Both. The 180 degree rule just makes sure motion blur looks as intended and is a mostly artistic choice that can vary depending on the scene. E.g. for action sequences or particularly smooth motion in a dreamy scene, you can break this rule. Or, if there's moving water, you might want to choose a particular shutter in relation to the preset frame rate.
The overall frame rate gives you the distinction between a typical movie vs a TV-style documentary. The overall frame rate stays fixed across a movie and should normally not be changed.
My artistic choice is shooting 60FPS at 360 degrees (shutter: 1/60th of a second). It gives motion blur more comparable to 30FPS (which is closer to 24FPS), with the responsiveness and fluidity of 60FPS.
I always heard the lyric as ‘she’s said goodbye..’, which both scans and makes more grammatical sense. Also matches the tense of the previous line - ‘this love has taken its toll..’
Sure, it does not hurt to wear such clothes. But those arguments aren't mutually exclusive, and by always repeating them, public discussions tend to shift towards the arguments that blame the weaker ones (i.e., cyclists, pedestrians), often neglecting the underlying issues at fault (reckless car drivers or unsafe infrastructure).
For instance, in many cases, when a car has injured a cyclist severely, there could have been infrastructure to prevent this (e.g. separate bike lanes, clear road layouts, …). A helmet would not have prevented the accident.
Similarly, unless someone's crossing a dark street at night without looking for oncoming traffic, why should pedestrians have to be wearing reflective gear all the time, when there could be well-illuminated crosswalks, slower driving speeds, speed bumps etc.?
(I'm not claiming there aren't cyclists ignoring red lights or pedestrians randomly crossing roads in unsafe situations … that's usually the next argument.)
I don't understand the problem and, seemingly, the outrage in some of the replies.
If it is dark and there's traffic it is safer and useful for everyone to be visible. Obviously this depends on how well the streets are lit, if they are very well lit it may not be a big issue.
As a pedestrian at night (which is pretty much any commute to/from work in winter in the UK) I know that sometimes cars don't see me or see me at the last moment if I wear dark clothes, or even any clothes that are not high-viz.
And as a driver I know that this is because pedestrians, or even cyclists at crossings, can be very difficult to see in low light conditions (good forbid there's fog as well!) even if you're driving carefully.
This is all common sense, really.
In my neighbourhood, which is residential and poorly lit as many are here in the UK, people also wear lights on themselves when they walk their dogs in the evening, and they usually also make the dogs wear lights.
When I go running in the evening I wear a high-viz jacket and one of those chest lights so that I can be seen and can see the potholes as well.
Again, common sense for safety in such conditions.
It's apparently not in the interest of traffic engineers in the U.S. to care for pedestrian (or cyclist) safety. It's been this way since the post-war area where everything was built for cars, and this seems to have manifested in peoples' minds like the concrete they built. Hard to remove this. People seem to fight over minor improvements (like adding a protected bike lane or making safer crosswalks) while a drastic change would be necessary (like building completely different roads or changing underlying laws).
I'd recommend checking out the "Not Just Bikes" YouTube channel for some interesting observations on the differences between the U.S. and Europe when it comes to traffic safety. Also, Strong Towns is a resource you might want to check out: https://www.strongtowns.org/
> It's apparently not in the interest of traffic engineers in the U.S. to care for pedestrian (or cyclist) safety.
Knowing the average engineer, traffic engineers probably care about a lot of things.
What usually happens is that someone higher up (politicians, city administrators, etc) set up an incentive system that forces the engineers' hand. Stuff like: "Increase car traffic speed in region X by Y% in 2023".
Funny you mention that metric since it happens often and is irrelevant since throughput would be way more interesting since it is often chosen as a metric to "solve" congestion, especially total throughput (including not cars) would most likely increase the total speed (in general) for all commuters due to limiting congestion.
Don't mention to car-centric politicians the most effective speed for safe throughput is about 40kph/25mph and not 120/75.
It's pretty well known graph in traffic engineering -- Max throughput isn't free flowing traffic. (Though I remember it at 35-40 mph on interstate/motorway).
The basic reason is that free flowing traffic requires bigger gaps between vehicles. (safe anyway, but practically the way people drive generally follows the safe spacing function, but with a 'bit' of y offset). At the minimum latency (the free flow speed (ffs)) the spacing between cars is x seconds, so you get 3600/x cars per hour. At maximum flow rate, ~1/2 the ffs, the spacing is more like 1-2 seconds, so you get closer to 2k cars per hour. Even slower, the cars can be packed closer, but you don't clear the road nearly as quickly so the throughput is lower.
Throughput is mostly independent of road as distances between cars increase more than you can speed up to compensate (you reaction time stays the same or get's worse). Type of road can make a difference, obviously dirt makes the distance requirements worse. If people also exit/enter the road it's even worse.
I was assuming an ideal road though with everyone sticking to the same speed. Cross lane movement and speed difference in traffic also places limits and slower speeds limit both of those afaik.
Costs mostly. He's talking from a privileged position of someone who can afford living in Amsterdam with his lifestyle.
Take for example buying groceries in your corner shop daily on your way back from work. Easily 50% more expensive than taking a longer, less frequent trip to a larger supermarket further away.
But what upset me the most was showcasing a building built somewhere in Canada that was, in his view, great because it didn't have parking spaces.
