Consider though that gasoline engines are only about 35% efficient. Electric motors are considerably better than that. A lot of that energy in the gasoline is lost as heat, so the battery doesn't have to have the same energy density in order to perform as well in a car.
"there's generally no payout on the DVD to anyone on the creative side of actually making the movie."
This isn't true. A portion of all DVD sales (and rentals) go into union pensions as per union deals. Actors and producers usually always take a cut as well. Granted this is significantly less than payouts from theatrical releases, but there are costs involved with DVD releases.
The next time you think you aren't hurting the little guys when you pirate a DVD instead of buy or rent, just know that because of your choice less money goes into their pensions.
The problem is that there is a war on labor unions and regulation in this country. The social inequality you see is exactly because workers don't have the bargaining muscle that large corporations do, and so corporations are exploiting their power with no way to check it. It's really the only way for workers to have an equal voice to their employer.
Regulation is likewise seen as a means for the government to stifle business or innovation. As the banking industry indicates, the regulations were in place for the good of society as a whole.
Both unions and regulation are necessary to keep capitalism in check. I am not a socialist, but 'pure' capitalism produces the inequality you speak of. As long as my government lets me unionize and properly regulates business, you can have your social equality, all without being treated like a child.
I'm really curious as to why people say blu-ray is garbage. Other than streaming, it's the only way to get 1080p content, and compared to streaming it looks WAY better. It's exactly like DVD but in high definition. It's not even more expensive. I just got a few seasons of Breaking Bad on Blu Ray, and the price was literally the same as if I had gotten DVD.
I don't see any disadvantage over DVD, other than having to have an HDTV. It's hardly garbage. If you don't like the discs or the unskipable menus, you can rip them just like DVD. What's the downside again?
4) There is no focus. Everything is in the same plane of focus. This only works if everything is at or beyond your infinity focal point. If anything gets closer, your brain gets confused.
What do you mean? How can something be beyond infinity? Do you understand photography? Your eyes actually have the ability focus on the screen, but converge anywhere. Thus, you can look at any of the objects in 3d space. If your eyes couldn't do this, current 3d tech would not work.
Here's what happens since you don't seem to know: while watching a 3d movie, your eyes focus on the screen since that is where the light is coming from. Something comes off the screen closer to you? Your eyes stay focused on the screen, but converge in front of the screen. Looking at something behind the screen plane? Your eyes stay focused on the screen, but converge behind the screen. In real life, your eyes almost exclusively focus and converge on the same point, but not when watching a 3d movie.
Shouting Fire in a crowded theatre will get you charged with reckless endangerment, and possibly manslaughter if someone dies. Advertising miracle drugs that don't work is called fraud. The actions are criminalized, not the speech. You're free to shout that same word in a theatre full of two people, or say your drug cures cancer in a joking manner in a parody. See the difference?
Back when color film was first created, it was a new aspect of the image that film makers had to learn how to use. In fact, in the early days the studios would employ Color Supervisors, who would work with the director to make sure that the colors of the frame were not only pleasing aesthetically, but could be used to enhance the story emotionally. Of course as time goes on we don't need Color Supervisors anymore; film makers have a grasp of how to use color.
Right now we have a similar thing happening on 3D films. Stereographers are employed to make sure that the 3D is technically correct, but also aesthetically right for the shot. As this becomes more normal, film makers will be able to use 3D in a similar way as color without the need of specialists.
I'm not as optimistic as Sony when they say all films will be 3D in 10 years, but I do see the potential to use 3D techniques to tell a story. You can use depth to draw the viewer's eye to certain parts of the frame or suggest relationships between characters. A character that is off the screen an 'in' the theatre is going to be more powerful than a character deep back in the screen. There is also an incredible sense of intimacy in seeing a face in 3D, which could give emotional dialogue scenes even more punch.
I think once we get over 3D as a selling point, and start thinking about it as merely a technique to enhance the film, we'll see it being used creatively and properly.
4K is still a ways off, even in cinemas. Literally 90% of films shown theatrically in the United States are finished in 2K. We are talking huge budget films like Captain America that choose to finish in 2K still. Very few places even have 4K projectors. It's still going to take a while before every cinema is 4K, let alone 4K in the home. I would not be surprised if 20 years from now 4K is still not widespread in homes.
