Oh hey, it's The Animal in Me, they do a ton of cover stuff and really aren't bad. A lot softer than what I normally listen to, but I always liked their sound.
Fun Fact: They used to be called Deadlines and Diamonds.
Why is the video abnormally dim.
dang I liked it
This is not punk att all.
[editline]2nd April 2017[/editline]
Also way too overproduced, you don't need to layer everything a thousand times and use triggered drums while covering the vocals in a bunch of effects.
This is still pop, it's just a different flavor of pop music.
There's nothing punk about it, sound or aesthetic.
It's really not an issue, it's just misleading.
Sounds like rock to me, there's loud drums and screeching.
My god the pretentiousness of this thread. Genres like these are influenced from Pop, Metal, Rock, and Hardcore Punk.
[QUOTE=omarfr;52047442]My god the pretentiousness of this thread. Genres like these are influenced from Pop, Metal, Rock, and Hardcore Punk.[/QUOTE]
When I saw 'Punk goes Pop' in the title I was expecting a punk cover of a pop song.
Not a punk-pop cover of a pop song, there's actually a huge difference
It's misleading, like I said, it's not a big issue though
[QUOTE=duckmaster;52045820]Why is the video abnormally dim.[/QUOTE]
Looks like someone left on an [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral-density_filter"]ND Filter[/URL]
[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;52047468]When I saw 'Punk goes Pop' in the title I was expecting a punk cover of a pop song.
Not a punk-pop cover of a pop song, there's actually a huge difference
It's misleading, like I said, it's not a big issue though[/QUOTE]
The pop goes punk series has always grinded my gears a bit because of the loose genre definitions they have. The bands that create the covers typically never classify themselves as punk, and the covers themselves are almost always more pop sounding than the actual content the covering bands make themselves (and tbh I've always thought the covers sound terrible, even if I like the covering band's original work).
There's just this annoying tendency in record companies to classify genres really generically, especially in these sort of cash grab collections.
[QUOTE=redback3;52047681]Looks like someone left on an [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral-density_filter"]ND Filter[/URL][/QUOTE]
No, an ND filter would not have this effect.
Here's what they've done:
[t]http://puu.sh/v7AmW.png[/t]
[t]http://puu.sh/v7A1n.png[/t]
By limiting the overall brightness/color output, they've basically made the whites gray.
This is absolutely done on purpose, although I don't understand what they see in this look.
Oh, and this example is no exaggeration - [url=http://puu.sh/v7A7H.png]They really did limit it from 255 all the way down to 119[/url]
In fact, the "whites" in this video are so dark gray (119/255) that they're closer to black (0/255) than white (255/255).
I like it. It kinda has that Evanescence feel to it
[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;52051598]No, an ND filter would not have this effect.
[/QUOTE]
ND filter does the same thing as you did just in a dynamic range.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52051663]ND filter does the same thing as you did just in a dynamic range.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about that. ND filters wouldn't darken the image like this.
Even the highlights (which are clipping) in the video are darkened. An ND filter would cause the camera to resolve more detail in these areas, as they're now within the sensor range.
[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;52051733]I don't know about that. ND filters wouldn't darken the image like this.
Even the highlights (which are clipping) in the video are darkened. An ND filter would cause the camera to resolve more detail in these areas, as they're now within the sensor range.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, it's an even darken, the whole point of ND filters. Since the video is in a fixed range and not dynamic it can't reveal out of range details, and even loses detail when you darken it due to integer precision.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52051817]Exactly, it's an even darken, the whole point of ND filters. Since the video is in a fixed range and not dynamic it can't reveal out of range details, and even loses detail when you darken it due to integer precision.[/QUOTE]
Are you thinking about some digital ND filter or something?
A real, physical ND filter (even if it's a 10-stop one) will not outright crush clipped highlight.
Like any other method of reducing the amount of light that comes into your camera, it'll darken the entire image and, in the case of clipped highlights, it'll reveal the otherwise lost detail in those areas.
Again, in this video the [I]clipped[/I] highlights have an RGB value of 119/119/119. This simply means the darkening was done in post, and with intention to crush even the brightest highlights.
I repeat, an ND filter would not have this effect, no matter how the exposure was set.
If the video was exposed too much to the left, we'd see much more detail resolved in the highlights, and noise or heavy clipping in the dark areas.
I know you're pretty knowledgeable about things like this, but I think a misunderstanding is in play here.
m8, if you subtract from a range of 0 to infinity it's the same as subtracting from a range of 0-1. the difference is that if you clip a 0-infinity range to 0-1 (hdr -> ldr) and then subtract youre not gonna recover any lost info that lies outside your clip range.
an NDF subtracts light, your operation subtracts light. that doesnt make it a different operation, its just operating after the 8-bit bottleneck. still a darken.
technically both are a multiply by fractional values but i went with subtract for brevity and any layman's sake.
this is way off topic though. the cover SUCKS
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52052224]m8, if you subtract from a range of 0 to infinity it's the same as subtracting from a range of 0-1. the difference is that if you clip a 0-infinity range to 0-1 (hdr -> ldr) and then subtract youre not gonna recover any lost info that lies outside your clip range.
an NDF subtracts light, your operation subtracts light. that doesnt make it a different operation, its just operating after the 8-bit bottleneck. still a darken.
technically both are a multiply by fractional values but i went with subtract for brevity and any layman's sake.
this is way off topic though. the cover SUCKS[/QUOTE]
You have such a different view, we're practically arguing two different things.
I'm going on about applied photography, you're going on about maths and technicalities.
I agree with you now that I get what you mean, but christ doggy.
And yes this cover does suck.
[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;52052577]You have such a different view, we're practically arguing two different things.
I'm going on about applied photography, you're going on about maths and technicalities.
I agree with you now that I get what you mean, but christ doggy.
And yes this cover does suck.[/QUOTE]
Maths & Photography are very much the same kettle of fish. It's all physics and numbers.
Also I agree with you, this cover does suck. But maybe I'm just an old fuddy duddy because Punk to me is The Clash.
[QUOTE=Zackin5;52051555]The pop goes punk series has always grinded my gears a bit because of the loose genre definitions they have. The bands that create the covers typically never classify themselves as punk, and the covers themselves are almost always more pop sounding than the actual content the covering bands make themselves (and tbh I've always thought the covers sound terrible, even if I like the covering band's original work).
There's just this annoying tendency in record companies to classify genres really generically, especially in these sort of cash grab collections.[/QUOTE]
To be fair though Punk has so many sub genres. The first Pop goes Punk album was all Skate Punk, Ska, Pop Punk, and I think one hardcore punk bands. Later albums have more Hardcore, Post Hardcore, metalcore, which are all sub genres of punk and metal. I think the real problem is that genres by definition are way too fucking general. I mean the variety of sounds in a genre varies so much, and when you mix genres I think it only creates more interesting music.
Perhaps I'm biased because I love everything from The Sex Pistols, to The Clash, to pop punk like Blink182, to Emo like thrice, bands like Sleeping with sirens, all the way to SICK tech stuff like Polyphia.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52051663]ND filter does the same thing as you did just in a dynamic range.[/QUOTE]
Same purpose, but not the same effect.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52052224]this is way off topic though. the cover SUCKS[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;52052577]And yes this cover does suck.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=redback3;52054378]Also I agree with you, this cover does suck. [/QUOTE]
i'm glad this shitty cover has brought facepunch together.
[QUOTE=Brt5470;52055758]Same purpose, but not the same effect.[/QUOTE]
better put: same affect different effect
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
