i know. just saying, all other things being controlled for, the speed you pan the camera determines the flicker.
shutter angle is a fun thing (btw, SPR was grainy because of bleach bypass and deliberate underexposure) to play with, but if nothing moves you wont see the effect. rather it's good for highlighting and driving home the fact that this camera is seriously being shaken the fuck out of right now.
with this hobbit thing i'm sure film release and BD/DVD releases will show a stepped down version. Peter Jackson is a clever guy, and the Epic is capable of "open shutter", or effectively shooting with a 360 degree shutter angle. when you knock out every other frame, it'll be 24fps with a virtual 180 degree shutter, just like most other films.
my current favourite shooting method is to jack the framerate up to 60fps (i'm on one of those canon things cause i'm pov), jack the shutter as fast as it'll go without killing me with grain (i like to shoot with the iris wide open), and do the stabilization and frame-rate conversion (i'm in PAL land) digitally - that way there's no motion-blur during processing, but enough motion to do the processing well, and i can add the blur back in during the conversion. more advantages than disadvantages considering i'm using a cheap camera, and the result is _almost_ like film, provided i shoot well enough.
suck it up. it's not perfect, but at least it's being done.
if you let your cynicism slip for just a second, you'll realize that this was just a rather flamboyant but genuine opportunity to do some hard science. you gotta take it when it comes, not sit and bitch about how the world should be different. you can't push against the world forever - you have to realize you're just standing on it, not fighting it.
the next time they're sued? i'm sure the courts are chocker-block full of cashed up OSS developers suing those poor companies that are using their code without permission.
the worst i've seen is a passive-aggressive "hall-of-shame" style list on a website.
well, in their defence... i just tried to update ubuntu 10.10 to 12.04, and it was a saga and a half for precisely that reason. dependencies, different versions of stuff, repos that 404'd.
also, a photo management program i am quite fond of i typically compile from source. i'm not a dev, so git pulling is about all i can do, as well as running the build scripts. if i want to stay up to date with this program, i have to upgrade from 10.10, which i've not yet been able to do (graphics are broken at the moment.. no fun).
i'm using linux because i want to. but we all have to acknowledge that sometimes it could be a much smoother ride.
btw, linux is not an OS. it's part of one. not making excuses, just pointing out your unfair comparison.
windows has done the driver thing really well. i actually feel a little sorry for MS's current state - they've had their reputation mangled because of the difficulty of pleasing everyone - backward compatibility meant lots more security holes, but kept everyone using their old (buggy) programs. their ABI meant that a bad driver could BSOD the system (and everyone would blame the system for being unstable). running windows would be rock solid as long as you never bought any hardware... the MacOS family had no excuse for their instability in this case. the OS, hardware and much of the software were made by the same company, and yet those buggers crash just as often as windows and linux boxes (i've taken to sending a crash report each and every time something fucks out, just because i like the thought of some bugger at Apple being bogged down with endless core dumps).
Linux hasn't done the driver thing terribly well, but it's getting better.
what you fail to understand (and mislabel as religion many things that can be seen as philosophies or political motives) is that a lot of people who went to Linux did so not because they were looking for something better than windows, but were looking for something that was an alternative. linux has given us freedom of choice primarily. freedom to own your own computer, and if you can stand the forum hunts for fixes, a knowledge of how it all works, what can be done. if you watch the changelogs, it's quite a nice experience - everything's always getting better, there's always good news:)
the french had 819 line TV in 1945... (and had developed up to 1042 lines).
the japanese had 1080 lines of active picture by the late '80s (1125 total including vertical blanking interval).
true, we could have gone higher, but there was also the issue of when HDTV was standardized, it was meant as a digital system. computers at the time had a lot of trouble pushing around that many pixels. even now it's a pain to process HD footage. anything higher back when hard disks were sub 100GB would have been unworkable.
back catalogue is almost always restored in 2k or HD. they're not made of money, and honestly, can they cover the process of restoring the film with the DVD sales?
even getting a film cleaned works out to about $400 per lab-reel, and those are only 1200 feet (about 12-14mins in 35mm 4-perf). don't even get started on making sure the tattered mess of film recovered from the director's garage will even run on the telecine without tearing itself to pieces. splicing tape breaks down, cement splices warp the film and impress themselves on adjacent rolls of film (so you see a "bump" a few sec before a cut), film gets dirtier every time you run it, and a busted perf could mean the whole thing ripping straight through the picture, releasing tension on the winding mechanism, and in worst case causing it to spin both reels full speed and whip the ends of the snapped film across every little bob and gear inside the machine. that's gonna be a lot of repainting, and be expensive as hell, and some poor colourist is going to look like a butcher in front of the film makers as their baby is shredded before their eyes.
