Making Movies

[Thorsten]

Not sure whether people are interested in that kind of thing, but since we also have threads discussing music and books, I'll share this anyway because for me it's terribly exciting.

I'm now involved in producing a full-fledged Fantasy movie - seems a few years of GLSL coding have accidentially given me a good education in video processing and filtering, so the biggest issue with learning proper bluescreen capture was that the camera was too smart and took the blue background as grey illuminated by bluish neon light and corrected it away - after we've changed to a green screen, everything worked better.

It's really quite some experience to get to see all the nuts and bolts of how movies are made, or to compare the actual set with the final post-processed cut of the scene and to realize how little of the material that is shot is actually used. And, well, often shooting in winter involves plenty of shivering and knee-deep snow...

Anyway - since the project page is now online, here's two teaser still images showing what we can do:

The location - the valley of Gleann an Phéine:

Clíodhna, the main character, casting a banishing spell:

More details on the project page of Clíodhna - the witch of Gleann an Phéine.

 

[Col_Klonk]

Green has a more linear range than other key colours, making it easier for editing.

The key-screen colour used all depends on what you're going to insert with when editing.

You can get DaVinci editor suite (Ver 12.0 IIRC) for free if you're feeling excited, but it is limited in it's accepted video input formats.
It's mainly geared for the high-end film cameras, from what I can see, but there are some 'cumbersome' video format converters around on the net.

 

[Notebook]

Nice project, hope it works well for you.

Had a slight input with "Chroma-Key" as we called it(BBC called it CSO, colour separation overlay). used to play in titles to studio from telecine. Was a bit of a fiddle as the machines used to drift during the day, and the keying would change. Went away when they could do it in editing.
We had a box called Ultimatte
https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/uk/products/ultimatte
Wow, still going. We must have had version 1! Was operated by camera set-up, studio device then, not post-production.
Used a lot on the Kenny Everett show, and some Benny Hill. Clever machine.
Probably the most use by Thames:
http://www.arts-tv.org.uk/memorabilia/enfance-du-christ/Enfance-du-Christ.pdf

N.

 

[Thorsten]

Green has a more linear range than other key colours, making it easier for editing.

I'm not sure I'm following... The way my bluescreen tool works, the background color needs to be sufficiently dissimilar in the selected color space from the foreground image which I want to keep (I can key on RGB as well as HSV for the distance) - usually HSV works better because we always have trouble controlling the background illumination, which leads to RGB variations across the sheet.

(With the budget we have, we're talking a bedsheet draped over a doorframe and lots of creativity, not a studio... the horse was actually 'blue'-screened in front of a snow-covered hill...).

You can get DaVinci editor suite (Ver 12.0 IIRC) for free if you're feeling excited,

Heh - I'm the Linux guy, remember? For the time being the tool of choice is pitivi - which, apart from a disturbing tendency to crash or hang, seems to do a decent job. It might have the advantage that I can add my own effect filters as soon as I figure out where they're encoded - after all, it's just fragment shaders ran on texture buffers, I know how to do these...

 

[Thorsten]

And we're online with a first teaser - please enjoy!

 

[Enjo]

I always like to watch stuff of real scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson or Richard Dawkins, who are true to their values and promote real science and never black magick.

 

[Thorsten]

Implying that because I happen to like Fantasy, I'm not a real scientist?

I know Neil face to face from a dinner conversation - he seems to be a bit more tolerant than you :lol:

(in case this was intended as a joke, it was really poorly explained...)

Edit: I've never read Richard Dawkins' scientific papers, but at least his popular science I find very wanting - to the point that I've actually bothered to compose a critical view of 'The God Delusion' from a scientific POV - in essence I argue if he'd apply the same standards of reasoning he applies to religion to himself, he'd fail just as well. So I would not see him as an example of a true scientist, there seems to be too much ideology mixed in for my taste.

But to each his own.

