The 'may' means that it might lock your television into 16:9 mode, not the game. Some televisions automatically go into 16:9 mode and cannot be taken out of that mode when displaying a progressive scan signal. This is a big concern for buyers of progressive scan DVD players because some movies aren't in a 16:9 aspect ratio. There's a FAQ somewhere on IGN where it's confirmed that the game does not have progressive scan support. Try playing the game with progressive scan disabled and see if it looks any different with respect to the object ratios.
I think that what's happened is that the game is a little horizontaly squished more than it should be (since they were trying to go for a first-person visor look on a 4:3 ratio dispaly), and putting your TV in 'full' alleviates that some. I also adjusted the video settings for maximum horizontal compression, so that the stretch distortion would be minimal.
Not to get too nit-picky, but Metroid Prime does not support 16:9 displays (which irritated me to no end), even in 480p mode. It's rather odd, since the game actually would benefit greatly from such a mode. Still, I found my Sony TV's 'wide zoom' setting to be quite acceptable, in fact possibly preferrable to a standard 4:3 setting as the distortion enhances the feeling that it's being viewed through a curved visor.
Perhaps ISPs should disclose that they are willing to host customers who violate their AUP and that they allow their customers who have 'special' contracts to commit theft of service and trespass to chattel so legitimate users will know to stay away.
Don't tell me that you haven't heard stories of law enforcement from local PD to the FBI ignoring small-time crack jobs when someone reports a system compromise. Those are cases where decidedly illegal actvitiy has taken place and law enforcement has decided that it's not worth pursuing.
Instead of a single global list, would you rather your upstream's IP holdings be placed in the filters of thousands of individual ISPs? That way, when your upstream cleans up its act rather than being delisted from a single source, they'll have to be delisted from thousands of different sources (many of whom won't bother to fix their lists).
It has unfortunately become the only way to make crime-friendly ISPs take action. I don't see it as 'wrong and avoidable', I see it as the course of action taken by sysadmins who have been pushed too far.
Consider this. AGIS, long ago, decided to be an openly spam-friendly provider way back in the day before single unified like SPEWS or the RBL. Because AGIS had openly admitted their willingness to allow their customers to break the law and victimize innocent ISPs with their criminal behaviour, many ISPs threw ALL of AGIS into their blocklists, figuring (quite correctly) that nothing that came from AGIS needed to hit their networks anyway. Spam didn't work for AGIS. AGIS soon learned that all spammers are theiving scum who wouldn't pay the bills, and they realised that hosting spammers wasn't profitable if it was well-known that AGIS was just a private intranet that couldn't reach anyone. As such, AGIS did a full about-face and became very much antispam, kicking off all of thier criminal spamming clients. Unfortunately, so many individual ISPs had thrown all of AGIS into individual netblocks that there was substantial damage to AGIS's connectivity. Some admins removed AGIS from their filters, but in many cases AGIS's netblocks were put in by an admin who had long since forgotten why they were there (or one who had even moved on, leaving a new admin with no idea why certain IPs were filtered), or who just didn't care to remove them. As such, AGIS's netblocks were still filtered from a large percentage of the Internet and AGIS died the death of a thousand cuts.
With a centralized single listing system, like SPEWS, this problem goes away. If everyone simply filters against SPEWs then an ISP who is blocked by all of the world can clean up their act, get delisted, and instantly they will have restored connectivity because everyone is filtering against the same list.
Of course, many here on Slashdot don't seem to think that is a good idea. They would rather go back to the day when individual ISPs were filtering on their own personal lists because they cannot stand that their upstream is a crime-friendly provider and they're getting listed in SPEWS. They would rather have a system where they are guaranteed to be filtered forever in thousands of different lists rather than filtered in a single list that will be fixed once their upstream cleans up its act.
Therefore, if you are going to raise the specter of protected speech, then you damn well better have a narrow enough definition of Spam to insure that it is clearly illegal speech.
How about "it shall be illegal to send unsolicited advertising where the cost is shifted upon nonconsenting third parties." That would cover...pretty much all spam.
The telephone company does not have a right to filter.
The telephone company cannot filter because of their 'common carrier' status. It means that they must allow all traffic through regardless of content. Individual ISPs, however, are not common carriers and as such they are not subject to such rules. This means that they get to put up whatever filters they want, and it is all legal (as it should be, since it is their equipment).
