Slashdot Mirror


Slashback: ClonesMAX, Animation, Dislaimers

Slashback with a reader review of the IMAX version of Star Wars Episode Two,the continuing courtship of AIM and ICQ, episode 408 of Futurama, and more, including How to go around the world without going anywhere at all. Read on below!

Give me IV any old day. Rupert writes with a review of the newly IMAX-ified Episode II of the Star Wars saga:

"Since it was my wife's birthday today, last night I took her to see Star Wars: Episode II: Attack of the Clones: IMAX edition. Notwithstanding the overuse of colons, this is a movie worth seeing, even if you think you already saw the movie.

If you haven't already seen AotC, you no doubt have your reasons, and there isn't anything in this edition to make you change your mind. Likewise, the plot still has gaping holes and Anakin is still moody, so if those were enough to make you hate this movie, you won't want to see it again. The action sequences gain little from the new presentation, as objects move too fast across the large screen to follow.

On the other hand, if you want to see the pores in Natalie Portman's skin, or the individual hairs in Christopher Lee's beard, this is the movie you've been waiting for. I suspect that some time was spent re-rendering the digital characters. Yoda, Wattoo and Jex Dexter stood out in close up, looking more real than the human actors.

Some scenes were cut from this edition. Some I didn't miss, such as Ani and Amidala frolicking in the meadow with the giant bed bugs. Others, such as almost all the scenes in Palpatine's office, and many of the Jedi Council made it even harder to follow what was going on.

You might be wondering where you can see the movie."

Always cut with the Groenig. ari_j writes "It looks like Fox is giving us a new season of Futurama. From the page, "Season Premiere Sunday, Nov. 10th at 7PM/6C". Sure enough, my local Fox affiliate is carrying it as stated. From tv.yahoo.com: '"Crimes of the Hot", Episode #408.
Al Gore's head holds an emergency summit in Kyoto, Japan, to deal with global warming caused by robot emissions.'"

This does not look good on a resume. nautical9 writes "As a follow up to Henrick Schon's dismissal from Bell Labs last month for falsifying data, many of his former co-authors are retracting their articles from the AAAS's prestigious Science magazine. It's apparently the largest retraction for the journal ever. Bell labs is also pulling six different patent applications of his. Here's the Wired article."

Is this the basket you ordered for all your eggs? With regard to the AOL / ICQ integration CowboyNeal mentioned the other day, nxtw writes "At this moment, ICQ users can send messages to AIM users, but AIM users cannot send messages to ICQ users or be seen on your buddy list. However, AIM automatically postpends any screenname or group consisting of all numbers with -ICQ when added to your buddy list. (This applies to the beta AIM 5.1.3009 client.)"

They're in Australia, of course they have flying dreams. VileScum writes "Back in May a reader posted this story of an Australian Guy who built a 747 Sim in his garage. As reported in the Sydney Morning Hearld The builder and a group of his friends are now doing a round the world sim flight for charity. The full story can be found here. The details of the actual flight can be found here."

110 of 254 comments (clear)

  1. Futurama by jimmcq · · Score: 5, Informative

    Note that the "new" season of Futurama isn't quite new... The show is still just as cancelled as before.

    Fox just has a few un-aired episodes that were produced a while ago, but still haven't been shown yet.

    1. Re:Futurama by Artemis+Entreri · · Score: 2, Interesting

      but this is just policy...if you have a surplus of episodes, you terminate the show, and air all the episodes you have. if ratings are high enough, you hire the animator back to create new shows. it's crappy in human interaction sense, but i guess it's smart business. we can only hope that new episodes will be comissioned..this all depends on ratings, so watch futurama guys! ;)

    2. Re:Futurama by Masem · · Score: 3, Interesting
      It should also be pointed out that this may be preempted in your local area for football games, one of the reasons why there's still a backlog of Futurama episodes left.

      Don Del Grande has made a handy list of what football games are where this season, and thus what the chances of Furutama (being the first show on the block, and most likely to be run into by long games) will be shown are. That post is here from google's archive.

      Most likely, your best chance to catch these shows is when it goes to Cartoon Network come next year (5 times a week).

      --
      "Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
      "I can see my house from here!" - ST:
    3. Re:Futurama by WankersRevenge · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, it's not smart business sense. Here's the deal - if the show does wonderfully well and they decide to hire everyone back - now they got to wrangle all the original creative talent who will probably want way more money who are most likely committed to other projects. It'll probably take a year or longer to produce new episodes. And by the time those new episodes have hit the market, chances the public will have since long moved on.

      My girlfriends father is an animation producer and this exact scenario is happening to him.

    4. Re:Futurama by Artemis+Entreri · · Score: 2

      i guess i shouldn't have said "air all the episodes"...they have a buffer space...but if a network finds themselves with a currently hired animator, with 2+ seasons of material, chances are that they will terminate the contract, and renew it in a season or two. since they have a contract for the show, they're not going to lose it. they just terminate the animator for a while. crappy i supose, and it may not always work...i don't know all the ins and outs, as i'm not a network executive..this just seems like a fairly common policy.

  2. SWEp2IMAX: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    With the formerly-missing musical number, "Blame Amidala."

  3. ATOC...argh. by BZArcher · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So...as far as I can tell, this edition removed all the political intrique and vague sense of plot, poured in more closeups of scenes we already either liked or hated, and ruined all the somewhat fun explosions and action scenes by running things so fast acrost the screen you can't see them?

    1. Re:ATOC...argh. by plover · · Score: 2
      I personally thought it was a better release than the original. As Rupert pointed out, most of the Amidala and Anakin romance was removed as was the entire Jedi Library scene. (Thankfully this included removing that awful pointless closeup of Jett Lucas in the Jedi Library. For some reason, that stupid cameo in the first release really got my goat.) And yes, they did "thin" some of the plot, but since almost everyone has already seen it on the small screen, their memory of their first viewing should fill in the plot gaps.

      Initially, I found some scenes harder to follow in IMAX, and I noticed immediately that it was going to be different when I had to turn my head left-to-right just to read the initial scrolling text. I was afraid I was going to get a neckache watching a tennis match for the next two hours, but instead found myself totally immersed in the movie.

      For example, the chase scene on Coruscant worked very well in that I found myself following the frantic motions of the speeder, but occasionally scanning my surroundings looking for the assassin's vehicle, just like I might look around for speed traps while driving my car too fast :-)

      Other scenes, such as the execution arena, were magnificent when you saw how big the arena was supposed to be. And I believe they must have rerendered the CGI for IMAX. The arena was filled with the uncountable flying insect-people, but if you turned your attention to any single one of them, you would see the detail in the unique motion each one had, its wings buzzing or it standing up or waving its arms about.

      IMAX isn't about watching the whole movie, the way you might watch a TV set in your living room. It's about watching the story unfold and having action take place in the center of your vision, while your peripheral vision continues to feed you supporting imagery. You aren't meant to see the "screen" as a separate entity, framed and hanging on a wall. You're meant to follow the actors and action as if you were present, and the size of the screen is meant to keep you from seeing that frame.