 

[Enjo]

Implying that because I happen to like Fantasy, I'm not a real scientist?

Not that you like black magic, but because you promote black magic.

I know Neil face to face from a dinner conversation - he seems to be a bit more tolerant than you :lol:

There are three explanations of this:
1) He doesn't really know you
2) He has to play nice because he's a popular public person
3) You were sucking up to him because he's larger than you

 

[Loru]

Not that you like black magic, but because you promote black magic.

Are you serious?

 

[jedidia]

What just happened? This feels more like a youtube comment section than OF all of a sudden :blink:

 

[Loru]

What just happened? This feels more like a youtube comment section than OF all of a sudden :blink:

Let's calmly wait for response. Let's not make it any worse worse by... guessing.

 

[Thorsten]

Not that you like black magic, but because you promote black magic.

Hm, does the concept of fiction mean anything to you? It means it's basically made up - an author doesn't have to endorse the things he writes about - Steven King isn't urging all of us to become psychopaths either.

Also, I have to nit-pick that there's no black magic appearing - what's depicted is nature magic.

There are three explanations of this:
1) He doesn't really know you
2) He has to play nice because he's a popular public person
3) You were sucking up to him because he's larger than you

Yeah, or he's just a nice guy who enjoys talking to a fellow scientist and doesn't confuse doing science with enjoying fiction - who knows?

 

[Thorsten]

Life in movie production:

* getting three kids into medieval costumes (no rubber bands or elastic, all have to be tied...) - 10 minutes
* wrapping a foot in cloth (no socks allowed!) and then put it into a medieval shoe - 1 minute per foot
* deciding it's too cold outside and rigging cloaks and coats for the kids - 15 minutes
* driving three kids and a dog to the set, getting everyone out of jackets and to the site - 8 minutes
* getting everyone to goof around while shooting a few clips - 5 minutes
* getting everyone back into the car and driving back home - 5 minutes
* undressing everyone and getting hot chocolate ready - 10 minutes

=> final edited clip used in the movie - 3 seconds

 

[Notebook]

They used to estimate a 100 to 1 shooting ratio for film. Guess digital is much better...

N.

 

[jedidia]

getting three kids into medieval costumes (no rubber bands or elastic, all have to be tied...) - 10 minutes

Wow. I need longer than that just to get one kid into normal everyday clothes... :blink:

 

[Thorsten]

Wow. I need longer than that just to get one kid into normal everyday clothes...

Medieval is easier because they actually want to wear them pretty badly... even for everyday play.

 

[Enjo]

Are you serious?

What just happened? This feels more like a youtube comment section than OF all of a sudden :blink:

Yes, I'm serious and I have right to my opinion no matter how many dislikes I'd get for it.

Hm, does the concept of fiction mean anything to you?

It does and I hate it.

It means it's basically made up - an author doesn't have to endorse the things he writes about - Steven King isn't urging all of us to become psychopaths either.

Not so fast. Just read this article as the most prominent example of what fiction does to masses' minds. If you want to add Steven King into the mix, then I'm fine with it.

Matrix films blamed for series of murders by obsessed fans

If you've ever worked with data mining or machine learning or you simply have children or pet, you won't deny, that given enough one-sided input, you can force the subject into working in an unusual way. If you do deny it, than it means that the concept of propaganda doesn't mean anything to you on the other hand.
To be honest, your fiction will rather not cause anybody to open fire, but it does manipulate the mind into thinking that magic works. And this is exactly what your disliked scientist Dawkins has been about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Enemies_of_Reason
So to Loru as well: as you can see there are also other people who do take it seriously.
The job of a scientist is to make people think logically and reasonably. Not to "decolonize science".

Also, I have to nit-pick that there's no black magic appearing - what's depicted is nature magic.

Let it be.

 

[Thorsten]

Just read this article as the most prominent example of what fiction does to masses' minds.