yeah, 2k is enough for almost anything. people need to understand that film is not magical, and it has a theoretical max resolution, and a practical max, and they're worlds apart. 3k is ideal if you shoot really sharp on a slow, thin, contrasty stock like fuji 160T 35mm. real-world pictures are mostly grain, blur and the occasional sharp edge. older pictures are pretty much entirely grain. the 35mm of just 10 years ago looks like today's 16mm. by the time the pictures hit the screen in the cinema, you're looking at around about 1k. digital distribution is a bit of a game-changer there. it's much MUCH cheaper, and looks better, and can do nice things like go to high framerates or go 3d, or both. DCI supports 3d in 4k, 60fps IIRC, and has done since the spec was signed off.
also it's anathema to anyone that actually shot the pictures at 24fps intentionally and likes them that way.
let the film makers make the films, not the fucking TVs. those things are unwatchable until you spend a good hour turning the edge enhancement off, setting the whites to be actually daylight white, not that awful junkie-bathroom blue, set the contrast to not chop anything off, turn off motion-flow-shit, set the backlight to something appropriate to the room lighting, etc etc etc ad infinitum.
the way films are shot these days, absolutely. back in the day, flicker was a thing that was considered while shooting, and as such the camera operator tried not to pan too fast. also the cameras were so huge that handheld was not something that was done unless Schwarzenegger was shooting his own films.
on a slow enough pan, at the resolution of a regular release print, you wont see the difference between 24 and 48 fps. bear in mind that projector shutters are twin-blade things that open twice for each frame, giving a 48fps flicker for 24 frames, so the "flashiness" wont give them away.
sure, post types are going to have a fit, but generally Hollywood is trying like a boss to keep people coming to cinemas
one other thing about The Hobbit is that it's being shot in freakin 5k. that's massive.
the IT folks will jack off to the machines they'll need to install to get this movie made. the post producers will panic, the post artists will relish the new workflow (and panic a bit themselves), the cinemas will be a touch annoyed at having to buy proper twin-lens DCI systems (not the shitty single-lens LCD glasses at 48fps things that give the most hideous depth artefacts whenever the camera moves), and the moviegoers will continue to get slugged more and more for movies that aren't any better, rather just look a little more garish.
i think you need to look at what most of the world's TVs are running. NTSC is a minority (and besides, it's not 60i, it's ~59.94i, actually 60000/1001). 120hz basically only covers a small subset of film and HD frame rates, all the others are just a little bit wrong or considerably wrong.
temporal alias would actually be the absence of motion-blur.
the mechanical shutter of a film camera means it can only be open half of the time at most, so there's alias there, but it's better than the no-motion-blur-whatsoever from games (but when your eye tracks it, you get all that detail instead of useless blur, so it's all fine).
there's some quite interesting BBC docs about this and other alias/signal/response bollocks of film v video.
it's a game though. in the case of loldeadlyvirus, the winner is whoever comes up with an effective vaccine.
if the curious geeks don't get there first, someone else may (like the fabled Trrrsts, rather like Decepticons in their depiction). someone hellbent on destroying humanity is likely to stop at discovering the virus and leave everyone else to scramble to get a vaccine together before the last of us falls. the curious geeks will be like "hey, we made this deadly virus and made a cure as well!".
it's difficult though - someone from that culture who has a girl they dont want will most certainly develop post-natal depression and treat their baby like a piece of shit.
perhaps the culture needs to change in a more significant way? i'm all for people seeing shrinks like they'd see a dentist, but it's too stigmatized even in our "enlightened" culture to really admit the fact that your head is fucked.
this would be a dream for film-makers wanting to shoot people in cars, but not wanting to use polarizing filters which make the female star's hair less impressive...
