smart, the corporation simply intervenes), and you can't root for the ... actual? heroes, because they're evil fucks. I found that pretty frustrating. And if you're supposed to root for the Ancient Ones, I guess that's pretty much to ask, if you spend over an hour not even knowing of their existence.
    It's weird.

    I was definitely rooting for those kids in the cabin. Didn't find that difficult at all.

  • mnihilmnihil Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I was definitely rooting for those kids in the cabin. Didn't find that difficult at all.

    I was, too, up to the point where I felt it was pointless -
    at about the moment where the one guy says "we need to stay together", and the corporation triggers something to make him say that they need to split up, and shortly afterwards, Marty, who roughly grasps what's happening, is about to be drugged at the same time that the zombie happens to attack him. There was no winning for them, because everything was controlled. Meaning I wanted to root for them, but by the time they were all dead, I wasn't surprised. Of course, in the end they persevered, but that was an hour into the movie where I had essentially been educated in being jaded.
    The movie is good, it's doing a number of things right and interesting, but I'm left conflicted about a couple of things in it.

    mnihil on
  • pirateluigipirateluigi Arr, it be me. Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    mnihil wrote: »
    I was definitely rooting for those kids in the cabin. Didn't find that difficult at all.

    I was, too, up to the point where I felt it was pointless -
    at about the moment where the one guy says "we need to stay together", and the corporation triggers something to make him say that they need to split up, and shortly afterwards, Marty, who roughly grasps what's happening, is about to be drugged at the same time that the zombie happens to attack him. There was no winning for them, because everything was controlled. Meaning I wanted to root for them, but by the time they were all dead, I wasn't surprised. Of course, in the end they persevered, but that was an hour into the movie where I had essentially been educated in being jaded.
    The movie is good, it's doing a number of things right and interesting, but I'm left conflicted about a couple of things in it.

    I think CitW might suffer from some hype backlash from people that are going into the film looking for twists. It's not really about the twists, it's about the journey. I didn't really think there were any real twists, at least, not in the Shyamalan sense.

    pirateluigi on
    http://www.danreviewstheworld.com
    Nintendo Network ID - PirateLuigi 3DS: 3136-6586-7691
    G&T Grass Type Pokemon Gym Leader, In-Game Name: Dan
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    @mnihil
    mnihil wrote: »
    I was definitely rooting for those kids in the cabin. Didn't find that difficult at all.

    I was, too, up to the point where I felt it was pointless -
    at about the moment where the one guy says "we need to stay together", and the corporation triggers something to make him say that they need to split up, and shortly afterwards, Marty, who roughly grasps what's happening, is about to be drugged at the same time that the zombie happens to attack him. There was no winning for them, because everything was controlled. Meaning I wanted to root for them, but by the time they were all dead, I wasn't surprised. Of course, in the end they persevered, but that was an hour into the movie where I had essentially been educated in being jaded.
    The movie is good, it's doing a number of things right and interesting, but I'm left conflicted about a couple of things in it.

    Actually, you just need to take your observation one step deeper.
    You're correct, film trains you to be cynical and jaded about the whole thing; how else can you get an audience to empathize and agree with the decision that the kids make at the end? By the time the movie is over, annihilation of the human race seems like a pretty reasonable course of action, because man, we're dicks.

    Houn on
    Steam: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | NNID: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    It's not an uncanny valley effect, it's the elimination of jutter and some other artifacts that came from accepting a system that was good enough. That's what people are decrying as not looking like film. Shooting at 48 fps doesn't eliminate motion blur, it does reduce it, and it increases the clarity of detail during movement. You're generally always going to get some blur during motion as long as you use a system involving a shutter.

    Effectively we've trained ourselves to think 24 fps is best, that doesn't mean there is some reason that actually makes it best.

    Yes, it is an uncanny valley type effect. Because motion is noticeably smoother, the brain processes it differently than it would something shot at 24fps, and it's more likely to pick out things that a person wouldn't otherwise notice, dragging the audience out of the experience.

