I don't see the current Bush Administration or remember the first Bush Administration doing much of anything regarding China. There's too much money involved for Republicans to stand up to China. No money involved with Cuba so Republicans are all over that.
The budget was already on track to be balanced when Republicans gained control of Congress. That's because Clinton actually showed some courage and gave Congress budgets that were smaller, whereas Reagan and Bush could never bring themselves to do that. Clinton even did that wish a Democrat congress, rather than using that as an excuse as Reagan and Bush did.
24FPS is a limitation, but current digital theaters also display at 24FPS.
This is a limitation of the source material. Digital cinema can have a higher frame rate. Actually, I know the mirrors can. I assume bandwidth is the limiting factor.
I have read (in another of his reviews that I can't find now) that movies that are "filmed" (vs. digitally recorded) look better on film, where as digitally recorded movies look better on digital projectors (duh).
Funny. When CDs first came out, so-called audiophiles were saying the same thing about CDs vs. vinyl. It sounded plausible to me until I heard my first CD of an LP I already had. No contest, the CD was much better. Trust your own eyes and ears.
I don't know the specs but you're probably right. I saw AotC at Graumann's Chinese Theater from about the 7th row and I saw pixels. Make that, I clearly saw pixels. At first I saw them on the letters at the beginning of the trailers (all the rating stuff). I figured it was just that the trailers were using some sucky resolution. Then AotC came on and I saw them during the movie. It was like watching a big NTSC projection up close. Okay, maybe it wasn't that bad but it was noticeable. I know how to be a picky snob about these things and I wasn't--it was distracting many times throughout the movie. I'm going to see it again soon and I'll definitely be sitting farther back.
When a group of people decide they don't like the legal state of things and decides to come up with their own standard, they are rising above petty legal fights and truly addressing the issues faced by individuals and businessed whose interests are firmly in the hands of patent owners that only care about themselves.
So I guess this means you're all for the copy protection scheme that the major labels are putting on some CDs now?
The "GNU system" gives Linus or anyone else the *freedom* to say that free beer is enough. If Stallman doesn't like that then he should have created a different system.
Does anyone else see the irony if "forever" copyright existed previously, Disney would never have been able to make Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, etc.
If I had mod points, I'd bump you up. That's one of the most interesting issues (no doubt raised elsewhere, I'm sure) I have seen brought up in this debate.
The GPL does a fine job of passing those principles along. Since that is included with Linux (along with the FSF's source code), I fail to see why Stallman should claim ownership of Linux.
There is a nice article on the GNU site entitled, "Why Software Should Not Have Owners". Isn't Stallman, by insisting that Linux be called GNU/Linux, trying to claim ownership? If software should not have owners, why does Stallman care what it's called? As long as Linux is GPL'd and his propaganda is spread throughout the land, his insistence that it be called GNU/Linux seems a bit disingenuous to me.
It means exclusive control (of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service). Apple is the only supplier of Mac computers, and effectively controls who can and who can't make hardware for the Mac. They also control the software their clients use (in the same way that Microsoft does).
That reasoning is just asinine. Gee, Porsche is the only company that makes Porsches. They must be a monopoly! Bzzzz! Wrong. Thanks for playing.
Yup. They've been showing their animated and non-animated movies in digital there for the past few years, too. Disney very much wants this to take off.
I really hope that they were able to obtain non-i386 binaries (not generic RedHat RPMs) for their platforms (ie, optimal gcc compiler flags). If the programs they use are not open source, hopefully the authors will provide extremely specific binaries for every platform on which they intend their programs to run.
The techies at Dreamworks are really, really smart and are used to working with high-end goodies. That they're using RedHat means it's doing the job that they need it to do. If things need to be tweaked or hacked to bring them up to speed, rest assured that there are people there who have done it or have had someone get it done for them.
You don't know what you're talking about. Pixar developers wrote CAPS to Disney specs. Disney took over CAPS development a long time ago. Pixar hasn't been in the picture for years.
