>To understand IMAX, it helps to know how movies are captured in the first place. Many are shot digitally, as it's cheaper and more convenient than using film. However, many filmmakers still want, well, film
The illogical part about this process is that they convert the shot film to digital, they add CGI and color correction and then they print back the digital version to....film.
So the whole point of shooting a Hollywood movie on film today is because some directors like....film. There is no practicality/cost/reasoning to it.
Some directors like the appearance of film... Given that the spectacle is a large part of the reason we go to the cinema, the colour fidelity and (and in the case of IMAX) unique scale and aspect ratio are the point... Not sure why practicality or cost would override that?
As a director who doesn't shoot on film - I still see the appeal, there's a particular quality to skin tones - especially in response to older arc lights and the like - that digital still doesn't quite capture. Ditto motion cadence, halation and grain that are all emulated in digital post to greater or lesser degrees of fidelity.
I know extensive thought goes into filters in front of the camera and the lighting, but one can probably change the bayer filter transmission function to get them to match better (and maybe add one or two channels at the cost of shot noise).
I see this in industrial cameras, do you know if any filmmakers use non standard Bayer filters?
The only cinema cameras I know of that don't employ some variation of a bayer filter in the colour science are black magic cameras. Their higher end cameras all have an RGBW sensor with a 6*6 grid including a white photo site. This is way beyond my technical level of expertise to understand or explain, but there's some more info below.
I don’t understand how even the preference for shooting on film makes any sense if you’re digitizing, heavily processing, adding entirely digital elements …
I get putting the final edit to film.
If you’re not doing all that additional garbage, then capturing on film, going digital for basic editing, then back to film might make sense.
The end result is not recreatable with digital assets. i.e.: It doesn't matter your budget, we cannot currently simulate the look of the original footage shot on 35 (let alone 70mm, forget about IMAX 80mm) by shooting digitally.
Also what you're referring to as 'garbage', is colour grading and composite work. It's not adulteration, it's an essential create part of the filmmaking work. Whether you're doing it exclusively as part of the development process of the physical film, or digitally in Nuke or Resolve etc.
Your inability to understand why people do things in a domain you're not familiar with is indicative of gaps in your knowledge, not the futility of the process. Lots of information about how and why all this works as it does online.
I think what makes film great is more the process. It forces slower more deliberate filmmaking and somehow that seems to show up in the product. Only celebrated/respected filmmakers have the influence to force production to allow them to shoot film so there’s a selection bias at play too.
That is not what Yedlin's tests show or made an effort to test! His famous first set of comparison tests are about resolution, specifically his opinions about the unimportance of 4K.
I deeply disagree with his conclusion, because he is downgrading a digital image to show it can match the resolution and some of the visual aspects of a 16 print. Which is like putting a filter over a high resolution monitor and then comparing it to SD TV.
But in either case, his work wasn't about whether digital could match the look of any film (it can't).
He has also never released his nuke workflow, although he's more recently productised it to some extent.
I cannot speak to film->digital->film but for audio recording if you did a similar thing like tape->digital->tape you would impart some real stuff to the recording versus just digital all the way through.
This is out of my area of expertise a bit, but digitization quality loss often depends on whether you quantize things, at what level of fidelity and also what kind of transformations you apply (stepped discrete or continuous for instance).
Consider how music production is often done on audio recorded at a higher sample rate, so when effects are applied artifacting is reduced for the eventual export sample rate. For video, one analogy is recording slow-motion shots at a higher framerate rather than slowing down regular footage.
second disclaimer, dbspin knows all this, this is aimed at the casual observer
About 2010 was the time that digital cameras were common enough and had enough dynamic range to make "better" looking 35mm than 35mm. There were caveats, certain hella expensive fujifilm stock still looked great and had decent enough resolution if you were skilled enough. (I'm not a DoP or lighting designer so take this with that in mind)
RED gets lots of credit, but frankly they were not that great, they had optical resolution, but not very good colour or dynamic range.