Quoting from that very article:

The local prosecutor, Robert Horan, said: "I don't think the movie causes violence. Millions and millions of people have seen it and not killed anybody."

So the article cites five (!) cases of people with pre-existing psychical problems who might have been influenced by the Matrix movie.

The movie made some 460 million US$ at the box office, so boldly assuming that admission back then was perhaps 10$, some 46 million people have been exposed to it, out of which 5 (a whopping fraction of 1.08e-6 ) might have gone violent because of it.

Coming from someone who proposes to uphold science, that's not really compelling and not even resembling a causal link - it's called anecdotal evidence - if numbers are large enough, you'll always find a handful of really weird stories. if that's 'the most prominent example' you can come up with, then there's really no reason to sweat it.

On the other hand, here you can read about scientists like chemist Fritz Haber being instrumental in killing some 90.000 and injuring another 1.3 million people - in a direct causal link. Just for comparison...

We could also briefly talk about the role of scientists claiming in the past that some races (notably African) are intellectually inferior - and what the result of that particular bit of science has been and how 'beneficial' that turned out for Africa. The problem here was precisely that it wasn't a bit of fiction - because it was 'science' they claimed it was all real. See - that's far more problematic than stating up-front that it's made up.

So if you really want to be afraid of someone, better be afraid of the scientists rather than the creators of fiction - they've killed and maimed far more people in this planet's history.

 

[jedidia]

If you've ever worked with data mining or machine learning or you simply have children or pet, you won't deny, that given enough one-sided input, you can force the subject into working in an unusual way.

Yes. That's why you don't let the input get one-sided. Being well familiar with the concept of fiction is a great protection against falling victim to propaganda.

It does and I hate it.

Look, I get it. You're grounded in reality and don't really get what fiction is good for. My wife's the same. But that doesn't mean you have to hate it. Fiction is essential for the psycho-hygiene of a great many people, myself included. If we can't get out of reality and make stuff up every once in a while, we start to go crazy. Now I'm an extreme example for sure, but most people need some amount of fantasy to stay sane.

 

[Thorsten]

The job of a scientist is to make people think logically and reasonably.

Upon some reflection, this seems to be close to the core of the issue, so perhaps I should add another comment after all.

The job of a scientist has nothing to do with making other people think this way or that - making people think a certain way is commonly referred to as 'manipulation' or 'brainwashing' and is characteristic of an ideology.

Science in contrast has really much more to do with doubt - a good scientist not only constantly wonders whether what others try to feed her is actually genuine science or perhaps just a doctored sexy result, but she also is in the habit of doubting herself - where does her knowledge come from? Upon what hidden assumptions does it rest? What pitfalls might the deduction method have? Which brand of logic should be applied (yes, there's more than just one, and more than one definition of 'reasonable thought')? What can be said with reasonable certainty, what is a plausible hypothesis, what is just a model?

She would offer her data and conclusions to others for examination, trusting that if the evidence convinced her of something, the evidence will eventually convince others of the same thing - but not make sure to force others to the same conclusions.

There's the quib 'If we knew what we're doing, it wouldn't be called science' - and there's lots of truth in there.

Generally people who want to make others think a certain way tend to sacrifice the science based on the notion that the ends justifies the means - like I argue Dawkins does in his book, and like you do here by trying to use anecdotal evidence to make a point which can't be made with real evidence.

I'm sorry, but a claim that magic depicted in fiction widely encourages belief in magic in reality is bollocks and not backed up by any science - and you know it. It's actually much more akin to voodoo - you do a depiction of something, and it somehow affects reality equally well.

You may personally dislike fiction, or depiction of magic (and I respect that as your opinion and don't aim to dissuade you) - but that's not the same thing.

Whether it is particularly useful or constructive to bring your general dislike of fiction into any thread dealing with fiction is another matter... After all, people who do not like Orbiter for instance can just stay away from this forum - they don't have to register here to let everyone know they don't like it :lol: