I didn't say I was pro MS, nor was it a soapbox speech, I was being critical of the lack of originality with the jokes this article presented. So I flipped the topic around to what people here know about: Linux. With as much as MS gives you, I find the lack of originality about Windows jokes to be insulting. It's kinda like the obligatory 'Monica Lewinski' jokes.
I'm not sure where you read in my post that I was defending Windows 98. I wasn't. You're right, NT's kernel kicks 9x's ass. I don't think anybody in the world would argue with you on that. That's why Windows 2000 is so much better than 9x.
"The interface doesn't matter when compared to the OS..."
That's not true really. The interface is exactly why Windows 95 and 98 were successful in light of more stable OS's like Linux or BSD. There's been lots of chatter on Slashdot over the last week or two about that, you should go check it out.
If somebody could make an interface for Linux like Apple did with BSD, it'd be a bad assed OS that just about anybody could use. It may, at that point, even be a Windows killer. Right now, it is still so hard to use that most people'd rather put up with instability. This is not an MS biased poke at Linux, it's an honest informed opinion from somebody who designs interfaces for a living.
"Everyone needs to chill on the "jump down whoever's throat is mentioned using any microsoft product" bandwagon. This site is actually starting to sound a lot like middle school."
When I was in middle school, you called somebody 'homes!' or 'homie!' if you were insulting them. That's the image I get in my head when people make redundant jokes around BSOD's etc.
Why don't we all just make fun of Mac users? Both the Windows and Linux guys severly outnumber them! They could be modded into oblivion!:P
Both LW and MAX have gotten better in ways that you've described. MAX previews motion blur in OpenGL (Which as some of you know is VERY expensive to render...) and LW now does lens flares, hypervoxels, and fog in OpenGL as well.
LW's VIPER is pretty interesting too. What you do is you do a test render of your object and the resulting image is stored in a buffer. Then, let's say you want to play with the surface texture on it. Fire up VIPER and it shows you a low res version of the image you just rendered. When you modify the surface, it re-updates that image preview, but it only re-renders that particular surface that you're playing with. It's much faster feedback for getting a feel for procedurals than a full bore-render.
Is it real time? Ehh.. no. It's close. 2-3 seconds maybe? I agree with the author, though, that more could be done. Why couldn't they convert a proceedural into a texture and present that in OpenGL?
The good news for the author is that the industry (not just Newtek and Discreet) sees the value in having more real-time feedback. The next couple of major releases for the main packages out there will be very exciting for just that reason.
I'm not anti-Slashdot, I just think a moderator or two needs to be a little more open minded and stop being so literal. I wouldn't blame the whole site for that.
To be honest, though, I wish all the 'i hate microsoft' posts would die down. Too many people doing that just because it makes them cool. It's not inspiring people to be informed. Heh.:)
Okay, since nobody can come up with anything better than "heh heh, the car will blue screen. heh heh. Err I can't think of any other reasons I don't like Windows", I'll flip the topic around:
What if the car ran Linux?
- The version with the automatic transmission would have 4 drive gears that all work differently, that way you can pick one from an individual that you like.
- Instead of intuitive buttons on the steering column to turn on windshield wipers and so on, you have a patch board complete with a very nice array of differing lengths of cable.
- The driver of the car has to understand how the internal combustion engine works before he can go anywhere in it.
- More than one steering wheel can be added to the car, afterall it is a multi-user OS.
- The gas door would be located underneath the car so that gas doesn't have to go as far to reach the tank. A bottleneck is removed that way.
- The key to get into the door can only fit one right side up, afterall it is case sensitive.
- The 'ding ding' noise when you start the car without the seatbelt fastened won't go off because the sound drivers don't work.
- The car wouldn't come with headlights because only newbs need to be able to see where they're going.
There, that's much better than "ha ha snort snort, that means they'll have to restart the car every ten minutes.":P
"I would like to take the opportunity to address the rest of the slashbots and say "all the rest of the windows 98 BSOD jokes are going to suck". "
It's cooler to hate MS than it is to know what you're talking about. If the article was about the car running Linux and somebody cracked a joke like "I guess that means they won't make one that has an automatic transmission", you'd get modded down as 'troll' or 'flamebait'. Never mind that Windows users who have dabbled in Linux would find that funny as hell.
