That said, I wouldn't want them to change it. Once you start messing around with that stuff, you're tempted to go down George Lucas's path to the dark side [..] Hiding that--let alone gussying it up--would be a sin.
As far as the 100%-film ST:TOS goes, the problem is that by rescanning and viewing at a greater level of detail than was ever originally expected, one *is* being sort of inauthentic- in the opposite direction- by exposing "flaws" that it's unfair to call flaws, because they wouldn't have been visible under the original planned viewing conditions.
Some may argue that I'm imposing a restriction on it that never existed (since the film-based masters were never tied to the resolution of TV). Still, IMHO, this is applying higher standards to the original material than could ever be considered fair.
As for The Next Generation (even ignoring the above), *any* HD version is going to fail the George Lucas authenticity test regardless.
The SD-video-based special effects would have to be remade to ensure consistency with the effects-free high-definition film scans even if one didn't want to attempt to "improve" them beyond this. The alternative- trying to remain as authentic as possible by including the original effects- wouldn't work either since (as I mentioned) it's going to be impossible to upscale them to anything even approaching true HD. The result would be a piebald mixture of high-resolution film shots and obviously much lower resolution effects shots- the jarring nature of which would in itself be inauthentic (as well as being crap!)
It was 1965. What else were they going to shoot it on? Videotape? Nope--their SFX involved *direct manipulation of the film*.
British TV- particularly the BBC- used to mix-and-match video and film footage, particularly prior to the mid-80s. (Most noticeably they used film for outdoor and location footage and video for studio footage; I'm sure the mixture would be slightly disconcerting for those not used to that, but if you've seen enough your brain just tends to treat it as an indicator, i.e. film -> outdoors, video -> indoors. I remember one old episode of Doctor Who where the "outdoor" shot of the jungle looked "wrong" because it had obviously been shot on video in a studio, breaking that association).
Anyway, I'm sure they could have (had they been willing to tolerate the mixture) do the effects on film.
In fact, apparently the late-70s US Spiderman TV show did the "wall climbing shots" cheaply using electronic video-based blue-screening, then transferring the video footage to film. Probably didn't do the quality too much good...
In any case, videotape at the time was not considered a media for anything you intended to keep; it was for time delays and the like.
That was more a cultural choice and association than anything practical stopping them from doing it. US audiences didn't like the look of video.
I assume the BBC shot on video because it was cheaper to shoot and edit. Ironically, it was also more expensive to store, because videotape was expensive and they tended to reuse it, leading to the mass-wipings of shows like the early Doctor Whos, and almost all the remaining video-shot BBC productions from the 60s only exist as "telecine" transfers to film!
Videotape was right out. 35mm was their only choice.
If they are going back to the original film and they have to redo all the edits, can't that be done in 4K yet? It seems like a shame to be doing HD right at the end of the HD era.
As I said elsewhere, it was- I assume- shot with 1980s TV viewers in mind. Even if it's theoretically possible to resolve 4K of detail from the source film, the set, makeup, etc. only needed to look good on a 525-line set, and they wouldn't have wasted money on unseen detail.
In short, with 4K, you'll be able to see the joins in a set that was only ever intended to look good on a 1980s SD TV, or notice that Picard's makeup looks cakey (and apparently strange, if- as others have suggested- it was designed with NTSC's ropey colour handling in mind).
I had no idea it was shot on 35mm. That's some good forward planning.
No, it's not. The fact that *will* have to redo all the special effects from scratch (because those were all done directly to video and never existed as anything other than crappy, low-resolution NTSC) suggests otherwise.
Basically, I doubt they had that in mind back in 1987. They probably shot on film because it looked "better" (or at least higher budget) than video camera sourced footage back then. They probably didn't care about the loss of quality in transferring to NTSC for editing since it wouldn't have been obvious to their main audience in the US (as they would have been viewing it via NTSC transmissions anyway).
I really don't think they deserve credit for something that was never their intention in the first place.
Unlike Wil Wheaton, who has published a lot, been in a load of TV shows and films (and even voiced some of the Romulans in the new Star Trek movie, so seems not to be too out of favour with Paramount).