      This movie was a good showcase for what IMAX can do for the viewers, as long as you realize that as a viewer you have to be willing to approach it differently. I thoroughly enjoyed it (even though I'd never paid $11.00 for a movie ticket before.) My advice on attending? Arrive early at the theater, sit near the front, and lose yourself for a couple of hours.

      --
      John
  4. Forget A-B-C plotlines and 2 dimensional charcters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If there's one thing wrong with movies today, it's the frame-rate.

  5. The IMAX experience. by Jaguar777 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would have to agree with the submitter. Yeah it was nice to see a few of the things larger than life, but motion blur was much more noticeable and I was miffed that they cut scenes out of the movie. During the drive back home me and my girlfriend spent more time talking about why they might have cut scenes out of the movie instead of talking about the "incredible IMAX experience".

    --
    Maybe you should educate the morons of tomorrow so they'll stop believing the leaders of tomorrow. - Dogbert
    1. Re:The IMAX experience. by jherubin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Scenes were cut out because of a limitation of the IMAX reels. 120 minutes is the maximum running time for an IMAX movie.

      By the way they cut scenes from Apollo 13 (IMAX) for this same reason too.

    2. Re:The IMAX experience. by Target+Drone · · Score: 5, Informative
      The reason the scenes were cut is because the original AOTC was 143 minutes but an IMAX flick can only be 120 minutes (although apparently AOTC is 128 minutes so they must of crammed a few extra feet onto the reel).

      This article has the details.

    3. Re:The IMAX experience. by Jester99 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It can only be ~120 minutes long because a reel of 120 minutes of IMAX film is about 12 feet in diameter. There's only so much that the motor can spin. Two reels in a row? I'm not sure, but I speculate that there's a decent amount of time required to load in the second reel, or something. Why not just have an intermission? Again, beats me.

    4. Re:The IMAX experience. by pacc · · Score: 2

      120 minutes should be enough for anyone, lets concentrate on the gold plating - IMAX design team

  6. Re:Eliminating duplicity by IanA · · Score: 5, Insightful

    AIM and ICQ are both owned by AOL. ICQ is the original IM. And at one point was the most poular. There have occasionally been UNIX knockoffs, like the vastly inferior command line "talk" implementation, however it was incapable of letting you know whne new users had signed on, also, it could not do file transfers.


    It's interesting talk can be a knockoff of ICQ when talk came first.

  7. Re:Eliminating duplicity by The+Axe · · Score: 3, Informative

    "There have occasionally been UNIX knockoffs, like the vastly inferior command line "talk" implementation, however it was incapable of letting you know whne new users had signed on, also, it could not do file transfers."

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but 'talk' has been around far longer than ICQ has. It is not an IM client nor was it designed to be. It was created back in the days when people had to use text-only terminals on UNIX machines and needed a form of communication.

    Trillian, illegal? All it does is use the protocol, they didn't steal the source or whatever. KaZaA only provides file sharing, it doesn't promote distributing illegal files. That's like saying Ford makes money of killing people when someone runs people over with his Taurus.

    On another note, 'duplicating effort'? Why did your parents decide to breed? After all, they're just duplicating what Adam and Eve did so long ago...

  8. Re-discovering old ideas by m11533 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Absolutely. talk/ntalk is part of the original Unix networking application set... you know, those applications everyone forgot about and then disabled with their firewalls.

    It is amazing to me how many "new ideas" are just the same old thing rediscovered. That alone doesn't bother me. It is that they don't remember the past that most irks me. That dooms us to repeating the same mistakes rather than improving on the original.

    Whether it be IM, or the semantic web, its all been done before.

  9. Re:Easy way around AIM/ICQ by umm+qasr · · Score: 2, Offtopic
    Gaim is open-source and has some features (automatic logging of conversations) that I have not been able to find elsewhere.

    Trillian does have logging capabilities, they are in the preferences. I use Gaim myself, becuase Trillian is not available for my current platform--the feature set is almost identical however. Trillian does look alot better than (GTK) Gaim though. Then again, it is closed source.

  10. For once it's on-topic! by JediTrainer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Notwithstanding the overuse of colons, this is a movie worth seeing

    Not worth seeing is another misuse of a colon - a link which I would recommend against visiting to those fortunate enough to have escaped seeing it. Please don't click on the link, but allow the unfortunate of us to laugh knowingly (and nervously, with nausia at the memory).

    --

    You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
    1. Re:For once it's on-topic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      goatse.cx is on topic? (universe explodes.)

  11. Regarding Futurama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Note that the "new" season of Futurama isn't quite new... The show is still just as cancelled as before.

    Fox just has a few un-aired episodes that were produced a while ago, but still haven't been shown yet.

  12. Re:Eliminating duplicity by Moridineas · · Score: 2

    In terms of the first "IM" that's a chat system as we know it today I wouldn't be surprised if PowWow was one of the first (_the_ first maybe) internet ones. PowWow was great for it's time (Tribal Voices software i think). I'm not really sure I'd count Zephyr or talk in the same category as ICQ/AIM, but they definitely perform similar tasks. But yeah on your point, talk definitely preceded AIM or ICQ, lol n00b to the guy who says otherwise ;)

  13. Re:Easy way around AIM/ICQ by dmatos · · Score: 2, Informative

    Somewhere hidden in the Trillian menus (I found it so long ago I forgot where it was) is the option to turn on conversation logging. Considering the standard conspiracy-theory crowd that normally frequents slashdot (no offense intended, of course ;) I would think that having this feature off as a default would be seen as a plus.

    PS - I just spent the thirty seconds it took to find the options: Preferences -> Message History.

    --

    It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
    --Scott Adams
  14. Re:Surely the typical case by Dante · · Score: 2

    Umm... your a big old troll. But thats besides the point, how do rationalize a time zone post about fox tv from England?

    "you And considering the timeslot that the FOX TV network placed it into, how could it not fail back then?"
    --
    "think of it as evolution in action"
  15. Adult IMAX Movie? by DeadBugs · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you skim the review about the IMAX Star Wars movie too quick like I did you may only pick up on quotes like:

    "Since it was my wife's birthday today".
    "Notwithstanding the overuse of colons."
    "the plot still has gaping holes."
    "Yoda, Wattoo and Jex Dexter stood out in close up"
    "Ani and Amidala frolicking"

    --
    http://www.kubuntu.org/
    1. Re:Adult IMAX Movie? by Rupert · · Score: 2

      And after the movie she put on the Princess Leia slave-girl costume and I whipped out my light saber and ...

      Well actually we picked the kids up from the kind folks who were babysitting at short notice, went home, dealt with getting the kids into bed 2.5 hours past their bedtime, then got into bed and went straight to sleep.

      I should have done like John did, and gone at noon. He also got the benefit of an empty theater, whereas the 6:30pm showing was sold out.

      Oh, one more manner in which reality departs from the fantasy that began this post: I look far more like Jabba than any of the leading characters.

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
    2. Re:Adult IMAX Movie? by DeadBugs · · Score: 2

      Sadly I have not been to an IMAX movie since I was Yoda's height. Maybe now that more mainstream films are showing up there, I will make the pilgrimage (at least an hours drive).

      Maybe for Episode III.