That's not enough. That'll give it the FoV, but the geometry still has to be transformed. I mean think about it, the human eye has an FOV of nearly 180. Quake runs at 90. Even if you stretched Quake to 180, it's a linear stretch and not a curved one like the surface of the screen is.
Basically you'd need a 'fisheye' distortion filter for Quake.:)
I saw a cheesy ass Dino movie on an IMAX down in Australia. The writing was dumb and the computer animation was mediochre. However, what blew my mind was that they did it with stereoscopic vision.
Let me tell you something: Stereo vision + high res 70 mm film + round screen that provides peripheral vision = wow!
As I said, the movie visuals sucked. However, in the beginning (before they tried to get to the crappy plot) they had a camera dollying over an area of Canada where they were excavating fossils. The effect was startling because the stereo + high res film depicting a real place was... cool! It was nearly as clear as my own memories of visiting places like that in Utah. For a moment I thought I was having a flashback. Heh. Too bad it wasn't a 20 minute movie about roaming around Canada instead of a poorly written Jurassic Park wannabee.
Re:Won't this look like crap?
on
Gaming on the IMAX
·
· Score: 4, Informative
"Won't this look kinda bad?"
Quite possibly. IMAX movies use 70mm film because 35mm doesn't quite have enough resolution. IMAX movies also run up to 60 fps because at 24 strobing is far too distracting.
However, there is a far bigger problem to playing games on the IMAX screen: They video card (or the software) has to warp the video so that it'll look correct on the screen. It doesn't look right if the regular image is projected on the screen.
Why would anyone play this? I can think of a really good reason right now: peripheral vision. I depend on peripheral vision while I'm driving, I'd LOVE to have that capability in a video game. It'd definitely be an interesting experience.:)
"Electricity propagates through Silicon faster when the temperature drops. Thus, the COOLER an asychnronous chip runs, the FASTER it gets!"
Does this mean that the speed varies based on temperature?
Initially this idea bugs me a bit because it means that a computer would have 'moods' based on the temperature. I could see that being a little problematic. The nice thing about a clock is that you can reasonable expect things to be done within a certain number of ticks. With variable speed processors, some synchronization issues will definitely arise that'll need solving.
On the other hand, lots of work has already been done that way. Look at Quake 3 played over the internet. Lotsa people connect to a server with variable speed connections and response times, but the game manages to remain playable.
Maybe I'm worried about nothing. For the uninitiated it'll take a bit to wrap their minds around.
I do have a feeling though that ther'll be a market for both types of processors for the forseable future.
Driven looked like a shitty movie, but they did have a scene in it I'd like to see. They used a combination of motion control photography and CG in order to have a car fly through the air in slow motion while the background was moving at normal speed. The idea was to deliver the impression of 'time slowing down when tragedy occurs'.
Filling a movie full of effects is not preferred, but using digital effects in order to convey a mood or enhance the story telling like Driven did is welcome and encouraged.
"I know quite a few artists that don't mind using the computer, but its more of a chore than a joy. This doesn't seem to be something that changes over time..."
True, but there are also those (who often work in the SFX field) that do whatever it takes to get the shot completed. I'll give you an example:
Once I had a rather short deadline to animate a character for a title sequence for a show that was about to be filmed. Unfortunately, the director had a terrible time expressing to me what it was exactly she wanted me to do. (half of this was the mentality that I'm rotten and evil because I'm male, the other was that we had no time to develop character tests and so on.) We had to have a final render the following evening.
What I did to solve this problem was I dragged her into the studio, set up a camera, and had her 'direct' me so that I'd act out what she wanted the character to do. After a couple of takes, we got one she liked. I took that footage, captured it, and used it in the background while manipulating the character.
I went frame by frame pushing bones around until the end of the sequence. I had a nicely animated character that almost looked mo-capped. The result? The final render was a success.
