Posts by wanderingbison9

Man, Sato, Sato... he was so incredibly close to cementing his status as a true legend...😬 but I guess that’s just classic Sato for you.

I don't have any of that on hand... though I might try to hunt down a stream if I'm feeling up to it.

Does anyone know who else picks up the IndyCar broadcasts over in Europe besides Sky? I seem to recall ESPN carrying them at one point, didn't they? Or maybe there was some other network involved?

Daniel Carter said:Given all the massive hype surrounding this, I was honestly expecting a much better film. If the book is actually on par with this script, then God help the crime thriller genre.

Exactly...after sitting through this American production, which feels like a somewhat pale imitation of a Fincher-esque style, I can only conclude that the original vision was far superior. This version just feels watered down, and honestly, I'm almost relieved they cut certain elements out because, really... does Lisbeth seriously have a living mother and isn't completely alone in the world? It feels like such a strange sense of déjà vu that just dilutes her entire character...and she ends up wealthy at the end????...Hollywood should be embarrassed by this kind of direction...😬

I haven't read the books myself, but looking at this, I'm starting to get the impression that they might be the work of a wannabe novelist who is actually just a calculated journalist at heart...

Ronald Chavez7 said:Be honest with me here. If the footage was shot at 50i, does it actually make sense to convert it over to 30p?

Not really... you’d want to go with 24p instead. Isn't it true that there's much less stuttering when a monitor or a graphics card displays 24p on a standard 60Hz refresh rate compared to when you try to force that conversion inside Vegas?

..think about it this way: if you're looking at 25 (30) interlaced video, that actually means the playback is running at 50 (60) half-frames per second, which implies you've got 50 (60) temporal samples happening every single second... however, if it's 25 (30) progressive, then you're truly just getting 25 (30) frames per second, meaning there are only 25 (30) temporal samples per second...

isn't it funny how YouTube can be a bit limited since it only accounts for up to 30 fps, which really isn't quite enough to capture that perfectly smooth motion we all want... but I suppose that's just a common oversight shared by pretty much all these streaming sites...

The way 3D is being utilized right now feels incredibly stuck in its ways, almost overly conservative in how directors approach the storytelling and structure. Honestly, I don't see much of a future in this current direction... for 3D to actually work, it needs to be woven into the very fabric of the narrative, serving a specific dramatic purpose rather than just being a gimmick. It needs a "why," a reason to exist within the scene... but we just aren't seeing that level of integration yet, unless you're looking at some niche experimental indie films. There's also the issue of fatigue; when a movie drags on for two hours in 3D, the effect starts to wear off, making the whole thing feel like a bit of a letdown. It seems much more suited for shorter segments or specific moments in a feature where the depth actually adds something to the experience. Wouldn't 3D make a lot more sense in documentaries—especially in an AMC theater setting? Imagine if we could have high-quality, glasses-free 3D that truly transports you to another place... that would be a massive hit, and it’ll likely happen first in those premium large-format theaters once they figure out the right pricing.😬

Ronald Chavez7 said:I was just following my own logic, and isn't that how we learn throughout life? 🙂
I have a general understanding of how the 3D MVC format works—it captures the left channel and then records the difference for the right, though in practice, it doesn't actually save much storage space. (I read that somewhere once, though I can't recall exactly where.)
I usually work in Vegas Pro, and it handles all the settings automatically for me; I simply select the Over / Under option and use Blend fields for the video.
Wouldn't it be better if it just converted all those half-frames into progressive video? Honestly, I'm quite happy with the results I've been getting.
Once I get home from work later today, I think I'll try experimenting with a few more things.

"Blend fields" works okay if you're dealing with slow movement, but when things start moving quickly, you end up with this messy, ghostly artifacting... it's less about vertical resolution and more about temporal issues, yet visually, it looks "sharper" in terms of vertical resolution than just discarding half-frames entirely. Ideally, you'd want to create a 50p file without using "field blend," but I'm not sure if YouTube supports that, or if they would just drop the frame rate down to 25 fps if they did.🤷

Since MVC only requires a slightly higher bitrate (around 28 mbps compared to 24 mbps for a single view) for stereo recording, there really isn't any need to resort to recording stereo via half-frames and sacrificing your frame rate in the process...