    This isn't a case of just retraining people's opinions on what films look like; it's more psychological than that.

  • Ok, so i am new to using forums in general, (never felt like voicing my opinion on anything,) but i couldn't figure out how to start a new thread. I wanted to ask if anyone had heard of michael bay directing the new ninja turtles movie?
    http://www.firstshowing.net/2012/michael-bay-confirms-new-tmnt-film-simply-called-ninja-turtles/
    and how they're changing the tmnt origin, no longer mutants but aliens? is there some way we can revolt and either lynch michael bay and or burn down paramount? seriously though, i don't understand the need to change essential plot elements, their origin is a big part of who they are, it makes them unique, now they're from an interdemension that is full of turtle people? good god, what is going on in the world? remember when the doom movie came out, and the baddies weren't demons? i feel like adaptations and remakes could be awesome if they stayed true to plot elements and story. i understand the necessity to change certain elements when you change mediums, say comic to big screen, or video game to big screen, but it seems like they mostly change things that are essential to why the story kicked ass in the first place. the new tmnt movie will be just as bad as doom with out hell.
    feel free to flame, i can take it, but more importantly, help get this topic some awarness with fans.

  • wanderingwandering Registered User regular
    One other missed opportunity in Alien 4 is that Ripley doesn't use her super fighting ability for anything much.

    be nice to cows
  • Xenogear_0001Xenogear_0001 Registered User regular
    Right? I kept waiting for her to straight up go hand to hand with one of the xenos, but if memory serves, that never took place.

    steam_sig.png
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    Cabin in the Woods has one twist:
    The "fool" is apparently killed off-screen, but in a twist, this turns out to be false.

    The rest of the movie has a gradually revealed premise, ala Seconds. As we grow to understand more and more about the film's premise our identification and desires should waver and become confused. "Who do I want to succeed here?" is a question that should have different answers across the board. The characters themselves exhibit this confusion several times throughout the film.

  • ThomamelasThomamelas Now you run on home to your mother, and tell her tell her everything's all right. And there aren't any more guns in the valley. Registered User regular
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    It's not an uncanny valley effect, it's the elimination of jutter and some other artifacts that came from accepting a system that was good enough. That's what people are decrying as not looking like film. Shooting at 48 fps doesn't eliminate motion blur, it does reduce it, and it increases the clarity of detail during movement. You're generally always going to get some blur during motion as long as you use a system involving a shutter.

    Effectively we've trained ourselves to think 24 fps is best, that doesn't mean there is some reason that actually makes it best.

    Yes, it is an uncanny valley type effect. Because motion is noticeably smoother, the brain processes it differently than it would something shot at 24fps, and it's more likely to pick out things that a person wouldn't otherwise notice, dragging the audience out of the experience.

    This isn't a case of just retraining people's opinions on what films look like; it's more psychological than that.

    No, this isn't an uncanny valley effect. The problem here is not that 48fps makes things too real, it's that it removes a cue that we have used to train ourselves that this is a film. It removes the judder that makes it blatantly obvious that we're watching a film. Things being crisper and more detailed doesn't destroy the movie going experience. If that was the case then Blu-Ray would have killed the movie industry. It would mean the jump to 2k or 4k would have ended movies. They haven't. And reducing the motion blur won't either. But the importance of motion blur in seeing has been over exposed due to computer graphics. Because early games had no blur at all, it could be jarring to the player. But you can never really eliminate the blur for movies. Not as long as we have a shutter in place. There will still be blurring at 48 fps, or at 96 fps, or 144 fps.

    24 fps wasn't chosen because it's psychologically optimal. It was chosen because it was the sweet spot between cheap and good enough. TV framerates at least have a little more thought behind them but they weren't chosen for being psychologically optimal.