I don't think many people would have chosen to attack that problem I did. I don't think they'd want to learn how to act or to direct a director. (heh) Heck, I probably could have told her "no, I can't do it in time." and moved on. Instead, I took the tools I had available and created a not-so-ordinary solution. I had no idea if it'd work, but I saw it to the end.
There are people out there who have a similar attitude towards getting shots like these done. It doesn't surprise me at all that they end up in FX. Heck, I'm working myself that way within the next year.
"You're right. We could illegalize unlicensed oxygen use."
Im not right about anything. Heh. Who knows what's going on in the minds of the people that propose these things. I'm really curious what their real agenda is.
" Kindof like the shazz that started happening in NYC when they "cracked down" on jaywalking."
What shazz was that? I'd go look it up, but I'm curious about your PoV on it.
One of the effects I mentioned was in the trailer. Heh.
There was another movie not that long ago (forgot the name, it didn't last long in the theaters...) that used CG for car stunts. It was so obvious in the trailer I didn't even bother going. Ergh I have the image in my mind but no idea what the title was.
"If the only crime you can manage to arrest a terrorist for is using encryption, maybe you need to do more detective work."
In some scenarios yes, in some no. My guess is that with a law like this, it'd be easy to sniff out Osama sympathizers and get them the h377 out of our country.
Problem is I'm not sure that I'd be willing to give up personal freedoms just so they could do that. Too bad they don't enact laws like a contract. "This law is only good for one year and is up for renewal afterwards."
Yeah, I see what you're saying. However my question was more along the lines of "how long before the artist can do the programmer's job via scripting, etc."
I find this question interesting as well. Lots of updates that we've seen to Lightwave, MAX, and Maya are a result of movie studios creating software to solve a particular problem.
As a matter of fact, a studio recently announced that they're productizing a compositing package they developed called 'Nuke'. I think 'Messiah' was the result of a similar effort.
When somebody has intimate knowledge about how a movie is made, it gets really hard to make their eyes jump out of their head.
For example, there's a scene in the Director's Cut of Robocop where Alex Murphy is just about to be shot in the head by the lead bad dude. The camera is pointing right at Alex's face, then swings around behind him. As soon as the camera is behind him the bad guy fires a gun, the back of Alex's head explodes and you can see a hole clean through it. This whole scene was one smooth camera movement, no edits.
I was *stunned* to find out that Alex was a puppet. They were able to make a puppet that totally convinced me that Peter Weller was sitting in front of this guy about to get his head blown off. I could not believe that they were able to do one that convincing.
I'm curious, what movies have had that affect on you? "OMG! I had no idea that was an effect!"
You'd be surprised. If you happen by a book store with an issue of Cinefex with Harry Potter on the cover, take a gander at it. They show some of the detailed effects used in F&TF.
Here's a short list:
- There's a CG scene where the camera follows the NO2 to the pistions of the engine.
- There were several shots with really sophisticated camera panning movements. This was done by using a cylindrical array of cameras and then composited in 3D. This created a computer controlled 'panning background' that could be re-animated as often as desired.
- There's a scene in the end where two cars jumped a train crossing, barely missing the train: The train and the cars were filmed at different times and composited. Whoever did the work did an awesome job of having the train reflect on the car to seal the illusion.
There were other effects too. I'm sure that the guys who worked on that movie would smile if they read the part where you said 'there wasnt any kind of effects...'. That means they did their job well.:)
Every year, 3D packages get more and more sophsticated. Not just in terms of rendering effects, but in their scripting capabilities as well. Do you see a day where the artist will be able to handle the rendering features and the scripting of a 3D prog so well that it'll no longer be necessary to have a dedicated programmer on board?
Is there a particular type of problem that will always need a programmer?
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say I was pro MS, nor was it a soapbox speech, I was being critical of the lack of originality with the jokes this article presented. So I flipped the topic around to what people here know about: Linux. With as much as MS gives you, I find the lack of originality about Windows jokes to be insulting. It's kinda like the obligatory 'Monica Lewinski' jokes.