What actually happened is that the building rented-out parking spots from a nearby multi-level parking lot and was only allowed to be built as an exception, because it was too tall according to the zoning. And it shows, because it stands out like a buck tooth.
I live in a country essentially taken over by construction companies' interests and this is the kind of bullshit they peddle to improve their margins.
I don't follow your argument. I've lived in various major European cities and it was always easy enough to find a discount supermarket (Lidl, Aldi etc.) within walking distance, and if not, maybe within 5 minutes of cycling. There would've rarely been a need to use the (more expensive, but certainly not 50%) corner grocery store. Everyone can afford this — quite the contrary: people often ignore the hundreds of Euros they spend on a car, because it's just a given for them. (That said, I know there are lots of people who depend on the car for getting to a work location because of lack of public transport.)
I don't know about the building you're talking about and can't weigh in on this.
A store placed where land and labour is expensive will necessarily have considerably higher prices than one far away from such an area.
I had friends who, in order to save money, went by bus, did shopping for the whole week and just Ubered back, because even compared to a local Lidl it was worth it. Of course it was a major time sink, but spread over a week didn't affect them too much.
My personal record was in Zurich, where I had a whopping 3.6km to the next Lidl, from which I only returned by bus, because those ~4CHF saved on the ticket there afforded me 1kg of bananas(2CHF instead of 3 in Coop) and a can of tuna.
This is the type of reality I'm talking about - note the lack of cars in these scenarios.
I wish I could find the clip showing the mentioned building, but a cursory search didn't yield results.
> My personal record was in Zurich, where I had a whopping 3.6km to the next Lidl, from which I only returned by bus, because those ~4CHF saved on the ticket there afforded me 1kg of bananas(2CHF instead of 3 in Coop) and a can of tuna.
By bicyle, 3.6 km would take 10-15 min without riding hard.
I don't follow. One of the things he rallies against the most in his videos is precisely laws — like zoning regulations and parking minimums — which make it illegal to build walkable neighbourhoods and encourage car-dependent sprawl.
As for buying for the corner shop being 50% more expensive, why? What are you basing yourself on to make that assertion?
> One of the things he rallies against the most in his videos is precisely laws — like zoning regulations and parking minimums — which make it illegal to build walkable neighbourhoods and encourage car-dependent sprawl.
I see this as a perspective of someone who never lived in a walkable city that has both zoning and parking minimums. It's not a case of either-or.
The type of construction he's proposing is a net negative to how a city functions - specifically it was a particularly tall building in an area where four floors + ground level buildings were already allowed - that's an already appropriate density for a city.
> What are you basing yourself on to make that assertion?
That's my experience from just about every European city I spent any appreciable time in(meaning - at least a few months) - especially the one I grew up in.
And no wonder - grocery stores scale exceedingly well so far as there's cheap land to build on. That's not the case in city centres.
Ah the famous Tade0's-experience-price-index /s :)
Sure, I'd love to see how prices in small shop chain retailers compare to big box chain retailers. But sorry, your personal gut feeling is not data enough for me.
As for walkable cities with zoning and parking minimums, perhaps it can technically be done? But you do agree that it makes it extremely difficult and disincentivised, right?
High-end digital cinema cameras are not _that_ grainy per se. The sensors are very clean.
The level of grain you get from digital cinema photography is mostly by artistic choice and added through the camera or in post production. Sometimes the movie is shot digitally and transferred to film, then scanned. This was done for Dune (2021), for instance.
Also, ARRI (who make the most renowned cameras for cinematic use) now specifically let you choose a grain texture on the Alexa 35 that is imprinted in the digital material. [1]
> Also, ARRI (who make the most renowned cameras for cinematic use) now specifically let you choose a grain texture on the Alexa 35 that is imprinted in the digital material. [1]
That is so sad. Such a waste if it can just be done during decoding.
From a technical perspective that would make sense, but it's unrealistic to achieve this in practice. It would be impossible for the entire market to support that. In order to maintain the artistic intent across different platforms, it's better to imprint it in the source. I guess lots of directors and DPs are frustrated enough with motion smoothing and other "enhancements" on modern TVs.
The same way Dolby Vision has kind-of enforced better color consistency, I imagine grain could be done as well.
One could call it something like Dolby Vision Film Enhancements, that would just mandate decoder support. Those who don't support it get a fallback, like the usual.
Many productions specifically want film grain. Directors and DPs have very concrete aesthetic intentions when they go for film grain, so you're likely to find lots of movies with film grain added in post when they were shot on almost noiseless digital cameras. (For instance, one might scan the grain from an old film stock and apply it to the digital footage later.)
Netflix is only optimizing the pipeline here, trying not to mess with the artistic intent.
I understand that. I would expect Netflix to tell the production crew "I want the film grain on a separate layer so we can apply it after compression".
This is a very comprehensive guide with actually reasonable examples and suggestions!
I think there's really not much more to add here, because eventually you'll be deep in the rabbithole that is FFmpeg, and you'll be browsing mailing lists, visiting Stack Exchange, etc. to get help.
Cross-referencing the FFmpeg wiki wherever possible would be good, as there is so much outdated information on the Internet, and at least the wiki is a somewhat up-to-date reference.
The overall frame rate gives you the distinction between a typical movie vs a TV-style documentary. The overall frame rate stays fixed across a movie and should normally not be changed.