People are starving because of corrupt governments, broken supply chains, and poverty, not because the world can't produce enough food to feed everyone.
Biodiesel is not much more expensive than regular diesel gasoline, I think it is around $3.50-$4.00 a gallon.
Actually the parent is right on, games cannot match the visual quality of movies without the budget right now. Movies take a long time and lots of people to make. Big movies take lots of time to make, there are many stages that people don't hear about such as casting, vfx bidding, script writing, and animatics. Then once everything is set, and everyone is hired it can take 2 years to make. If a game for the ps3 had 700 very experienced people working 14 hour days 7 days a week it would look pretty incredible, but no game can justify that budget right now.
I have played both Rogue Squadron for the gamecube and halo in HD and that was maybe 3 1/2 years ago. So there are people out there with HD TVs that play games even if they are in the minority. (And the games were gorgeous)
Year after year art and hard work are ignored for sex and cheap thrills. I wish it were different.
It is different. Good movies make money, good games get played. Sometimes a gem doesn't explode with popularity for a variety of reasons. Lost in Translation did really well. Some people don't like what you like, cry me a river.
I disagree that movies suck and that games are going nowhere, but I think the fundamental thing is that the barrier to entry is 90% hard work. I have seen lots of people do amazing things and get reconized many many times, but they had to work for it. Maybe you could create a great game, but because you can't program or create artwork, the barrier is no longer work, it is money, because you need to people to help you. All of that is fine, but no one is going to take a chance on it, so you will have to do that yourself, which means putting up your own money and putting in the work to organize things and get funding. Also, a story line is a minor part in what makes most games fun. It is the satisfaction of cause and effect, progression, problem solving, and community. I guess what I am saying is that I think the movie industry does great things, I think the games industry does great things and I don't think there are really as many barriers as you seem to see.
Total BS. Everyone has a 'good' idea for a game. Everyone has a 'good' idea for a movie. Everyone thinks they could tell a story or make a great game (and making a great game or telling a good story are pretty much completely separate). If you can't program or create artwork, that is fine, but it won't stop the game industry one bit. No one gets to tell other people what to do when they can't do anything themselves. It is a cliched idea, but I have never really seen it happen. All the bosses and supervisors that I have known or heard about have been extremely hard working and talented in many different areas. It will never be easy to create quality games, because people are always pushing the envelope, and that is never easy. If you really want to create games, stop kidding yourself and practice programming or creating artwork.
That does run on Macs, so does the lightwave renderer, maya and mental ray, but PRman hasn't been out long for OS X, I doubt there are very many G5 render farms running PRman out there (it would require buying alot of expensive macs and at the very least upgrades to PRman licenses) My point is that the post was very unrealistic and seems to be a mashing together of other slashdot stories.
If you think a cluster of G5's (running what?), using outside cpu power or new untested hardware with no software support is going to help in 3D, you are probably in a for a rude awakening.
2048x1080 should be enough to look better than 35mm in most situations. Film scanned at 4k produces a blurry, grainy 4k image. Film scanned at 2k from original negatives is still somewhat soft and grainy, and the actual part that makes it into the final projection is a cropped version of the 35mm film (and at 2:1) it would be severely cropped) Digital projection at that resolution will be much better because it doesn't have the generation loss from 2nd and 3rd generation prints that are shown in theatres, and it won't have any of the wear and tear that happens eighther. If digital intermediates are used on a film, the digital projection could look better than the first generation print.
The really important part is that if there is a significant amount of people using other browsers then microsoft cannot steer web standards in their proprietary direction. If that ever happens then people will get into a re-inforcing cyle of needing to use IE to use the internet, and people targeting IE (and not public standards) because it is the only thing out there. If people need to use IE to use the internet, then any OS or platform that microsoft has not ported it to would have no chance of gaining popularity.
DV and DVD both use the same resolution, 720x480. As for data rates, you just can't compare DV and DVD. DV operates at a higher data rate than DVD was ever intended to. Contrariwise, DV can't realistically operate at the low data rates of DVD. DVD and DV operate at different ends of a data-rate vs compute-power tradeoff.
