Huh, I didn't know that upping frame rates was a thing that was happening. I wonder what people would think if video/broadcast TV had went with 24fps rather than 30 fps back in the day, so there wouldn't be an associative connection between higher frame rate = tv budget.
I want to say I'm above that comparison, but I have to admit I'm not- I'm a total snob. My brother showed me one episode of Dexter, and the first thing I said about it was, "well, this was obviously shot on video." When tooling around with my family's old miniDV camcorder, one of the first things I tried to figure out was if there was a way to shoot at, or at least fake in post, a 24fps frame rate to make it look better. I tried watching Batman Begins on a friend's TV with one of those frame interpolation things that make it look like it's done at like 60 fps, and I made it about 5 minutes before I had to ask him to turn it off, it was just too distracting.
And even though I feel that way, my own position annoys me because I know, logically, that it's a position that doesn't really make any sense.
EDIT: Maybe James Cameron realized he's at a point where his movies will only be able to increase their profits more if he invents a bunch of technology that happens to make his movies look great, but makes everyone else's movies look like gimmicky bullshit.
EDIT: Argh, looks like I killed the chat thread again. I really should stick to topics that appeal to the masses, like tricking Tam into becoming a leader of a major world religion just to see how many Italians then try to throw him into walls.
I've seen higher framerates in TV before, but I could never put my finger on what it was, exactly. I always thought it was something to do with the way the camera was panning. Like it was too smooth.
Have any of you heard of Zoe Keating? She's the cello version of andrew bird, but with only cello and no lyrics, whistling or whatever. Anyways, I really dig her stuff. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIZTcfrXVMs
I had a recent run-in with a 120 Hz TV for the first time a few days ago and someone put in Speed Racer. Euuughgh.
It alternated between looking like a videogame and a for-kids morning show on PBS, and I don't know if Speed Racer was just a shitty movie but a lot of the digital compositing was incredibly rough looking.
There's no doubt it's a matter of people being conditioned to associate 24fps with cinema and anything higher with consumer recording devices and low-budget productions. The question is how long it would take for people to change their minds with constant exposure, and if the film industry is brave enough to try.
About the 48 FPS thing, i've always noticed the low frame rate in movies after the switch to HD. I have a hard time playing games anywhere near 30 fps as they give me headaches. If the refresh rate is less than 40 it's often just as bad... I've had people tell me that it is physically impossible for this to happen, but fraps and like 10 other frame rate counters confirm my suspicions.
Also fuck the new internet, Fuck social media, and fuck people who show up to a service that they have no fucking Idea what it's for and hadn't used and demand that it be different to meet their expecetations.
I had a recent run-in with a 120 Hz TV for the first time a few days ago and someone put in Speed Racer. Euuughgh.
It alternated between looking like a videogame and a for-kids morning show on PBS, and I don't know if Speed Racer was just a shitty movie but a lot of the digital compositing was incredibly rough looking.
There's no doubt it's a matter of people being conditioned to associate 24fps with cinema and anything higher with consumer recording devices and low-budget productions. The question is how long it would take for people to change their minds with constant exposure, and if the film industry is brave enough to try.
Speed Racer would a bad movie to evaluate compositing with. They purposefully did a lot of weird stuff like removing all depth from a lot of their shots.
I have to say that Speed Racer was a terrible movie, from any kind of perspective. I think it was so bad, that it is actually harmfull to the whole world of cinema, I have the same opinion on transformers movies, all of them. The "depth" of the image, or the FPS used, I think are lost in the public toilet that that movie was... and yes, I saw it.. at least a part of it. *puts on helmet and ducks for cover*
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
Hey dude-os, this is a pretty cool live feed of a White-tailed Eagle (the text is in Polish so disregard that). There's two eggs, supposed to hatch somewhere between today and the first of May. http://www.lasy.gov.pl/bielik
Also fuck the new internet, Fuck social media, and fuck people who show up to a service that they have no fucking Idea what it's for and hadn't used and demand that it be different to meet their expecetations.