If an ISP like QWest or Sprint is going to be openly friendly to spammers, then I'm going to consider ANY traffic from them to be noise that needs to be filtered. As far as I'm concerned, I don't want ANYTHING that comes from their network because they've proven that they are either apathetic or openly supportive of criminal activity committed by their customers (Qwest has been observed supporting criminal activity from their customers, and it wouldn't surprise me if Sprint has done the same). As such, there isn't any legitimate e-mail coming from them in the first place, so blocking all messages from their domain doesn't strike me as a bad idea.
I'm not aware of any such corollary. The only one of which I'm aware is that making a reference to Nazi Germany in a deliberate attempt to invoke Godwin invalidates the invocation.
Also, I don't think that it applies to actual discussions of WWII or the real Nazis.
It was not 'a few shots'. It is 'every scene in both movies except for special effects shots, because those were already hard-matted on the print'. Further, the screenshots given show excess ZOOMING that isn't even present in the fullscreen release. There no evidence of any 'problems' in the original widescreen laserdisc transfer that would be covered up in the mismatting, though there is strong evidence that some visuals are screwed up as a result of the misframing in the DVD.
The shots were misframed. The transfer was not made correctly, and Universal has finally admitted as much.
You left out the bit about Microsoft having a contractual obligation to distribute the current untainted Sun Java with their product (something that MS has been violating for years now)
He's right in that it's missing the top and bottom of the picture, because it should actually be missing only the top.
Widescreen represents the image as it was shown theatrically and typically as the director filmed it. Even when a movie is filmed at a 1.37:1 ratio and matted down, the director is typically only paying attention to the 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 section of the filmed frame that is intended for its theatrical exhibition. Opening up the mattes for a 'fullscreen' presentation can destroy well-composed shots as well as reveal things that should not be in the frame (set equipment, anachronisms in period pieces, etc).
Also note that the special effects shots were hard-matted to 1.85:1, so those ARE panned and scanned on the fullscreen release.
I remember the rumour (started as a result of a joke told in deadpan fashion by Zemeckis) that Hoverboards were real and parents groups had prevented them from being put to market.
The DTS track was stripped from the R1 release so that more extras (I believe at least one commentary track, amongst a few other featres) would fit. Also, the R2 release is PAL and plays at 50Hz at 720x562 resolution while the R1 release is NTSC and plays at 60Hz and at 720x480 resolution.
I'm referring to the fact that people in regions 2 and 4 have been 'informing' Universal of the defect in the product for months, and Universal did not act (and allowed the defect to slip into the R1 release) on it at all.
There is a means of adding in 'pan and scan' cues so that a DVD player can 'zoom' and pan around a widescreen image to produce a panned and scanned image, however those cues must exist within the datastream or you just get the entire picture. Only a handful of DVDs actually support that feature (I believe, but I am not certain, that Brotherhood of the Wolf supports it). Also, the DVD must be anamorphic (ie, 'enhanced for widescreen TVs'), and 2.35:1 movies will still have little black bands at the top and bottom.
BTTF wouldn't work with that, though, because it was filmed at 1.37:1 and then matted down to 1.85:1 for the theatrical presentation. Most 1.85:1 movies are filmed that way, so you actually get 'more' picture on 'fullscreen' transfers of those movies. Mind you, that 'extra' information is usually not intended by the director and it can make the composition of a scene look less professional as a result (sometimes even showing set equipment where it shouldn't be visible). Also, most special effects are done on a hard-matted 1.85:1 frame, so they are still panned and scanned.
Check my previous posting. I provided three individual links to direct side-by-side comparisons (between 'fullscreen', the WS Laserdisc and the WS DVD) and another link to a site with a few more pics.
Chances are that the print itself was soft for the first BTTF (and that one isn't being replaced). BTTF2 might look fuzzy because the bad transfer was also zoomed (for absolutely no conceivable purpose), but apart from that I doubt you will see an improvement.
Slashdot Mirror
The 'may' means that it might lock your television into 16:9 mode, not the game. Some televisions automatically go into 16:9 mode and cannot be taken out of that mode when displaying a progressive scan signal. This is a big concern for buyers of progressive scan DVD players because some movies aren't in a 16:9 aspect ratio. There's a FAQ somewhere on IGN where it's confirmed that the game does not have progressive scan support. Try playing the game with progressive scan disabled and see if it looks any different with respect to the object ratios.
