The old classic movies which are certainly more worth watching, than some of the drivel Hollywood is churning out these days, will not benefit much, if at all from the new formats.
New film makers are being born all the time, one day modern films will come out that you want to watch.
Exactly what makes you think that the new formats will be free from EVERY one of the negative things you mention? Add to that, new draconian DRM and there are few if any reasons to spend money on new equipment until the old stuff dies.
I'm illustrating the point that despite the fact that DVDs have so many problems they were still adopted pretty enthusiastically. I think an HD format will be adopted eventually as well.
There are plenty of new (foreign) films I watch that are not the same 'insane, fast action violence' as well as some less popular American films that can take advantage of newer tech.
I'm surprised at the number of people who complain about seeing details they don't want to see. Is it really that disturbing to be reminded that humans are mammals, have facial hair, etc? Personally, not only do those things not bother me, but I really don't notice them on HDTV. Heck, I don't notice them in real life, maybe it's because I'm not looking for flaws.
As far as Photoshop, I notice you didn't list the most important reason for a high resolution monitor, so that you can see the details of what you're working on. I mean, sure if you're only doing web graphics you probably don't need it, but if you're working on something you plan on printing no monitor is high-res enough, in which case you want a high res monitor to minimize the amount of time you spend zooming around. Even if it's so you can fit those pallets on, it's so you can see more of your work with the pallets out of the way. Even if you don't do art, it helps you see more information. Higher resolution = seeing more.
By resolution independent, I mean that the OS is capable to make things look the same size across monitors with different native resolutions (such as text). This makes it so that if you have bad eyes, you can run your desktop at your monitor's native resolution but still read everything on the screen. Mac OS X does have some unused functions that allow for this but if you force it on you'll see many bugs. Windows tries to allow this in it's Display Properties but it is also buggy.
The switch from VHS to DVD was much more compelling than now from DVD to HD-DVD. It wasn't so much the better resolution that drove the switch, than the convenience of no rewinding, random access and a more compact format, among others.
Well there wasn't really a change in resolution anyway, the video was only clearer because VHS tapes deteriorated and DVDs didn't. I know some people who are more impressed with HD technology than they were with DVDs only because the picture is more beautiful.
Look, I'm not defending the new formats particularly because of DRM, I'm defending the idea of improved video technology because I think it can make the that which uses video better.
When I turn on my current standard television at my normal viewing range (about 2.5 to 3 times the size of the screen) I can't see the individual pixels obviously, but I can see a degree of fuzziness that is not there in HD.
You say that size is the issue, but this kind of artifact gets even worse as the size goes up because of the distance the average viewer sits from such a set. I never liked projection televisions because the pixels were more obvious and they always seemed more washed out. Using a.05 inch pencil tip instead of a.1 inch pencil tip will change the optimal viewing distance of the image. However being able to view the image at a distance where the image fills most of your vision helps you get more involved in the image. So the best combination is the resolution where the optimal viewing distance allows for the most cinematic experience.
Well then I'll just end it with disagreement. I think sharper moving images can contribute to the overall appreciation of the art the same way high resolution digital photographs are preferable to many photographers. I think of video as motion photography, since half of modern film uses video, I think higher resolution formats are a worthwhile development for the film community.
You're not that small of a group, I know many people who think that way (such as my roommate). I too believe a good story is very important for films that are suppose to be story driven, but I'm also aware that there are other types of less story driven films that are perfectly legitimate forms within the medium (these are usually indi films).
Still, I do think that you miss out on some of the immersive properties of the medium if you watch certain films on certain setups. Of course some people don't really want to be immersed that way. I like being immersed in all aspects of the film (story/concept, visuals, sounds). I know that there are also times when directors would love to use some visual or audible elements that tie directly into the story but are unable to rely on them because they know that the certain audiences will completely miss them. Many good films use techniques similar to that of novel writers for narrative and characterization.
I personally think that film's greatest advantage over other mediums is that it appeals the most natural way to experience something, your eyes and ears. That is why I place value in having high definition technology become more widely adopted. Watching a good story is excellent, but getting as close as you can to being right there in the story is even better if you can afford it.
As a pointed out in another part of this thread, all new formats are expensive during the early parts of their life.