I have to say that Speed Racer was a terrible movie, from any kind of perspective. I think it was so bad, that it is actually harmfull to the whole world of cinema, I have the same opinion on transformers movies, all of them. The "depth" of the image, or the FPS used, I think are lost in the public toilet that that movie was... and yes, I saw it.. at least a part of it. *puts on helmet and ducks for cover*
Speed Racer was great. It was dumb, bright, stylized visual candy with a nonsensically silly plot. It gave exactly what it was offering on the label. Haven't seen transformers, but from what I know of the preview I imagine it should just be robots beating the crap out of each other, since that's really all they are claiming in the promotional materials.
Sometimes "bad" movies are a lot of fun. The Sorcerer's Apprentice with Nick Cage is a good example. Its a terrible film, but offers exactly what it claims and was fun to watch. I'll never likely watch it again or buy it, but I honestly enjoyed my time in the cinema.
I have to say that Speed Racer was a terrible movie, from any kind of perspective. I think it was so bad, that it is actually harmfull to the whole world of cinema, I have the same opinion on transformers movies, all of them. The "depth" of the image, or the FPS used, I think are lost in the public toilet that that movie was... and yes, I saw it.. at least a part of it. *puts on helmet and ducks for cover*
Don't all bad films hurt cinema then? People have been making terrible movies for a very long time and the world of cinema is still around.
NibCrom on
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
I finally got draw something and Hero Academy if anyone wants to play. brockjs on draw, amateurhour on Hero.
Huh, I didn't know that upping frame rates was a thing that was happening. I wonder what people would think if video/broadcast TV had went with 24fps rather than 30 fps back in the day, so there wouldn't be an associative connection between higher frame rate = tv budget.
I want to say I'm above that comparison, but I have to admit I'm not- I'm a total snob. My brother showed me one episode of Dexter, and the first thing I said about it was, "well, this was obviously shot on video." When tooling around with my family's old miniDV camcorder, one of the first things I tried to figure out was if there was a way to shoot at, or at least fake in post, a 24fps frame rate to make it look better. I tried watching Batman Begins on a friend's TV with one of those frame interpolation things that make it look like it's done at like 60 fps, and I made it about 5 minutes before I had to ask him to turn it off, it was just too distracting.
And even though I feel that way, my own position annoys me because I know, logically, that it's a position that doesn't really make any sense.
EDIT: Maybe James Cameron realized he's at a point where his movies will only be able to increase their profits more if he invents a bunch of technology that happens to make his movies look great, but makes everyone else's movies look like gimmicky bullshit.
EDIT: Argh, looks like I killed the chat thread again. I really should stick to topics that appeal to the masses, like tricking Tam into becoming a leader of a major world religion just to see how many Italians then try to throw him into walls.
mully and I got a new TV a few weeks ago and it does this frame interpolation thing since it's a 120Hz set. Nicknamed the "soap opera effect", it's really distracting but fortunately you can turn it off. It's just another one of those dumb features like 3D that people buy as gimmicks to sell new hardware. Pretty much any 120+Hz TV has this feature in some form or another now, but there are still some that DON'T have 3D, thankfully. It's really awful in animation because it will sometimes smooth things out, but not at other times and ends up making things even more disjointed and inconsistent. I didn't know this 48fps for movies thing was happening either. The reason having a 120Hz set is nice is because 24fps divides evenly into that, unlike 60Hz sets of old where they had to do this weird frame interpretation pattern. Now if you want to watch a 48fps film natively then you'll need a 240Hz TV or it will have to interpret every 2.5 frames. GUHHHH.
About the 48 FPS thing, i've always noticed the low frame rate in movies after the switch to HD. I have a hard time playing games anywhere near 30 fps as they give me headaches. If the refresh rate is less than 40 it's often just as bad... I've had people tell me that it is physically impossible for this to happen, but fraps and like 10 other frame rate counters confirm my suspicions.
Framerate is not the same as refresh rate. Refresh rate is always going to be the same, but framerate is what your computer can render and pump out in real-time. The TV or monitor is always going to display at 60Hz (or 'frames per second') or 120 or 240 or whatever the display is set to. Old CRT monitors could be adjusted anywhere from 50Hz up to 120Hz depending on resolution. The higher the better, but for LCD it's not noticible because of the lack of CRT 'flicker'.
