FILMMAKING
ACTING
WRITING
OFF TOPIC
POLL - FILMMAKING
POLL - ACTING
POLL - WRITING
POLL - OFF TOPIC
SPECIAL - FILMMAKING
SPECIAL - ACTING
SPECIAL - WRITING
SPECIAL - OFF TOPIC
ADMIN MESSAGE
POST NEW TOPIC BACK TO MAIN BOARD
AUTHOR SUBJECT: glasses free 3D is coming
Velusion
View My Profile
Posted: 11/26/2016 7:39:03 AM
5 or so years ago I immersed myself in 3D technology with hopes of making a movie in stereoscopic 3D.  I bought cameras, software, special tvs and other hardware to set up a lab to create 3D video.. I had a lot of success.  I programmed a 3D calculator, build a dual camera rig (several actually) and I was able to create video of live action scenes, CGI scenes, and also compositions that had both live action and CGI..

Then the bottom fell out.

People didn't take to 3D the way everyone, especially James Cameron, expected.  Sales went flat on 3D tvs and as far as the theatres go, I think they kept it alive just for the novelty but nobody was really that excited.  Plus, they already invested in the hardware to show 3D movies and I think they wanted more payback on their investment.

Now it looks like we are 2 or 3 years away from glasses free 3D.  All of the major tv manufacturers as well as some who are only interested in inventing the best stereoscopic solution have sereiously thrown their hat into the ring.  Glasses free tvs are already available in Japan but they are all plagued with problems that still must be ironed out. Chiefly, the viewing angle, viewing distance, and brightness.

I'm due to start shooting the movie I've mentioned on this forum next month.....  The movie will take me about 2 years to complete.  Since I haven't shot anything yet I'm taking a little time to consider shooting in stereoscopic, 3D.  It will mean buying some more gear and also double the rendering time for the CGI elements but, in the long run, it might be worth it...  In some ways I think I owe it to myself because, along with researching and understanding stereoscopic technology, I have also come up with a 4 or 5 3D techniques that have never been used in a movie yet.  You could call them gimmicks and, in the wrong hands, you'd be right but, they can also be powerful story telling devices.  I can't patent these new developments because they are only ideas.  They need no special equipment or formulas.  Anyone can do them once they know what they are.  You can't patent an idea.  Patenting my ideas would be like patenting the idea to desaturate video and add grain to make it look more like film.. It's just an idea and anyone can do it...  I really wish I could tell you what my ideas are but, as I said, the second I tell anyone or show anyone, they will instantly realize what I've done and they too will be able to do it.  I need to be first to the market, as they say......

Any thoughts on glasses free 3d?

REPLIES:   22
mokkimachi
View My Profile
Posted: 11/26/2016 9:37:50 AM
Wow, talk about telepathy. 

Just earlier today I stumbled upon this baby:

3D HD VIDEO CAMCORDER

It's cool looking in that wide angle shot. 

But immediately I realised I completely forgot about the plans I had 4 years ago.  

I was planning a movie 4 years ago to be shot in 3D.  It's the one with the aerial shots I was looking to deshaken the slight shake by the way.   

It's got really nice IMAX movie type shots through canyons and over landscapes, but I filmed it from a gyrocopter instead of a drone, hence the slightly imperfect smoothness of motion.  Too bad.  

Anyway, last year the time came to shoot that movie and we shot it.  Damn near killed us, but came out great.   

And then only today when I saw that camera, I realised we never did it in 3D as I had originally planned.  I was still planning to buy a 3D camera for the very purpose but forgot.   

I dunno, it's like we just completely and totally forgot about stereoscopic filmmaking being available to shoot a movie in.  

I'm kinda sad we forgot but it's like meh, who cares now all is done anyway.  

At home I have a 3D television and glasses, but I used them only once when my pain in the ass brother specifically went to the video store to rent out some corny 3D short film for the very purpose.  

We watched 10 minutes and then the TV's software crashed and had to be taken in and the video went back to the store and my brother was 2 hours late and had to pay a fine so he ended his relations with that video store and we never took out any more videos.   

Other than that, I forgot to watch any TV in 3D.  

Will it help 3D as an industry if 3D became glassesless?  No idea.

Will I watch more 3D TV if it was automatic and everything was in 3D?  Probably, although television as a whole has become boring.   

