Booyah. I listen to very little music that most people have ever heard of. I buy new albums of them the day they come out when I can but for most of the music that I listen to I cannot find the CD's and would have to order them. Why wait 4 days when I only have to wait 15 minutes to download it. I think that another hidden motivation of the RIAA that no one seems to be catching on to is that diversity is bad for the RIAA They sell one album 15 million times and it works well. They can focus and keep only 40 albums on the shelves. When people like me go out and find out that the music that I really like isn't anywhere near those forty shitty albums, they are fucked, because it will be pretty hard to have me impulse buying Jordan Rudess, Nobukazu Takemura and Fantastic Plastic Machine in the checkout line at Walgreens. I wish there was a way to support them directly because they are who I want my money to go to, not the RIAA. I wish I could go to their concerts, (and I did go to Dream Theatre) but if I could buy the album directly from them for $10 then the effort would be worth it. What was my point again? oh yeah, fuck you RIAA.
Actually 3D Studio, Lightwave, Softimage, and Maya all have free versions that are not very limited at all for people to try. There are time limitations on some, a watermark on Maya, and the free version of 3DS is stripped down, but for someone wanting to play around with 3D there are certainly better alternatives.
I don't mean to put a crimp in your plans, but the Learning Cocoa book really really sucks. Cocoa is sweet shit, and the Mac OS X API is awsome, and the development tools are incredible and and and...
I borrowed this book from the local library and was saddened to learn that it is no Camel book that's for sure. It is not a good intro to objective-C, the development tools, or Cocoa. I would stay away from this one, it doesn't even make a good reference. Everything is ambiguous, it was hard for me to learn something as simple as objective-C after I already know 9 languages, C and C++ very much included. So you have been warned, but definitly go out and start learning cocoa!
This is exaclty the point. Upgrading an MS OS is so easy because it saves all your stuff. If MS had an open document format, it could all be converted easily and they would have to worry about it, because all those docs would be converted without them even knowing it.
There is also the fact that they had included it before which I am sure makes a huge difference. So in essence they are not choosing to not include it, they are taking it out of windows, and the motivations behind that are very obvious.
Re:reverse engineer a compatible player
on
More on MPEG4
·
· Score: 3, Informative
In the digital world this is often looked at as a solution but lossy compression is not like regular digital formats like MS Word documents or even programs. If you ocnvert from one compression format to another, it looks REALLY bad because both compression artifacts are there, and the size is only as good as the second compression technique used. Recompression unfortunatly is not an option at all.
Good luck finding a version of whatever render you use that was compiled for use with Linux for the PS2. Just because something runs Linux doesn't mean that all software for Linux will automatically run on it. Maya is for Linux - x86, as are Mental Ray, PRman, BMRT, etc. etc.
They do have a lite version of it. It is called 3D Studio Max VIZ. They also have a free version that you can learn on and that can be distributed with games, but I am betting you didn't even look, and want to use that as an excuse.
The LP isn't digital, isn't portable. A good D/A converter should be able to match a record player.
Serious audiophiles are a tough group to rely on. They are the people who pay for an $8000 CD player that just has a SPDIF Toslink out. It is digital! A dvd player with optical out will sound the exact fucking same! It is the D/A converter, amp, and speakers that make the difference. That is the thing with digital, the quality is set and it is the analog components that are of varying sound quality, with the exception of post-processing.
HDCD was not a new format but merely a mastering technique. The label made sure that the master data had at least 20 bits of precision, then they quantized to 16-bit in such a way as to shove all the dither noise into the 16-22 kHz band where humans can't hear very well.
It still doesn't hide the fact that it isn't widely accepted.
SVHS may be used elsewhere but it isn't really a consumer technology in that movies are not distributed in SVHS.
SVCD is probably the closest parallel and it isn't really relevant to the United States since its predecessor did so poorly too. I still don't think HD-DVD's using simply Mpeg 4 will do well, but it looks like I can't back it up with history.
I think it would be great if a high-def DVD format came out in the next year, but it probably won't. Why limit things while still using 9GB DVD's? I don't understand the immediate need. DVD's are doing wonderful, and DVD's in progressive scan look great. We can wait 2 years for blue laser players to become a reality, it won't hurt anything to keep DVD's going longer, people are going to be mad about switching anyway.
