Weblog

Monday, 24 August 2009

  • aesthetics of stereoscopic cinema 2

    i tend to think of stereoscopic depth and stereoscopic position (relative to zero point plane) as informed by (if not dictated by) the nature of the shot.  that is, is the shot a CLOSE UP, MEDIUM SHOT, WIDE SHOT etc?  also, what DEPTH OF FIELD is normally used for "this kind of shot"?  the answer to those questions seem to point at the kind of stereoscopic effect you should be going for.

    a WIDE SHOT is often meant to give a sense of a space and let you experience the area.  notice in most wide shots, the DEPTH OF FIELD is also very deep.  this is a perfect opportunity to use a DEEP stereoscopic depth.

    similarly, in a CLOSE SHOT, the focus is usually on a single object or character and very frequently a very shallow depth of field is used in order to draw the viewer's eyes.  similarly, this seems to be the appropriate time to narrow the stereoscopic depth... especially since there won't be much to see in the b.g. if the depth of field is shallow or if the b.g. is indeed a wall that is close to the character.

    MEDIUM shots of course comprise the mid ground between those extremes and will have appropriately middling values.

    using these kinds of guidelines as a rule of thumb seem to be a good, solid BASE from which to deviate for effect.

    for example, if we use the above as a "standard", then when we deviate from it by giving a wide shot a really shallow stereoscopic depth, it is more likely to cue to the audience that something is different or strange here.
    ===========================================================================

    and generally speaking, close ups and wide shots are not rationed out during the course of a film such that very close or wide shots are just reserved for the extreme moments... or that they MUST build from close to medium to wide or viceversa.

    and in the same way, i feel that there is no need to ration or build stereoscopic depth or position overmuch.  of course, there are limitations - you can't cut from an extreme far object to one that is right in front of someone's face when it only last 15 frames.... but these kinds of things are dictated either by physiological factors or just by the nature of the shots themselves if shot just for a 2d movie.  no extra consideration need be given.

    also, the idea of "building" from a shallow to deep depth is counter to my instincts because try as the audience might, their memory of the experience just doesn't last that far or that long.  cameron's "recency effect" comes into play where a certain degree of attempted orchestration of depth is pointless.

    jin

Sunday, 02 August 2009

  • the problems of capitalism

    if your livelihood depends on you doing your business, you are going to fight tooth and nail in order to preserve that business - even if it is determined to be harmful:

    - petroleum/fossil fuels
    - tobacco
    - alcohol
    - firearms
    - weapons of war

    if you sell widgets, you are going to encourage all situations that increase the need for widgets.  if you sell weapons of war?

    etc etc etc.  and they recruit "lobbyists" in order to exert their muscle in the political realm (and GOVERNMENT is a HUUUUUUUUUUGE area where the pull of money UNDERMINES OUR DEMOCRACY!) and they employ "p.r." in order to "spin" and lie and deceive... all to preserve their livelihoods.

    and people frequently forget that many out and out illegal endeavors are the height of capitalistic zeal:

    - illicit drugs
    - prostitution

    for some reason, the political right feels that competition and the pursuit of wealth is the source of all salvation.  when instead, the reality is that it is a flawed (yes, in and of itself, it is flawed) tool - like a hammer or a gun.  to be employed when appropriate and put away when not.  and using ALTERNATIVE TOOLS when they are MORE APPROPRIATE.

    but republicans are HELLBENT on having a tool box that consists of a SINGLE TOOL.  and as they say, when all you have is a hammer, everything starts lookin' like a nail.

    capitalism reduces all endeavors to the acquisition of greater and greater sums of money - ALL ENDEAVORS.  but shouldn't the goal of a teacher be to teach well?  shouldn't the goal of a health system to make the sick well?  should the hippocratic oath involve healing or a pact to pursue money at all costs?

    just as NON PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS like the red cross and the march of dimes show, not all things NEED to be driven by the pursuit of money.  and the pursuit of money is often times COUNTER PRODUCTIVE to a given endeavor.

    and here, i will say that just as socialized systems such as public libraries, education, fire and police departments and street maintenance are WHOLLY APPROPRIATE.... SO IS HEALTH CARE!

    the pursuit of ANY SINGLE THING (sex, bacon, fun, etc) at the expense of all else - ... is not appropriate for all endeavors.  and yet, the political right feels MONEY IS... ?

    jin

    p.s. and the problem with guns is not the fact that it is not a neutral tool... it is.  but the problem is that it empowers human beings - who by and large are stupid, dumb, goddamn motherfuckers - with a ludicrously easy way to irrevocably end lives.