      --
      http://www.kubuntu.org/
  16. Re:Surely the typical case by Dante · · Score: 2

    ah fuck just mod me down, his sig used to day england

    --
    "think of it as evolution in action"
  17. Actually... by KingAdrock · · Score: 2

    Soon after AOL bought ICQ they made it run on their own proprietary protocol. Until recently it didn't let it interact with AIM, but now they have opened that up.

  18. Intellectual Property Theft?! by mofu · · Score: 5, Informative

    . . . . because they steal Yahoo, AOL, and Microsofts intellectual property, in an attempt to make money.

    My understanding is that Trillian, Gaim, and Fire were developed using standard reverse engineeing methods to duplicate the protocols required to communicate with services from Yahoo, AOL, and MSN. This is not stealing intellectual property, and Trillian Pro aside, considering Trillian is available free of charge and that Gaim and Fire are both GPL, I would venture to say that there is very little or no money being made.

    Combined with the fact that you need a valid ID regestered with your choice(s) of IM services. . .

    If you want an analogy. . . using an alternate IM program is like skipping commercials on a Tivo or ReplayTV . . . .No Advertisements! . . . . while certain corporations and **AA associations would like us to think otherwise is not stealing intellectual property . . .

    1. Re:Intellectual Property Theft?! by mindstrm · · Score: 2

      Yeah.. except it should be clear to anyone that, theft aside, Trillian and the like provide an application that is beneficial to those who use it.
      I wouldn't be surprised if they patented the idea.

  19. Re:Eliminating duplicity by X · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'd definitely put Zephyr in the same category as ICQ and AIM. It had presence notification and instant messaging. It also had cool stuff like categorized broadcast messages and scripting support.

    To my way of thinking, everything since has been a poor Zephyr knock-off.

    --
    sigs are a waste of space
  20. Not as funny as you'd think by Osty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You moderators mark him as funny, but he has a point. Modern movies show in 24fps (most theaters double-shutter, so you get an effect 48 fps, but each frame is doubled). This is extremely noticeable on any pan. And before anyone jumps in with the, "Human eyes can only see 24fps anyway, so what's the point?" argument, let me just say you're wrong wrong wrong. 24 frames per second is near the bare minimum required for the human eye to distinguish motion rather than individual frames. I've never seen a study claiming a maximum value, but I'd expect it to be much higher than even the 60fps some people suggest. If that were the case, then nobody would be able to tell the difference between 60Hz refresh rate monitors and 100Hz refresh rates. Movies can get away with this because of intrinsic "artificats" like motion blur, that help create a better sense of motion in fewer frames. (Incidentally, that's also why 24fps in a video game feels really jerky, while 24fps in a movie is usually pretty smooth -- video games tend not to have motion blur, because it requires lots of computational power. It's easier to push out more frames for a smoother look, rather than add motion blur.)


    Will we ever see > 24fps in the movie theater? Possibly, but it's going to take some time. I wouldn't expect it until TV broadcasts have switched completely to 720p (60 full frames per second, not 60 fields or half-frames), and DVDs are encoded at the same (rather than the current 480i encoding, and relying on special hardware to do 3:2 pulldown conversion for progressive display). Until then, the 24fps movie is too entrenched, I think.

    1. Re:Not as funny as you'd think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      What? Double the frame rate to 48 fps? 60 fps?

      My GOD, boy, are you trying to kill the movie industry? Film is expensive! The material costs would would be enormous.

      A typical film runs what, about $70M? Take out the fees for crappy actors who need all that money for hookers and you are left with about $1200 for the film. Once you start using more film, the studios would be bankrupt.

      Phfff... it's never gonna happen.

    2. Re:Not as funny as you'd think by NearlyHeadless · · Score: 5, Informative
      Will we ever see > 24fps in the movie theater? Possibly, but it's going to take some time.

      Roger Ebert has been praising a system called Maxivision48 which is 48 fps (and can dynamically switch to 24 fps to save money).


      Also, Douglas Trumbull's ShowScan system has been around for a while, but has only been used for a few specialty attractions. I've read comments that said that ShowScan was too realistic and not "cinematic." That reminds me of the CD vs. vinyl debate.


      I've never seen either system.

    3. Re:Not as funny as you'd think by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Will we ever see > 24fps in the movie theater? "

      I can't remember the name of the company, but somebody is fishing the idea around Hollywood of 48 fps film. Saw it on Ebert about a year ago.

      I predict that soon after theaters are equipped with digital projectors we'll start seeing >24fps movies. There's technology you can get today that uses morphing algorithms to expand 24fps all the way up to 60 fairly convincingly. As a matter of fact, Lost in Space used that technology quite a bit to slow some scenes down. I bet one day they'll take movies and re-process them up to 60fps.

    4. Re:Not as funny as you'd think by blincoln · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Comparing 24fps film to 60hz video is unfair, IMO. Film frames are projected in their entirety, since you've got one giant light shining through the picture. Video is drawing with a scanning beam, so in reality only a small chunk is onscreen at a given time. A 24hz video display would be next to unwatchable, whereas I never have problems with projected film.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    5. Re:Not as funny as you'd think by Phearless+Phred · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Like another poster has already pointed out, it really is more of a CD vs vinyl thing. From what I've heard about Trumbull's Showscan format, the 60fps motion freaked everyone who watched it out.

      If 24fps makes people feel like they're watching a movie at the theater as opposed to watching the local news, then that's what everyone (aside from the news, probably) will use. It's all about perceived quality - just because we can create a 200fps playback system doesn't mean we should, especially if everyone is already happy with 24fps! (see also: how most people don't care about the difference between standard- and high-def.)

      The only high-def stuff that's being done in 720p these days is sports. Everything else is moving towards 24p, which means 1920x1080 @ 24 frames/second (the "p" means progressive scan.) Even live stuff is starting to get shot at 24p - the recent MTV video music awards were a good example of this.

    6. Re:Not as funny as you'd think by doi · · Score: 5, Informative
      Actually, most motion picture projectors use a three-bladed shutter, which result in 72 flashes per second with a 24 fps film. This reduces the flickering of the image. I'm not sure about IMAX projectors though, as they are custom-built around a specialized film format, but they do run at 24 fps.

      As far as higher frame rate projection, IMAX also used a 48 fps system for some productions, but it seems to have been discontinued, probably due to the need for more specialized equipment and for practical reasons (used too much film and was more troublesome)

      There is also the MaxiVision format. It uses standard 35mm motion picture film, but with a special frame size that's larger than the typical film frame, and can be filmed and projected at either 24 or 48 fps. The image quality at 48 fps is substantially better, even greater than the difference between regular video and HDTV. I can only imagine what IMAX at 48 fps would look like!

      And last but not least, there was the Showscan process, which used 70mm film exposed and projected at 60 fps with a single bladed shutter. The image is much crisper and brighter; the faster frame rate reduced motion blur and also provided more image information (and the 70mm film image has higher definition). The image was smaller than an IMAX image though, but the quality was at least as good.