Wil Wheaton is a cult figure among the geek community, but he's not *that* famous in mainstream terms. As for Paramount, that's explained by the fact that the suits who were in charge almost 20 years ago have probably long moved on (mostly retired now, I suspect) and been replaced by a new generation who weren't personally involved and don't have the same level of animosity towards Wheaton.
Was Star Trek The Next Generation shot on film, or on video tape?
As others replied, shot on film, edited on video.... except the special effects, many of which were mastered direct to video AFAIK.
Did the studio record to higher than broadcast resolution?
The bits that were shot on film probably contain more detail than could be shown on 525-line NTSC video.
I suppose they could sharpen it and upscale content, and redo titles and some of the effects.
The stuff that was shot on film probably doesn't need "upscaling", just rescanning at higher resolution.
The stuff that only ever existed on video... there's no way in hell they'll ever be able to upscale that in a worthwhile manner. The quality of NTSC video just isn't good enough to do that, and it would stick out like sore thumb if they tried to integrate those bits with the rescanned film. They'll have to redo them.
But is it really HD? Seems a bit deceptive to claim it is if it isn't.
I suspect you meant is it HD, or just upscaled SD?
But if we interpret your question another way, it raises an interesting point. The original film footage probably contains *much* more detail than the SD video transfer was capable of retaining.... so yes, it's "HD" in that sense.
However, just because film can resolve that much detail, doesn't mean the show was made with that in mind. In particular, it's likely they shot it for SD transmission and TV sets. Even a well-budgeted TV show like TNG would have had to allocate its budget wisely, and I doubt they would have wasted valuable money on (e.g.) set detailing that their audience would never see. It only had to look good in SD.
Now, if you watch the footage in high definition, chances are we may see that the set looks a little shoddy, with visible joins if you look closely. Picard's set makeup might look a bit "cakey" and obvious. And (as others mentioned) any illegible in-jokes on the button text could suddenly become readable.
Of course, this isn't a criticism of the original show, as it was probably never intended that people would be able to see that level of detail on screen.
Apparently, the BBC are having to invest in a new set for their popular soap opera EastEnders' move to HD, because the limitations of the existing one- which looked fine in SD- started showing up. Which shows that shooting in HD isn't simply a question of being able to resolve more detail- you have to plan for it too.
I've been watching TNG on Netflix and it looks absolutely awful. Certainly no better than a VHS tape.
I watched TNG on TV in the early 90s on the same 22" CRT I watched most programmes on, i.e. by the standards of the time on a moderate-sized set that wasn't going to show up any minor flaws.
And even *then* it was obvious to me that TNG's picture quality was f****** awful. It was almost distractingly soft and poor quality.
I live in the UK, and I noticed that the picture quality of a lot of US TV shows was visibly *worse* in the 90s than it had been in the 80s. I later found out that the reason was that until the late-80s most US shows were shot and *mastered* on film. In some cases at least (e.g. the original Star Trek series) the BBC got a film copy that they transferred live directly to the PAL transmission, with no NTSC intermediate.
From the late-80s, a lot of US shows switched to shot on film, but edited on video tape, probably to save money. This was probably okay for Americans watching on NTSC, because what got transmitted would have been degraded to crappy NTSC standard anyway. But showing that NTSC-edited programme on a UK TV system, you could see it looked rubbish.
Granted, the problem would probably have been exacerbated by NTSC->PAL conversion, but I've seen enough to confirm that the NTSC master probably wasn't that much better, and that the problems were down to NTSC. What you say just confirms it. ST:TNG's picture quality was garbage in the first place because it was downgraded to the lowest-common denominator NTSC quality at the editing stage.
Was that BBC Horizon - Painting with Numbers? That was my all time documentary back then. [..] There was a African-American kid who did some sprite programming with a TI system.
If the reference was to one of TI's computer, and it was a contemporary example- suggesting that the documentary was made in the early '80s- then no, it wasn't that one. The one I saw would have been around the mid-to-late 90s.
Sounds like it- and the other stuff you mention- might be worth checking out via official or, er, unofficial channels!