The solution of the Red laser camp seems to be better compression (good) better post processing (good) but on the same size disc (bad). Switching formats is a hard transition for everyone, why don't they really switch formats and go for something that will be good enough to last for 10 years. Put blue laser discs, Mpeg 4, and good pre and post processing together and you have something that just may stand the test of time, like CD's. CD's are the first technology that I can remember that could possibly be called 'good enough'. I still want DVD-Audio and SACD to do well, but CD's are the first consumer technology that was really limited by how well they were made and the equipment used to play them back then by the format itself. These technology companies have the chance to do that now, with video, but it doesn't look like they are going to take it.
Look back in history to other formats that were just better use of the same space. SVCD, HDCD (20 bit CD) SVHS, the list goes on. They didn't do too well did they? What makes these companies think that 7 Mbit Mpeg 4 is going to look good enough to make people want to switch? There will compression artifacts all over at high resoltuions. Now 1080p 24fps, that is a beautiful thing and will make people drool.
Not necessarily. Everything is comlicated right now and will be for a few years. The TV's themsevles though are the most solid device in the chain. I have a high def TV, and I play 480p dvd's on it and 480p 60 fps Gamecube. It rocks. I can't watch high def TV because I don't get it yet, but I knew that before hand and that isn't why I bought it. I love HDTV and I don't think that I am 'nuts'. There you have a positive story about HDTV.
You are wrong in so many ways I don't know where to start. Disney is just marketing for Pixar, nothing more. Pixar is fucking rich, and has enough money to do whatever they want, least of all is buy their own hardware. Disney simply promotes and distributes their films. Pixar has a very long history and Disney is not part of it. Do a little more reading.
How exactly would someone buying out the horribly unsuccesful square pictures and hiring away animators from Pixar make it a profitable company? Profitability comes from a succesful buisness plan. That would probably mean making an entertaining movie, and that is something that animators are not the main source of. Final Fantasy was a rediculously bad movie sugar coated with beautiful CGI and quirky, unrealistc combonations of motion capture and traditonal animation. Pixar's movies are clever, well thought out, well written, well acted, well animated, and well marketed. Yes they have some of the best in world working for them, but that alone doesn't make good movies, and certainly doesn't make profitability.
True, Pixar does have compitition that isn't run by disney. However DreamWorks was started by Steven Spielburg.
This has no relevance to anything in your post.
however the talent that is making pixar so great could easily find a way out of any contracts they have with disney and work for another studio
How exactly do you know this? How do you know they have contracts, could go somewhere else, or even want to?
Please tell you have been drinking, or are just a very skilled troll.
Yes you can make pictures just as good with less expensive tools, but you cannot make animations just as good. It is the artist not the tools, but there is a level of complexity that cannot be achieved with anything less than the magic five (lightwave, 3ds, softimage, maya, houdini).
If you don't like it, don't use it and stop whining about how a free trial version of a program has a watermark. The trial is there because of mind share. They want people to learn without pirating the software. When people learn, then they will want the real version. Software this complex demands it, and it isn't all about the cost, it is also about the ability to use it.
I bought a shirt from copyleft once
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 3
With that shirt came a copy of DeCCS. I think that making a copy, sending it to a representative, and letting him know that he is now a criminal should be a good way to get the point across. Then explaining how the SSSCA is 10 times worse should let him know how justified it is that many people hate this.
How about Premier on about any laptop you can buy? It really isn't as difficult as you think. I used to use Premiere 4.0 on my PII 300 Mhz and I could preview video in realtime, and see effects in about 5-10 fps.
I read the article on video for linux, and what the author basically describes is SDL. I think that he means it to be a layer under what SDL is, so it wouldn't be portable, but the functionality is basically SDL.
They said that only 2 out of 10 movies are profitable when released in the theatres, which is pretty believable. There is also video, DVD, pay per view, rent, buy, movie channels, network TV, and on and on and on. Any decent movie (very few out right now) should be able to make its money back.
Although I almost exclusivly listen to music on my computer, I do buy a CD right when it comes out occasionally. Most of the music I listen to I can't even find in music stores though, so how am I supposed to get it? I don't have a credit card. Am I going to get a credit card to order a CD for $18 supporting an organization which I completly dispise, only to have it come a few days later when I could just download it in five minutes? Fuck NO. Online music had helped me branch out into music I actually like. The RIAA doesn't want diversity in music eighther, just another shortcut. All stores sell the same stuff, and I don't want any of it.
