"Law and Order" uses handheld photography a lot, but in that case it's as much practical as it is stylistic. "Law and Order" shoots extensively on location in New York, and when you're trying to shoot FAST on location, doing elaborate camera setups is impractical. It's far better to just give a good cameraman a camera and let him shoot the action as it happens.
Because BSG is shot on sets (mostly) and on high-definition instead of film, they don't really have the practical concerns of a show that does a ton of location shooting. On BSG, it's purely a style choice.
Possibly the best scifantasy show thats been on TV in a long time
I know a lot of people who have an opinion about BSG. The vast majority love it, but the few who dislike it are real sci-fi nerds. They dislike the fact that the show doesn't contain enough techno-babble for them, or the fact that there's too much religion, or the fact that the civilians are dress in normal clothes instead of one-piece jumpsuits with no visible zipper.
It seems, based on my EXTENSIVE SCIENTIFIC POLLING (ahem), that BSG is actually not that good a sci-fi show.
It is, however, the best damn drama on TV right now, period.
I want a preamp A/D converter accessory that will allow me to hook up a couple of XLR cables and connect decent quality mics, and record to disk as an aiff. Why is that so freakin' difficult?
It's not difficult. It's just not something that the iPod does. The iPod is not the all-singing, all-dancing magic music box that does everything. It's a music player. That's it. That's part of what makes it great.
(Don't get me started on iPod photo. For all I know, there might be a zillion folks out there who think it's just a fantastic idea. Personally, I think it's pretty dumb. Back when it debuted and it was insanely expensive compared to the regular iPods, I thought it was gonna be a flop. Now that it's been nudged back down into the normal iPod price structure, I think it's got a chance to just be the big iPod. It has what I think is a dumb, unnecessary feature, but at least they're not charging a premium for it. Also, I could be totally wrong. Maybe it'll be hot like pancakes.)
Because by any other measure Linux has about ten times the OS market share of Apple.
Um. General Motors has about ten times the market share of Apple, too. Since Apple is not in the business of making cars.
Until the Xserve came out, Apple wasn't even in the server business. And they're still not in the business of selling just the operating system for people to run on third-party hardware. So comparing Apple's sales figures to the number of installed units of Linux in Internet server farms is kind of like comparing the number of iPods sold last quarter to the number of 747s. It's apples and oranges.
Good thing Apple, a company you apparently worship, didn't do anything stupid like bet the farm and base their OS on "hobbyist-made" software like *BSD and other OSS software.
Sigh. Again with the fallacies of the false equivalence. That's becoming more and more common on Slashdot, I've noticed. "You say X is bad, but Y isn't bad, and Y is equal to X, so you're wrong." Except Y does not equal X, Sparky. You have committed a logical fallacy. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
Um. What's the deal, are you just a troll? I looked at your posting history. You haven't posted a single interesting, or even meaningful, comment in this thread.
I think you're just a troll. I wish I'd known that before I wasted my time explaining the history of motion-picture cameras to you.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Shooting handheld is a very old technique, not a "new found fad," Mr. Needs To Learn About Hyphens.
Back in the old days, motion-picture cameras were big and heavy. They had to be mounted on tripods because they were too heavy to be carried. Not long later, though, the cameras evolved to the point where they were small and light enough to carry on your shoulder. (The first ones were tethered to an electrical outlet or generator; later ones had batteries.)
This was YEARS before the invention of the Steadicam.
Not a fad. You're just not very educated about the history of filmmaking, that's all.
It's a pity that Slashdot moderation doesn't really work. This post should not have been moderated as a "troll." Doing so just feeds the completely wrongheaded idea that it's okay to call anything you disagree with a troll. It's not.
Instead this post should have been moderated down because it's stupid. Unfortunately, there's no "-1, stupid" option.
1394a, 1394b... what's with all the alphabet soup? Why don't you use human-readable names like FireWire 400 and FireWire 800? That's what they're for, you know.
You're kind of looking at it the wrong way. You're thinking of FireWire and USB 2 as competing technologies, two interfaces that do the same thing. That's not really right.