Co-incidently, my pain the ass brother took us to the movies to watch Brilliant Creatures and Where To Find Them (may not be the name.  Can't remember it.) last night. 

I bought glasses with the ticket for R12 (US 85 cents) because I left my drawer full of 3D glasses at home, not planning to go to the movies originally. 

So I put on the glasses in the movie and watched the movie. 

Do I have a preference to watching a 3D movie in the theater with or without glasses? 

Naah. 

I do like the glasses I got yesterday.  Some of the older glasses look like some basic shape things in a dark blackish gray. 

These I bought yesterday are these blue fashionable framed ones. 

I'll even wear them outside of the theater just to look cool. 

Where else will I get a pair of glasses for 85 cents anyway? 

And yes, even outside the theater, everything is in 3D seen through the glasses, just like without the glasses.  But I don't look as cool without the glasses.   

I don't mind wearing 3D glasses in a dark theater. 

What I would like theaters to focus on rather is re-instating intervals during such long movies, because I had a piss from the beginning and now whenever I remember a scene from that movie, I remember pressure on my bladder.

That, and a severe drop in price of pop corn at movies.  Nobody's buying it anymore because the prices are insane. 

Sv Bell | Black Flag Pictures
Sv+Bell
View My Profile
Posted: 11/26/2016 10:43:31 AM
I've seen very cool glass free 3D a couple of years ago. A game console, not sure which, Sega maybe, that had a multi-layer LCD screen for game. The 3D was surprisingly beautiful.

It was glass-free 3D, but it still needed some special hardware: a 3D capable display screen. Basically the problem to make 3D a viable, widely distributed consumer item has been passed from the buyer to the manufacturer. But we'll see in the future!

Sv Bell | Black Flag Pictures
Sv+Bell
View My Profile
Posted: 11/26/2016 10:48:00 AM
Speaking of 3D, I released on DVD several years ago a stereoscopic movie. I still have a bunch of 3D glasses (anaglyph magenta/green). I must have some 75 pairs, if you want them, James, give me a shout! I have no use for them.

View My Profile
Posted: 11/26/2016 11:36:33 AM
Thank you Sv Bell!  That is very generous of you but I use cyan and red for processing before I commit to Muxing the images for 3d Bluray.

I'm still up in the air about the whole 3D thing. Especially since there is an aspect of 3D distribution that nobody talks about; discrimination.  With companies pouring millions into the technology, is it possible that nobody will want to risk a low budget movie getting into the market with the assumption that, because it was made for almost nothing, it must not be good 3D thus giving 3D a black eye?,,,, Maybe.

Shooting 3D isn't  difficult once you understand the principles.... I would warn against buying a "3D camcorder" though.  Yes, they do produce 3D video ( I owned a Panasonic) but, the effect is very weak.  The lenses are placed very close together (inter ocular distance) so that there is very little risk of producing video that causes eye strain or image disparity that is too wide to be converged by your eyes.  I call it "safe 3D" but it is not very effective.

There is software available that is suppose to process 2D video into 3D.  I understand the principles behind it but I think it is very labor intensive. The software looks for shifts in parallax then used the information to be able to warp the images into stereo pairs. Maybe it works.  I don't now... I think you have to take  the Z depth channel that it creates by the software then manually assign a depth value from 0 to 1 (normalized).  ,,, and if there isn't enough parallax or none at all, I think you have to draw mattes to represent various depths in the scene....  For now, I think it might be safer and cheaper and faster to just shoot with a dual camera rig.

The camera rig can literally be as simple as a flat support with a way of attaching 2 cameras at several distances apart. You have to be able to point the cameras straight ahead, parallel to each other,,,,, or you can get more sophisticated an make a support that can tow the cameras in so that both camera can be pointed at a specific point in space (point of convergence)..... Briefly, there are 2 methods of capturing the left and right images (video); parallel 3D and Converged 3D.  Parallel 3D captures images from 2 parallel cameras. These images must be converged and cropped in post production.  You will lose part of the left and right image with this method which means you may have to enlarge the remaining portion of the images to fill the frame....  Converged 3D captures images from 2 cameras that have been towed in appropriately on the point of convergence (POC: the depth that will appear on the screen (apposed to behind the screen or in front of the screen)). This method, if done correctly, usually means you don't have to do any cropping however, barrel distortion in the lenses can cause problems the closer you get to the left and right sides of the screen.  You may have to remove lens distortion in post, ESPECIALLY if you plan on using CGI in the scene.