DVD is just MPEG2 of course, and if a video camera was just creating files on a hard drive they could be any resolution or data rate they needed to be. The issue is that a camera without a tape is not limited to a specific format, data rate, or resolution, and MPEG2 or MPEG4 would look alot better. They would need to go through conversion for editing, but you could avoid the fact that DV's red and blue channels are much lower resolution than the green (when looking at it in RGB colorspace) so the best that DV has to offer doesn't stand up to MPEG2 at the same datarate, and with the tape out of the way, processor speed and cost is the only hurdle to getting better video.
DVD is higher quality than DV, but it still takes up less space. DV takes alot less computation to encode and decode and has a more consistent data rate and does what it was meant for decently, but MPEG2 or MPEG4 could be stored at a higher resolution for the same data rate and would look dramatically better.
ILM was the special effects studio for Sky Captain and the World fo Tomorrow, so Lucas's company was part of that one.
No they were not. They may have done a handful of shots but half the movie was completed by a studio set up for this movie called WOT and half were completed by many other studios included Ring of Fire, Orphanage, Stan Winston Digital, Pacific Title, and probably others.
What I think you don't understand is that it is a big deal BECAUSE everyone came from somewhere else. The people here (I moved to LA a year ago) or in San Fransisco or in downtown Vancouver came because they had a choice and had the balls to go to what they wanted. That creates a high concentration of relativly high quality people (determined, secure, hard working, intelligent).
Slashdot Mirror
He just said that it worked for him, who are you to tell him it doesn't?
'the fastest single graphics card' on the planet
My god, this is so unprecedented.
Old Glory Robot Insurance might not cover that though.
I could steal old people's medicine
But modern diesel cars do take a conversion because they need to have synthetic tubing.
People are starving because of corrupt governments, broken supply chains, and poverty, not because the world can't produce enough food to feed everyone.
Biodiesel is not much more expensive than regular diesel gasoline, I think it is around $3.50-$4.00 a gallon.
Actually the parent is right on, games cannot match the visual quality of movies without the budget right now. Movies take a long time and lots of people to make. Big movies take lots of time to make, there are many stages that people don't hear about such as casting, vfx bidding, script writing, and animatics. Then once everything is set, and everyone is hired it can take 2 years to make. If a game for the ps3 had 700 very experienced people working 14 hour days 7 days a week it would look pretty incredible, but no game can justify that budget right now.
I have played both Rogue Squadron for the gamecube and halo in HD and that was maybe 3 1/2 years ago. So there are people out there with HD TVs that play games even if they are in the minority. (And the games were gorgeous)
and the Ten Commandments, a work of art, can be removed from public places,
Who made it and what museum do they keep the original in? I was raised Catholic and that seems rediculous to me.
Year after year art and hard work are ignored for sex and cheap thrills. I wish it were different.
It is different. Good movies make money, good games get played. Sometimes a gem doesn't explode with popularity for a variety of reasons. Lost in Translation did really well. Some people don't like what you like, cry me a river.
But it also costs $800 so whoever buys it can probably afford a powerful power supply to go along with it.
I disagree that movies suck and that games are going nowhere, but I think the fundamental thing is that the barrier to entry is 90% hard work. I have seen lots of people do amazing things and get reconized many many times, but they had to work for it. Maybe you could create a great game, but because you can't program or create artwork, the barrier is no longer work, it is money, because you need to people to help you. All of that is fine, but no one is going to take a chance on it, so you will have to do that yourself, which means putting up your own money and putting in the work to organize things and get funding. Also, a story line is a minor part in what makes most games fun. It is the satisfaction of cause and effect, progression, problem solving, and community. I guess what I am saying is that I think the movie industry does great things, I think the games industry does great things and I don't think there are really as many barriers as you seem to see.
