Without delving too deeply into the technology of it all, an analog TV transmission takes up a massive width of spectrum--a digitally compressed television signal takes up a comparatively miniscule width, leaving all the left over space between channels free for the government to auction.
Addressing the original topic--the air waves are owned by all of us, collectively. If our government wants to sell some of the spectrum previously allotted for our use, It makes sense to me that some of the profits would come back to us. Of course their motives are purely selfish, but the result is fine by me.
not lacking firewire support-- the ipod end of the connection is agnostic, a proprietary dock connector. Ipods are now coming with only the USB 2.0 cable-- no doubt to increase profit margins. All new macs come with USB 2.0 support, as do the majority of PCs, whereas many PCs do not come with firewire support.
no, that's silly. An internal HD card would not use Firewire, and the mini already has external firewire ports. at issue is the placement of the internal header, which would allow the ipod dock to be placed on the top cent of the mini.
the ultimate democracy: revolution
I'm not a Communist, but i'm smart enough to see through the sort of knee-jerk reaction I'm supposed to have to Communism.
It's becoming more common, but not the majority. When I went to a Kodak DI demo 3 or 4 months ago, the number they gave us was 60-- DI releases, ever. That may have been a bit low, but that's what they said.
I completely agree with your post. Living in Hollywood, I have the luxery of having options-- I personally only watch films at The Arclight, where you pay slightly more than elsewhere, but don't have to put up with ads. The glass on their projectors is 100 times better than the theaters i grew up with, and it shows.
The film industry will see this sort of backlash, when HD goes mainstream, and it will innovate. The theaters wil turn away from what they have become, or many will fail. When TV first came out, the filmmakers responded by giving you what you couldn't get at home: color, widescreen, stereo, then surround sound. Now we can get all of that at home.
This is one reason I don't see digital projection taking root. Sure, they can hype it and market it as something good-- but any side-by-side comparrison of film-originated material will obviously reveal film projection to be far superior. I hope people realize that. As for the people saying 2k is good enough for 35mm-- If you live in LA or New York, swing by kodak and ask when they screen their example films. If you can't do that, go watch a film like House of Flying Daggers. What you'll see is a 2k DI-- a film that was scanned at usually 4k, and then laser-scanned out to film at 2k. The laser scanning process is just about as generation-loss-free as can be. Having seen the differences, I can instantly tell you whether a film i'm seeing in a theater was a DI or a traditional film edit, it's night and day. Film editing, film releasing, and film acquiring are nowhere near dead, and won't be for a long, long time.
the 35mm editing process:
the camera negative is printed once. This print is edited. alternately, the camera negative is telecinied, and edited digitaly.
Once the edit has been made, the camera negative is cut to match the digital edit or first print. This is done by the person you see credited as "Negative Cutter"
The negative is printed once, to create an interpositive. the interpositive is printed a few times, 5 or 6, normally, to create internegatives. These internegatives are used to create the release prints, which are what you see in the theaters.
in the case of optical effects-- fades, dissolves, titles, old-school green screen, etc., two extra generations are added, but ONLY for the shot which contains the optical effect. the optical negative is printed with the cut camera negative to make the interpositive.
I suppose you're right, there. I'm in in the TV world, so I don't pay much attention to radio. I think it's pretty silly to fine Stern, though. I mean-- the argument for censorship of broadcast television and radio is that, being on our airwaves free for anyone with a reciever, people might be offended by content the FCC deems obscene. These regulations are left over from the days of NBC Red and Blue, when there was no listener choice-- currently, though, there are many coices for the consumer. When someone tunes in to Stern, they know what they're getting.
I understand the fines are meant to keep a lid on how far the shock jocks go, but i think it's time we ask ourselves whether or not the government ought to have the right to decide what too far is for us. Can't the market dictate that? If Stern had gone too far, his advertisers would have withdrawn support.