      When Douglas Trumbull was developing the Showscan process, he had extensive tests done to determine the optimal projection rate, up to at least 72 fps and possibly 100 fps. 60 fps was found to be the best rate; anything higher had very little improvement in image quality or perception of motion, and would merely use more film than necessary. I've read articles that some scientists have experimented on determining the "frame rate" of human vision, and it seems to be close to the rate used by Showscan (can't remember the exact number, but it was around 60-70 fps, and very few people could perceive anything higher than 80 fps)

      Sadly, Showscan never caught on as well as IMAX did and the Showscan corporation went into receivership. If you never got to see it, it was extremely impressive: I saw the Niagara Falls film and it's pretty amazing to see single individual drops of water in the Falls in 70mm at 60 fps! HDTV (and by extension SW:AOTC) looks like an old Super 8 home movie in comparison. It truly was more vivid than being there...the theater was located a few hundred yards from the Falls themselves so it was an easy comparison to make. The only thing close to it would be to see IMAX at 48 fps, but even IMAX's new DMR process is simply up-rezzing 35mm and HDTV images. While it's pretty damn good (I saw Apollo 13 and it was amazing, I'm sure AOTC will be too) it doesn't quite capture the exquisiteness of an original 70mm IMAX or Showscan frame.

      With all of the impetus towards cutting costs, using digital production techniques, and consolidating on lesser-quality but universal digital formats, it's unlikely that anyone will continue to produce films in special, high-quality film formats, especially since most of them require special projectors and/or theaters.

      --
      A man's reach must exceed his grasp, or what's an erection for?
    7. Re:Not as funny as you'd think by EvanED · · Score: 2, Offtopic

      Ha. Films have been made in under a million. Star Wars (the 1977 one) cost $7 mil (or maybe it was $11 but its budget was 7...). Monty Python and the Holy Grail was ~$5 mil. Material costs wouldn't be more than a few hundred thousand per movie max. For movies with $100 mil budgets, that's nothing for a better picture.

    8. Re:Not as funny as you'd think by cheese_wallet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      " Your right on the money, a lot of ppl (even ppl in the film industry) say they dislike digital projections because it doesn't look the same as film.

      Basically people are used to a certain feel and look of projected film. "

      Yeah, I think you are right. I've seen lens flare in games that at no time ever made use of a real camera, much less a lens. And I have to say it helped out, it felt more real because of the artificial defect.

    9. Re:Not as funny as you'd think by Osty · · Score: 2

      Bullshit. Super 8 film runs at just 18 fps and provides distinguishible motion.

      Yes, distinguishably choppy motion.


      Many movies encoded for streaming use an even lower fps, around 15 or less. Sure, they still convey motion, but you wouldn't call it smooth, would you?

    10. Re:Not as funny as you'd think by EvanED · · Score: 2

      OK, I missed that one; sarcasm in print usually needs to almost bite me in the ass before I notice it.

    11. Re:Not as funny as you'd think by NeMon'ess · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've played games with lens flare and others which mimicked the brightness of the sun. If I look into the sun, the screen is almost white. As I look away, the image darkens, and the white circle of the sun shrinks. The latter effect felt far more real, as though I was there, instead of looking through a piece of glass.

      If filmakers don't like the look of a crisp 48fps movie, I'm betting its because they haven't tried to get used to it. The human brain is never hardwired to look at a TV or movie screen at 24fps and think "this is a story." Perhaps the framrate helps us quickly understand we're not looking through a real window. As the Theater is alive and well, I think "real" movies would go over huge if they were simply tried. I'd love to actually comprehend Yoda's moves in Episode 2.

    12. Re:Not as funny as you'd think by KewlPC · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem with shooting at 48fps as opposed to 24fps is that you cut the amount of light hitting the film in half. This means you need brighter light sources, or you need to open up the aperture more. In many cases this is just not possible (an overcast day, etc.).

      Never mind that the cost of the actual film and processing would double.

      People who complain about flicker and suchsort when going to see a movie are probably watching the movie in a shitty theater with a substandard projector. The first time I saw Spider-man it looked flawless. I saw it a mere 3 days later, at a different theater, and there were all kinds of problems (wobbling, a bit of flicker, etc.).

    13. Re:Not as funny as you'd think by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 2

      I first noticed film stuttering with SW V: The Empire Strikes back. Approaching the cloud city. Ugh.

      Did anyone catch West Wing last week? For the TV debates, they showed video. The rest of the episode was on film. I noticed.

      I'd like to think that 60 Hz 720P would become "standard". Digital projection, especially if it's a whole-frame (e.g. TI's micro-mirror array) rather than projection TV done large). It would certainly be noticable, and (IMHO) help reduce film and video artifacts. In exchange for some new ones, no doubt.

    14. Re:Not as funny as you'd think by kalidasa · · Score: 2

      The human brain is never hardwired to look at a TV or movie screen at 24fps and think "this is a story."

      For the record, NTSC is 29.97 fps.

    15. Re:Not as funny as you'd think by srmalloy · · Score: 2
      Sadly, Showscan never caught on as well as IMAX did and the Showscan corporation went into receivership. If you never got to see it, it was extremely impressive: I saw the Niagara Falls film and it's pretty amazing to see single individual drops of water in the Falls in 70mm at 60 fps!

      Some years ago, I saw what was probably the only production of its kind -- a Showscan production in Imax at our domed Imax theatre. I had read about some of the problems that the theatre had in getting the system to work -- running an Imax film at 60fps really wrung the projection system out, and they had problems getting the projection system to handle moving the film through that fast.

      But the film itself was amazing; the combination of Imax full wrap-around and the Showscan clarity made it something I will remember for a long time. And the fact that I had brought a friend with me who was getting his first exposure to Imax with that film made it even better. The movie started with a robot moving slowly across the screen talking about the film, and then cut to a camera mounted on the front of a locomotive running through the mountains; at the cut, I heard a metallic creaking next to me -- my friend had a white-knuckled grip with both hands on the armrests, and was using that grip to force himself back as hard as he could against the back of the chair. The movie had hit him that hard; it took him several minutes to relax and be able to watch the movie without feeling that he was looking through a window.
    16. Re:Not as funny as you'd think by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2


      The material costs don't just apply to the film the scenes are captured onto, but also to each and every copy of the film that is distributed to each and every theater, you silly person.

      Unless Lucas is able to get Digital Projection into more theaters, that is.

    17. Re:Not as funny as you'd think by KewlPC · · Score: 2

      The light issue does not become any less of a problem when shooting digital video. You would still be exposing the image capture device (the CCD in this case) to half the amount of light that you'd have when shooting at 24fps, and you'd still get all the problems that go along with it.

      And don't expect everybody to just go, "Hey, let's a)switch over to digital video, and b)shoot at 48fps." Not all filmmakers are gung-ho about digital video, mostly because of the inherent differences between the two formats (the same reasons many still photographers still do it the "old fashioned" way, developing and printing their film by themselves using chemicals and photopaper instead of Photoshop and a printer).

      And, because it would cut the amount of light hitting the image capture device (whether film or a CCD), shooting at 48fps would throw the art of cinematography backwards by several decades. Up until about 25 years ago, film stocks were just so slow that cinematographers had no choice but to throw tons of light on a scene, regardless of the mood they were trying to create, and often even when shooting outdoors in sunny conditions. Thankfully, film stocks got faster, and now filmmakers don't have to carry gigantic lights with them wherever they go. Although some cinematographers still use the huge lamps that give off tons of light (mostly when they are shooting at night and have to light up an entire area, and to ensure the lights aren't visible, they can only use a few, so they have to be big), at least he or she now has a choice of whether or not to use them. By shooting at 48fps instead of 24, because the film is only getting exposed to light for half as long, you would double the amount of light that needs to reach it, which means that large lamps capable of giving of shitloads of light would be a requirement again.

