JulioD
-
Posts
116 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Posts posted by JulioD
-
-
17 hours ago, Jedi Master said:
The funny thing about all this is that if, back in the early 1900s, movie makers adopted another frame rate, say 46 FPS (which Edison advocated), people today would be saying that to simulate emotions and dreams you need 46p.
Pre sound there was no standard. 18FPS was kind-of the default. Most hand cranked cameras did 9 frames per crank, so two cranks per second becomes the defectors about standard.
16FPS is about the lower threshold where you start to not perceive continuous motion.
24 FPS only became the default with the introduction of sync sound in the late 30’s that required a slightly higher / faster playback.
The first thirty years of cinema HAD NO STANDARD frame rate. They could have, and DID shoot a huge number of variations of frame rates. Just like we do today (for slow mo or under cranking)
It’s got to be more than just legacy, because there have been decades of options available and audiences continue to preference 24FPS in drama.
-
1 hour ago, zlfan said:
where did i say i cannot tell the difference of 24p and 60p.
You proved it.
You said you loved Titanic because it was shot HFR.
It wasn’t.
That’s makes all your arguments invalid really. 24FPS isn’t going anywhere.
-
1 hour ago, zlfan said:
hobbit was a disaster?! lol.
for what? losing money?
i enjoy watching the series very much. a lot of people i know like it.
Sorry, my above post was meant to be responding to this one.
-
4 hours ago, newfoundmass said:
I think I'd rather have a Digital Bolex, though.
Now there is a dud camera.
Sure the sensor is nice, but it’s horrible horrible to use and that’s why it failed.
-
1 hour ago, KnightsFan said:
And do you prefer the plot, dialog, and action to accurately represent real life exclusively? Or do you ever like characters that are braver, stronger, or more villainous than real life? My whole point in my first post was that deviations from reality are used in every aspect of films and storytelling in general.
But Kye's post wasn't about the color grade only, it was the entire visual design. We don't light real life the same way we light movies. What is the difference in your opinion between unrealistic lighting design, and unrealistic motion design?
There are no wrong opinions of course, I'm just asking questions to explain my point of view on it.
The director himself went back on HFR.
“Peter Jackson says he has toned down the higher frame rate version of Hobbit sequel The Desolation of Smaug following complaints from audiences and critics about the sharp look of its predecessor.”
When the director does an about face and has to talk about a technology component to a piece of entertain,meant, yeah that’s a disaster. That’s because HFR was UNIVERSALLY disliked.
https://www.vulture.com/2012/12/critics-on-the-hobbits-high-frame-rate.html#
And whole articles have been written about the HFR reaction.
You may think HFR is the “future” but you’re in a small minority that like HFR for drama. Good for you.
-
33 minutes ago, zlfan said:
This point I totally agree. Art is an expression, as long as you convey your ideas and emotions successfully, you are good. or going further, as long as you enjoy yourself, you are good.
Maybe you should lead with that instead of making troll-baiting posts with a title of “24p is outdated”.
You can’t even tell when watching the difference between 24P and HFR.
It’s an objectively wrong statement. End of story.
-
4 minutes ago, zlfan said:
this whole realism vs dreamlike is just a later made up to justify 24p.
OK
4 minutes ago, zlfan said:avatar to me is surreal, hobbit is fantasy, titanic is epic, guess what, all were shot on 48p. when i watch titanic, i never think that this is just a real tv show, and the heroes and hero are real life like. to me,
You just screwed your own argument. Titanic was photographed at good old 24 FPS. You can’t even tell.
Maybe just turn the fluid motion feature on your TV on and be happy.
Avatar is a 3D cartoon. Perfect for hyper realism. Great use of HFR for that specific story telling example.
Hobbit was a disaster. So much that they CHANGED the approach back for subsequent films.
You’re alone in this opinion.
-
Couldn’t edit in time.
I am not convinced this will succeed by the way. They’ll be lucky to sell more than 100 of them.
But it is unique. And niche. And that niche pays.
-
It’s built for rental.
It has a video split. No s8 camera that I know of has ever had one.
c mount interchangeable lenses. Not many had that either.
That means commercials. And music videos.
Commercials and music videos are the life blood of camera rental companies.