This would be trivial if he simply released the Final Cut Pro or Avid project file, or an EDL and had people rip their own dvd's to get the media. They would just contain information on the edits done, which would be applied to the media that the viewer legally owns.
The thing is though, the legal limit has little relation to being impaired. The AMA said 30 years ago that a BAC of.15 would make someone impaired. At.08, the vast majority of people aren't impaired. The law used to be that you got arrested if you were driving while impaired. Now, you get arrested if you are over.08 even if you aren't impaired.
The problem with this line of thought is that you've ALREADY decided to use your time for leisure and not for making money. There's no opportunity cost there; by playing the game you've already committed yourself to not making money. So you could either not make money and not have to pay, or you could not make money and have to pay. Which sounds better?
The busses in the Seattle area are wonderful. They will take you to all the surrounding cities, and go lots of places. I was in Bellevue for a while without a car, and had no problems taking a bus to Seattle for fun.
Maybe some people pay more, but I sure don't. I drive 15 minutes a day to work, in an american made car that gets 42mpg according to my last fill up. I fill my tank about every 2 and a half weeks. I'm sure people with hybrids are doing even better. More and more people here in the USA are choosing fuel economy when buying new cars.
Probably because often there's shit in the overscan like gear or lights. What you are saying is actually done now though. Girl with the dragon tattoo for example, was shot in 5K with a 4K center cut at 2.35:1. For the blu-ray, they simply remove the matte and scale actually giving you more picture area.
16 Bits per channel? Even Huge budget blockbusters are only mastered at 12 bits per channel. The only time I've ever worked in 16 bit is for math during compositing. It's always output to 10 or 12 bit. So like, that would be serious overkill.
Point and click adventure games have largely been about the mechanics. The mechanics of those games involve puzzle solving. Good point and clicks have interesting and difficult puzzles, bad ones have simple and boring ones.He's not arguing to abolish story from games; he is simply stating that the primary draw to a game should be the mechanics, since that is what games do best. Other mediums tell narratives better, so if you want your primary draw to be the narrative, you are better off not being a game.
In such an instance, would it not have been better to tell that story in a film or book? That way you could enjoy the story without suffering the bad mechanics.
There are only a few 2560x1600 desktop displays now - Apple for example no longer sells one. 1600x1200 screens were available on laptops for some time, too, but no longer.
What? I just got a Macbook Pro from Apple, and its screen is 1680 x 1050. That's reasonably high resolution for 15 inches.
"the fact he won't let you deal with multi-media data on external USB/FireWire drives on Mac OS X"
What do you mean by that? I have no trouble playing multimedia files off of Firewire drives. I have no trouble saving them. I have no trouble moving my iTunes purchases to them. Can you clarify?
I'm on the inside. Working on an indie feature this summer with a budget of 5 million. No stars, no special effects, all location shooting. Making movies with the craftsmanship generally expected when you see it in a theatre is not cheap. You need to pay crew, location fees, and for equipment. There are upwards of 40 people working on seat each day. They need to be paid. If you want a wide release, you can't just take your DSLR and your light kit and shoot on the run with just you and a buddy.
A more apt comparison is you've bought a movie used, expecting there to be special features. Then it turns out you have to pay extra for those special features.
They are actually doing this in the film industry. I rented Fast Five, and tried to access the special features. A dialogue popped up explaining this was only for the retail disc, not the rental one.
This industry is corrupted by extreme greed and arrogance... Why should someone who spends 6 months being filmed in a movie receive millions on an ongoing basis, while other people (including people like camera operators who were there during the same filming) only receive an average hourly wage for the time they actually spent working?
Because their presence, and the star power they bring is worth that much. If you give Brad Pitt ten million, there's a good chance your film will more than make up that cost based on his star power. Directors similarly can command large salaries. You can market both. You can't really market "Gaffed by Johnny Nash!" I work in the industry, and believe me, the 'other people' you mention make plenty of money and can easily make a good living. Do you make $1200 a day at your job? No? Then maybe become a camera operator.