Slashdot Mirror
quit yer bitchin and have a keystone
Booyah. I listen to very little music that most people have ever heard of. I buy new albums of them the day they come out when I can but for most of the music that I listen to I cannot find the CD's and would have to order them. Why wait 4 days when I only have to wait 15 minutes to download it. I think that another hidden motivation of the RIAA that no one seems to be catching on to is that diversity is bad for the RIAA They sell one album 15 million times and it works well. They can focus and keep only 40 albums on the shelves. When people like me go out and find out that the music that I really like isn't anywhere near those forty shitty albums, they are fucked, because it will be pretty hard to have me impulse buying Jordan Rudess, Nobukazu Takemura and Fantastic Plastic Machine in the checkout line at Walgreens. I wish there was a way to support them directly because they are who I want my money to go to, not the RIAA. I wish I could go to their concerts, (and I did go to Dream Theatre) but if I could buy the album directly from them for $10 then the effort would be worth it. What was my point again? oh yeah, fuck you RIAA.
Because when I go to an internet cafe that costs money for time spent, or if someone has Time Warner cable, then that spam costs money, not just time.
Actually 3D Studio, Lightwave, Softimage, and Maya all have free versions that are not very limited at all for people to try. There are time limitations on some, a watermark on Maya, and the free version of 3DS is stripped down, but for someone wanting to play around with 3D there are certainly better alternatives.
I don't mean to put a crimp in your plans, but the Learning Cocoa book really really sucks. Cocoa is sweet shit, and the Mac OS X API is awsome, and the development tools are incredible and and and ...
I borrowed this book from the local library and was saddened to learn that it is no Camel book that's for sure. It is not a good intro to objective-C, the development tools, or Cocoa. I would stay away from this one, it doesn't even make a good reference. Everything is ambiguous, it was hard for me to learn something as simple as objective-C after I already know 9 languages, C and C++ very much included. So you have been warned, but definitly go out and start learning cocoa!
Well SDL kicks ass, and #SDL kicks ass so many Loki people have definitly made a contribution that I have felt.
This is exaclty the point. Upgrading an MS OS is so easy because it saves all your stuff. If MS had an open document format, it could all be converted easily and they would have to worry about it, because all those docs would be converted without them even knowing it.
This can already be done somewhat easily with a C preproccesor, I have seen FORTRAN examples in books in fact.
There is also the fact that they had included it before which I am sure makes a huge difference. So in essence they are not choosing to not include it, they are taking it out of windows, and the motivations behind that are very obvious.
In the digital world this is often looked at as a solution but lossy compression is not like regular digital formats like MS Word documents or even programs. If you ocnvert from one compression format to another, it looks REALLY bad because both compression artifacts are there, and the size is only as good as the second compression technique used. Recompression unfortunatly is not an option at all.
Good luck finding a version of whatever render you use that was compiled for use with Linux for the PS2. Just because something runs Linux doesn't mean that all software for Linux will automatically run on it. Maya is for Linux - x86, as are Mental Ray, PRman, BMRT, etc. etc.
They do have a lite version of it. It is called 3D Studio Max VIZ. They also have a free version that you can learn on and that can be distributed with games, but I am betting you didn't even look, and want to use that as an excuse.
But we are talking about distributing movies, and SVHS is not used for it.
The LP isn't digital, isn't portable. A good D/A converter should be able to match a record player.
Serious audiophiles are a tough group to rely on. They are the people who pay for an $8000 CD player that just has a SPDIF Toslink out. It is digital! A dvd player with optical out will sound the exact fucking same! It is the D/A converter, amp, and speakers that make the difference. That is the thing with digital, the quality is set and it is the analog components that are of varying sound quality, with the exception of post-processing.
HDCD was not a new format but merely a mastering technique. The label made sure that the master data had at least 20 bits of precision, then they quantized to 16-bit in such a way as to shove all the dither noise into the 16-22 kHz band where humans can't hear very well.
It still doesn't hide the fact that it isn't widely accepted.
SVHS may be used elsewhere but it isn't really a consumer technology in that movies are not distributed in SVHS.
SVCD is probably the closest parallel and it isn't really relevant to the United States since its predecessor did so poorly too. I still don't think HD-DVD's using simply Mpeg 4 will do well, but it looks like I can't back it up with history.
I think it would be great if a high-def DVD format came out in the next year, but it probably won't. Why limit things while still using 9GB DVD's? I don't understand the immediate need. DVD's are doing wonderful, and DVD's in progressive scan look great. We can wait 2 years for blue laser players to become a reality, it won't hurt anything to keep DVD's going longer, people are going to be mad about switching anyway.
