The government is the great equalizer. It exists to represent the people's interest (at least in theory). Business represents its interests... not yours.
Unfortunately Business knows this, and that is why they've corrupted our government in their favor.
Its nice to see the Gov doing what it is supposed to do. Referee the game and represent the people's interest.
I started back in the dos days... and on macs, c64s, atari computers etc...
Been doing graphics for a long time from a teen, to mid 30s.
The one thing that really has become apparent is that in order to be a good artist with modern computer graphics tools, you must be a very well rounded traditional artist as well. I started out years ago as a kid fascinated with comic book art, and as a teen I tried to learn anatomy from books, but never understood what those books were fully teaching until I saw a real live, breathing traditional sketch artist explain to me the entire thing all over again. Only then did the techniques in the books start to make sense. Only then could I see forms fully in my mind before paper. It changed my world in how I understand something and communicate it back visually.
In other words, to be a good artist, you have to be a smart artist. drawing, animating... those are just tools of communication, but you can not communicate what you do not understand in total.
I think the best way to teach fine art students about videogame developement, is to simply teach them that just because the tools are foreign, the art should already be familiar to them.
I can teach anyone to use Zbrush... I can explain polygons, and 3D coordinates to just about anyone... but getting someone to understand the human body and its form from inside out... well that takes a life time of work. It doesnt matter if you started on paper, or on a computer... the personal journey of an artist is the same. The traditional artists education is a must, be it formal or personally learned. I've been trying to for years and I'm finally at a point where I can say... I knew nothing then, what I know now. And I'm still always learning...
The technical stuff may be scary, but if you know how to see form, express stories, define space, color, scale... create moods, compose shots, understand line, rythyms... etc Those things are important. The technical crap really isnt much of anything.
Its like saying "Here's a hammer... you hit things with it". Thats easy. Your fineart students should already be capable and well versed enough to hit things with whatever hammer you give them. What is really important in all of this, is how you see the world and being able to communicate it back with whatever tools you have.
I started when computer graphics courses had virtually no connection to traditional art. Its sad that it was taught that way for a while, but those days are long gone now. Everyone I know, or see, from beginner to pro... has gone back to basics because the great renaissance artists figured it all out already. In our industry many "artists" were hired because of their expertise in computers, but early on those artists were nothing more than computer users. However those computer users replaced a lot of traditional artists working in the field of special fx for example. Often those traditional artists were FAR better than many of those computer artists taking their jobs... Those days are over. Traditional artists who learn the tools of computer graphics.... are a deadly threat to anyone not willing to do the hard work.
Having all the tools in the world, just make you a tool collector.
If the people actually cared about ethics in government and business...
Instead everyone wants to get rich by any means necessary, including cheating and reality tv shows.
What is the government? Its you... Its me... Its the people. Its our country. If we cant trust the government, we cant trust each other or our country.
If we want a better government, elect better people and be a better person yourself. Be vigilant
Basically the range of light that exists in reality, far exceeds the recording capability of most devices, including our eyes.
Our eyes are actually one of the best at reacting to very dynamic ranges of light.
Cameras have varying degrees of dynamic range, but most of them, if not all (as far as i'm aware of) cant capture the full range of light.
Put it this way... In real life, light ranges from 0 to 1. 0 being the absolute absense of light, and 1 being the brightest thing possible. (I'm not sure we know what that is yet):)
Cameras can not capture the full range of 0 to 1. They instead have to be controlled creatively by the user, or an automatic process, that averages out tonal values to 50% grey. And then the camera captures its + or - from that 50% average... until it hits its recording limitations of bright and dark. This essentially clips the bright, and the dark when it hits that limit.
But what is bright and what is dark? You actually have the ability to control that, by chosing where to place your camera's limited range, within the real worlds full dynamic range. This is what is known as an exposure. So lets say your camera can only record a range of 0 to.5 Well thats.5 less than the full range of light in the real world. That means you can slide your exposure around. You could expose your photo so that it records the ranges of light from.2 to.7 That means what is 0 (absolute black) in the real world, will not be captured in your exposure. But it doesnt mean that "Black" wont be in your exposure. It just means that what is RGB 0,0,0 black in your photo, is actually not absolute black in the real world.
