No, if you look at the behind-the-scenes stuff on the Matrix DVD, you'll see that they are also using multiple still cameras, just like the older "virtual camera" technique.
The main difference in The Matrix's "bullet time" scenes, is that the cameras are triggered to fire at different times rather than simultaneously. That is a totally separate issue from what kind of CG interpolation is used between the frames. The frames are still captured using 35mm still cameras, just like before.
Whether or not the cameras fire at the same time is just a minor tweak. The major part of the idea had already been invented by the time The Matrix came along.
Funny you should mention Software Update as a solution to problems you perceive as "legacy" from Mac OS 9. Software Update started out as a 9 feature.
Oh, and I'd love to hear how making the package containing the burning framework a separate item would solve this problem. That would simply move the buggy pkg file to another place.
Whether it's a single install, or two separate install, you still need to install it.
Not quite. In the behind the scenes stuff, John Gaeta says "bullet time" was developed specifically for The Matrix. However, he does not give anything about the Gap commercials. You're just supposed to assume it came out of that.
But have a look at this article from American Cinematographer, describing the "virtual camera" system. It's dated 1996 -- three years before The Matrix was released.
I'm sure the people who made The Matrix would like everyone to believe they invented their techniques out of thin air, but the truth is, the idea had been around for a while.
If I remember correctly, there are in fact two license agreements. One when you start the install, and another when you launch the software for the first time.
Hard to remember though, since I always just click "Agree" and forget about it right away...
So anything with virtual camera effects and wire-fu is automatically a Matrix rip-off? Yeah, right.
"The Matrix" did not invent either of those two techniques. The virtual camera effect (a.k.a. "bullet time") was first seen in TV commercials such as those for The Gap. And wire-fu had been done in Hong Kong flicks for years before The Matrix came along.
No Jon, if you had really been paying attention, you would have noticed that "The One" is actually a ripoff of "Terminator 2" more than anything else.
Yeah, but 1080i is interlaced, and interlacing sucks.
The great thing about video on computers is that it is not limited to a fixed set of display modes. Formats like Quicktime and AVI are arbitrary resolution and arbitrary aspect ratio. And the player can scale the image up or down to properly fill the users' current screen.
It happens because Apple uses the.pax archive format inside of its "pkg" files. This format is known to be a risky choice because it can do very "destructive" updates if not used very, very, very carefully as seen in this case.....
Yes, pax is a complete piece of crap. The good folks over Stepwise warned about problems with it a long time ago (scroll down to the heading "Installer.app"). Apple blithely went on using pax anyway.
Perhaps after this disaster, Apple will finally realize they should maybe start using something more robust for their packaging system on X.
It is worth noting that the Mac OS 9 version of the iTunes 2.0 installer (yes, they are still updating the Mac OS 9 version of iTunes) did not exhibit the problem, as it doesn't use pax. It uses Apple's old "tome" installer archive format instead.
They could, if they really wanted to tax their servers, make greater-than-DVD resolution versions of the shorts available online. 1024x768 or even higher wouldn't be out of the question.
Of course, their server seems to be approaching meltdown even with those medium sized clips.
A black hole without the "doughnut" of hot matter is not in conflict with current theory, if it is massive enough. Read Kip Thorne's "Black Holes and Time Warps" and notice the description near the beginning of a hypothetical massive black hole called "Gargantua". It is so massive that its event horizon is far enough away from the center so that the tidal forces are not enough to produce the large, flattened disk of hot spiraling matter.
The article doesn't say, but perhaps the reason they are puzzled is because this black hole is thought to be far less massive than Thorne's hypothetical "Gargantua". Nonetheless, the lack of a so-called "doughnut" is not necessarily in conflict with current theory.
Having feature films in an uncompressed high-definition home format would be great, but I'm sure those fuckers who work in DVD production will still ruin it by adding too much edge enhancement.