  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    No, this isn't an uncanny valley effect. The problem here is not that 48fps makes things too real, it's that it removes a cue that we have used to train ourselves that this is a film. It removes the judder that makes it blatantly obvious that we're watching a film. Things being crisper and more detailed doesn't destroy the movie going experience. If that was the case then Blu-Ray would have killed the movie industry.
    Huh? Blu-ray aren't higher res/more detailed than what we see at the cinema, so I don't see how that argument holds any water. There's more detail on a 35mm film than a Blu-ray can hold, because the film has to hold up on a much, much bigger screen; the difference is that one is a digital medium whereas the other is analogue.

    Eagles on Pogo Sticks: Musings of a Goofy Beast
    http://goofybeast.wordpress.com
  • wanderingwandering Registered User regular
    Well people seem okay with 70mm and IMAX movies and they have more detail than 35mm.

    be nice to cows
  • ThomamelasThomamelas Now you run on home to your mother, and tell her tell her everything's all right. And there aren't any more guns in the valley. Registered User regular
    Thirith wrote: »
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    No, this isn't an uncanny valley effect. The problem here is not that 48fps makes things too real, it's that it removes a cue that we have used to train ourselves that this is a film. It removes the judder that makes it blatantly obvious that we're watching a film. Things being crisper and more detailed doesn't destroy the movie going experience. If that was the case then Blu-Ray would have killed the movie industry.
    Huh? Blu-ray aren't higher res/more detailed than what we see at the cinema, so I don't see how that argument holds any water. There's more detail on a 35mm film than a Blu-ray can hold, because the film has to hold up on a much, much bigger screen; the difference is that one is a digital medium whereas the other is analogue.

    No, but it is much higher in resolution then VHS. And 4k looks like it will be effectively slightly higher in resolution then 35mm. But my point is that an increase in resolution and clarity isn't going to break immersion.

  • BloodySlothBloodySloth Registered User regular
    I'm not even sure that Uncanny Valley is a phrase that's being correctly applied here. As far as I know, that refers to the fact that near-human fakes like humanoid robots and puppets can be really unsettling. This is just the increase of framerate making people think that the movie looks like a low budget TV movie or soap opera. I'm increasingly of the mind that this is just a cultural thing based on the difference between television and traditional film framerates.

  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    The frame rate is by far the bigger issue. As close as can be compared, 35mm film generally has a higher 'resolution' than 4k.

    Uncanny Valley isn't the exact right term for this frame rate issue, but it's not difficult to infer from that what's being said.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Ok, so i am new to using forums in general, (never felt like voicing my opinion on anything,) but i couldn't figure out how to start a new thread. I wanted to ask if anyone had heard of michael bay directing the new ninja turtles movie?
    http://www.firstshowing.net/2012/michael-bay-confirms-new-tmnt-film-simply-called-ninja-turtles/
    and how they're changing the tmnt origin, no longer mutants but aliens? is there some way we can revolt and either lynch michael bay and or burn down paramount? seriously though, i don't understand the need to change essential plot elements, their origin is a big part of who they are, it makes them unique, now they're from an interdemension that is full of turtle people? good god, what is going on in the world? remember when the doom movie came out, and the baddies weren't demons? i feel like adaptations and remakes could be awesome if they stayed true to plot elements and story. i understand the necessity to change certain elements when you change mediums, say comic to big screen, or video game to big screen, but it seems like they mostly change things that are essential to why the story kicked ass in the first place. the new tmnt movie will be just as bad as doom with out hell.
    feel free to flame, i can take it, but more importantly, help get this topic some awarness with fans.

    You're a bit late. Bay blew his credibility with the Transformers franchise. That said, there's a slight chance it won't suck (that much) since Bay is only the producer not the director.

    Speaking of bad news Orzi and Kurtzman will be writing the script for the Amazing Spider-man sequel. :evil:

  • ThomamelasThomamelas Now you run on home to your mother, and tell her tell her everything's all right. And there aren't any more guns in the valley. Registered User regular
    The frame rate is by far the bigger issue. As close as can be compared, 35mm film generally has a higher 'resolution' than 4k.

