Tag Archive for 'cheaply-generated imagery'

I Admire Steve Jobs the Way That Teddy Roosevelt Admired Elephants

Steve Jobs is a majestic beast, and I would like to shoot him with a blunderbuss.

He is a visionary and a genius, a rebel who lets nothing and no one stand in the way of his dream of the future. If only his vision of the future were less cynical.
Continue reading ‘I Admire Steve Jobs the Way That Teddy Roosevelt Admired Elephants’

  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Delicious
  • FriendFeed
  • StumbleUpon
  • LiveJournal
  • Quick! Tell Everyone!

Do Human Eyes Have “Film Grain”?

FIlm Grainy Eyeball
You’ve probably noticed from looking at photos or movies that no photograph is absolutely, 100% pristine. Each one has a speckly, spotty texture — usually barely perceptible if the photographer’s done their job right — which is formed as a technical artifact of the film or image sensor.

For pictures or movies taken on film, it’s called film grain, and it’s determined by the physical structure of the photographic film. On a digital photo, it’s image noise, which is an often random pattern created by the circuitry of the camera’s sensor.

Grain usually has to be very, very extreme for our brains to immediately perceive it; at normal levels, we often don’t even notice it unless we’re looking closely. But our brains are generally quite skilled at perceiving small visual patterns — the pages of a closed book, the bumps of paint on a wall, etc. — so does the average case of grain or noise fail to register? Perhaps it’s because we’ve learned to ignore the noisy, grainy pattern that we’re constantly seeing all the time.

Yes, our eyes have a film grain of their own.

So is this grain caused by a physical texture in our eyes, like film grain, or by something in our circuitry, like image noise? A little of both, in fact.
Continue reading ‘Do Human Eyes Have “Film Grain”?’

  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Delicious
  • FriendFeed
  • StumbleUpon
  • LiveJournal
  • Quick! Tell Everyone!

Fixing NYC Firearm Posession Laws in Post

Unrealistic gun color
If you’ve read the most recent revision of the script for Bright Black, you’ll notice that it still requires a gun as a prop. This may seem odd, as one of the main reasons for rewriting it with katanas instead of guns was because it’s illegal to possess a realistic looking prop gun in New York City, for obvious reasons: the NYPD is very sensitive about mistakenly believing someone has a firearm. Therefore, in order to get my hands on even a black-colored rubber gun, I’d have to contact a very expensive rental company who issues permits and on-set weapon supervisors.

So the most realistic prop gun I’m legally allowed to purchase or possess in this city is yellow. In theory, I could spray paint it black and hope that nobody reports me, but since we’re shooting under black light, there’s a much more fun and infinitely more legal solution.

It’s quite simple: spray paint it MORE YELLOW!
Awesome gun color

That awful, disgustingly blurry photo was taken by my cheap point-and-shoot camera that can’t cope with the pressure of shooting without a flash. But it gets the basic idea across: yellow prop gun + black light + yellow black light paint = really, really yellow. And that’s a very helpful thing for post-production. Continue reading ‘Fixing NYC Firearm Posession Laws in Post’

  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Delicious
  • FriendFeed
  • StumbleUpon
  • LiveJournal
  • Quick! Tell Everyone!

In Other Words, Why Can’t Animated Movies Have $1,000 Budgets?

I suppose I should be glad for the publicity on my post about how Pixar is overdoing it. Unfortunately, the nature of the discussion was mostly skeptical; I think that was my fault for explaining it the wrong way. So, how about this:

Pixar has $180 million to spare, and doesn’t mind having hundreds of people manipulating 400 yottabytes to create one film. Good for them. But that shouldn’t scare off the rest of us.

The barrier to creating great looking animation doesn’t seem to be time, money, or resources; it’s the misconception that those, in fact, are an obstacle. Video game developers constantly show us that there is the potential for great looking visuals without an excessive amount of polygons. The reason video game graphics don’t yet rival Hollywood CGI isn’t because there isn’t enough processing power for detail, but that there isn’t enough processing power for implying detail.

Simple depth of field can dramatically improve a low-detail image. By simulating the focus of a camera lens, not only is a more photographic look achieved, but strategic use of it can remove most of the ugly portions of an image. This is possible in Valve’s Source engine, and can look great, but it’s not practical for video games; about two frames of it per second can be rendered in real time. But movies don’t need to be rendered in real time – a three minute high-definition sequence from Final Cut can take up to half an hour to render on my laptop, but after that it plays back smoothly; Pixar, by contrast, produces films that would take a single supercomputer several million hours to render (that’s why they have a ton of supercomputers), and they too can be contained within a smoothly-playable video file. But by taking graphics which could, theoretically, be rendered in real time, then rendering it with realistic looking blur and smoothing effects at two frames per second, an independent animator wouldn’t need to have access to supercomputers with enormous hard drives to make a film.

Perhaps I was too quick to call Meet the Scout on par with The Incredibles or WALL-E. Jenni Chasteen‘s comment about the lighting design was spot-on – Pixar has people who know cinematography, and Valve isn’t nearly as experienced. I disagree that it’s not even close, though; while it’s not great for photorealism, “cartoony” CGI is very possible to do with just a video game engine and blur effects.

Valve’s promotional movies may not be Pixar-quality, now that I think about it, but the technique and technology has the potential to be. In the hands of talented filmmakers, it’s wonderful for compositing onto live action. Is extending it to a full animated film that much of a stretch? I doubt it, myself.

  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Delicious
  • FriendFeed
  • StumbleUpon
  • LiveJournal
  • Quick! Tell Everyone!