Alberto Caprioglio
Well-known member
You may do what you want, but here the question is not if it could be useful or not - of course someone could find it useful. The question is what the trade off would be. I can't think of any valuable trade-off. Since, I think, in order to achieve a very high speed, the resolution would decrease too much.
I don't want to pay many times the money to have an incredibly faster Scarlet or for a bigger body JUST for that reason. I'd rather do for extra quality or versatility but, if I'll ever need to make an innatural scene at slow motion, I'd rent a specialistic camera.
For almost 100% of the times, I don't even think about slow motion.
Maybe it's just me, but for telling the truth, I believe I shuold rather try to make honest images, possibily like we see with the eyes. "Create" is world too big for me. I think artists should be modest enough to avoid that world when they talk about themselves and they work (also to be taken a bit seriously rather than a silly worthless idol). When I see some artist claiming he has "created" something, I normally see the usual rubbish of the day before, perhaps made with a different filter this time.
Scarlett will certainly be packed full of extremely good features, but 1000fps is certainly the last one I would look for, at least for now.
With a given bandwidth, I'd rather have 1 megapixel more, just for being able to crop more, plus anything else you Red Team would like to put in the machine.
We all have seen that more than once and everyone knows perfectly how a bullet looks when it leaves the barrel of a gun: it looks innatural, simple, and a stupid piece of metal doing it's stupid job like every other bullet more or less.
Unless you make scientific videos - and there are machines filming at more than 1 million fps as far as I know - it is so boring to repeat this madly slow maechanical show a single time again that I don't want to watch anything containing it anymore. Unless the rest of the film is said to be fantastic and probably made by another director.
Indeed, there are many people obsessed with things, like investigating some aspects of reality beyond normality and certainly goodness. If someone can convince me that there's something inherently good in exploring the material world in the most extreme recesses and the smallest dimensions just as a normal fun, I may change my mind, but for now I thing anything, from having a walk to eating a sandwich, is still a more valuable experience that I can do with my time.
It doesn't mean anything to me. A gun is a gun, and it ends there.
I also quite like guns, but it doen't mean I should be interested in seeing them shoot at slow motion, because they do not become more pleasant things because of that. Rather, this annoys me a bit, it is a sort of fascination with the act of shooting that, bein fire weapons what they are, weapons having nothing to do with heroism in battle, may be the best icon and object, for cinema and anything else.
A butterfly is certainly more beautiful, but here, filming in slow motion could only help me to see it more clearly, since it normally moves so quickly that it's difficult to actually see it's beauty. So here a little artificiality could be forgiven if it helps to materialize a nice aim.
I don't want to pay many times the money to have an incredibly faster Scarlet or for a bigger body JUST for that reason. I'd rather do for extra quality or versatility but, if I'll ever need to make an innatural scene at slow motion, I'd rent a specialistic camera.
For almost 100% of the times, I don't even think about slow motion.
Maybe it's just me, but for telling the truth, I believe I shuold rather try to make honest images, possibily like we see with the eyes. "Create" is world too big for me. I think artists should be modest enough to avoid that world when they talk about themselves and they work (also to be taken a bit seriously rather than a silly worthless idol). When I see some artist claiming he has "created" something, I normally see the usual rubbish of the day before, perhaps made with a different filter this time.
Scarlett will certainly be packed full of extremely good features, but 1000fps is certainly the last one I would look for, at least for now.
With a given bandwidth, I'd rather have 1 megapixel more, just for being able to crop more, plus anything else you Red Team would like to put in the machine.
We all have seen that more than once and everyone knows perfectly how a bullet looks when it leaves the barrel of a gun: it looks innatural, simple, and a stupid piece of metal doing it's stupid job like every other bullet more or less.
Unless you make scientific videos - and there are machines filming at more than 1 million fps as far as I know - it is so boring to repeat this madly slow maechanical show a single time again that I don't want to watch anything containing it anymore. Unless the rest of the film is said to be fantastic and probably made by another director.
Indeed, there are many people obsessed with things, like investigating some aspects of reality beyond normality and certainly goodness. If someone can convince me that there's something inherently good in exploring the material world in the most extreme recesses and the smallest dimensions just as a normal fun, I may change my mind, but for now I thing anything, from having a walk to eating a sandwich, is still a more valuable experience that I can do with my time.
It doesn't mean anything to me. A gun is a gun, and it ends there.
I also quite like guns, but it doen't mean I should be interested in seeing them shoot at slow motion, because they do not become more pleasant things because of that. Rather, this annoys me a bit, it is a sort of fascination with the act of shooting that, bein fire weapons what they are, weapons having nothing to do with heroism in battle, may be the best icon and object, for cinema and anything else.
A butterfly is certainly more beautiful, but here, filming in slow motion could only help me to see it more clearly, since it normally moves so quickly that it's difficult to actually see it's beauty. So here a little artificiality could be forgiven if it helps to materialize a nice aim.