    Uncanny Valley isn't the exact right term for this frame rate issue, but it's not difficult to infer from that what's being said.

    35mm negs are. 35mm prints that have gone through post production aren't. You can see the difference on film that's gone through a 4k transfer. You can see the grain patterns from the lower quality of the print.

  • AtomikaAtomika Suicide Squab Registered User regular
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    You can see the grain patterns from the lower quality of the print.

    All film has grain, if it's actual celluloid film we're talking about.

    That's not a flaw, it's science. That's how silver sulfide works.

  • ThomamelasThomamelas Now you run on home to your mother, and tell her tell her everything's all right. And there aren't any more guns in the valley. Registered User regular
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    You can see the grain patterns from the lower quality of the print.

    All film has grain, if it's actual celluloid film we're talking about.

    That's not a flaw, it's science. That's how silver sulfide works.

    I'm aware of that. I'm pointing out that the amount of information in any bit of film stock isn't infinite. The grain of the film is a limiting factor for how much detail you can have.

  • CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Ascension. Ascension. Hallelujah. Registered User regular
    Ok, so i am new to using forums in general, (never felt like voicing my opinion on anything,) but i couldn't figure out how to start a new thread. I wanted to ask if anyone had heard of michael bay directing the new ninja turtles movie?
    http://www.firstshowing.net/2012/michael-bay-confirms-new-tmnt-film-simply-called-ninja-turtles/
    and how they're changing the tmnt origin, no longer mutants but aliens? is there some way we can revolt and either lynch michael bay and or burn down paramount? seriously though, i don't understand the need to change essential plot elements, their origin is a big part of who they are, it makes them unique, now they're from an interdemension that is full of turtle people? good god, what is going on in the world? remember when the doom movie came out, and the baddies weren't demons? i feel like adaptations and remakes could be awesome if they stayed true to plot elements and story. i understand the necessity to change certain elements when you change mediums, say comic to big screen, or video game to big screen, but it seems like they mostly change things that are essential to why the story kicked ass in the first place. the new tmnt movie will be just as bad as doom with out hell.
    feel free to flame, i can take it, but more importantly, help get this topic some awarness with fans.

    You're a bit late. Bay blew his credibility with the Transformers franchise. That said, there's a slight chance it won't suck (that much) since Bay is only the producer not the director.

    Speaking of bad news Orzi and Kurtzman will be writing the script for the Amazing Spider-man sequel. :evil:

    I liked Star Trek. And Cloverfield. And Fringe.

    So.....

    No trouble there.

    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    Star Trek is a very good movie.

    With a just terrible script.

    Quire.jpg
  • TheBigEasyTheBigEasy Registered User regular
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Thirith wrote: »
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    No, this isn't an uncanny valley effect. The problem here is not that 48fps makes things too real, it's that it removes a cue that we have used to train ourselves that this is a film. It removes the judder that makes it blatantly obvious that we're watching a film. Things being crisper and more detailed doesn't destroy the movie going experience. If that was the case then Blu-Ray would have killed the movie industry.
    Huh? Blu-ray aren't higher res/more detailed than what we see at the cinema, so I don't see how that argument holds any water. There's more detail on a 35mm film than a Blu-ray can hold, because the film has to hold up on a much, much bigger screen; the difference is that one is a digital medium whereas the other is analogue.

    No, but it is much higher in resolution then VHS. And 4k looks like it will be effectively slightly higher in resolution then 35mm. But my point is that an increase in resolution and clarity isn't going to break immersion.

    Actually I think it does. Blu Rays for instance always look like a documentary to me, not a film. And most of the movies have been shot with real film technology, not HD cameras or something. It kinda takes me out of the experience.

