I'm already terrified of them. This will make it worse.

Cut to the chase. Does give a good BJ?

Bag of Hammers: Cut to the chase. Does give a good BJ?

Meanwhile, in Japan Link

I've enjoyed most of Disney's previous creations.

 

ProfessorOhki: Bag of Hammers: Cut to the chase. Does give a good BJ?

Meanwhile, in Japan Link

OMG, it blinks and chokes!

fap

Like I've been yakking about Peter Jackson's 48fps-80's-soap-opera-VHS-super-video techniques, realism and detail are not necessarily the goals in art.

 
Still kinda creepy without a real human voice... but the image itself was pretty good.

Easy Reader: Like I've been yakking about Peter Jackson's 48fps-80's-soap-opera-VHS-super-video techniques, realism and detail are not necessarily the goals in art.

Have you seen it? I've heard that it's too realistic and detailed and people just aren't used to it.

Sounds like the folks at Disney finally got around to playing last year's video games.

Wellon Dowd: I've enjoyed most of Disney's previous creations.

they've gotten better but this one still creeps me out.

So when can I pre-order my sexbot?

I thought that was Mr. Brisby.

BitwiseShift: [i463.photobucket.com image 205x260]

Cripes, don't DO that!!!

Mugato: Easy Reader: Like I've been yakking about Peter Jackson's 48fps-80's-soap-opera-VHS-super-video techniques, realism and detail are not necessarily the goals in art.

Have you seen it? I've heard that it's too realistic and detailed and people just aren't used to it.

I've seen photos from it, and I know how important film and frame rates are for the look of media. Ever seen those early 60's Twilight Zones? Early Newharts? Those were shot on video, and the motion Its a look that doesn't really lend itself to epic narrative visuals. It just looks cheap and flimsy. A lot of TV's now adjust the frame rates and even Pulp Fiction, Raiders Of The Lost Ark, and Dirty Harry look like they were shot on an RCA camcorder in 1986.

Wellon Dowd: I've enjoyed most of Disney's previous creations.

[i.imgur.com image 225x400]
[i.imgur.com image 300x500]
[i.imgur.com image 320x480]
[i.imgur.com image 500x550]
[i.imgur.com image 600x729]
[i.imgur.com image 682x1024]
[i.imgur.com image 800x1097]

Yes but this one is different. It is made of silico.......oh.

What is that scientific term for realistic robots? The one that says if it looks 80-90% human people can deal with it, but then it reaches a valley where if the robot looks 95-99% human it becomes far too creepy?

Anyone?

/Bueller?

uncanny valey

Easy Reader: A lot of TV's now adjust the frame rates and even Pulp Fiction, Raiders Of The Lost Ark, and Dirty Harry look like they were shot on an RCA camcorder in 1986.

Well I don't now about the others but I guarantee Raiders was shot in 35mm, 24fps. As for the soap opera look, a lot of that has to do with TV lighting but the 30fps they shoot in looks different but not necessarily cheaper. For 48fps they might have to add motion blur to give it more of a film look that people are used to but overall a larger frame rate should look more realistic and brighter, maybe lending itself better to 3D. I haven't seen it yet but obviously you can't tell anything by looking as still photos.

Mugato: Easy Reader: A lot of TV's now adjust the frame rates and even Pulp Fiction, Raiders Of The Lost Ark, and Dirty Harry look like they were shot on an RCA camcorder in 1986.

Well I don't now about the others but I guarantee Raiders was shot in 35mm, 24fps. As for the soap opera look, a lot of that has to do with TV lighting but the 30fps they shoot in looks different but not necessarily cheaper. For 48fps they might have to add motion blur to give it more of a film look that people are used to but overall a larger frame rate should look more realistic and brighter, maybe lending itself better to 3D. I haven't seen it yet but obviously you can't tell anything by looking as still photos.

It was--all those movies I listed were shot at 24fps film. But a lot of new TV's have a setting that changes up the displayed frame rate electronically and it looks terrible, like a public access cable show.