THank you. :)
Btw, your sig kicks ass.
I'm not sure where you read in my post that I was defending Windows 98. I wasn't. You're right, NT's kernel kicks 9x's ass. I don't think anybody in the world would argue with you on that. That's why Windows 2000 is so much better than 9x.
"The interface doesn't matter when compared to the OS..."
That's not true really. The interface is exactly why Windows 95 and 98 were successful in light of more stable OS's like Linux or BSD. There's been lots of chatter on Slashdot over the last week or two about that, you should go check it out.
If somebody could make an interface for Linux like Apple did with BSD, it'd be a bad assed OS that just about anybody could use. It may, at that point, even be a Windows killer. Right now, it is still so hard to use that most people'd rather put up with instability. This is not an MS biased poke at Linux, it's an honest informed opinion from somebody who designs interfaces for a living.
"Everyone needs to chill on the "jump down whoever's throat is mentioned using any microsoft product" bandwagon. This site is actually starting to sound a lot like middle school."
:P
When I was in middle school, you called somebody 'homes!' or 'homie!' if you were insulting them. That's the image I get in my head when people make redundant jokes around BSOD's etc.
Why don't we all just make fun of Mac users? Both the Windows and Linux guys severly outnumber them! They could be modded into oblivion!
Man, that stuff isn't funny until after you've quit a tech support job. If I read this 6 years ago I'd be reaching for the apsirin bottle.
Both LW and MAX have gotten better in ways that you've described. MAX previews motion blur in OpenGL (Which as some of you know is VERY expensive to render...) and LW now does lens flares, hypervoxels, and fog in OpenGL as well.
LW's VIPER is pretty interesting too. What you do is you do a test render of your object and the resulting image is stored in a buffer. Then, let's say you want to play with the surface texture on it. Fire up VIPER and it shows you a low res version of the image you just rendered. When you modify the surface, it re-updates that image preview, but it only re-renders that particular surface that you're playing with. It's much faster feedback for getting a feel for procedurals than a full bore-render.
Is it real time? Ehh.. no. It's close. 2-3 seconds maybe? I agree with the author, though, that more could be done. Why couldn't they convert a proceedural into a texture and present that in OpenGL?
The good news for the author is that the industry (not just Newtek and Discreet) sees the value in having more real-time feedback. The next couple of major releases for the main packages out there will be very exciting for just that reason.
Looking into it now, thanks! :)
:)
I'm not anti-Slashdot, I just think a moderator or two needs to be a little more open minded and stop being so literal. I wouldn't blame the whole site for that.
To be honest, though, I wish all the 'i hate microsoft' posts would die down. Too many people doing that just because it makes them cool. It's not inspiring people to be informed. Heh.
Okay, since nobody can come up with anything better than "heh heh, the car will blue screen. heh heh. Err I can't think of any other reasons I don't like Windows", I'll flip the topic around:
:P
What if the car ran Linux?
- The version with the automatic transmission would have 4 drive gears that all work differently, that way you can pick one from an individual that you like.
- Instead of intuitive buttons on the steering column to turn on windshield wipers and so on, you have a patch board complete with a very nice array of differing lengths of cable.
- The driver of the car has to understand how the internal combustion engine works before he can go anywhere in it.
- More than one steering wheel can be added to the car, afterall it is a multi-user OS.
- The gas door would be located underneath the car so that gas doesn't have to go as far to reach the tank. A bottleneck is removed that way.
- The key to get into the door can only fit one right side up, afterall it is case sensitive.
- The 'ding ding' noise when you start the car without the seatbelt fastened won't go off because the sound drivers don't work.
- The car wouldn't come with headlights because only newbs need to be able to see where they're going.
There, that's much better than "ha ha snort snort, that means they'll have to restart the car every ten minutes."
