I'm guessing the poster you're responding to was making a joke. Before WWII, it was thought that battleships, not aircraft carriers, were the way to go. Like the poster before you was saying, it was felt that aircraft carriers could not withstand the onslaught of a battleship with huge guns.
And the reason everyone teaches X is because everyone uses it.... it's an endless loop. In 3D, there are the giants (Maya, 3DS Max, XSI, etc), and then there are the others. There's a reason the giants are the ones being used in more production houses. Sure, there's smaller, speciality programs being used as well, but what works, and what works well is what will ultimately be used, regardless of what's being taught. Production houses tend to be pretty willing in terms of trying out new tools and whatnot to some extent, so it's not that others are going unrecognized because they're not being taught.
True, but the problem is often it seems like people just start creating without actually knowing what they're doing, or what they *should* be doing. It's kind of hard to explain, but in 3D one could easily make a model that represents the real thing, or even the conceptual art, but when it comes time to animate, and there's lot of poles, poor edge looping, etc, it starts to fall apart. While you would think that after awhile one would learn to work while taking this into account, I feel it should be something that should be taught early on. IOW, teach the theory first, then the tools.
If you're looking to do any real serious 3D work, then they should be teaching something along the lines of Maya, XSI, etc (as in, programs that the real world uses).
The problem is, as you have brought up, seems like they don't teach the general concepts that fundementally drive 3D as a whole. An example in modelling might be them telling you how to use tools, but not something such as edge/geometry flow, edge loops, etc. It's one thing to know how to use the tools in Maya, but it's another thing alltogether to know why you're using them, and when/how to use them properly. However, given the complexity and scope of some of the 3D programs out there, there is a need for classes specifically geared to them. Unfortunately, no one teaches the basics before teaching the tools.
For me it was Ultima VI. In fact, I've just started playing it again. It was the first game for the PC that I actually kept playing for a long time. Oh the memories it brings back. I used to goto my cousin's house just to play it, which to this day is the only game I've left my house for the sole reason of playing the game (outside of sports obviousely)
I dare you to use GIMP for a month without using photoshop. Almost everyone who does stays with GIMP.
Sorry, but those people you're talking about obviousely aren't professionals. I don't know any reputable design house that relies solely on the gimp, and never uses PS. Face it, while the gimp is indeed a nice app for being a free one, it is absolutely *NOT* a replacement for Photoshop in the professional work environment. You can claim all you want that it is a viable replacement for PS, which may be the case for a casual user, but until you've actually done graphic design, illustration, CG, etc, for a living, you'll never understand.
Well, it is not quite suspended animation as the subjects have been cooled to about 10C (50F), so some biological processes do indeed still occur.
I know very little biology or anything medical (having never taken anything beyond high school biology), but is this why it works as opposed to cryogenics? The fact that it's not quite frozen? IIRC, the reason cryogenics doesn't work, is that the freezing actually ruptures the cell membranes, am I correct?
Also, is the fact that the metabolic rate drops so much for every 10 degrees C the reason why the brain can "survive" without oxygen being pumped through via blood? If the metabolic rate slows, does it lessen the need for the brain to take in as much oxygen, and thus allowing it to be able to return to normal after this kind of procedure?
Sorry if I sound stupid, but like I said, this stuff is beyond my knowledge, hence the questions.
Considering most MP3 players I've seen with line in/out use a mini -> rca y-cable, it doesn't make them any thicker. My iRiver is almost exactly the same size as the iPod that was out at the time. My point is that with the iPod it seems like you need so many adaptors and special plugs to do things a portable media player should do naturally. I don't know about you, but I don't want to spend 300 dollars on a player that has limited functionality, and then spend more to just get it to work the way it *should* ideally to begin with.
Nor do they have RCA input/output (and yes, having a dedicated line out jack is better than using the headphones jack). Nor do they support as many file formats as say an iRiver, etc.
Uh, unless this page is more than 10 years old, you're wrong: http://www.gimpguru.org/Tutorials/FilmGrain/
I suggest you take note of the layers part of his comment, not just the "levels, curves, colour, contrast etc..." part.
But isn't that 100k number the *fine* imposed by the FBI? I don't believe it says anything about the actual distributor/creator/etc of the movie being entitled to 100,000 USD.
But if you look at a reflective surface, it'll just beam the signal straight into your eyes and through your optic nerve. The key of course, is to cut out your eyes.
You don't even have to look at a Mac to do any heavy 3d Modelling. The vast majority of 3D artists I know use PCs perfectly well. I do some pretty intensive modelling, and there is no way I would shell out the money for a Mac.
I actually got into a discussion with someone about this, and he was totally convinced he was owed the DVD because he owned the VHS. I could be totally wrong but just because one purchased the VHS doesn't entitle one to the DVD. One is entitled to rip their VHS to DVD (pointless, unless you dont want to buy the DVD but want to get the VCR out of your living room), and he still claimed that that's no different and that they should just give him the DVD.
I also tried explaining that the DVD also contained extra footage for which he didn't pay for when he bought the VHS, but then he went on to say that that's irrelevant. Some people just don't get it it seems.
I assume he was making a reference to the fact that Fark.com headlines often contain "Duke sucks" when in reference to college sports. Hence the "//I'm in the wrong place, aren't I?" part.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing the poster you're responding to was making a joke. Before WWII, it was thought that battleships, not aircraft carriers, were the way to go. Like the poster before you was saying, it was felt that aircraft carriers could not withstand the onslaught of a battleship with huge guns.
Shouldn't be too hard, since I bet most of the people responsible for such things have the mental capacity of a 2 year old...