The solution of the Red laser camp seems to be better compression (good) better post processing (good) but on the same size disc (bad). Switching formats is a hard transition for everyone, why don't they really switch formats and go for something that will be good enough to last for 10 years. Put blue laser discs, Mpeg 4, and good pre and post processing together and you have something that just may stand the test of time, like CD's. CD's are the first technology that I can remember that could possibly be called 'good enough'. I still want DVD-Audio and SACD to do well, but CD's are the first consumer technology that was really limited by how well they were made and the equipment used to play them back then by the format itself. These technology companies have the chance to do that now, with video, but it doesn't look like they are going to take it.
Look back in history to other formats that were just better use of the same space. SVCD, HDCD (20 bit CD) SVHS, the list goes on. They didn't do too well did they? What makes these companies think that 7 Mbit Mpeg 4 is going to look good enough to make people want to switch? There will compression artifacts all over at high resoltuions. Now 1080p 24fps, that is a beautiful thing and will make people drool.
Not necessarily. Everything is comlicated right now and will be for a few years. The TV's themsevles though are the most solid device in the chain. I have a high def TV, and I play 480p dvd's on it and 480p 60 fps Gamecube. It rocks. I can't watch high def TV because I don't get it yet, but I knew that before hand and that isn't why I bought it. I love HDTV and I don't think that I am 'nuts'. There you have a positive story about HDTV.
You are wrong in so many ways I don't know where to start. Disney is just marketing for Pixar, nothing more. Pixar is fucking rich, and has enough money to do whatever they want, least of all is buy their own hardware. Disney simply promotes and distributes their films. Pixar has a very long history and Disney is not part of it. Do a little more reading.
How exactly would someone buying out the horribly unsuccesful square pictures and hiring away animators from Pixar make it a profitable company? Profitability comes from a succesful buisness plan. That would probably mean making an entertaining movie, and that is something that animators are not the main source of. Final Fantasy was a rediculously bad movie sugar coated with beautiful CGI and quirky, unrealistc combonations of motion capture and traditonal animation. Pixar's movies are clever, well thought out, well written, well acted, well animated, and well marketed. Yes they have some of the best in world working for them, but that alone doesn't make good movies, and certainly doesn't make profitability.
True, Pixar does have compitition that isn't run by disney. However DreamWorks was started by Steven Spielburg.
This has no relevance to anything in your post.
however the talent that is making pixar so great could easily find a way out of any contracts they have with disney and work for another studio
How exactly do you know this? How do you know they have contracts, could go somewhere else, or even want to?
Please tell you have been drinking, or are just a very skilled troll.
I think he was talking about Software.
Yes you can make pictures just as good with less expensive tools, but you cannot make animations just as good. It is the artist not the tools, but there is a level of complexity that cannot be achieved with anything less than the magic five (lightwave, 3ds, softimage, maya, houdini).
If you don't like it, don't use it and stop whining about how a free trial version of a program has a watermark. The trial is there because of mind share. They want people to learn without pirating the software. When people learn, then they will want the real version. Software this complex demands it, and it isn't all about the cost, it is also about the ability to use it.
With that shirt came a copy of DeCCS. I think that making a copy, sending it to a representative, and letting him know that he is now a criminal should be a good way to get the point across. Then explaining how the SSSCA is 10 times worse should let him know how justified it is that many people hate this.
How about Premier on about any laptop you can buy? It really isn't as difficult as you think. I used to use Premiere 4.0 on my PII 300 Mhz and I could preview video in realtime, and see effects in about 5-10 fps.
I read the article on video for linux, and what the author basically describes is SDL. I think that he means it to be a layer under what SDL is, so it wouldn't be portable, but the functionality is basically SDL.
They said that only 2 out of 10 movies are profitable when released in the theatres, which is pretty believable. There is also video, DVD, pay per view, rent, buy, movie channels, network TV, and on and on and on. Any decent movie (very few out right now) should be able to make its money back.
Although I almost exclusivly listen to music on my computer, I do buy a CD right when it comes out occasionally. Most of the music I listen to I can't even find in music stores though, so how am I supposed to get it? I don't have a credit card. Am I going to get a credit card to order a CD for $18 supporting an organization which I completly dispise, only to have it come a few days later when I could just download it in five minutes? Fuck NO. Online music had helped me branch out into music I actually like. The RIAA doesn't want diversity in music eighther, just another shortcut. All stores sell the same stuff, and I don't want any of it.
I meant consumer, joecool@aol.com desktop, not win2000 or NT which I realize have been in 64 bit versions before.