Emanuel
-
Posts
6,272 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Posts posted by Emanuel
-
-
@zlfan with the due respect and pretty friendly... what else? ; )
Please let this community know WTH of shit you're smoking? : D
I'm saying this 'cause people respond to you and you insist on the same argument as before like going on circles... LOL
You obviously don't read the replies you ask, as a lot of others among us have expressed such concern about so particular world of your own, dude... : P
-
-
The only idiomatic differences you @Jedi Master can claim is the fact the form "to have been" in Portuguese is called "Pretérito Perfeito Composto" which means past and in English "Present Perfect" against the "Present Simple" used by me instead ; ) So, for some reason, I've placed it in the present tense in both idioms ;- )
-
2 hours ago, Jedi Master said:
Sorry, no. There's a difference between saying "the wheel is invented" and "the wheel has already been invented". It may seem like a small, meaningless nuance to you, but to a native English speaker like me it really alters the meaning. The meaning was clear in your Portuguese text, which is why I asked you to use your native tongue.
That nuance is nothing about the use of distinct idioms, idiomatic meanings, etc. Nada ; )
Verb tenses work the same in each one of those two. For the sake of it. In this case.
I've introduced the word "already" in Portuguese ("já"), that's why the translator placed the verb as I would have written if I had written it in English.
In the first version though, no use of such word.
I would probably haven't written "the wheel is already invented".
Hence the word "already" stayed off.
I wanted to lay emphasis on that, reason why I wrote "the wheel is invented" instead.
"The wheel has already been invented" is not translated in Portuguese: "A roda já está inventada" (present tense). Nope. That's not what I said in Portuguese. I wrote in the present tense on purpose.
You two come here with the bizarre idea 24p is outdated. There's a new future to come. That usual yadda yadda.
24p -- the same applies for the mechanisms which produce the mainstream, both are not the wheel invented in the past tense, something prone to change. No. They are valid yesterday, today and tomorrow. That's the big mistake of such argument :- )
- EAG
-
1 hour ago, Jedi Master said:
Yes, that helped. I would argue that forward-looking is, more often than not, going to lead to improvements that weren’t necessarily obvious from first inspection. Saying the wheel has already been invented seems to imply what’s done is done and there’s no room for improvement, but I feel there’s always room for improvement. Otherwise we’d stagnate, both technologically and artistically.
No, it didn't. What changed there? The word "already" to couple to "the wheel is invented"? LOL
That one is the same written earlier in English : ) And from your response, it is easy to see we're talking about different things ; )
Nothing about room for improvement.
Art hasn't been invented with the medium of film.
It won't be reinvented with the future to come neither.
Nothing changes when more people as target are added to the equation.
The wider you go or the larger your target is appointed as, the narrower the quality of your content needs to be. To reach more people.
Theoretically, the more educated audiences you have, the better outcome your chances are. The more complex and most influential mainstream will become.
It's all about that.
The point is that's mere food for dreamers. It will hardly be achieved. Low level is not to be pessimist but realist.
-
*knowledge (no typos or carefree language converted in written posts will contaminate the speech or the understanding of the receiver... the same for the use of a non-native idiom as second language, that's beyond and more complex than that)
-
1 hour ago, Jedi Master said:
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. May I make a suggestion? Try writing your responses in your native language and run them through the Google translator to translate them to English. It’s worth a try.
As said before, it would work exactly the same : ) Really. Don't you follow the problem going on here?
As written earlier too, a filmmaking forum is not a campus even though the efforts made along these many pages... haha
I am pretty sure you're able to find competent Colleges, Universities or a filmschool where people may learn the basics on the topic handled there.
To leave it out of the context doesn't help either.
One of those is true anyway:
1) You're doing it on purpose just trying to succeed with the art *cough cough* of winning an argument... : D
2) Or you're just being picky because there's some portion of a line to actually escape you... Reading is a fuck* indeed.
* For such level of material, the meaning of the stuff is hidden in the articulation of the subliminal text, between the lines and the like. It's not inside the post you'll definitely find the information you're looking for. There's a whole construction out there. Takes many years, experience of life, academics and so on. A whole lifetime almost invariably.
But once you asked it:
Expandir o espectro não significa necessariamente algo melhor. Muitas das vezes, apenas pior (= down). Infelizmente, este é o caso. Este é o drama real que o nosso medium vive hoje. Não esse alvoroço em torno da questão do número de fotogramas. A roda já está inventada.
Did it help?
I doubt whatever you'll add as your answer to the question.