If the demand is there, which it certainly will be, Matsushita can simply release this technology without the official DVD logo if the consortium balks. Barring any manufacturing difficulties, this will probably start showing up in consumer markets before too long.
It's not that it's difficult, it's that I shouldn't have to. I'd rather spend my effort actually getting my work done. But if that's how you get your jollies, oh well.
Ha! You really think Unix commands aren't "hidden away"? You really think "man -k" has no equivalent in Windows (i.e., searching help)?
As for your other points, GUI dialogs have all sorts of ways of being organized. Nested groups, disabled controls (aka, "grayed out" controls), tabs, etc. A good visual layout in a GUI dialog is worth a thousand words of Unix man page explanation. And in a GUI, you don't have to keep flipping back to said man page. It's all right there in the dialog, with mouseover popup help if need be. And the equivalent of pipes in a GUI is drag-n-drop and/or copy-and-paste.
And here, let me spell this out one more time, just to make it clear. When choosing options for a particular command, there are two ways to go.
In a command line environment:
Read the man page to see what options are available.
Memorize the options you want.
Go back to the command prompt and start typing in the options you want. You must spell these correctly. You must also type them completely, as there is no auto-completion for switches, only for the command itself.
If you forget any options, or how to spell any options, you must go back to step 1.
In a GUI dialog:
Look at the options and check the ones you want.
Anyone with even a smidgen of common sense knows which one is easier.
P.S. Let's see you edit images, sounds, or video from the command line.
GUI is good for things that have icons. "Open the text" - can easily have an icon. However, "tell me which E-mails I sent to the slashdot domain that were bounced" cannot possibly have an icon, and even if it had, the explanation of the icon would be very long and thus make it useless.
That's why all GUI e-mail programs have search dialogs with various checkboxes and such for entering the search parameters. That's a hell of a lot easier than trying to come with some convoluted regexp. You're talking as though icons were the only element of a GUI, and they are not.
Consider the task of finding a file (something a lot of people in this thread seem to be using as an example). Compare the Unix command line "find" utility vs. a GUI file search utility (such as Mac OS X's "Sherlock" tool). With the Unix find command, you have to enter all sorts of command line switches, probably referring to the man page to remember the less commonly used ones when doing more complex searches. In a GUI dialog, you don't have to remember and you don't have to type anything. You just look at a list, and check the parameters you want to include in your search. It couldn't be easier.
And it is important to note, as this is a standard objection that is always thrown around in these types of discussions, that the GUI does not have to be "less powerful" than the command line. Every last switch for the command line tool can easily be represented by a checkbox in the GUI dialog. The two can have equivalent functionality. It's just that one requires you to remember, type, and spell correctly (there is no auto-completion for command-line options, only the commands themselves). The other merely requires that you look at a list and check the items you want.
The ease of a well laid-out GUI dialog box compared to the difficulty of a bunch of command line switches is just so obvious, it amazes me that I actually have to explain it to people.
Exactly. Many people prefer the command-line because they are insecure. They want to feel smart. They want to feel like what they are doing is "advanced". And a bunch of cryptic text scrolling by certainly gives the appearance of being more advanced than a simple, well laid-out GUI.
Such people just can't believe it when they hear objective testing goes against their preconceived notions of what is "advanced" or "powerful" and what is not. Just look how many flames I've gotten in this thread. These people must maintain the illusion that the ability to use the Unix command line makes them geniuses, even if that means ignoring scientific evidence to the contrary.
I can type 'tail myfile' alot faster than I can open a file in notepad and scroll to the bottom.
You only think that's true. One of the key discoveries in the science of human-computer interaction was that users frequently perceive easy tasks as being slower than harder ones, even though the reverse is true.
In one study of this phenomenon (Tognazzini, Tog on Interface, 1992.), users were asked to do the same task using the keyboard and the mouse. The keyboard was powerfully engaging, in the manner of many video games, requiring the user to make many small decisions. The mouse version of the task was far less engaging, requiring no decisions and only low-level cognitive engagement.