Slashdot Mirror
Consider though that gasoline engines are only about 35% efficient. Electric motors are considerably better than that. A lot of that energy in the gasoline is lost as heat, so the battery doesn't have to have the same energy density in order to perform as well in a car.
"there's generally no payout on the DVD to anyone on the creative side of actually making the movie."
This isn't true. A portion of all DVD sales (and rentals) go into union pensions as per union deals. Actors and producers usually always take a cut as well. Granted this is significantly less than payouts from theatrical releases, but there are costs involved with DVD releases.
The next time you think you aren't hurting the little guys when you pirate a DVD instead of buy or rent, just know that because of your choice less money goes into their pensions.
The problem is that there is a war on labor unions and regulation in this country. The social inequality you see is exactly because workers don't have the bargaining muscle that large corporations do, and so corporations are exploiting their power with no way to check it. It's really the only way for workers to have an equal voice to their employer.
Regulation is likewise seen as a means for the government to stifle business or innovation. As the banking industry indicates, the regulations were in place for the good of society as a whole.
Both unions and regulation are necessary to keep capitalism in check. I am not a socialist, but 'pure' capitalism produces the inequality you speak of. As long as my government lets me unionize and properly regulates business, you can have your social equality, all without being treated like a child.
I'm really curious as to why people say blu-ray is garbage. Other than streaming, it's the only way to get 1080p content, and compared to streaming it looks WAY better. It's exactly like DVD but in high definition. It's not even more expensive. I just got a few seasons of Breaking Bad on Blu Ray, and the price was literally the same as if I had gotten DVD.
I don't see any disadvantage over DVD, other than having to have an HDTV. It's hardly garbage. If you don't like the discs or the unskipable menus, you can rip them just like DVD. What's the downside again?
4) There is no focus. Everything is in the same plane of focus. This only works if everything is at or beyond your infinity focal point. If anything gets closer, your brain gets confused.
What do you mean? How can something be beyond infinity? Do you understand photography? Your eyes actually have the ability focus on the screen, but converge anywhere. Thus, you can look at any of the objects in 3d space. If your eyes couldn't do this, current 3d tech would not work.
Here's what happens since you don't seem to know: while watching a 3d movie, your eyes focus on the screen since that is where the light is coming from. Something comes off the screen closer to you? Your eyes stay focused on the screen, but converge in front of the screen. Looking at something behind the screen plane? Your eyes stay focused on the screen, but converge behind the screen. In real life, your eyes almost exclusively focus and converge on the same point, but not when watching a 3d movie.
For many other sates, but at least for california, those no sue clauses are unenforceable and void precisely because they are not legal.
Shouting Fire in a crowded theatre will get you charged with reckless endangerment, and possibly manslaughter if someone dies. Advertising miracle drugs that don't work is called fraud. The actions are criminalized, not the speech. You're free to shout that same word in a theatre full of two people, or say your drug cures cancer in a joking manner in a parody. See the difference?
Back when color film was first created, it was a new aspect of the image that film makers had to learn how to use. In fact, in the early days the studios would employ Color Supervisors, who would work with the director to make sure that the colors of the frame were not only pleasing aesthetically, but could be used to enhance the story emotionally. Of course as time goes on we don't need Color Supervisors anymore; film makers have a grasp of how to use color.
Right now we have a similar thing happening on 3D films. Stereographers are employed to make sure that the 3D is technically correct, but also aesthetically right for the shot. As this becomes more normal, film makers will be able to use 3D in a similar way as color without the need of specialists.
I'm not as optimistic as Sony when they say all films will be 3D in 10 years, but I do see the potential to use 3D techniques to tell a story. You can use depth to draw the viewer's eye to certain parts of the frame or suggest relationships between characters. A character that is off the screen an 'in' the theatre is going to be more powerful than a character deep back in the screen. There is also an incredible sense of intimacy in seeing a face in 3D, which could give emotional dialogue scenes even more punch.
I think once we get over 3D as a selling point, and start thinking about it as merely a technique to enhance the film, we'll see it being used creatively and properly.
4K is still a ways off, even in cinemas. Literally 90% of films shown theatrically in the United States are finished in 2K. We are talking huge budget films like Captain America that choose to finish in 2K still. Very few places even have 4K projectors. It's still going to take a while before every cinema is 4K, let alone 4K in the home. I would not be surprised if 20 years from now 4K is still not widespread in homes.