Now what is HDR? HDR is a way of capturing a larger range than yoru camera is capable of doing. Usually by using multiple exposers. Since we know that our example camera can only capture a range of light from 0 to.5... Then if we took 2 exposures, one which captures 0 to.5, and then a second exposure, from.5 to 1... we have captured the full range of light... We simply need to join the images together.
This is where it gets tricky because not only do cameras have limitations in how they record light... but our display devices such as monitors, projectors, printers also have a limitation in the range of tonal values they can reproduce...
So while we can record larger ranges of light by using multiple exposures.... We still have no way to actually SEE all of that ranges of light... unless we merge them back into a low dynamic range.
The best example of this is outdoor photography. Outdoor photography has a serious problem in that range of light on a bright sunny day is amazingly dynamic and large. The sky is so bright... you have to chose camera settings to balance the brightness of the sky, and the darkness of the ground/subject matter.
Obviously you do not want lovely green grass to look too dark. You'd like to see that vibrant, bright green that we associate with nature. The problem is when you expose the grass, to get that pleasing look, the sky that is blue in real life, becomes white in the camera because the camera can not capture the amount of light properly. It actually over exposes the sky. The reason is because our camera captures from 0 to.5, and in the images that come out of our camera, 0 is black, and.5 is white. BUT IN REAL LIFE... 0 is black,.5 is grey... and 1 is white.
Our camera has to squeeze the range into its own limited range. In real life that blue sky isnt white, so its clearly not 1 in real life range. Its probably more like.75 Which is still out of range of our camera.
If you take two exposures you can capture both the grass in that lush vibrant green, and the the sky as a deep summer blue... But you have to combine them to get the proper look your eye saw that day when you took that pho
I agree with you.. but there is a subtle difference and I tried to illustrate that in my example.
No one expects others to drink alcohol. Although some do.
But with prostitution legal... I think people simply try to buy each other after being turned down. It doesnt mean the woman that rejected you would sell herself... but it means that people would probably expect everyone to have some kind of a fuck price. And it was also be harder to tell who was simply offering sex for money, versus who genuinely liked you.
I agree with you that it can go either way, but I think there is another aspect to it because we're talking about humans and behavior... selling behavior, and expectations of each other and how we will change our way of looking at each other.
I dont look at people who drink and say they're bad people (unless they harm someone)... but I would probably look at a woman as a piece of shit, if she refused to go out on a legit date, but then offered to fuck me for money.
So I think it brings a different social dynamic to life that we might not like.
I say this all while in support of legalizing prostitution strangely.. but i think like everything... there comes consequences, some unintended.
Why would anyone want Blu-Ray to die? I can understand the DRM concerns, but if Direct streaming takes over, you will have lost the right to own a copy.
The worst part of direct streaming, as it is now, and on fios (I'm a very early FIOS subscriber)... is that HD streamed content is heavily compressed when compared to Blu-ray video streams.
By heavily compressed, i mean that fast motion breaks down into compression artifacts. Resolution and temporal quality is lost by overly compressing the footage to fit within the bandwidth allocated for streaming. Blu-Rays all stand out as far better quality when compared.
Just turn on HBO. many of their films are overly compressed in HD. Put on discovery channel's how its made... and watch jelly beans racing across the screen by the millions in a factory and you will see the break down of resolution and temporal compression. The jelly beans will become pixelated as they move fast. The video compression blocks become obvious, because the bit rate is too low.
Now where this lowering of bitrate takes place is another issue. On TV, it can be compressed THREE TIMES before it gets to you. First the production company delivers the TV show to the TV channel, this is compressed, usually a very nice quality version (if they know what they're doing)... Then the TV network sends out their feed to cable providers... and that feed may be recompressed to fit their bandwidth. When the cable / Sat TV providers get it, they then recompress the video again to fit their band width allocation needs. Often the lessor channels get more compressed than others, but overall you can see compression very clear from program to program. Direct TV is notorious for having terrible compression even on their SD content. So much that even negated the entire idea of a digital signal.
So a disc based delivery format is still higher quality because the only bandwidth they have to wory about is disc space. They arent trying to squeeze 500 other channels of video along side your movie... Which is what happens on cable/sat and the net.
I can see how DRM is a concern... but again... digital delivery isnt going to get any friendlier in terms of ownership rights. But atleast you'll have a high resolution, high bitrate version on a disc... which you can easily remove the DRM if you so choose and store on a media server at home.