USB 2 will never take the place of FireWire for video. I mean, it just can't. FireWire 400 can be used to transport either compressed or uncompressed standard-definition video reliably; USB 2 can't. FireWire 800 can be used for studio-quality compressed HD; USB 2 can't come close.
On the other hand, you'd never plug your keyboard into your FireWire port.
So don't think of them as equivalent. They're not. They're two totally different technologies that happen to overlap in small-scale desktop mass storage. That happens to be the niche that the iPod fits into, so that's why we're talking about it.
For iPod users, it probably doesn't matter whether they pick USB 2 or FireWire. But for all those other applications, there's a clear delineation between the two interfaces.
I can give you one, although it's specific to me. I bought the last generation of Power Mac before USB 2 came along. My Mac has two FireWire and two USB ports. If I wanted to sync my 20 GB iPod over USB, I'd be here for a week.
what is (or was) supposed to be a free software/opensource news and discussion forum
Um. Hold on there, Sparky. The motto says "news for nerds." (The "stuff that matters" part is clearly sarcasm. I mean, duh.)
Contrary to what you seem to think, not all nerds buy into the propaganda that hobbyist-made software is better than, or even as good as, professionally-made software. In fact, speaking purely from my own anecdotal experience with zero scientific validity, I don't know anybody who still drinks the Linux kool aid. It seemed like good stuff back in 1999, but then it went nowhere while companies like Apple just took off and did wonderful things.
Don't go jumping to the conclusion that "nerd" equals "opensource zealot." In my experience, it's far more likely that the opposite is true.
And no, there are no "decent competitors." It's 2005. Go get yourself a blog.
Apple has realized that, at the right price, they can be a huge player.
Um. Depending on who you talk to, and how precisely you define your criteria, Apple owns somewhere between 58% and 92% of the music player market.
They are already a huge player. For all intents and purposes, they are the only player. Not "at the right price," however you define it, but at the prices they've been at for the past four years.
It seemed as if they intentionally went out of their way to destroy everything that made the original.
Bingo. There's an old quote, I think it was Michelangelo who said it. He said that you're through with a sculpture when no more marble can be chipped away. The guys who make BSG aren't great artists, of course, but they used the same approach. They knew they were ready to start working on the new show when there was nothing more of the old show that could be chipped away. I love that.
None of the reusing the same Viper effect 500 times per episode
Actually, there's an inside joke about that in the first episode, "33." The opening of that episode (what they call the "teaser" in TV-speak) recycles several VFX shots that Zioc did for the pilot. Yes, technically this was to save some money, but it was also a little in-joke among the crew. You'll notice that after the opening credits, all VFX shots in season one are original.
I don't think it's so much riffing off of Firefly as it is riffing off of every documentary that's ever been filmed. Shooting everything handheld in available light (notice the lighting sometime; it's brilliant) adds a sense of realism that you don't get with steadicam photography.
The do use steadicams and crane shots when it suits the story, though. We see this to great effect in the finale.
And I think it's a stupid question, it would be dead time and must be done only if it has a good conection to the rythm of the scene.
Well, that's the thing, you see. It doesn't have to be dead time. "Six Degrees of Separation" (the BSG episode, not the movie of the same name) included a whole, lengthy scene with two characters having a conversation between urinal stalls. And it was great, because the director had the balls to shoot it all from outside the stalls, just letting the actors play it with their voice performances, and, believe it or not, their feet. It's a great scene.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn straight. If you had just lived through the apocalypse, you'd be pretty tired, too.
What Mr. Unhappy called "whispering" goes by another, more appropriate name: It's called acting.
"Law and Order" uses handheld photography a lot, but in that case it's as much practical as it is stylistic. "Law and Order" shoots extensively on location in New York, and when you're trying to shoot FAST on location, doing elaborate camera setups is impractical. It's far better to just give a good cameraman a camera and let him shoot the action as it happens.
Because BSG is shot on sets (mostly) and on high-definition instead of film, they don't really have the practical concerns of a show that does a ton of location shooting. On BSG, it's purely a style choice.
