Post a picture, entertain me!

sometimesdee wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Man, I'm on a role today, totally don't get this one either! :(

Perhaps another picture will clear things up:

IMAGE(http://cdn4.nwgimg.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/YGTypC01.jpg)

Ah, I never associate Boston with Massa-however you spell it (yes, I'm aware it's in the picture, I'm lazy too. :P), so I didn't think of the accent. Got it now, thanks for the explanation folks!

IMAGE(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ma28ilExRV1qdhra0o1_500.jpg)

That episode was made of so much win, Gravey!

Actresses Without Teeth

IMAGE(http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p81/Just_a_demo/Cephalopod-NOPE.gif)

Cross posted from Video thread:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/AHJrCNQ.gif)

Video

IMAGE(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18jprmchyrk9gpng/original.png)

Rykin wrote:

Cross posted from Video thread:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/AHJrCNQ.gif)

Video

So how is it all the action movies these days have such jerky camerawork?!

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Rykin wrote:

Cross posted from Video thread:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/AHJrCNQ.gif)

Video

So how is it all the action movies these days have such jerky camerawork?!

Err, because this is a new thing and we haven't invented time machines yet?

Quintin_Stone wrote:

So how is it all the action movies these days have such jerky camerawork?!

Because what you're seeing there is actually a fairly new invention and it just hasn't been widely adopted yet?

*Tannhauser'd! And with more style! Curses!

That seems like it would be really difficult to use because of the weight and how you have to hold your arms out. It should have some sort of shoulder harness. Is there some sort of support system that you can't see?

And because otherwise you might be able to tell how crappy the choreographed fight actually looks?

Jonman wrote:

Err, because this is a new thing and we haven't invented time machines yet?

But when they do invent time machines, they can bring BOTH to whenever we need them, mister smarty-pants.

tuffalobuffalo wrote:

That seems like it would be really difficult to use because of the weight and how you have to hold your arms out. It should have some sort of shoulder harness. Is there some sort of support system that you can't see?

Did you watch the actual video? Seems like it works out just fine in practice.

This is the look that says "You know I'm going to have to kill you now..."

IMAGE(http://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/ay_107221149-e1365155627904.jpg)

Thin_J wrote:
tuffalobuffalo wrote:

That seems like it would be really difficult to use because of the weight and how you have to hold your arms out. It should have some sort of shoulder harness. Is there some sort of support system that you can't see?

Did you watch the actual video? Seems like it works out just fine in practice.

Nope, just looked at the GIF. At any rate, that answers my question.

tuffalobuffalo wrote:
Thin_J wrote:
tuffalobuffalo wrote:

That seems like it would be really difficult to use because of the weight and how you have to hold your arms out. It should have some sort of shoulder harness. Is there some sort of support system that you can't see?

Did you watch the actual video? Seems like it works out just fine in practice.

Nope, just looked at the GIF. At any rate, that answers my question.

As a dude who seems interested in photography in at least a limited capacity, you should check out the video. It's super impressive.

tanstaafl wrote:

And because otherwise you might be able to tell how crappy the choreographed fight actually looks?

I figured this was the point Quintin was more or less making.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

So how is it all the action movies these days have such jerky camerawork?!

Because it became popular as a way to make something seem more "realistic"?

Steadycam technology like this has been around for quite a while, this is just way better miniaturized than what they've used in the past. If you see crazy shaky cam, it's either low-budget (Blair Witch), or they're doing it on purpose and the director is an a**hole and hates people with eyes (Transformers).

Quintin_Stone wrote:

So how is it all the action movies these days have such jerky camerawork?!

A non-snarky answer that doesn't involve time machines: because the director chose to shoot the scene with handheld cameras, usually for the aesthetic value of a rapidly shifting frame. That GIF illustrates a pretty impressive piece of technology, but there have been plenty of methods of holding cameras for awhile now. The Steadicam's probably the best known and most successful; it's a camera on a harness that allows the cameraman to run without the image jumping around.