Digital delivery will always side with bandwidth over quality.... and control over freedom. A Blu-Ray disc with all its DRM, provides more freedom than any digital delivery. They want full control over your media.... So what do you think will happen when you no longer have a high quality version of the media in your possession?
I've work in film, tv and videogame production as a 3d animator. I've also worked on two pilots for television, one of which is in talks right now with a major studio.
Film investors do not sit around and say "The story isnt great, but what matters is, what resolution are you going to shoot this?"
That doesnt happen. EVERYONE working in major production right now and in the past, has been working with material that produces resolutions well over home delivery capabilities. Film stock itself can easily be scanned up to 4K, which is about 4096x2304 or higher depending on the aspect. Film itself has always produced higher resolution images than any video delivery format. Now thats changing because many people are shooting in HD resolutions in digital rather than on film, but not because of the resolution, but because of ease of use. You dont have to have your film scanned. Todays HD cameras offer higher color bit depth than ever before as well...
But ease of use, is more the reason for shooting in HD... the resolutions were always there on film. Its just now... its easier to shoot HD because it goes right into your editor without scanning film stock.
So no one sits around wondering if they're going to shoot a film in HD before the greenlight a project. Everyone in production now, is all HD or traditional film stock. Content always matters in film developement. Granted sometimes the content that they focus on is more concerned with who is in the film, rather than what is in the film....
There are plenty of things that stand in the way of a good story. First... Its hard to make a good story. Its also hard to shoot a good story. Its very easy to ruin a good story by shooting it badly. Its very easy to go into production and suddenly find that its not working.... perhaps the actors failed, or the principles rushed into production without thinking of their shot plan, or they wrote the story on set as the shot. There are many reasons why films suck.... None of which have anything to do with a production company caring about what resolution it is shot at. The resolutions have always been high in film. Its the consumer who wasnt getting the full resolution.. until now.
These films are shot at 2k or 4k resolution on film stock. Then down res'd, interelaced and pull down'ed to fit into SD NTSC resolutions that are a tiny fraction of the image. HD isnt a gimmick. Its that SD couldnt deliver the full video as it was intended. Is color a gimmick? Black and White was simply a technological limitation... so was SD.
SD is more analogous to Youtube 6 years ago... where for bandwidth purposes it could only deliver low res video at 10 minute clips at a time.... Its a limitation of the delivery platform/technology.
That is true, but consider the source material they come from. If they came from sat/cable broadcasts or netflix... the recompressed pirate versions would be coming from an overcompressed source and wouldnt look as good...
Of course that only matters if you care about such a thing.
Again resolution has nothing to do with what you talk about. Resolution is still important.
Just watch any hitchcock film in 1080p... vs the SD we've seen for years on tv and video. Its like seeing a new film in many cases.
Most of us, probably never saw a hitchcock film in the theater, or any other classic film for that matter... so we've grown up with vhs or tv versions in SD.
There are some impressive 1080p releases of classic films. Sure the resolution does not apply to the story content, but seeing a film for all its detail visually is important. Cinematographers work damn hard to get these shots perfect.... and to watch them in SD resolutions is tragic.
1920x1080p Blu-Ray Discs are incredible. I would never want to watch 720x486 NTSC SD interlaced footage EVER again. I work in post production/special fx, so i'm a videophile.
3D is a gimmick, but resolution is not a gimmick. Resolution is very important. Just turn on any HDTV sports broadcast and compare it to old SD sports broadcasts... Its not even choice, you have to watch the HDTV broadcast because the SD is just so pathetic.
Resolution increases are not the only benefit of Blu-Ray or HDTV... but also improved sound streams, uncompressed audio streams etc.
So support Blu-Ray... get out there and buy them because many HDTV cable/sat providers over compress their HD signals, and anything streamed over the net is equally over compressed. The best way to get a nice high bitrate, clean 1080p video is still on a disc. If we let Blu-Ray die... we let mediocre, sub par quality win.
Alcohol isnt the same. Achohol isnt going to change the love dynamic of humanity, or the decency of humanity. It can lead to interesting situations of course:) but... It is just an object, where as with prostitution, the object becomes a human being, and it changes our way of looking at each other.
For example, you go and ask a woman out, she says no... she thinks your too fat....
Instead of walking away, you say... how about $500 to just fuck you, you dumb whore?
Everyones going to expect a fuck price out of each other.
Of course the reality is now, that woman just want money... as do men... but at least we're still trying to keep some kind of decency up....