  • BloodySlothBloodySloth Registered User regular
    TheBigEasy wrote: »
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Thirith wrote: »
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    No, this isn't an uncanny valley effect. The problem here is not that 48fps makes things too real, it's that it removes a cue that we have used to train ourselves that this is a film. It removes the judder that makes it blatantly obvious that we're watching a film. Things being crisper and more detailed doesn't destroy the movie going experience. If that was the case then Blu-Ray would have killed the movie industry.
    Huh? Blu-ray aren't higher res/more detailed than what we see at the cinema, so I don't see how that argument holds any water. There's more detail on a 35mm film than a Blu-ray can hold, because the film has to hold up on a much, much bigger screen; the difference is that one is a digital medium whereas the other is analogue.

    No, but it is much higher in resolution then VHS. And 4k looks like it will be effectively slightly higher in resolution then 35mm. But my point is that an increase in resolution and clarity isn't going to break immersion.

    Actually I think it does. Blu Rays for instance always look like a documentary to me, not a film. And most of the movies have been shot with real film technology, not HD cameras or something. It kinda takes me out of the experience.

    Actual movies playing in the theater still have better picture quality than blu-rays, though, don't they? Any perceived fakeness from watching blu-rays at home is more likely something to do with how your TV is presenting the image rather than the better resolution somehow making it look more fake.

  • AtomikaAtomika Suicide Squab Registered User regular
    TheBigEasy wrote: »
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Thirith wrote: »
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    No, this isn't an uncanny valley effect. The problem here is not that 48fps makes things too real, it's that it removes a cue that we have used to train ourselves that this is a film. It removes the judder that makes it blatantly obvious that we're watching a film. Things being crisper and more detailed doesn't destroy the movie going experience. If that was the case then Blu-Ray would have killed the movie industry.
    Huh? Blu-ray aren't higher res/more detailed than what we see at the cinema, so I don't see how that argument holds any water. There's more detail on a 35mm film than a Blu-ray can hold, because the film has to hold up on a much, much bigger screen; the difference is that one is a digital medium whereas the other is analogue.

    No, but it is much higher in resolution then VHS. And 4k looks like it will be effectively slightly higher in resolution then 35mm. But my point is that an increase in resolution and clarity isn't going to break immersion.

    Actually I think it does. Blu Rays for instance always look like a documentary to me, not a film. And most of the movies have been shot with real film technology, not HD cameras or something. It kinda takes me out of the experience.

    Actual movies playing in the theater still have better picture quality than blu-rays, though, don't they? Any perceived fakeness from watching blu-rays at home is more likely something to do with how your TV is presenting the image rather than the better resolution somehow making it look more fake.

    It depends.

    At the very least, a blu-ray being played on a high-end 1080p television is going to look virtually indistinguishable from what you see at the movies, but that's kind of the whole problem.

    Film negatives are basically "perfect," whereas any digital representation is just trying to approximate a level of perfection wherein the flaws are too small for the human eye to perceive.

    It's one of the reasons I prefer DLP televisions over plasma and LCD. Your image isn't quite as sharp, but it's much smoother.

  • TheBigEasyTheBigEasy Registered User regular
    My problem with HD movies isn't that they are not perfect enough - they are too perfect. I am not sure if this even fits into the current discussion about movie frame rates or if this is a problem of high end and high resolution TV sets. But if on a normal TV you put a movie next to a news reel or some documentary, there is a noticable difference. Without looking at the context of the footage show, I know what is the movie and what is the documentary/real life footage.

    A blu ray on an HD TV set blurs that difference - making to movie look too real and too much like a documentary.

    I am not sure I can acurately explain it all, plus I am not sure what makes movies look like movies in the first place - but it is noticable and it is actually bothering me a little in regards to blu rays.

  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck the search for the means to put an end to things an end to speech is what enables the discourse to continue ~ * ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) excelsior * ~Registered User regular
    so much failure to distinguish between "what im used to" and "what would be best if we got used to it" in dis tred

    obF2Wuw.png
  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    The film was discussed a while ago, so I'm not going to say much, but I greatly enjoyed (500) Days of Summer, which I watched yesterday. Definitely saw a lot of my (younger) self in Tom, though I hope that I've grown out of most of it.