I wouldn't consider my view elitist, I'm simply pointing out the truth. Some people care a lot about visual detail, some people do not. Even within the group of visual people, some people pay more attention to form and some people pay more attention to lighting/shading. Actively watching? I don't know about you but I like being able to recognize a character moods and expressions in a middle shot. I like seeing the environment the character is in, not just a series of facial expressions. I would like being able to see an entire sunset valley of individual trees not just a bush in the foreground and indistinct tree-like shapes in the background. It's the difference between using very vivid language in writing and using very vague general words.
I'm not even going to bother taking this sub-thread any further because you're obviously leaning towards the, "industry wants to rape us," perspective and unwilling to admit that higher resolution imaging can enhance the cinematic experience. For the record, I want to see both high resolution and high dynamic range become common.
However, I'm willing to accept the argument that you don't find it worth it at the current cost, especially since your not a film hobbyist, but saying that the average human eye cannot tell the difference between SD and HD is as ridiculous than saying the average ear cannot tell the difference between an 2.1 and 5.1 audio.
Are you talking about HDTV monitors without the tuner? Those are still over twice the price of the analog TV I bought in December.
No no, I'm saying that SDTV is for those who don't want to shell out for HDTV but wish to watch TV after the analog cutoff (of course there will probably be adapters for analog TVs).
I like a high-res game as much as anyone, but if my $200 card only did 1024x768 and the next better option was twice the price, I'm going to enjoy my games just as much without the super-high res.
Well that's a personal preference and one that I also follow as a gamer with an MX series card. Depending on the game I sometimes still prefer full resolution over the glittery special effects. In a game where the visual effects enhance the game experience I'll lower the resolution. In a multiplayer first person shooter where I may snipe I'll drop the effects for a higher resolution. In a game with stupidly pixel sized text like GuildWars I'll up the resolution.
You have a different definition of "very poor" than I do:)
The difference between getting the "full experience" out of a movie and a book is that the movie required a significant investment in hardware. The book just requires light and a comfortable place to sit. Most people have to compromise between what they want and what their budget allows; I (like most people I know) am not willing to budget a significant amount of money toward my entertainment system when I can think of a lot of better ways to spend it. True, but as a film major and someone who is really into cinematic storytelling the only things better to spend money on are necessities and important people. My experience though, within my group of family and friends is that those who haven't invested anymore into home movie watching than a TV and DVD player just aren't that interested. Home movie watching to them is more of a time sink. Instead they pour their extra money into the things they look forward to doing when they get off from work/school. I think you underestimate the amount of money some bookworms will invest in their hobby. Think huge collections paired with a very expensive chair.:)
A lot of people said the same thing about going from LP/tape to CD. But people saw a significant advantage in the CD format: it didn't wear out if handled properly (both popular formats of the time did), it was capable of storing more music at a higher quality, and it was almost as portable as a tape. All of that applies to DVD: VHS tapes have a shelf life of a few decades at best, and frequently-watched VHS can break down in a few years. DVD had the same advantage over VHS as CD had over cassette.
Blu Ray and HD-DVD have no obvious advantages over DVD except in capacity (which most people won't care about) and resolution (which most people won't use in the near future). And they'll almost certainly be overpriced, while DVDs will routinely retail at $5-10.
I agree with CDs. I saw a significant advantage and improvement in them even though my first CD player was built into a keyboard (musical). No hiss, track selections, no experienced degradation, easily backed up/dubbed, could be played on a computer.
However with DVDs the upgrade didn't feel nearly as great. I have actually seen pressed DVDs become unreadable by sitting on a shelf. Maybe the company that made them did a really crappy job but when a DVD goes bad, you lose everything past the point of failure because many DVD players will flip out and then give you a disc read error while The most deteriorated VHS can still be watched (unpleasantly). DVD technology in general I've had some annoying experiences with since along with it came unskippable material, poorly designed menus, unexplainable disc read errors, terrible points for scene and title (I don't understand why TV show DVDs often refuse to organize each epi
So you don't care about films that attempt to put you in the main character's shoes? Say for example, the main character approaches a breathtaking vista, do you not care that the HD experience would enhance the breathtaking nature of the shot before the editors cut back to the main character's facial expression?