There is/was an effort to move CAPS to Linux. However, with Feature Animation gutting the traditional side of the house, you have to wonder if CAPS is even going to be around in the next few years.
I was an active music consumer when CDs first came out in the USA. At the time, they were priced several dollars more than LPs (actually, the price, in some cases, was nearly double). The price increase, we were told by the labels, was due to low sales volume compared to LPs and lack of CD production facilities in the USA (the first CD production facility in the USA came online around 85 or 86, I believe) and that CDs would get cheaper once these factors abated.
Like idiots, we believed the labels and waited for the prices to come down. They didn't. They didn't come down when CDs overtook LP sales. They didn't come down when CDs overtook cassette sales. In fact, they kept going up. The labels liked the fat profits they were making with no effort when CD production costs plummetted and their prices remained the same.
Here we are 18 years later and the record labels are getting exactly what they deserve. They got fat and stupid off of their CD profits and were too slow to respond effectively once digital music became a force to be reckoned with. Did they make individual songs available for purchase and download so people wouldn't have to fork over $20 for a CD that contained one or two songs they liked? No. Did they make cheaper MP3 versions of albums available for people who didn't care about the quality, expense, and packaging of a full-priced CD? No.
The labels didn't respond to the market and so the market is running all over them. It's sad that the artists are the ones being screwed, though. The labels sowed the seeds of discontent and now the reaper has come to call.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see the current Bush Administration or remember the first Bush Administration doing much of anything regarding China. There's too much money involved for Republicans to stand up to China. No money involved with Cuba so Republicans are all over that.
The budget was already on track to be balanced when Republicans gained control of Congress. That's because Clinton actually showed some courage and gave Congress budgets that were smaller, whereas Reagan and Bush could never bring themselves to do that. Clinton even did that wish a Democrat congress, rather than using that as an excuse as Reagan and Bush did.
24FPS is a limitation, but current digital theaters also display at 24FPS.
This is a limitation of the source material. Digital cinema can have a higher frame rate. Actually, I know the mirrors can. I assume bandwidth is the limiting factor.
Is the Pixar screening room on the small side or is it as big as a commercial theater? If it is smaller then it's not a fair comparison.
I have read (in another of his reviews that I can't find now) that movies that are "filmed" (vs. digitally recorded) look better on film, where as digitally recorded movies look better on digital projectors (duh).
Funny. When CDs first came out, so-called audiophiles were saying the same thing about CDs vs. vinyl. It sounded plausible to me until I heard my first CD of an LP I already had. No contest, the CD was much better. Trust your own eyes and ears.
I don't know the specs but you're probably right. I saw AotC at Graumann's Chinese Theater from about the 7th row and I saw pixels. Make that, I clearly saw pixels. At first I saw them on the letters at the beginning of the trailers (all the rating stuff). I figured it was just that the trailers were using some sucky resolution. Then AotC came on and I saw them during the movie. It was like watching a big NTSC projection up close. Okay, maybe it wasn't that bad but it was noticeable. I know how to be a picky snob about these things and I wasn't--it was distracting many times throughout the movie. I'm going to see it again soon and I'll definitely be sitting farther back.
When a group of people decide they don't like the legal state of things and decides to come up with their own standard, they are rising above petty legal fights and truly addressing the issues faced by individuals and businessed whose interests are firmly in the hands of patent owners that only care about themselves.
So I guess this means you're all for the copy protection scheme that the major labels are putting on some CDs now?
Oh yes, let's please bitch about a brand new CD that costs $4.95.
These guys aren't the first or only company to use shipping charges as a profit center, people. Let's not miss the forest for the trees, eh?
The "GNU system" gives Linus or anyone else the *freedom* to say that free beer is enough. If Stallman doesn't like that then he should have created a different system.
Does anyone else see the irony if "forever" copyright existed previously, Disney would never have been able to make Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, etc.
