created, $=dv.current().file.ctime & modified, =this.modified
tags:film3d
I’ve major gaps in my Pixar shorts in general I think. Not that it is Pixar, but the definitely isn’t the case for those “Ice Age” shorts - I feel I’ve seen those dozen of times just from going to theaters back then. I might be misremembering but I feel every movie for some time showed that.
I watched this wong kar wai piece recently that documented the progression of his gear and shooting style, as his budget changed with larger and larger projects. Relating to that previous discussion we had over camera gear and the degree it affects output as well. Basically it’s clear when watching WKW’s filmography how his access to funds changed, along with his gear. For me though, there was a critical point where this /felt/ like a loss. Not that he’s incapable of making a quality film at a high budget and with good gear - but there’s a quality that is well suited, and driven in those early or mid-work like Chunking and In The Mood. (My understanding is that he was also doing countless unfulfilling scripts for Chinese TV prior, so maybe there was some pent up desire too.)
When you watch the Pixar shorts it’s really stunning to see the degree of technological progression in each (which makes sense because I feel at least to some degree the shorts are a bit of a contained technical experiment between features - “oh you can tell they built up a fur texture pipeline between these two”).
Even across series like Toy Story. (That’s actually a curious problem, like when prequels are made at an earlier date, and suddenly the polygon count is incongruously high and the future is in fact dated.)
I was talking to another friend about how it’s often seen in things like games or 3D art in general how aspects of our understanding, or ability to recreate a scene at “high realistic fidelity” is uneven, because of the nature and complexity of those problems. Like dark scenes, are easier because they mask some of the pain points. Things like fluid dynamics are computationally expensive, and we’ll resort to techniques based on scientific research to render them accurately.
To put it simply, you’ll play a game that is going for high graphics realism and the textures on the solid rock seem absolutely photorealistic, but then the way the leaves hit the trees “seems off” because it’s a more challenging project (or just how every project of this type, is also an engineering problem with it’s own style of hurdles)
Piper
Piper was really delightful. I really liked the lens emulation and soft focus of everything to make you feel insulated like a little chick. It really is that difficulty of getting wet for the first time, but then after things can open up.
I definitely struggle with this at times. You probably know the quote, it’s quite famous but it’s something like what kind of world exists beyond our fears.
I was curious and fed the birdsong audio in the short to the Merlin bird ID app. While it did detect birds, and there was some bleed in of the cheerful jingles, it didn’t detect Sandpipers. I took a look at actual sandpiper calls and it’s superficially a bit similar, but much less “presentable” in this format. (There’s almost an analogy to the stylized cuteness of Piper compared to actual birds, with the stylized calls to actual calls). Actually curious how these birdsongs were derived.
Definitely would have been a cool easter egg.
Also just was reading this ” This amounted to 4.5 to 7 million feathers on each bird in Piper” from the Audubon society
Which goes over the degree of verisimilitude with the short. One final tangent because my sister was just talking about it with me - growing up we’d watch this show Hammy the Hamster. There is that whole genre of actual animals in scenes with voices, particularly in film’s past.
I was recently writing about this, the degree to which nonhuman animals can act. It seems to me whenever an animal is in frame in a film, it’s almost like there is a direct connection with the viewer. The human actors are playing a fantasy game together through acting, but an animal is completely aware of the reality of scene at all times. It feels completely devoid of the filmic context, almost like an on screen fourth wall break at all times. Trivially an animal on set will just wander off or something, where a human will not trapped in this role and the service of “art.”
On Feast:
Feast was really good, complements Omelette from Madeline Sharafian quite well. The real payoff was realizing the structure, which happens about half way for me - and then there’s somewhat of an expected conclusion.
I’m not having any kids (likely, at least any moment soon) but one thing that I had the selfish desire for was to see my then unborn niece interact with my sister’s cat. Like it was something that I just had to see, and really am lucky that happened.
The story for Feast kind of brings up something I think about. Like a motivating force. I’ve some friends, who are single and wonder “the order which love occurs” - like do I get my shit together and then seek someone to love. Is it the other way around?
I’ve been mixed on this, probably because of the fact that it’s kind of arbitrary and no concrete answer - but it’s still something I think of. I do think being in a relationship like that, is clearly a large motivating factor and your effort to grow that into something meaningful is something that can “change” someone for the better — but I guess there is a degree to which the severity of someone’s issues makes it difficult to commit freely and give to that person what they need.
With a slight tangle you two can work yourselves out, and untangle one another and make a sweater for you both (or to your loved ones as a gift). With a larger tangle, you might just end up tangling them in your tangle, or they are constantly trying to extract you and your movements produce further tangles.