1080i + double the frame rate at half res, no? I thought that was only for applications where smooth motion was the most important visual feature (i.e. sports broadcasts).
My point is that the cost savings of using a xbox vs. a is entirely negated by needing an HDTV to view the thing rather than a PC monitor, so the whole concept seems flawed from a cost perspective.
OK, I can see the cost savings of using off-the-shelf standardized hardware for this, but isn't the display resolution of NTSC video just too low for something like this?
I mean, think about how detailed the map of your average metropolitan area traffic report looks like on the TV news. Here in New York, it's completely unreadable, and that's only with the most major roads.
How much readable TYPE can you even fit on a TV? Not enough for this application.
Even a relatively high-res mapquest map pales next to a printed one, but that's the price you pay for interactivity, I guess. But 640x480? Or does the software drive an HDTV in 1080p mode, which sort of kills the off-the-shelf/cost savings argument.
The facts themselves are public domain. A particular representation of those facts is copyrightable.
Anyone can put out their own Complete Works of Shakespeare. Anyone canNOT make their printing plates for such an endeavor by photographing the pages of another publisher's edition.
Imagine a sphere about 50 light-years in diameter rapidly expanding with I Love Lucy riding the wave up in front;-)
Actually, wouldn't the front of the wave be a bunch of Morse code, and the sphere about (a href="http://www.alpcom.it/hamradio/">109 light-years in diameter?
No, no, no, no, no.
The Gimp handles a subset of Photoshop's functionality quite well - RGB graphics for the web. It is NOT viable for prepress work. Not without CMYK color and a decent curves implementation.
In fact, those are probably the ONLY 2 features you absolutely need for prepress (you don't even need a color monitor if you have those plus a numeric eyedropper readout).
If I log on to a Wolfenstein:Enemy Territory server where there's only room on the axis team, I'll drop.
Sure, I only get to play half the game, but my experiences with the holocaust survivors I've known make it impossible for me to to play as the Germans.
I would think South Korea would rather do something like buy North Korea outright than start a war - their geopolitical situation is plenty interesting without any other military threats than Pyongyang being able to reduce Seoul to rubble on about 7 minutes' notice. sarcasm of parent duly noted
Well, the gamer's hell review, which gave it an 8.6 overall, and an 8.7 for gameplay, included the following:
you are the passenger, unfortunately the AI [driver] has no clue what the hell it is suppose [sic] to do. I had to stop playing and wait for the first patch to fix this because I couldn't get past the levels with the AI driving.
Sounds like quality to me - what would a game with poor gameplay consist of for that reviewer?
Well, for one thing I like to know before dialing whether I will be paying long distance fees for the call.
For another, having to remember 10 digits for EVERY number without having a geographical hint for three of them would stink. Having to remember 212/646 for Manhattan numbers, e.g. is annoying enough, and that's just a binary choice.
You're assuming limitations of software that aren't inherent. Oh, they may be inherent to specific packages, but this is why the big studios have hordes of programmers to develop or customize software as needed.
No. Accurate portraytal of perspective is what makes 3D animation '3D'. Otherwise it's some other kind of image synthesis software. You can tweak renderman shaders all you want and write mountains of custom code, but the fundamental underlying assumption of the 3D-rendered approach to image-making is that Perspective Will Be Adhered to.
Sure, you don't have to obey physics in the 3D environment, you can morph your models, and you can do all sorts of optically-impossible stuff, but whatever you create will be rendered in perspective, with accurate vanishing points and foreshortening.
That's why 3D cel-shaded stuff always stands out when mixed with hand-drawn (or 2D computer-drawn) animation. The relentless perfect perspective from frame to frame isn't something a human artist can pull off, and a shader that jitters the linework doesn't look the same as actual human inaccuracy.
Anyhow, most 2D characters don't work in perfect perspective as 3d characters - they need to be reproportioned to work from a variety of angles while conserving volume (you can of course theoretically do a 3D morph during a camera move as you said, but the audience will notice). I saw a painting a while ago of a frontal view of Dick Tracy as extrapolated from his profile - he looked like he had Downs Syndrome.
No, software has been doing a lot of inbetweening and inking work all over the industry for a long time now. Softimage TOONZ came out how long ago?
And at least for Tarzan they were using a bunch of in-house developed hybrid 2D/3D paint stuff for the backgrounds.
Sorry, but no matter where you put a vertex frame-to-frame, or how much 2D distortion you put on in post, 3D animation software fundamentally conforms to the laws of perspective in how it renders geometry.
Even if if you hack around with things like skewing a camera's transform matrix, it's still just a modified version of perspective. This becomes immediately obvious to beginning animators who try to make outdoor scenes with visually-correct distance features. What you end up doing is creating false-perspective environments just like they do on live action shoots.
This makes 2D cel gags remerkably hard to pull off in 3D. The visual rules are different.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, if he'd eaten differently he would never have fallen on the ice.
1080i + double the frame rate at half res, no? I thought that was only for applications where smooth motion was the most important visual feature (i.e. sports broadcasts).
My point is that the cost savings of using a xbox vs. a is entirely negated by needing an HDTV to view the thing rather than a PC monitor, so the whole concept seems flawed from a cost perspective.
