Yeah, I agree about Tarnation. I'm not sure I'd ever want to watch it for a 2nd time, but it is encouraging that a no-budget film could get so much attention purely on artistic force alone.
Primer is a time-travel sci fi flick that was made for about $4000, shot entirely on super 16, and here's the best part: it won the Grand Jury award for best drama at Sundance this year. From the buzz I hear, it could be this year's Memento.
Robert Rodriguez shot El Mariachi for $7000 (http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/winter1993/maria chi_budget.php), and it got him a million-dollar production deal with Columbia. He went on to make Desperado, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, From Dusk Till Dawn, and the Spy Kids movies. He wrote a great book called Rebel Without a Crew about the experience of making El Mariachi on a shoestring budget.
If you don't have $4000 or $7000 to spend on a movie, how about $217? That's what Tarnation (http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/tarnati on.html) was made for. The director put it together from home movies shot on Super 8 and edited it with iMovie.
agreed - I too have seen the same 'violent' images since I started playing Mortal Kombat at the age of 12, and moved on to Postal, blowing people's head's off in Counter Strike, killing grandmas in GTA3, etc.
BUT...I still find my whole body shivering whenever I see so much as a dead squirrel on the side of the road, and the few times that I've seen a dead person up close still haunt me to this day.
I don't think I'm unique in feeling like this - any reasonably well adjusted person can tell the difference, and the ones that can't would find ways to cause trouble whether video games were around or not. We don't find it necessary to stop selling Catcher in the Rye just because it may have lead Mark David Chapman to murder John Lennon.
And yes, I do know that some people would actually think that was a fantastic reason to stop selling Catcher in the Rye, but somehow I think even Lieberman would not stoop that low.
be sure to check out your QT settings in the control panel. If the audio out is set to DirectSound, you will probably experience muddy audio clarity. Change it to waveOut and the clarity should be just as good as it is in Winamp.
so after digging around the Apple support forums, I discovered that I was not insane to think that the iTunes sound quality was noticeably worse than the quality from other audio programs.
here is the fix, which you should look into even if you don't think anything's wrong with the quality - go into the quicktime settings in the control panel, go to "wave out" and change it from DirectSound to waveOut - windows preferred, or waveOut - [name of your soundcard]
The problem is that quicktime (which iTunes uses as its MP3 engine) uses the directsound driver instead of sending the audio directly to your card. somehow this extra layer of software tomfoolery mangles the audio, giving it an "underwater" muffled effect. Try it and see if you can notice an improvement in your sound clarity.
I just installed windows iTunes, and I was shocked to hear how "muddy" the tone was when compared to playing the same song through Winamp. I tried the "sound enhancer", which helped a little, but I'm weary of what it's really doing to my music.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! woooo. That's a good one.
Try more like ~1 a frame. And some of the even more complex scenes can take a few hours to a frame.
an hour a frame? really?
let's do the math:
1 frame = 1 hour
30 fps = 30 hours to render 1 second of film
2 hour movie = 60 * 120 = 7200 seconds
7200 * 30 hours = 216,000 hours of render time
that's 9000 days, or 25 years to render an entire movie.
it obviously couldn't take an hour of NET render time per frame. maybe it takes an hour of total computation time, but that's obviously not what we're interested in here, and not what the original poster was talking about.
Homer: [ruefully] I'd sell my soul for a donut.
[The devil appears, looking like Flanders]
Flanders: Heh heh, that can be arranged.
Homer: What -- Flanders! You're the devil?
Flanders: Ho ho, it's always the one you least suspect. ...
Flanders: Now remember, the instant you finish it, I own your soul for --
Homer: [through a full mouth] Hey, wait: if I don't finish this last bite, you don't get my soul, do you?
Flanders: Well, technically, no, but --
Homer: [gloating] I'm smarter than the devil!
Imagine, if RT had a game review site, or, really, meta-review site, you'd get a collection of reviews from a wide range of famous and obscure reviewers, along with links to official websites and freebie "trailers" and desktop pix, etc.
No reviewer would be ranked higher than any other, so the first-glance-trending would probably not be as skewed. It would give everyone more information in one location, and plenty of obscure reviewers would get their chances at many more eyeballs.
No, you couldn't use lasers, because our galaxy is full of dust, and the dust scatters light particles. This is why we have to observe the Milky Way in microwave instead of visible light.
Any laser beam you could construct on earth would be so thin that it would get scattered very quickly in interstellar space. And where would you aim it?
Sorry to hear all that shit went down with you. I'm even more sorry to hear that you left Dartmouth - I'm going into my sophomore year there, and it's pretty much my favorite place in the world. I'm not the biggest fan of theoretical computing stuff, but I can't imagine ever wanting to leave Dartmouth early for any kind of pie-in-the-sky job offer.
Well, perhaps you'll be in my Theory of Computation class in the winter if you come back this year - it's being taught by Jayanti, who is supposed to be one of the best profs in the school, so maybe he will get you interested in the subject.