Possibly the best scifantasy show thats been on TV in a long time
I know a lot of people who have an opinion about BSG. The vast majority love it, but the few who dislike it are real sci-fi nerds. They dislike the fact that the show doesn't contain enough techno-babble for them, or the fact that there's too much religion, or the fact that the civilians are dress in normal clothes instead of one-piece jumpsuits with no visible zipper.
It seems, based on my EXTENSIVE SCIENTIFIC POLLING (ahem), that BSG is actually not that good a sci-fi show.
It is, however, the best damn drama on TV right now, period.
I want a preamp A/D converter accessory that will allow me to hook up a couple of XLR cables and connect decent quality mics, and record to disk as an aiff. Why is that so freakin' difficult?
It's not difficult. It's just not something that the iPod does. The iPod is not the all-singing, all-dancing magic music box that does everything. It's a music player. That's it. That's part of what makes it great.
(Don't get me started on iPod photo. For all I know, there might be a zillion folks out there who think it's just a fantastic idea. Personally, I think it's pretty dumb. Back when it debuted and it was insanely expensive compared to the regular iPods, I thought it was gonna be a flop. Now that it's been nudged back down into the normal iPod price structure, I think it's got a chance to just be the big iPod. It has what I think is a dumb, unnecessary feature, but at least they're not charging a premium for it. Also, I could be totally wrong. Maybe it'll be hot like pancakes.)
It's entirely possible you're right. I watched each episode once on Sky, and lately I've been watching them again each Friday on Sci Fi.
You mean the Linux Desktop went nowhere right?
Yes, definitely.
Because by any other measure Linux has about ten times the OS market share of Apple.
Um. General Motors has about ten times the market share of Apple, too. Since Apple is not in the business of making cars.
Until the Xserve came out, Apple wasn't even in the server business. And they're still not in the business of selling just the operating system for people to run on third-party hardware. So comparing Apple's sales figures to the number of installed units of Linux in Internet server farms is kind of like comparing the number of iPods sold last quarter to the number of 747s. It's apples and oranges.
Good thing Apple, a company you apparently worship, didn't do anything stupid like bet the farm and base their OS on "hobbyist-made" software like *BSD and other OSS software.
Sigh. Again with the fallacies of the false equivalence. That's becoming more and more common on Slashdot, I've noticed. "You say X is bad, but Y isn't bad, and Y is equal to X, so you're wrong." Except Y does not equal X, Sparky. You have committed a logical fallacy. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
Ow! My irony gland just exploded.
Um. What's the deal, are you just a troll? I looked at your posting history. You haven't posted a single interesting, or even meaningful, comment in this thread.
I think you're just a troll. I wish I'd known that before I wasted my time explaining the history of motion-picture cameras to you.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Shooting handheld is a very old technique, not a "new found fad," Mr. Needs To Learn About Hyphens.
Back in the old days, motion-picture cameras were big and heavy. They had to be mounted on tripods because they were too heavy to be carried. Not long later, though, the cameras evolved to the point where they were small and light enough to carry on your shoulder. (The first ones were tethered to an electrical outlet or generator; later ones had batteries.)
This was YEARS before the invention of the Steadicam.
Not a fad. You're just not very educated about the history of filmmaking, that's all.
The FireWire name is trademarked, but anybody can use it or its logo without paying a royalty. While it is true that some people use bizarre names for FireWire, the fault is not Apple's.
It's a pity that Slashdot moderation doesn't really work. This post should not have been moderated as a "troll." Doing so just feeds the completely wrongheaded idea that it's okay to call anything you disagree with a troll. It's not.
Instead this post should have been moderated down because it's stupid. Unfortunately, there's no "-1, stupid" option.
1394a, 1394b ... what's with all the alphabet soup? Why don't you use human-readable names like FireWire 400 and FireWire 800? That's what they're for, you know.
You're kind of looking at it the wrong way. You're thinking of FireWire and USB 2 as competing technologies, two interfaces that do the same thing. That's not really right.