OK, I can see the cost savings of using off-the-shelf standardized hardware for this, but isn't the display resolution of NTSC video just too low for something like this?
I mean, think about how detailed the map of your average metropolitan area traffic report looks like on the TV news. Here in New York, it's completely unreadable, and that's only with the most major roads.
How much readable TYPE can you even fit on a TV? Not enough for this application.
Even a relatively high-res mapquest map pales next to a printed one, but that's the price you pay for interactivity, I guess. But 640x480? Or does the software drive an HDTV in 1080p mode, which sort of kills the off-the-shelf/cost savings argument.
The facts themselves are public domain. A particular representation of those facts is copyrightable.
Anyone can put out their own Complete Works of Shakespeare. Anyone canNOT make their printing plates for such an endeavor by photographing the pages of another publisher's edition.
3 people expended 3 man-years over 2.5 calendar years? I want some of their coffee.
Take a look at the mobile phone games in the US - QBert, Pitfall (!), etc.
Imagine a sphere about 50 light-years in diameter rapidly expanding with I Love Lucy riding the wave up in front ;-)
Actually, wouldn't the front of the wave be a bunch of Morse code, and the sphere about (a href="http://www.alpcom.it/hamradio/">109 light-years in diameter?
The second is video editing, which really isn't very good on PC either with the sole exception of Adobe Premiere.
I suggest you check out Sonic Foundry's Vegas 4.0. Beats Premiere silly with its own limbs.
Graphics? The Gimp.
No, no, no, no, no. The Gimp handles a subset of Photoshop's functionality quite well - RGB graphics for the web. It is NOT viable for prepress work. Not without CMYK color and a decent curves implementation.
In fact, those are probably the ONLY 2 features you absolutely need for prepress (you don't even need a color monitor if you have those plus a numeric eyedropper readout).
Actually, it was coined by the New York Times.
No, it's an actual technical term that refers to a useful concept when discussing the effects on the ground of air-burst explosions.
From The United States Strategic Bombing Survey The Effects of Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Chairman's Office, 30 June 1946:
For convenience, the term "ground zero" will be used to designate the point on the ground directly beneath the point of detonation, or "air zero.")
Sure, I only get to play half the game, but my experiences with the holocaust survivors I've known make it impossible for me to to play as the Germans.
I would think South Korea would rather do something like buy North Korea outright than start a war - their geopolitical situation is plenty interesting without any other military threats than Pyongyang being able to reduce Seoul to rubble on about 7 minutes' notice.
sarcasm of parent duly noted
you are the passenger, unfortunately the AI [driver] has no clue what the hell it is suppose [sic] to do. I had to stop playing and wait for the first patch to fix this because I couldn't get past the levels with the AI driving.
Sounds like quality to me - what would a game with poor gameplay consist of for that reviewer?
For another, having to remember 10 digits for EVERY number without having a geographical hint for three of them would stink. Having to remember 212/646 for Manhattan numbers, e.g. is annoying enough, and that's just a binary choice.
Exactly. Different media, different design requirements, able to peacefully coexist.
You're assuming limitations of software that aren't inherent. Oh, they may be inherent to specific packages, but this is why the big studios have hordes of programmers to develop or customize software as needed. No. Accurate portraytal of perspective is what makes 3D animation '3D'. Otherwise it's some other kind of image synthesis software. You can tweak renderman shaders all you want and write mountains of custom code, but the fundamental underlying assumption of the 3D-rendered approach to image-making is that Perspective Will Be Adhered to. Sure, you don't have to obey physics in the 3D environment, you can morph your models, and you can do all sorts of optically-impossible stuff, but whatever you create will be rendered in perspective, with accurate vanishing points and foreshortening. That's why 3D cel-shaded stuff always stands out when mixed with hand-drawn (or 2D computer-drawn) animation. The relentless perfect perspective from frame to frame isn't something a human artist can pull off, and a shader that jitters the linework doesn't look the same as actual human inaccuracy. Anyhow, most 2D characters don't work in perfect perspective as 3d characters - they need to be reproportioned to work from a variety of angles while conserving volume (you can of course theoretically do a 3D morph during a camera move as you said, but the audience will notice). I saw a painting a while ago of a frontal view of Dick Tracy as extrapolated from his profile - he looked like he had Downs Syndrome.
No, software has been doing a lot of inbetweening and inking work all over the industry for a long time now. Softimage TOONZ came out how long ago? And at least for Tarzan they were using a bunch of in-house developed hybrid 2D/3D paint stuff for the backgrounds.
Sorry, but no matter where you put a vertex frame-to-frame, or how much 2D distortion you put on in post, 3D animation software fundamentally conforms to the laws of perspective in how it renders geometry.
Even if if you hack around with things like skewing a camera's transform matrix, it's still just a modified version of perspective. This becomes immediately obvious to beginning animators who try to make outdoor scenes with visually-correct distance features. What you end up doing is creating false-perspective environments just like they do on live action shoots.
This makes 2D cel gags remerkably hard to pull off in 3D. The visual rules are different.