For a simple reason. There are concepts like mainstream, to make the audience wider, what it does mean (when the knwoledge spread allover the population is low), mass communication and so on.
Let alone art itself. Yes, art, aesthetics... How many times they come to be written here? And, so what? Gilles Deleuze and Artavazd Peleshyan have been mentioned by myself. Have you ever been in touch with their work? Any contact with the meaning of their contribution in fact?
:- )
-
LOL : ) A book requires a bit more though. Let alone those with different volumes... : P
There's no book nor even a booklet without readers, so I think we should be all here honoured with your attention ; ) The finest example of it you have in that infamous thread mentioned up there which along these two weeks has already reached 16 pages so far... *cough cough* yet requires a bit more to be considered like that.
There are books and books and different ones for very distinct readers who also speak volumes about the books they're used to read ;- )
-
15 hours ago, zlfan said:
Interesting discussion, actually.
I guess your point is more about elitism vs populism.
One hundred years ago, 16p and 24p were determined by Hollywood powerful producers and dps single handed. The world followed. At the time, the technology is exclusive. Elitism in cinematography is true.
Now, the technological barrier is almost none. It is just internet, democratize information. Nowadays, you can have a crop mood ml raw cam lower than $500, and have true lossless 14 bit raw, on par with arriraw.
In the still photography world, such trend already happens. Anyone with an iphone or u43 cam, can snap at the right moment in the right place, some decisive moments. Some of these photos are no less than a pro's master piece, in all of the ways.
In 10 to 20 years, such trend will come to the cinema world. Plus the AI, most of the time, you even don't need a pretty model anymore. Exciting time, but many old rules may not hold anymore, including the 24p thing.
Not exactly.
We have two possible perwpectives on this one:
Seeing democratization as something welcome. It really is. But not without flaws such as the one mentioned. When people have no structure, as for instance, knowledge in order to be able to manage such access.
I meant instead though, when the wider the less.
Because of that need to reach everyone, the more the better. In this case, it is often the more the lower.
Communication becomes poorer. Standards come down from something higher, better, more sophisticated, not seen as something necessarily elitist but high-ranking content, complex to the other side of the coin for something capable to be absorbed by many. That's what mainstream means more invariably than it should.
Wider doesn't necessarily bring anything better or higher. Lots of times, just down. Yes, unfortunately. This is the real drama our medium lives. (Not such frame rate uproar... the wheel is invented!)
- EAG :- )
-
13 minutes ago, Emanuel said:
Well, 24 is a multiple of several ones (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12), 23 not ; )
I stand corrected, obviously, 24 is a multiple of several ones but not of 5... LOL
It is 'cause my mind lives in the PAL world... : D
BTW, we use 25p because of the electricity and the frequency used here: 50Hz.
So, still stands for 24: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12
-
15 hours ago, zlfan said:
anyone is willing to explain why eu uses 25p, states for 24p? why 23p is not chosen, not cinematic?not larger than life? 23p is further away from 60p than 24p, so it is more larger than life?
The same way why you've chosen this one and not other individual to spend your lifetime with ; )
In this case, something had to be chosen as a standard.
Nothing against standards. They comply a function.
Would any of them be relevant to the equation?
Well, 24 is a multiple of several ones (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12), 23 not ; )
Even 25 (1,5), a way less than 24.
Human perception works with mathematical variables.
Universe is math.
https://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.html
Human perception works with perspective.
Isn't 30p or 60p farther, or further away from 24p as you wrote, so as you have even confirmed? ;- )
- EAG :- )
-
Communication is a bitch.
The average of visual literacy of the audiences wordwide is usually lower than it should.
So, mainstream standards have only to follow, unfortunately.
-
10 minutes ago, zlfan said:
(...)
Let's deduct a little bit more here. The recent 24p documentaries actually pose a dilemma for 24p. If 24p is larger than life, even subtly, then recent 24p documentaries dps are cheating viewers, because documentaries are supposed to be strictly journalism oriented. If 24p is not larger than life, 24p documentaries are real stories, which follow the journalism principles, but 24p is larger than life cannot hold.
Just now, zlfan said:this goes behind strict journalism. there is some category called true story trying to blend journalism and creative writing, but it is not widely accepted.
1 minute ago, zlfan said:this goes "beyond" strict journalism. sorry for the typo.
Widely accepted?! Oh God, where are you coming from?
Are docs supposed to be "strictly journalism"??!
