Yeah actually, I think you've taught me that I've been living in delusion. I think the kind of film that is projected in the manner I was talking about are those ones you'd see in Guidance class.
I don't agree. There is something aesthetically pleasing with 24 fps. Something about the mild jerk feels more satisfying -- you can tell the difference just by watching something 24fps versus 30 fps. 30 fps has an eerie reality to it -- television shows filmed (taped) at this rate seem almost too smooth. If they filmed at this rate, I don't think it would go over well at all -- with me in particular. I'm not too sure, but I think that most television shows are shown with 24 fps because of this effect.
Well, there wasn't THAT much wrong with the post. He got the frame rates wrong, but each frame *is* shown 3 times. Examining film will reveal that each frame (of the 24 per second) is repeated 3 times. Since people begin to detect motion well at 24 frames per second, and flicker stops being detectable at around 70 Hz, they triple up each frame to satisfy both visual subsystems. 72 Hertz to eliminate flicker and 24 fps to give illusory motion.
Of course I wouldn't contend that film can't BE art. The original poster claimed that film was SUPPOSED to be art, and as such he was deriding the Matrix series (which is admittedly a far more artful contribution to pop cinema). The counterexamples listed serve to reinforce that film can be extremely banal and unartistic and serve the interests of both the public viewer and corporate entities responsible for their production -- that is, to bust blocks.
If film was supposed to be art then the fact that the public embraces such artless explosion-driven narratives (from the point of view of ticket sales) would raise the question : who makes this supposition and what is meant by the term 'art'? Perhaps the art lies in a well executed series of marketing steps that amasses the pecuniary rather than intellectual interests of the mass audience.
What indications led you to believe that film was supposed to be an art? Was it the graceful nuances in the the last martin lawrence fish-out-of-water cop-medy? Was it the ferociously artistic roaring engines in the fast and the furious? Was it the sublime metaphorical connotations of Swim Fan? Was it the persuasively muted performance of Vin Diesel that was nothing short of breathtaking in XXX? Did Arnold Schwartzenegger, oft reputed to be the Michaelangelo of that artistic Action genre, stand as though he were David whilst he held a coffin in one hand and a shotgun in the other in Terminator 3? Did Old School really get you thinking? Perhaps the subtext of the Legally Blonde series really resonated with the unsatisfied yearnings of the work-a-day populace.
This is an atrocity. Since there is an exposition on its construction, it doesn't even have what the original pyramids had, namely the "how on earth could they have built this?" mystique. All this has is the "how on earth could they have built this awful thing?" mystique.
It is so unattractive -- did you see it when the lights were on? Are neon blue lights to case mods what red lights are to prostitutes?
I pray there are security measures in this pyramid to protect it from graverobbers -- what with all the jewel...cases.
It's easy to forget that far more people were behind motorboats and drinking alcohol than were taking ecstasy. Statistics like these are mentioned frequently but generally the proportion of those who partake in the activity over those who die from the activity isn't mentioned.
I'm not contending that ecstasy has a high death rate at all merely that the relevant proportions and per capita statistics should be mentioned, not the net number of deaths. Otherwise when you hear that approximately 2.4 million people died in the US last year compared with about 132 thousand in hungary, you might infer that living in hungary is much safer and living in the US quite dangerous -- but the death rate of hungary is nearly twice that of the US.
I should point out that I'm not saying that the US is a safe place to live, either.
If this was the case, then you should be able to remove a large portion of the brain from an adult and they would remain bright and healthy.
I don't think anyone would argue that a child who has lost a large part of their brain is going to be functionally equivalent to a full brained peer.
Most of the human brain is used for body control and less exotic processes as those higher functions we attribute to our intelligence; language, problem solving, consciousness, etc. These take place on the neocortex, which is the portion of our brain that looks swollen when compared to typical primate brains. Even the neocortex is mostly white matter -- neurons that channel information -- compared with the gray matter which are the neurons that do the "computation". The gray matter is only on the surface of the brain, it doesn't go very deep, maybe several millimeters. Larger brains are necessary for larger mammals not as an efficient method of cooling blood, but also regulating many of the body functions and controlling a larger network of musculature.
Brain/body mass ratios are a useful index insofar as they offer a useful conjecture about which animal should have, comparitively, higher mental functioning -- more neocortical development since the brain materials necessary to govern the body and movement are fairly standard. Humans and dolphins have the highest brain to body mass index, by far.
It wouldn't make much sense for us to have evolved brains that were 10 times larger than they had to be -- If such a huge portion wasn't being used, those with larger brains wouldn't have been selected above those with smaller brains. Those individuals with the most efficient use of brain would have been selected since they wouldn't have to supply all the extra brain matter with oxygen and food.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah actually, I think you've taught me that I've been living in delusion. I think the kind of film that is projected in the manner I was talking about are those ones you'd see in Guidance class.