Total BS. Everyone has a 'good' idea for a game. Everyone has a 'good' idea for a movie. Everyone thinks they could tell a story or make a great game (and making a great game or telling a good story are pretty much completely separate). If you can't program or create artwork, that is fine, but it won't stop the game industry one bit. No one gets to tell other people what to do when they can't do anything themselves. It is a cliched idea, but I have never really seen it happen. All the bosses and supervisors that I have known or heard about have been extremely hard working and talented in many different areas. It will never be easy to create quality games, because people are always pushing the envelope, and that is never easy. If you really want to create games, stop kidding yourself and practice programming or creating artwork.
That does run on Macs, so does the lightwave renderer, maya and mental ray, but PRman hasn't been out long for OS X, I doubt there are very many G5 render farms running PRman out there (it would require buying alot of expensive macs and at the very least upgrades to PRman licenses) My point is that the post was very unrealistic and seems to be a mashing together of other slashdot stories.
Most ray tracing renderers trace triangles. Blue Sky's CGI studio is the only renderer that I have heard of that traces nurbs surfaces directly.
Polygons don't disapear with raytracing, you just raytrace polygons.
If you think a cluster of G5's (running what?), using outside cpu power or new untested hardware with no software support is going to help in 3D, you are probably in a for a rude awakening.
2048x1080 should be enough to look better than 35mm in most situations. Film scanned at 4k produces a blurry, grainy 4k image. Film scanned at 2k from original negatives is still somewhat soft and grainy, and the actual part that makes it into the final projection is a cropped version of the 35mm film (and at 2:1) it would be severely cropped) Digital projection at that resolution will be much better because it doesn't have the generation loss from 2nd and 3rd generation prints that are shown in theatres, and it won't have any of the wear and tear that happens eighther. If digital intermediates are used on a film, the digital projection could look better than the first generation print.
The really important part is that if there is a significant amount of people using other browsers then microsoft cannot steer web standards in their proprietary direction. If that ever happens then people will get into a re-inforcing cyle of needing to use IE to use the internet, and people targeting IE (and not public standards) because it is the only thing out there. If people need to use IE to use the internet, then any OS or platform that microsoft has not ported it to would have no chance of gaining popularity.
DV and DVD both use the same resolution, 720x480. As for data rates, you just can't compare DV and DVD. DV operates at a higher data rate than DVD was ever intended to. Contrariwise, DV can't realistically operate at the low data rates of DVD. DVD and DV operate at different ends of a data-rate vs compute-power tradeoff.
DVD is just MPEG2 of course, and if a video camera was just creating files on a hard drive they could be any resolution or data rate they needed to be. The issue is that a camera without a tape is not limited to a specific format, data rate, or resolution, and MPEG2 or MPEG4 would look alot better. They would need to go through conversion for editing, but you could avoid the fact that DV's red and blue channels are much lower resolution than the green (when looking at it in RGB colorspace) so the best that DV has to offer doesn't stand up to MPEG2 at the same datarate, and with the tape out of the way, processor speed and cost is the only hurdle to getting better video.
DVD is higher quality than DV, but it still takes up less space. DV takes alot less computation to encode and decode and has a more consistent data rate and does what it was meant for decently, but MPEG2 or MPEG4 could be stored at a higher resolution for the same data rate and would look dramatically better.
The submitter knows this and that is why he is asking slashdot.
ILM was the special effects studio for Sky Captain and the World fo Tomorrow, so Lucas's company was part of that one.
No they were not. They may have done a handful of shots but half the movie was completed by a studio set up for this movie called WOT and half were completed by many other studios included Ring of Fire, Orphanage, Stan Winston Digital, Pacific Title, and probably others.
What I think you don't understand is that it is a big deal BECAUSE everyone came from somewhere else. The people here (I moved to LA a year ago) or in San Fransisco or in downtown Vancouver came because they had a choice and had the balls to go to what they wanted. That creates a high concentration of relativly high quality people (determined, secure, hard working, intelligent).
Yet you have plenty of time to read and post on slashdot.