If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Movieline)   Neuro-scientists vs. Peter Jackson, James Cameron. HFR is not working for most people because our brains can't process 48 images a second   (movieline.com) divider line 162
    More: Interesting, frame rate, James Cameron, The Hobbit, Jean-Luc Godard, Roger Penrose, old quantum theory, Jack MeHoff, mr cameron  
•       •       •

7671 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Dec 2012 at 3:23 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



162 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-15 10:31:34 PM

moel: So what your saying, is an eminent professor of psychology doesn't know shiat, but you as a feeble brained viewer is right?

The fact is he's damn right... Cinema is ALL ABOUT The willing suspension of disbelief....for me 3D farks that, and so does HFR by the sounds of it (and judging on the clips i've seen on the hobbit)


You mean the clips that you probably saw on TV at a scaled 48->24->30fps? Because, yeah, that's the way to judge how 48fps really looks.

If the shutter used is fast enough, 48fps should have enough motion blur to make the viewer unable to tell the difference between that and reality. And that's the goal.
 
2012-12-15 10:36:37 PM

profplump: MurphyMurphy: Great article, I've wondered what specifically it was that bothered me about it but I just couldn't put my finger on it. It definitely breaks that suspension of disbelief, the comfort zone.

Which is a perfectly valid point, but that's about training not the actual limitations of perception/etc. Once you get used to the higher frame rate you can ignore the non-reality of it just like you did before.


Well that's the real question. Is it learned behavior or not?

These would suggest that there is scientific evidence that it may not be.
Seriously people should read tfa, they cover this.
 
2012-12-15 10:40:58 PM

tlchwi02: i also wonder if the use of this for something set in a fantasy universe may not be the best idea. If it was a movie about normal people living in a normal world, that might be something. but in a fantasy world with a lot of CGI, any imperfection is going to stand out even more. and lotr (on reflection) had a lot of dodgy cgi.


Now THIS is something that is worth discussing, IMO.
 
2012-12-15 10:43:28 PM

Lligeret: I don't care about FPS. I am not interested in a real or a fake experience when I got to the movies. SURPRISE I ALREADY KNOW IT IS FAKE.


What they need to do is stop making stuff in 3D. It is irrelevant for 99% of the movie, and the 1% is forced stuff because hey it is 3D, where suddenly you are looking at it from a 1st person point of view when the rest of the movie is 3rd person. Here have one or two cool effects of something being thrown at the camera that completely disrupts the flow of the movie.


At this point 3D is too much work to do well through a whole movie so it ends up detracting from the movie. The best movie I have seen 3D in? Harry Potter. I hate those farking movies. But Harry Potter did it right, they decided since they couldn't do 3D well through the whole movie, they would just make the final fight scene 3D, but do it well. As it turns out 2-5 minutes of well done 3D is vastly superior to 2+ hours of crappy 3D.

It takes too much time and costs too much money to do 3D in a manner that it looks good through an entire movie though. I don't care if a movie feels fake or feels real, I would rather have a good story, good acting, good general shooting, and no farking 3D unless they take the time to do it. 24fps, 48fps, who cares you know how many of the really good movies I have seen that I thought "Man if only this was shot at a higher frame rate?" None.


Also, THIS.
 
2012-12-15 11:05:25 PM

JudgeItoBox: [i.imgur.com image 686x62]

Most of it, anyway. Sports, documentaries, the news, every network's shiatty song-and-dance competition...
Not sure who's more retarded; subby or TFA's "neuro-scientists"


What you're watching on tv is 60 interlaced frames. It's certainly not 60 individual frames per second.

Mad_Radhu: JudgeItoBox: [i.imgur.com image 686x62]

YOU WATCH TV AT 60 FPS!