Each and every user was able to perform the task using the mouse significantly faster, an average of 50% faster.
Interestingly, each and every user reported that they did the task much faster using the keyboard, exactly contrary to the objective evidence of the stopwatch.
Taken from here under the section labelled "Reduce Subjective Time".
All the "power users" who think CLIs are more efficient because it seems like it takes less time would do well to try making some objective speed measurements with a stopwatch. It might come as a surprise that GUIs are actually faster, even though it seems like they are slower.
Oh yes it is, if you want to talk GUIs vs. CLIs, which the previous poster did.
CLIs are easy only if you are already familiar with the specific commands you want to use. No matter how much CLI experience you have, that doesn't help you when trying to learn how to do a new task.
On the other hand, a well-designed GUI can be easy even if the user has never used it before, as long as he/she is at least familiar with the general concepts of how GUIs work.
Finding the right command in a GUI menu is a hell of a lot easier than trying to guess both a) If a command-line tool exists to do a certain task and b) What that command might be called.
Slashdot Mirror
The main difference in The Matrix's "bullet time" scenes, is that the cameras are triggered to fire at different times rather than simultaneously. That is a totally separate issue from what kind of CG interpolation is used between the frames. The frames are still captured using 35mm still cameras, just like before.
Whether or not the cameras fire at the same time is just a minor tweak. The major part of the idea had already been invented by the time The Matrix came along.
Oh, and I'd love to hear how making the package containing the burning framework a separate item would solve this problem. That would simply move the buggy pkg file to another place.
Whether it's a single install, or two separate install, you still need to install it.
But have a look at this article from American Cinematographer, describing the "virtual camera" system. It's dated 1996 -- three years before The Matrix was released.
I'm sure the people who made The Matrix would like everyone to believe they invented their techniques out of thin air, but the truth is, the idea had been around for a while.
Hard to remember though, since I always just click "Agree" and forget about it right away...
"The Matrix" did not invent either of those two techniques. The virtual camera effect (a.k.a. "bullet time") was first seen in TV commercials such as those for The Gap. And wire-fu had been done in Hong Kong flicks for years before The Matrix came along.
No Jon, if you had really been paying attention, you would have noticed that "The One" is actually a ripoff of "Terminator 2" more than anything else.
The great thing about video on computers is that it is not limited to a fixed set of display modes. Formats like Quicktime and AVI are arbitrary resolution and arbitrary aspect ratio. And the player can scale the image up or down to properly fill the users' current screen.
But pax still sucks. :-)
Oh really? Is that why the X version of the iTunes installer erased hard drives but the 9 version didn't?
Yes, pax is a complete piece of crap. The good folks over Stepwise warned about problems with it a long time ago (scroll down to the heading "Installer.app"). Apple blithely went on using pax anyway.
Perhaps after this disaster, Apple will finally realize they should maybe start using something more robust for their packaging system on X.
It is worth noting that the Mac OS 9 version of the iTunes 2.0 installer (yes, they are still updating the Mac OS 9 version of iTunes) did not exhibit the problem, as it doesn't use pax. It uses Apple's old "tome" installer archive format instead.
Of course, their server seems to be approaching meltdown even with those medium sized clips.
Eisner was even forced to admit in court that he said in reference to Katzenberg: "I hate the little midget."
Show me where I said "blame the technology".
Well, if you want to block IP watchdog companies, you'll have to start with Slashdot.
The article doesn't say, but perhaps the reason they are puzzled is because this black hole is thought to be far less massive than Thorne's hypothetical "Gargantua". Nonetheless, the lack of a so-called "doughnut" is not necessarily in conflict with current theory.
No, because there is no temptation to "erase" the film. That temptation is there with digital.
Having feature films in an uncompressed high-definition home format would be great, but I'm sure those fuckers who work in DVD production will still ruin it by adding too much edge enhancement.