But I am for legalized prostitution. I'm not against it.... I just think that it would change society greatly. You would have 50 year old men offering poor 17+ year old highschool girls, $1000s to fuck them.
Society will just become this evil place where women simply say "pay me" if you want to fuck. Love will be gone. It will all boil down to a business transaction. Which has already happened to real business unfortunately...
So the fear would be taking the humanity out of everything... and turning life into some contractual money exchange between every person without regard at all for feelings or human decency.
But since no one actually cares about anyone else anymore...
might as well spiral down the toilet in a blaze of glory.
I fucking hate the AD-BOX 360.:) Everytime I turn it on, advertisements. The ads come up before you can even switch menu to go to your account, or games...
Microsoft may have a decent online platform for a console... but they killed it for me, and I went back to PC gaming where I can play a game with out a cocaine addict screaming "yeah nigga.. yeah headshot nigga!?" and then have a 12 year old chime in with the same "Hell yeah head shot niggggggggga"
I'll take Starcraft 2, Modern Warfare 2, Left 4 Dead 2, Team fortress 2, Portal and Portal 2.... Lots of twos..... all on the PC.:)
and my PS3... rules.
The 360 has become my SF2 machine. The rest of the system seems to have gone down hill now that Sony has been kicking ass with their big games.
This wont work. Its silly... and sounds more like a company hoping for a nationwide government contract, or atleast a state contract from someone dumb enough to try it.
Slashdot Mirror
So much for that "free market" bullshit.
The government is the great equalizer. It exists to represent the people's interest (at least in theory). Business represents its interests... not yours.
Unfortunately Business knows this, and that is why they've corrupted our government in their favor.
Its nice to see the Gov doing what it is supposed to do. Referee the game and represent the people's interest.
I started back in the dos days... and on macs, c64s, atari computers etc...
Been doing graphics for a long time from a teen, to mid 30s.
The one thing that really has become apparent is that in order to be a good artist with modern computer graphics tools, you must be a very well rounded traditional artist as well. I started out years ago as a kid fascinated with comic book art, and as a teen I tried to learn anatomy from books, but never understood what those books were fully teaching until I saw a real live, breathing traditional sketch artist explain to me the entire thing all over again. Only then did the techniques in the books start to make sense. Only then could I see forms fully in my mind before paper. It changed my world in how I understand something and communicate it back visually.
In other words, to be a good artist, you have to be a smart artist. drawing, animating... those are just tools of communication, but you can not communicate what you do not understand in total.
I think the best way to teach fine art students about videogame developement, is to simply teach them that just because the tools are foreign, the art should already be familiar to them.
I can teach anyone to use Zbrush... I can explain polygons, and 3D coordinates to just about anyone... but getting someone to understand the human body and its form from inside out... well that takes a life time of work. It doesnt matter if you started on paper, or on a computer... the personal journey of an artist is the same. The traditional artists education is a must, be it formal or personally learned. I've been trying to for years and I'm finally at a point where I can say... I knew nothing then, what I know now. And I'm still always learning...
The technical stuff may be scary, but if you know how to see form, express stories, define space, color, scale... create moods, compose shots, understand line, rythyms... etc Those things are important. The technical crap really isnt much of anything.
Its like saying "Here's a hammer... you hit things with it". Thats easy. Your fineart students should already be capable and well versed enough to hit things with whatever hammer you give them. What is really important in all of this, is how you see the world and being able to communicate it back with whatever tools you have.
I started when computer graphics courses had virtually no connection to traditional art. Its sad that it was taught that way for a while, but those days are long gone now. Everyone I know, or see, from beginner to pro... has gone back to basics because the great renaissance artists figured it all out already. In our industry many "artists" were hired because of their expertise in computers, but early on those artists were nothing more than computer users. However those computer users replaced a lot of traditional artists working in the field of special fx for example. Often those traditional artists were FAR better than many of those computer artists taking their jobs... Those days are over. Traditional artists who learn the tools of computer graphics.... are a deadly threat to anyone not willing to do the hard work.
Having all the tools in the world, just make you a tool collector.
They could...
If the people actually cared about ethics in government and business...
Instead everyone wants to get rich by any means necessary, including cheating and reality tv shows.
What is the government? Its you... Its me... Its the people. Its our country. If we cant trust the government, we cant trust each other or our country.