Take me with a grain of salt, though. Being in Hollywood, I'm probably fairly disconnected with the moral pulse of America.
this would be the case if networks were violating obscenity regulations intentionally, thinking "eh, we'll swallow the fines, the ratings will be worth it"
This hasn't happened yet. If it did, I would understand raising the fees. As it is, all this has served to do is scare broadcast affiliates away from broadcasting more controversial programing. Most notably, many affiliates refused to show Saving Private Ryan, when it recently aired uncensored on network television.
In order to prevent the commercial distribution of MAME software, which you argue encourages IP theft (in the form of illegal piracy of ROM images), you have attempted to trademark 'MAME' and it's associated logos? You would then, I assume, pursue legal action against those that commercially distribute arcade cabinates with the MAME software package, claiming trademark infringement?
That's what i've gotten from your statement. Please, correct me if i'm wrong.
the distinction is 24p, vs. 30i. film, what you see in movie theaters, is 24p. when you see films at home, you usually see them with a pull-down--certain frames are repeated. the advantage to having a camera that can shoot 24p is that it carries with it the psychological feel of film, with the pull-down included. while you can theoretically go from 30 frames to 24 frames in post, because they were sampled at 30 fps, the action is sped up slightly. additionally, 24p is a true progressive source--no interlacing. also, sampling at 24 fps allows you to use a lower shutter speed, allowing better exposure in low light
no, it doesn't. sorry. closest you can come is 25 fps with the PAL version. the movie mode on the xl1 captures progressivly, but unusably so. at something like 15 fps--for an example, see the running-zombie shots in 28 days later. those are heavily tweaked shots originating from the movie mode. the rest of the film is 25 fps transferred to film with a pull-down allowing for it to be printed at 24p. but, no, the xl1 cannot shoot 24 fps.
as a user of the DVX, and one having used many other digital video cameras, i can honestly say that any 'so-so' review you've read was written in ignorance. the DVX is a beautiful camera that delivers beautiful images. it's handles beautifuly, and i couldn't reccomend it more whole-heartidly.
Heres a thought. I'm a film student, and, as such, I know plenty of other talented, reliable guys and gals with a love for film and documentary. Many of us have our own equipment. All of us our broke.
Heres what i suggest: get some funding together. Get enough to pay airfare and lodging, and pizza for a crew of two. Post an ad on craigslist.org in the Los Angeles area, seeking an editor, sound guy, and DV cinematographer.
How long will you be up there? i imagine a fairly interesting 60-90 minute documentary could be shot in a week, and edited in a couple months. Bring the sound-guy and cinematographer (with their own equipment) along (make sure you ask to see a reel, and at the very least interview the kids over the phone. make sure you like their personalities, as well their work.
Enter the final product in some film festivals (credit yourself as Producer and Director). with any luck, you'll get some screening, and perhaps a straight to dvd deal or some theatrical release.
if you're interested and want to discuss this further, i'd be happy to give you some ideas over email:
taylorfinley@hotmail.com
interested? heres what i found in 0.74 seconds on google:
http://store.ink-refills.net/chipresforep.html
http://www.abcprinterrepair.com/epson/chip_resette r.htm
http://www.misterinkjet.com/epson_resetter_instruc tions.htm
Hero was phenominal. I'm curious, though--i can't read mandirin, but i watched it with someone who can. At the very end of the film (no spoilers here), a screen with words and a picture of the Great Wall come up. according to my mandirin-reading friend, it basically invalidated the message of the film. He said it felt tacked on, and he thought it was there just to please the government; the message of Hero is fairly anti-government, as it is. I'm anxious to see if that scene hit the cutting room floor in the American release. Do films in China often add in things like this, to keep the government off their backs?
Slashdot Mirror
What about the Apple Pippin, their video game console? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Pippin
Without delving too deeply into the technology of it all, an analog TV transmission takes up a massive width of spectrum--a digitally compressed television signal takes up a comparatively miniscule width, leaving all the left over space between channels free for the government to auction. Addressing the original topic--the air waves are owned by all of us, collectively. If our government wants to sell some of the spectrum previously allotted for our use, It makes sense to me that some of the profits would come back to us. Of course their motives are purely selfish, but the result is fine by me.
hear hear!