Thats exactly where this camera lives. And the types of clients that can pay for it.
-
It’s my view that 24 FPS is the goldilocks temporal resolution for listening to a story.
Realism?? Give me a break. What’s realistic about a Death Star?
Human beings are story tellers. Religion is stories. Sitting around a fire telling stories, making sense of the world is what we do that makes us human.
Representation. Not realism.
-
On 12/2/2023 at 3:50 AM, zlfan said:
24p is hailed as cinematic. it was just a frugal approach at the time of film days.
5k 60p of gp 12 is so smooth. seeing is believing.
Nah it looks like crap.
What’s dated is that this keeps coming up as being an issue that needs to change, that only dinosaurs shoot 24 and we’re all out of touch blah blah.
This argument is decades old now and guess what?
The audience knows.
So far it hasn’t worked in a cinema. Many have tried. Many have spent a lot of money.
AUDIENCES don’t want it for DRAMA.
You may delude yourself that your YouTube channel is empirical evidence of HFR take up but let me know when I can go watch a MOVIE of your YouTube channel in a CINEMA and I’ll let you know if it’s filmic.
If HFR really really truely was better the audience would know. We have had HFR for DECADES with gaming, a whole generation that SHOULD prefer it but they freakin don’t.
Theres nothing at all stopping you making a killing with your HFR on YouTube right now. Make a movie for YouTube and let us know how it goes.
- IronFilm and ade towell
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, kye said:
Yeah, high resolution is great if you want high resolution.
Not so good if you are interested in making a meaningful final film.
I’m not sure what you mean?
Ive come to the conclusion that more resolution in this case makes the camera more transparent. You don’t see the tech you just have a more subtle beautiful result. I’ve had make up artists freak out and it actually has the opposite effect.
It looks beautiful in close ups. I’ve shot Oscar winning older ladies with it, and it actually helps rather than hinders.
If a sensor is a grid of photosites, having more density means you see and feel the grid less. Super sampling is real.
Everytime someone make this kind of comment I have to ask, have you actually used it and shot with it? Because mostly they haven’t. Maybe you have?
It’s not just about it being 12k. That’s like…a side effect. The sensor has some serious color magic.
I wish it did ProRes and I have had to buy an OLPF. like any camera it has its downsides.
Bit it’s hard to beat for image beauty and color separation
-
8 hours ago, seanzzxx said:
I was doubting about getting a mini pro g2 instead of the 6k, because we use the Ursa's at work and I LOVE their form factor, but the G2 is in such a weird space. It's still 'current', as in they're available new on the BM website, but they haven't been updated in years, so all the new features (gen5, gyro stabilisation, new UI) haven't been available and I doubt they ever will be. Also some quality of life features from the 12k (especially higher nit screen) are not on there. Just a weird model.
Yeah unless you really need ProRes, the 12K is better supported. I had a G2 for a long time but they left so much stuff off. Can't even do dual card.
-
16 hours ago, kye said:
Yeah, this is one of the other hidden costs of higher resolutions - the lack of ability to have reasonable bitrates with the higher resolutions.
Obviously RAW scales with the resolution of the image, but so does the bitrates of the Prores codecs too... but here's the issue - the screens don't get bigger! and your vision doesn't get better either!
You: I'd like to buy a higher resolution camera please.
Shopkeeper: Sure. Here is a stack of larger hard drives, here is a huge new computer, here are the blazing media cards, here is ........I shoot the 12K a lot and the funny thing is that you can shoot 1 hour of 12K for about 1TB. Think about that. That's the same as shooting an hour of Arri RAW at 4.6K. BRAW is an amazing codec in that regard, and the damn files playback on very old machines no problem.
-
We’re going around in circles.
It’s not just the weight difference, which is by the way 40% heavier.
It’s how it balances (if it even would) on the freakin custom ronin rig they wanted to use with the specific lenses they chose. I dunno why you want to keep pretending they aren’t real and valid reasons to not use your precious FX6 or Alexa mini. Maybe if you’re a DP with Garth one day you can convince him to make a different choice.
-
I've said it before.
The camera was chosen because it was part of the directors on-set process. You're all trying to say how you would have done it with an Alexa. But you didn't.