If we want a better government, elect better people and be a better person yourself. Be vigilant
You're right. I used 0 to 1, to illustrate a range. 0 being absolute black, 1 being the brightest thing possible.
0 to 1 is a popular range as it relates to linear workflow in computer graphics and linear raw image capture.
Basically the range of light that exists in reality, far exceeds the recording capability of most devices, including our eyes.
Our eyes are actually one of the best at reacting to very dynamic ranges of light.
Cameras have varying degrees of dynamic range, but most of them, if not all (as far as i'm aware of) cant capture the full range of light.
Put it this way... In real life, light ranges from 0 to 1. 0 being the absolute absense of light, and 1 being the brightest thing possible. (I'm not sure we know what that is yet) :)
Cameras can not capture the full range of 0 to 1. They instead have to be controlled creatively by the user, or an automatic process, that averages out tonal values to 50% grey. And then the camera captures its + or - from that 50% average... until it hits its recording limitations of bright and dark. This essentially clips the bright, and the dark when it hits that limit.
But what is bright and what is dark? You actually have the ability to control that, by chosing where to place your camera's limited range, within the real worlds full dynamic range. This is what is known as an exposure. So lets say your camera can only record a range of 0 to .5 Well thats .5 less than the full range of light in the real world. That means you can slide your exposure around. You could expose your photo so that it records the ranges of light from .2 to .7 That means what is 0 (absolute black) in the real world, will not be captured in your exposure. But it doesnt mean that "Black" wont be in your exposure. It just means that what is RGB 0,0,0 black in your photo, is actually not absolute black in the real world.
Now what is HDR? HDR is a way of capturing a larger range than yoru camera is capable of doing. Usually by using multiple exposers. Since we know that our example camera can only capture a range of light from 0 to .5... Then if we took 2 exposures, one which captures 0 to .5, and then a second exposure, from .5 to 1... we have captured the full range of light... We simply need to join the images together.
This is where it gets tricky because not only do cameras have limitations in how they record light... but our display devices such as monitors, projectors, printers also have a limitation in the range of tonal values they can reproduce...
So while we can record larger ranges of light by using multiple exposures.... We still have no way to actually SEE all of that ranges of light... unless we merge them back into a low dynamic range.
The best example of this is outdoor photography. Outdoor photography has a serious problem in that range of light on a bright sunny day is amazingly dynamic and large. The sky is so bright... you have to chose camera settings to balance the brightness of the sky, and the darkness of the ground/subject matter.
Obviously you do not want lovely green grass to look too dark. You'd like to see that vibrant, bright green that we associate with nature. The problem is when you expose the grass, to get that pleasing look, the sky that is blue in real life, becomes white in the camera because the camera can not capture the amount of light properly. It actually over exposes the sky. The reason is because our camera captures from 0 to .5, and in the images that come out of our camera, 0 is black, and .5 is white. BUT IN REAL LIFE... 0 is black, .5 is grey... and 1 is white.
Our camera has to squeeze the range into its own limited range. In real life that blue sky isnt white, so its clearly not 1 in real life range. Its probably more like .75 Which is still out of range of our camera.
If you take two exposures you can capture both the grass in that lush vibrant green, and the the sky as a deep summer blue... But you have to combine them to get the proper look your eye saw that day when you took that pho
The definition of scientist is being soiled by these kinds of finds.
I think what they mean to say is... "At least that we think it might be"
You posted Anonymously... so you obviously do know that calling him a fucking moron was probably a bit harsh.... no?
Yes there are... Idiots are like EFF
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/08/google-verizon-netneutrality
Enjoy reading.
Oh and btw... Fuck your mothers rotted cunt, while I fuck your sister poorly.
YEAH... I'm a shit lay.
And btw.. Google, are you trying to make us forget that you and Verizon have been plotting to destroy net neutrality?
...and fox news is hell bent on labeling Obama has a communist.
It seem at Murdoch likes to employ lots of people that Hate America...
Perhaps we should outlaw his entire company and take its assets.
exactly right.
This is about absolute control and power.... Not security
I agree with you.. but there is a subtle difference and I tried to illustrate that in my example.
No one expects others to drink alcohol. Although some do.
But with prostitution legal... I think people simply try to buy each other after being turned down. It doesnt mean the woman that rejected you would sell herself... but it means that people would probably expect everyone to have some kind of a fuck price. And it was also be harder to tell who was simply offering sex for money, versus who genuinely liked you.