How about more abstract camera shots such as seeing the character's reflection in disturbed water. I know of films that use these kinds of images metaphorically. Now say the director likes subtle humor and puts an amusing cloud formation behind the character's head. Do you think this kind of thing will be more obvious on SD or HD?
For a good film maker, It's about impacting and communicating with your audience, not just giving them what they need and hoping they get the impact you wanted. If you can reinforce your meaning literally, audibly, and visually you will have a higher success rate of the audience understanding. I know many people believe that visual detail is unnecessary, but these people who aren't very visual to begin with. Just because you don't value it doesn't mean others wont. For example, I like many silent films. Reason? I value visuals and music over dialog. However a lot of people would never sit through a dialog-less film.
"Remember when the date was 2006? Know why it got pushed back? Because people aren't buying HDTV. Now why wouldn't they be doing that? Because HDTV is expensive, and they don't see a good reason to buy it."
And that's why TVs with SDTV tuners are in stores now. You don't need to spend the amount of money needed for HD, but you'll probably want to buy something digital. Personally I think it may open up a better viewing experience, but that's just my opinion.
"To give them a "larger" working area so that more information fits on the screen at once? There's a practical reason for higher resolutions on PCs: more information in the same space."
I know a lot of gamers who run their shell at a lower resolution than their games. So that they can read information more easily but experience games in full detail (since OSes still haven't gotten around to being resolution independent without bugs).
"You can buy a decent 5.1 system for under $200 now, with a built-in DVD player. You can get high-quality sound at quite reasonable prices...and yet there are probably millions of households that don't have it because they have no reason to buy it. Their stereo speakers are enough for them."
Every household I've been to that doesn't have more than their TV's built in speakers are either very poor or don't take film watching seriously. I know a lot of people watch video as background noise until they can do something else, but people like me who have a real interest in film want to experience what we're watching to it's fullest. To me film watching is the same as reading a book for a bookworm.
"That's really where I see all these new formats falling flat. They aren't replacing existing technologies because they are too expensive to do that. So people who don't care about the new shiny stuff don't buy it, which means the format doesn't become an accepted standard.
DVD is the standard video disc. There aren't any really compelling reasons to move away from DVD for the majority of consumers, so Sony and Toshiba both are facing an uphill battle already. Putting players on the market priced at $500 or more isn't exactly going to move large quantities of units.
The winner is going to be the first one to completely replace their product line with backward-compatible units at the same price; instead of a DVD player for $100, you can buy an HD-DVD player for $100 and still watch your DVDs. If Toshiba did that tomorrow and just ate the losses for a couple of years, they'd find that they won the format war before Sony even fired a shot."
How expensive was the first DVD player? Wasn't it around $500? To tell the truth when I moved from VHS to DVD I didn't really notice that significant an improvement. Of course I had a very expensive VCR and studios decided that DVD = wide screen only so I actually lost resolution on my 19 inch analog TV which frustrated me because things felt grainer.
You're right that the high price keeps people away, but you're ignoring the fact that all new technology is expensive to begin with. Eventually a higher resolution format is going to come-forth and move people away from DVD. It may or may not be one of the two formats we see competing at the moment, but people will slowly adopt better technology if it's available and can offer a better experience. You haven't seen any compelling reasons to move to the new format because you haven't seen everything that's possible with it (How many TV programs do you see that were really designed for HD/Widescreen?). Western countries have always been slow at embracing better tech. Just wait until the technology starts to mature and content creators start utilizing it, people will move when movies can take on new forms because of the new freedom. This happens with all technology, I remember when people thought CSS was useless because you could get the same effects in HTML.
"What I'd really like to know is why I should rush out and buy their overpriced format instead of continuing to purchase $5 DVDs that I can watch on my XBOX. Of course, I'm still waiting to be convinced why I need to spend $500 for HDTV when I can get an analog for $150 and receive all of one less signal."
Why buy the more expensive format? Well, I guess the reason a customer might buy it is similar to why a customer would want their PC to display resolutions higher than 1024x768 today, or why the customer might want an expensive sound system in their home. For film makers it helps loosen the limits they've had to work with and also opens up a few more possibilities in film language. I can see parts in films where a certain kind of camera shot would have been great narratively speaking but impossible because half the audience would stop watching the movie and strain to figure out what they're looking at. As far as HDTV specifically, I think that in general wide screens tend to do a better job of getting the audience absorbed into a good film because it more closely matches the way the human eye sees. If you're less distracted by what's surrounding the TV you can simply enjoy the film.
