...when I watched an idiot EN3 (Petty officer 3rd class) walking on a prop shaft cover (which he knew he wasn't supposed to do) while we were under way and slipping and engaging the tiny tiny tiny tiny little gear that was intended to turn the shaft in port to avoid warping. I don't remember the ratio of the gear but it was something on the order of a few hundred thousand to one (it turned the shaft once every 90 minutes or something) and when this dipstick engaged it (someone was doing maintenance on it so it was unlocked) the shaft was doing 150 rpm or so. I remember doing the math at the time and figuring out the max RPM on the gear was somewhere along the lines of 35 million plus rpm. Now, the gear didn't make it that high since it disintegrating with what sounded like a bomb going off. Thank God it was small as it blew holes through bulkheads, steel covers, blew the cover off the rocker arms on the diesel engine 20 feet away. Nobody was hurt except for some ringing ears. Ahh, those 3 years in the Navy before I go to university, what things we learned... Hehe. BTW, the 'instant petty officer' was upside down in the reduction gear lube sump the minute we got back into port as punishment (the cheng [chief engineer] had him practicing his needle-gunning skills in the bilge two hours every morning in the meantime.)
Seriously... You can't tell at all whether the flapping did anything productive at all. The plane is towed into the air for a fair distance, then appears to coast and land - towards the end there's a little bit of flapping that doesn't seem to do anything at all. I'm not sure what, exactly, this is supposed to display, because it certainly doesn't demonstrate to the public (through the video) that this particular flapping does anything.
Fully expect this to be in beta for 2 years and then canceled, a la Wave, for some other 'uber' replacement 'product.' Seriously, with so many talented people, Google actually produces relatively very little.
... dropped because she couldn't use her iPhone? LOL. Check out a Korean/English dictionary from the library. Worried that his students won't be able to handle the class because they won't want to use his cheapo calculators? FFS people...
Sorry, I don't think that sentence makes any sense at all. You want to teach something more specific in order for them to get "a more general" practical understanding?
Ignoring the reversal of what "general" implies, this is akin to suggesting people learn how to balance their checkbooks before learning how to add and subtract.
I agree that nothing is being lost, and you actually lose top and bottom if they release the theatrical 2.35:1 version (this is what most people saw), but like I was saying - I really enjoy the theater feeling of 2.35:1. As for losing resolution, you lose pixels, but you gain color resolution because MPEG-4 Part 10 is a lossy format. How much I'm not sure and obviously depends upon the movie, but like I posted earlier, if you put up a 16:9 BluRay against a 2.35:1 BluRay and blow them both up to fit a 2.35:1 screen. The film transferred to 2.35:1 looks quite obviously better than the one matted by your receiver/projector (or not matted at all.) I was surprised by this personally, but there it is.
You mean a page referencing another page with no quotes from Cameron means that the other articles stating that Cameron "composed the film for 2.35:1" are wrong? Funny, considering how he was quoted directly stating that he liked 1.85:1 for 3D theaters but he still preferred "scope" for flat projection, and that because of this he had to frame it for 35mm like his previous movies. Man... The power of hearsay. After the movie was released Cameron admitted that his personal preference now is to view it in 1.85:1. That doesn't change that the movie was framed for 2.35:1 according Cameron.
There are several links that are easily Googled that back this up; however, they're all mostly hearsay like your link is. The articles I read about the movie were in Home Theater magazines back when Avatar was about 8 months from being released in the theaters.
I think it may also be interesting to note that because of the strictures of the hardware he had to use to film the movie (to get the lenses to operate in the fashion he wanted they couldn't use film cameras since the capture device(s) would have to be detached from the lenses) he was stuck with filming it digitally, which means 16:9. He didn't seem to have a choice. Now, I haven't seen it in an IMAX in 3D (hopefully with the re-release I will) but 16:9 is supposed to be better for the flying shots.
Well, thanks for stating what I stated in my original post in case we all missed it. Yes, it was filmed in 16:9, but Cameron himself stated that it was framed for 2.35:1, but that after shooting he 'fell in love' (yes, he's an egregious overhyped windbag sometimes but he makes entertaining movies) with the 16:9 version - why? Who knows... The IMAX version is cropped from this and the normal theater release is cropped from this as well. A wide version will not result in "less image", if you mean a lesser view of the scene due to cropping, well, duh... Thankfully, as I have pointed out several times, it was framed by the director for 2.35:1 so you're not missing anything of value (at least to the director.)
