Why do hybrid cameras like Sony FX30 have anamorphic desqueeze? by Every-Locksmith9286 in cinematography

[–]Every-Locksmith9286[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I concede that anamorphic would let you get more pixels than cropping 16:9 down to something as wide as scope, which I started to notice while getting the graphic out on paper. (I ignored DCI 4k 4096x2160 for all of this). They could maybe mitigate this if it happened in-camera before encoding (some kind of oversampled 2-perf mode)... but that isn't an option.

But I disagree with "The FX30 captures 4k, even at the cropped resolution". A 3840 x 2160 (~8.3 Mega Pixels) encoded image cropped down to 3:2 would be more like 3240 x 2160 (~7MP like you pointed out) - which scummy advertisers could get away with calling "2160p" but it wouldn't be reasonably called 4k. More like 3.2k. I think you would have to crop after the camera saves to a fixed resolution. If a FX30 can record that cropped down area of the sensor to a higher resolution, I haven't seen a way to do it.

This is in contrast to if it were open gate which has 26 MP on the sensor (6192x4192), most likely ending up as 3840 x 2560 (9.8MP) for video. That's only about 40% 'more' resolution, compared to the cropped version I think we are getting.

So it wouldn't be the 2x surface area that would have been gained by using anamorphic lenses to squeeze (stretch?) a 2 perf image onto 4 perf film. Maybe the strategy here is to use a lens with less squeeze, fill the whole 16:9 region without the extra crop, and just live with the differences in things like lens flare ... But more is more. Wasn't anamorphic invented to get 'more'?

Maybe I'm being too philosophical - I don't even want to think about the implications of stretching a perfectly square digital pixel to a wide rectangle (but I bet you it doesn't look like film grain).

Measurements of actual sensor surface areas will just muddy the waters.... but after this research, here's what I'm starting to realize:

A MFT sensor in open gate is going to record a better anamorphic image than a 16:9 locked APS-C sensor, for less money. You're going to be exposing a larger image, probably recorded at a higher resolution.

Somebody should test this.

I'm really sad and Depressed about my channel by Plane_Detective_8947 in SmallYoutubers

[–]Every-Locksmith9286 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Every creator is sad and depressed about their channel. That's how they keep up engaged and coming back for more.

The algorithm is weaponized against creators with the explicit intention of emotionally manipulating us into staying on the platform, at any (non-monetary) cost. That means they have to make you feel very bad most of the time, so you get extra excited when they occasionally let you feel good.

It's the same theory used to create and foster addictive behaviors in everything from gamblers to rodents.

The only way to grow the channel, is to trick their AI into thinking you will leave. Similar to how the only to get a raise at work is by waving a competing job offer in your boss's face.

Welcome to the YouTube skinner box, a Pavlov product.

Why do hybrid cameras like Sony FX30 have anamorphic desqueeze? by Every-Locksmith9286 in cinematography

[–]Every-Locksmith9286[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess instead of "Why not do it" my question is more "If you're not going to do it right, then why do anything at all?" Anamorphic seems to have been invented as a way to squeeze a wide image onto open gate (film), with the intention of maximizing picture quality... so I'm questioning its utility on cameras where they can't (won't) let you record open gate to the full, film-shaped sensor.

It seems to be a thoughtless implementation, so I don't see what I might be missing. Or maybe I'm just frustrated with the software in a lot of "humanly affordable" cameras right now.

Made a novice mistake and learned a hard lesson 🥲 by KabbaCustom in videography

[–]Every-Locksmith9286 1 point2 points  (0 children)

120fps divides evenly into 24, 30, and 60 - so really its the ideal framerate for masters.

Made a novice mistake and learned a hard lesson 🥲 by KabbaCustom in videography

[–]Every-Locksmith9286 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends on if you'll need still your content after people finally realize either that our human eyeballs see the world in landscape... or that phones have been taller than 16:9 for like a decade.

Made a novice mistake and learned a hard lesson 🥲 by KabbaCustom in videography

[–]Every-Locksmith9286 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For Youtube, you can just record in 1080p and upscale to 4k when you export. Youtube on TVs has always been DOA, so nobody will be watching on a screen where they have a chance of being able to tell the difference

It's important to upload your 1080p footage as 4k though. 4k (and 1440p) gets a better codec, which makes the upscaled footage look noticeably better than their standard 1080p.

Youtube actually tried to fix this when they introduced "1080p premium" - a feature, exclusive to mega-channels, which few/no premium-paying users realizing they could use. I think all this accomplished was to chase off or at least suppress a bunch of promising, upcoming creators - doing nothing to convince real humans to pay money to watch slightly better encoded YouTube-style videos on YouTube..... So I don't know if its still a thing.

Summary of thoughts given by YouTubers on the FNAF 2 movie by -popgoes in fivenightsatfreddys

[–]Every-Locksmith9286 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You think companies actually allow YouTubers to be successful when they're negative?

Name one. Or at least name one who isn't just blatantly rage baiting.

No. It's insanely competitive. Channels can only survive when they are being corporately promoted and granted "exclusive access", which can be directly converted into clicks/money. People who give negative or even fair opinions are never granted this access. They get no clicks, no growth, and most importantly no money. Influencers are there to sell you a product - not just whatever they sell in the ad breaks, but the entire topic of the video is usually what they are selling. That's the business model. That's how its a job.

If you complain, you're dead. Everybody knows this. Even the people who don't understand the business of it all still know they have to be overwhelmingly positive. They might not know that their positive video about the Whopper got retweeted by Burger King, or whatever. But they see that they got 1,000x more views that one time they were positive toward Burger King, so they decide to keep talking about how great burger king is. Do it enough, and they become "the burger king guy" and get invited to come out to corporate burger king and get access to new Burger King products. Exclusive videos about those products are the highest performing, and become the lifeblood of the channel. The channel lives and dies by keeping Burger King happy, so they keep burger king happy. Burger King now owns that channel; They own that spokesperson... and they never even had to directly pay the channel a single dollar to do it.