Mugato: Easy Reader: A lot of TV's now adjust the frame rates and even Pulp Fiction, Raiders Of The Lost Ark, and Dirty Harry look like they were shot on an RCA camcorder in 1986.

Well I don't now about the others but I guarantee Raiders was shot in 35mm, 24fps. As for the soap opera look, a lot of that has to do with TV lighting but the 30fps they shoot in looks different but not necessarily cheaper. For 48fps they might have to add motion blur to give it more of a film look that people are used to but overall a larger frame rate should look more realistic and brighter, maybe lending itself better to 3D. I haven't seen it yet but obviously you can't tell anything by looking as still photos.

All those films were 35MM 24fps. Almost everything filmed since the 1920s has been 24fps. Digital cameras (RED, Viper, etc) are also 24fps.

There have been a handful of productions with higher rates but those are few and far between. Early Todd-AO films like Oklahoma! was 65MM 30fps.

Easy Reader: It was--all those movies I listed were shot at 24fps film. But a lot of new TV's have a setting that changes up the displayed frame rate electronically and it looks terrible, like a public access cable show.

Oh I see what you're saying. And that setting is bullshiat. Obviously you can't get more frames than what was shot. So what I'm pretty sure they do is just duplicate every third frame or whatever the math turns out to be. Of course that's going to loo like shiat. What Jackson is doing is filming the thing in twice as many frames per second as usual. I'm sure there's a huge difference.

ThMugato:

Oh I see what you're saying. And that setting is bullshiat. Obviously you can't get more frames than what was shot. So what I'm pretty sure they do is just duplicate every third frame or whatever the math turns out to be. Of course that's going to loo like shiat. What Jackson is doing is filming the thing in twice as many frames per second as usual. I'm sure there's a huge difference.

Yes, not exactly the same, but similar. There's something magic about a 1/50" 24fps shutter speed, slightly strobey look that lends itself perfectly to what most audiences consider to be the look of a movie. Anything that deviate too much from that standard just looks artificial, cheap, and amateur.

But back to the original article--realism doesn't necessarily improve ride experiences. There's something awesome about the caricatured look of the original Pirates of the Caribbean and the Haunted Mansion denizens. If it looked like a bunch of real actor people standing around in the scenes, it would take away from the fantastical, whimsical journey they've managed to create. I'm sure this new tech has its applications somewhere, but I'm wondering if it will start appearing in the rides and shows. Like how they did with that awful Jack Sparrow force-fit in POTC.

chuggernaught: What is that scientific term for realistic robots? The one that says if it looks 80-90% human people can deal with it, but then it reaches a valley where if the robot looks 95-99% human it becomes far too creepy?

Anyone?

/Bueller?

The term you are wanting is the "uncanny valley"

Easy Reader: I'm sure this new tech has its applications somewhere, but I'm wondering if it will start appearing in the rides and shows

Hall of Presidents? Not that anyone actually goes to that but that lends itself to realism.

Mugato: Easy Reader: I'm sure this new tech has its applications somewhere, but I'm wondering if it will start appearing in the rides and shows

Hall of Presidents? Not that anyone actually goes to that but that lends itself to realism.

You're right. That's a unique case where it works.

Easy Reader: You're right. That's a unique case where it works.

And the Great Movie Ride at Disney MGM Hollywood Studios, although I think they already did a good job with that. The thing is that when you're on a moving ride where it's usually sort of dark, you don't require that much realism in the facial features.

Agreed. In a case like a ride, bold strokes are often preferable to easily missed subtleties. I'm saying all this coming from a background of building haunted house dark rides. And I love Disney parks, both their good and bad sides, but I also don't want them to get too far off track of what their strengths are.

Easy Reader: . Like how they did with that awful Jack Sparrow force-fit in POTC.

Came here to ask this. Their Indy is pretty rough too.

Mugato: Easy Reader: It was--all those movies I listed were shot at 24fps film. But a lot of new TV's have a setting that changes up the displayed frame rate electronically and it looks terrible, like a public access cable show.