Of course none of this technology is a replacement for good film making. Buying more expensive equipment isn't going to make recent movies become amazing works of art, but it can aid the medium once there's good content.
Most virtual worlds are a little more 'fair' in that everyone starts with the same thing (or same number of options).
If the player wants to 'keep running' that's up to them. My main concern is the obsession with making demands about how everyone should spend their limited life time when you have no relation to them.
You know what, if you care that much about other people, perhaps you should work on trying to make the real world a better place for them instead of just demanding that they stop. Otherwise learn to accept it.
It's really not that hard help those in your immediate community if you actually have the will to do so, certainly rejecting them isn't going to change anything.
Doesn't matter if it's already true, the fact remains that you're just as at the mercy of uncontrollable events in real life as you are in some company's virtual world.
Bullshit, not everyone is born with equal opportunity to be what they want. You can try but a huge part of what you experience in life is dependant on other people. If they don't cooperate for one reason or another then you're out of luck in the real world, wether it's because of your history, how you look, disabilities, economic/social class, race/ethnicity, sex, or orientation.
"Now the publisher discontinues the world, or decides that it'll automatically take a 50% cut of your profits, or that it'll transfer your business to another character, etc. Maybe Taco Bell paid off the publisher and now all of your virtual products have a Taco Bell logo on them. Or maybe your computer dies, or you forget your password... Get my point?"
Now a giant rock crashes into earth killing everything, or your government becomes corrupt using weapons to control you so that they can take 50% of your income, or transfer your business to another individual, etc. Maybe corperations start taking over everything and start putting their logos on everything and in every movie. Or maybe you die, or maybe you get in a crippling accident... Get my point?
Sorry but it's not up to you to tell people how they should live their lives. I have no respect for people who have neither the compassion to understand these types of people or the openmindedness to accept it. They're not doing you any harm so why does it mean anything to you? If you want to argue that people should just accept the cards they're delt, then I can argue against you by pointing out that there are a lot of people living to day who would not be if it had not been for scientific and/or technical developments.
Too bad you can't give any example comparesons where Dells were actually HALF the price of Apples.
If you ever decide to actually do so, be sure to factor in form factor and small features like Apple's lit keyboard, ambiance light sensor, and built in bluetooth. I doubt the price difference would be as dramatic as 50% wether or not you factor those things in.
Slashdot Mirror
"No reputable printed dictionary includes them as correct forms. "
VIRII is NOT a word.
You can't make babies when you're frozen.
As something that is primarily a pointing device, mice should have six mouse buttons, not two. It only makes sense.
I hired Solid Snake to take a look. They're pink, cylindrical, with an apple logo on them...Manufactured by KRYSTAL.
We all know that Dell tries to give their customers the best bang for their buck.
Do you think LOTR is better experienced as a film in high resolution wide screen or in low resolution 4:3?
Personally I felt like I experienced the film's content better when I saw it in theaters than when I saw it on 4:3 analogue TV.
New film makers are being born all the time, one day modern films will come out that you want to watch.
I'm illustrating the point that despite the fact that DVDs have so many problems they were still adopted pretty enthusiastically. I think an HD format will be adopted eventually as well.
There are plenty of new (foreign) films I watch that are not the same 'insane, fast action violence' as well as some less popular American films that can take advantage of newer tech.
I'm surprised at the number of people who complain about seeing details they don't want to see. Is it really that disturbing to be reminded that humans are mammals, have facial hair, etc? Personally, not only do those things not bother me, but I really don't notice them on HDTV. Heck, I don't notice them in real life, maybe it's because I'm not looking for flaws.
As far as Photoshop, I notice you didn't list the most important reason for a high resolution monitor, so that you can see the details of what you're working on. I mean, sure if you're only doing web graphics you probably don't need it, but if you're working on something you plan on printing no monitor is high-res enough, in which case you want a high res monitor to minimize the amount of time you spend zooming around. Even if it's so you can fit those pallets on, it's so you can see more of your work with the pallets out of the way. Even if you don't do art, it helps you see more information. Higher resolution = seeing more.