    I was surprised by how non-quirky the characters are on the whole; I half-expected Summer to go all MPDG (at least in Tom's perspective), but she's a pretty well-grounded girl. (I choose to ignore the "Penis!" scene in saying this.)

    Eagles on Pogo Sticks: Musings of a Goofy Beast
    http://goofybeast.wordpress.com
  • AtomikaAtomika Suicide Squab Registered User regular
    TheBigEasy wrote: »
    My problem with HD movies isn't that they are not perfect enough - they are too perfect. I am not sure if this even fits into the current discussion about movie frame rates or if this is a problem of high end and high resolution TV sets. But if on a normal TV you put a movie next to a news reel or some documentary, there is a noticable difference. Without looking at the context of the footage show, I know what is the movie and what is the documentary/real life footage.

    A blu ray on an HD TV set blurs that difference - making to movie look too real and too much like a documentary.

    I am not sure I can acurately explain it all, plus I am not sure what makes movies look like movies in the first place - but it is noticable and it is actually bothering me a little in regards to blu rays.

    Again, I think has more to do with the settings on whatever TV you're watching this on.

    Blu-Ray is just a storage medium, and it only shows what has been burned onto it. It's actually extremely faithful to its source mastering.

  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    TheBigEasy wrote: »
    My problem with HD movies isn't that they are not perfect enough - they are too perfect. I am not sure if this even fits into the current discussion about movie frame rates or if this is a problem of high end and high resolution TV sets. But if on a normal TV you put a movie next to a news reel or some documentary, there is a noticable difference. Without looking at the context of the footage show, I know what is the movie and what is the documentary/real life footage.

    A blu ray on an HD TV set blurs that difference - making to movie look too real and too much like a documentary.

    I am not sure I can acurately explain it all, plus I am not sure what makes movies look like movies in the first place - but it is noticable and it is actually bothering me a little in regards to blu rays.

    Again, I think has more to do with the settings on whatever TV you're watching this on.

    Yup.

    Poorly-calibrated TVs all up ins.

    adytum on
    etxvv5.jpg
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Ok, so i am new to using forums in general, (never felt like voicing my opinion on anything,) but i couldn't figure out how to start a new thread. I wanted to ask if anyone had heard of michael bay directing the new ninja turtles movie?
    http://www.firstshowing.net/2012/michael-bay-confirms-new-tmnt-film-simply-called-ninja-turtles/
    and how they're changing the tmnt origin, no longer mutants but aliens? is there some way we can revolt and either lynch michael bay and or burn down paramount? seriously though, i don't understand the need to change essential plot elements, their origin is a big part of who they are, it makes them unique, now they're from an interdemension that is full of turtle people? good god, what is going on in the world? remember when the doom movie came out, and the baddies weren't demons? i feel like adaptations and remakes could be awesome if they stayed true to plot elements and story. i understand the necessity to change certain elements when you change mediums, say comic to big screen, or video game to big screen, but it seems like they mostly change things that are essential to why the story kicked ass in the first place. the new tmnt movie will be just as bad as doom with out hell.
    feel free to flame, i can take it, but more importantly, help get this topic some awarness with fans.

    You're a bit late. Bay blew his credibility with the Transformers franchise. That said, there's a slight chance it won't suck (that much) since Bay is only the producer not the director.

    Speaking of bad news Orzi and Kurtzman will be writing the script for the Amazing Spider-man sequel. :evil:

    I liked Star Trek. And Cloverfield. And Fringe.

    So.....

    No trouble there.

    Drew Goddard wrote Cloverfield. Trek is enjoyable, but the script falls apart when analyzed. That said, I'd give J.J. Abrams credit for making it not suck since they produce absolute dreck with directors without imagination (re: Transformers). Fringe also has various writers, they're not limited to Orzi & Kurtzman. It may be good, it just depends on whether the Spider-man sequel will have a good creative director.

This discussion has been closed.