Return to Unfiction unforum
 a.r.g.b.b 
FAQ FAQ   Search Search 
 
Welcome!
New users, PLEASE read these forum guidelines. New posters, SEARCH before posting and read these rules before posting your killer new campaign. New players may also wish to peruse the ARG Player Tutorial.

All users must abide by the Terms of Service.
Website Restoration Project
This archiving project is a collaboration between Unfiction and Sean Stacey (SpaceBass), Brian Enigma (BrianEnigma), and Laura E. Hall (lehall) with
the Center for Immersive Arts.
Announcements
This is a static snapshot of the
Unfiction forums, as of
July 23, 2017.
This site is intended as an archive to chronicle the history of Alternate Reality Games.
  

The time now is Mon Nov 25, 2024 8:26 pm
All times are UTC - 4 (DST in action)		 View posts in this forum since last visit
View unanswered posts in this forum
Calendar
 Forum index » Archive » Archive: Cloverfield (1-18-08) » Cloverfield: General / Updates
Completely ridiculous: SD card can't be recorded over
View previous topicView next topic
Page 4 of 9 [133 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
Author Message
mfd00m
Greenhorn

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Posts: 9

 		in any case, who gives a shiet? Confused

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:15 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
unclear
Decorated

Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 189

 		Here's a perfectly good explanation! I don't know if this has been said before, but this movie probably takes place in May 2009... maybe it's just a new camera with all these features and technologies (like recording over files as if an SD card were a tape).

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:24 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Nighthawk
I Have 100 Cats and Smell of Wee


Joined: 14 Jul 2007
Posts: 4751
Location: Miami, Florida, USA, Earth
unclear wrote:
Here's a perfectly good explanation! I don't know if this has been said before, but this movie probably takes place in May 2009... maybe it's just a new camera with all these features and technologies (like recording over files as if an SD card were a tape).


Why would technology take a step backwards like that?

Even so, considering the nature of SD cards (which house a file system, in effect) and the nature of recorded video (compressed perhaps), it's a logistical impossibility to even record over parts of it as described.

Christ people, it's a frickin' MOVIE about a GIANT MONSTER. Deal with disbelief!

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:42 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
DaMirrorLink
Boot


Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Posts: 59

 		im surprised someone didnt call the movie on the cameras battery life >_>

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:47 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
keseki
Boot

Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 65

 		what if he was using some sort of blu-ray re-writtable disc? then he could possibly overwrite over Rob's old footage. they have HD camcorders that write to dvd's

btw, on that same token, you'd think the eff'ing camera would have SOMETHING to deal with all the hand shaking and what not if its that technological Razz

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:59 pm
Last edited by keseki on Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Cole
Account Disabled


Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 271

 		Re: Completely ridiculous: SD card can't be recorded over
darkgoob wrote:
OK. There is a MAJOR inconsistency in this movie. Rolling Eyes

At the beginning of the movie, the text on the screen says that it's an "SD Card" that has been recovered from Central Park.

However, the whole premise of the movie was that it was recorded over a previous video. The guy at the beginning asks if his brother took out the "tape" before starting to shoot the footage.

However if it's a "tape" based camera, and obviously the footage is HD quality, so the only kind of camera it could have been is an HDV camera. HDV cameras have a maximum recording time of 1 hour. That's by far not enough time for this movie.

Also the fact that the video camera has an "infrared" mode indicates that it *has* to be a Sony video camera. There's not very many Sony video cameras that have NightShot *and* a built-in video light *and* run on HDV tapes. In fact I don't know of a single one. And NO Sony video camera uses SD cards!!

But it doesn't matter, because the maximum recording time of HDV cassete tapes is only 63 minutes! It could not record for as long as this film. So it had to be a memory-card-based system since they have longer recording times. However, can you show me an HD camcorder that takes SD cards, has a night shot mode, and has a built-in video light?

But it doesn't matter, because if it was an SD-card based camera, why would all the characters keep saying it was "tape"? And also, it would have been impossible to "record over" the previous recordings, since on SD-card based camcorders, every time you start recording, it makes a new file. You can only delete files, but you can't record over portions of files.

So all-in-all, the fact is, this is a huge gaping plot-hole that is completely inconsistent. And frankly, I think it proves that this movie is supposed to be the dream of one of the characters. (At one point one character does say "this is a nightmare" or something like that.) Because there's no way this could happen in reality, even if there WAS a monster that was real.