Also fuck the new internet, Fuck social media, and fuck people who show up to a service that they have no fucking Idea what it's for and hadn't used and demand that it be different to meet their expecetations.
Fucking moms and media... this is bull shit.
huh?
... nothing. Don't want to talk about it.
Time to go work in a garden 8D supposed to be an awesome day, seriously, the last few days here in Colorado have been as close to perfect as weather can get.
I have to say that Speed Racer was a terrible movie, from any kind of perspective. I think it was so bad, that it is actually harmfull to the whole world of cinema, I have the same opinion on transformers movies, all of them. The "depth" of the image, or the FPS used, I think are lost in the public toilet that that movie was... and yes, I saw it.. at least a part of it. *puts on helmet and ducks for cover*
BroloBroseidonLord of the BroceanRegistered Userregular
edited April 2012
3D could be a legitimate technique if it actually worked, but really the 3D we have is a lot more like looking at a pop-up book than a scene that actually has depth. The transitions and edges become really distracting, even in the best examples of the tech.
I've never understood 3d as an attraction. A good film is immersive without it, and a bad film with it isn't going to be saved by it.
I really liked it in Coraline. There were two implementations of it, so the depth of field actually changed depending on whether she was in the real world or the other world. It was really cool because it made the other world almost seem like a set, like the moon rising in the background was maybe a few feet behind the treeline.
NappuccinoSurveyor of Things and StuffRegistered Userregular
edited April 2012
I just wish you didn't need glasses to experience 3D in the cinema. I already wear glasses so wearing glasses over my glasses is a pain in the ass and usually screws up the effect because the lenses are too far from my eyes.
For me, 3D is 3-5 extra dollars for a much worse experience.
I haven't seen a live action movie that was 3d aside from Avatar. Unless it's filmed with two lenses then it's just going to look stupid. I miiiiiiiiight crack and see the 3d Hobbit just because Peter Jackson is so adorable.
I haven't seen a 3D movie in quite some time. Certainly before the craze.
I know this isn't what you're talking about, but on the topic of 3D (so to speak) I would like to see a return of 2D animation. I'm sick of 3D animation being treated like the "talkies" of our generation, the 'latest film innovative technology' or whatever. Seriously, what pixar did was stylistic and unique, not meant as a tech demo, or a proof of concept for universal and dreamworks to milk profit out of unsuspecting children. I've read that 2D is dead. I say that until every film is technically on par with Akira, 3D animation can go fuck itself.
I think the last good 2D thing I saw in theatre (or from a movie) was the intro to Kung Fu Panda. TV has pretty much been supplying the best 2D animation lately, though.
Posts
I want to say I'm above that comparison, but I have to admit I'm not- I'm a total snob. My brother showed me one episode of Dexter, and the first thing I said about it was, "well, this was obviously shot on video." When tooling around with my family's old miniDV camcorder, one of the first things I tried to figure out was if there was a way to shoot at, or at least fake in post, a 24fps frame rate to make it look better. I tried watching Batman Begins on a friend's TV with one of those frame interpolation things that make it look like it's done at like 60 fps, and I made it about 5 minutes before I had to ask him to turn it off, it was just too distracting.
And even though I feel that way, my own position annoys me because I know, logically, that it's a position that doesn't really make any sense.
EDIT: Maybe James Cameron realized he's at a point where his movies will only be able to increase their profits more if he invents a bunch of technology that happens to make his movies look great, but makes everyone else's movies look like gimmicky bullshit.
EDIT: Argh, looks like I killed the chat thread again. I really should stick to topics that appeal to the masses, like tricking Tam into becoming a leader of a major world religion just to see how many Italians then try to throw him into walls.
Twitter
It bothers the shit out of me.
I work 70 hours a week
can I be in the club?
Everyone go buy prototype 2 thanks
Yowza. So I'm not the only one working insanity shifts.
I have the added problem of having to change sleep schedule for nearly every shift. It is fucking with my routine hardcore.
What did you work on?