*Hopes the mods have a sense of humor today.*
"I would like to take the opportunity to address the rest of the slashbots and say "all the rest of the windows 98 BSOD jokes are going to suck". "
It's cooler to hate MS than it is to know what you're talking about. If the article was about the car running Linux and somebody cracked a joke like "I guess that means they won't make one that has an automatic transmission", you'd get modded down as 'troll' or 'flamebait'. Never mind that Windows users who have dabbled in Linux would find that funny as hell.
I think a bigger problem is that you have to close all windows before restarting. Kinda sucks on a hot day.
That's not enough. That'll give it the FoV, but the geometry still has to be transformed. I mean think about it, the human eye has an FOV of nearly 180. Quake runs at 90. Even if you stretched Quake to 180, it's a linear stretch and not a curved one like the surface of the screen is.
:)
Basically you'd need a 'fisheye' distortion filter for Quake.
I saw a cheesy ass Dino movie on an IMAX down in Australia. The writing was dumb and the computer animation was mediochre. However, what blew my mind was that they did it with stereoscopic vision.
... cool! It was nearly as clear as my own memories of visiting places like that in Utah. For a moment I thought I was having a flashback. Heh. Too bad it wasn't a 20 minute movie about roaming around Canada instead of a poorly written Jurassic Park wannabee.
Let me tell you something: Stereo vision + high res 70 mm film + round screen that provides peripheral vision = wow!
As I said, the movie visuals sucked. However, in the beginning (before they tried to get to the crappy plot) they had a camera dollying over an area of Canada where they were excavating fossils. The effect was startling because the stereo + high res film depicting a real place was
"Won't this look kinda bad?"
:)
Quite possibly. IMAX movies use 70mm film because 35mm doesn't quite have enough resolution. IMAX movies also run up to 60 fps because at 24 strobing is far too distracting.
However, there is a far bigger problem to playing games on the IMAX screen: They video card (or the software) has to warp the video so that it'll look correct on the screen. It doesn't look right if the regular image is projected on the screen.
Why would anyone play this? I can think of a really good reason right now: peripheral vision. I depend on peripheral vision while I'm driving, I'd LOVE to have that capability in a video game. It'd definitely be an interesting experience.
"Electricity propagates through Silicon faster when the temperature drops. Thus, the COOLER an asychnronous chip runs, the FASTER it gets!"
Does this mean that the speed varies based on temperature?
Initially this idea bugs me a bit because it means that a computer would have 'moods' based on the temperature. I could see that being a little problematic. The nice thing about a clock is that you can reasonable expect things to be done within a certain number of ticks. With variable speed processors, some synchronization issues will definitely arise that'll need solving.
On the other hand, lots of work has already been done that way. Look at Quake 3 played over the internet. Lotsa people connect to a server with variable speed connections and response times, but the game manages to remain playable.
Maybe I'm worried about nothing. For the uninitiated it'll take a bit to wrap their minds around.
I do have a feeling though that ther'll be a market for both types of processors for the forseable future.
Nope, the other guy got it. It was 'Along Came a Spider'. Heh. Thanks for the help. :)
You win!
:)
That's the one I was thinking of. Thanks.
Driven looked like a shitty movie, but they did have a scene in it I'd like to see. They used a combination of motion control photography and CG in order to have a car fly through the air in slow motion while the background was moving at normal speed. The idea was to deliver the impression of 'time slowing down when tragedy occurs'.
Filling a movie full of effects is not preferred, but using digital effects in order to convey a mood or enhance the story telling like Driven did is welcome and encouraged.
"I know quite a few artists that don't mind using the computer, but its more of a chore than a joy. This doesn't seem to be something that changes over time ..."
True, but there are also those (who often work in the SFX field) that do whatever it takes to get the shot completed. I'll give you an example:
Once I had a rather short deadline to animate a character for a title sequence for a show that was about to be filmed. Unfortunately, the director had a terrible time expressing to me what it was exactly she wanted me to do. (half of this was the mentality that I'm rotten and evil because I'm male, the other was that we had no time to develop character tests and so on.) We had to have a final render the following evening.
What I did to solve this problem was I dragged her into the studio, set up a camera, and had her 'direct' me so that I'd act out what she wanted the character to do. After a couple of takes, we got one she liked. I took that footage, captured it, and used it in the background while manipulating the character.