Day 2: AIBO found looking through personal CD collection.
Day 3: AIBO attempts to sabotage my chipped PS2. I reprimand it by frowning sternly and saying "Bad dog" but it just wags its tail and pretends like it doesn't understand.
Day 4: AIBO swallows the laser assembly of my CD burner. Claims it was hungry.
Day 5: AIBO starts leaving little piles of Memory Sticks all over the house.
Day 6: AIBO trashes my RioVolt by trying to mate with it.
Day 7: AIBO returned to store, exchanged for TiVo.
Terrorists will just hire someone to swap out their eyes for them. They just have to keep the bandages on for 12 hours afterwards, or they'll go blind.
Automated system: "Welcome onboard and have a safe flight, Mr. Yakimoto!"
Anyone who has ever needed a piece of information that was on a broken page will agree that the Google page cache is perhaps one of the most underrated and useful parts of your search engine.
There's one problem that everyone has with the cache, however - you don't deep-nest the caching, so that following any links on a cached page will lead to the original (probably broken) site, instead of to another cached page. Is there a technical or legal reason for why it works this way? Any chance we'll see deep caching at some point?
I know we would all like to think of Tivo as a wonderful utopian mother company that babies all of its little hacker children, but please keep in mind that reaching out to the hacker community is a shrewd business decision, not a form of altruism.
Consider for a moment the fact that hackers are almost always early adopters, who spread the gospel of technology to their less tech-literate friends. If you read Slashdot and/or hack Tivos, chances are you've got a couple of friends who think of you as their tech guru, and who come to you when they're deciding to purchase a computer, a new DVD player, or...oh, I don't know...a PVR unit.
The simple fact is that reaching out to hackers is simply Tivo's way of ensuring positive word-of-mouth from the people who are in the best position to dispense it. This is not a bad thing, but it's not particularly a great thing either - it's just smart business.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm using a Moox-optimized version of Firefox that doesn't actually install itself normally through windows and works as a stand-alone .EXE.
The accelerator seems to work for me, but I can't get the toolbar to show up or see any stats. Anyone have any ideas?
Yeah, I agree about Tarnation. I'm not sure I'd ever want to watch it for a 2nd time, but it is encouraging that a no-budget film could get so much attention purely on artistic force alone.
If you're interested in what can be done on extremely small budgets, check out a movie called Primer.
r .h tml
a chi_budget.php), and it got him a million-dollar production deal with Columbia. He went on to make Desperado, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, From Dusk Till Dawn, and the Spy Kids movies. He wrote a great book called Rebel Without a Crew about the experience of making El Mariachi on a shoestring budget.
i on.html) was made for. The director put it together from home movies shot on Super 8 and edited it with iMovie.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/prime
http://www.primermovie.com/home.html
Primer is a time-travel sci fi flick that was made for about $4000, shot entirely on super 16, and here's the best part: it won the Grand Jury award for best drama at Sundance this year. From the buzz I hear, it could be this year's Memento.
Robert Rodriguez shot El Mariachi for $7000 (http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/winter1993/mari
If you don't have $4000 or $7000 to spend on a movie, how about $217? That's what Tarnation (http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/tarnat
The MSN search isn't biased against Linux at all!
For proof, just go here and read what it says in the title.
For the lazy: "MSN Seach: linux -- More Useful Everyday"
agreed - I too have seen the same 'violent' images since I started playing Mortal Kombat at the age of 12, and moved on to Postal, blowing people's head's off in Counter Strike, killing grandmas in GTA3, etc.
BUT...I still find my whole body shivering whenever I see so much as a dead squirrel on the side of the road, and the few times that I've seen a dead person up close still haunt me to this day.
I don't think I'm unique in feeling like this - any reasonably well adjusted person can tell the difference, and the ones that can't would find ways to cause trouble whether video games were around or not. We don't find it necessary to stop selling Catcher in the Rye just because it may have lead Mark David Chapman to murder John Lennon.
And yes, I do know that some people would actually think that was a fantastic reason to stop selling Catcher in the Rye, but somehow I think even Lieberman would not stoop that low.
does anyone actually care about this??
be sure to check out your QT settings in the control panel. If the audio out is set to DirectSound, you will probably experience muddy audio clarity. Change it to waveOut and the clarity should be just as good as it is in Winamp.
so after digging around the Apple support forums, I discovered that I was not insane to think that the iTunes sound quality was noticeably worse than the quality from other audio programs.
here is the fix, which you should look into even if you don't think anything's wrong with the quality - go into the quicktime settings in the control panel, go to "wave out" and change it from DirectSound to waveOut - windows preferred, or waveOut - [name of your soundcard]
The problem is that quicktime (which iTunes uses as its MP3 engine) uses the directsound driver instead of sending the audio directly to your card. somehow this extra layer of software tomfoolery mangles the audio, giving it an "underwater" muffled effect. Try it and see if you can notice an improvement in your sound clarity.
so, I've actually got the EQ and all effects turned off in both Winamp and iTunes, and there is still a very noticeable difference in audio clarity.
anyone have any ideas on why this might be happening?
