- 4,818
- 2,736
Yeah, I wouldn't mind this route.If that's the main issue, it could just be taken slowly. Encouraging people to remake old blogs, and not accepting new blogs with a bad basis.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yeah, I wouldn't mind this route.If that's the main issue, it could just be taken slowly. Encouraging people to remake old blogs, and not accepting new blogs with a bad basis.
Because providing experimental data that is relevant to the topic at hand and touching on Agnaa's concerns with the workings on camera functionality is "not contributing anything to the discussion"? This is a site-wide revision where any relevant data both current and previous, including my own, should be considered in EQUAL weight if it needs to be done as smoothly as possible. By deliberately claiming someone who has contributed to the discussion didn't contribute to the discussion, you're actively ignoring what was presented, thus stagnating possible avenues where an important revision can go. If you're not going to be civil about it and accept my contributions equally to others' contributions, then I don't know what to do with you. We're all staff members trying to figure out where this should go and how to handle it, and I do not appreciate you leaving me out like that. I provided evidence that I personally had to collect in order to contribute; please do me a kind favor and take it with due diligence.
I will go out of my way to say that this topic is one that I've personally answered to with a 4:3 camera: https://vsbattles.com/threads/angsizing-formula-2-0.171235/post-6700369
ChatGPT? Really? Okay, I would very much prefer to get back into the topic, but that is just... Wow.
Lens Focal Length | Diagonal | Vertical | Horizontal |
24mm | 84.1° | 53.1° | 73.7° |
28mm | 75.4° | 46.4° | 65.5° |
35mm | 63.4° | 37.8° | 54.4° |
50mm | 46.8° | 27.0° | 39.6° |
While I agree that the method and phrasing on Flashlight's behalf shouldn't be as it is, I would also suggest, for future formal discussions you'd like to have, to avoid citing Chat GPT. It simply isn't a reliable enough source to be taken seriously. As far as I'm aware, this was substantiating evidence, not your full evidence, that was hailed from GPT: as such, it's not a big deal, but it really is entirely irrelevant what it concocts to say.It is you who should approach this more seriously and diligently. First, it sounds like you haven't even taken the time to read this OP, yet you brag about answering it.
Then, watch how you present your arguments:
It gives the impression that you are only seeking to contradict instead of taking the discussion seriously.
Furthermore, your experimentation does not seem interesting to me for this discussion, since the important thing here would be to focus on the cinematographic field.
The information I provided from ChatGPT is easily verifiable through simple searches, and I had previously corroborated it. I do not intend to use ChatGPT as a primary source. I cited the information it provided because I felt its explanation of the most commonly used lenses in cinema was suitable for summarizing what can be found online.While I agree that the method and phrasing on Flashlight's behalf shouldn't be as it is, I would also suggest, for future formal discussions you'd like to have, to avoid citing Chat GPT. It simply isn't a reliable enough source to be taken seriously. As far as I'm aware, this was substantiating evidence, not your full evidence, that was hailed from GPT: as such, it's not a big deal, but it really is entirely irrelevant what it concocts to say.
Then use information from those simple searches instead.The information I provided from ChatGPT is easily verifiable through simple searches
Going through your posts from before that, I can't find that.and I had previously corroborated it.
We don't trust LLMs to summarize things without confabulations. Summarize it yourself, direct us towards the full explanations, or direct us to a summary done by another person.I do not intend to use ChatGPT as a primary source. I cited the information it provided because I felt its explanation of the most commonly used lenses in cinema was suitable for summarizing what can be found online.
If necessary, I will do it.Then use information from those simple searches instead.
I said that I had corroborated them, not that I had initially published them.Going through your posts from before that, I can't find that.
I already explained the reason why I used the information provided by ChatGPT.But if you did, then there was no reason to have ChatGPT reiterate it.
Well, I do trust in this case, because it is adequate information and I have already corroborated that it is correct.We don't trust LLMs to summarize things without confabulations. Summarize it yourself, direct us towards the full explanations, or direct us to a summary done by another person.