Sorry for the tech talk... the last paragraph is only an overview but for anyone interested, it's good information.


mokkimachi
View My Profile
Posted: 11/26/2016 12:20:40 PM
Especially since there is an aspect of 3D distribution that nobody talks about; discrimination.  With companies pouring millions into the technology, is it possible that nobody will want to risk a low budget movie getting into the market with the assumption that, because it was made for almost nothing, it must not be good 3D thus giving 3D a black eye?

If you get a distribution deal that's so big that such companies notice your project, it means your movie must have been good enough (marketable).  Congratulations!   

But you're assuming you're going to get such a huge distribution deal. 

Not that I want to kak on your dreams or anything, but since you're not a name brand you'll probably get some distribution deal with some Chinese whomever, or some deal that will make some fly by night distributor smallish money but they never give you a dime and close up shop at some point without telling you, or you're going to end up self-distributing, probably online. 

In the latter case the companies you're thinking of won't have any input.

That's just a more realistic view. 

But it depends on the names you can attach to the project.  Who's your lead actors for example?  And director?  And such and such.

But hey, surprize me with some huge breakout hit or something.  Fuck some bitch at Fox Searchlight or something until she makes your dreams come true.   






There was the entire Titanic movie on YouTube 2 years ago (not there anymore, I checked) that was the 2D made into a 3D version. 

It was completely 100 per cent realistic 3D.  No flaws I could see. 

So 2D can indeed be made into good 3D. 

But I also had a software package called "3Dit" (not what you get if you google it now).  It would make 2D images into 3D. 

It was crap.  It really only worked on full frontal landscapes, since it just started a certain way in the front and then pulled the channels more apart as it goes up (closer to the horizon supposedly). 



Anyway, I had fun nailing two cameras to a plank, but I'll indeed just use some ready to go 3D video camera if I ever decide to do a 3D flick again.  It's just easier and quicker. 

I think that's what you need too, Jamesy.  Speed. 



View My Profile
Posted: 11/26/2016 4:09:29 PM
But hey, surprise me with some huge breakout hit or something.  Fuck some bitch at Fox Searchlight or something until she makes your dreams come true.    

Hmm, that sounds like a good idea... Do you know any?

No, I'm just thinking out loud about distribution.  I don't expect much....

I don't have any names in my movie but I do have novelty.  My project will either be acceptable or it will completely fail, regardless of the quality of the story.  I'm betting everything on ME, my brand. I don't think you'll be able to compare my presentation to many, if any, other films.. Sort of like your series about Kevin trying to find his purpose. I thought that had tremendous potential...  My project's presentation is this; live action backgrounds with CGI characters that will interact with their environment.  The story has nothing to do with how the characters look. That's not the novelty. The novelty is that the characters are presented as "normal".  No gags because they are not real nor because they are not completely human looking. In fact, part of the fun for me is designing the human looking characters.  It's a make or break thing.  If people can not warm up to the characters, the movie fails but, if they can, I think it will be charming.  It's all up to me and this tiny little creative mind of mine.  I have absolutely no desire to tell a story the way others have in the past.  I want to tell it my way.  You know, some people have a favorite brand of whiskey. Well, if films can be whiskey then I want my own brand, not a knock of of someone elses' even if that other brand is successful.  I want to offer MY brand.  George Lucas once said that he made Star Wars because it is a film that HE wanted to see.  He wasn't pandering to anyone.  There was a lot of skepticism when Star Wars was being made (episode IV).  At one point it was rumored that the movie would be cut up into 10 or 15 minute segments and shown on Saturday morning right along with the cartoon....  Again, I don't have any expectation. I don't think a film maker should.  Like a painter who paint the carvas, he does it for himself.  It's self expression.  I know most people don't agree with me but I feel that film making can be self expression too. Sure, you need people to make the thing but it can still be one man's vision, especially at the micro-budget level.....

What is my movie's story?  I can't tell you but I can say that it is a morality play told under unusual circumstances.

Marius, I'm willing to continue discussing this with you but please don't start with the sarcasm.  I really need to insulate myself from negativity.


mokkimachi
View My Profile
Posted: 11/27/2016 1:03:25 PM
You must indeed have an expectation of distribution. 