Most of it, anyway. Sports, documentaries, the news, every network's shiatty song-and-dance competition...
Not sure who's more retarded; subby or TFA's "neuro-scientists"

Came here to say this. When I stream video from my Xbox to my HDTV it is at 60 Hz progressive scan, and shows with great cinematography like Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, Boardwalk Empire, and Mad Men look just as good as a theatrical feature film. They I no way look like a soap opera, despite Mad Men basically being a soap for middle aged men. I don't know if they film at 24p and then convert it to 60p or 60i for broadcast, and that's why it looks like it does, but I never get that unreal feeling from content that likely has been shot for 60p. Hell, even season 5 onwards of Doctor Who is starting to look like a feature film in terms of the cinematography with their new HD cameras.


Most shows and films are still shot at 24fps. Converting them for broadcast does not change the perception of their original frame rates.
 
2012-12-15 11:06:58 PM
A lot of people biatched when movies started including sound; "talkies".

A lot of people biatched when movies started being shot and played back in color.

A lot of people biatched when we moved from film to digital.

And eventually they ALL got over it.

48fps or 60fps is, all subjective observations aside, objectively better in every way. It's just a matter of industry adoption and people getting used to it.
 
2012-12-15 11:11:57 PM

MurphyMurphy: So much stupid in here it burns. It's like listening to a bunch of 3rd grade boys explain the intricacies of how women parts work.


This.

MurphyMurphy: Well that's the real question. Is it learned behavior or not?

These would suggest that there is scientific evidence that it may not be.


This.
Some people seem to almost brag about not noticing the high FPS. If it's not learned behavior(and I don't think it is) and actually physiological limitations, people that are less perceptive won't notice it as much, if at all. There's a certain irony there that I find pleasing.

It's not a matter of conditioning one's self, or what we're used to. We're all enthralled by nice HD graphics because of the detail, that is the very edge of uncanny valley most people just don't realize it. We like HD images because they just tickle that sense(something much studied by artists, designers, at the demand of Ad agencies globally, that visual "pop"). Increasing frame rates pushes us further in that direction, and 3d is a jump off the cliff for many people.
 
2012-12-15 11:20:46 PM

Prospero424: A lot of people biatched when movies started including sound; "talkies".

A lot of people biatched when movies started being shot and played back in color.

A lot of people biatched when we moved from film to digital.

And eventually they ALL got over it.

48fps or 60fps is, all subjective observations aside, objectively better in every way. It's just a matter of industry adoption and people getting used to it.


I think 48fps certainly has a place in cinema, but I don't want it to become the standard. After all, since when was realism the ultimate goal in filmmaking?

48fps will resolve more detail in the imagery, but in what other ways is it better?
 
2012-12-15 11:29:04 PM
I saw it last night in HFR 3D. There was a noticeable difference for me though not all the time, some of the scenes looked really nice, and some seemed to just look "wrong" and was not as enjoyable.

/enjoyable, but it should have been called "Lord of the Rings presents: The Hobbit"
 
2012-12-15 11:29:24 PM

assjuice: Omg, real life is infinite frames per second. That's why everything looks like shiat.


Wat ?
 
2012-12-15 11:56:57 PM

Haliburton Cummings: this is a buncha malarky too as showscan was 60 fps and no one complained about that.


And what feature films has showscan been used in?
 
2012-12-16 12:09:53 AM

erik-k: bemused outsider: Yeah, reality has an infinite frame rate, BUT your visual perception physiology does NOT.

With out the "blur" of movement, you end up with a rapid series of stop-frame images, where the action will look very non-fluid. Yes, when thrown, a football travels at over 60 feet per second, but if you image it perfectly at 60 fps, you would freeze it at each point in its travel. When you then show the series in real time, the football will appear to jump from one position of perfect focus, to the next position of perfect focus, and it would look unnatural, and very artificial.

Like it or not, your brain WANTS the image to imitate your normal continuous stream of data input, and that includes the inability of your visual system to focus clearly on BOTH the moving football and the stationary receiver. One of them will be blurred.

Um, whether you see a sequence of frozen images or motion blur has nothing to do with framerate and everything to do with shutter speed. If the shutter is on 1/1000, anything less than 1000fps will give you a sequence of discontinuous images instead of proper blur.

/Bring on the high framerates
//Only two movies should be 3D: Tron and Tron Legacy.