I think that what's happened is that the game is a little horizontaly squished more than it should be (since they were trying to go for a first-person visor look on a 4:3 ratio dispaly), and putting your TV in 'full' alleviates that some. I also adjusted the video settings for maximum horizontal compression, so that the stretch distortion would be minimal.
Not to get too nit-picky, but Metroid Prime does not support 16:9 displays (which irritated me to no end), even in 480p mode. It's rather odd, since the game actually would benefit greatly from such a mode. Still, I found my Sony TV's 'wide zoom' setting to be quite acceptable, in fact possibly preferrable to a standard 4:3 setting as the distortion enhances the feeling that it's being viewed through a curved visor.
I'm currently waiting for tomorrow night's Buffy to show up in alt.binaries.multimedia.buffy-v-slayer.
Of course, I normally watch the broadcast the next day as well, except for episode 10, which was preempted due to basketball.
Perhaps ISPs should disclose that they are willing to host customers who violate their AUP and that they allow their customers who have 'special' contracts to commit theft of service and trespass to chattel so legitimate users will know to stay away.
Don't tell me that you haven't heard stories of law enforcement from local PD to the FBI ignoring small-time crack jobs when someone reports a system compromise. Those are cases where decidedly illegal actvitiy has taken place and law enforcement has decided that it's not worth pursuing.
Instead of a single global list, would you rather your upstream's IP holdings be placed in the filters of thousands of individual ISPs? That way, when your upstream cleans up its act rather than being delisted from a single source, they'll have to be delisted from thousands of different sources (many of whom won't bother to fix their lists).
SPEWS deliberately lists non-spam-source IPS - that's collateral damage, that's wrong and avoidable.
It has unfortunately become the only way to make crime-friendly ISPs take action. I don't see it as 'wrong and avoidable', I see it as the course of action taken by sysadmins who have been pushed too far.
Consider this. AGIS, long ago, decided to be an openly spam-friendly provider way back in the day before single unified like SPEWS or the RBL. Because AGIS had openly admitted their willingness to allow their customers to break the law and victimize innocent ISPs with their criminal behaviour, many ISPs threw ALL of AGIS into their blocklists, figuring (quite correctly) that nothing that came from AGIS needed to hit their networks anyway.
Spam didn't work for AGIS. AGIS soon learned that all spammers are theiving scum who wouldn't pay the bills, and they realised that hosting spammers wasn't profitable if it was well-known that AGIS was just a private intranet that couldn't reach anyone. As such, AGIS did a full about-face and became very much antispam, kicking off all of thier criminal spamming clients.
Unfortunately, so many individual ISPs had thrown all of AGIS into individual netblocks that there was substantial damage to AGIS's connectivity. Some admins removed AGIS from their filters, but in many cases AGIS's netblocks were put in by an admin who had long since forgotten why they were there (or one who had even moved on, leaving a new admin with no idea why certain IPs were filtered), or who just didn't care to remove them. As such, AGIS's netblocks were still filtered from a large percentage of the Internet and AGIS died the death of a thousand cuts.
With a centralized single listing system, like SPEWS, this problem goes away. If everyone simply filters against SPEWs then an ISP who is blocked by all of the world can clean up their act, get delisted, and instantly they will have restored connectivity because everyone is filtering against the same list.
Of course, many here on Slashdot don't seem to think that is a good idea. They would rather go back to the day when individual ISPs were filtering on their own personal lists because they cannot stand that their upstream is a crime-friendly provider and they're getting listed in SPEWS. They would rather have a system where they are guaranteed to be filtered forever in thousands of different lists rather than filtered in a single list that will be fixed once their upstream cleans up its act.
Therefore, if you are going to raise the specter of protected speech, then you damn well better have a narrow enough definition of Spam to insure that it is clearly illegal speech.
How about "it shall be illegal to send unsolicited advertising where the cost is shifted upon nonconsenting third parties." That would cover...pretty much all spam.
The telephone company does not have a right to filter.
The telephone company cannot filter because of their 'common carrier' status. It means that they must allow all traffic through regardless of content. Individual ISPs, however, are not common carriers and as such they are not subject to such rules. This means that they get to put up whatever filters they want, and it is all legal (as it should be, since it is their equipment).
Here's my problem with the EFF's position.