But that would violate the principle tenet of real-time: making the data show up where it's needed at the time it's needed.
If you can't render the frames at the speed they're displayed (24 or 30 fps), you're non-real time.
Either a massive "whoooosh" or you misintepreted what I was saying (I posted that as AC as I forgot to log in and was in a hurry).
I was (very jokingly) implying that one could have such a system generate output in "real time" if one allowed the frame rate of that footage to be low enough (i.e. measured in frames per day!)
I don't think he was disputing that- I think you misinterpreted what (I assume) he was trying to say.
Namely that he doesn't believe the stock response that such behaviour is always ultimately beneficial because it increases liquidity- or at least that it doesn't increase liquidity sufficiently to offset the skimming and other drawbacks.
I can't tell which is correct, but you certainly sound like a young self-absorbed prick with an overinflated sense of self.
Now, now. We know that can't be true... if he's old enough to remember wanting a Polaroid in the 70s, he's not that young (probably edging 40 rather than just out of his 20s).:-)
But in all seriousness, if the guy wasn't an obvious douche- and apparently trying to conform to your "idiot with money to waste" image- he might have had a point. I remember thinking how cool Polaroid cameras were in the early 80s, but I never had one myself, so I can understand the appeal.
(In my case, I'm sure it was the cost of the film- not the camera- that was the reason I'd never have even considered it. I still remember the shots back *then* worked out at around £1 each- or at least that's what I was told- because that was more pocket money than I got in a week! And it's still damn expensive... £2.25 in today's money, or US $3.59!!!)
funny that the only replies you got were from AC's.
They wanted to argue against what you said but in the end they just didn't have the guts. What they said didn't matter because they weren't prepared to back it with a real username.
Did this have anything to do with what he said, or were you just looking for an excuse to argue about or debate the value of AC contributions in general?
Whether or not what you said was true, it could have been said in response to *any* post with anonymous replies. Furthermore, can we assume that "dudpixel" is the name your Mummy and Daddy gave you when you were born? I suspect not.:-)
It's often illegal to obfuscate or alter your sending FAX number due to junk FAX laws, while spoofing email is trivial.
Flawed argument; you're contrasting one thing being *illegal* with another being *easy*. Aren't there laws against spoofing email in this context as well?
They might not be enforceable, but that's another issue altogether.
Personally, if the $3 went to the court, I would not bother the clerks with pennies. But, if it went directly to the spammers, I would be sorely tempted to send 300 one cent USD international money orders in seperate envelopes with signature confirmation for the spammers to cash
I don't know what US law is under such circumstances, but in England and Wales small value coins (under £1) are only legal tender for payment of debts up to a certain amount, i.e. I assume you couldn't pay a £1,000,000 debt in 1p and 2p bronze coins!
But slashdotters should stop giving them free passes because they're "google".
Said it before and I'll say it again- the idea that most Slashdotters are uncritically in love with Google is out of date. It's undeniably true that up until around the mid-2000s there was a borderline fanboyish attitude of indulgence towards Google. However, that's changed quite noticeably in the past five or so years. While it may be argued that Google still gets cut more slack than they deserve, the era of "Google can do no wrong" being representative of most Slashdotters is now over.
I agree that the like of detail is disappointing. However...
The animation looks like its running in real time, where computers of 1972 fast enough to handle this?
I think I could safely say that if I knew *nothing* about that film beyond it having been made in 1972, that I'd still bet my life on it *not* having been done in real time! Seriously, I'm pretty damn sure that you couldn't have done that in anything approaching real time even in 1982...
For example this video was probably made by taping polaroids to a CRT to get the images out of the computer and onto the film.
I haven't had time to watch the whole 100 minute video yet, but are you talking from having seen this film or just guessing?
My assumption had been that they would point a camera at a display, possibly cycling through multiple renderings of the same image using different dithering randomisation settings so that if (say) they only had a 2-color (black/white) hi-res display they would be able to "average out" and simulate greyscale. Of course, even a single 320 x 192 two-colour image would take up 8 KB, which would have been a lot in 1972, so I don't know if it would have been feasible to store multiple versions and "cycle" them or whether they just did multiple exposure. All this is just guesswork anyway, I might be completely wrong.