I should have added the shutter speed deets, but hey, you got the point of using an appropriate shutter speed for frame rate.

I did some game testing on the gamer PC for a programmer, and he had an adjustable frame rate in there at one point, including a "fastest frame rate possible for the given scene" which got into the 300 fps #'s at times. The video card was fine, but the monitor was limited to 120, so obviously I never saw it faster than the 120. After 90 fps it didn't much change anything. The processing load was overheating the video card though.

As for traveling faster than 50 mph or "beware of faster than 160", Not an issue, done faster.
But the point isn't whether you can gauge position and placement by following the extremely fast backgrounds and other vehicles as they blur by, but rather, at speed can you also correctly read the license plates or small signs that flash by... Not likely, unless you specifically focus on that task, and now put yourself in extreme danger by not following the road. Again the point is, physiology does not "see" in frame rates, it monitors an incoming image data stream, and can process specifics only by grabbing them and interrupting the incoming stream.

High frame rates matter, oh yes they do, but human physiology does have its limits irrespective of any individual's heroic viewing capacity/appreciation.
 
2012-12-16 12:17:59 AM

Skirl Hutsenreiter: Haliburton Cummings: this is a buncha malarky too as showscan was 60 fps and no one complained about that.

And what feature films has showscan been used in?


i like you
 
2012-12-16 12:38:04 AM

omeganuepsilon: and 3d is a jump off the cliff for many people.


They probably couldn't see the drop-off, because they took their glasses off.
 
2012-12-16 01:10:28 AM

tricycleracer: But scientists and researchers in the field of consciousness perception say that the human brain perceives reality at a rate somewhere between 24 fps and 48 fps - 40 conscious moments per second, to be more exact - and exceeding the limit of the brain's speed of cognition beyond the sweet spot that connotes realism is where Jackson & Co. get into trouble.

How can you possibly corrupt a system by giving it information at a rate that is slightly less degraded than its natural operating environment? Photons don't have a "frame rate".


The article suggests that there's an "uncanny valley" frame rate and if you exceed it (as 48 fps probably does) then the brain tries to reject it - or more accurately, prevents you from suspending disbelief. Same thing you get when you have a CG character that isn't _quite_ there.
 
2012-12-16 01:17:59 AM

Skirl Hutsenreiter: Haliburton Cummings: this is a buncha malarky too as showscan was 60 fps and no one complained about that.

And what feature films has showscan been used in?


btw, i didn't say showscan was used in features...

/i still like you
 
2012-12-16 01:37:17 AM

Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: What you're watching on tv is 60 interlaced frames. It's certainly not 60 individual frames per second.


That is only for a NTSC signal or 1080i signal being viewed on obsolete CRT hardware. LCD TV technology used in most HDTVs doesn't natively support interlacing, so the TV hardware deinterlaces the fields before the image is displayed on screen (although you aren't getting any effective added frame rate), not to mention that 480p/60 DVD, 1080p/60 Blu-Ray, and 720p broadcast content is 60 individual frames.


Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: Most shows and films are still shot at 24fps. Converting them for broadcast does not change the perception of their original frame rates.


You do have a point with that. As I mentioned in my post above, when I think about it more, I'm betting a lot of those shows probably shoot on digital cameras designed for film that probably are optimized for 24p. Does anyone know if there are any shows that use 60p cameras that aren't soaps?
 
2012-12-16 01:59:44 AM

Skirl Hutsenreiter: Haliburton Cummings: this is a buncha malarky too as showscan was 60 fps and no one complained about that.

And what feature films has showscan been used in?


I saw some of those showscan rides.

They were a hell of a lot better then the movies playing.

/loved cosmic pinball, space race, and devils mine ride.
//None of that "it's to real, uncanny valley" bullshiat.
 
2012-12-16 02:04:24 AM

tricycleracer: How can you possibly corrupt a system by giving it information at a rate that is slightly less degraded than its natural operating environment? Photons don't have a "frame rate".


It's not about photons or physical reality being constant(infinite frame-rate).

