"It was once said that a million monkeys typing at a million keyboards could reproduce the works of William Shakespeare. Now, with the Internet, we know this not to be true."
If they made their CPUs half as good as they should be, then people wouldn't need to overclock them so much. That and the price - get real!
With MIPS, Sparc, Alpha, PPC and others out there, you can take a long walk off a short pier. Not to mention of course, AMD and Cyrix and um, (cough) Transmeta.
My last computer wasn't an Intel-based one and neither will my next one.:P
I don't think anyone here is against trying to go to digital, but more along the lines of realizing that digital isn't quite there yet for many reasons - technical, political and economical. Hell, I wouldn't mind seeing all digital movies any less than the next person. The comparison itself isn't about it being possible - just that film is a LOT different than digital, and as they say, "digital ain't all that."
About whether or not digital video is "there" yet. it's not. When it is, maybe it will replace film. Not anytime soon though. Yeah, DVD is nice, but until it's recordable and is as ubiquitous as the VCR... Sorry.
And for the record, I STILL have my vinyl, and I ain't ever giving it up!
Agreed. I'm a photographer in my spare time. I know film as you do - good film makes VERY nice enlargements. Shoot something on 120/2.25" with a medium format camera and it'll look better than anything digital.
About as many as in the original post of this same message.
Takes up more space? Than what?! A huge video serving computer with racks and racks of drives? A dedicated UPS and air conditioner? Rows of consoles? A satellite dish? Hmph.
HDTV better than film? Umm... That's crazy. Film has practically unlimited resolution.
Ain't nothing wrong with 24fps.
Which is cheaper? Already viewed film reels or backup tapes/drive cartridges? How much do multi-terabyte Jaz cartridges go for these days?;> Now tell me which is cheaper to store. One that's already paid for, or one you have to pay for in addition?
Breaking in the projector and splicing... Okay, so instead, we train monkeys to operate complex video-on-demand computer equipment. Hmm, yeah, I see your point. Not.
Bulb intensity?! Put down the crack pipe... I don't know what trailer movie theaters you attend, but the ones out here in the real world are just fine...
35mm... Ummm. Where to begin. The only limit on film is the factor of enlargement/grain. Not so with digital - you have a FIXED resolution. It'll look just as shitty blown up three times as the 35mm, if not worse. Grain is normal - people are used to it. Pixelation is really obvious. Ever look at an IMAX theater? That's 70mm film. Looks DAMN good to me, dude.
Film hasn't changed... Er, yes it has. I take it you're not into photography or cinematography? It's gotten a LOT better. But otherwise, you're right, it hasn't changed - why should it? It's damned near perfect, visually.
LPs do have something that CDs miss. Many audiophiles call it "warmth." Perhaps - and I agree, 16 bits at 44.1KHz just isn't enough for the full range - but then, human hearing isn't all that much better. Maybe the dog will notice, but I won't. I love both my CDs and my LPs and I'm not giving up the latter, though I've thought of making CDs from them. The scratch, pop and hiss I certainly won't miss...
HDTV has a "higher resolution?" What on Earth are you talking about? Film has "practically" unlimited resolution. As for 24fps, that's plenty good enough - why would you want more? As for bulb intensity, I've never had that problem - and what's to stop them from doing the same on a digital projector?
Film can be stored offline. Where are you gonna stash all the backups? How much is it gonna cost, comparitively?
...beam the film via satellite into subscribing theaters...
This is just retarded. So only hi-tech AND subscribing theaters can get it, at least initially. Who's going to pay for the theater upgrades? What advantage would this offer either the theater OR the movie goer? There are less things to go wrong with a normal projector than a digital solution. The quality is better with film. Sorry, but I'm not convinced. AT ALL. Prove me wrong...
Put the big stuff in a plain 'ol ugly POS you hide in the closet. Keep all the workstations in small, almost NC-like cases. You'll like it much better, trust me. Run CAT5 cable!:)
Now that is rediculous. Film is much cheaper than the equivalent setup to do digital. Granted, it may be harder to copy, but not that much - and besides - so what?
Thanks, Raster - some awesome groove you got goin' on. Thanks also to the poster of the above message. Cut the guy some slack people - if you don't like E, don't use it. I don't, yet (but might use 15) but I think it is incredible.
Slashdot Mirror
"It was once said that a million monkeys typing at a million keyboards could reproduce the works of William Shakespeare. Now, with the Internet, we know this not to be true."