It is bigger because I can play it over the entire 138" screen without a loss in picture resolution when using an anamorphic lens setting. My screen is 138" diagonally with a 2.35:1 ratio of the width to the height. Playing a 16:9 movie on it results in a smaller image than playing a 2.35:1 movie because you can't use the full width of the screen without the top and bottom projecting off the screen onto the wall (and you lose resolution if your receiver or projector mattes the film for you instead of the film actually being 2.35:1.) If the film is encoded to the BluRay in 2.35:1, you gain resolution in the film areas of the picture that isn't spent in the matte and you can zoom to fill the 2.35:1 screen without loss of resolution (compared to the 16:9 version.)
My point about Cameron having shot the movie framing it for 2.35:1 means that the elements in the scene are apportioned and located appropriately for a 2.35:1 transfer. If you've ever blown up the 16:9 version to 2.35:1 and had your system matte the film for you (as I have done once to see what it would be like - this often doesn't work very well) you would note that the 16:9 transfer from the film is slightly manipulated from the film version because there are a lot of "forehead clipping" scenes showing that the 16:9 transfer was slightly off from center. You sort of do/don't get less resolution. Technically you are still zooming in on pixels of a finite amount; however, because the format is lossy, you're not encoding data in the matted areas so all of that compression space is given to color reproduction in the actual image so you gain color resolution. It's an easy comparison to make. Find a DVD that's 16:9 and another edition of the DVD in 2.35:1, play them both on the a 2.35:1 screen zoomed to fit horizontally and you'll see the difference. This is why the 'horizontally pinched' 2.35:1 image looks obviously superior to the 16:9 image.
I guess you would be happy watching the 4:3 fullscreen version of your favorite movie on a 9" Sony b/w monitor then? It's not like I'm saying "Oh, I can't bear to watch it unless it's in 2.35:1" - I have the 16:9 version and I enjoy it, I simply hope the cinemascope version comes out, so I can watch it like it is shown in the theater.
You are getting a bigger picture, but you do lose parts of the scene; however, because the movie was shot intended for 2.35:1 usage, cropping to 2.35:1 during the transfer (as was done for theatrical release outside of IMAX theaters) gives you a better image quality (BluRay uses a lossy format) and you see exactly what the directory intended.
I'm sure there are people out there who would rather not lose the cropped parts of the scene, I personally would rather have a larger 2.35:1 image with no loss in sharpness due to zoom.
Because a bigger image on the screen is a more enjoyable experience to me. Zooming a 16:9 isn't the same thing. It was framed for 2.35:1 - it was intended, when shot, to be shown in 2.35:1. Like I stated, it may seem snobby, but it isn't, if I can get a bigger image I would prefer that. I have the 16:9 version and I enjoy it, and it looks great, but it feels much more (to me) like you've got a real theater when the aspect is 2.35:1 or 2.4:1.
I remember when I first setup my home theater and testing it out using my XBox360 and the 16:9 image was great, but then I popped in my very first BluRay movie, Heat, and turned up the sound system, turned off the lights and watched the film take up the entire 138" CineGray 2.35:1 screen and said "Wow... I'm so glad I did this..." I'm usually a bit of a cynic regarding stuff like this but I am totally happy with my home theater. I have no more toys to buy!
...I am still astonished that the movie was shot in 16:9 and the original BluRay was released in 16:9. In a big home theater a 2.35:1 Avatar would be AMAZING (it still looks great in 16:9 but my subconscious keeps noticing the empty space to the left and right of the image that could hold movie...) Apparently Cameron had framed all the shots in the movie for 2.35:1 even though the camera used was natively 16:9, but later changed his mind. If the new BluRay is 2.35:1, I'll be lining up to get it of course. Otherwise, no thanks, there'll be another "Special Edition, Director's ORIGINAL original cut" out in a few more months.
Ion drive powered by a fusion reactor resulting in time travel to the future via time dilation? Cool, I always knew he was hiding something in that great big bushy beard of his...
Maybe there's a wait in some places but in Atlanta I was offered an iPhone 4 upgrade (wife has 3GS) with no wait (phone in stock in store) when I was buying my Galaxy S. No thanks... BTW, I was happy to find that AT&T hadn't buried the Captivate (their version of the Galaxy S) in AT&T crapware as well; although, you can't sideload apps (not a big deal as I am a registered Android dev anyhow...)