I agree with you that it can go either way, but I think there is another aspect to it because we're talking about humans and behavior... selling behavior, and expectations of each other and how we will change our way of looking at each other.
I dont look at people who drink and say they're bad people (unless they harm someone)... but I would probably look at a woman as a piece of shit, if she refused to go out on a legit date, but then offered to fuck me for money.
So I think it brings a different social dynamic to life that we might not like.
I say this all while in support of legalizing prostitution strangely.. but i think like everything... there comes consequences, some unintended.
Blu-Ray is cracked... the DRM isnt anymore an issue than it was with DVD.
Direct streaming is death for film ownership.
Why would anyone want Blu-Ray to die? I can understand the DRM concerns, but if Direct streaming takes over, you will have lost the right to own a copy.
The worst part of direct streaming, as it is now, and on fios (I'm a very early FIOS subscriber)... is that HD streamed content is heavily compressed when compared to Blu-ray video streams.
By heavily compressed, i mean that fast motion breaks down into compression artifacts. Resolution and temporal quality is lost by overly compressing the footage to fit within the bandwidth allocated for streaming. Blu-Rays all stand out as far better quality when compared.
Just turn on HBO. many of their films are overly compressed in HD. Put on discovery channel's how its made... and watch jelly beans racing across the screen by the millions in a factory and you will see the break down of resolution and temporal compression. The jelly beans will become pixelated as they move fast. The video compression blocks become obvious, because the bit rate is too low.
Now where this lowering of bitrate takes place is another issue. On TV, it can be compressed THREE TIMES before it gets to you. First the production company delivers the TV show to the TV channel, this is compressed, usually a very nice quality version (if they know what they're doing)... Then the TV network sends out their feed to cable providers... and that feed may be recompressed to fit their bandwidth. When the cable / Sat TV providers get it, they then recompress the video again to fit their band width allocation needs. Often the lessor channels get more compressed than others, but overall you can see compression very clear from program to program. Direct TV is notorious for having terrible compression even on their SD content. So much that even negated the entire idea of a digital signal.
So a disc based delivery format is still higher quality because the only bandwidth they have to wory about is disc space. They arent trying to squeeze 500 other channels of video along side your movie... Which is what happens on cable/sat and the net.
I can see how DRM is a concern... but again... digital delivery isnt going to get any friendlier in terms of ownership rights. But atleast you'll have a high resolution, high bitrate version on a disc... which you can easily remove the DRM if you so choose and store on a media server at home.
Digital delivery will always side with bandwidth over quality.... and control over freedom. A Blu-Ray disc with all its DRM, provides more freedom than any digital delivery. They want full control over your media.... So what do you think will happen when you no longer have a high quality version of the media in your possession?
Huh?
I've work in film, tv and videogame production as a 3d animator. I've also worked on two pilots for television, one of which is in talks right now with a major studio.
Film investors do not sit around and say "The story isnt great, but what matters is, what resolution are you going to shoot this?"
That doesnt happen. EVERYONE working in major production right now and in the past, has been working with material that produces resolutions well over home delivery capabilities. Film stock itself can easily be scanned up to 4K, which is about 4096x2304 or higher depending on the aspect. Film itself has always produced higher resolution images than any video delivery format. Now thats changing because many people are shooting in HD resolutions in digital rather than on film, but not because of the resolution, but because of ease of use. You dont have to have your film scanned. Todays HD cameras offer higher color bit depth than ever before as well...
But ease of use, is more the reason for shooting in HD... the resolutions were always there on film. Its just now... its easier to shoot HD because it goes right into your editor without scanning film stock.
So no one sits around wondering if they're going to shoot a film in HD before the greenlight a project. Everyone in production now, is all HD or traditional film stock. Content always matters in film developement. Granted sometimes the content that they focus on is more concerned with who is in the film, rather than what is in the film....
There are plenty of things that stand in the way of a good story. First... Its hard to make a good story. Its also hard to shoot a good story. Its very easy to ruin a good story by shooting it badly. Its very easy to go into production and suddenly find that its not working.... perhaps the actors failed, or the principles rushed into production without thinking of their shot plan, or they wrote the story on set as the shot. There are many reasons why films suck.... None of which have anything to do with a production company caring about what resolution it is shot at. The resolutions have always been high in film. Its the consumer who wasnt getting the full resolution.. until now.