RISC, fast SCSI drives and lotsa RAM running UNIX is the stuff dreams are made of. :)
Come on Apple, help us out, huh? Allow binary only libraries if you have to, but allow us the CODEC.
...cheap, low cost computers that everyone can afford, to get every house on the Internet. It's all good.
Welcome. :)
With MIPS, Sparc, Alpha, PPC and others out there, you can take a long walk off a short pier. Not to mention of course, AMD and Cyrix and um, (cough) Transmeta.
My last computer wasn't an Intel-based one and neither will my next one. :P
I don't think anyone here is against trying to go to digital, but more along the lines of realizing that digital isn't quite there yet for many reasons - technical, political and economical. Hell, I wouldn't mind seeing all digital movies any less than the next person. The comparison itself isn't about it being possible - just that film is a LOT different than digital, and as they say, "digital ain't all that."
It kicks Nintendo's ass now, and it will again in 2000. Bahahahaha. Cartridges. Get with the 90's you lame bastards.
And for the record, I STILL have my vinyl, and I ain't ever giving it up!
Agreed. I'm a photographer in my spare time. I know film as you do - good film makes VERY nice enlargements. Shoot something on 120/2.25" with a medium format camera and it'll look better than anything digital.
About as many as in the original post of this same message.
Takes up more space? Than what?! A huge video serving computer with racks and racks of drives? A dedicated UPS and air conditioner? Rows of consoles? A satellite dish? Hmph.
HDTV better than film? Umm... That's crazy. Film has practically unlimited resolution.
Ain't nothing wrong with 24fps.
Which is cheaper? Already viewed film reels or backup tapes/drive cartridges? How much do multi-terabyte Jaz cartridges go for these days? ;> Now tell me which is cheaper to store. One that's already paid for, or one you have to pay for in addition?
Breaking in the projector and splicing... Okay, so instead, we train monkeys to operate complex video-on-demand computer equipment. Hmm, yeah, I see your point. Not.
Bulb intensity?! Put down the crack pipe... I don't know what trailer movie theaters you attend, but the ones out here in the real world are just fine...
35mm... Ummm. Where to begin. The only limit on film is the factor of enlargement/grain. Not so with digital - you have a FIXED resolution. It'll look just as shitty blown up three times as the 35mm, if not worse. Grain is normal - people are used to it. Pixelation is really obvious. Ever look at an IMAX theater? That's 70mm film. Looks DAMN good to me, dude.
Film hasn't changed... Er, yes it has. I take it you're not into photography or cinematography? It's gotten a LOT better. But otherwise, you're right, it hasn't changed - why should it? It's damned near perfect, visually.
LPs do have something that CDs miss. Many audiophiles call it "warmth." Perhaps - and I agree, 16 bits at 44.1KHz just isn't enough for the full range - but then, human hearing isn't all that much better. Maybe the dog will notice, but I won't. I love both my CDs and my LPs and I'm not giving up the latter, though I've thought of making CDs from them. The scratch, pop and hiss I certainly won't miss...
Film can be stored offline. Where are you gonna stash all the backups? How much is it gonna cost, comparitively?
That is one great point - theaters can run multiple copies of the same movie, perhaps subject to additional fees.
They sent out snail mailers about this event, too.
This is just retarded. So only hi-tech AND subscribing theaters can get it, at least initially. Who's going to pay for the theater upgrades? What advantage would this offer either the theater OR the movie goer? There are less things to go wrong with a normal projector than a digital solution. The quality is better with film. Sorry, but I'm not convinced. AT ALL. Prove me wrong...
Same old shit, different shape. Ugh.
Put the big stuff in a plain 'ol ugly POS you hide in the closet. Keep all the workstations in small, almost NC-like cases. You'll like it much better, trust me. Run CAT5 cable! :)
They ALL have cool cases - standard. :)
Now that is rediculous. Film is much cheaper than the equivalent setup to do digital. Granted, it may be harder to copy, but not that much - and besides - so what?
"Whhheeeeee. Something digital. I want it. It rules."
Whack!
They got Pokemon... :(
I have this book, and it's nice to have a solid book, it's not THAT much more than what's out there already.
What kind of English is this?
Thanks, Raster - some awesome groove you got goin' on. Thanks also to the poster of the above message. Cut the guy some slack people - if you don't like E, don't use it. I don't, yet (but might use 15) but I think it is incredible.