  21. Re:Easy way around AIM/ICQ by ktulu1115 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Believe you me, I am no advocate of purely-closed source development. However in this situation, does the licence of the software really matter much when it comes to a simple application such as GAIM/Trillian? Personally, I don't Trillian at all (I've used it before, and its a beast)... But if someone turned it down just because it is closed source, I think that would be a bit narrowminded.

    I'm not implying anything here, just giving my $0.02

    --
    # fuser -v /dev/attention | grep work
    #
  22. Re:AoTC & ICQ by ProfessorPuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    AOL did nothing with it, but now they will?

    Oh, AOL "did" something important with their ICQ purchase:

    They sat on it, and prevented the development of a competitor in a new application domain. ICQ was a rather new concept, and if Mirabilils had proceeded to improve & popularize it with venture capital, they could've undercut a lot of the popularity of network services like AOL (and now MSN). Instead, they sold out to AOL, who did nothing to encourage the future of the ICQ product.

    I hope the guys at least got a nice big check out of it.

  23. New episodes of Futurama by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 2, Funny

    And they laughed at my snackrifices to El Chupa Negre!

  24. Re:Easy way around AIM/ICQ by GoRK · · Score: 2

    If by "almost identical" you mean "pales by comparison" then I'll take your word for it. In fact, the only features trillian has above gaim are pretty useless - skinning and MDI window capabilities. I guess you might include translucent windows, but who in the fuck uses that useless piece of crap? Until the *background* can be translucent, the *text and borders* solid, and buttons fade toward opaque, window translucency will be nothing more than a stupid hack.

    Anyway, that being said, Gaim: 1) suppports more protocols and plugin authors at least have the ability to write support for protocols it doesnt support 2) is scriptable via perl and 3) is monetarily free keeping it out of that shitty grey area where cerullian studios makes money on a product that would not function without the continued work of aol/yahoo/msn, some of whom, at least, lose revenue when their users don't use their own clients.

    Anyway, trillian sucks. The SDK sucks, it wouldn't be worth using if someone wrote a Win32 native GUI for GAIM. Too bad GAIM wasn't started on Qt...

  25. forget Star Wars... by nuckin+futs · · Score: 4, Funny
    because of this line:
    On the other hand, if you want to see the pores in Natalie Portman's skin, or the individual hairs in Christopher Lee's beard, this is the movie you've been waiting for.
    I wanna see an IMAX-ified porn!
  26. Can I have your wife? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
    So your wife was kind enough to go see a new Star Wars flick with you on your birthday? I wish I had a wife that'd do that. Oh, it wasn't even new? Damn, you got a helluva wife. What do you mean it wasn't even your birthday? You said it was someone's birthday, I heard it loudly and clearly. What... why did... are you saying..?

    It was her birthday?
    Segmentation fault
    core dumped
  27. More human than a human by w_arthurton · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Even when watching the digitally projected version of AoC, I noticed that during the large digital sequences the actors looked fake. It's really ironic that we are at a point now that digital looks more real than reality.

    Perhaps for Ep III they can develop cameras that will have the same resolution as the renderer that they use. (Maybe something like a digital IMAX, which doesn't exist to my knowledge)

    --
    wayner@pobox.com -- Wayne A Arthurton -- www.pobox.com/~wayner
    1. Re:More human than a human by jpt.d · · Score: 2

      They tried to pass off Yoda as a digitial character. He was obviously fake. In this case YODA != old yoda. The old Yoda was vastly superior to this Yoda.

      --
      What we see depends on mainly what we look for. -- John Lubbock Now search for that bug slave!
  28. Imax Advice by Joey7F · · Score: 5, Informative

    I got back from seeing AOTC in an Imax dome (very cool!). I sat about just shy of the half way mark and found myself needing to turn my head to see all the action. I recommend that you sit at the top so the center is 10 to 15 degrees below your horizontal eyeline.

    The Coruscant chase was made for IMAX!

    Oh, and if you have friends that still haven't checked out this awesome flick, you may want to show them the DVD first (Nov 12). Because this movie is not exactly straightforward anyway, and with the cuts, they make the story harder to understand.

    --Joey

  29. More episodes by TheFlu · · Score: 2

    You can check out Episode #404 right here.

  30. Re:Surely the typical case by Wee · · Score: 2
    Please try to buy all of the products that they advertise. Also if you can start fan pages for Futurama and sell merchandise of Futurama logos at CafePress.com. That's what all the big sites do.

    You think this will work? Honestly, you really do?

    A fool and his money...

    -B

    --

    Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

  31. Re:Showscan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    > I've heard anecdotal evidence that it was
    > `too real' for the cinema experience.

    Much like the old people who should be shot because when a letterbox movie appears on their screen, they feel "ripped off" that the full screen isn't shown.

    If you crack their skulls open, you can actually watch the gears grinding.

    All I have to say for realism is: people used to "dodge" the bullets of guns fired "at them" in movie theaters when movies came out.

    I, for one, do want to see the fine peach fuzz on the tummy of Natalie in high res, high speed 10-story cinema, or at least on a 35" home TV.

  32. Re:Showscan by Verne · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've heard anecdotal evidence that it was
    `too real' for the cinema experience.


    I can believe this comment. I have a Philips TV with 'Digital Natural Motion'. What this does is predict pixel movement, and fill in extra frames to effectively give you 100fps.

    Picture quality is so crisp and smooth, that I've had comments like "it looks fake" or "it looks like the making of, not the actual movie".

    Personally, I can't live without it. I go to the movies and think, crap, the pictures are all jumping round and blurry. I actually find it hard to follow action with such a low frame rate when I'm used to about 4x that. Flames and explosions look so crap without Digital Natural Motion.

    Last I heard philips were going to put the Digital natural motion chips into DVD players and VCRs, so you don't have to buy the top of the line TV just to get natural motion. There are white papers on the net, but I can't find them just at the moment.

    In short: I'm happy for movies to have 24fps, cause it all gets smoothed out to 100fps when I watch them anyway.

    Verne.

    --


    There are only two things in this world that smell like fish. And one of them's fish...
  33. Haven't seen.. by macdaddy · · Score: 2

    ...Episode II. Besides Natalie Portman (yum) am I missing anything? Heck I didn't even see Episode I until many many months after it hit the theaters. There were only a handful of folks in the audience. Wait, maybe that was opening day...

  34. Another couple of things to note about CloneMAX... by Bora+Horza+Gobuchol · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I saw it a few nights ago here in Calgary, and have been meaning to write up a review. Seems I was beaten to it... Aside from the cuts, there's a few things that readers have thus far failed to mention.

    First, while I was worried about the digital transfer on the far larger IMAX screen ("pixels as big as fists pummeling your eyes!") the picture looked very nice and clean, with a couple of exceptions. On the very rare occassion, very thin lines that are close to horizontal or vertical get a distinct case of the "jaggies", where one can see the staircase effect of pixelisation. (This is most evident during the Lucasfilm logo at the opening and at a moment during the descent of Senator Amidala's ship to Corsucant).