I for one am glad that they didn't think to themselves "hey - I wonder if there's money to be made in the adult entertainment industry with this stuff..."
Almost forty years on and computer-generated porn still sucks (and not in the desired sense either). Creepy, mannequin-like, uncanny-valley figures in crappy fake poses. Granted, I may be biased because I like the more naturalistic stuff, but it's still rotten.
Seriously... it must have almost crossed their mind... and then we would have been without Toy Story and a whole load of other great films!
Well, unless the bad publicity would have precluded them from making Toy Story, why couldn't they have done both?
I remember seeing the faces (5'10" onwards) and some other bits on some BBC or Channel 4 TV documentary a while back now (late 90s) and being very impressed by the fact they'd been able to do that in 1972 (matter of fact, I'm more impressed with that than I was with the hand). In terms of quality, I would have guessed it was done years later, more like the late-70s.
Having looked for it online more recently (on YouTube and via Google) I wasn't able to find it anywhere, so it's great that these are now available.
(Side issue, but the music's different to the analogue synth swooshes I originally remember accompanying it, and which suited it better IMHO. I assume that the original film was silent and so there wasn't any "original" music anyway?)
Disclaimer; this reply is not an endorsement of Atari being dicks.
Who's going to play "asteroids" as an iPhone app when Sega will be releasing Shenmu as an app?
I would- Asteroids is a great game. (Let's ignore that it might suck without physical buttons- that's clearly not the point you were making). Without looking it up on Wikipedia, I genuinely don't know (nor care) what Shenmu is, beyond being a game. I don't claim to be typical, nor a part of the most lucrative market. I say this to show that your personal view (*gasp*) doesn't represent every person on the planet, despite the fact you think it does.
They are assuming nostalgia value, but seriously, the larger market for the smartphones is 20-somethings who have NO memory of 8-bit Atari games.
So what? Even if your assertion is correct, that argument has two fundamental flaws.
Firstly, let's assume that you're correct and that twentysomethings are the largest group of smartphone users. This doesn't mean that there isn't a significant or worthwhile market outside that range, only that it isn't *as* large.
Secondly, Atari's strength in branding, IP and cultural significance relates very strongly to the late-1970s and early-1980s. Atari was well past its peak and heading for extinction (*) by the 1990s, and- despite the underrated Lynx's cult following- they would be absolutely stupid to focus in that period for nostalgia purposes, because, as you say yourself:-
To [today's twentysomethings] nostalgia is Pokemon and Power Rangers, and the games they played were SNES Starfox or better.
Again, so what? Atari has little nostalgic value relating to that time period- that's not their strength- and they can't go back in time and change that. It makes more sense to go with what they've got. They'd be better being a very strong player in a slightly smaller market than going for the 90s/twentysomething market and trying vainly to get them to remember the likes of Checkered Flag for the Atari Jaguar.
Your logic is akin to saying that *if* the best long-distance runners earn decent money, but American Football players have the potential to earn a lot more, then a good runner should give up his sport and become a rugby player instead.... Even if he's the archetypal skinny-built Ethiopian type that seems to dominate running (i.e. good build for running, very poor for rugby) and always dropped the ball when he played rugby at school!
Do these retards understand that in a couple of years, your iphone is going to have the 3D capability of a PS2?
For someone calling others "retards", your own intelligence seems to be sadly lacking if you don't realise that the present-day appeal of such games does *not* rely on their being cutting edge any more, nor that the same argument could be applied to the SNES nostalgia of your coveted twentysomething demographic.
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds like something a jealous AI would say. I suspect you're not human!
Does it please you to believe I am not human?
We were talking about you, not me.
Oh... not you?
That sounds like something a jealous AI would say. I suspect you're not human!
Does it please you to believe I am not human?
That said, I wouldn't want them to change it. Once you start messing around with that stuff, you're tempted to go down George Lucas's path to the dark side [..] Hiding that--let alone gussying it up--would be a sin.
