Have you even watched any film besides Batman? There's so much wrong with that comment that if I were you, I'd delete myself and try to be reborn with common sense.Everything else from the mid-2000's onwards has been shovel ware.
Have you even watched any film besides Batman? There's so much wrong with that comment that if I were you, I'd delete myself and try to be reborn with common sense.Everything else from the mid-2000's onwards has been shovel ware.
Have you even watched any film besides Batman? There's so much wrong with that comment that if I were you, I'd delete myself and try to be reborn with common sense.
Which ones?
[/quote]Which ones?
In my opinion, only Nolan's and Tarantino's work have come even close to becoming classics.
Everything else from the mid-2000's onwards has been shovel ware.
The info that it was done in hopes for less headaches from the 3d is coming from a talk given by the director of vfx on the hobbit at last years siggraph. Not sure why it's the case, just passing along info. I'm a 2d master, this 3d business is more than I can handle. Too many D!!!Yes. Your tv is refreshing 60 times a second, so a film shot in 48fps will be refreshed as such.
I imagine that if this is 3D in theatres that they are using passive technology, which means that the frames are not alternating between eyes to create the 3D effect. Instead, passive technology uses polorized lenses (each eye gets a different polorization that receives the light intended for that eye, but blocks the light intended for the opposite eye) to achieve the effect. In the case of passive, screen resolution is the compromise, not fps. Because of this, increasing fps will not alter the 3D effect in any way.
29.97fps is the standard for NTSC. However, film is shot in 24fps--this was the case even before HD, so 24fps for film is nothing new. The way that they convert films to play on NTSC is very interesting--it's known as telecine, but I don't know a whole lot about it. I imagine that they play a frame twice to make up the difference in refresh, but I think that may cause an audio hiccup over a period of time.I wanna know what the hell happened to 29.97 fps. Wtf is this 24 stuff?
Lol Borat and Napoleon dynamite?
It's not like I made the list derpiderp. And yeah those movies are good.Lol Borat and Napoleon dynamite?
snip
Most of those movies came out before the mid-2000's. (2004-)snip.
I saw it normal 2D, was going to see it 3D but more more money and i read the 3d movies of late were making people sick.So did you see it in 2D or 3D or 3D @ 48fps? I saw it in 2D and will later see it in 3D @ 48fps. The movie was awesome though.
I wish directors would realize that video quality doesn't necessarily help their movie. It can take you out of the experience. Just like music that is too clean and digital. You lose the soul.
I'm listening......Name some TERRIBLE movies like Twilight or Transformers or the Resident Evil franchise made in the 80's or 90's (mid 90's) and that were MAJOR successes box office wise. I'm not saying there aren't ANY good movies made today, just not the same as back then, and I agree, there were bad movies back then, just not the caliber of shitness as today.lol, what are you talking about, there are lots of classics that have came out recently, and there were a lot of terrible movies back in the day too.. A lot.
Are you citing Avatar to prove my point or to try to offer an exception? Some people like Avatar others hate it so I don't want to assume your thinking here.Avatar.
Are you citing Avatar to prove my point or to try to offer an exception? Some people like Avatar others hate it so I don't want to assume your thinking here.
You got me i just started naming movies i knew lol. Also, the special effects from I Am Legend are 100 times better than any 70/80s movie lolI'm listening......Name some TERRIBLE movies like Twilight or Transformers or the Resident Evil franchise made in the 80's or 90's (mid 90's) and that were MAJOR successes box office wise. I'm not saying there aren't ANY good movies made today, just not the same as back then, and I agree, there were bad movies back then, just not the caliber of shitness as today.
Did you really list I Am Legend as a good movie from today? That movie was awful, and had TERRIBLE special effects. And no, not all the super hero movies were great. Green Lantern was bad, Captain America was average, Ghost Rider......enough said.
Ok Green, I will agree with you to a certain point about TV. I'm a huge fan of The Walking Dead, Dexter, Curb Your Enthusiasm, The League, Boardwalk Empire, etc etc etc.You got me i just started naming movies i knew lol. Also, the special effects from I Am Legend are 100 times better than any 70/80s movie lol
But seriously, at least TV series are wayyyyy better now.
IndeedIt's fun having this conversation with you too btw.
Did a guy get his arm stuck between rocks for 6 daysSaw a film a year or two ago where some guys go diving in some caves or something, it was shown on IMAX which was supposed to be the best visual quality for a film at the time.
I don't remember the name or anything about the film other than them doing some diving in a cave, it wasnt even that good.
Production and visual quality is nice, but it doesn't effect the overall impact a film will have, hence i just remember it looked nice and dont remember a fucking thing about what happened.
no they were diving under water in a cave and some shit went down and then they got out at the end.Did a guy get his arm stuck between rocks for 6 days