5 ms·

Haha, let me grab a random list too... yours is particularly bad because you didn't understand my point. Im talking about physical limitations of film, vs digit

Haha, let me grab a random list too... yours is particularly bad because you didn't understand my point. Im talking about physical limitations of film, vs digital, vs human perception and the trade offs of budget, crew, and equipment. Shooting on a camera locked at 24fps is not equal to shooting 24fps. Spend the next 20 years doing it and come back to me.

spacecadet 3y ago
Here ya go, random list, tho mine is better matched to my point. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_shot_on_digital_video_prior_to_2012 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_shot_on_digita...
CyberDildonics 3y ago
you didn't understand my point I still don't. You said something that wasn't true in any way, so I'm still not sure what the point is. Your list doesn't seem to make any sense or have any connection to what you're saying either. Im talking about physical limitations of film, vs digital, vs human perception and the trade offs of budget, crew, and equipment. If you say so, but what your comment actually said was that no one has shot 24fps in 20 years, which is nonsense. Then you said something about 18k not being impressive because someone could shoot at 8k and scale it up, but even that wasn't very clear.
- spacecadet 3y ago
  I think you're expecting 3 decades of cinema tech knowledge to be dumped on you in a comment. No one shoots true 24. Anymore. Nor does any modern studio want to. That doesnt mean content isnt finalized at 24... 18k is impressive, thats a-lot of heat. 12 people running a standard high res RAID, is not impressive and puffed up for press.
  - CyberDildonics 3y ago
    No one shoots true 24. Anymore. Nor does any modern studio want to. This is not true, where are you getting this information? Converting a high frame rate to a lower frame rate is not like resampling a high res image to a lower res image. You have to interpolate or throw out frames, both of which are terrible compared to just shooting in the frame rate you want.
    - vardump 3y ago
      Unless it’s an integer multiple. Shrug.
      - CyberDildonics 3y ago
        Nope, if it's an integer multiple you still have to throw out frames and those frames could have been part of the motion blur of other frames instead. It isn't the same because instead of taking a single exposure for half the time the frame elapses you would have two frames, each exposed for a fourth of that same time.
        Kirby64 3y ago
        Or you just interpolate between frames if you want the same motion blur. It’s just like downsampling from 4k to 1080p. The process is clean since you can directly map 2 frames to 1 frame (or, 4 pixels to 1 pixel for resolution conversion).
        CyberDildonics 3y ago
        Absolutly not. Once again, interpolating frames is not "just like downsampling" an image. Things move and obscure each other, you will get artifacts. Again, there is also motion blur and missing information. A frame exposure might be for half the time of the frame (which is common). Two frames would then be have their exposures broken up over time. Imagine four units of time. One frame fills up two next to each other and the next two are blank. Two frames would fill up one, the next would be blank, the next would be filled, the next would be blank. Anyone telling you that you can "just" interpolate frames has never done it before.
crazygringo 3y ago
> Shooting on a camera locked at 24fps is not equal to shooting 24fps. Care to explain? I know quite a bit about camera technology and don't have the slightest idea of what you mean with this sentence.
- ZiiS 3y ago
  The only generous interpretation I can see is that Aronofsky uses extremely innovative techniques yet has long publicly voiced that he prefers to use analog film. For instance some of his signature style is short shots taken with cameras mounted on actors in dark conditions which vastly easier to realize with digital yet he has repeatedly chosen to use film. Whilst it is perfectly consistent that what would change his mind is an extremely powerful digital camera; it is also possible that the resulting PR spin causes some frustration to a generation of professionals who have been working in digital for 20 years and not been given shiny 18K cameras to play with.
  - spacecadet 3y ago
    He only did that in Pi. Maybe thats all he is known for, but I wouldn't call it his style anymore.
    - ZiiS 3y ago
      And Requiem but yes that was only one example, he has an amazing and varied output.
- spacecadet 3y ago
  It has nothing to do with tech. The same reason Daren shoots film is why I still shoot film, at any speeds. Since almost no one chooses to shoot true 24fps anymore, everything is sampled down and so everything I watch looks like shit. Sharp, but jittery shit. Use the tool for the situation. I actually respect the tech behind the sphere and 18k cameras, because it's purpose built and I imagine looks lovely in its native speed and fov. But Daren... this piece is gross man.
kobalsky 3y ago
you come across as someone who doesn’t make sense or someone who knows but doesn’t know how to explain themselves across industry borders. you can assume everyone here is a bit technical, but not experts on film.

spacecadet 3y ago

Here ya go, random list, tho mine is better matched to my point. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_shot_on_digital_video_prior_to_2012 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_shot_on_digita...