If I had mod points, I'd bump you up. That's one of the most interesting issues (no doubt raised elsewhere, I'm sure) I have seen brought up in this debate.
The GPL does a fine job of passing those principles along. Since that is included with Linux (along with the FSF's source code), I fail to see why Stallman should claim ownership of Linux.
To RMS, the whole point is *freedom*, the freedom to use, modify and share software.
The freedom to call software whatever Stallman demands that we call it...
Irrelevant. If Dodge uses Mitsubishi parts in a car, it's still a Dodge because Dodge put all the parts together so Dodge gets to name the car.
See my post above. If Stallman really believes that software should have no owners, he would drop this self-serving name game.
There is a nice article on the GNU site entitled, "Why Software Should Not Have Owners". Isn't Stallman, by insisting that Linux be called GNU/Linux, trying to claim ownership? If software should not have owners, why does Stallman care what it's called? As long as Linux is GPL'd and his propaganda is spread throughout the land, his insistence that it be called GNU/Linux seems a bit disingenuous to me.
DJing is an art and DJs are often as respected as the artists they are spinning.
Drawing is an art. That doesn't mean someone who can draw well is a talented musician.
It means exclusive control (of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service). Apple is the only supplier of Mac computers, and effectively controls who can and who can't make hardware for the Mac. They also control the software their clients use (in the same way that Microsoft does).
That reasoning is just asinine. Gee, Porsche is the only company that makes Porsches. They must be a monopoly! Bzzzz! Wrong. Thanks for playing.
Yup. They've been showing their animated and non-animated movies in digital there for the past few years, too. Disney very much wants this to take off.
Then Jeffrey should have his mouth washed out with soap, too. He should know better.
Anyone who uses a word like "tradigital" should have their mouth washed out with soap. Good lord.
Enough that they don't have support contracts for the hardware. If a box fails and they can't fix it, it's cheaper to toss it and buy a new one.
I really hope that they were able to obtain non-i386 binaries (not generic RedHat RPMs) for their platforms (ie, optimal gcc compiler flags). If the programs they use are not open source, hopefully the authors will provide extremely specific binaries for every platform on which they intend their programs to run.
The techies at Dreamworks are really, really smart and are used to working with high-end goodies. That they're using RedHat means it's doing the job that they need it to do. If things need to be tweaked or hacked to bring them up to speed, rest assured that there are people there who have done it or have had someone get it done for them.
You don't know what you're talking about. Python is used at WDFA but CAPS is all C.
You don't know what you're talking about. Pixar developers wrote CAPS to Disney specs. Disney took over CAPS development a long time ago. Pixar hasn't been in the picture for years.
There is/was an effort to move CAPS to Linux. However, with Feature Animation gutting the traditional side of the house, you have to wonder if CAPS is even going to be around in the next few years.
I was an active music consumer when CDs first came out in the USA. At the time, they were priced several dollars more than LPs (actually, the price, in some cases, was nearly double). The price increase, we were told by the labels, was due to low sales volume compared to LPs and lack of CD production facilities in the USA (the first CD production facility in the USA came online around 85 or 86, I believe) and that CDs would get cheaper once these factors abated.
Like idiots, we believed the labels and waited for the prices to come down. They didn't. They didn't come down when CDs overtook LP sales. They didn't come down when CDs overtook cassette sales. In fact, they kept going up. The labels liked the fat profits they were making with no effort when CD production costs plummetted and their prices remained the same.
Here we are 18 years later and the record labels are getting exactly what they deserve. They got fat and stupid off of their CD profits and were too slow to respond effectively once digital music became a force to be reckoned with. Did they make individual songs available for purchase and download so people wouldn't have to fork over $20 for a CD that contained one or two songs they liked? No. Did they make cheaper MP3 versions of albums available for people who didn't care about the quality, expense, and packaging of a full-priced CD? No.
The labels didn't respond to the market and so the market is running all over them. It's sad that the artists are the ones being screwed, though. The labels sowed the seeds of discontent and now the reaper has come to call.