Well there wasn't really a change in resolution anyway, the video was only clearer because VHS tapes deteriorated and DVDs didn't. I know some people who are more impressed with HD technology than they were with DVDs only because the picture is more beautiful.
Look, I'm not defending the new formats particularly because of DRM, I'm defending the idea of improved video technology because I think it can make the that which uses video better.
When I turn on my current standard television at my normal viewing range (about 2.5 to 3 times the size of the screen) I can't see the individual pixels obviously, but I can see a degree of fuzziness that is not there in HD.
.05 inch pencil tip instead of a .1 inch pencil tip will change the optimal viewing distance of the image. However being able to view the image at a distance where the image fills most of your vision helps you get more involved in the image. So the best combination is the resolution where the optimal viewing distance allows for the most cinematic experience.
You say that size is the issue, but this kind of artifact gets even worse as the size goes up because of the distance the average viewer sits from such a set. I never liked projection televisions because the pixels were more obvious and they always seemed more washed out. Using a
Well then I'll just end it with disagreement. I think sharper moving images can contribute to the overall appreciation of the art the same way high resolution digital photographs are preferable to many photographers. I think of video as motion photography, since half of modern film uses video, I think higher resolution formats are a worthwhile development for the film community.
You're not that small of a group, I know many people who think that way (such as my roommate). I too believe a good story is very important for films that are suppose to be story driven, but I'm also aware that there are other types of less story driven films that are perfectly legitimate forms within the medium (these are usually indi films).
Still, I do think that you miss out on some of the immersive properties of the medium if you watch certain films on certain setups. Of course some people don't really want to be immersed that way. I like being immersed in all aspects of the film (story/concept, visuals, sounds). I know that there are also times when directors would love to use some visual or audible elements that tie directly into the story but are unable to rely on them because they know that the certain audiences will completely miss them. Many good films use techniques similar to that of novel writers for narrative and characterization.
I personally think that film's greatest advantage over other mediums is that it appeals the most natural way to experience something, your eyes and ears. That is why I place value in having high definition technology become more widely adopted. Watching a good story is excellent, but getting as close as you can to being right there in the story is even better if you can afford it.
As a pointed out in another part of this thread, all new formats are expensive during the early parts of their life.
I wouldn't consider my view elitist, I'm simply pointing out the truth. Some people care a lot about visual detail, some people do not. Even within the group of visual people, some people pay more attention to form and some people pay more attention to lighting/shading. Actively watching? I don't know about you but I like being able to recognize a character moods and expressions in a middle shot. I like seeing the environment the character is in, not just a series of facial expressions. I would like being able to see an entire sunset valley of individual trees not just a bush in the foreground and indistinct tree-like shapes in the background. It's the difference between using very vivid language in writing and using very vague general words.
I'm not even going to bother taking this sub-thread any further because you're obviously leaning towards the, "industry wants to rape us," perspective and unwilling to admit that higher resolution imaging can enhance the cinematic experience. For the record, I want to see both high resolution and high dynamic range become common.
However, I'm willing to accept the argument that you don't find it worth it at the current cost, especially since your not a film hobbyist, but saying that the average human eye cannot tell the difference between SD and HD is as ridiculous than saying the average ear cannot tell the difference between an 2.1 and 5.1 audio.
No no, I'm saying that SDTV is for those who don't want to shell out for HDTV but wish to watch TV after the analog cutoff (of course there will probably be adapters for analog TVs).
Well that's a personal preference and one that I also follow as a gamer with an MX series card. Depending on the game I sometimes still prefer full resolution over the glittery special effects. In a game where the visual effects enhance the game experience I'll lower the resolution. In a multiplayer first person shooter where I may snipe I'll drop the effects for a higher resolution. In a game with stupidly pixel sized text like GuildWars I'll up the resolution.
The difference between getting the "full experience" out of a movie and a book is that the movie required a significant investment in hardware. The book just requires light and a comfortable place to sit. Most people have to compromise between what they want and what their budget allows; I (like most people I know) am not willing to budget a significant amount of money toward my entertainment system when I can think of a lot of better ways to spend it. :)
True, but as a film major and someone who is really into cinematic storytelling the only things better to spend money on are necessities and important people. My experience though, within my group of family and friends is that those who haven't invested anymore into home movie watching than a TV and DVD player just aren't that interested. Home movie watching to them is more of a time sink. Instead they pour their extra money into the things they look forward to doing when they get off from work/school. I think you underestimate the amount of money some bookworms will invest in their hobby. Think huge collections paired with a very expensive chair.