Because you'll need to plan for distribution from the start too.  A distribution path will need distribution requirements to be fulfilled. 

Just plan something.  Even if it's just to stream it online.  At least then you know you won't need all sorts of things you otherwise would. 

Plan your distribution options right now. 


Velusion
View My Profile
Posted: 11/28/2016 5:32:49 AM
More info: I'm discovering that glasses-free 3D and 8K video may go hand in hand. It could depend on the 3D system being used but Lenticular 3D will need the extra pixels to create more viewing zones... Did you ever look at a lenticular 3D post card or book mark? They do indeed appear 3D but if you start to move to the side, the angle becomes such that the image "jumps". This is because of the viewing zone. The lenses over the image are designed so that the pixels under left portion of the lens curve are only seen by the left eye and the pixels under the right portion of the lens curve are only seen by the right.. For lenticular 3D to be effective there needs to be as many viewing zones as possible. Meaning. People viewing from directly in front of the image will be in one zone, people viewing from 20 degrees off center may be in another zone, 40 degrees maybe in in another, and so on... With 8K video there is enough room to create as many as 9 high res zones. If the same video were shot on HD or 4K you could still have as many viewing zones but the resolution would be less thus, stair stepping would be visible on any image detail that is not perfectly horizontal or vertical. Broadcasters, equipment manufacturers and streaming services are just now establishing 4K as the new standard so, it is reported, that 8K is still 5 years away.. Companies are indeed mastering in 8K in many cases but nobody is in a great hurry to adopt it as the next standard.. I ran some tests over the weekend with the hardware that I have. I can render 8K CGI elements at a rate of approximately 2 minutes/frame.. That's for a simple model with basic (but effective) lighting rendered at production quality... Then I ran the numbers. Generously rounding up all calculations, I think it would take me 1 complete year of constant rendering to create all the CGI elements that I will need. That doesn't include setting up the animation and lighting. Just rendering... Then comes rendering the completed compositions.... On one hand that seems like a long time but on the other, it is do-able... I can always add computers to the workflow to decrease the time. One more computer would cut the time in half...The other consideration; I will never have an 8K video camera. Actually I would need 2 to create 3D.. What I could do is cleverly use 20 megapixel still images as my background plates.. I won't be able to do any camera moves but, it is doable... I don't have a lot of time to consider all of the possibilities but I will probably compromise and go with 4K... I think every film maker owes it to themselves to consider all possibilities before settling on one if for no other reason than to say at least I thought about it.. Distribution options: Yes, of course I consider what those options might be but I'm in a very good place right now. You see, I don't really care. It's more important to me to actually make the film.... I may be very simple minded when it comes to business and show biz but I do believe that if you have something that is good, somebody will want to make money off of it. If they don't, I'll distribute the thing myself.. I've seen a couple examples in my life of people who broke the norm. People who had something to offer.. They showed what they had and someone recognized it as being valuable then brought the person in, bypassing the usual routes. Will my film be one of these thing? Maybe not, but who cares? Not me.. This isn't a make or break thing. I'm not chasing money at all. No expectations.
mokkimachi
View My Profile
Posted: 11/28/2016 9:49:38 AM
Yes well care as little as you want, but you should still create a few extra materials just for the wis and unwis. 

Not sarcastic but I have a hunch your movie will probably just either end up online or unfinished indefinitely.   

However, let&apo;s dream should it really be the phenomenon you make it out to be, here are some things off the top of my head you should have should anybody else want to distribute your film, in no particular order and not an exhaustive list: 

1.  Signed releases from talent.  Gives you permission to use their likeness.  

2.  High res production still photographs.  These are to be used for everything from press articles to making-of books to movie poster and packaging compositions and whatever else.  Remember to include the people involved in the film&apo;s making. 

  Here&apo;s examples from your beloved movies:  


















3.  Music cue sheets.  Should your film end up showing on TV, tv stations will ask for these.  Just compile it while you&apo;re creating your music track.  

4.  Behind the scenes video clips and interviews.  Used in marketing and documentaries about the film, as well as those variety shows that need material to show while talking about your film. 

5.  Final script with final dialogue.  Used in translating.  Since your film might end up showing in China, they&apo;ll need to translate it.  

6.  A version of the movie with only the music & effects tracks on it, so they can dub another voice track in another language on top of it.  