I wasn't bragging, I literally did answer it. The entire argument concerns different FOVs, and the link I provided is experimentation using an everyday camera (in that case, a Google Pixel 8, which is more close-at-home to everyday situations). That's another example of a different FOV, one that clearly is outside the film industry as most people's cameras are not the kind used to film the likes of Jaws, The Matrix, Independence Day, and even recent films like The Avengers: Endgame and Wakanda Forever. In fact, what isn't serious and diligent is your decision to cherry-pick a select few sentences out of several entire posts, which I have taken the entire discussion seriously and diligently up to this point despite my wording. My response to the ChatGPT thing is the point where my switch flipped to condescending mode since, like others have pointed out, is not something that should even be considered a reliable source, and I don't like how it is worded as a reliable source.It is you who should approach this more seriously and diligently. First, it sounds like you haven't even taken the time to read this OP, yet you brag about answering it.
My dude, both supporting AND contradictory points are serious points in a debate. You can't bolster an argument by only choosing the supporting parts. And furthermore, most people aren't IN the cinematographic field; in fact, we literally had members in this thread even say that they aren't professional photographers, never mind filmographers. You can't expect them to have the same level of tech LucasFilms used.It gives the impression that you are only seeking to contradict instead of taking the discussion seriously.
Furthermore, your experimentation does not seem interesting to me for this discussion, since the important thing here would be to focus on the cinematographic field.
That was a response to a previous proposal. When I presented the new proposal in that thread, you didn't make any concrete comments regarding it. Then you introduced your experiment in this new context as if it were a response to my proposal, but you didn't explain how it impacts or affects the ideas presented.I wasn't bragging, I literally did answer it. The entire argument concerns different FOVs, and the link I provided is experimentation using an everyday camera (in that case, a Google Pixel 8, which is more close-at-home to everyday situations). That's another example of a different FOV, one that clearly is outside the film industry as most people's cameras are not the kind used to film the likes of Jaws, The Matrix, Independence Day, and even recent films like The Avengers: Endgame and Wakanda Forever. In fact, what isn't serious and diligent is your decision to cherry-pick a select few sentences out of several entire posts, which I have taken the entire discussion seriously and diligently up to this point despite my wording. My response to the ChatGPT thing is the point where my switch flipped to condescending mode since, like others have pointed out, is not something that should even be considered a reliable source, and I don't like how it is worded as a reliable source.
I don't consider your points to be contradictions; I simply think they are not relevant. If we are discussing the FOVs used in series and movies, I believe it would be more appropriate to provide information within the cinematographic context.My dude, both supporting AND contradictory points are serious points in a debate. You can't bolster an argument by only choosing the supporting parts. And furthermore, most people aren't IN the cinematographic field; in fact, we literally had members in this thread even say that they aren't professional photographers, never mind filmographers. You can't expect them to have the same level of tech LucasFilms used.
I didn't mention anything about video games in relation to cinematography. What I mentioned was that the horizontal FOV in video games usually hovers around 70°, and that you should use that value as a standard or, alternatively, check the settings to see what type of FOV is being used. For video games, the discussion seems straightforward; at most, one could talk about the horizontal FOV, which should be used as a standard when an exact value is unknown.Also, you literally brought up video games in the OP, something that ignores cinematography entirely as, as I've pointed out in one of my posts, video games rely on the capabilities of the game engine, something programmers would need to handle in order to get it to work. You don't film a game, you program a camera into the game. Look at GTA IV; you can see a clear example of the cameras being programmed by getting the character drunk and watching the camera wave around in response. This isn't including the more questionable stuff you see in video games like the Fuzzies from Yoshi's Island basically making the camera not see in Mode 7.
This would be relevant if we were analyzing feats filmed with a mobile phone camera.Also, outside of a live action film or a professional photographer's work, you can't expect everyday situations to make use of a professional-grade camera. At best, you can assume they were filmed with a Camcorder, maybe, and even then, an iPhone or an Android would be more at home with everyday situations camera-wise than a professional film-studio camera.
Wasn't the value of 70° supposed to be based on the common FOV of modern cameras?I don't expect Garfield comic frames to have been taken using a professional-grade camera because of this logic. Even then, our decision to use 70° for the vertical FOV is entirely based on the FOV of a human eye looking dead-on at an object, not the work done for the MCU. You can't invalidate someone because they don't own or have not rented a film studio.