    Second, the sound is incredible. Those who haven't heard a well-tuned theatre - and IMAXi are amoung the world's best - will get a kick out of that aspect of the movie alone.

    Last - a traditional IMAX movie focuses on vistas - grand sweeping praries and the like - and where Episode II is most like this, it works very well. At other points - closeups of actor's faces, in particular - the IMAX image can be too revealing, much as the higher resolution of HDTV is acknowledged to reveal the flaws of those appearing on television. There are other scenes - that of Anakin next to the Jawa sandcrawler while searching for his mother on Tatooine, for example - that the framing of the scene is just "off".

    To those intending to go, I would recommend arriving early and getting seats near the center of the theatre, for the most compelling experience - again, big vistas work well from most any viewpoint, but not head-shots. For me, it was more than worth the price of admission.

  35. How to go around the world without going anywhere? by autopr0n · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just sit on your ass and wait a day. Duh.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  36. Made me think I was nuttz! by GweeDo · · Score: 2

    I saw Star Wars IMAX on Saturday and didn't know until the end of the movie that they had removed the scenes. I seriously thought I had lost my mind after the library scene with Obi Wan was missing. Then after the dumb scene in Naboo was missing (the CG sucked) I thought I had fallen asleep or something! It made me crazy until I found out what happened!

  37. Not really by autopr0n · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "flicker" like you see with A CRT or (I guess) movie is caused by the screen going from black to colored over and over again. You notice the change.

    You don't notice flicker on things like LCDs because there is none. There is a 'frame rate' but the screen doesn't go black between each image.

    Interestingly, I've never really noticed flicker at the movies even though the screen blanks only 48 times a second. 24hz flicker would be really obnoxious though.

    Also, I can see flicker on a 72hz screen while moving images on it seem silky smooth.

    One interesting effect of having a high enough frame rate is that you can actually see 'motion blur' with static images, for example with my old monitor I could do 640x480 at 120hz. Some 3d graphics would appear to blur as they moved, just like objects in the real world. You could probably produce some cool visual effects that at 120-200fps in a film. would be impossible at lower speeds.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Not really by Murdock037 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Slightly off-topic, but the thread is an interesting one. So:

      I shoot motion picture film, as a student. So take all this for whatever it's worth. You probably won't ever see 120-200fps in film for a couple of reasons.

      For one, there's just not enough light to expose it properly. Shooting 24fps at f2.0 is hard enough on your average B&W reversal stock, which is ASA 160, IIRC. The fastest motion films that Kodak will sell you go to about 800 speed, but that's only three or four steps up from the 160.

      I know Kubrick used some specially-made wide lenses to shoot "Barry Lyndon" in candle-light, but I think they were only as open as f0.5 or f0.7. Again, only a couple steps away from f2.0, which is as wide as the average camera lens will go.

      So you'd need some massive wattage to get anywhere. But beyond that, there are mechanical issues: there's a claw that pulls film through the gate by its sprockets. The Bolex and Arriflex cameras I've used won't go any faster than 48fps, because apparently you start tearing the film itself when you go much past that.

      So maybe there's specialized cameras out there-- they'd need a huge aperture and smooth mechanics, and the film would need to be super-fast and probably large and durable. Which most film is not.

      Hope somebody out there might care about all of this enough to make it worth my writing. You can't really compare film and, say, monitors by numbers alone, as most people seem to want to do. Too many differences. They just happen to both result in moving 2D images.

    2. Re:Not really by pmc · · Score: 3, Informative

      I call bullshit!

      I'll see your bullshit and raise you a moron. Special Lenses for Barry Lyndon.

  38. Scenes/WHO CARES!? by stevejsmith · · Score: 2

    Regarding the IMAX movie, does anybody know what scenes exactly were cut, or was it just little things here and there?

    Regarding the ICQ/AIM "merger," who the hell cares? Honestly, I don't know one perosn that I've met in real life that uses ICQ. And in this day and age, who cares what platform you're using? Programs like Trillian can use them all at once, and you'd never know you were connecting to completely different servers!

    And when you think about it, it all boils down to the users. What's the difference between AIM, ICQ, MSN, and Y!? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Just the subscribers. I know, I have AOL/TW as much as the next, but I don't have any qualms with using their servers and eating their bandwidth while chatting on Trillian without ads!

    1. Re:Scenes/WHO CARES!? by Kredal · · Score: 2

      How does a correction to his previous post qualify as "flamebait"?

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
    2. Re:Scenes/WHO CARES!? by Kredal · · Score: 2

      It's the opposite of "overrated"... Pretty much means the moderator felt that whatever moderation it got before is unfair, so should be bumped back up, and none of the other options fit.

      Or something.

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
    3. Re:Scenes/WHO CARES!? by Kredal · · Score: 2

      I've gotten "underrated" moderations on posts that I didn't use my +1 bonus on, because it was something I wanted under the radar, so to speak. I have no idea why it got moderated that, and couldn't ask, because then the moderation would poof if the moderator answered.

      And I don't think that made any sense at all. (:

      And yes, now that I've become eligible for mod points (only took two years of capped karma!) pondering other moderator's decisions has become a part time activity of mine.

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
  39. Re: Realistic vs. Cinematic by JosiKlaki · · Score: 4, Informative

    Check out CML, the cinematography mailing list. There this has been a holy war for many years.

    Many believe that the higher frame rates of video subconsciously tell us that something is "real" and that good ol 24 fps film tells the subconscious: "You are watching a story"...


    --


    --
    Is that all there is to relationships -sex and robotics?
  40. AotC in Omnimax not all that great by Burdell · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I saw AotC Friday night in the US Space & Rocket Center's Spacedome theater (it is an Omnimax dome), and I was underwhelmed. The print seemed too dark (which I don't think was the fault of the theater or projector; I've seen lots of movies in this theater and never seen that before), making some scenes like the chase on Corescant very difficult to follow (most action scenese tended to blur and be difficult to follow). I sat near the center (just a couple of seats from the projector), and it was just too big - when two people were talking on the screen, I had too look back and forth too much.

    However, the scroll at the beginning looked like it was going straight up a wall, which was kind of cool. :-)

  41. They did do something with it by autopr0n · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They killed it.

    I was never really a fan of ICQ. The interface was horrible, and way, way over designed. The company's business model was 'give away the software, charge for the manual' and I think it affected their design decisions. You shouldn't need a 450 page manual for IM software.

    The UI design was atrocious, and the system itself was pretty insecure, even by windows user standards.

    Anyway, that's beside the point. People still used it, and it can take a long time for people to migrate from crappy software to software that doesn't suck. (just look at how long people used MacOS 6-9. Look how many people still use Netscape 4)

    But by AOL buying ICQ they locked up the IM market, and killed innovation in ICQ. I don't think ICQ would have ever innovated, but they could have. And by AOL purchasing it they were able to get a strangle hold on the market... Until M$ decided to bundle MSN...

    So it made business sense, although it didn't really benefit the world.