Slashdot Mirror
switching off the lights is an instant, free saving.
why not do both?
or is this your personal pissing contest by proxy of apple being the bestest at everything? weird.
what makes you think pakistan or iran give a flying fuck about NK?
i know. just saying, all other things being controlled for, the speed you pan the camera determines the flicker.
shutter angle is a fun thing (btw, SPR was grainy because of bleach bypass and deliberate underexposure) to play with, but if nothing moves you wont see the effect. rather it's good for highlighting and driving home the fact that this camera is seriously being shaken the fuck out of right now.
with this hobbit thing i'm sure film release and BD/DVD releases will show a stepped down version. Peter Jackson is a clever guy, and the Epic is capable of "open shutter", or effectively shooting with a 360 degree shutter angle. when you knock out every other frame, it'll be 24fps with a virtual 180 degree shutter, just like most other films.
my current favourite shooting method is to jack the framerate up to 60fps (i'm on one of those canon things cause i'm pov), jack the shutter as fast as it'll go without killing me with grain (i like to shoot with the iris wide open), and do the stabilization and frame-rate conversion (i'm in PAL land) digitally - that way there's no motion-blur during processing, but enough motion to do the processing well, and i can add the blur back in during the conversion. more advantages than disadvantages considering i'm using a cheap camera, and the result is _almost_ like film, provided i shoot well enough.
well, the fishing boat thing was a miscalculation... they weren't to know that lithium 7 could be just as good as lithium 6.
well, they might have had a hunch.
suck it up. it's not perfect, but at least it's being done.
if you let your cynicism slip for just a second, you'll realize that this was just a rather flamboyant but genuine opportunity to do some hard science. you gotta take it when it comes, not sit and bitch about how the world should be different. you can't push against the world forever - you have to realize you're just standing on it, not fighting it.
the next time they're sued? i'm sure the courts are chocker-block full of cashed up OSS developers suing those poor companies that are using their code without permission.
the worst i've seen is a passive-aggressive "hall-of-shame" style list on a website.
well, in their defence... i just tried to update ubuntu 10.10 to 12.04, and it was a saga and a half for precisely that reason. dependencies, different versions of stuff, repos that 404'd.
also, a photo management program i am quite fond of i typically compile from source. i'm not a dev, so git pulling is about all i can do, as well as running the build scripts. if i want to stay up to date with this program, i have to upgrade from 10.10, which i've not yet been able to do (graphics are broken at the moment.. no fun).
i'm using linux because i want to. but we all have to acknowledge that sometimes it could be a much smoother ride.
btw, linux is not an OS. it's part of one. not making excuses, just pointing out your unfair comparison.
windows has done the driver thing really well. i actually feel a little sorry for MS's current state - they've had their reputation mangled because of the difficulty of pleasing everyone - backward compatibility meant lots more security holes, but kept everyone using their old (buggy) programs. their ABI meant that a bad driver could BSOD the system (and everyone would blame the system for being unstable). running windows would be rock solid as long as you never bought any hardware... the MacOS family had no excuse for their instability in this case. the OS, hardware and much of the software were made by the same company, and yet those buggers crash just as often as windows and linux boxes (i've taken to sending a crash report each and every time something fucks out, just because i like the thought of some bugger at Apple being bogged down with endless core dumps).
Linux hasn't done the driver thing terribly well, but it's getting better.
what you fail to understand (and mislabel as religion many things that can be seen as philosophies or political motives) is that a lot of people who went to Linux did so not because they were looking for something better than windows, but were looking for something that was an alternative. linux has given us freedom of choice primarily. freedom to own your own computer, and if you can stand the forum hunts for fixes, a knowledge of how it all works, what can be done. if you watch the changelogs, it's quite a nice experience - everything's always getting better, there's always good news :)
why now and why so little?
the french had 819 line TV in 1945... (and had developed up to 1042 lines).
the japanese had 1080 lines of active picture by the late '80s (1125 total including vertical blanking interval).
true, we could have gone higher, but there was also the issue of when HDTV was standardized, it was meant as a digital system. computers at the time had a lot of trouble pushing around that many pixels. even now it's a pain to process HD footage. anything higher back when hard disks were sub 100GB would have been unworkable.
back catalogue is almost always restored in 2k or HD. they're not made of money, and honestly, can they cover the process of restoring the film with the DVD sales?
even getting a film cleaned works out to about $400 per lab-reel, and those are only 1200 feet (about 12-14mins in 35mm 4-perf). don't even get started on making sure the tattered mess of film recovered from the director's garage will even run on the telecine without tearing itself to pieces. splicing tape breaks down, cement splices warp the film and impress themselves on adjacent rolls of film (so you see a "bump" a few sec before a cut), film gets dirtier every time you run it, and a busted perf could mean the whole thing ripping straight through the picture, releasing tension on the winding mechanism, and in worst case causing it to spin both reels full speed and whip the ends of the snapped film across every little bob and gear inside the machine. that's gonna be a lot of repainting, and be expensive as hell, and some poor colourist is going to look like a butcher in front of the film makers as their baby is shredded before their eyes.