-=DG=-


dude, seriously, who gives a flying fuck about the physicalities of an SD card in a movie..it's not real...jesus.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:59 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
penguin-1203
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 88
DaMirrorLink wrote:
im surprised someone didnt call the movie on the cameras battery life >_>
true, but dont some cameras come with 2 hour batery life?

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:04 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Stumper67
Veteran

Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 97

 		The mistake you're making is that you're basically coming to a conclusion based on something completely unrelated to anything.

You really think that this one plot inconsistency means it's a dream? Now if you siad that the fact that a 400 foot monster is destroying an entire city means it's someone's dream, fine...

But you're picking THIS as the reason why it's a dream? It makes no sense. There's a huge monster and vicious smaller monsters running around destroying everything in sight and the fact that they say it's a tape in the camera is the reason it's a dream?

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:06 pm
Last edited by Stumper67 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Kayberry
Decorated


Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 295
DaMirrorLink wrote:
im surprised someone didnt call the movie on the cameras battery life >_>


http://geeksofdoom.com/2008/01/22/cloverfield-mythos-explored-monsters-marketing-and-millions/
Quote:
Where does Coney Island come in? Rob's brother Jason took Rob's video camera to use at the party, but never put in a new tape. (Why Rob would have a camera that still requires tape is quite interesting, considering the camera seems to have a very high battery life as well as night vision of all things!)


Well, I made my arguments on page 3 and I stand by them.
_________________
Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy!
The trail always leads into a trap.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:06 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
darkgoob
Boot

Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 11
Ghidra99 wrote:
Confused

You're really stretching the limits of "critique". I think you're being deliberately obtuse just to annoy people.


I'm not being obtuse. I'm making perfect sense. Is there any part of my argument that you don't understand? Have I not been clear?

I'm also not trying to annoy anyone. This *is* a forum where people post to discuss the movie cloverfield, right? That's what I'm doing. If you find that annoying, then don't come to a forum where people discuss things.

And I don't feel I'm stretching the limits of "critique," which is defined in the dictionary as "an article or essay criticizing a literary or other work; detailed evaluation; review." I think what I've provided constitutes something on the order of this, though perhaps not quite a full essay. There are lots of critiques of things that are much longer and more detailed than what I have provided.

theShaggy wrote:

This has departed quite a bit from "it MUST be intentional, an I can only conclude that it was a dream!" Not it is "the crew are lazy or missed something important!"

Fair enough. I'll concede that, because you're probably right. Whomever made the graphics to start the film didn't pay close enough attention, the director probably didn't pay close enough attention. Hell, the continuity person didn't pay close enough attention! You're right on that, man Smile Filmmaking involves a lot of people, and things are missed.

I think I took issue with the outlandish interpretation of it being a dream and the assertion that it was intenional.


Fair enough. I would *prefer* to consider it was a dream, since that would allow for the inconsistency and even explain it. But you're right, sometimes there is a lack of communication in a production crew and mistakes slip through, and that seems like that's probably what happened here -- if indeed, the director is on record as suggesting that a future sequel could be the same film shot from different angles (which sounds kinda lame to me but whatever). I like the idea of it being a dream that was not forced to be interpreted as a dream better, in any case. And I think J.J. Abrams is a master of this kind of ambiguity, as we have seen in LOST.

In any case, yeah, I don't think this was a blunder that would affect ticket sales or overall enjoyment of the movie. It's just that it was the one thing I thought walking out of the theater -- SD card or tape? Other than that, pretty much a perfect movie to me.

theShaggy wrote:

HOWEVER, just to argue on small little point for the sake of humour:

You know all about SD card technology with video and film and such, but you went to film school. Rob's off to be vice-president of a soft-drink company... how would that lend him to know the ins and outs of file-formats of SD cards on Hi-Def Sony/Panasonic camcorders?


Well also I work in a camera store. So yeah, I'm oversensitive to this. It's like when my dad, a biologist, watched the mini-series Lonesome Dove, he would see some vultures in one shot, and then some more in another sequential cut, and be like, "Those were turkey vultures in the first shot, but black vultures in the second shot. What the heck. These guys are idiots."

