If you see the behind-the-scene filming of your favourite movie or tv show it looks a bit cringy too. but it's what you see onscreen that is the subject to be judged.. I think these people are trying to do things that mimic what they see pro models/actors/musicians do in videos/photos. and it works, they try all sorts of angles and find a good shot then post it and it makes people think they are awesome and are worth following/listening too.. then they plug products and get paid. no big deal.. just the tech has gotten cheap for consumers and distribution is simple.

Would have been a better with the piano moving from onscreen to offscreen with someone playing it.

I had a workstation set up in my garage. Every year, about midsummer, a dragonfly would fly up in front of my face, hover, checking out what I was doing onscreen for about 10-15 seconds, then leave. Coolest freaking thing ever. Must have been something about the refresh rate or colours, but still hilarious.

Where to start……
The forced laughter when someone’s buddy is filmed wiping out - AH hahaha AH hahaha

99.9% of “selfies”, I despise that word. I don’t want to see your pasty bloated pimply mug so close-up like we’re jammed in a fuckin elevator and I can count your nose hairs. Wearing either the blank dumb look people have when looking at their computer screen or camera phone, or the overly gleeful shit-eating ventriloquist dummy look, All it takes is a camera lens to make people go ape-shit, like a baby making faces in a mirror. When did that shit become normal?

Any kind of rambling monologue with the subject weighing in on the stupid shit of the day, like they are some wise head of state being interviewed on some crisis. Or filming themselves narrating at the scene of some non-event, like they are Edward Murrow reporting on the London Blitz.

The vast majority of trend videos, like “Things New Yorkers Say”, etc. They generally have high production values but ZERO talent on the actual writing. The “punchlines” are usually weak or non-existent, apparently there’s no such thing as out-takes anymore. It’s usually weak material followed by long pauses, which I guess if you drag it out long enough it somehow becomes funny. “Modern Family” and “The Office” have beat that non-punchline pause to death. “Spinal Tap” was the only mock-umentary that ever worked, everything else is just weak.

Idiots who edit videos and who don’t have the basic sense to accommodate people who haven’t seen the material. I’m watching a video on YouTube of vacation snaps from someone’s trip to the mountains of Chile, and they leave each photo onscreen for about 1.2 seconds, with the editor’s goal to use every single transition available in the editing palette to move on to the next picture. It’s amateurish.

Someone else mentioned videos with overly long intros\titles and I agree. It's not "Gone With the Wind", it's a video of your dog pissing in your living room, just get to it.

Back in a few, going to pour my second cup of the day. :-)

This shop apparently doesn't trust their employees either. Otherwise why have the receipts print onscreen?

When the woman appeared onscreen, the reviewer was saying "dog"?

I was hoping this was going to answer a question I have asked for a long time but still don't have a clear answer. Is it common to have 2 cameras filming actors simultaneously during a shot/counter-shot scene in a standard Hollywood production, so it's recording their interactions in real time?

Or is it more likely done with one camera, with the actors filmed sequentially and responding to off-camera dialog as they speak their lines. And then the shot/counter-shot are strung together in editing.

Seems to me the one camera would be more logical, as otherwise the lighting resources themselves would have to be doubled and kept out of view. Also I don't ever remember seeing any pictures or footage from a movie set where they have 2 cameras and 2 sets of lights, etc.

The reason I keep asking is that on IMDB in the trivia section you always read some nonsense about somebody's onscreen reaction to some unscripted ad-libbed line being genuine.

Well if they aren't both in the same shot how could it be a genuine reaction if the shot/counter-shot are filmed with one camera at different times? And the dialog may be spoken and recorded hours apart?

Like this scene from the "Die Hard" trivia section:
Hart Bochner's line "Hans... Bubby!" was ad-libbed. Alan Rickman's quizzical reaction was genuine.

They weren't in the same shot, so how can his reaction be genuine when the line may have been ad-libbed several hours earlier or later. If it was ad-libbed at all.

It strikes me as stupid made-up shit that passes for trivia and knowledge on the Internet but wanted to get some opinions on this.

You know, I read a recent interview with John Oliver where he is very emphatic that his show is "comedy" and that, despite what people want to read into it, he is not making political statements. I think if I had watched this video before reading that interview I would have scoffed (as others here already have). But it's pretty clear to me now that he and his writers know exactly what they are doing.

Basically, this video is the result of John Oliver saying, "You know, when you think about this history of racism in American cinema you can find some pretty fucked up stuff. How can we make a joke out of that?"

It's not designed to be an actual literary critique, it's meant to use the facts to play up a punch line. I'm pretty sure John and his writing crew know that "The Last Samurai" does not refer to Tom Cruise's character (i.e. just because the character is trained how to use the sword and armor does not automatically make him a samurai), but it's easy to see how they can make a joke out of the ambiguity of the title and Americans' tendency for self-centeredness (I'm sure there are people in the U.S. who think the title does indeed refer to Cruise's character).

I actually don't have a problem with actors "playing outside their ethnicity" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean). I'm reminded of the recent controversy about the video game Uncharted 4 which has a white actress voice-acting the role of a black South African character. The Creative Director responded to the controversy by pointing out that a white character is voiced by a black actor in the same game, and that the decisions were made based on the choosing the best actor for the role--not on what the actor looked like in real life (read more about the story here).

As CG progresses and digital characters become a norm, I think this is an issue that's only going to get greater in the film industry. In our demand for political correctness will we demand that the actors physically resemble the characters they are portraying onscreen? That seems a bit absurd to me. But so too is the idea of excluding people for consideration from roles based solely on the color of their skin.

Your video, Kevin Bacon Complains About the Lack Of Male Onscreen Nudity, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I understand the "justification", though I don't agree with it, I would have done even worse if I were there.

My reaction is more critical of the tone of the media than the subjects in the footage. Newscasters who will warn sensitive viewers when they might show raw meat or a dead bird onscreen, but almost applaud the violence as it's happening here. It sends a terrible and wrong message that brutality is okay if you're "the good guy".

I wish Dan Aykroyd acted more. I miss that guy's onscreen personality.

It's a cheat. You don't need to be so exact with motion or detail when it just jiggly flashes by onscreen.

I wonder if the Shatner had it written into his contract he had to be onscreen within 20 seconds of every episode.

...cuz he is.

I can't believe Card finally caved in and let them cast Ender as an older teen, all for the sake of onscreen romance. /puke

This goes beyond my knowledge level of signals and waveforms, but it was very interesting anyway.

That being said, OK, I'm sold on the concept that ADC and back doesn't screw up the signal. However, I'm pretty sure that real audiophiles could easily listen to several copies of the same recording at different bitrates and frequencies and correctly identify which ones are higher or better quality with excellent accuracy. I bet that is true even for 16bit vs 24bit, or 192kHz vs 320kHz -- stuff that should be "so good it is impossible to tell the difference".

Since some people that train themselves to have an ear for it CAN detect differences (accurately), the differences must actually be there. If they aren't artifacts of ADC issues, then what are they? I'm guessing compression artifacts?

In a visual version of this, I remember watching digital satellite TV around 10-15 years ago. The digital TV signal was fine and clear -- almost certainly better than what you'd get from an analog OTA antenna. BUT, the satellites used (I believe) mpeg compression to reduce channel bandwidth, and that compression created some artifacts that were easy to notice once somebody pointed them out to you. I specifically remember onscreen people getting "jellyface" anytime someone would nod slowly, or make similar periodic motions. I've got a feeling that some of the artifacts that we (or at least those of us that are real hardcore audiophiles) can notice in MP3 audio files are similar to an audio version of that jellyface kind of issue.