It's about how the human brain can process only so much at one time. The test is really simple using lights that go on an off instantly. You flip them on and off until people don't notice the flicker. That's our hard limit. In layman's terms anyhow.

Flicker Fusion Threshold

As for why people may not like high frame rates:

Same page, a specific section.

See also:
Link
Persistence of vision is the phenomenon of the eye by which an afterimage is thought to persist for approximately one twenty-fifth of a second on the retina.

What the camera captures as high frame rates may not correlate with how we would see the same thing in person. This goes doubly so for enhanced images. IE the tweaks to contrast and brightness and such, that make a still image pop, come off as unrealistic in some settings, especially video.

That persistence of vision alone justifies people's claims of being uncomfortable, but add to that how we perceive motion in person and how high-speed camera's differ from that...well, a lot of people in this thread look just as mentioned above.

Bears repeating again..

MurphyMurphy: So much stupid in here it burns. It's like listening to a bunch of 3rd grade boys explain the intricacies of how women parts work.

 
2012-12-16 02:30:44 AM

omeganuepsilon: Flicker Fusion Threshold


Does this apply to modern digital cinema projectors?
 
2012-12-16 02:39:25 AM
It applies to human visual perception.
 
2012-12-16 02:58:07 AM
HFR? Meh, fructose isn't good for you anyway.
 
2012-12-16 03:11:43 AM

MrEricSir: omeganuepsilon: Flicker Fusion Threshold

Does this apply to modern digital cinema projectors?

The flicker fusion threshold (or flicker fusion rate) is a concept in the psychophysics of vision. It is defined as the frequency at which an intermittent light stimulus appears to be completely steady to the observer (this article centers on human observers). Flicker fusion threshold is related to persistence of vision.


If you'd read the wiki you'd have seen that, it's the first few sentences.

If what we display does not match how a person would perceive the event, people will have complaints, as evident with 3d and high fps footage recent news.

If your theoretically vague equipment falls in line with that, then yes?

I mean, you can continue to be ignorant(of course, at this point it'd be considered willful), or troll, whatever you please, but the question was rather ..dull. Regardless as to what you learned in third grade last week, there is such a thing as a stupid question.
 
2012-12-16 03:27:21 AM

Mad_Radhu: Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: What you're watching on tv is 60 interlaced frames. It's certainly not 60 individual frames per second.

That is only for a NTSC signal or 1080i signal being viewed on obsolete CRT hardware. LCD TV technology used in most HDTVs doesn't natively support interlacing, so the TV hardware deinterlaces the fields before the image is displayed on screen (although you aren't getting any effective added frame rate), not to mention that 480p/60 DVD, 1080p/60 Blu-Ray, and 720p broadcast content is 60 individual frames.


Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: Most shows and films are still shot at 24fps. Converting them for broadcast does not change the perception of their original frame rates.

You do have a point with that. As I mentioned in my post above, when I think about it more, I'm betting a lot of those shows probably shoot on digital cameras designed for film that probably are optimized for 24p. Does anyone know if there are any shows that use 60p cameras that aren't soaps?


Most TV's now create additional frames to make the rate 120 or 240 fps. The software manufactures one (or three) extra frames that it inserts.
 
2012-12-16 03:35:20 AM

omeganuepsilon: MrEricSir: omeganuepsilon: Flicker Fusion Threshold

Does this apply to modern digital cinema projectors?

The flicker fusion threshold (or flicker fusion rate) is a concept in the psychophysics of vision. It is defined as the frequency at which an intermittent light stimulus appears to be completely steady to the observer (this article centers on human observers). Flicker fusion threshold is related to persistence of vision.

If you'd read the wiki you'd have seen that, it's the first few sentences.


If you'd bothered to research beyond the almighty Wikipedia, you'd know that this phenomenon only occurs in displays that have a perceptible flicker (hence its name.)


If what we display does not match how a person would perceive the event, people will have complaints, as evident with 3d and high fps footage recent news.

Some people also complain wifi is giving them cancer. Complaints are not always evidence.
 