7.  Press kits you can give out to journalists should they want to write about your project. 


Well there&apo;s probably more but you got the point I&apo;m sure.  Promotion materials don&apo;t just create themselves.  They need to be created in parrallel with the production of the movie, or distributors won&apo;t have much to work with. 

Now let&apo;s enjoy more photos from productions of sorts:































  Save Save


View My Profile
Posted: 11/28/2016 12:17:49 PM
OK, well thanks for stating the most obvious things and also, thank you for the group of completely random pictures. .. and let's keep things straight. I never said anything about anything being a phenomenon. That's just you trying to stoke the fire.
mokkimachi
View My Profile
Posted: 11/28/2016 9:34:08 PM
Oh how evil of me!!!!  I used the p-word that might suggest your movie might turn out to be really great!  Oh I'm so sorry, how dare I suggest you could make a good movie.  How absurd!  I'm sorry all I can ever do is make you kak in your lacey panties with unhappiness. 

Well good luck with your thing of sorts. 

bye. 


View My Profile
Posted: 11/29/2016 3:10:52 AM
The bottom line with shooting a stereoscopic movie is that, for the most part, you don't have to worry about how it will be projected.  It doesn't really matter if it is shown in RealD3D or on a screen that requires active glasses or on a lenticular 3D glasses-free screen. All that comes later.  From my research, the only thing to be considered is the resolution.  You could shoot in HD. That would be fine for tv set viewing that uses passive or active 3D glasses but, if you have any hope of going to the big screen, you should consider 4K or at least UHD... If you're looking to the future and want to make sure the images look good on glasses-free 3D monitors then you should consider 6 or 8K video.....

Why 8K?  The main reason is clearity.  With lenticular 3D, half of the vertical resolution is lost. Every other line of vertical resolution in the left image is replaced with every other line from the right image.  That's just the way it works...  I'm sure somebody is working on a method that doesn't sacrifice any resolution but I don't have any information on that..

To shoot 3D or to not shoot 3D. That is the question.  Could all film in the near future be 3D?  I don't know.  Look at how old b&W movies have been colorized for people who might not want to watch a b&w movie. With the new 2D to 3D processing technology being developed, 2D films could be available in 3D (2.5D actually).. Does this mean that film makers will shoot in 2D then let some guy in a 3D studio convert it?,,,, or maybe 2D cameras in the future will include a seperate track that records depth information which can be fed into a solution to reconstuct the 3D view...  Don't know...... Only time will tell.  Right now, on the micro-budget level I think it's important to not be left in the dust if 3D has a major breakthrough and is widely acdepted and expected by the masses.. I'm trying to stay ahead of the curve rather than behind it.  Micro-budget films are usually behind the curve when it comes to technology, especially when the new technology costs money...

Sv Bell | Black Flag Pictures
Sv+Bell
View My Profile
Posted: 11/29/2016 8:48:03 PM
What&apo;s ahead, in my humble opinion, is negative and film stock rather than digital. More and more filmmakers come back to shooting on film. Why? Because it&apo;s more flexible. You don&apo;t have to worry about resolution, film has none. 4k, 6k, 8k, 10k whatever comes next is totally irrelevant. Film is film.

Film cameras, you don&apo;t have to worry about your lighting current, voltage, and use ballast to &apo;flatten&apo; the current to match the refresh rate of a digital camera. Film is film.

And with the number of technicians needed to operate a high end digital camera, it&apo;s cheaper to shoot film.

So what&apo;s ahead? I&apo;d say film stock without hesitation.

***

Another sign of the digital downfall (unrelated to indie movies).
Back in the 80s and 90s I was doing album covers for record labels. Traditional paintings on canvas. Snap a professional slide picture, send it to the label and they&apo;d use that to print the vinyl records.

Then came digital. CDs first, then Napster&apo; download era, then legit download, and lastly, streaming. Record label weren&apo;t making money anymore. Album cover prices felt dramatically low, in 2010 the budget was about 10% of what it used to be in the 90s. Since labels weren&apo;t pressing records anymore, they didn&apo;t need slides, only a digital photo was cool. Professional art photographers went out of business. People got used to see low quality digital photos as album covers. But it was small size so no one really cared or even notice.