USB 2 will never take the place of FireWire for video. I mean, it just can't. FireWire 400 can be used to transport either compressed or uncompressed standard-definition video reliably; USB 2 can't. FireWire 800 can be used for studio-quality compressed HD; USB 2 can't come close.
On the other hand, you'd never plug your keyboard into your FireWire port.
So don't think of them as equivalent. They're not. They're two totally different technologies that happen to overlap in small-scale desktop mass storage. That happens to be the niche that the iPod fits into, so that's why we're talking about it.
For iPod users, it probably doesn't matter whether they pick USB 2 or FireWire. But for all those other applications, there's a clear delineation between the two interfaces.
I see no real advantages to using firewire.
I can give you one, although it's specific to me. I bought the last generation of Power Mac before USB 2 came along. My Mac has two FireWire and two USB ports. If I wanted to sync my 20 GB iPod over USB, I'd be here for a week.
That's just me, though.
what is (or was) supposed to be a free software/opensource news and discussion forum
Um. Hold on there, Sparky. The motto says "news for nerds." (The "stuff that matters" part is clearly sarcasm. I mean, duh.)
Contrary to what you seem to think, not all nerds buy into the propaganda that hobbyist-made software is better than, or even as good as, professionally-made software. In fact, speaking purely from my own anecdotal experience with zero scientific validity, I don't know anybody who still drinks the Linux kool aid. It seemed like good stuff back in 1999, but then it went nowhere while companies like Apple just took off and did wonderful things.
Don't go jumping to the conclusion that "nerd" equals "opensource zealot." In my experience, it's far more likely that the opposite is true.
And no, there are no "decent competitors." It's 2005. Go get yourself a blog.
That would be unnecessarily expensive. No offense, but it's clear you're not in charge of a major retail operation. ;-)
Apple has realized that, at the right price, they can be a huge player.
Um. Depending on who you talk to, and how precisely you define your criteria, Apple owns somewhere between 58% and 92% of the music player market.
They are already a huge player. For all intents and purposes, they are the only player. Not "at the right price," however you define it, but at the prices they've been at for the past four years.
I seem to recall that that shot was only re-used in "33." I may, however, be mistaken.
"Original," in this context, means "first-run," as opposed to syndicated after a network run.
The guy's a rat in a maze, and the Cylon's are just observing him, studying him.
... that's not all they're doing.
No spoilers here, but
It seemed as if they intentionally went out of their way to destroy everything that made the original.
Bingo. There's an old quote, I think it was Michelangelo who said it. He said that you're through with a sculpture when no more marble can be chipped away. The guys who make BSG aren't great artists, of course, but they used the same approach. They knew they were ready to start working on the new show when there was nothing more of the old show that could be chipped away. I love that.
None of the reusing the same Viper effect 500 times per episode
Actually, there's an inside joke about that in the first episode, "33." The opening of that episode (what they call the "teaser" in TV-speak) recycles several VFX shots that Zioc did for the pilot. Yes, technically this was to save some money, but it was also a little in-joke among the crew. You'll notice that after the opening credits, all VFX shots in season one are original.
The glowing-spine thing is just a visual plot device. It's not real. It's just TV magic.
At least according to a source I have inside the production. He might be pulling my leg. I pass this information on solely for amusement.
I don't think it's so much riffing off of Firefly as it is riffing off of every documentary that's ever been filmed. Shooting everything handheld in available light (notice the lighting sometime; it's brilliant) adds a sense of realism that you don't get with steadicam photography.
The do use steadicams and crane shots when it suits the story, though. We see this to great effect in the finale.
And I think it's a stupid question, it would be dead time and must be done only if it has a good conection to the rythm of the scene.
Well, that's the thing, you see. It doesn't have to be dead time. "Six Degrees of Separation" (the BSG episode, not the movie of the same name) included a whole, lengthy scene with two characters having a conversation between urinal stalls. And it was great, because the director had the balls to shoot it all from outside the stalls, just letting the actors play it with their voice performances, and, believe it or not, their feet. It's a great scene.