2012-12-16 03:40:12 AM
WHERE DID JOHNSON GO?
I WANTED TO HEAR MOAR ABUT HIS SNEEK PEAKZ !!!!!


LOL

/bwahahahahh
//this must happen at parties alot

"there i was at the Skywalker Ranch in 1977, a ten year old, watching the explosion of the Death Star...John Dykstra signed my hat...of course I didn't keep it...etc etc etc etc "

i love the BS on fark
 
2012-12-16 03:44:52 AM

assjuice: Omg, real life is infinite frames per second. That's why everything looks like shiat.


no.
 
2012-12-16 04:44:42 AM

Haliburton Cummings: WHERE DID JOHNSON GO?
I WANTED TO HEAR MOAR ABUT HIS SNEEK PEAKZ !!!!!

LOL

/bwahahahahh
//this must happen at parties alot

"there i was at the Skywalker Ranch in 1977, a ten year old, watching the explosion of the Death Star...John Dykstra signed my hat...of course I didn't keep it...etc etc etc etc "

i love the BS on fark


Look... if someone is lying, and lying compulsively, then just ignore them. People do it for many reasons, including defence.

I went to school with a kid who had outrageous lies he couldn't back up. Though he was my friend, I never understood why he bothered with this stuff. Probably to make himself feel more important.
 
2012-12-16 04:56:58 AM

MrEricSir: If you'd bothered to research beyond the almighty Wikipedia, you'd know that this phenomenon only occurs in displays that have a perceptible flicker (hence its name.)


It doesn't occur in the display at all, it occurs in the brain, as was the point of my post, which you continually willfully ignore.

Your cherry picked argument aside.... My point was to provide a few links on to how it all goes together in the brain, in relation to the post I originally quoted.

If you want to be an irrelevant contrarian, you can do so on my ignore list.
 
2012-12-16 05:39:32 AM

Teufelaffe: Let me guess, another person who thinks that because our neurological system can only recognize ~60 individual images per second, that means we can't "see" or process higher frame rates, while completely ignoring that our brain is really, really good at filling in smoothing visual movement thus making the number of individual images we can process per second a meaningless number in regard to artificially created moving images?

*reads the article*

Yup.


Wut?! You don't even understand what you've just written.
 
2012-12-16 05:57:21 AM

R Kelly's Doo Doo Butter: ///Why didn't the eagles just pick them up at the shire and drop them off at Lonely Mountain?


The one moral you should take away from every Middle Earth story isn't that evil can survive, or that good can win, or that unexpected people can do amazing things... It's that the Eagles are kinda dicks.
 
2012-12-16 05:59:54 AM

omeganuepsilon: If you want to be an irrelevant contrarian, you can do so on my ignore list.


Always a great substitute for a rational argument! At any rate, the real contrarian here is Wikipedia since the article you posted on persistence of vision debunks your hypothesis. It's an interesting read.
 
2012-12-16 06:08:06 AM

bemused outsider: I should have added the shutter speed deets, but hey, you got the point of using an appropriate shutter speed for frame rate.

I did some game testing on the gamer PC for a programmer, and he had an adjustable frame rate in there at one point, including a "fastest frame rate possible for the given scene" which got into the 300 fps #'s at times. The video card was fine, but the monitor was limited to 120, so obviously I never saw it faster than the 120. After 90 fps it didn't much change anything. The processing load was overheating the video card though.


A few years back I had a once ludicrously expensive SGI monitor that could do a staggering range of framerates. Once on a lark, I played BZflag at a resolution of 240x160 or somesuch at 180fps. I scored rather poorly for fairly obvious reasons but I cannot forget how utterly, perfectly smooth the display was. No fake sequence of ghost images when I rapidly turned at all. In that one aspect it was indistinguishable from reality: just smooth motion blur, even though standard cgi frames epitomize the zero-shutter-speed limit.

The brain's front-end processing, for anything, can only quickly distinguish between about 4-5 analog values (You can immediately say which half, 3rd, 4th, maybe 5th of a line segment a dot lies on, but more takes a rapidly increasing amount of time), so once you get past about 96-120fps even at zero shutter speed it'll basically be seen as smooth in all "reasonable" circumstances.
 