CyberDildonics 3y ago

you didn't understand my point I still don't. You said something that wasn't true in any way, so I'm still not sure what the point is. Your list doesn't seem to make any sense or have any connection to what you're saying either. Im talking about physical limitations of film, vs digital, vs human perception and the trade offs of budget, crew, and equipment. If you say so, but what your comment actually said was that no one has shot 24fps in 20 years, which is nonsense. Then you said something about 18k not being impressive because someone could shoot at 8k and scale it up, but even that wasn't very clear.

spacecadet 3y ago
I think you're expecting 3 decades of cinema tech knowledge to be dumped on you in a comment. No one shoots true 24. Anymore. Nor does any modern studio want to. That doesnt mean content isnt finalized at 24... 18k is impressive, thats a-lot of heat. 12 people running a standard high res RAID, is not impressive and puffed up for press.
- CyberDildonics 3y ago
  No one shoots true 24. Anymore. Nor does any modern studio want to. This is not true, where are you getting this information? Converting a high frame rate to a lower frame rate is not like resampling a high res image to a lower res image. You have to interpolate or throw out frames, both of which are terrible compared to just shooting in the frame rate you want.
  - vardump 3y ago
    Unless it’s an integer multiple. Shrug.
    - CyberDildonics 3y ago
      Nope, if it's an integer multiple you still have to throw out frames and those frames could have been part of the motion blur of other frames instead. It isn't the same because instead of taking a single exposure for half the time the frame elapses you would have two frames, each exposed for a fourth of that same time.
      - Kirby64 3y ago
        Or you just interpolate between frames if you want the same motion blur. It’s just like downsampling from 4k to 1080p. The process is clean since you can directly map 2 frames to 1 frame (or, 4 pixels to 1 pixel for resolution conversion).
        CyberDildonics 3y ago
        Absolutly not. Once again, interpolating frames is not "just like downsampling" an image. Things move and obscure each other, you will get artifacts. Again, there is also motion blur and missing information. A frame exposure might be for half the time of the frame (which is common). Two frames would then be have their exposures broken up over time. Imagine four units of time. One frame fills up two next to each other and the next two are blank. Two frames would fill up one, the next would be blank, the next would be filled, the next would be blank. Anyone telling you that you can "just" interpolate frames has never done it before.

crazygringo 3y ago

> Shooting on a camera locked at 24fps is not equal to shooting 24fps. Care to explain? I know quite a bit about camera technology and don't have the slightest idea of what you mean with this sentence.

ZiiS 3y ago
The only generous interpretation I can see is that Aronofsky uses extremely innovative techniques yet has long publicly voiced that he prefers to use analog film. For instance some of his signature style is short shots taken with cameras mounted on actors in dark conditions which vastly easier to realize with digital yet he has repeatedly chosen to use film. Whilst it is perfectly consistent that what would change his mind is an extremely powerful digital camera; it is also possible that the resulting PR spin causes some frustration to a generation of professionals who have been working in digital for 20 years and not been given shiny 18K cameras to play with.
- spacecadet 3y ago
  He only did that in Pi. Maybe thats all he is known for, but I wouldn't call it his style anymore.
  - ZiiS 3y ago
    And Requiem but yes that was only one example, he has an amazing and varied output.
spacecadet 3y ago
It has nothing to do with tech. The same reason Daren shoots film is why I still shoot film, at any speeds. Since almost no one chooses to shoot true 24fps anymore, everything is sampled down and so everything I watch looks like shit. Sharp, but jittery shit. Use the tool for the situation. I actually respect the tech behind the sphere and 18k cameras, because it's purpose built and I imagine looks lovely in its native speed and fov. But Daren... this piece is gross man.

kobalsky 3y ago

you come across as someone who doesn’t make sense or someone who knows but doesn’t know how to explain themselves across industry borders. you can assume everyone here is a bit technical, but not experts on film.