And the reason everyone teaches X is because everyone uses it.... it's an endless loop. In 3D, there are the giants (Maya, 3DS Max, XSI, etc), and then there are the others. There's a reason the giants are the ones being used in more production houses. Sure, there's smaller, speciality programs being used as well, but what works, and what works well is what will ultimately be used, regardless of what's being taught. Production houses tend to be pretty willing in terms of trying out new tools and whatnot to some extent, so it's not that others are going unrecognized because they're not being taught.
True, but the problem is often it seems like people just start creating without actually knowing what they're doing, or what they *should* be doing. It's kind of hard to explain, but in 3D one could easily make a model that represents the real thing, or even the conceptual art, but when it comes time to animate, and there's lot of poles, poor edge looping, etc, it starts to fall apart. While you would think that after awhile one would learn to work while taking this into account, I feel it should be something that should be taught early on. IOW, teach the theory first, then the tools.
If you're looking to do any real serious 3D work, then they should be teaching something along the lines of Maya, XSI, etc (as in, programs that the real world uses).
The problem is, as you have brought up, seems like they don't teach the general concepts that fundementally drive 3D as a whole. An example in modelling might be them telling you how to use tools, but not something such as edge/geometry flow, edge loops, etc. It's one thing to know how to use the tools in Maya, but it's another thing alltogether to know why you're using them, and when/how to use them properly. However, given the complexity and scope of some of the 3D programs out there, there is a need for classes specifically geared to them. Unfortunately, no one teaches the basics before teaching the tools.
Or if your boss's name is Jack...
For me it was Ultima VI. In fact, I've just started playing it again. It was the first game for the PC that I actually kept playing for a long time. Oh the memories it brings back. I used to goto my cousin's house just to play it, which to this day is the only game I've left my house for the sole reason of playing the game (outside of sports obviousely)
But now 1.5 million people can enjoy their favorite dish from their favorite Korean restaraunt! (Sorry, I couldn't resist)
I dare you to use GIMP for a month without using photoshop. Almost everyone who does stays with GIMP.
Sorry, but those people you're talking about obviousely aren't professionals. I don't know any reputable design house that relies solely on the gimp, and never uses PS. Face it, while the gimp is indeed a nice app for being a free one, it is absolutely *NOT* a replacement for Photoshop in the professional work environment. You can claim all you want that it is a viable replacement for PS, which may be the case for a casual user, but until you've actually done graphic design, illustration, CG, etc, for a living, you'll never understand.
And according to Kanye West, it was an attempt by the Bush administration to have the glaciars melt and flood black people's homes.
Well, it is not quite suspended animation as the subjects have been cooled to about 10C (50F), so some biological processes do indeed still occur.
I know very little biology or anything medical (having never taken anything beyond high school biology), but is this why it works as opposed to cryogenics? The fact that it's not quite frozen? IIRC, the reason cryogenics doesn't work, is that the freezing actually ruptures the cell membranes, am I correct?
Also, is the fact that the metabolic rate drops so much for every 10 degrees C the reason why the brain can "survive" without oxygen being pumped through via blood? If the metabolic rate slows, does it lessen the need for the brain to take in as much oxygen, and thus allowing it to be able to return to normal after this kind of procedure? Sorry if I sound stupid, but like I said, this stuff is beyond my knowledge, hence the questions.
Or... "why use pov-ray (or maya, 3ds max, lightwave, etc) when you can just take a picture?"
Considering most MP3 players I've seen with line in/out use a mini -> rca y-cable, it doesn't make them any thicker. My iRiver is almost exactly the same size as the iPod that was out at the time. My point is that with the iPod it seems like you need so many adaptors and special plugs to do things a portable media player should do naturally. I don't know about you, but I don't want to spend 300 dollars on a player that has limited functionality, and then spend more to just get it to work the way it *should* ideally to begin with.
Nor do they have RCA input/output (and yes, having a dedicated line out jack is better than using the headphones jack). Nor do they support as many file formats as say an iRiver, etc.
Uh, unless this page is more than 10 years old, you're wrong: http://www.gimpguru.org/Tutorials/FilmGrain/ I suggest you take note of the layers part of his comment, not just the "levels, curves, colour, contrast etc..." part.
I dunno, distributing a movie such as Coach Carter should carry a fine... even if it's the official distribution from Hollywood....
But isn't that 100k number the *fine* imposed by the FBI? I don't believe it says anything about the actual distributor/creator/etc of the movie being entitled to 100,000 USD.
But if you look at a reflective surface, it'll just beam the signal straight into your eyes and through your optic nerve. The key of course, is to cut out your eyes.
You don't even have to look at a Mac to do any heavy 3d Modelling. The vast majority of 3D artists I know use PCs perfectly well. I do some pretty intensive modelling, and there is no way I would shell out the money for a Mac.
People?
I actually got into a discussion with someone about this, and he was totally convinced he was owed the DVD because he owned the VHS. I could be totally wrong but just because one purchased the VHS doesn't entitle one to the DVD. One is entitled to rip their VHS to DVD (pointless, unless you dont want to buy the DVD but want to get the VCR out of your living room), and he still claimed that that's no different and that they should just give him the DVD.
I also tried explaining that the DVD also contained extra footage for which he didn't pay for when he bought the VHS, but then he went on to say that that's irrelevant. Some people just don't get it it seems.
Just try and let that freak sheep mutant get near me with my opposable thumbs and a large caliber handgun.
I assume he was making a reference to the fact that Fark.com headlines often contain "Duke sucks" when in reference to college sports. Hence the "//I'm in the wrong place, aren't I?" part.
I can just see it... the MPAA will try to sue the asteroid for violating Deep Impacts copyright.
Actually, it's the number 13 that's a hoax. That's why sometimes hotels and cruise ships omit them, they're just being accurate.