View previous topic | View next topic

Movies

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

CharliesDragon
1084515.  Mon Jul 14, 2014 1:26 pm Reply with quote

djgordy wrote:
My photograph exists in time It existed when I took it and it exists today. I assume it exists even when I'm not looking at it, although some people might wish to argue that point.

3D movies aren't really so; they are still projected onto a flat screen. The 3D effect is an illusion. Also, they are really irritating when not seen in 3D as there are lots of guns and swords etc being pointed at the viewer,


Regular movies also just create the illusion of movement (in time (and a relative dimention, I guess)).

I agree that your photograph exists in time, but you can choose if you want to glance at it for a second, of gaze at it for an hour. A 90 minute movie will always take at least 90 minutes to watch. (With commercial breaks or pausing the movie to go to the bathroom it will of course take longer.) You can choose to only watch 60 minutes of it, but then you will have to skip some part and haven't watched the whole movie, similar to if you were to cover part of your photograph from sight.

To sum up: you need time to make something a movie. If you want to call that a dimension or not is another matter.

 
yommilommi
1084517.  Mon Jul 14, 2014 2:20 pm Reply with quote

CharliesDragon wrote:
djgordy wrote:
My photograph exists in time It existed when I took it and it exists today. I assume it exists even when I'm not looking at it, although some people might wish to argue that point.

3D movies aren't really so; they are still projected onto a flat screen. The 3D effect is an illusion. Also, they are really irritating when not seen in 3D as there are lots of guns and swords etc being pointed at the viewer,


Regular movies also just create the illusion of movement (in time (and a relative dimention, I guess)).

I agree that your photograph exists in time, but you can choose if you want to glance at it for a second, of gaze at it for an hour. A 90 minute movie will always take at least 90 minutes to watch. (With commercial breaks or pausing the movie to go to the bathroom it will of course take longer.) You can choose to only watch 60 minutes of it, but then you will have to skip some part and haven't watched the whole movie, similar to if you were to cover part of your photograph from sight.

To sum up: you need time to make something a movie. If you want to call that a dimension or not is another matter.


Agreed. There is a movie called "Zen for film", it is a white square the whole time, and that is a movie. There is something inside film that it's not inside a photography, and that is exaclty time, you can see time, you don't have to see something moving in order to call it time, you can feel it. 24 frames per second is what makes a film a film, a photograph might make a frame of those 24, but without time there is no film.

Your photograph is a moment frozen in time, not a moment running throughout time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1sOsIrshU

I mean I think that, but this is the never ending discussion about film. So there is no answer to this, or is it?

 
CharliesDragon
1084527.  Mon Jul 14, 2014 4:48 pm Reply with quote

A photo will never run out of time, but a movie (being played) will run out of frames to play in the end. You don't need to see the passage of time, sooner or later the reel will simply end because time is an integral part of movies.

(Yes, repeating the same thing that's been said for the last three posts, just wanted to clear up that you do not need to see the passage of time.)

 
Troux
1084540.  Mon Jul 14, 2014 9:41 pm Reply with quote

In my opinion, pictures and film are both art forms, but what makes the latter unique is the artist controlling the time aspect of it in a way that makes it deliberate or significant. A slideshow becomes film when one is forced to look at the the slides through a certain scope of time, when the series changes its meaning by reordering the slides, changing the frame viewing time arbitrarily, or allowing the viewer to pause and revisit with nothing lost. It's the difference between a note (or series of) and a song.

 
djgordy
1084561.  Tue Jul 15, 2014 4:10 am Reply with quote

CharliesDragon wrote:
A photo will never run out of time, but a movie (being played) will run out of frames to play in the end. You don't need to see the passage of time, sooner or later the reel will simply end because time is an integral part of movies.

(Yes, repeating the same thing that's been said for the last three posts, just wanted to clear up that you do not need to see the passage of time.)


You could make a loop of the film.

 
CharliesDragon
1084658.  Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:46 pm Reply with quote

DJ, you know perfectly well what I mean.

 
Ian Dunn
1096348.  Wed Oct 01, 2014 8:53 am Reply with quote

You might have seen the news that there is to be a movie based on Tetris (BBC News).