Oh I see what you're saying. And that setting is bullshiat. Obviously you can't get more frames than what was shot. So what I'm pretty sure they do is just duplicate every third frame or whatever the math turns out to be. Of course that's going to loo like shiat. What Jackson is doing is filming the thing in twice as many frames per second as usual. I'm sure there's a huge difference.

You're thinking of Telecine. There's usually a little bit more processing to it, but yeah that's about it.

Easy Reader: A lot of TV's now adjust the frame rates and even Pulp Fiction, Raiders Of The Lost Ark, and Dirty Harry look like they were shot on an RCA camcorder in 1986.

That's the Jitter enhancement. It interpolates movement of the pixels between frames, basically creating entirely new frames (based on intelligent guess, of course), upping the effective framerate to 60fps or higher.

It's rather cool, but it does give movies the soap opera look. This really demonstrates a phenomena I've seen before, most notably people complaining about the "lower volume" of Dolby Noise Reduction on cassettes, when it is really the same dB, just a wider range of sound. The "soap opera" video is actually a bigger dynamic range, but we have just become so accustomed to the slower frame rate.

Mugato: As for the soap opera look, a lot of that has to do with TV lighting but the 30fps they shoot in looks different but not necessarily cheaper.


I'm not an expert, but I think it has more to do with motion blur.  Motion blur on video is much different (or, can you even have it at all?).  And human eyes are used to motion blur as part of real life.  Wave your hand in front of your face... motion blur.  Do it on film, very similar look.  Do it on video... its more "choppy" than "blurry".

Silverstaff: chuggernaught: What is that scientific term for realistic robots? The one that says if it looks 80-90% human people can deal with it, but then it reaches a valley where if the robot looks 95-99% human it becomes far too creepy?

Anyone?

/Bueller?

The term you are wanting is the "uncanny valley"


Yep.  Look it up, there are some facinating articles about it.
 
I remember one on ESPN Page 2 on why one specific year's Madden video game sold like crap.  But the years before and after were along the expected lines.  The players in the game looked more realistic than before, but hit that uncanny valley.  And then later years, they got better and better looking.
 
For example, Madden now is damn realistic looking.  You'd have no problem playing it.  Also, Temco Bowl from the 80's wouldn't creep you out.
 
 
 

So will I need to get myself my own Dûnyain to make sure the skin spies don't take over?

Wake me when they make everything look like it does in Epic Mickey:



It's a world of laughter, a world of fears...

Silverstaff: chuggernaught: What is that scientific term for realistic robots? The one that says if it looks 80-90% human people can deal with it, but then it reaches a valley where if the robot looks 95-99% human it becomes far too creepy?

Anyone?

/Bueller?

The term you are wanting is the "uncanny valley"

I also feel like we're becoming too sophisticated in our ability to detect the non-real. I remember how awestruck I was when movies like Jurassic Park and Final Fantasy came out, and how seemingly realistic the CGI effects were. Looking at them now, the effects are mostly unconvincing; nothing has changed about the movies except my perception of them.

I wonder if that will continue to be the case: for each technological advance, the brain will learn how to look past it, will find one chink in the design and be transfixed by the flaws.

Looks like doesn't have enough range of motion in its lips to properly form speech-shapes. That's the part that firmly plants the thing in the Uncanny Valley for me.

chuggernaught: What is that scientific term for realistic robots? The one that says if it looks 80-90% human people can deal with it, but then it reaches a valley where if the robot looks 95-99% human it becomes far too creepy?

Anyone?

/Bueller?

Terminators.

chuggernaught: What is that scientific term for realistic robots? The one that says if it looks 80-90% human people can deal with it, but then it reaches a valley where if the robot looks 95-99% human it becomes far too creepy?

Anyone?

/Bueller?

Second Variety

Professor Okhi &

LesserEvil: Easy Reader: A lot of TV's now adjust the frame rates and even Pulp Fiction, Raiders Of The Lost Ark, and Dirty Harry look like they were shot on an RCA camcorder in 1986.