/works in film
and one 'fuck,' so long as it's not a verb
not lacking firewire support-- the ipod end of the connection is agnostic, a proprietary dock connector. Ipods are now coming with only the USB 2.0 cable-- no doubt to increase profit margins. All new macs come with USB 2.0 support, as do the majority of PCs, whereas many PCs do not come with firewire support.
no, that's silly. An internal HD card would not use Firewire, and the mini already has external firewire ports. at issue is the placement of the internal header, which would allow the ipod dock to be placed on the top cent of the mini.
the ultimate democracy: revolution I'm not a Communist, but i'm smart enough to see through the sort of knee-jerk reaction I'm supposed to have to Communism.
I never said he was. I'm not the anonymous poster, I'm just responding to your assertation that communists can't be democraticaly elected.
communism and democracy are not mutually exclusively, you phenomenally ignorant and silly, silly man.
It's becoming more common, but not the majority. When I went to a Kodak DI demo 3 or 4 months ago, the number they gave us was 60-- DI releases, ever. That may have been a bit low, but that's what they said.
*luxury
*will
*comparison
(preview would have been my friend. Whoops.)
I completely agree with your post. Living in Hollywood, I have the luxery of having options-- I personally only watch films at The Arclight, where you pay slightly more than elsewhere, but don't have to put up with ads. The glass on their projectors is 100 times better than the theaters i grew up with, and it shows.
The film industry will see this sort of backlash, when HD goes mainstream, and it will innovate. The theaters wil turn away from what they have become, or many will fail. When TV first came out, the filmmakers responded by giving you what you couldn't get at home: color, widescreen, stereo, then surround sound. Now we can get all of that at home.
This is one reason I don't see digital projection taking root. Sure, they can hype it and market it as something good-- but any side-by-side comparrison of film-originated material will obviously reveal film projection to be far superior. I hope people realize that. As for the people saying 2k is good enough for 35mm-- If you live in LA or New York, swing by kodak and ask when they screen their example films. If you can't do that, go watch a film like House of Flying Daggers. What you'll see is a 2k DI-- a film that was scanned at usually 4k, and then laser-scanned out to film at 2k. The laser scanning process is just about as generation-loss-free as can be. Having seen the differences, I can instantly tell you whether a film i'm seeing in a theater was a DI or a traditional film edit, it's night and day. Film editing, film releasing, and film acquiring are nowhere near dead, and won't be for a long, long time.
the 35mm editing process: the camera negative is printed once. This print is edited. alternately, the camera negative is telecinied, and edited digitaly. Once the edit has been made, the camera negative is cut to match the digital edit or first print. This is done by the person you see credited as "Negative Cutter" The negative is printed once, to create an interpositive. the interpositive is printed a few times, 5 or 6, normally, to create internegatives. These internegatives are used to create the release prints, which are what you see in the theaters. in the case of optical effects-- fades, dissolves, titles, old-school green screen, etc., two extra generations are added, but ONLY for the shot which contains the optical effect. the optical negative is printed with the cut camera negative to make the interpositive.
I suppose you're right, there. I'm in in the TV world, so I don't pay much attention to radio. I think it's pretty silly to fine Stern, though. I mean-- the argument for censorship of broadcast television and radio is that, being on our airwaves free for anyone with a reciever, people might be offended by content the FCC deems obscene. These regulations are left over from the days of NBC Red and Blue, when there was no listener choice-- currently, though, there are many coices for the consumer. When someone tunes in to Stern, they know what they're getting.
I understand the fines are meant to keep a lid on how far the shock jocks go, but i think it's time we ask ourselves whether or not the government ought to have the right to decide what too far is for us. Can't the market dictate that? If Stern had gone too far, his advertisers would have withdrawn support.