It couldn't have been done. Not with the lenses they chose, the way they wanted to light, and the METHODOLOGY they wanted to shoot with using a hybrid gimbal handheld rig. No way are you hand holding an Alexa mini LF on a gimbal for 30 mins. Maybe with a rig sure I hear you say, but then it's DIFFERENT because the camera is a different height, it's not going into the same positions you can go with a hand held should rig.
I'm surprised that creatives like you all don't understand this simple idea...
The Director chose a certain way to work. This was the only tool that could work the way the director wanted. You keep saying a different camera could be used when it was not really as feasible.
"The FX3 was chosen as an extension of the methodology director Gareth Edwards was interested in fostering on the film. In an effort to embrace an immersive, authentic filmmaking approach, and inspired by Gareth's approach in making his first feature film Monsters, we sought out a very small and lightweight camera that still provided a robust image for post-production and visual effects purposes, and that could be paired with a Ronin RS2 gimbal to be operated for extended takes and with massive flexibility and freedom to move around a location and react spontaneously to what the actors were doing, or to something happening just outside of frame Gareth would catch out of the corner of his eye.
One of the unique things about this film is that Gareth operated the camera himself in order to be able to react in real time to spontaneous occurrences on set and would often shoot 30-minute extended takes with the actors, going over actions a few times and discovering different angles and approaches to playing and covering a scene in the moment with them, like a kind of dance."
-
6 hours ago, IronFilm said:
Zero need whatsoever to shoot in LF format!
This film could have been done with normal S35
That not your choice my guy.
they wanted to shoot with 135 format anamophic lenses.
It’s like saying Dark Knight could have shot S35 and didn’t need all that imax.
-
6 hours ago, IronFilm said:
On this point though, we'll disagree.
Especially if we go with the hybrid approach I suggest above, where the bulk is shot with ALEXA Minis, with BMD Pocket 6K Pros supplementing it.
What change is really needed here at all? Upgrading a gimbal op to a steadicam op, and getting perhaps maybe one or two more ACs, and maybe another grip. Maybe.
No.
Full frame Anamorphic on a unique inverted hand held prosumer gimbal? Not going to happen. None of those cameras do it. The full frame 6K wasn’t dropped till just now.
Alexa mini LF can be made small, but they aren’t THAT small and you still have to power them with some giant umbilical cord and it would never balance with full frame Anamorphics on that gimbal. Stop saying that it’s the same when it is no where near the same.
-
-
8 minutes ago, IronFilm said:
I'm just pointing out it was a rather unique mix of reasons, such as the director being a major push for it, that the FX3 was chosen. It's certainly not going to be a common decision choice moving forward at all, as still 99% of the time people will prefer other higher end cameras instead. Due to the many downsides of the FX3, and the relatively small costs aspect vs others being rather irrelevant.
Or to answer the subject title of this thread itself:
"Will The Creator change how blockbusters get filmed?"
No.
The problem is that the question is wrong. It’s not a blockbuster. The cost of production was more indie. I’ve seen numbers like 7 million. The rest of the headline budget cost was in post.
This is a very specific scenario with a particular methodology of a particular director.
The real question is, could they have gotten the same results using a more conventional approach. I think the answer is no.
-
35 minutes ago, IronFilm said:
Exactly, it wasn't a DoP lead decision to use a FX3
Err..well maybe it was the director with the original DP? And Oren signed up for it as a condition of employment. I’m not sure why you have such a problem with the choice, you keep saying it should have been something else. There are so many reasons why they made the choice. You might not agree with why but THEY made the choice and you don’t know all the thinking that went into that choice
-
The director Garth Davis is well known for operating on his own films.
The decision was likely made by you know...the director. And his long time collaborator Greig Fraser ACS ASC who knows a bit about making nice pictures. Greig had to leave to do Dune and so Oren inherited the choices already made. Likely he would have known them before committing to replace Greig.
-
5 hours ago, IronFilm said:
Nobody else than BMD makes cameras which do braw internally.
And I think they’re fine with that because they seem to be selling tens of thousands of cameras so they don’t really need to care about wider adoption.
24p is outdated
In: Cameras
Posted
Exactly.