Ronald Chavez7 said:It works like this. Full HD is 1920x1080 pixels. To get a true 3D image, you'd actually need 3840x1080 pixels.
Since YouTube doesn't support that higher resolution, we're stuck trying to "squeeze" two video channels into that Full HD space.
When you use the Swap L format, you end up with a video that is 980x540 per channel. Why isn't it 980x1080?
Well, because when watching in 3D, every other horizontal line belongs to either the left or the right channel.
If I recall correctly, YouTube only supports passive 3D. So, when you record in an Over / Under format, what you get is
1920x540 per channel. And regardless of the fact that it's 3D and uses alternating lines for each channel, you still end up with the format used on a passive monitor.
For those who didn't know, that's essentially the 1080i format. 🙂 This is one of the reasons why I'm so fond of my camera that records in 3D 1080i.

Your camera doesn't capture 3D by simply putting the left channel in one half-frame and the right in another, because if it did, you would only be getting 25 (half) frames per second instead of the necessary 50... instead, the camera captures the left and right channels for every single half-frame using MVC format. A passive system isn't interleaved in terms of interlaced video; even though every alternating line on the screen shows a different eye, they are displayed SIMULTANEOUSLY, unlike an interlaced video signal where the half-frames are shown one after the other... which is also quite different from the "passive" systems you see in movie theaters, which are actually 1) active on the projector side and 2) alternate between showing the left and right eye.

Following that logic, I truly believe that side-by-side is the better way to go, especially if the recording is 1080i. By doing it the other way, you aren't just losing an entire half-frame when converting to progressive for YouTube, but you're also losing a quarter of the total image when you switch to Over / Under... which is exactly why 3D HD 1080i is broadcast via satellite in side-by-side.

Even for passive 3D screens that use alternating polarization, side-by-side seems superior to me... besides, isn't the human eye more sensitive to a drop in vertical resolution than it is to a drop in width?

Ronald Chavez7 said:If anyone is curious about how I landed on this "Over / Under" format, I would be more than happy to sit down and walk you through my reasoning in much greater detail. Does anyone want me to dive deeper into why I chose this specific approach?

Well, if you ask me... what’s the actual difference here, other than the resolution being cut in half vertically instead of horizontally?

I wonder what he said about the camera model? It seems to have pretty decent low-light performance, doesn't it?

And what exactly was the issue when it came to swapping the left and right channels?

At the end of the day, I'd say this is easily one of the more technically impressive 3D clips you'll find on YouTube...

Brian Vaughn5 said:nimblescout50, look, The Fifth Element definitely leans into that campy, sci-fi trash aesthetic, but I wouldn't go as far as calling it literal garbage. I mean, maybe it's a bit much for some people, but Quentin Tarantino basically built his entire career on that kind of vibe. He even has a movie called Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas Hell's Sound.

The thing is, when we talk about "pulp" in American pop culture, it doesn't carry that connotation of being "trash" or "garbage"... so translating it that way feels like a pretty nonsensical and overly pretentious mistake, don't you think?

electriccanyon26 said:That version of Gary Oldman—the energy he brings to roles like those in Leon or True Romance—is easily his best work. I can't quite think of any other character where he's played someone that unhinged.

You should really check out Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100519/...it was actually filmed right here in the States, and both actors (Gary Oldman and Tim Roth) seemed to be constantly high or totally wasted during production; honestly, watching it feels a bit like seeing Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas happen in real life...😬

So, I just caught Felipe on the BBC looking absolutely livid, shouting, "What was he even trying to do with that move? There was zero communication, nothing!" It was honestly kind of hilarious to watch. 😬

I’m honestly feeling pretty worried about Lojzek—he looked like he was struggling with some serious depression during that interview...😬 He probably thought he’d be hanging out and joking around with Mass, but he just can't figure out why he's being completely iced out...

Felipe Massa is being an absolute idiot again!!!! He went and snapped the suspension in the exact same way as before.

Michael Lee4 said:I honestly think Felipe Massa was being a bit too optimistic there... sure, he had some decent pace, but he clearly realized just how close the other driver was getting, so wasn't it probably unwise to try and shut down that corner like that?🤷

To be fair, I don't even think he saw Lojzek coming.😉

Felipe Massa: The guy has completely lost it; he’s actually out to get me! 😬

Michael Lee4 said:That argument might actually hold water in court if it weren't for those video replays clearly showing him staring right into the rearview mirrors 😬

It’s like he was looking but not actually seeing anything 😉 You know what I mean? It could have been a pure reflex where his brain didn't even register what was happening...😬 which honestly wouldn't be the most surprising thing coming from Massu...