Slashdot Mirror
...when I watched an idiot EN3 (Petty officer 3rd class) walking on a prop shaft cover (which he knew he wasn't supposed to do) while we were under way and slipping and engaging the tiny tiny tiny tiny little gear that was intended to turn the shaft in port to avoid warping. I don't remember the ratio of the gear but it was something on the order of a few hundred thousand to one (it turned the shaft once every 90 minutes or something) and when this dipstick engaged it (someone was doing maintenance on it so it was unlocked) the shaft was doing 150 rpm or so. I remember doing the math at the time and figuring out the max RPM on the gear was somewhere along the lines of 35 million plus rpm. Now, the gear didn't make it that high since it disintegrating with what sounded like a bomb going off. Thank God it was small as it blew holes through bulkheads, steel covers, blew the cover off the rocker arms on the diesel engine 20 feet away. Nobody was hurt except for some ringing ears. Ahh, those 3 years in the Navy before I go to university, what things we learned... Hehe. BTW, the 'instant petty officer' was upside down in the reduction gear lube sump the minute we got back into port as punishment (the cheng [chief engineer] had him practicing his needle-gunning skills in the bilge two hours every morning in the meantime.)
Was your wife terribly disappointed?
...always get a Power of Attorney from your dog.
Seriously... You can't tell at all whether the flapping did anything productive at all. The plane is towed into the air for a fair distance, then appears to coast and land - towards the end there's a little bit of flapping that doesn't seem to do anything at all. I'm not sure what, exactly, this is supposed to display, because it certainly doesn't demonstrate to the public (through the video) that this particular flapping does anything.
L. Ron, is that you? I was wondering what happened to Dianetics...
Fully expect this to be in beta for 2 years and then canceled, a la Wave, for some other 'uber' replacement 'product.' Seriously, with so many talented people, Google actually produces relatively very little.
iPhone/iPod/iCrap/Whatever...
... dropped because she couldn't use her iPhone? LOL. Check out a Korean/English dictionary from the library. Worried that his students won't be able to handle the class because they won't want to use his cheapo calculators? FFS people...
...I guess, somehow (lol), using fiber precludes using wireless as a backup too?
Sorry, I don't think that sentence makes any sense at all. You want to teach something more specific in order for them to get "a more general" practical understanding?
Ignoring the reversal of what "general" implies, this is akin to suggesting people learn how to balance their checkbooks before learning how to add and subtract.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you have fed him for a lifetime...
...teach them how basic computers work, then teach them the principles behind how software works, THEN teach them about things like IT.
I agree that nothing is being lost, and you actually lose top and bottom if they release the theatrical 2.35:1 version (this is what most people saw), but like I was saying - I really enjoy the theater feeling of 2.35:1. As for losing resolution, you lose pixels, but you gain color resolution because MPEG-4 Part 10 is a lossy format. How much I'm not sure and obviously depends upon the movie, but like I posted earlier, if you put up a 16:9 BluRay against a 2.35:1 BluRay and blow them both up to fit a 2.35:1 screen. The film transferred to 2.35:1 looks quite obviously better than the one matted by your receiver/projector (or not matted at all.) I was surprised by this personally, but there it is.
You mean a page referencing another page with no quotes from Cameron means that the other articles stating that Cameron "composed the film for 2.35:1" are wrong? Funny, considering how he was quoted directly stating that he liked 1.85:1 for 3D theaters but he still preferred "scope" for flat projection, and that because of this he had to frame it for 35mm like his previous movies. Man... The power of hearsay. After the movie was released Cameron admitted that his personal preference now is to view it in 1.85:1. That doesn't change that the movie was framed for 2.35:1 according Cameron.
There are several links that are easily Googled that back this up; however, they're all mostly hearsay like your link is. The articles I read about the movie were in Home Theater magazines back when Avatar was about 8 months from being released in the theaters.
I think it may also be interesting to note that because of the strictures of the hardware he had to use to film the movie (to get the lenses to operate in the fashion he wanted they couldn't use film cameras since the capture device(s) would have to be detached from the lenses) he was stuck with filming it digitally, which means 16:9. He didn't seem to have a choice. Now, I haven't seen it in an IMAX in 3D (hopefully with the re-release I will) but 16:9 is supposed to be better for the flying shots.
Well, thanks for stating what I stated in my original post in case we all missed it. Yes, it was filmed in 16:9, but Cameron himself stated that it was framed for 2.35:1, but that after shooting he 'fell in love' (yes, he's an egregious overhyped windbag sometimes but he makes entertaining movies) with the 16:9 version - why? Who knows... The IMAX version is cropped from this and the normal theater release is cropped from this as well. A wide version will not result in "less image", if you mean a lesser view of the scene due to cropping, well, duh... Thankfully, as I have pointed out several times, it was framed by the director for 2.35:1 so you're not missing anything of value (at least to the director.)
