New New GIF (animated) Thread

oj6jCeP.gif
 
[MD5]Hash said:
There's a reason that films were traditionally shot in just short of 24fps, it's kind of the best-case-scenario minimum frame rate that your brain could process visual stimuli while keeping the visual appearance of the image looking 'real'.
Click to expand...

Except they weren't, film was always exactly 24fps, still is usually. It is modified to 23.98 for video so you can do a 3:2 pulldown to convert it to 29.97 for broadcast on NTSC colour TV.
Black & white TV in NTSC was always 30fps (to match with the 60Hz electrical frequency) but was reduced to 29.97 to allow for the colour information to be sent.

But otherwise you made a really informative and spergy post that unfortunately lacked racism and political themes.
 
ArakAtak said:
Except they weren't, film was always exactly 24fps, still is usually. It is modified to 23.98 for video so you can do a 3:2 pulldown to convert it to 29.97 for broadcast on NTSC colour TV.
Black & white TV in NTSC was always 30fps (to match with the 60Hz electrical frequency) but was reduced to 29.97 to allow for the colour information to be sent.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I didn't want to get TOO spergy on the post. But a lot of this does stem from the earliest days of film and television broadcasting in order to compress information, establish aspect ratios, and allow for the encoding of color information.

In all honesty, I'm not sure if all of this is really needed today, but because it was a set of evolutionary steps in the production of film and television, I'm not sure that the system could be dumped entirely for something else, or if it'd even be worth it.

Since everything is now digital they could arguably remake the standard to whatever they want.

I was more focusing on the reasons why digital films, especially in the wake of the Star Wars prequels why this major shift to CGI just leaves you with this gut feeling that what you're watching is incredibly fake from a visual standpoint.

I've always felt like practical effects were so much better because even though it takes a bit of work to get something modeled, making it in CGI is arguably more laborious because you have to fine tune all the visuals, motion blur, color saturation, frame rate, shutter speeds, lighting effects, etc, just to make it look like it fits into the scene.

This (practical effect):




Looks more realistic than this (purely digital effect):






Anyways, I'm digressing and rambling, on with the gifs.
 
I bet that's not even her home. Women never buy speakers like that. Tell me the last time you heard of a woman buying speakers.
 
because people are generally ignorant pricks that believe they are gods of the roadway

I was legally passing someone on a 2 lane road at night one time in a 55, dude was going 45, then he slams the accelerator to prevent me from passing him while a car was approaching in the distance. took me all of my willpower not to just sideswipe him into the trees
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top