However, the most important point is this, most films from about 2006 were fed through DI. This means they were scanned in, degrained, conformed (so all shots from the same scene had the sameish histogram). Then the colourist would grade it all, give it a feel ( a bit like foley/music) and it'd be lasered back out to film or sent to be packaged into a DCI.
the "feel" of film is usually added or enhanced. modern film stock isn't grainy, unless you choose it to be. (compare layer cake to harry brown) "film-y ness is a choice, in the same way that "warm" analogue sound is a choice"
I don't think it's as illogical as it sounds. The qualities of the signal you feed your digital pipeline are very important to the finished product. And i'm using the plural intentionally here : not quality as in "it's better" but qualities as in "it has specific characteristics".
I can more easily relate to music production which i have passing experience with. The analog would be : if you plug your guitar directly in a preamplified audio card, you'll get the cleanest possible signal, right ? Then you'd just have to post-process it through a virtual cabinet and a bunch of effects to get exactly the sound you want. Except in most cases you'll get better results by plugging a guitar on an amplifier and putting that amp in a room with a microphone pointing to it. All that hardware will natively give you a better sound than you could achieve with reasonable effort on a fully digital workflow. Not better quality (in fact you're probably losing definition on that signal at several points in the chain), but qualities that on average will make the sound more pleasing to the ear. You can still manipulate the sound with virtual effects all you want, it will still retain the "grain" of the original setup.
The guitar claim is not true anymore. Companies like NeuralDSP have reached the point where it is indistinguishable from analogue. Virtual amps have pretty much completely replaced analogue amps in live setups and many studio recordings.
Shooting film is a different production process than digital. Shot times, color reproduction, dynamic range, the size of the equipment, etc. all impact how movies are shot. Even acting is impacted due to each take having tangible costs. Limitations on how many cameras you can use also changes how you go about shooting.
The beauty of analog production, whether cine, still, or audio, revolves around working with and around the limitations of the process. Yes, when all we had was film/tape we dreamed of being set free of the many limitations of the media. Restrictions do force decisions though and many artists feel more inspired working within limitations. All that’s to say that the choice to do things in the analog realm impact how things are made and therefore has an impact on the final product even if post and display are done digitally. Cinema as an art form is due in no small part to how you work with film.
It's not illogical, because film behaves differently than CMOS/CCD image sensors. Film scanners can then digitize the film's nuances more very accurately, resulting in an digital image with better dynamic range etc.
My comment is targeted to the developers of Waterfox and Librewolf - they're already making a browser, so the hard part is done.
I'm wondering why don't they try to step it up further by selling a paid version alongside their open source product. What is the worst that can happen? Nobody pays for it and they continue making $0 just like they are happily doing now.
https://buymeacoffee.com/waterfox wasn't hard to find that. (they also make money from search). Put your money where your mouth is and donate.
Librewolf doesn't want to deal with the administrative overhead of donations - which if they'd only get a few donations makes sense. It likely costs several hundred a month just to hire the accountants and lawyers needed to get the paper work right (you can do it yourself at cost of time doing other things. Often you can find accountants and lawyers who will donate their services, but it is still several hundred dollars worth)
Sure, I'm not counting those who contribute with their work. But if you don't contribute with your work or with your money – that's a freeloader by definition.
A paid version needs to offer something on top of it, which is usually in one way or another proprietary (such as a proprietary service).
Something like this is regarded as the enshitification process, so what typically happens is they (e.g. VC) want to do such after they lured in their users. Which Firefox has (or arguably: had), but Waterfox and Librewolf have not.
Good thought experiment.
It ain't the first drama or controversy with regards to Mozilla, who have had a long tendency which didn't occur recently (and included the time Eich was there). Nostalgia just makes people forget the bad.
It does actually seem pretty difficult to sell a browser; I don’t really see how anybody in their right mind would trust a closed source browser. So, it will be hard to make any parts of it proprietary. It isn’t impossible to sell open source software of course, but it does seem to be pretty difficult.
Rather, I wish we would stop accepting web standards that don’t come with reference implementations. Then, we could have a reference browser, and just run that. I don’t expect it to be performant, but I also don’t think browser performance matters much at all. Web pages are not HPC applications.
Currently we’re accepting the anti-competitive behavior of Google, just DDoSing the community with new standards to implement. This is the root problem. The fact that Mozilla is being killed by funding problems is downstream of the fact that maintaining a web browser requires multiple full time engineers.
And making a browser that's actually financially viable enough to pay for your time and effort without pissing off your user base because of paid features is even worse.