As far as the 100%-film ST:TOS goes, the problem is that by rescanning and viewing at a greater level of detail than was ever originally expected, one *is* being sort of inauthentic- in the opposite direction- by exposing "flaws" that it's unfair to call flaws, because they wouldn't have been visible under the original planned viewing conditions.
Some may argue that I'm imposing a restriction on it that never existed (since the film-based masters were never tied to the resolution of TV). Still, IMHO, this is applying higher standards to the original material than could ever be considered fair.
As for The Next Generation (even ignoring the above), *any* HD version is going to fail the George Lucas authenticity test regardless.
The SD-video-based special effects would have to be remade to ensure consistency with the effects-free high-definition film scans even if one didn't want to attempt to "improve" them beyond this. The alternative- trying to remain as authentic as possible by including the original effects- wouldn't work either since (as I mentioned) it's going to be impossible to upscale them to anything even approaching true HD. The result would be a piebald mixture of high-resolution film shots and obviously much lower resolution effects shots- the jarring nature of which would in itself be inauthentic (as well as being crap!)
It was 1965. What else were they going to shoot it on? Videotape? Nope--their SFX involved *direct manipulation of the film*.
British TV- particularly the BBC- used to mix-and-match video and film footage, particularly prior to the mid-80s. (Most noticeably they used film for outdoor and location footage and video for studio footage; I'm sure the mixture would be slightly disconcerting for those not used to that, but if you've seen enough your brain just tends to treat it as an indicator, i.e. film -> outdoors, video -> indoors. I remember one old episode of Doctor Who where the "outdoor" shot of the jungle looked "wrong" because it had obviously been shot on video in a studio, breaking that association).
Anyway, I'm sure they could have (had they been willing to tolerate the mixture) do the effects on film.
In fact, apparently the late-70s US Spiderman TV show did the "wall climbing shots" cheaply using electronic video-based blue-screening, then transferring the video footage to film. Probably didn't do the quality too much good...
In any case, videotape at the time was not considered a media for anything you intended to keep; it was for time delays and the like.
That was more a cultural choice and association than anything practical stopping them from doing it. US audiences didn't like the look of video.
I assume the BBC shot on video because it was cheaper to shoot and edit. Ironically, it was also more expensive to store, because videotape was expensive and they tended to reuse it, leading to the mass-wipings of shows like the early Doctor Whos, and almost all the remaining video-shot BBC productions from the 60s only exist as "telecine" transfers to film!
Videotape was right out. 35mm was their only choice.
True, but it *was* a choice.
If they are going back to the original film and they have to redo all the edits, can't that be done in 4K yet? It seems like a shame to be doing HD right at the end of the HD era.
As I said elsewhere, it was- I assume- shot with 1980s TV viewers in mind. Even if it's theoretically possible to resolve 4K of detail from the source film, the set, makeup, etc. only needed to look good on a 525-line set, and they wouldn't have wasted money on unseen detail.
In short, with 4K, you'll be able to see the joins in a set that was only ever intended to look good on a 1980s SD TV, or notice that Picard's makeup looks cakey (and apparently strange, if- as others have suggested- it was designed with NTSC's ropey colour handling in mind).
Be careful what you wish for.
I had no idea it was shot on 35mm. That's some good forward planning.
No, it's not. The fact that *will* have to redo all the special effects from scratch (because those were all done directly to video and never existed as anything other than crappy, low-resolution NTSC) suggests otherwise.
Basically, I doubt they had that in mind back in 1987. They probably shot on film because it looked "better" (or at least higher budget) than video camera sourced footage back then. They probably didn't care about the loss of quality in transferring to NTSC for editing since it wouldn't have been obvious to their main audience in the US (as they would have been viewing it via NTSC transmissions anyway).
I really don't think they deserve credit for something that was never their intention in the first place.
Unlike Wil Wheaton, who has published a lot, been in a load of TV shows and films (and even voiced some of the Romulans in the new Star Trek movie, so seems not to be too out of favour with Paramount).