Exactly right.
Thanks for the obvious.
I just dont get these kinds of comments because its like saying sound isnt important because there is the potential for something to sound bad.
how is HD a gimmick?
These films are shot at 2k or 4k resolution on film stock. Then down res'd, interelaced and pull down'ed to fit into SD NTSC resolutions that are a tiny fraction of the image. HD isnt a gimmick. Its that SD couldnt deliver the full video as it was intended. Is color a gimmick? Black and White was simply a technological limitation... so was SD.
SD is more analogous to Youtube 6 years ago... where for bandwidth purposes it could only deliver low res video at 10 minute clips at a time.... Its a limitation of the delivery platform/technology.
That is true, but consider the source material they come from. If they came from sat/cable broadcasts or netflix... the recompressed pirate versions would be coming from an overcompressed source and wouldnt look as good...
Of course that only matters if you care about such a thing.
Again resolution has nothing to do with what you talk about. Resolution is still important.
Just watch any hitchcock film in 1080p... vs the SD we've seen for years on tv and video. Its like seeing a new film in many cases.
Most of us, probably never saw a hitchcock film in the theater, or any other classic film for that matter... so we've grown up with vhs or tv versions in SD.
There are some impressive 1080p releases of classic films. Sure the resolution does not apply to the story content, but seeing a film for all its detail visually is important. Cinematographers work damn hard to get these shots perfect.... and to watch them in SD resolutions is tragic.
Dont equate Blu-ray with 3D TV...
1920x1080p Blu-Ray Discs are incredible. I would never want to watch 720x486 NTSC SD interlaced footage EVER again. I work in post production/special fx, so i'm a videophile.
3D is a gimmick, but resolution is not a gimmick. Resolution is very important. Just turn on any HDTV sports broadcast and compare it to old SD sports broadcasts... Its not even choice, you have to watch the HDTV broadcast because the SD is just so pathetic.
Resolution increases are not the only benefit of Blu-Ray or HDTV... but also improved sound streams, uncompressed audio streams etc.
So support Blu-Ray... get out there and buy them because many HDTV cable/sat providers over compress their HD signals, and anything streamed over the net is equally over compressed. The best way to get a nice high bitrate, clean 1080p video is still on a disc. If we let Blu-Ray die... we let mediocre, sub par quality win.
Alcohol isnt the same. Achohol isnt going to change the love dynamic of humanity, or the decency of humanity. It can lead to interesting situations of course :) but... It is just an object, where as with prostitution, the object becomes a human being, and it changes our way of looking at each other.
For example, you go and ask a woman out, she says no... she thinks your too fat....
Instead of walking away, you say... how about $500 to just fuck you, you dumb whore?
Everyones going to expect a fuck price out of each other.
Of course the reality is now, that woman just want money... as do men... but at least we're still trying to keep some kind of decency up....
But I am for legalized prostitution. I'm not against it.... I just think that it would change society greatly. You would have 50 year old men offering poor 17+ year old highschool girls, $1000s to fuck them.
It would get very strange.
I agree...
but there is a dark side to all of this.
Society will just become this evil place where women simply say "pay me" if you want to fuck. Love will be gone. It will all boil down to a business transaction. Which has already happened to real business unfortunately...
So the fear would be taking the humanity out of everything... and turning life into some contractual money exchange between every person without regard at all for feelings or human decency.
But since no one actually cares about anyone else anymore...
might as well spiral down the toilet in a blaze of glory.
I fucking hate the AD-BOX 360. :) Everytime I turn it on, advertisements. The ads come up before you can even switch menu to go to your account, or games...
Microsoft may have a decent online platform for a console... but they killed it for me, and I went back to PC gaming where I can play a game with out a cocaine addict screaming "yeah nigga.. yeah headshot nigga!?" and then have a 12 year old chime in with the same "Hell yeah head shot niggggggggga"
I'll take Starcraft 2, Modern Warfare 2, Left 4 Dead 2, Team fortress 2, Portal and Portal 2.... Lots of twos..... all on the PC. :)
and my PS3... rules.
The 360 has become my SF2 machine. The rest of the system seems to have gone down hill now that Sony has been kicking ass with their big games.
Rolls eyes.
This wont work. Its silly... and sounds more like a company hoping for a nationwide government contract, or atleast a state contract from someone dumb enough to try it.