However, this is actually an old idea. The idea of Tetris: The Movie had orginally appeared in 2006 on Dave Gorman's Radio 4 comedy Genius, where it was the winning idea for that episode. (YouTube clip).

 
crissdee
1096433.  Thu Oct 02, 2014 5:37 am Reply with quote

yommilommi wrote:
Wow! that will be a long movie!... why are they going to destroy it?... how is it going to be shown? are they going to be really 30 days in a row? or are they arranged in a series, people are going to be able to go out of the theatre or are they going to be living in theatre for a month?! That is ambitious!


I think what we are talking about here is what suze so eloquently described as "pretentious wankage"

 
Troux
1107582.  Thu Dec 25, 2014 7:52 pm Reply with quote

What year saw the first 3D film shown in theaters?

1922...

The Power of Love is an American silent film and the first 3D feature film worldwide. The premiere was on September 27, 1922, at the Ambassador Hotel Theater in Los Angeles.

The 3D version of the film is presumed lost. The film was later shown in 2D as Forbidden Lover. The survival status of the 2D version is unknown.

The film utilized the red-and-green anaglyph system for the 3D experience and also gave the audience the option of viewing one of two different endings to the film (in 2D) by looking through only the red or green lens of the spectacles, depending on whether the viewer wanted to see a happy or tragic ending.

Perhaps most surprising was the reaction: nobody was interested in the new effects, and it was only shown twice in 3D format.

 
14-11-2014
1107592.  Fri Dec 26, 2014 12:01 am Reply with quote

Troux wrote:
What year saw the first 3D film shown in theaters?

1922...


3D television: 80s.

People may still remember the tests, but 1982 - 1922 = an impressive 60.

 
Posital
1107616.  Fri Dec 26, 2014 6:25 am Reply with quote

wiki wrote:
On June 10, 1915, Edwin S. Porter and William E. Waddell presented tests to an audience at the Astor Theater in New York City. In red-green anaglyph, the audience was presented three reels of tests, which included rural scenes, test shots of Marie Doro, a segment of John Mason playing a number of passages from Jim the Penman (a film released by Famous Players-Lasky that year, but not in 3D), Oriental dancers, and a reel of footage of Niagara Falls.[4] However, according to Adolph Zukor in his 1953 autobiography The Public Is Never Wrong: My 50 Years in the Motion Picture Industry, nothing was produced in this process after these tests
.

 
14-11-2014
1120189.  Mon Feb 23, 2015 12:06 pm Reply with quote

In a way it's strange that a few bad pixels of special effects are hidden by faking the colours of all pixels. Special effects often look like monochrome, old paintings which have to be cleaned.

Almost nothing looks like it's real or natural, the sky is white and bright and the clouds are brown too. I haven't seen the movie so it could be a painting, but even then it does look like modern special effects.


 
NoQuestionsAsked
1129958.  Sat Apr 18, 2015 3:04 am Reply with quote

I love the fact that if you ask most people who directed The Nightmare Before Christmas, they would say Tim Burton (it was in fact Henry Selick, who also directed Coraline).

 
Ian Dunn
1159326.  Fri Nov 20, 2015 2:26 pm Reply with quote

In terms of long-running movies, there is one currently on Kickstarter that could possibly break the record.

Independent film maker Charlie Lyne is making a film in protest against the BBFC, because in order to get your film in the cinemas you have to pay the BBFC to watch it and give it a certificate.

The film he has made is called Paint Drying, and as you might have guessed, it is just footage of paint drying. The BBFC have to sit through whatever is submitted to them, so the BBFC are going to be forced to what a deliberately boring film.

After the 101.50 submission fee, you have to pay 7.09 for every minute of the film. So for every 7 you donate to the project, the film is extended by one minute. You can click on this page to see how long the film is currently going to be. At the time of writing, it will be 8 hours, 17 minutes and 57 seconds, and you still add more donations for another 25 days.

 
'yorz
1159332.  Fri Nov 20, 2015 2:52 pm Reply with quote

Great initiative. Pity it doesn't accept donations made with my bank card. :-/

 

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group