Wil Wheaton is a cult figure among the geek community, but he's not *that* famous in mainstream terms. As for Paramount, that's explained by the fact that the suits who were in charge almost 20 years ago have probably long moved on (mostly retired now, I suspect) and been replaced by a new generation who weren't personally involved and don't have the same level of animosity towards Wheaton.
Was Star Trek The Next Generation shot on film, or on video tape?
As others replied, shot on film, edited on video.... except the special effects, many of which were mastered direct to video AFAIK.
Did the studio record to higher than broadcast resolution?
The bits that were shot on film probably contain more detail than could be shown on 525-line NTSC video.
I suppose they could sharpen it and upscale content, and redo titles and some of the effects.
The stuff that was shot on film probably doesn't need "upscaling", just rescanning at higher resolution.
The stuff that only ever existed on video... there's no way in hell they'll ever be able to upscale that in a worthwhile manner. The quality of NTSC video just isn't good enough to do that, and it would stick out like sore thumb if they tried to integrate those bits with the rescanned film. They'll have to redo them.
But is it really HD? Seems a bit deceptive to claim it is if it isn't.
I suspect you meant is it HD, or just upscaled SD?
But if we interpret your question another way, it raises an interesting point. The original film footage probably contains *much* more detail than the SD video transfer was capable of retaining.... so yes, it's "HD" in that sense.
However, just because film can resolve that much detail, doesn't mean the show was made with that in mind. In particular, it's likely they shot it for SD transmission and TV sets. Even a well-budgeted TV show like TNG would have had to allocate its budget wisely, and I doubt they would have wasted valuable money on (e.g.) set detailing that their audience would never see. It only had to look good in SD.
Now, if you watch the footage in high definition, chances are we may see that the set looks a little shoddy, with visible joins if you look closely. Picard's set makeup might look a bit "cakey" and obvious. And (as others mentioned) any illegible in-jokes on the button text could suddenly become readable.
Of course, this isn't a criticism of the original show, as it was probably never intended that people would be able to see that level of detail on screen.
Apparently, the BBC are having to invest in a new set for their popular soap opera EastEnders' move to HD, because the limitations of the existing one- which looked fine in SD- started showing up. Which shows that shooting in HD isn't simply a question of being able to resolve more detail- you have to plan for it too.
I've been watching TNG on Netflix and it looks absolutely awful. Certainly no better than a VHS tape.
I watched TNG on TV in the early 90s on the same 22" CRT I watched most programmes on, i.e. by the standards of the time on a moderate-sized set that wasn't going to show up any minor flaws.
And even *then* it was obvious to me that TNG's picture quality was f****** awful. It was almost distractingly soft and poor quality.
I live in the UK, and I noticed that the picture quality of a lot of US TV shows was visibly *worse* in the 90s than it had been in the 80s. I later found out that the reason was that until the late-80s most US shows were shot and *mastered* on film. In some cases at least (e.g. the original Star Trek series) the BBC got a film copy that they transferred live directly to the PAL transmission, with no NTSC intermediate.
From the late-80s, a lot of US shows switched to shot on film, but edited on video tape, probably to save money. This was probably okay for Americans watching on NTSC, because what got transmitted would have been degraded to crappy NTSC standard anyway. But showing that NTSC-edited programme on a UK TV system, you could see it looked rubbish.
Granted, the problem would probably have been exacerbated by NTSC->PAL conversion, but I've seen enough to confirm that the NTSC master probably wasn't that much better, and that the problems were down to NTSC. What you say just confirms it. ST:TNG's picture quality was garbage in the first place because it was downgraded to the lowest-common denominator NTSC quality at the editing stage.
Was that BBC Horizon - Painting with Numbers? That was my all time documentary back then. [..] There was a African-American kid who did some sprite programming with a TI system.
If the reference was to one of TI's computer, and it was a contemporary example- suggesting that the documentary was made in the early '80s- then no, it wasn't that one. The one I saw would have been around the mid-to-late 90s.
Sounds like it- and the other stuff you mention- might be worth checking out via official or, er, unofficial channels!
But that would violate the principle tenet of real-time: making the data show up where it's needed at the time it's needed. If you can't render the frames at the speed they're displayed (24 or 30 fps), you're non-real time.