I agree with CDs. I saw a significant advantage and improvement in them even though my first CD player was built into a keyboard (musical). No hiss, track selections, no experienced degradation, easily backed up/dubbed, could be played on a computer.
However with DVDs the upgrade didn't feel nearly as great. I have actually seen pressed DVDs become unreadable by sitting on a shelf. Maybe the company that made them did a really crappy job but when a DVD goes bad, you lose everything past the point of failure because many DVD players will flip out and then give you a disc read error while The most deteriorated VHS can still be watched (unpleasantly). DVD technology in general I've had some annoying experiences with since along with it came unskippable material, poorly designed menus, unexplainable disc read errors, terrible points for scene and title (I don't understand why TV show DVDs often refuse to organize each epi
So you don't care about films that attempt to put you in the main character's shoes? Say for example, the main character approaches a breathtaking vista, do you not care that the HD experience would enhance the breathtaking nature of the shot before the editors cut back to the main character's facial expression?
How about more abstract camera shots such as seeing the character's reflection in disturbed water. I know of films that use these kinds of images metaphorically. Now say the director likes subtle humor and puts an amusing cloud formation behind the character's head. Do you think this kind of thing will be more obvious on SD or HD?
For a good film maker, It's about impacting and communicating with your audience, not just giving them what they need and hoping they get the impact you wanted. If you can reinforce your meaning literally, audibly, and visually you will have a higher success rate of the audience understanding. I know many people believe that visual detail is unnecessary, but these people who aren't very visual to begin with. Just because you don't value it doesn't mean others wont. For example, I like many silent films. Reason? I value visuals and music over dialog. However a lot of people would never sit through a dialog-less film.
"Remember when the date was 2006? Know why it got pushed back? Because people aren't buying HDTV. Now why wouldn't they be doing that? Because HDTV is expensive, and they don't see a good reason to buy it."
And that's why TVs with SDTV tuners are in stores now. You don't need to spend the amount of money needed for HD, but you'll probably want to buy something digital. Personally I think it may open up a better viewing experience, but that's just my opinion.
"To give them a "larger" working area so that more information fits on the screen at once? There's a practical reason for higher resolutions on PCs: more information in the same space."
I know a lot of gamers who run their shell at a lower resolution than their games. So that they can read information more easily but experience games in full detail (since OSes still haven't gotten around to being resolution independent without bugs).
"You can buy a decent 5.1 system for under $200 now, with a built-in DVD player. You can get high-quality sound at quite reasonable prices...and yet there are probably millions of households that don't have it because they have no reason to buy it. Their stereo speakers are enough for them."
Every household I've been to that doesn't have more than their TV's built in speakers are either very poor or don't take film watching seriously. I know a lot of people watch video as background noise until they can do something else, but people like me who have a real interest in film want to experience what we're watching to it's fullest. To me film watching is the same as reading a book for a bookworm.
"That's really where I see all these new formats falling flat. They aren't replacing existing technologies because they are too expensive to do that. So people who don't care about the new shiny stuff don't buy it, which means the format doesn't become an accepted standard.
DVD is the standard video disc. There aren't any really compelling reasons to move away from DVD for the majority of consumers, so Sony and Toshiba both are facing an uphill battle already. Putting players on the market priced at $500 or more isn't exactly going to move large quantities of units.
The winner is going to be the first one to completely replace their product line with backward-compatible units at the same price; instead of a DVD player for $100, you can buy an HD-DVD player for $100 and still watch your DVDs. If Toshiba did that tomorrow and just ate the losses for a couple of years, they'd find that they won the format war before Sony even fired a shot."
How expensive was the first DVD player? Wasn't it around $500? To tell the truth when I moved from VHS to DVD I didn't really notice that significant an improvement. Of course I had a very expensive VCR and studios decided that DVD = wide screen only so I actually lost resolution on my 19 inch analog TV which frustrated me because things felt grainer.