I went frame by frame pushing bones around until the end of the sequence. I had a nicely animated character that almost looked mo-capped. The result? The final render was a success.
I don't think many people would have chosen to attack that problem I did. I don't think they'd want to learn how to act or to direct a director. (heh) Heck, I probably could have told her "no, I can't do it in time." and moved on. Instead, I took the tools I had available and created a not-so-ordinary solution. I had no idea if it'd work, but I saw it to the end.
There are people out there who have a similar attitude towards getting shots like these done. It doesn't surprise me at all that they end up in FX. Heck, I'm working myself that way within the next year.
"You're right. We could illegalize unlicensed oxygen use."
Im not right about anything. Heh. Who knows what's going on in the minds of the people that propose these things. I'm really curious what their real agenda is.
" Kindof like the shazz that started happening in NYC when they "cracked down" on jaywalking."
What shazz was that? I'd go look it up, but I'm curious about your PoV on it.
One of the effects I mentioned was in the trailer. Heh.
There was another movie not that long ago (forgot the name, it didn't last long in the theaters...) that used CG for car stunts. It was so obvious in the trailer I didn't even bother going. Ergh I have the image in my mind but no idea what the title was.
"If the only crime you can manage to arrest a terrorist for is using encryption, maybe you need to do more detective work."
In some scenarios yes, in some no. My guess is that with a law like this, it'd be easy to sniff out Osama sympathizers and get them the h377 out of our country.
Problem is I'm not sure that I'd be willing to give up personal freedoms just so they could do that. Too bad they don't enact laws like a contract. "This law is only good for one year and is up for renewal afterwards."
Heh.
Yeah, I see what you're saying. However my question was more along the lines of "how long before the artist can do the programmer's job via scripting, etc."
I find this question interesting as well. Lots of updates that we've seen to Lightwave, MAX, and Maya are a result of movie studios creating software to solve a particular problem.
As a matter of fact, a studio recently announced that they're productizing a compositing package they developed called 'Nuke'. I think 'Messiah' was the result of a similar effort.
I'm really curious what he has to say about this.
When somebody has intimate knowledge about how a movie is made, it gets really hard to make their eyes jump out of their head.
For example, there's a scene in the Director's Cut of Robocop where Alex Murphy is just about to be shot in the head by the lead bad dude. The camera is pointing right at Alex's face, then swings around behind him. As soon as the camera is behind him the bad guy fires a gun, the back of Alex's head explodes and you can see a hole clean through it. This whole scene was one smooth camera movement, no edits.
I was *stunned* to find out that Alex was a puppet. They were able to make a puppet that totally convinced me that Peter Weller was sitting in front of this guy about to get his head blown off. I could not believe that they were able to do one that convincing.
I'm curious, what movies have had that affect on you? "OMG! I had no idea that was an effect!"
You'd be surprised. If you happen by a book store with an issue of Cinefex with Harry Potter on the cover, take a gander at it. They show some of the detailed effects used in F&TF.
:)
Here's a short list:
- There's a CG scene where the camera follows the NO2 to the pistions of the engine.
- There were several shots with really sophisticated camera panning movements. This was done by using a cylindrical array of cameras and then composited in 3D. This created a computer controlled 'panning background' that could be re-animated as often as desired.
- There's a scene in the end where two cars jumped a train crossing, barely missing the train: The train and the cars were filmed at different times and composited. Whoever did the work did an awesome job of having the train reflect on the car to seal the illusion.
There were other effects too. I'm sure that the guys who worked on that movie would smile if they read the part where you said 'there wasnt any kind of effects...'. That means they did their job well.
Every year, 3D packages get more and more sophsticated. Not just in terms of rendering effects, but in their scripting capabilities as well. Do you see a day where the artist will be able to handle the rendering features and the scripting of a 3D prog so well that it'll no longer be necessary to have a dedicated programmer on board?
Is there a particular type of problem that will always need a programmer?