Take me with a grain of salt, though. Being in Hollywood, I'm probably fairly disconnected with the moral pulse of America.
this would be the case if networks were violating obscenity regulations intentionally, thinking "eh, we'll swallow the fines, the ratings will be worth it" This hasn't happened yet. If it did, I would understand raising the fees. As it is, all this has served to do is scare broadcast affiliates away from broadcasting more controversial programing. Most notably, many affiliates refused to show Saving Private Ryan, when it recently aired uncensored on network television.
Let me make sure I understand what you're saying:
In order to prevent the commercial distribution of MAME software, which you argue encourages IP theft (in the form of illegal piracy of ROM images), you have attempted to trademark 'MAME' and it's associated logos? You would then, I assume, pursue legal action against those that commercially distribute arcade cabinates with the MAME software package, claiming trademark infringement?
That's what i've gotten from your statement. Please, correct me if i'm wrong.
somebody missed the joke
the distinction is 24p, vs. 30i. film, what you see in movie theaters, is 24p. when you see films at home, you usually see them with a pull-down--certain frames are repeated. the advantage to having a camera that can shoot 24p is that it carries with it the psychological feel of film, with the pull-down included. while you can theoretically go from 30 frames to 24 frames in post, because they were sampled at 30 fps, the action is sped up slightly. additionally, 24p is a true progressive source--no interlacing. also, sampling at 24 fps allows you to use a lower shutter speed, allowing better exposure in low light
no, it doesn't. sorry. closest you can come is 25 fps with the PAL version. the movie mode on the xl1 captures progressivly, but unusably so. at something like 15 fps--for an example, see the running-zombie shots in 28 days later. those are heavily tweaked shots originating from the movie mode. the rest of the film is 25 fps transferred to film with a pull-down allowing for it to be printed at 24p. but, no, the xl1 cannot shoot 24 fps.
as a user of the DVX, and one having used many other digital video cameras, i can honestly say that any 'so-so' review you've read was written in ignorance. the DVX is a beautiful camera that delivers beautiful images. it's handles beautifuly, and i couldn't reccomend it more whole-heartidly.
damn deep--you know....?
Heres a thought. I'm a film student, and, as such, I know plenty of other talented, reliable guys and gals with a love for film and documentary. Many of us have our own equipment. All of us our broke.
Heres what i suggest: get some funding together. Get enough to pay airfare and lodging, and pizza for a crew of two. Post an ad on craigslist.org in the Los Angeles area, seeking an editor, sound guy, and DV cinematographer.
How long will you be up there? i imagine a fairly interesting 60-90 minute documentary could be shot in a week, and edited in a couple months. Bring the sound-guy and cinematographer (with their own equipment) along (make sure you ask to see a reel, and at the very least interview the kids over the phone. make sure you like their personalities, as well their work.
Enter the final product in some film festivals (credit yourself as Producer and Director). with any luck, you'll get some screening, and perhaps a straight to dvd deal or some theatrical release.
if you're interested and want to discuss this further, i'd be happy to give you some ideas over email:
taylorfinley@hotmail.com
interested? heres what i found in 0.74 seconds on google: http://store.ink-refills.net/chipresforep.html http://www.abcprinterrepair.com/epson/chip_resette r.htm
http://www.misterinkjet.com/epson_resetter_instruc tions.htm
sure, i could see that being scary. if it had built in blow torches...and were 9 feet tall.
Hero was phenominal. I'm curious, though--i can't read mandirin, but i watched it with someone who can. At the very end of the film (no spoilers here), a screen with words and a picture of the Great Wall come up. according to my mandirin-reading friend, it basically invalidated the message of the film. He said it felt tacked on, and he thought it was there just to please the government; the message of Hero is fairly anti-government, as it is. I'm anxious to see if that scene hit the cutting room floor in the American release. Do films in China often add in things like this, to keep the government off their backs?