You're right that the high price keeps people away, but you're ignoring the fact that all new technology is expensive to begin with. Eventually a higher resolution format is going to come-forth and move people away from DVD. It may or may not be one of the two formats we see competing at the moment, but people will slowly adopt better technology if it's available and can offer a better experience. You haven't seen any compelling reasons to move to the new format because you haven't seen everything that's possible with it (How many TV programs do you see that were really designed for HD/Widescreen?). Western countries have always been slow at embracing better tech. Just wait until the technology starts to mature and content creators start utilizing it, people will move when movies can take on new forms because of the new freedom. This happens with all technology, I remember when people thought CSS was useless because you could get the same effects in HTML.
Have you ever watched a movie that wasn't just a sequence of close ups?
"What I'd really like to know is why I should rush out and buy their overpriced format instead of continuing to purchase $5 DVDs that I can watch on my XBOX. Of course, I'm still waiting to be convinced why I need to spend $500 for HDTV when I can get an analog for $150 and receive all of one less signal."
If you're in the US and plan on watching broadcast after 2009, you might look into SDTV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC
Why buy the more expensive format? Well, I guess the reason a customer might buy it is similar to why a customer would want their PC to display resolutions higher than 1024x768 today, or why the customer might want an expensive sound system in their home. For film makers it helps loosen the limits they've had to work with and also opens up a few more possibilities in film language. I can see parts in films where a certain kind of camera shot would have been great narratively speaking but impossible because half the audience would stop watching the movie and strain to figure out what they're looking at. As far as HDTV specifically, I think that in general wide screens tend to do a better job of getting the audience absorbed into a good film because it more closely matches the way the human eye sees. If you're less distracted by what's surrounding the TV you can simply enjoy the film.
Of course none of this technology is a replacement for good film making. Buying more expensive equipment isn't going to make recent movies become amazing works of art, but it can aid the medium once there's good content.
We're a republic...
Not all games are shoot/hack and slash.
Just because we become capable of photorealism doesn't mean the technology is going to be applyed that way.
At the very least, developers might be able to abuse the new tech in a way that lets them spend more time on the other parts of the game.
Most virtual worlds are a little more 'fair' in that everyone starts with the same thing (or same number of options).
If the player wants to 'keep running' that's up to them. My main concern is the obsession with making demands about how everyone should spend their limited life time when you have no relation to them.
You know what, if you care that much about other people, perhaps you should work on trying to make the real world a better place for them instead of just demanding that they stop. Otherwise learn to accept it.
It's really not that hard help those in your immediate community if you actually have the will to do so, certainly rejecting them isn't going to change anything.
Doesn't matter if it's already true, the fact remains that you're just as at the mercy of uncontrollable events in real life as you are in some company's virtual world.
Bullshit, not everyone is born with equal opportunity to be what they want. You can try but a huge part of what you experience in life is dependant on other people. If they don't cooperate for one reason or another then you're out of luck in the real world, wether it's because of your history, how you look, disabilities, economic/social class, race/ethnicity, sex, or orientation.
"Now the publisher discontinues the world, or decides that it'll automatically take a 50% cut of your profits, or that it'll transfer your business to another character, etc. Maybe Taco Bell paid off the publisher and now all of your virtual products have a Taco Bell logo on them. Or maybe your computer dies, or you forget your password... Get my point?"
Now a giant rock crashes into earth killing everything, or your government becomes corrupt using weapons to control you so that they can take 50% of your income, or transfer your business to another individual, etc. Maybe corperations start taking over everything and start putting their logos on everything and in every movie. Or maybe you die, or maybe you get in a crippling accident... Get my point?
Sorry but it's not up to you to tell people how they should live their lives. I have no respect for people who have neither the compassion to understand these types of people or the openmindedness to accept it. They're not doing you any harm so why does it mean anything to you? If you want to argue that people should just accept the cards they're delt, then I can argue against you by pointing out that there are a lot of people living to day who would not be if it had not been for scientific and/or technical developments.
Because building your own gaming laptop is not worth the annoying that it brings.
Too bad you can't give any example comparesons where Dells were actually HALF the price of Apples.
If you ever decide to actually do so, be sure to factor in form factor and small features like Apple's lit keyboard, ambiance light sensor, and built in bluetooth. I doubt the price difference would be as dramatic as 50% wether or not you factor those things in.