Who cares? This is absurdly common in just about every industry that gets reviewed, and just because it is the dreaded "M$" everyone gets to throw in their $.02.
This technology simply adds more virtual mo-cap nodes to an actor's face. That is the only thing new here - insead of the previous' technology (Polar Express et. al.) with hundreds of sensors, this simulates thousands or more. It is still mo-cap though!!!
Quality animation REQUIRES a skilled animator's touch - the more these companies try to create animation without the artist, the further they get from quality art. Look at how Pixar can make nearly abstract objects and characters emote, without any mo-cap.
The future of animation high-art will be the joining of animation artists and these tools, not some autonomous machine putting Marilyn monroe's face onto an actress scrubbing a toilet in a commercial for Tidy-Bowl.
Abso-freaking-lutely.
I am gettiing really tired of reading posts on gaming sites by people cheering this finding, and saying things like "Jacko got PWNED!!!"
Anyone celebrating after this debacle is not paying attention. We are on the verge of a desperate situation when a judge can demand that a piece of media be produced in court for evaluation before it's release. Period.
Why is this concept over so many people's heads?
For me to consider something "censored" it would have to remain fully accessible to the public but with content changed or cut out of it. That would be far more insidious than merely restricting access to people who claim to be 18 years old.
By the article's definition of censorship, all pornography sold in the US is censored by the government.
Having been inside Intel's laser labs, I need no persuading that the company is doing important work here, and an Intel spokesman says the development is indeed a "breakthrough" because it shows how real-world optical products can be made with silicon. I wonder, though, how many more breakthroughs we will be reading about before optical computing becomes ubiquitous. An Intel spokesman says the laser chip is indeed a "breakthrough" because it shows how real-world optical products can be made with silicon.
Has anyone else noticed how lazy and sloppy people have gotten with writing because of the internet? I keep seeing "stream of consciousness" posts and NEWS ARTICLES that are grammatical and spelling nightmares simply because the writer figures the reader will "get the idea."
This is a WSJ columnist who apparently couldn't be bothered to read though his article after writing it. It would be one thing if this was some sort of breaking news and he wanted the scoop (internet news reporting is a minute-to-minute effort) - but this article is by no means time sensitive.
What does this mean for the future of proper writing? If actual paid journalists are sounding more and more like posters on a Paris Hilton fansite forum, we are in big trouble.
Slashdot Mirror
Link for this "scientific" claim? I'd doubt it.
True - this is why www.usps.com is not a .gov address. It is a governmental commercial entity.
Who cares? This is absurdly common in just about every industry that gets reviewed, and just because it is the dreaded "M$" everyone gets to throw in their $.02.
This technology simply adds more virtual mo-cap nodes to an actor's face. That is the only thing new here - insead of the previous' technology (Polar Express et. al.) with hundreds of sensors, this simulates thousands or more. It is still mo-cap though!!!
Quality animation REQUIRES a skilled animator's touch - the more these companies try to create animation without the artist, the further they get from quality art. Look at how Pixar can make nearly abstract objects and characters emote, without any mo-cap.
The future of animation high-art will be the joining of animation artists and these tools, not some autonomous machine putting Marilyn monroe's face onto an actress scrubbing a toilet in a commercial for Tidy-Bowl.
Abso-freaking-lutely. I am gettiing really tired of reading posts on gaming sites by people cheering this finding, and saying things like "Jacko got PWNED!!!" Anyone celebrating after this debacle is not paying attention. We are on the verge of a desperate situation when a judge can demand that a piece of media be produced in court for evaluation before it's release. Period. Why is this concept over so many people's heads?
For me to consider something "censored" it would have to remain fully accessible to the public but with content changed or cut out of it. That would be far more insidious than merely restricting access to people who claim to be 18 years old. By the article's definition of censorship, all pornography sold in the US is censored by the government.
Having been inside Intel's laser labs, I need no persuading that the company is doing important work here, and an Intel spokesman says the development is indeed a "breakthrough" because it shows how real-world optical products can be made with silicon. I wonder, though, how many more breakthroughs we will be reading about before optical computing becomes ubiquitous. An Intel spokesman says the laser chip is indeed a "breakthrough" because it shows how real-world optical products can be made with silicon.
Has anyone else noticed how lazy and sloppy people have gotten with writing because of the internet? I keep seeing "stream of consciousness" posts and NEWS ARTICLES that are grammatical and spelling nightmares simply because the writer figures the reader will "get the idea."
This is a WSJ columnist who apparently couldn't be bothered to read though his article after writing it. It would be one thing if this was some sort of breaking news and he wanted the scoop (internet news reporting is a minute-to-minute effort) - but this article is by no means time sensitive.
What does this mean for the future of proper writing? If actual paid journalists are sounding more and more like posters on a Paris Hilton fansite forum, we are in big trouble.