If the demand is there, which it certainly will be, Matsushita can simply release this technology without the official DVD logo if the consortium balks. Barring any manufacturing difficulties, this will probably start showing up in consumer markets before too long.
It's not that it's difficult, it's that I shouldn't have to. I'd rather spend my effort actually getting my work done. But if that's how you get your jollies, oh well.
Actually, you've totally missed my point. At least the other guy understood it, he just kept trying to pretend he didn't.
- I'm stuck at a command prompt with no help. I have to guess which commands might be available.
At least in a GUI menu, you have the possibility of finding what you want by looking through all the items.As for your other points, GUI dialogs have all sorts of ways of being organized. Nested groups, disabled controls (aka, "grayed out" controls), tabs, etc. A good visual layout in a GUI dialog is worth a thousand words of Unix man page explanation. And in a GUI, you don't have to keep flipping back to said man page. It's all right there in the dialog, with mouseover popup help if need be. And the equivalent of pipes in a GUI is drag-n-drop and/or copy-and-paste.
And here, let me spell this out one more time, just to make it clear. When choosing options for a particular command, there are two ways to go.
In a command line environment:
- Read the man page to see what options are available.
- Memorize the options you want.
- Go back to the command prompt and start typing in the options you want. You must spell these correctly. You must also type them completely, as there is no auto-completion for switches, only for the command itself.
- If you forget any options, or how to spell any options, you must go back to step 1.
In a GUI dialog:- Look at the options and check the ones you want.
Anyone with even a smidgen of common sense knows which one is easier.P.S. Let's see you edit images, sounds, or video from the command line.
That's why all GUI e-mail programs have search dialogs with various checkboxes and such for entering the search parameters. That's a hell of a lot easier than trying to come with some convoluted regexp. You're talking as though icons were the only element of a GUI, and they are not.
Consider the task of finding a file (something a lot of people in this thread seem to be using as an example). Compare the Unix command line "find" utility vs. a GUI file search utility (such as Mac OS X's "Sherlock" tool). With the Unix find command, you have to enter all sorts of command line switches, probably referring to the man page to remember the less commonly used ones when doing more complex searches. In a GUI dialog, you don't have to remember and you don't have to type anything. You just look at a list, and check the parameters you want to include in your search. It couldn't be easier.
And it is important to note, as this is a standard objection that is always thrown around in these types of discussions, that the GUI does not have to be "less powerful" than the command line. Every last switch for the command line tool can easily be represented by a checkbox in the GUI dialog. The two can have equivalent functionality. It's just that one requires you to remember, type, and spell correctly (there is no auto-completion for command-line options, only the commands themselves). The other merely requires that you look at a list and check the items you want.
The ease of a well laid-out GUI dialog box compared to the difficulty of a bunch of command line switches is just so obvious, it amazes me that I actually have to explain it to people.
Such people just can't believe it when they hear objective testing goes against their preconceived notions of what is "advanced" or "powerful" and what is not. Just look how many flames I've gotten in this thread. These people must maintain the illusion that the ability to use the Unix command line makes them geniuses, even if that means ignoring scientific evidence to the contrary.
You only think that's true. One of the key discoveries in the science of human-computer interaction was that users frequently perceive easy tasks as being slower than harder ones, even though the reverse is true.
All the "power users" who think CLIs are more efficient because it seems like it takes less time would do well to try making some objective speed measurements with a stopwatch. It might come as a surprise that GUIs are actually faster, even though it seems like they are slower.Oh yes it is, if you want to talk GUIs vs. CLIs, which the previous poster did.
CLIs are easy only if you are already familiar with the specific commands you want to use. No matter how much CLI experience you have, that doesn't help you when trying to learn how to do a new task.
On the other hand, a well-designed GUI can be easy even if the user has never used it before, as long as he/she is at least familiar with the general concepts of how GUIs work.
Finding the right command in a GUI menu is a hell of a lot easier than trying to guess both a) If a command-line tool exists to do a certain task and b) What that command might be called.