2012-12-16 06:50:57 AM
To work out the framerate of reality, it`s 1/5.39106(32)*10−44 

A bit more than 48.
 
2012-12-16 07:23:45 AM

MurphyMurphy: So much stupid in here it burns. It's like listening to a bunch of 3rd grade boys explain the intricacies of how women parts work. You folks have so much technical knowledge it's like someone combined an Apple Store Geniustm with a BestBuy sales associate.

There is so much science to perception, but have no fear the neckbeards are here to help!!! See, they can turn their vsync on and off on their video card, they study frame rates when playing WoW and also have a high def lcd TV so... they obviously know wtf is up.



Great article, I've wondered what specifically it was that bothered me about it but I just couldn't put my finger on it. It definitely breaks that suspension of disbelief, the comfort zone.

Looks great for the Olympics, sports, news, anything that is supposed to be real. But just looks oddly asinine for something that is supposed to be fantastic and abstract.

JudgeItoBox: [i.imgur.com image 686x62]

Most of it, anyway. Sports, documentaries, the news, every network's shiatty song-and-dance competition...
Not sure who's more retarded; subby or TFA's "neuro-scientists"

You didn't read the article.


Thx for this, especially this line: But just looks oddly asinine for something that is supposed to be fantastic and abstract.

Years ago I was watching a "making of" show about one of the Terminator movies and in one part they showed Arnold pounding on a car's hood from a fixed position documentary camera. It looked completely cheesy and fake, but the same scene when shown through the "movie" camera, looked as awesome as movies always do.
 
2012-12-16 07:28:25 AM

JudgeItoBox: [i.imgur.com image 686x62]

Most of it, anyway. Sports, documentaries, the news, every network's shiatty song-and-dance competition...
Not sure who's more retarded; subby or TFA's "neuro-scientists"


But it was shot at 30fps.

Not sure why everyone here doesn't understand that.
 
2012-12-16 08:45:02 AM
 
2012-12-16 11:46:15 AM

Haliburton Cummings: that's what i thought


Haliburton Cummings: Johnson: I managed to see a demo of it at his company headquarters by accident. I was in town to visit someone in summer 1987 and looked it up on a lark and simply showed up to see about "the demo".

hmmm. fark quote button broken...

tell me where the "showscan company headquarters" was and I'll tell ya if you are a liar or not.

one does not simply walk in in on a Trumbull client showing....


hey, I don't care if you think I'm lying or not. I would have come up with something better than that if I was making up shiat.
I am so very sorry I did not spend last night replying to you, but I had a little party to go to.
I'm not from LA, sorry I didn't keep my notes from that day of where I went. Oh yeah, I didn't take notes.

I worked in the film biz then and was using my week in LA to visit places I had either dealt with by renting stuff or talked to on the phone, or had only heard of and wanted to see how they operated. I was bored one day and went to see Spaceballs and then I looked up wherever Showscan was headquartered because I had brought my Los Angeles Production Bible (or whatever it was called, it was a thick reference book of ads and contacts for the entertainment industry.)
So I literally looked up Showscan and it was in there. I'm pretty sure I called from a payphone and asked if there was a showing today. I had no clue that it was not open to the public. The person who answered the phone told me "Yes" and gave me a time, so I just showed up on-time like I belonged there and walked in. I'm sure you could not do that today, but this was 1987.

The seats were theatre seats on a hydraulic ride platform. Trumbull came out, introduced himself and then asked everyone to introduce themselves to him. That's when I realized that I was not supposed to be there. When my turn came, I just smiled and said I was an AD from Chicago (I actually did Props). Trumbull just kind of looked at me for a moment, then said "well, hope you enjoy the show" or something like that. He didn't kick me out, what would be the point? I wasn't there to cause trouble.
The demo was only about 10-15 minutes long and began with Trumbull live in front of the screen talking, then a filmed version (at 60fps) took over on the screen, apparently for comparison. It looked pretty good, but not as great as I had been led to believe. Then there was POV rollercoaster footage and the seats would move. The moving seats made a huge difference in the experience.