I love these forums but I can hate them with the same intensity too for that perversion of democracy when we can see posters to write about something like they are an authority on some field when they have no clue about it, as far as they can show from their entries...
I'm sorry but it is what it is : )
And if no one says anything, at a certain point becomes old school or science made when not mainstream! LOL ;- )
Nothing personal though, you look like a nice guy, just misinformed, that's it :- )
-
Indeed, it's a 'proof is in the pudding' thing... ;- )
-
4 hours ago, zlfan said:
When I watch recent documentaries, I never have feelings that these are larger than life, although I bet most of these documentaries, if not all, are shot with 24p. I doubt any DP is willing to choose 30p or 29.97p for his/her documentaries, when 24p is at hands, easily accessible.
If a documentary DP gives me the feeling that his work is larger than life, I think this is a failure, instead of a success. I watch documentaries to learn real stories, in depth news analysis and reports, not some drama. The former is journalism, the latter is creative writing, very very different.
I seriously doubt 24p gives a larger than life feeling, at least, I don't see such a thing in documentaries.
(When you watch documentaries... Right. I get your point but)
are you sure of the remainder part? ; )
I was there the first time I watched this piece, a year later, same screening room, with the filmmaker himself, talking to him (in English : D) through a physical human translator : P... perhaps *cough cough* the greatest name of the documentary cinema since Dziga Vertov:
https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/features/artavazd-pelechian-nature-seasons-poetic-montage
https://www.artforum.com/columns/artavazd-peleshian-193439/
https://www.sensesofcinema.com/2012/great-directors/artavazd-pelechian/
https://artreview.com/artavazd-pelechian-visionary-cinema-nature-seasons/
About his work and contribution, experts are used to produce content of more than 1-hour only to talk about his bigger than life "visions" of real ; )
-
To place 'degenerate' and 'art' in the same line with the latter as consequence of the other one is the most funny part I've read over these lines...
Almost as much as so many distinct definitionssssss of "art" à la carte! LMAO : ) Sounds the same when people are used to feel about "love" ; ) We are all experts of it, after all, ain't we? : D
A science called 'love' everyone can be an expert about! LOL
Amusing, only to say the least ;- )
-
2 hours ago, Thpriest said:
If you are doing serious editing I’d go for 32gb minimum
True, RAM is never enough.
- EAG :- )
-
Or if I write...
'doesn't mean whoever is entitled to be'
...will it be (a bit) clearer then?
LOL :- )
-
1 hour ago, KnightsFan said:
I appreciate @kye's detailed posts with actual examples, even when I disagree. I didn't read every post, but he might be the only one other than me who has tried to explain their artistic position with any depth or examples. Saying "24p is better better because it's what we've always done" is as inane a position as "more frames is better" not because of the position taken, but because neither statement contributes to anyone's understanding.
I haven't posted here in a while because I don't have time for making movies anymore. I don't know if I was included in the previous statement that there are too many engineers in this thread--I would definitely prefer to be tagged if so--but I'm one of the few people who has posted original narrative work here on the forum, back when we had a screening room section (as low budget and poorly made as my work was! I'm certainly not the best filmmaker here). As an artist, I will say that anyone who does not delve into the exact mechanics behind the emotional response that art invokes, particularly in a field that requires huge amounts of collaboration, might be doing their artistic side a disservice.
I guess everyone (if not, they should ; ) appreciate @kye's entries. And I still really think (not idle words) you're being unfair with the remaining ones who have contributed along this thread. No, I don't beg for a distinct input nor become upset for your remarks on your unpleasant impression on my own. The same way I find not productive at all coming here with this level of judgment on ones over the others. It's not nice and it's not the only one case readers can read it through these pages.
Japanese have a curious way to say thanks to an author than saying they've appreciated the work.
To be a filmmaker, good one included, doesn't mean to entitle whoever to be an authority on aesthetics.
The same to those who look like to gather camera technology expertise.
The same way a thread is not a campus :- )
-
1 hour ago, KnightsFan said:
In my opinion (...) And I'm not interested in @Emanuel 's statements like "art made by machines is not art. Period." I know some of it is a language barrier, but it's not a useful statement or a reasoned argument.
(...)