If an ISP like QWest or Sprint is going to be openly friendly to spammers, then I'm going to consider ANY traffic from them to be noise that needs to be filtered. As far as I'm concerned, I don't want ANYTHING that comes from their network because they've proven that they are either apathetic or openly supportive of criminal activity committed by their customers (Qwest has been observed supporting criminal activity from their customers, and it wouldn't surprise me if Sprint has done the same). As such, there isn't any legitimate e-mail coming from them in the first place, so blocking all messages from their domain doesn't strike me as a bad idea.
I'm not aware of any such corollary. The only one of which I'm aware is that making a reference to Nazi Germany in a deliberate attempt to invoke Godwin invalidates the invocation.
Also, I don't think that it applies to actual discussions of WWII or the real Nazis.
Or John Cleese's pants in A Fish Called Wanda (showcased on quite a few 'widescreen advocacy' pages).
Actually, the widescreen one is 'formatted to fit my screen'.
It was not 'a few shots'. It is 'every scene in both movies except for special effects shots, because those were already hard-matted on the print'. Further, the screenshots given show excess ZOOMING that isn't even present in the fullscreen release. There no evidence of any 'problems' in the original widescreen laserdisc transfer that would be covered up in the mismatting, though there is strong evidence that some visuals are screwed up as a result of the misframing in the DVD.
The shots were misframed. The transfer was not made correctly, and Universal has finally admitted as much.
You can look for my other comments in this topic, or you can check out the message boards at http://www.bttf.com/
I can already tell you, however, that your BTTF 2 and BTTF 3 are mismatted.
You left out the bit about Microsoft having a contractual obligation to distribute the current untainted Sun Java with their product (something that MS has been violating for years now)
I'd heard somewhere that there was also a contractual dispute, where MS had violated an agreement that they had made with Sun, though I'm not
He's right in that it's missing the top and bottom of the picture, because it should actually be missing only the top.
Widescreen represents the image as it was shown theatrically and typically as the director filmed it. Even when a movie is filmed at a 1.37:1 ratio and matted down, the director is typically only paying attention to the 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 section of the filmed frame that is intended for its theatrical exhibition. Opening up the mattes for a 'fullscreen' presentation can destroy well-composed shots as well as reveal things that should not be in the frame (set equipment, anachronisms in period pieces, etc).
Also note that the special effects shots were hard-matted to 1.85:1, so those ARE panned and scanned on the fullscreen release.
I remember the rumour (started as a result of a joke told in deadpan fashion by Zemeckis) that Hoverboards were real and parents groups had prevented them from being put to market.
The DTS track was stripped from the R1 release so that more extras (I believe at least one commentary track, amongst a few other featres) would fit.
Also, the R2 release is PAL and plays at 50Hz at 720x562 resolution while the R1 release is NTSC and plays at 60Hz and at 720x480 resolution.
I'm referring to the fact that people in regions 2 and 4 have been 'informing' Universal of the defect in the product for months, and Universal did not act (and allowed the defect to slip into the R1 release) on it at all.
Ah yes, and amongst the items traded was a flintlock pistol. Of course, you could shoot your future self with it...
"I guess gun owners are more likely to shoot themselves".
Well, they could have paid attention when people pointed out the same misframing problems in the R2 and R4 releases FOUR MONTHS AGO.
There is a means of adding in 'pan and scan' cues so that a DVD player can 'zoom' and pan around a widescreen image to produce a panned and scanned image, however those cues must exist within the datastream or you just get the entire picture. Only a handful of DVDs actually support that feature (I believe, but I am not certain, that Brotherhood of the Wolf supports it). Also, the DVD must be anamorphic (ie, 'enhanced for widescreen TVs'), and 2.35:1 movies will still have little black bands at the top and bottom.
BTTF wouldn't work with that, though, because it was filmed at 1.37:1 and then matted down to 1.85:1 for the theatrical presentation. Most 1.85:1 movies are filmed that way, so you actually get 'more' picture on 'fullscreen' transfers of those movies. Mind you, that 'extra' information is usually not intended by the director and it can make the composition of a scene look less professional as a result (sometimes even showing set equipment where it shouldn't be visible). Also, most special effects are done on a hard-matted 1.85:1 frame, so they are still panned and scanned.
Check my previous posting. I provided three individual links to direct side-by-side comparisons (between 'fullscreen', the WS Laserdisc and the WS DVD) and another link to a site with a few more pics.
Chances are that the print itself was soft for the first BTTF (and that one isn't being replaced). BTTF2 might look fuzzy because the bad transfer was also zoomed (for absolutely no conceivable purpose), but apart from that I doubt you will see an improvement.