I'll say it again.
The film was shot in 16:9.
It is bigger because I can play it over the entire 138" screen without a loss in picture resolution when using an anamorphic lens setting. My screen is 138" diagonally with a 2.35:1 ratio of the width to the height. Playing a 16:9 movie on it results in a smaller image than playing a 2.35:1 movie because you can't use the full width of the screen without the top and bottom projecting off the screen onto the wall (and you lose resolution if your receiver or projector mattes the film for you instead of the film actually being 2.35:1.) If the film is encoded to the BluRay in 2.35:1, you gain resolution in the film areas of the picture that isn't spent in the matte and you can zoom to fill the 2.35:1 screen without loss of resolution (compared to the 16:9 version.)
My point about Cameron having shot the movie framing it for 2.35:1 means that the elements in the scene are apportioned and located appropriately for a 2.35:1 transfer. If you've ever blown up the 16:9 version to 2.35:1 and had your system matte the film for you (as I have done once to see what it would be like - this often doesn't work very well) you would note that the 16:9 transfer from the film is slightly manipulated from the film version because there are a lot of "forehead clipping" scenes showing that the 16:9 transfer was slightly off from center. You sort of do/don't get less resolution. Technically you are still zooming in on pixels of a finite amount; however, because the format is lossy, you're not encoding data in the matted areas so all of that compression space is given to color reproduction in the actual image so you gain color resolution. It's an easy comparison to make. Find a DVD that's 16:9 and another edition of the DVD in 2.35:1, play them both on the a 2.35:1 screen zoomed to fit horizontally and you'll see the difference. This is why the 'horizontally pinched' 2.35:1 image looks obviously superior to the 16:9 image.
I guess you would be happy watching the 4:3 fullscreen version of your favorite movie on a 9" Sony b/w monitor then? It's not like I'm saying "Oh, I can't bear to watch it unless it's in 2.35:1" - I have the 16:9 version and I enjoy it, I simply hope the cinemascope version comes out, so I can watch it like it is shown in the theater.
You are getting a bigger picture, but you do lose parts of the scene; however, because the movie was shot intended for 2.35:1 usage, cropping to 2.35:1 during the transfer (as was done for theatrical release outside of IMAX theaters) gives you a better image quality (BluRay uses a lossy format) and you see exactly what the directory intended.
I'm sure there are people out there who would rather not lose the cropped parts of the scene, I personally would rather have a larger 2.35:1 image with no loss in sharpness due to zoom.
Because a bigger image on the screen is a more enjoyable experience to me. Zooming a 16:9 isn't the same thing. It was framed for 2.35:1 - it was intended, when shot, to be shown in 2.35:1. Like I stated, it may seem snobby, but it isn't, if I can get a bigger image I would prefer that. I have the 16:9 version and I enjoy it, and it looks great, but it feels much more (to me) like you've got a real theater when the aspect is 2.35:1 or 2.4:1.
I remember when I first setup my home theater and testing it out using my XBox360 and the 16:9 image was great, but then I popped in my very first BluRay movie, Heat, and turned up the sound system, turned off the lights and watched the film take up the entire 138" CineGray 2.35:1 screen and said "Wow... I'm so glad I did this..." I'm usually a bit of a cynic regarding stuff like this but I am totally happy with my home theater. I have no more toys to buy!
...I am still astonished that the movie was shot in 16:9 and the original BluRay was released in 16:9. In a big home theater a 2.35:1 Avatar would be AMAZING (it still looks great in 16:9 but my subconscious keeps noticing the empty space to the left and right of the image that could hold movie...) Apparently Cameron had framed all the shots in the movie for 2.35:1 even though the camera used was natively 16:9, but later changed his mind. If the new BluRay is 2.35:1, I'll be lining up to get it of course. Otherwise, no thanks, there'll be another "Special Edition, Director's ORIGINAL original cut" out in a few more months.
Ion drive powered by a fusion reactor resulting in time travel to the future via time dilation? Cool, I always knew he was hiding something in that great big bushy beard of his...
Thank you for that my friend. You have just made my day... :)
<ObiWan>That's no star wars geek...</Obiwan>
(Presuming a large number of files of course...) Hehe.
Maybe there's a wait in some places but in Atlanta I was offered an iPhone 4 upgrade (wife has 3GS) with no wait (phone in stock in store) when I was buying my Galaxy S. No thanks... BTW, I was happy to find that AT&T hadn't buried the Captivate (their version of the Galaxy S) in AT&T crapware as well; although, you can't sideload apps (not a big deal as I am a registered Android dev anyhow...)