Either a massive "whoooosh" or you misintepreted what I was saying (I posted that as AC as I forgot to log in and was in a hurry).
I was (very jokingly) implying that one could have such a system generate output in "real time" if one allowed the frame rate of that footage to be low enough (i.e. measured in frames per day!)
don't give me "market liquidity" crap.
It's not all crap.There is value in liquidity.
I don't think he was disputing that- I think you misinterpreted what (I assume) he was trying to say.
Namely that he doesn't believe the stock response that such behaviour is always ultimately beneficial because it increases liquidity- or at least that it doesn't increase liquidity sufficiently to offset the skimming and other drawbacks.
I can't tell which is correct, but you certainly sound like a young self-absorbed prick with an overinflated sense of self.
Now, now. We know that can't be true... if he's old enough to remember wanting a Polaroid in the 70s, he's not that young (probably edging 40 rather than just out of his 20s). :-)
But in all seriousness, if the guy wasn't an obvious douche- and apparently trying to conform to your "idiot with money to waste" image- he might have had a point. I remember thinking how cool Polaroid cameras were in the early 80s, but I never had one myself, so I can understand the appeal.
(In my case, I'm sure it was the cost of the film- not the camera- that was the reason I'd never have even considered it. I still remember the shots back *then* worked out at around £1 each- or at least that's what I was told- because that was more pocket money than I got in a week! And it's still damn expensive... £2.25 in today's money, or US $3.59!!!)
funny that the only replies you got were from AC's. They wanted to argue against what you said but in the end they just didn't have the guts. What they said didn't matter because they weren't prepared to back it with a real username.
Did this have anything to do with what he said, or were you just looking for an excuse to argue about or debate the value of AC contributions in general?
:-)
Whether or not what you said was true, it could have been said in response to *any* post with anonymous replies. Furthermore, can we assume that "dudpixel" is the name your Mummy and Daddy gave you when you were born? I suspect not.
Those Crashtest dummies have been demanding a homeland for compensation for decades of abuse and maltreatment in the workplace.
When asked to respond to today's news, the crash test dummies' spokesman said "Mmm mmm mmm mmm."
You forgot 3) All the fridges will get stolen.
Also (4) In this Ghost Town, all the clubs in this will be closed down (due to too much fighting on the dance floor).
It's often illegal to obfuscate or alter your sending FAX number due to junk FAX laws, while spoofing email is trivial.
Flawed argument; you're contrasting one thing being *illegal* with another being *easy*. Aren't there laws against spoofing email in this context as well?
They might not be enforceable, but that's another issue altogether.
Personally, if the $3 went to the court, I would not bother the clerks with pennies. But, if it went directly to the spammers, I would be sorely tempted to send 300 one cent USD international money orders in seperate envelopes with signature confirmation for the spammers to cash
I don't know what US law is under such circumstances, but in England and Wales small value coins (under £1) are only legal tender for payment of debts up to a certain amount, i.e. I assume you couldn't pay a £1,000,000 debt in 1p and 2p bronze coins!
But slashdotters should stop giving them free passes because they're "google".
Said it before and I'll say it again- the idea that most Slashdotters are uncritically in love with Google is out of date. It's undeniably true that up until around the mid-2000s there was a borderline fanboyish attitude of indulgence towards Google. However, that's changed quite noticeably in the past five or so years. While it may be argued that Google still gets cut more slack than they deserve, the era of "Google can do no wrong" being representative of most Slashdotters is now over.
I'm just saying that comparing (example) my Iphone 4 camera to a digital SLR is like apples to oranges.
"Apples" to Oranges? Hmmm.......
;-)
FWIW, Apples' phones may be restricted by their being stuck in a mobile phone, but so are Oranges'.
The animation looks like its running in real time, where computers of 1972 fast enough to handle this?
I think I could safely say that if I knew *nothing* about that film beyond it having been made in 1972, that I'd still bet my life on it *not* having been done in real time! Seriously, I'm pretty damn sure that you couldn't have done that in anything approaching real time even in 1982...