yeah, 2k is enough for almost anything. people need to understand that film is not magical, and it has a theoretical max resolution, and a practical max, and they're worlds apart. 3k is ideal if you shoot really sharp on a slow, thin, contrasty stock like fuji 160T 35mm. real-world pictures are mostly grain, blur and the occasional sharp edge. older pictures are pretty much entirely grain. the 35mm of just 10 years ago looks like today's 16mm. by the time the pictures hit the screen in the cinema, you're looking at around about 1k. digital distribution is a bit of a game-changer there. it's much MUCH cheaper, and looks better, and can do nice things like go to high framerates or go 3d, or both. DCI supports 3d in 4k, 60fps IIRC, and has done since the spec was signed off.
also it's anathema to anyone that actually shot the pictures at 24fps intentionally and likes them that way.
let the film makers make the films, not the fucking TVs. those things are unwatchable until you spend a good hour turning the edge enhancement off, setting the whites to be actually daylight white, not that awful junkie-bathroom blue, set the contrast to not chop anything off, turn off motion-flow-shit, set the backlight to something appropriate to the room lighting, etc etc etc ad infinitum.
the way films are shot these days, absolutely. back in the day, flicker was a thing that was considered while shooting, and as such the camera operator tried not to pan too fast. also the cameras were so huge that handheld was not something that was done unless Schwarzenegger was shooting his own films.
on a slow enough pan, at the resolution of a regular release print, you wont see the difference between 24 and 48 fps. bear in mind that projector shutters are twin-blade things that open twice for each frame, giving a 48fps flicker for 24 frames, so the "flashiness" wont give them away.
your argument is utterly arse-backward.
sure, post types are going to have a fit, but generally Hollywood is trying like a boss to keep people coming to cinemas
one other thing about The Hobbit is that it's being shot in freakin 5k. that's massive.
the IT folks will jack off to the machines they'll need to install to get this movie made. the post producers will panic, the post artists will relish the new workflow (and panic a bit themselves), the cinemas will be a touch annoyed at having to buy proper twin-lens DCI systems (not the shitty single-lens LCD glasses at 48fps things that give the most hideous depth artefacts whenever the camera moves), and the moviegoers will continue to get slugged more and more for movies that aren't any better, rather just look a little more garish.
120 hz a multiple of ALL common rates?
i think you need to look at what most of the world's TVs are running. NTSC is a minority (and besides, it's not 60i, it's ~59.94i, actually 60000/1001). 120hz basically only covers a small subset of film and HD frame rates, all the others are just a little bit wrong or considerably wrong.
temporal alias would actually be the absence of motion-blur.
the mechanical shutter of a film camera means it can only be open half of the time at most, so there's alias there, but it's better than the no-motion-blur-whatsoever from games (but when your eye tracks it, you get all that detail instead of useless blur, so it's all fine).
there's some quite interesting BBC docs about this and other alias/signal/response bollocks of film v video.
oooooosssssshhhhhh
wwwwwwwwwhhhhhhhhhh
in pure black-and-white, it's exactly 30 fps.
he would have got away with it, if it weren't for you meddling kids!
so then it's the media moguls that have to go (it's amazing that old age hasn't taken one in particular already)
it's a game though. in the case of loldeadlyvirus, the winner is whoever comes up with an effective vaccine.
if the curious geeks don't get there first, someone else may (like the fabled Trrrsts, rather like Decepticons in their depiction). someone hellbent on destroying humanity is likely to stop at discovering the virus and leave everyone else to scramble to get a vaccine together before the last of us falls. the curious geeks will be like "hey, we made this deadly virus and made a cure as well!".
this is actually the most insightful comment i've read here in ages.
hatz off.
Mass Effect 3
it's difficult though - someone from that culture who has a girl they dont want will most certainly develop post-natal depression and treat their baby like a piece of shit.
perhaps the culture needs to change in a more significant way? i'm all for people seeing shrinks like they'd see a dentist, but it's too stigmatized even in our "enlightened" culture to really admit the fact that your head is fucked.
this would be a dream for film-makers wanting to shoot people in cars, but not wanting to use polarizing filters which make the female star's hair less impressive...