After it was over, I just got up and left.
It was really not that big of a deal at the time.
I was used to walking onto sets and talking to famous actors and directors like human beings (which they are) , not like gods or something.
Did I mention that I worked in the biz? I'm not a fanboy living in his parent's basement.

There were a few other places on my list to visit while I was there. If you are in the film biz it is amazing how accommodating everyone is.
I also walked into ALLEFFECTS (or ALLFX, whatever Eric Allard's company was) and everyone was at lunch, so someone gave me a private tour of the facilities which -at the time- occupied several of those Industrial Park buildings, they just blew holes through the walls to connect the units.
Lots of Johnny Five stuff hanging on the walls, R/C Energizer bunnies, I took note of a Johnny Five "arm" that I later tried to rent from them for a commercial, they wanted $10K a DAY to rent it, PLUS First Class airfare for the operator. I ended up making one. (not as nice, but usable and within the budget).

I was there for a week, so I visited all the Prop Houses to see what they had. Modern Props was great, they had all the wonderful light-up hand gadgets from Ghostbusters just sitting on a shelf along with tons of other stuff. And I could rent anything. It was not very expensive either.
I had rented things from Special Effects Unlimited before so I went and visited them as well. Just walked in. Wandered around. Talked to the guys working and prepping stuff that was going out or coming back from rental. Got another red ball cap.
While in the Van Nuys area I went to see Matt Sweeney since I used to rent flying gear from him. He was working on a race car or something. Another really approachable and helpful person. Even though I didn't use his "Sweeney Gun" he told me where to get little hemispheres you could stuff with things to make dust hits or zirc hits (sparks when it hits something). So there was a trip to the Prop shop at UA or Paramount (I forget where, its been awhile). Not a bad week for a tourist.
 
2012-12-16 12:11:35 PM
I have seen pr0n videos in 60 fps and it made a difference. Not a huge one though, but still. Guess you only see the visual improvements if you really look for them.

Your argument is invalid.
 
2012-12-16 12:31:37 PM

Haliburton Cummings: WHERE DID JOHNSON GO?
I WANTED TO HEAR MOAR ABUT HIS SNEEK PEAKZ !!!!!

LOL

/bwahahahahh
//this must happen at parties alot

"there i was at the Skywalker Ranch in 1977, a ten year old, watching the explosion of the Death Star...John Dykstra signed my hat...of course I didn't keep it...etc etc etc etc "

i love the BS on fark


Having actually worked in the film biz for over 25 years, now retired, I'm curious as to what your expertise is in matters such as this?
Is your life so bland that you cannot fathom how an olde fart like me could possibly have experienced something as mundane as walking in to a Showscan screening?
BTW- when I go to parties (like last night, when you were here trashing me for some reason), it is usually a mix of artists and crafts people that still work in the film biz. They have much better stories than I do.

OK - here is my one "fan boy" film experience that I will share with you:
While I was in film school, one of our instructors was Tony Buba. He taught Sound Production, but he also was close friends with George Romero and worked on a few of his films as well as appeared in them. He told us that Dawn of the Dead (yes, 1978...) was being screened at....I want to say the Ann Arbor Film Festival and Romero was going to be there. We all loved George Romero, so with no planning, a couple of us drove to the film festival and found out we could not find a hotel room, so we just hung out at the convention center, or whatever it was that was screening the film, found places to hide and sleep until the screening. Went to the screening, saw Tony, told him how excited we were, he was happy to see us, then introduced us to GEORGE ROMERO! Whoo Hoo! George was nice and said "lets all go get a drink!"
Oh Boy- Drinks with George Romero!
I had to run back to where I had stashed my backpack. By the time I returned, they were gone.
I had no idea where they went. I looked and looked, never found them.

oh well. I have my memories.
 
2012-12-16 12:46:56 PM

Haliburton Cummings:
-so where did you "look it up"?



ahh, it was not the Production Bible, it was the LA411 guide, which is still in production and....it is basically a "yellow pages" for the film biz.
I'll have to see if I somehow saved my 1986 or 1987 copy. I rather doubt it.