Now for the past 4, 5 years, vinyl records are starting to sell very good. Record labels are making money again. And they start to invest in good quality production. Including album covers! I&apo;m getting more artwork commission, and record labels ask me for a high resolution photo of the final painting. The problem is, today&apo;s digital cameras aren&apo;t high resolution enough to cover the needs of an album&apo;s release. We need at least 100 megapixels or even more. So what&apo;s the solution? Simple: 35mm slides. So I pulled out my old 1974 Praktica 35mm camera, and shoot my paintings on slides. That&apo;s my delivery method. It&apo;s free of all digital bonds, and slides can be enlarged to beautiful 28" X 40" posters.

Vinyl records, larger budgets, traditional painting, film negative or transparencies, it&apo;s good to be free from the digital bondage! The greatest thing is that everything is also cheaper.  :-)


View My Profile
Posted: 11/30/2016 5:51:43 AM
Interesting....... Honestly, I don't care much for digital. I've spent many hours trying to isolate what it is about film that I love but it's very illusive. Before video ever took hold, I use to say that movies were like animated painting. They didn't try to mimic reality. It was like looking into another dimension.. With video movies, even high end ones, that sensation is not present. Something is missing, or maybe, something that shouldn't be there IS there. Something like too much sharpness, not enough DOF, too high of contrast. Like I said, I can't put my finger on it but as someone who grew up with film, I do realize that digital can not compare.. but I'm older. Kids are growing up never appreciating film. I don't think they mind the look of video. I have a friend in his mid 30s who thinks film looks soft. I said to him "Exactly"! That's one of its qualities............................. for me, as a guy with not a lot of money, I'm thankful for digital. If it wasn't for digital I doubt I could hope to raise the money to shoot on film. 16mm 10:1 shooting ratio, negative stock, work print, answer print, magnetic sound, optical sound, lab costs, optical printer costs,,,,,,,,,,,, and don't forget equipment rentals!,,, even shooting on film then doing a telecine transfer to video is cost prohibitive for me.... No, I don't have a choice. It's digital or nothing..
mokkimachi
View My Profile
Posted: 11/30/2016 6:51:42 AM
Oh grow up.  We're not returning to analog. 

Then we might as well return to the prehistoric age and not have films at all.  We'll just tell our stories around a camp fire.  Film has destroyed the intimacy and love there was between humans who cuddled together for warmth and survival. 

Sv Bell | Black Flag Pictures
Sv+Bell
View My Profile
Posted: 11/30/2016 9:05:03 AM
James, what makes film stand out is that, being physical media, it captures a series of still images, as opposed to digital that records moving pixels and color variations. Film is therefore more natural, more alive than digital that will remain lifeless - regardless of the definition or encoding system.
And the perfection of a digital image also makes it look un-natural. What is perfect in real life? Nothing.


View My Profile
Posted: 11/30/2016 9:31:03 AM
I agree with that... It's the same with a lot of CGI models. Most modelers work in an environment that allows you to sculpt one side that is mathematically mirrored to the other. Perfect symmetry. Nothing in the world has that kind of perfection thus, it looks artificial... The original Darth Vader mask was asymmetrical. Not because they wanted it that way but because it was sculpted by humans using real materials. The new mask started with a perfect 3D model that was CNC'ed into reality... Nothing wrong with that but it illustrates that the digital world is touching all aspects of film making and art.............. Even though Marius is being his usual self, I still understand what he is saying. We feel a deep fondness for film because it is what we grew up knowing. Of course we would like to see it come back... Younger people don't love film the way we do and for many of them, they only know the look of video. For them, film looks soft and unrealistic. They never understood that a movie isn't really trying to mimic reality.
mokkimachi
View My Profile
Posted: 11/30/2016 11:06:20 AM
I get what you wannabe puritans are saying when you love film whatwith the film look that's just so lovely and imperfect and unrealistic and grainy and out of focus and jittery with slower frame rates making you nautious and whatnot. 

But it is just A look.  As in one.  One of many looks.  It is not THE SINGLE RIGHT ONE.  Nothing wrong with using many more looks in your work. 

I must say some recent digital movies have really created beautiful art with their digital looks and all.

Yes you can use your little 35mm camera and take snapshotties or you can use a digital camera and get great quality and lots of options in photo editing softwares that can create magic. 

You kids gotta understand this isn't the previous century.  We have choices now.  We don't have to stick to just the same one thing until we're dead and eaten by worms.   

So while I appreciate the look of film, I will not have it rammed down my throat.  Nor will I use JUST the film look when considering looks for motion pictures.  I want it all!   