That's the Jitter enhancement. It interpolates movement of the pixels between frames, basically creating entirely new frames (based on intelligent guess, of course), upping the effective framerate to 60fps or higher.

It's rather cool, but it does give movies the soap opera look. This really demonstrates a phenomena I've seen before, most notably people complaining about the "lower volume" of Dolby Noise Reduction on cassettes, when it is really the same dB, just a wider range of sound. The "soap opera" video is actually a bigger dynamic range, but we have just become so accustomed to the slower frame rate.

Yes. It's just a weird look. It doesn't enhance the original. It addresses a "problem" I've never heard anyone complain about. Why does the Empire Strikes Back or Citizen Kane or any other movie need more frames? They have always been just fine. Seems like more of an issue of "just because we have the tech and we can". Maybe it's this generation's version of movie colorizing, or like digital reverb in a car radio.

Easy Reader: Professor Okhi &

LesserEvil: Easy Reader: A lot of TV's now adjust the frame rates and even Pulp Fiction, Raiders Of The Lost Ark, and Dirty Harry look like they were shot on an RCA camcorder in 1986.

That's the Jitter enhancement. It interpolates movement of the pixels between frames, basically creating entirely new frames (based on intelligent guess, of course), upping the effective framerate to 60fps or higher.

It's rather cool, but it does give movies the soap opera look. This really demonstrates a phenomena I've seen before, most notably people complaining about the "lower volume" of Dolby Noise Reduction on cassettes, when it is really the same dB, just a wider range of sound. The "soap opera" video is actually a bigger dynamic range, but we have just become so accustomed to the slower frame rate.

Yes. It's just a weird look. It doesn't enhance the original. It addresses a "problem" I've never heard anyone complain about. Why does the Empire Strikes Back or Citizen Kane or any other movie need more frames? They have always been just fine. Seems like more of an issue of "just because we have the tech and we can". Maybe it's this generation's version of movie colorizing, or like digital reverb in a car radio.

There was a reason: TVs, CRT ones at least, had an electron gun that swept the screen with a specific timing. I don't think that rate was really configurable either. It's expecting an input at a certain rate. If you're pumping the original 24 frames in at the same speed you would the 30 fps ones, the video will be at 125% normal speed. If you just decide to feed it in at 24fps speed, you're going to get a flickering effect when you change frames mid screen-draw. There's no way to evenly distribute 24 frames into 30 or 60 slots.

On the other hand, if you've got a TV that can support 24Hz. Notice how 120Hz is divisible by 24Hz and 60Hz? That means that for 24fps stuff, it just keeps it up for 5 cycles, no flicker. Since BluRay supports 24fps, modern stuff should be able to display it at it's original rate.

So yeah, the whole thing goes to back compatibility with older TV.

How is this different from what they're already doing? This new model doesn't look significantly better than the Jack Sparrow mannequins they added to Pirates of the Caribbean.

I don't see the advantage in ultra-realism for animatronics anyway. The more sophisticated they get, the more they break down. Besides, people expect a level of off-putting wax museum creepiness in a theme park dark ride. It's part of the funhouse esthetic. If we wanted to see total realism in looks and movement, we'd buy tickets to a play instead.

Yes, I was the victim of a tragic animatronic accident. 5 hours trapped beneath an unstoppable metal Lincoln is enough to give anyone a stroke.

/hopefully not obscure

EdgeRunner: How is this different from what they're already doing? This new model doesn't look significantly better than the Jack Sparrow mannequins they added to Pirates of the Caribbean.

I don't see the advantage in ultra-realism for animatronics anyway. The more sophisticated they get, the more they break down. Besides, people expect a level of off-putting wax museum creepiness in a theme park dark ride. It's part of the funhouse esthetic. If we wanted to see total realism in looks and movement, we'd buy tickets to a play instead.

Well put.

Easy Reader: Yes. It's just a weird look. It doesn't enhance the original. It addresses a "problem" I've never heard anyone complain about. Why does the Empire Strikes Back or Citizen Kane or any other movie need more frames? They have always been just fine. Seems like more of an issue of "just because we have the tech and we can". Maybe it's this generation's version of movie colorizing, or like digital reverb in a car radio.