    Personally, I really wish some open standard would replace AIM/MSN so that we can use any software we like.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:They did do something with it by __aaahtg7394 · · Score: 2

      Ironically enough, MSN Messenger is based quite heavily on an open standard =) (IMPP iirc)

      It happened about the same time as TOC, mostly because MS wanted to force AOL's hand. This was during the whole MS/AIM interoperability debacle.

      text protocols are just nasty. and don't get me started on XML-based protocols.. (hi Temas/Jer, other random Jabber guys i've hashed this over with =)

      -josh, former OSCAR RE geek and all-around binary protocol cheerleader.

  42. Re:AoTC & ICQ by deander2 · · Score: 2

    If I remember correctly, it was 300 million little $1 checks. :-)

    But seriously, I would have done the same thing. The memory of Netscape v. MS was fresh in everyone's minds, and you can do a lot more good to a lot more people with the money.

  43. Re:Eliminating duplicity by h0mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Programs like Trillian, that do what the author of this article suggests have been having a difficult time lately because they steal Yahoo, AOL, and Microsofts intellectual property, in an attempt to make money."

    You mean

    Step 1- Trillian.
    Step 2-
    Step 3- Profit.

    I suppose if you look at it like that, Trillian might be about "stealing" other people's IP for making money.

    I thought it was about having 1 client for 3 different IM systems (Yahoo, ICQ and AIM)

  44. It's because george shot on digital. by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    And only at 1000p HTDV resolution. That might look nice on your TV at home, and it might look nice in a standard movie theater, but the fact is that's pretty low res for movies. It's lower then regular 35 millimeter film.

    OTOH, all they had to do was re-render the digital graphics at a higher resolution, which as someone else who's also seen it, seems to think they did.

    If they had filmed this on regular film, or at, say 5 or 6 megapixles, you wouldn't have felt that way.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  45. Counselling by antic · · Score: 2, Funny

    Since it was my wife's birthday today, last night I took her to see Star Wars: Episode II: Attack of the Clones: IMAX edition.

    I recommend counselling. Seriously. By all means, see the film, but for your wife's birthday?!?

    --
    'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
    1. Re:Counselling by Rupert · · Score: 2

      Like I said elsewhere, my wife is a wonderful woman, who understands geeks, without being geeky herself.

      OTOH, maybe she's a baking geek. She loves kitchen gadgets, and trying new recipes, modifying the source until the finished product is to her satisfaction.

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
  46. Take my wife. Please. by Rupert · · Score: 2

    Yes, I have a wonderful wife. I say this with particular feeling right now as she is basking in afterglow and I'm posting to Slashdot. She understands my needs, see?

    --

    --
    E_NOSIG
    1. Re:Take my wife. Please. by Rupert · · Score: 3, Funny

      I can't believe I posted that. Good job my wife doesn't read Slashdot.

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
  47. hrm? by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    Whats wrong with text protocols? Seems to work fine for http, smtp, ftp and everything else on the 'net these days, except telnet.

    Ease of implementation == good. we have tons of bandwidth, and chatting dosn't take much of it.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:hrm? by __aaahtg7394 · · Score: 2

      it's not really a BW issue, but a server-side processing issue.

      delimited protocols don't scale terribly well. you have to do a lot of "grab some data, scan for the delimeter, if not there, buffer and grab some more" crap.

      especially in C, implementations become a lot trickier, finickier, and break much more subtly when you start using delimited protocols.

      and it only makes trivial/prototype implementations easier. implementation in C with a fully encapsulated protocol is trivial (especially something based on TLVs like OSCAR, which is a really wonderful protocol to work on), but trickier in things like perl, where access to binary data isn't as common.

      there are a lot of factors that affect this, but in general, looking for delimiters in a large message body is almost as expensive as routing that message. putting the message body length in the packet/chunk header is much more efficient, but still has more overhead than is really needed. and nobody does it that way in IM =) (HTTP does it)

      (i used to work for ActiveBuddy, where we handled tens of thousands of messages per second. The MSN stuff was notably more complicated at the protocol-reading level than the AIM stuff. And when you're shooting for 10+kmessages/s, the extra code Really Matters (none of the processing was done on this machine, its job was to translate to an internal protocol) )

  48. Re:Eliminating duplicity by quinto2000 · · Score: 2

    Zephyr is nice as it goes, but a more interactive IM client is what I prefer. I think that Jabber is the best replacement for Zephyr. BTW, no need to talk of Zephyr in the past tense. It's still alive and well. I use it daily.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un post
  49. Simulator by Hank+Reardon · · Score: 2, Funny

    Jeez... The guy can build a frigging 747 simulator in his house but he can't resist using... The BLINK tag! ...

    --
    There's so little difference between politics and jihad lately...
  50. Framerate Enhancement using morphing by tfinniga · · Score: 2, Informative
    There's technology you can get today that uses morphing algorithms to expand 24fps all the way up to 60 fairly convincingly.

    So, that's what I do at work.

    It's pretty cool. There are some really large unsolved problems with it though - the biggest is that it's really tough to detect when objects go in front of each other (occlusions). If you don't detect them correctly, then you get really bad results. Of course, you can do things with a little human intervention, which lets you get almost perfect results, but the time that that takes is proportional to the number of source frames.

    That's why you see those kind of effects for slow-motion (in Lost in Space or the Matrix) which has relatively few source frames, but I doubt we'll see it any time soon to increase framerate in movies, because 24fps for a whole movie is a whole lot of frames to manually tweak.

    --
    Powered by Web3.5 RC 2
    1. Re:Framerate Enhancement using morphing by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 2

      Yeah I know what you mean. I did some frame expanding on an explosion once, the result was.. uh.. interesting but not realistic. :)

      Ever hear of 'Icarus'? It's a camera tracking package. Part of me wonders if the technology there would help. Although it's not perfect either.

      Oh well. Maybe they'll rerender Toy Story for us. =)

  51. Rendered vs. Real by jonr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "I suspect that some time was spent re-rendering the digital characters. Yoda, Wattoo and Jex Dexter stood out in close up, looking more real than the human actors."
    Now, this I could belive. If you have watched the trends in digital imaging, the cameras today are already at the resolution limit of the lenses. Take for example the 2 biggest: Canon 1Ds & Kodak 14n, they are already shotting at 11 & 14 megapixels! Now, maybe I am wrong, but you are going to need seriously expensive glass to go with that resolution.
    So, the reason why real actors will look fuzzy and CGI generated will look super-sharp is that Mr. Jackson Puss has gone through 8-15 pieces of glass, while digital Yoda only has gone through... ugh, probably none. May Pixar programmers should add lens fuzzyness to the sunlight flair and other defects? :)

    1. Re:Rendered vs. Real by evilviper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nooooo Noooo Noooo Noooo. The biggest problem is that damn CGI artists don't know what the word 'focus' means.

      Just think about it... Even if Yoda is way the hell in the background, he will be perfectly in focus. Obviously that is not something that looks real... Focus gives us depth-perception in movies. Without it, everything feels flat (*cough* *cough* *cartoons* *cough*). Now, when they start spending a litte money on putting the CGI characters in foucs, our movie effects might start looking as realistic as they had before CGI.
      (yes, cheap CGI looks better than cheap classic effects, but expesive classic effects looked MUCH better than CGI does.)

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:Rendered vs. Real by Shelrem · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're half-right.