Especially in a crowded market, where we're arguing extensively about a browser that has 2.54% of the market share. Chrome (67%), Safari (18%), Edge (5.2%) [1]
Most of those also have a browser mostly as add-ons, bundling, ecosystem value, or trademark / brand name trojans.
Admittedly, if you're looking to make a browser, there's a lot of various prior attempts that remain in existence, yet have never really received that much attention. [2]
Personal preference is that somebody would implement a scripting language alternative other than Javascript. Anybody heard of TCL lately? It's supposed to be a browser scripting language alternative according to the w3.org specification [3] Really, almost anything other than Javascript as an alternative. Just for some variety.
Tiling is old news, bring on scrollable window managers.
I honestly think scrollable VM is the future of window management. It just make sense to arrange windows like that instead of cram multiple opened windows in a fixed area.
I've found Niri* to be the best but there are stability/performance problems (especially when you go over +20 windows) with all of them. Maybe once they will be "baked-in" in Gnome/KDE things will change.
> Why do i get this faulty patch if i'm not even using Bitlocker ?
You might not be using it now, but you might want to switch it on later.
And more importantly, it prevents an exponential explosion on the amount of different variants of the code. If you allow people to not get this patch, and later another bug is fixed, either you force people to get this patch before getting the next one (leading to N different versions), or you'll have to develop a fix both for people who have and for people who don't have this patch (leading to 2^N different versions).
Well, the compensation is not that bad for a company headquartered in Milan (Italy) and remote-friendly
> Competitive salary and stock options. Our compensation packages are designed to attract and retain the best talent in the industry. Individuals just starting their career joining on a full-time contract are offered a salary of €63,965 along with a €1,200 welfare bonus. If you already have a few years of relevant work experience, you can expect to earn between €105,737 and €143,330, depending on your expertise
That's the Google way. I was referred by 2 people on the team I'd be on but nobody on that team had anything to do with my committee interview.
So, instead of the people who know my work (from FOSS projects) it was a random gaggle of Stanford, etc people. I don't have a degree at all so to say I was intimidated and miserable and feeling very judged is an understatement.
Even my recruiter there had gone to Stanford and mentioned that her sister went to some other school and looks down at her lowly Stanford. wild place.
in older days my artsy friends would call those Stanford etc people "yuppies" or "frat guys/gals" among other things. The culture gap is real since those ordinary graduates did in fact compete and acheive in a certain way to get where they are.. so it is easy and human nature to judge others on the criteria they were judged on.. meanwhile, real skills, talent and sweat are common among the fringy outsiders, along with bad skin, odd clothing choices, low personal skills or other warts... hang in there!
That was actually my first time in SV/SFBay area (just stuck around San Mateo and San Jose) and I hated San Mateo. I'm used to gritty fun towns like Austin and Denver and San Mateo was culture shock. Netflix has the same problem being in Los Gatos, it might be worse there.
I remember one of my Uber drivers was getting their PHD in Machine Learning/AI.
They must have a huge funnel from Stanford. I'm not sure what other good schools are over there.
It always better for possible new hires to be interviewed by as many people in the team/company as possible - if they give feedback, have a veto, is that a committee?
Elon is an idividual, who happens to posess large operations, and runs them like personal toys that just happen to be big. MS is not and does not.
Individuals absolutely do stupid things for stupid reasons, at whatever scale they have access to.
I guess your point still stands though, since the Muskverse is not the only one like that where there is an individual owner at the top who is willing to treat the whole thing like personal disposable property.
>According to the ruling, DDL-Music has no other purpose than to share pirated music and Cloudflare plays a central role in making the site available.
And if they switch DNS providers what will they do ? +File a lawsuit for each DNS provider? Makes no sense to "sanction" the DNS provider because of the website content.
Also one other thing that plays a "centrol role" in making pirate websites available are electricity companies which provide power for servers. Shouldn't they sue those too ?
>In addition to stopping its services to DDL-Music as a customer, Universal also wanted Cloudflare to block the site on its public DNS resolver 1.1.1.1.
The illogical part about this process is that they convert the shot film to digital, they add CGI and color correction and then they print back the digital version to....film.
So the whole point of shooting a Hollywood movie on film today is because some directors like....film. There is no practicality/cost/reasoning to it.