This would be trivial if he simply released the Final Cut Pro or Avid project file, or an EDL and had people rip their own dvd's to get the media. They would just contain information on the edits done, which would be applied to the media that the viewer legally owns.
The thing is though, the legal limit has little relation to being impaired. The AMA said 30 years ago that a BAC of .15 would make someone impaired. At .08, the vast majority of people aren't impaired. The law used to be that you got arrested if you were driving while impaired. Now, you get arrested if you are over .08 even if you aren't impaired.
The problem with this line of thought is that you've ALREADY decided to use your time for leisure and not for making money. There's no opportunity cost there; by playing the game you've already committed yourself to not making money. So you could either not make money and not have to pay, or you could not make money and have to pay. Which sounds better?
Broken window fallacy.
The busses in the Seattle area are wonderful. They will take you to all the surrounding cities, and go lots of places. I was in Bellevue for a while without a car, and had no problems taking a bus to Seattle for fun.
Maybe some people pay more, but I sure don't. I drive 15 minutes a day to work, in an american made car that gets 42mpg according to my last fill up. I fill my tank about every 2 and a half weeks. I'm sure people with hybrids are doing even better. More and more people here in the USA are choosing fuel economy when buying new cars.
Probably because often there's shit in the overscan like gear or lights. What you are saying is actually done now though. Girl with the dragon tattoo for example, was shot in 5K with a 4K center cut at 2.35:1. For the blu-ray, they simply remove the matte and scale actually giving you more picture area.
They mythbusters actually tested using a raft to jump out of a plane, and they concluded it was plausible.
16 Bits per channel? Even Huge budget blockbusters are only mastered at 12 bits per channel. The only time I've ever worked in 16 bit is for math during compositing. It's always output to 10 or 12 bit. So like, that would be serious overkill.
Point and click adventure games have largely been about the mechanics. The mechanics of those games involve puzzle solving. Good point and clicks have interesting and difficult puzzles, bad ones have simple and boring ones.He's not arguing to abolish story from games; he is simply stating that the primary draw to a game should be the mechanics, since that is what games do best. Other mediums tell narratives better, so if you want your primary draw to be the narrative, you are better off not being a game.
In such an instance, would it not have been better to tell that story in a film or book? That way you could enjoy the story without suffering the bad mechanics.
There are only a few 2560x1600 desktop displays now - Apple for example no longer sells one. 1600x1200 screens were available on laptops for some time, too, but no longer.
What? I just got a Macbook Pro from Apple, and its screen is 1680 x 1050. That's reasonably high resolution for 15 inches.
"the fact he won't let you deal with multi-media data on external USB/FireWire drives on Mac OS X"
What do you mean by that? I have no trouble playing multimedia files off of Firewire drives. I have no trouble saving them. I have no trouble moving my iTunes purchases to them. Can you clarify?
I'm on the inside. Working on an indie feature this summer with a budget of 5 million. No stars, no special effects, all location shooting. Making movies with the craftsmanship generally expected when you see it in a theatre is not cheap. You need to pay crew, location fees, and for equipment. There are upwards of 40 people working on seat each day. They need to be paid. If you want a wide release, you can't just take your DSLR and your light kit and shoot on the run with just you and a buddy.
A more apt comparison is you've bought a movie used, expecting there to be special features. Then it turns out you have to pay extra for those special features.
They are actually doing this in the film industry. I rented Fast Five, and tried to access the special features. A dialogue popped up explaining this was only for the retail disc, not the rental one.
This industry is corrupted by extreme greed and arrogance... Why should someone who spends 6 months being filmed in a movie receive millions on an ongoing basis, while other people (including people like camera operators who were there during the same filming) only receive an average hourly wage for the time they actually spent working?
Because their presence, and the star power they bring is worth that much. If you give Brad Pitt ten million, there's a good chance your film will more than make up that cost based on his star power. Directors similarly can command large salaries. You can market both. You can't really market "Gaffed by Johnny Nash!" I work in the industry, and believe me, the 'other people' you mention make plenty of money and can easily make a good living. Do you make $1200 a day at your job? No? Then maybe become a camera operator.