But again, I'm not the only one who noticed this, as I pointed out. Also I think that Rob would have known the difference, since he also knew how to turn on the night-vision and video light... which I can tell you from working in a camera store, most people aren't that savvy. And obviously he'd used the camera before, so he would know you can't record over stuff. But I think that the script was written as if it was a tape-based camcorder, and later they made it memory card for some reason (probably because it accounts for being able to record longer than 1 hour). Then they never went back and fixed it or something.

And yeah, it's not a dream, I get it.

Kayberry wrote:

If we're to acceptably assume that Rob is not so anal-retentive about technical accuracy as you are, like the majority of average people in the audience who would refer to recorded content in a handycam as tape, he would most likely not have said something along the lines of "Did you swap out the SD card for an empty one?" Besides, you have to grant a little leeway to movies in their accuracy because they generally take place in fiction.


You're ignoring other parts of my argument. Even *if* Rob didn't understand the difference between tape and SD card, it doesn't matter, because still, the format the movie is shot in (as a tape that was partially recorded over) is inconsistent with the camera being an SD-card camera.

-=DG=-

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:07 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Tsakara
Veteran


Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 74

 		stupid question: why does it need to be HD? Just because its HD onscreen doesn't mean it was recorded as HD in universe, they just didn't want to give us a gritty fuzzy picture.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:11 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Kraker
Unfettered

Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 749

 		What's worse? A troll or someone who takes things too literally?

It's a movie. I understand your argument. YOU ARE RIGHT IT MAKES NO SENSE.

Now tell me why it matters.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:22 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
keseki
Boot

Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 65

 		btw, my sony camera, a good 8 years old or so, has night vision on it. and uses tape. just thought id throw that out. well that, and it was brought from japan.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:25 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Headman
Entrenched


Joined: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 839
Location: Michigan

 		Re: Completely ridiculous: SD card can't be recorded over
darkgoob wrote:
OK. There is a MAJOR inconsistency in this movie. Rolling Eyes

At the beginning of the movie, the text on the screen says that it's an "SD Card" that has been recovered from Central Park.

However, the whole premise of the movie was that it was recorded over a previous video. The guy at the beginning asks if his brother took out the "tape" before starting to shoot the footage.

However if it's a "tape" based camera, and obviously the footage is HD quality, so the only kind of camera it could have been is an HDV camera. HDV cameras have a maximum recording time of 1 hour. That's by far not enough time for this movie.

Also the fact that the video camera has an "infrared" mode indicates that it *has* to be a Sony video camera. There's not very many Sony video cameras that have NightShot *and* a built-in video light *and* run on HDV tapes. In fact I don't know of a single one. And NO Sony video camera uses SD cards!!

But it doesn't matter, because the maximum recording time of HDV cassete tapes is only 63 minutes! It could not record for as long as this film. So it had to be a memory-card-based system since they have longer recording times. However, can you show me an HD camcorder that takes SD cards, has a night shot mode, and has a built-in video light?

But it doesn't matter, because if it was an SD-card based camera, why would all the characters keep saying it was "tape"? And also, it would have been impossible to "record over" the previous recordings, since on SD-card based camcorders, every time you start recording, it makes a new file. You can only delete files, but you can't record over portions of files.

So all-in-all, the fact is, this is a huge gaping plot-hole that is completely inconsistent. And frankly, I think it proves that this movie is supposed to be the dream of one of the characters. (At one point one character does say "this is a nightmare" or something like that.) Because there's no way this could happen in reality, even if there WAS a monster that was real.

-=DG=-


Well if nobody else will........

Trout

http://forums.unfiction.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=23795

You people need to start using the search button please. Posting in existing threads will help narrow down all the treads we must read through to find relevant information.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:27 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
OliMango
Entrenched


Joined: 07 Oct 2007
Posts: 1189
Location: Vegas

 		You guys take all this shit way too seriously.

There's a 30 story monster with freaking parasite spiders killing and eating people and destroying all of New York, and you can't believe that a SD card can get written over or a camera battery can last forever?

Jesus!! The SD card got written over?!?!? THIS IS BULLSHIT!
_________________
http://handyreviews.blogspot.com/
http://www.faroveryonder.info/

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:31 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 4 of 9 [133 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
View previous topicView next topic
 Forum index » Archive » Archive: Cloverfield (1-18-08) » Cloverfield: General / Updates
Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group