These were available for all the major film industry markets and had different names depending on the area.
I actually took out a display ad for my own area. What a waste of money. Never got any work from it, except for one little job that led to me meeting my wife.
She checked the local guide to see if I was legit. The early version of googling someone.
So I guess it was worth it for that.
 
2012-12-16 02:27:07 PM
To me the question is this: Do we really WANT an ultra-realistic window into another world?

Last I checked movies weren't meant to be simulations.
 
2012-12-16 03:12:29 PM
I saw it in 2d and hfr 3d and the higher frame rates really make the movie. It is incredibly apparent in many of the scenes in the 2d version that you aren't being fed enough frames. The only issue I had with hfr is it does require a higher level of special effects, and it wasn't perfect on this front. The same issues were present in 2d but they were harder to see. Hfr all the way!
 
2012-12-16 04:01:58 PM

Kaiser Blade: Last I checked movies weren't meant to be simulations.


Someone needs to write something on a piece of paper called "The Christopher Nolan Rules" and have it up on every wall of every production room on movies:-

1. No 3D
2. Film, preferably as large a format as you can make
3. Minimise CG, using other effects as much as possible
4. A good farking story with good characters that treats the viewer intelligently.
5. A cast of really good actors (note: not necessarily stars)
 
2012-12-16 04:16:32 PM

Haliburton Cummings:
tell me where the "showscan company headquarters" was and I'll tell ya if you are a liar or not.


oh look it is on the Googles, although not actually in "LA" proper, but Culver City CA (everything is LA to anyone else like me)

3939 Landmark to be exact. Been there since I was there.

Thanks for the trip down memory lane, I had forgotten many of the things I did on that trip.

Now it is your turn to show everyone your credentials for judging my motivations and my experiences. 

also- Fark ID 1986
so I win!
 
2012-12-16 04:47:32 PM

Johnson: hey, I don't care if you think I'm lying or not.


Hah, so why the four replies?

Seriously, I enjoyed your reminiscences. Don't let dumbasses get your goat.
 
2012-12-16 05:00:37 PM

LordOfThePings: Johnson: hey, I don't care if you think I'm lying or not.

Hah, so why the four replies?


Because I am a stubborn old coot?

Seriously, I enjoyed your reminiscences. Don't let dumbasses get your goat.

I actually enjoyed looking through some of my old stuff to see if I saved any old LA411 guides.
I also questioned my original memories and am now reasonably confident that I did experience them and they were not fantasies or something.
Looking up Showscan history was also fun.

also- remembering again how my wife found me. that was worth posting about (for me anyways) 

yeah, I know, get a blog....
 
2012-12-16 05:22:20 PM

fluffy2097: 24 FPS was not chosen in movie projectors because it was the best. It was chosen because it allowed persistence of motion without destroying sprockets on the print or making the feed mechanism more unreliable then it already was.


and we liked it that way goddammit
 
2012-12-16 06:12:48 PM
The truth of the matter is the higher frame rate better approximates reality. The problem is that if you take a good hard look at it, reality starts looking pretty shiatty.
 
2012-12-16 07:23:37 PM

Johnson: LordOfThePings: Johnson: whhhaaarrggbblllee


butthurt?


oh yeah? well i have more friends on myspace than you!! re: your "fark" number.

you do sound like a 25 year veteran of being a PA.

"this muffin is stale Johnson..."

I've worked in various facets of "showbiz" and you sound like a grunt.

i'm not posting my pedigree on fark...but without getting as 'name drop a nobody happy' as you, i can say, i've worked in and around the IMAX folks, and Trumbull, specifically in regards to show pavilions at world fairs...

you sound like Scameron.... 

and it's probably a good thing you "retired".

i will subscribe to your newsletter however and in the meantime,

you have a safe and happy holiday and thank you again for you timely reply.

big hugs....

Haliburton 


/John Dykstra did sign my hat.
//nerdrage
 
Displayed 50 of 162 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report