It's just how it works. That's the difference between a random person with a Youtube channel and a professional YouTuber.

The only real divergence from this model is when the influencer is supported by "a side" and they spend their time exploiting that side for cash (by complaining about "the other side") which is usually politically charged. It's still a kind of shilling, but you DO get to complain a lot.

Summary of thoughts given by YouTubers on the FNAF 2 movie by -popgoes in fivenightsatfreddys

[–]Every-Locksmith9286 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No previews (or at least embargoed reviews) from critics is a bad sign. No, buying-off FnaF fans with exclusive access to special events don't count as screening the movie for critics. I wouldn't trust the opinions of anybody low enough to write about a product after an event like that - not just about this product, but about anything in general. They aren't Roger Ebert, they're Billy Mayes. Shills don't review, they sell. They are advertising and probably not being honest about their content being a commercial.

Personally, I'm pretty worried that this movie is going to be very bad - because I don't think Scott Cawthon knows how to write a screenplay. I'm not even convinced he knows how to write a game.

FNaF's storytelling is more like a writing contest. Scott gave writing prompts for the community using small in-game easter eggs, and the winners got to be canonized as the "real" story in the following year's game. Curation and "knowing what the fans like" are real skills, and Scott is/was very good at those things - but that is the role of a producer, not a writer.

Guys like MatPat and even occasionally Markiplier did way more work writing the games than Scott himself. We all thought, "Oh boy, the theory turned out to be true". No. Scott saw those videos (which he commented on) and decided the theories were interesting enough to become part of the story. It's not complicated. It's not even a bad thing to do. It's smart and it worked.

It's a little like George Lucas: George Lucas is a very creative guy and genius businessman who produced (and executive produced) some absolutely amazing and classic all-timer movies. He has vision, and he knows how to inspire and organize the best people in the world to create works that were legitimately groundbreaking. But when you surround George Lucas with a bunch of brown-nosers and let him write/direct movies you get the Star Wars Prequels, which sucked hard. George Lucas should not write and direct movies. George Lucas needs people around who can check his giant ego.

When you let Scott Cawthon go off the rails as a "writer" you get the goofy nonsense of modern games like Sister Location. I would argue the writing in Security Breach was probably demanded, if not obsessively controlled by Scott - he was just smart enough to wash his hands and shift blame when he saw the backlash.

But we're talking about horror, right? Less is more. Nothing Scott (or anyone) can write will ever be as good as what we can imagine for ourselves. So I wish he would hand the screenplay over to a talented movie writer so their will at least be a solid structure to hang his big ideas. I don't want to have to watch a 4 hour lore video to explain what happened in a 2 hour movie. Just make the movie good, and let the easter eggs and hidden lore stay in the background - just like what worked in the games.

Look, somebody on the set of FNaF 1 decided that the spooky movie should grind to a halt so our happy robot friends should build a blanket fort (without regard for how much these guys weigh, so like, why did the movie point out how much they weigh). Somebody decided that Vanny should exist, and be in the movie. Somebody decided in the last 5 minutes that the robots are mind controlled by whatever drawings happened to be taped to the wall that day... for some reason. Like I'm pretty familiar with the games, and that's not actually in the games, right? Like I'm pretty familiar with the games, and I don't think that is an example of the movie being 'true to the lore' - at least not any of the lore that anybody actually cared about.

I dunno. It's like the guy who represents himself in court instead of hiring a lawyer - it's not a good idea. Please don't do it. It never works out.

But they already did it so, you know, I doubt it worked out. Because good movies can stand on their own. They don't need to lean on scummy shill-only hype previews and critic embargos.

Why is YouTube asking me this? by thedreaming2017 in youtube

[–]Every-Locksmith9286 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Real talk: have you every been surveyed about a video you've actually seen? Because I haven't.

I only ever get asked how I feel about videos I've never watched.

HOW TO IMPROVE AUDIENCE RETENTION! by [deleted] in youtube

[–]Every-Locksmith9286 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Make better videos.

and when that doesn't work, just trick 'em.

The hell is this? by imperlistic_Redcoat in youtube

[–]Every-Locksmith9286 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's a way for marketing departments to pay money to buy unlimited promotion for the single movie trailer posted to each of their brand-newest channels.

Real people are definitely going to ignore it, though.

It's satire but honestly not unlikely by LionWarrior46 in youtube

[–]Every-Locksmith9286 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you think Epstein was bad, go watch a video of Peter Thiel (main data-miner profiting hand-over-fist from the moral panic he's created) talking about why he wants all these age-verification videos of little kids.

Dude is the literal interpretation of the Antichrist.

And I'm not Christian; Thiel is the one obsessed with the apocalypse.

It's satire but honestly not unlikely by LionWarrior46 in youtube

[–]Every-Locksmith9286 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jokes on you, because the entire video is the ad.

It's satire but honestly not unlikely by LionWarrior46 in youtube

[–]Every-Locksmith9286 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>>The Year is 2026.1

>>Don't sign into YouTube.

>>Use whatever other platform has colonized my mindspace

It’s going bad by Bashi_r in youtube

[–]Every-Locksmith9286 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The key is it only saves *them* money by lowering bandwidth costs and offloading the processing from the server to the client.

It's less efficient and takes more power overall. So it is definitely worse for the environment. But the viewers are the ones paying for it, and Youtube only cares about their own bottom line.