If you treat it as "sports mode," it's a decent feature, since your brain is primed to see sports live from the stands. Sports have never looked crisper or better since the advent of motion smoothing. If you leave it on to watch Battleship Potemkin, then you're going to have a bad time. As more and more directors shoot for higher FPS in television and movies, the better it will become, since (much like Battleship Potemkin) those films will be designed with a certain FPS in mind.

I'm sure people freaked the fark out over color television back in the day, but they got over it. We will too. It will just take a period of adjustment to undo decades of media conditioning that a higher framerate instinctively means lower production values.

I thought it look good.

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Easy Reader: Yes. It's just a weird look. It doesn't enhance the original. It addresses a "problem" I've never heard anyone complain about. Why does the Empire Strikes Back or Citizen Kane or any other movie need more frames? They have always been just fine. Seems like more of an issue of "just because we have the tech and we can". Maybe it's this generation's version of movie colorizing, or like digital reverb in a car radio.

If you treat it as "sports mode," it's a decent feature, since your brain is primed to see sports live from the stands. Sports have never looked crisper or better since the advent of motion smoothing. If you leave it on to watch Battleship Potemkin, then you're going to have a bad time. As more and more directors shoot for higher FPS in television and movies, the better it will become, since (much like Battleship Potemkin) those films will be designed with a certain FPS in mind.

I'm sure people freaked the fark out over color television back in the day, but they got over it. We will too. It will just take a period of adjustment to undo decades of media conditioning that a higher framerate instinctively means lower production values.

There's a certain magic that obscurity adds. Given just enough information, your brain will kick in and fill in the rest however it sees fit, and that contributes to the wonder and amazement of film, magic shows, the right theater, story telling, etc. That's where the art kicks in. Now it's so easy to just go ahead and "show the monster" or all the gore, film makers often don't trust their audience to use their own imaginations. They just slap it all up on the digital monitor with the idea that more = better. In my opinion, much of the art is in knowing how much to give, and how much to hold back. That bit of lace over the naked girl's soft flesh is often so much sexier than the spread-eagle stripper you find on the playing cards.

Some friends and I had a little discussion the other day about matte paintings, and we all settled on the conclusion that the matte paintings made the film *bigger*, if that makes sense to you all. We eventually stated that CG environments makes your film look like a video game, while the matte painting, humble and crude as it is, makes your film look like a movie. Part of how that works is you have to put a matte painting on screen and get it off pretty quickly or else the illusion is spoiled. And that keeps your brain working and processing.

Underneath, it's a hyper-alloy combat chassis - micro processor-controlled, fully armored. Very tough. But outside, it's living human tissue - flesh, skin, hair, blood.

Easy Reader: There's a certain magic that obscurity adds. Given just enough information, your brain will kick in and fill in the rest however it sees fit, and that contributes to the wonder and amazement of film, magic shows, the right theater, story telling, etc. That's where the art kicks in. Now it's so easy to just go ahead and "show the monster" or all the gore, film makers often don't trust their audience to use their own imaginations. They just slap it all up on the digital monitor with the idea that more = better. In my opinion, much of the art is in knowing how much to give, and how much to hold back. That bit of lace over the naked girl's soft flesh is often so much sexier than the spread-eagle stripper you find on the playing cards.

A higher FPS doesn't necessarily detract from the art, though, as long as you film it right. Just off the top of my head, some directors will be able to utilize the "seems like a home movie" effect in order to make their family drama seem like some VHS tape you found in the attic, or to give a horror flick some additional realism. A smooth, slow pan across a meticulous landscape will make you feel like you're there, etc. While I'm sure somebody (Michael Bay, I'm looking at you) will use higher FPS in order to rape your eyeballs, it will ultimately depend on the director and cinematographer to make the right decision for the film they're producing.

/I do feel bad for the set designers who'll have to make everything perfect at all times though