But handheld cameras came into vogue for action sequences about a decade ago, and we haven't quite gotten away from them. I first started noticing them in the late '90s and early '00s with movies like Saving Private Ryan during the D-Day landing and Gladiator with the melee battles. (That's also about the time a printing technique was popularized that double-prints every other frame for a jittery, dream-like effect.) Directors use handheld cameras a lot of the time because they feel that it creates a more visceral experience: the camera jumping around, throwing the focus of the scene in and out of frame, can create visual tension and more closely replicate the experience of being in the situation rather than observing it.

That's not to say that directors always use it well or get what they're after, but the answer to your question has a lot less to do with technology than it does with aesthetic choices made during production.

Thin_J wrote:

you should check out the video. It's super impressive.

Just watched it. That's uber cool.

they're doing it on purpose and the director is an a**hole and hates people with eyes (Transformers).

I really hope Michael Bay gets himself under control before Star Wars. I dunno if it's Tourette's with his hands or what... but it's obnoxious and makes me dread seeing any of his movies, as I don't want to puke due to motion sickness (which I don't have!).

tanstaafl wrote:

And because otherwise you might be able to tell how crappy the choreographed fight actually looks?

Nah, they can just add more fast cuts and lens flares to cover it up.

LOL:

James Kirkpatrick wrote:

These two books contain the sum total of all human knowledge IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BHFnkYxCQAIe9Yo.jpg:large)

(source)

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Err, because this is a new thing and we haven't invented time machines yet?

But when they do invent time machines, they can bring BOTH to whenever we need them, mister smarty-pants.

The very fact that we're not awash in time machines right now is concrete proof that time machines will never be invented.

NOW WHO'S THE SMARTY PANTS?

Demosthenes wrote:
they're doing it on purpose and the director is an a**hole and hates people with eyes (Transformers).

I really hope Michael Bay gets himself under control before Star Wars. I dunno if it's Tourette's with his hands or what... but it's obnoxious and makes me dread seeing any of his movies, as I don't want to puke due to motion sickness (which I don't have!).

Michael Bay is attached to the new Star Wars movies?

Jonman wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Err, because this is a new thing and we haven't invented time machines yet?

But when they do invent time machines, they can bring BOTH to whenever we need them, mister smarty-pants.

The very fact that we're not awash in time machines right now is concrete proof that time machines will never be invented.

NOW WHO'S THE SMARTY PANTS?

Jonman has now won the time machine thread... unless they're invisible when you time travel to avoid interfering by law! Oh man, we could totally be awash in time machines!

Jonman wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Err, because this is a new thing and we haven't invented time machines yet?

But when they do invent time machines, they can bring BOTH to whenever we need them, mister smarty-pants.

The very fact that we're not awash in time machines right now is concrete proof that time machines will never be invented.

NOW WHO'S THE SMARTY PANTS?

Sorry, Elton.

Demosthenes wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Err, because this is a new thing and we haven't invented time machines yet?

But when they do invent time machines, they can bring BOTH to whenever we need them, mister smarty-pants.

The very fact that we're not awash in time machines right now is concrete proof that time machines will never be invented.

NOW WHO'S THE SMARTY PANTS?

Jonman has now won the time machine thread... unless they're invisible when you time travel to avoid interfering by law! Oh man, we could totally be awash in time machines!

The last I heard, time machines that were theoretically plausible would only function along their own lifespan: i.e., you could travel to any moment from when the time machine was turned on to when it was destroyed/turned off/etc. but not before or after. There: we may yet invent them, and that's why they're not here.

IMAGE(http://s9.postimg.org/77ud786en/image.jpg)

Jonman wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Err, because this is a new thing and we haven't invented time machines yet?

But when they do invent time machines, they can bring BOTH to whenever we need them, mister smarty-pants.

The very fact that we're not awash in time machines right now is concrete proof that time machines will never be invented.

NOW WHO'S THE SMARTY PANTS?

I just had this discussion with my friends yesterday and I made the same point.