Correct. Territory of opinion ; )
You're entitled to an opinion like any other one here. Including those you ain't interested in, as well LOL : )
The problem there is a different one though (and it is even funny to come and read once again *sigh* the barrier language idiom argument... sounds clearly to me inscribed on that category Marty has left on his posting: "rude or triumphant"... : )
Such type of approach seems a typical complex of superiority or patronizing someone when looks like to pop up with some distinct standpoint or then hard to even understand. Again, it's not a problem with idiom, really ; ) In my particular case, I professionally use the English language since almost 30 years... (I even did part of my graduate and postgraduate studies for a long academic year with Hollywood bigwigs and they never complained, nevertheless, internet warriors as someone along this thread already called them, yes... WOW LOL)
In a daily basis, today. For living!
Or I am a bad learner : D or everyone outside understands it, just not a few people here : P
Well, in the 1st year of law school on the introduction to law class, people were used to complain about the lessons of the lecturer...
At the film shool, I recall colleagues of mine on sound technical terminology or when the subject of study was Deleuze...
Yup, legal reasoning can happen to be a pain in the ass, very true.
The same applies for art stuff.
The fact you believe art can be produced by machines rather than human source doesn't make it true.
Art is not subjective.
It can be subjective but is not necessarily subjective.
If any reader of this, is unable to realize that, I can only suggest to go to inform themselves on basics : ) As already said, that's what people do about getting some information when wish figure out a certain field.
The access to knowledge is far to be democratic when people think it depends on opinion realm. I'm sorry, I don't want to look triumphant but does not for real :- )
-
Found Michio Kaku's approach particularly interesting indeed 'cause of that respectful interdisciplinary methodology exactly on the spot ;- )
-
Standards of evidence, yes, and from many distinct realms of knowledge, it's not an exclusive of one over another :- )
-
1 hour ago, Jedi Master said:
I have read the book you referenced and agree with the critics. Kaku is a physicist and doesn’t appear to know much about quantum computing based on what he says in this book.
Whenever someone makes a positive claim, such as the existence of the paranormal, or of gods, the burden of proof falls on them to provide objectively verifiable evidence for their claim. Lacking that, we have no reason to believe their assertion (because without evidence, that’s all it is—an assertion).
Carl Sagan said that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. Some claims are mundane and don’t require much evidence, but others do. For example, if I told you I got a new pet dog, that wouldn’t require much, if any, evidence for you to believe me because dogs are common pets, and many people have one, perhaps including yourself. But if I told you that I got a new pet fire breathing dragon, you shouldn’t believe me without more evidence because fire breathing dragons are the stuff of myths and legends, not everyday reality. I would posit that the existence of the paranormal and of gods are extraordinary claims, and, hence, require extraordinary evidence.
First off, the point is that book is not exactly about quantum computing but other fields connected with, which demand some knowledge other than that native one ; ) Means that to be called a science requires a scientific approach? For sure.
This doesn't mean what we call science addresses answers to everything.
On the opposite.
There's a lot to lack a scientific explanation provided by... science, yes ; ) That is, science is unable to have a response to every single portion of universe. We know too little about it.
That's the narcissistic observation made by Marty (aka @PannySVHS) and it's not much scientific to infer anything different... LOL :- )
-
19 hours ago, Jedi Master said:
I don’t believe the paranormal exists. James Randi, for many years, offered a $1M prize to anyone who could demonstrate any paranormal phenomena under controlled conditions. No one ever claimed the prize.
You're entitled to believe what you want but as man of computers you are, give this book a try:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Supremacy
By https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku
Take a look on the criticism over that work in specific... This is the problem of many people, they think they understand every other fields of the human knowledge ; )
«Some theorize that the universe itself acts as a vast quantum computer, “processing” the activity of its countless particles and forces from one end of reality to another. If so, as computers begin to more directly imitate nature’s own computations, new insights may open into physics, chemistry, and biology—even the architecture of the brain itself.
Yet mankind has not proven the best steward of such knowledge. On our path to learning more about how God’s remarkable creation works, we inevitably come to various crossroads regarding how we choose to use what we learn. Understanding God’s design of matter and energy has allowed us to harness the power of the atom—both to power our cities and to destroy them.
Understanding the strange, counterintuitive world of quantum mechanics will bring us to a similar crossroads. What decisions will we have to face when quantum computing is fully ours to wield however we wish? Will we have the character to properly apply what we learn from this aspect of God’s creation?»
24p is outdated
In: Cameras
Posted
Funny enough : ) But as much as lies with perception and what this is and means (no less important at all and please don't come to say you haven't understood all these words one after the other), it is all about the concept not the form to be adopted in different stages of the evolution of the progress itself.
The point, of you exclusive geeks (I am one but beyond to only be one : ) is the way you diminish the importance of the concepts... :- ) And you then come to me to talk about science?? : D Really?