Binocular Shot(binocularshot.com)
binocularshot.com
Binocular Shot
https://binocularshot.com/
33 comments
another website which is a gif database of awesome shots from movies etc.
It's like a reference database of camera work.
Yes, exactly this one. Thanks.
getyarn.io is the clip site I've seen. https://nestflix.fun/ is for movies within movies, not sure if that's what you're referring to by subplots thought.
This https://nestflix.fun/ was the one I was thinking of in terms of subplots. Thanks.
EDIT: its on github, you can contribute more plots raising new issues here https://github.com/lynnandtonic/nestflix.fun
EDIT: its on github, you can contribute more plots raising new issues here https://github.com/lynnandtonic/nestflix.fun
you might be thinking of seinquotes -> click the image to get a video gif of the quote
https://seinquotes.com/?search=hold+the+reservation
At a press conference after the success of initial Star Wars movie someone told George Lucas: "But spacecraft don't make that whizzzzhh noise as they fly in space!", and Lucas replied: "I know".
The truth in art is not the same as the truth in a physical experiment.
The truth in art is not the same as the truth in a physical experiment.
At this point putting realistic sounds in movies would confuse the audience and take them out of the movie. Bald eagles don't sound like most of us think they do and swords don't make that sound when you wave them around or sheath them.
I definitely agree, but on the other hand I think it is cool when they try and do things realistically, e.g. in The Expanse. I don't think it lost anything for not having whooshy spaceship sounds. IIRC Battlestar Gallactica also didn't have sound in space? Been a while though I might have forgotten that.
Still, a camera isn't supposed to show you exactly what eyes would see. I think it's fine in this case.
Still, a camera isn't supposed to show you exactly what eyes would see. I think it's fine in this case.
Hypothesis formation is art. Without it there would be no physical experiments. Every scientist is an artist at heart.
I think the point is that what looks good in art (even in "realistic" art) is not necessarily what is "more like the real thing". The Simpsons made a joke about this ("cows don't look like cows on screen, that's why we use horses") but it's true.
More importantly, what the author intends to convey sometimes requires emphasis that isn't present in real life.
There was an extremely cool blog post about photography on HN a year or so ago, where the point was made that there are no "real" photos (in the sense of "accurately representing reality"), there's always a choice by the photographer (colors, framing, distance to subject, distortion, etc).
More importantly, what the author intends to convey sometimes requires emphasis that isn't present in real life.
There was an extremely cool blog post about photography on HN a year or so ago, where the point was made that there are no "real" photos (in the sense of "accurately representing reality"), there's always a choice by the photographer (colors, framing, distance to subject, distortion, etc).
Very true. And not just the photography, all of the people who produce the tools. Like even film chemistry: https://www.vox.com/2015/9/18/9348821/photography-race-bias
Everything we interact with is the product of generations of people, shaped by artistic choice, and filtered by distribution and our own perception and cognitive biases.
Which sounds like I’m complaining but really I’m not… I think it’s inspiring and empowering to see the whole stack, imperfect as it is.
So yeah, conversations about computational photography that veer into “but it it doesn’t capture reality” betray an oversimplified view of how all this works.
Everything we interact with is the product of generations of people, shaped by artistic choice, and filtered by distribution and our own perception and cognitive biases.
Which sounds like I’m complaining but really I’m not… I think it’s inspiring and empowering to see the whole stack, imperfect as it is.
So yeah, conversations about computational photography that veer into “but it it doesn’t capture reality” betray an oversimplified view of how all this works.
The next logical step is to notice that the eye also processes the optical signal heavily, and the visual cortex,... etc. Any kind of perception, of making sense is a transformation.
To perceive something "truthfully" is just to be aware of the kind of processing involved, and the kind of information altered or lost in the process.
To perceive something "truthfully" is just to be aware of the kind of processing involved, and the kind of information altered or lost in the process.
Keep going.
https://tpp2014.com/catherine-malabou-concept-plasticity/
https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262720212/the-embodied-mind/
The camera is our nervous system and chemical transports.