Especially the audience members that invested in this state-of-the-art camera!
I don't agree. There is something aesthetically pleasing with 24 fps. Something about the mild jerk feels more satisfying -- you can tell the difference just by watching something 24fps versus 30 fps. 30 fps has an eerie reality to it -- television shows filmed (taped) at this rate seem almost too smooth. If they filmed at this rate, I don't think it would go over well at all -- with me in particular. I'm not too sure, but I think that most television shows are shown with 24 fps because of this effect.
Well, there wasn't THAT much wrong with the post. He got the frame rates wrong, but each frame *is* shown 3 times. Examining film will reveal that each frame (of the 24 per second) is repeated 3 times. Since people begin to detect motion well at 24 frames per second, and flicker stops being detectable at around 70 Hz, they triple up each frame to satisfy both visual subsystems. 72 Hertz to eliminate flicker and 24 fps to give illusory motion.
Of course I wouldn't contend that film can't BE art. The original poster claimed that film was SUPPOSED to be art, and as such he was deriding the Matrix series (which is admittedly a far more artful contribution to pop cinema). The counterexamples listed serve to reinforce that film can be extremely banal and unartistic and serve the interests of both the public viewer and corporate entities responsible for their production -- that is, to bust blocks.
If film was supposed to be art then the fact that the public embraces such artless explosion-driven narratives (from the point of view of ticket sales) would raise the question : who makes this supposition and what is meant by the term 'art'? Perhaps the art lies in a well executed series of marketing steps that amasses the pecuniary rather than intellectual interests of the mass audience.
What indications led you to believe that film was supposed to be an art? Was it the graceful nuances in the the last martin lawrence fish-out-of-water cop-medy? Was it the ferociously artistic roaring engines in the fast and the furious? Was it the sublime metaphorical connotations of Swim Fan? Was it the persuasively muted performance of Vin Diesel that was nothing short of breathtaking in XXX? Did Arnold Schwartzenegger, oft reputed to be the Michaelangelo of that artistic Action genre, stand as though he were David whilst he held a coffin in one hand and a shotgun in the other in Terminator 3? Did Old School really get you thinking? Perhaps the subtext of the Legally Blonde series really resonated with the unsatisfied yearnings of the work-a-day populace.
This is an atrocity. Since there is an exposition on its construction, it doesn't even have what the original pyramids had, namely the "how on earth could they have built this?" mystique. All this has is the "how on earth could they have built this awful thing?" mystique.
It is so unattractive -- did you see it when the lights were on? Are neon blue lights to case mods what red lights are to prostitutes?
I pray there are security measures in this pyramid to protect it from graverobbers -- what with all the jewel...cases.
It's easy to forget that far more people were behind motorboats and drinking alcohol than were taking ecstasy. Statistics like these are mentioned frequently but generally the proportion of those who partake in the activity over those who die from the activity isn't mentioned.
I'm not contending that ecstasy has a high death rate at all merely that the relevant proportions and per capita statistics should be mentioned, not the net number of deaths. Otherwise when you hear that approximately 2.4 million people died in the US last year compared with about 132 thousand in hungary, you might infer that living in hungary is much safer and living in the US quite dangerous -- but the death rate of hungary is nearly twice that of the US.
I should point out that I'm not saying that the US is a safe place to live, either.
If this was the case, then you should be able to remove a large portion of the brain from an adult and they would remain bright and healthy.
I don't think anyone would argue that a child who has lost a large part of their brain is going to be functionally equivalent to a full brained peer.
Most of the human brain is used for body control and less exotic processes as those higher functions we attribute to our intelligence; language, problem solving, consciousness, etc. These take place on the neocortex, which is the portion of our brain that looks swollen when compared to typical primate brains. Even the neocortex is mostly white matter -- neurons that channel information -- compared with the gray matter which are the neurons that do the "computation". The gray matter is only on the surface of the brain, it doesn't go very deep, maybe several millimeters. Larger brains are necessary for larger mammals not as an efficient method of cooling blood, but also regulating many of the body functions and controlling a larger network of musculature.
Brain/body mass ratios are a useful index insofar as they offer a useful conjecture about which animal should have, comparitively, higher mental functioning -- more neocortical development since the brain materials necessary to govern the body and movement are fairly standard. Humans and dolphins have the highest brain to body mass index, by far.
if your brain was in calculator mode you would find like 40000 variations of "BOOBLESS"
It wouldn't make much sense for us to have evolved brains that were 10 times larger than they had to be -- If such a huge portion wasn't being used, those with larger brains wouldn't have been selected above those with smaller brains. Those individuals with the most efficient use of brain would have been selected since they wouldn't have to supply all the extra brain matter with oxygen and food.