      On the one hand, focus is the issue here. Focus is very important, and i myself HATE when the CGI looks like CGI because it's too in focus.

      BUT, as someone who's done a few high-quality computer animated shorts, there's a large amount of work that goes into, and a significant number of applications to help with, post-processing effects, such as blur and focus and color temperature. It's fundamentally a very hard problem. For color and lighting, Paul Debevec has been doing a lot of new and interesting things to use real-world lighting to light computer models, and computer lighting to light real people. As for blur and focus, i'm not sure of any really good algorithms or techniques, but in practice, it's largely all hand-tweaked, which is bound to be imperfect.

      It's easy to say that "damn CGI artists don't know what the word 'focus' means," but when you take a good look at the problem, it's hardly that trivial.

      ben.c

    3. Re:Rendered vs. Real by evilviper · · Score: 2

      Yes, I realize that it's not something you can just throw a switch to fix, but that wasn't the point. My point was only that the problem IS focus.

      I would be singing a different tune if there was at least some simple *attempt* at focus in motion pictures. Alas, there's nothing. CGI stands out like a sore thumb, and still it's extensively used, and no-one is applying even experimental effects to relieve the problem.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:Rendered vs. Real by evilviper · · Score: 2

      I seriously doubt that any CGI I've seen underwent any attemts to alter the focus. If true, I could do a better job with Gimp... wouldn't look perfect, but it would look better. In fact, I could setup a studio for a few thousand $$$, where I could run the CGI under a real lense, and mimic the lighting. For a multi-million dollar production, my fees would be chicken-feed.

      Hey, assuming they aren't even trying, made sense. If they are trying, that means they must be grossly incompotent.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  52. AoTC: Vibrating Seats by Ececheira · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The theater I went to is a part of a furniture store. Yes, a furniture store has a 3D IMAX theater!

    The best part though was the vibrating seats whenever there was an explosion or other low-bass sound... That and the seats were made from Tempurpedic material, so they were ultra comfortable.

  53. Re:How to go around the world without going anywhe by Joey7F · · Score: 3, Funny

    Actually if you sat directly on the northpole, you would have a very cold ass touching every longitudnal line so you would 'go around' the world forever.

    --Joey

  54. Not informative or funny. by TPIRman · · Score: 3, Informative

    Did anyone bother to click on the link in the parent post? It's a prank -- there is no UPN story. Yes, I fell for it and got my hopes up. Please mod it down so nobody else does.

  55. TV coverage games by Goonie · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I'd say this effect looks really cool in games where you view the action from a floating third-person perspective, and especially for games where the graphics closely mimic TV coverage of the "event". It looks cool in auto racing games, for instance.

    However, lens flare would look horribly out of place in a first-person shooter, IMHO.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  56. Super 8 is jerky as hell... by Goonie · · Score: 2
    Dad used to make Super 8 movies of us as children. They were jerky as hell.


    #ifdef SLIGHTLY_OFFTOPIC

    However, super 8 at least allowed you to edit your films.

    20 years later, it seems we're finally getting back the ability to easily edit film/video footage again at a reasonable cost. Why did 8mm film die when consumer video cameras had this horrible flaw? Pr0n (the home-made stuff) striking again?


    #endif

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  57. Re:Eliminating duplicity by evilviper · · Score: 2

    Umm, was that english? If so, why did I have to read it a dozen times to understand what you were trying to say?

    How about we try it with a little punctuation?

    It's interesting, 'talk' can be a knockoff of ICQ, when 'talk' came first.

    Ahhh, my brain feels much better now. I know good grammar is an evil subject on slashdot, but at least do a good enough job that others can read what you are trying to say...

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  58. 60Hz. v. 100 Hz. by Royster · · Score: 2

    I think that the real problem with 60 Hz. is flourescent lighting. Practically anything looks better than a screen which is being redrawn in sync with the (otherwise unseen) 60 Hz. flourescent lights.

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
  59. Re:Showscan by earthman · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've been playing with one of those TVs for a weekend. The digital natural motion makes movies look like a cheap soap opera, news broadcast, or, indeed, 'making of' footage. And you can actually see that the explosions are just special effects. I tried watching Saving Private Ryan with DNM turned on, but I quickly turned it off. I suppose the real problem is that all the special effects in films were never meant to be watched in such smooth motion, and they only look convincing at the original framerate. Remember that there is quite a bit of processing between the original footage and the final movie, and it's there to make sure the movie looks good. If you then add things like DNM on top of that, you break all that. The right way to make movies look good at high framerates is to shoot the movie at the higher framerate first, and do all the processing to make sure it looks good at that framerate.

  60. Re:Easy way around AIM/ICQ by GoRK · · Score: 2

    Yeah, I know. I have fooled with the Win32 compile of GAIM off and on. It's still very dodgy, though Gimp/win32 is pretty stable -- there are some other GTK apps that feel OK on windows too, but which ones elude me...

    Anyway, nothing against GTK, I like it fine and I enjoy writing Perl/GTK very much, but QT does just have that good native widget feel and is stable on all architectures, even os x! TT does a good job.

  61. Re:Eliminating duplicity by Moridineas · · Score: 2

    I'm a junior at college. When I was a freshman the seniors all used zephyr and 'top' would always show it running on the login computers. Now people barely check their email in pine anymore (so most people never login to unix anymore) and I don't know of anyone using zephyer anymore. Sic transit gloria mundi as they say.

  62. Re:Eliminating duplicity by X · · Score: 2

    Well, the nice thing about Zephyr is that it was a protocol, and there were a number of clients for it. Rolling your own was pretty easy too. I'm not sure though by what you mean by "more interactive". Zephyr messages are delivered immediately, and you can reply immediately. That's pretty interactive.

    --
    sigs are a waste of space
  63. Re:Eliminating duplicity by quinto2000 · · Score: 2
    The client that I use for Zephyr is Zwrite for the most part. For a while I had the kerberized Gaim plugin for Zephyr, but it was a pain to recompile Gaim --with-kerberos for every time I upgraded. Someone else was doing it and I linked to their binary for a while, but they graduated.

    So when I use zephyr, I always use the commandline version, and believe me, it's much less useful than an interactive client like AIM. Also getting zephyrgrams when you're in the middle of using Pine and having it screw up your display is pretty annoying :) All of the nice Zephyr classes are useful, but if you think zephyr use in general is down, use of zephyr classes is close to 0. The useful ones are defunct or not worth the bother because of better alternatives.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un post
  64. Re:Eliminating duplicity by quinto2000 · · Score: 2

    I meant to add that zephyr classes could be easily reproduced with Jabber, which is why I put it forth as a good replacement for AIM. It works well in an institutional setting as well, which makes it like zephyr again. But it is also more mature and robust than the hacked-together-ness that is zephyr.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un post
  65. Re:Eliminating duplicity by X · · Score: 2

    Back when I was playing with Zephyr (which greatly predates Gaim... for that matter it predates ICQ & AIM) there was already a very nice X client (can't remember it's name) which was quite well established, providing a list of "friends" who were logged on, and allowed you to select one and send a message. It also provided message history from some friends (although by default I tended to let the messages post up in message boxes).

    --
    sigs are a waste of space