For example this video was probably made by taping polaroids to a CRT to get the images out of the computer and onto the film.
I haven't had time to watch the whole 100 minute video yet, but are you talking from having seen this film or just guessing?
My assumption had been that they would point a camera at a display, possibly cycling through multiple renderings of the same image using different dithering randomisation settings so that if (say) they only had a 2-color (black/white) hi-res display they would be able to "average out" and simulate greyscale. Of course, even a single 320 x 192 two-colour image would take up 8 KB, which would have been a lot in 1972, so I don't know if it would have been feasible to store multiple versions and "cycle" them or whether they just did multiple exposure. All this is just guesswork anyway, I might be completely wrong.
I for one am glad that they didn't think to themselves "hey - I wonder if there's money to be made in the adult entertainment industry with this stuff..."
Almost forty years on and computer-generated porn still sucks (and not in the desired sense either). Creepy, mannequin-like, uncanny-valley figures in crappy fake poses. Granted, I may be biased because I like the more naturalistic stuff, but it's still rotten.
Seriously... it must have almost crossed their mind... and then we would have been without Toy Story and a whole load of other great films!
Well, unless the bad publicity would have precluded them from making Toy Story, why couldn't they have done both?
I remember seeing the faces (5'10" onwards) and some other bits on some BBC or Channel 4 TV documentary a while back now (late 90s) and being very impressed by the fact they'd been able to do that in 1972 (matter of fact, I'm more impressed with that than I was with the hand). In terms of quality, I would have guessed it was done years later, more like the late-70s.
Having looked for it online more recently (on YouTube and via Google) I wasn't able to find it anywhere, so it's great that these are now available.
(Side issue, but the music's different to the analogue synth swooshes I originally remember accompanying it, and which suited it better IMHO. I assume that the original film was silent and so there wasn't any "original" music anyway?)
Who's going to play "asteroids" as an iPhone app when Sega will be releasing Shenmu as an app?
I would- Asteroids is a great game. (Let's ignore that it might suck without physical buttons- that's clearly not the point you were making). Without looking it up on Wikipedia, I genuinely don't know (nor care) what Shenmu is, beyond being a game. I don't claim to be typical, nor a part of the most lucrative market. I say this to show that your personal view (*gasp*) doesn't represent every person on the planet, despite the fact you think it does.
They are assuming nostalgia value, but seriously, the larger market for the smartphones is 20-somethings who have NO memory of 8-bit Atari games.
So what? Even if your assertion is correct, that argument has two fundamental flaws.
Firstly, let's assume that you're correct and that twentysomethings are the largest group of smartphone users. This doesn't mean that there isn't a significant or worthwhile market outside that range, only that it isn't *as* large.
Secondly, Atari's strength in branding, IP and cultural significance relates very strongly to the late-1970s and early-1980s. Atari was well past its peak and heading for extinction (*) by the 1990s, and- despite the underrated Lynx's cult following- they would be absolutely stupid to focus in that period for nostalgia purposes, because, as you say yourself:-
To [today's twentysomethings] nostalgia is Pokemon and Power Rangers, and the games they played were SNES Starfox or better.
Again, so what? Atari has little nostalgic value relating to that time period- that's not their strength- and they can't go back in time and change that. It makes more sense to go with what they've got. They'd be better being a very strong player in a slightly smaller market than going for the 90s/twentysomething market and trying vainly to get them to remember the likes of Checkered Flag for the Atari Jaguar.
Your logic is akin to saying that *if* the best long-distance runners earn decent money, but American Football players have the potential to earn a lot more, then a good runner should give up his sport and become a rugby player instead.... Even if he's the archetypal skinny-built Ethiopian type that seems to dominate running (i.e. good build for running, very poor for rugby) and always dropped the ball when he played rugby at school!
Do these retards understand that in a couple of years, your iphone is going to have the 3D capability of a PS2?
For someone calling others "retards", your own intelligence seems to be sadly lacking if you don't realise that the present-day appeal of such games does *not* rely on their being cutting edge any more, nor that the same argument could be applied to the SNES nostalgia of your coveted twentysomething demographic.