In the late 90's I was like "I wanna have a 'film look' blah blah blah boo hoo!!!" and so on and on.  

But I only had video cameras, both tape ones and digital tape ones.  

So to get depth of field I always put the camera ten miles away from the subject and the subject was also placed ten miles from any background, and then I would zoom in to something between almost maximum and maximum.  

Worked like a charm.  Depth of field aplenty.  Not sure if it's film look but it was an absolutely awesome look.  Everybody lived in a world of blur.   



Then came a stage I was always manipulating my footage with software to give it all sorts of looks.  Softer, nicer, more colorful, less colorful, more brown, more glowy, less glowy, more grainy, less grainy, uglier, more pretty, warmer colors, cooler colors, more green colors and so on and on.  

Then came a time I wanted everything 24fps.  It just looks kinda almost filmy.  Even if something has the video look, you make it 24fps and it's a bit filmy. 

Then I returned to 25fps.  Huge difference between the two, even though some may think 25 is close enough to 24.  It's not the same at all. 

But right now, I'm at a stage where I  am using HD and 4K footage as is.  All the beauty is added while filming.  Lighting and powder and colored lights on set and cooler lights and warmer lights and so on.  

Not sure why.  Maybe I got tired of all the manipulation in post, so I'm at a stage where I want to film and then cut and then viola!  Beautiful.  More natural, less arty farty.   

And at this time, I LOOOOOOOOVE the clear clarity type image, especially wide landscape shots with lots of details, or indoor close-ups with lots of ornaments and details in the set dressing. 

So I'm afraid at this time I'm not sharing your craving for blurred horrible grainy nauseatingly jittery "film".  You'll have to excuse me.  I'm just in a different place in my creative road. 

It seems I went forward while you people went backward to pre-digital times when dinosaurs still were stop motion. 

Enjoy living in the past, bitches! 


Sv Bell | Black Flag Pictures
Sv+Bell
View My Profile
Posted: 11/30/2016 11:31:27 AM
Maybe there's room for the two technologies, James...! That's the same as vinyl records. My 17 y/o son appears to enjoy more vinyls than digital music now on. I didn't force fed him records. He just browsed thru my collection, listen to them, and find it more warm than the digital music he grown up with. When his fave bands release a new album, he looks for vinyl first, if he can't find it, he picks CDs. Downloading is not even an option.

Analog do have a charm, and it's not a question of generation. When someone is offered both options, chances are he'll pick the warmest one, with its advantages and inconvenients. For the past decade, digital was pretty much the only option available at hand. That's changing now, and faster than what e-preachers claim online...


View My Profile
Posted: 12/1/2016 5:13:31 AM
What I miss most about albums is the artwork on the jacket. I never bought an album just for the artwork but, if it had great artwork, it was a great bonus............................ I'll be honest. I've never done a side by side test with a CD and an album. Some people say a CD can not match the fidelity of a brand new album while other people say, the only way to tell the difference is to put it on a scope...
Sv Bell | Black Flag Pictures
Sv+Bell
View My Profile
Posted: 12/1/2016 11:03:57 AM
I can confirm there is a major difference in sound between CDs and vinyl records. CDs - or any compressed music - sounds artificial, flattened. I have a small mixer in my office, I connected three input: CD player, iTunes, and my turntable. I played the same album in synch on all three input, and then switch channels to compare simultaneously. CD and streaming didn't have a significant difference, but the vinyl sounded way better, richer, and the difference was obvious. Higher frequencies, deeper bass. You don't need to be a specialist to tell the difference. The digital versions sounded like defective recordings, regardless what albums you try. It's just the way it is. It's compressed audio.
Sv Bell | Black Flag Pictures
Sv+Bell
View My Profile
Posted: 12/1/2016 11:24:36 AM
The problem isn't only the limitations of the digital format, it's the 'loudness war' that studios have escalated with. The early CDs in the mid 80s weren't so bad, but then the loudness war happened, studios started to gradually boost the gain to make CDs sound louder, 'cleaner'. Boosting mid-range frequencies was done at the expense of capping high and low frequencies. Cut off the high tones and the deep bass, and boost gain.

Total Views: 869 (counter implemented 2010)

You must be logged in to reply to this thread.



How-To | Rules | Terms & Conditions

Local Companies | RSS FEED