I just installed windows iTunes, and I was shocked to hear how "muddy" the tone was when compared to playing the same song through Winamp. I tried the "sound enhancer", which helped a little, but I'm weary of what it's really doing to my music.
Anyone know what's going on?
let's do the math:
1 frame = 1 hour
30 fps = 30 hours to render 1 second of film
2 hour movie = 60 * 120 = 7200 seconds
7200 * 30 hours = 216,000 hours of render time
that's 9000 days, or 25 years to render an entire movie.
it obviously couldn't take an hour of NET render time per frame. maybe it takes an hour of total computation time, but that's obviously not what we're interested in here, and not what the original poster was talking about.
Homer: [ruefully] I'd sell my soul for a donut.
...
[The devil appears, looking like Flanders]
Flanders: Heh heh, that can be arranged.
Homer: What -- Flanders! You're the devil?
Flanders: Ho ho, it's always the one you least suspect.
Flanders: Now remember, the instant you finish it, I own your soul for --
Homer: [through a full mouth] Hey, wait: if I don't finish this last bite, you don't get my soul, do you?
Flanders: Well, technically, no, but --
Homer: [gloating] I'm smarter than the devil!
[later]
Homer: "Mmm, forbidden donut."
-SNPP
This exists already, and it's awesome
They do metareviewing of games and movies, and in my opinion it's one of the most useful sites on the net.
so will this new games site be as innovative, world-changing, dynamic, and incredible as AICN's other non-movie/TV project, Voices?
Ok, ok, cheap shot, I know...
No, you couldn't use lasers, because our galaxy is full of dust, and the dust scatters light particles. This is why we have to observe the Milky Way in microwave instead of visible light.
Any laser beam you could construct on earth would be so thin that it would get scattered very quickly in interstellar space. And where would you aim it?
Evro,
Sorry to hear all that shit went down with you. I'm even more sorry to hear that you left Dartmouth - I'm going into my sophomore year there, and it's pretty much my favorite place in the world. I'm not the biggest fan of theoretical computing stuff, but I can't imagine ever wanting to leave Dartmouth early for any kind of pie-in-the-sky job offer.
Well, perhaps you'll be in my Theory of Computation class in the winter if you come back this year - it's being taught by Jayanti, who is supposed to be one of the best profs in the school, so maybe he will get you interested in the subject.
The best laughs I've had from SatireWire:
Are you tangential?
Imagine there's no countries
Should Marty Xerox Egypt?
Least-used chat e-bbreviations
Ask the startled
Men do talk about relationships
Canada has a waship? like for war?
God names next chosen people; it's Jews again
New "Segway Human Transporter" not tested for acronyms
Or imagine your eyes get hacked by a Slashdot troll and you have to look at a certain goat-related image 24/7...
Here's a fairly recent article about this from the Boston Globe
(Google cache link, since the original story is now archived)
Day 1: AIBO received as present
Day 2: AIBO found looking through personal CD collection.
Day 3: AIBO attempts to sabotage my chipped PS2. I reprimand it by frowning sternly and saying "Bad dog" but it just wags its tail and pretends like it doesn't understand.
Day 4: AIBO swallows the laser assembly of my CD burner. Claims it was hungry.
Day 5: AIBO starts leaving little piles of Memory Sticks all over the house.
Day 6: AIBO trashes my RioVolt by trying to mate with it.
Day 7: AIBO returned to store, exchanged for TiVo.
Terrorists will just hire someone to swap out their eyes for them. They just have to keep the bandages on for 12 hours afterwards, or they'll go blind.
Automated system: "Welcome onboard and have a safe flight, Mr. Yakimoto!"
Anyone who has ever needed a piece of information that was on a broken page will agree that the Google page cache is perhaps one of the most underrated and useful parts of your search engine.
There's one problem that everyone has with the cache, however - you don't deep-nest the caching, so that following any links on a cached page will lead to the original (probably broken) site, instead of to another cached page. Is there a technical or legal reason for why it works this way? Any chance we'll see deep caching at some point?
I know we would all like to think of Tivo as a wonderful utopian mother company that babies all of its little hacker children, but please keep in mind that reaching out to the hacker community is a shrewd business decision, not a form of altruism.
Consider for a moment the fact that hackers are almost always early adopters, who spread the gospel of technology to their less tech-literate friends. If you read Slashdot and/or hack Tivos, chances are you've got a couple of friends who think of you as their tech guru, and who come to you when they're deciding to purchase a computer, a new DVD player, or...oh, I don't know...a PVR unit.
The simple fact is that reaching out to hackers is simply Tivo's way of ensuring positive word-of-mouth from the people who are in the best position to dispense it. This is not a bad thing, but it's not particularly a great thing either - it's just smart business.