Tam cmere play mouseguard wth me
oh hey dee hey hey
RadioLab is pretty big on her
/facepalm
It alternated between looking like a videogame and a for-kids morning show on PBS, and I don't know if Speed Racer was just a shitty movie but a lot of the digital compositing was incredibly rough looking.
There's no doubt it's a matter of people being conditioned to associate 24fps with cinema and anything higher with consumer recording devices and low-budget productions. The question is how long it would take for people to change their minds with constant exposure, and if the film industry is brave enough to try.
you missed it? ahahahahahahahahahaha
ehehehehheheheh heh
kochi iunno what that is
what is that kochi
With mice (kinda redwally but everythings to real scale)
that does sound fun
I'm game
but not right now
I have to open the store at 6
gnight
Also fuck the new internet, Fuck social media, and fuck people who show up to a service that they have no fucking Idea what it's for and hadn't used and demand that it be different to meet their expecetations.
Fucking moms and media... this is bull shit.
Speed Racer would a bad movie to evaluate compositing with. They purposefully did a lot of weird stuff like removing all depth from a lot of their shots.
That feature does make me want to upgrade from CS4.
3DS: 0447-9966-6178
http://www.lasy.gov.pl/bielik
dude's got a motherfucking rapface.
client: actually, I'd just want something black on beige/grey"
o
k
...
huh?
Speed Racer was great. It was dumb, bright, stylized visual candy with a nonsensically silly plot. It gave exactly what it was offering on the label. Haven't seen transformers, but from what I know of the preview I imagine it should just be robots beating the crap out of each other, since that's really all they are claiming in the promotional materials.
Sometimes "bad" movies are a lot of fun. The Sorcerer's Apprentice with Nick Cage is a good example. Its a terrible film, but offers exactly what it claims and was fun to watch. I'll never likely watch it again or buy it, but I honestly enjoyed my time in the cinema.
Don't all bad films hurt cinema then? People have been making terrible movies for a very long time and the world of cinema is still around.
mully and I got a new TV a few weeks ago and it does this frame interpolation thing since it's a 120Hz set. Nicknamed the "soap opera effect", it's really distracting but fortunately you can turn it off. It's just another one of those dumb features like 3D that people buy as gimmicks to sell new hardware. Pretty much any 120+Hz TV has this feature in some form or another now, but there are still some that DON'T have 3D, thankfully. It's really awful in animation because it will sometimes smooth things out, but not at other times and ends up making things even more disjointed and inconsistent. I didn't know this 48fps for movies thing was happening either. The reason having a 120Hz set is nice is because 24fps divides evenly into that, unlike 60Hz sets of old where they had to do this weird frame interpretation pattern. Now if you want to watch a 48fps film natively then you'll need a 240Hz TV or it will have to interpret every 2.5 frames. GUHHHH.
Framerate is not the same as refresh rate. Refresh rate is always going to be the same, but framerate is what your computer can render and pump out in real-time. The TV or monitor is always going to display at 60Hz (or 'frames per second') or 120 or 240 or whatever the display is set to. Old CRT monitors could be adjusted anywhere from 50Hz up to 120Hz depending on resolution. The higher the better, but for LCD it's not noticible because of the lack of CRT 'flicker'.
and is replaced by hologram tv
... nothing. Don't want to talk about it.
Time to go work in a garden 8D supposed to be an awesome day, seriously, the last few days here in Colorado have been as close to perfect as weather can get.
I lub yew
*Inhales deeply*
I thought it was okay
I really liked it in Coraline. There were two implementations of it, so the depth of field actually changed depending on whether she was in the real world or the other world. It was really cool because it made the other world almost seem like a set, like the moon rising in the background was maybe a few feet behind the treeline.
For me, 3D is 3-5 extra dollars for a much worse experience.
I know this isn't what you're talking about, but on the topic of 3D (so to speak) I would like to see a return of 2D animation. I'm sick of 3D animation being treated like the "talkies" of our generation, the 'latest film innovative technology' or whatever. Seriously, what pixar did was stylistic and unique, not meant as a tech demo, or a proof of concept for universal and dreamworks to milk profit out of unsuspecting children. I've read that 2D is dead. I say that until every film is technically on par with Akira, 3D animation can go fuck itself.