Saturday, 01 August 2009

  • UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE NOW!!!

    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07312009/profile.html

    fuck the goddamn motherfucking health iinsurance industry!

    don't be their fucking pawns or a deluded, propaganda swilling fuck who's part of the problem!  support universal health care and do it loudly!  our chance, our opportunity is NOW.  don't let it get squandered and watered down by the evil mammon worshiping fuckers.

    BE ANGRY.  it is just and right to be angry here and now.  mammon worshiping goddamn motherfuckers are running the health care system and letting those who need care to get crushed for the sake of "PROFIT".

    it is time to be angry.

    BE GODDAMN MOTHERFUCKING ANGRY.

    jin

Saturday, 11 July 2009

  • Jesus did not love money

    kinda obvious right?

    funny how the "religious right" loves the culture war but would be ripped apart in a class war.

    christians for some reason love to put their faith in "the free markets" and capitalism and WEALTH.  even though they are not in any way shape or form of God.  did Jesus ever say that any kind of blessing was upon the WEALTHY?!

    they are fallen, imperfect, systems of a fallen and imperfect world.  all economic and government systems will burn.  they are a result of the fall.  and are not to be put on pedestals.  they depend not on the nobility and virtue of man but his avarice.  they succeeds where other economic systems fail because it is NOT idealistic but pragmatic and realistic - it thrives on the fallen nature of man.

    and if the current economic crisis shows nothing else, it reveals that that nature WILL exploit any lapse in regulation and boundaries for selfish gain - without regard for the well-being of anyone else.

    and yet, the christian right make themselves idolaters of a philosophy of self interest.

    Jesus did not love money.  at EVERY TURN he spoke against wealth and the worship of mammon.  overturning the tables of "capitalists" at the temple.  at every turn, it was the wealthy who would never find a way to heaven.  and the poor who will inherit the earth.  and though he associated with a money lender, what in the end was His advice for him?

    denouncing capitalism was practically Jesus' HOBBY!

    and yet...  the political side who identifies themselves the most strongly with the side and cause of Jesus worship mammon quite enthusiastically, not only in attitude but in political stance.

    and they have nothing but excuses in not implementing programs to help the poor.

    "they're lazy.  they're malingerers."  Jesus never said those things.  though i'm sure He could have.  and i'm sure those around Him did in His day.  and like those today on the right do.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Jesus was a bleeding heart.

    have you heard Jesus utter anything resembling the right's attitude toward the poor?  or demand that the poor buckle under and work their way out of their poverty?  did He EVER place conditions on our helping the helpless?

    separation of church and state is an essential principle in america.

    but the christian right seeks to blur those borders.  while this is distressing, this gives the left a POWERFUL WEAPON against the right - THE BIBLE!

    if they would dare claim it in the public square, the left can use that which they claim to show their avarice and self centeredness and how in fact, though they claim to be servants of God, when given a choice between the master of God or the master of money, they choose money every time.

    p.s. suck it osteen.  thanks for being part of the problem.





Wednesday, 01 July 2009

Pulse

jinchoung

  • Visit jinchoung's Xanga Site
    • Name: jin
    • Gender: Male
    • Member Since: 11/17/2008

About Me

  • when the robot apocalypse comes, you will find me blasting across the salt flats dangling off a dune buggy in a mohawk and assless chaps (redundant - all chaps are assless).

Groups

[no groups]

Archives

Don't worry - your calendar is here… to see it in action just click "Save" above and refresh the page.