Whenever a friend tells me about the latest AI experiment resulting in AGI my stock response is, "Have they put it in a rat suit yet?"
https://tpp2014.com/catherine-malabou-concept-plasticity/
https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262720212/the-embodied-mind/
The camera is our nervous system and chemical transports.
Whenever a friend tells me about the latest AI experiment resulting in AGI my stock response is, "Have they put it in a rat suit yet?"
Exactly. Most of what we perceive is fabricated in our heads anyway. Brains are amazing and positively not designed for 100% pure reality perception.
Movies have score of noises that aren’t real. Most action scenes are filled with them. If considered part of the score, then fake starship noises are fine. They are signaling that ship is going somewhere, not would the camera would hear.
That's a lot of effort for something that's really just a matter of style. The Internet would be full, if we went after every stylistic trick that videographers use, to signal various tropes (like the "dizzy spell," or the "moving car").
Props for featuring Top Secret as the headliner, though...
Props for featuring Top Secret as the headliner, though...
From "Top Secret": https://imgur.com/a/h3wR9Y2
Surely you meant: https://imgur.com/a/yEz4dSc
See https://tvtropes.org for a whole lot of them.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BinocularShot
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BinocularShot
The author isn't posting angry rants about it. I think one can look at it as just a quirky collection. No different from cataloging the movies that feature the Wilhelm scream, and how many articles have been written about that?
Agreed. That makes sense.
> This website collects movie clips with inaccurate binocular shots (i.e., two overlapping circles instead of one, as you would see in real life).
I'm just amazed it never once occurred to me that that's not how looking through binoculars looks. Despite having used binoculars lots of times.
I think it's just the field of view we wish binoculars had...?
I'm just amazed it never once occurred to me that that's not how looking through binoculars looks. Despite having used binoculars lots of times.
I think it's just the field of view we wish binoculars had...?
I just picked up some binoculars to test this out. They're pretty good quality yet it is very easy for me to see it through two overlapping circles without feeling that it's misaligned to my eyes. It 'helps' that I wear glasses, so they are not ever snug up against my face - But this really isn't feeling inaccurate to me.
Those sound like... broken binoculars?
I just tried my pair out right now, and there's probably 95% overlap between the two circles.
If you have anything like what is shown in movies, then you don't have depth perception in most of what you see. Binoculars are meant to gave you a single image with depth perception throughout, not two separate images with depth perception only where they overlap.
I just tried my pair out right now, and there's probably 95% overlap between the two circles.
If you have anything like what is shown in movies, then you don't have depth perception in most of what you see. Binoculars are meant to gave you a single image with depth perception throughout, not two separate images with depth perception only where they overlap.
If you see two distinct circles with little overlapping, your binoculars are not properly adjusted for your eye separation. You should see two mostly overlapping circles.
There are a lot of things in movies that don't align to real life. Eagles don't sound like you think they do. Swords don't make that sound when you sheath them. The problem is that audiences have been so used to these visual and audio metaphors that reality would break the illusion.
> Eagles don't sound like you think they do.
The “classic” sound for eagles is actually the cry of a red-tailed hawk. We have both redtails, and bald eagles, around here.
Eagles sound pretty unimpressive. I term it “the call of the sick seagull.”
The “classic” sound for eagles is actually the cry of a red-tailed hawk. We have both redtails, and bald eagles, around here.
Eagles sound pretty unimpressive. I term it “the call of the sick seagull.”
This is called "the coconut effect" and I used to be able to rattle off examples, but it's late.
In a decent search engine(bing, brave):
!tvt coconut effect
In a decent search engine(bing, brave):
!tvt coconut effect
As a kid, I was really excited to try out binoculars, and "see for myself" the so-called "binocular shot." I was very disappointed.
There is another one which is like a Netflix of subplots extracted from movies. I remember it had lots from Rick and Morty. Because Rick and morty keeps bringing up random subplots never to discuss ever again.
There is another website which is a gif database of awesome shots from movies etc. It's like a reference database of camera work.
Will list when I find these urls.