Which isnt braintstrain because like the poster said brainstrain doesnt exist.
But it does. Have you ever heard of a headache? Much of what we call eyestrain is a combination of physical and mental fatigue. 3D images are much more prone to the "brainstrain" or headaches. Photographic images are less prone to this than digital images, but even photographic 3D images give a lot of mental strain.
I really don't know what to say if you don't think that mental strain does not exist. Visual perception has as much to do with the brain as it does with the eyeballs.
There is a huge difference between 'real' and 'comfortable to view' you appear to be mixing them up. If you can provide 3D vision well enough the imagery can be as real or as unreal as you want itll still be a pleasant experience.
But this is nearly impossible. It just is not a pleasant experience over extended times for most people, and would probably take decades of development before we reach that point.
Would you like to back that up with any evidence at all? The only reason we see 2D images from televisions with recognisable 3D is because of the translation the brain does on the information.
Right - and people are prone to headaches and fatigue when watching TV and movie screens. This is even more pronounced for a virtual image. Do you really have so little experience with reality that you can't see that? People view the world by scanning theior eyes, and making small movements of their head. For a true 3D experience, your head has to be fixed at exactly one point for it to work. You can't "look around" the sides of an object to inspect them. It's rather Clockwork Orange watching stereocopy, your head must be fixed, and you must look where the camera looks. In reality, we "map" our world by scanning, and linking many different visual cues. We do not see the way a camera "sees." We don't take two flat images and combine them. We take lots of little slices and perspectives to create a mental model.
Yet your saying it takes more effort for your brain to take the two images fed in from 3D glasses than it would for the brain to take in two images from reality? They're exactly the same process. All the work done is accomplished by the glasses themselves.
That is absolutely incorrect. Stereoscopy is two 2D images being fed through glasses to create a virtual image that is in front of or behind the actual projection screen. And like I said, you cannot "move around". With viewing solid 3D objects, you can turn them, roatate them, move your head. When viewing a 2D projection screen, you are also looking at the image on the same surface of the screen. You can sit in different parts of the auditorium, and it still works. With stereoscopy, it only really works from one location in the cinema.
Jesus - my life is photography, visual perception, computer graphics - the representation, perception, and distortion of reality. I've spent over 20 years building a career in it, and it is much more than a career, it's a passion. I've been making stereo images since childhood. If anyone thinks that current 3D techniques are anything like the way we look at the physical world, they are either misinformed, or have a very limited senses of perception. It is true that many people don't have good vision, or are unable to analyse the way they see things, and there will always be some people who are impressed by shiny things. But nothing we have in terms of photographic or digital reproduction even comes close to the richness of reality. Although it is probably closer in sound. Binaural recording via dummy head sounds extremely realistic if you close your eyes. But I'm more of a visual person, with trained eyes. A musician or audio engineer with trained ears would probably find it much less effective than I would.
While sorting out focus may still be an issue there is no problem with overloading the senses here.
This will pretty much always be a problem with the media. It will be
Right, because it takes the brain more effort to put together a 3D image from two eye image sources than a 3D image from two eye image sources. IE, reality or special glasses.
That is correct. It is very different. Physical objects are much easier for your brain to process than virtual images. That's not even taking into consideration resolution limits - or a big one for theaters - different viewpoints. A stereoscopic image only truly works from one vantage point. A theater, by necessity, has many different seats, with widely different perspectives. It just won't work for everyone.
Brain-strain is not a real phenomenon. I'm not even sure what you're talking about.
You mustn't have much experience with virtual 3D images, stereoscopy and similar technologies, then. I was actually a stereoscopy enthusiast, and have made them and seen many examples, over many years. Even the best photographic stereocopic images, with a viewer specifically adjusted for the individual, require some strain to coalesce the images. It can look fantastic, but it's never quite "real." Even with 2D computer and TV displays, your brain has to work to fill in the gaps between the pixels. But you are still looking at a 2D surface, at some distance, and you are not trying to fool yourself into thinking it's real. people still get eyestrain. With a virtual image, you are focusing on an image that doesn't really "exist" as such.
People are impressed by the novelty, but they aren't really interested in seeing it all the time. This will take a long time to overcome. Even if it did get nearly "real" - that's not what people want, either. Look at art, at film. Most viewers don't go to art galleries to see photorealistic images. Even in photography and film, the most celebrated work involves interesting camera angles, and abstraction. It's not about realism, it's about emotion, creativity, entertainment, telling a story. When people look at porn, most don't want a gynaeocological, medically accurate picture of genitalia. They want eroticism. Sport is about the battle, the heroism and the camaraderie, not the pixels or realism.
Whether you look at it on a technological level, a philosophical, artistic or entertainment level, 3D just isn't ready yet. Almost all breakthroughs in media begin with some sort of artistic or philosophical underpinning. The technology alone is not enough.
But purely technically - our best supercomputers cannot even come close to simulating reality. Nobody with experience in the real world is tricked into believing that 3D or high resolution images are real.
I dunno, I think we're all getting so visually overloaded. It's enough looking at computer and TV screens. Most 3D technologies also cause extra brain-strain trying to perceive a virtual object as "real" or solid. I don't think we're going to get enough resolution and solidity to get around this problem any time soon.
2D screens also suffer from this problem, but to a lesser degree, because there is another layer of abstraction there. We aren't trying to trick ourselves into thinking it's real - we just go to watch a show. I'd prefer to spend more time looking at natural objects, anyway. Mmmmm. Boobies.
Without copyright laws, the GPL would not need to exist.
I don't see how that follows. The GPL provides a mechanism of attribution and source distribution. Even if copyright did not exist, how would you guarantee attribution without some sort of license? What would stop somebody from plagiarising code or other creative works?
If you don't consider making code proprietary to be ethical, you clearly cannot consider liberating the code to be unethical.
But GPL code itself is copyrighted. So, Stallman is also arguing that it is OK to "steal" GPL code and violate the GPL under certain circumstances. How is that not hypocritical?
If anything, if they up and leave France, all that will happen is that either P2P will become the only option for iPod owners or people will buy Creative/Archos/other PlaysForSure players and Napster or whatever will get their money.
You need to think about this a little harder.
If this law passes, it will force Napster and the others to open their format to the iPod. So, if Apple shut down iTunes Music Store in France - why would French people suddenly stop buying iPods in favor of other players? The Napster files would be forced by law to work on the iPod. So, why would people move from the iPod to other players?
Not to mention that the record companies or Microsoft would probably force Napster and others to shut down in France, if it became legal to remove the DRM.
I mean, at least this time there weren't a bunch of coal miners' families who were devastated when told their loved ones were actually dead, when the rumor a half hour previous was that they were alive.
Futurama is actually one of the few shows I have paid for. I own all of the released DVDs, and apparently I am not alone, as it is an extremely popular seller on DVD. I don't care if Futurama goes straight-to-DVD, and I think Futurama episodes on DVD would sell better than Futurama movies.
Ahhh, I didn't know that. But a binaurally-encoded stereo signal can get unbelievable results. Ever listened to one of those "dummy head" recordings through a good set of headphones? Beats any 5.1 setup I have ever heard.
But how is it "preachy"? It's just reflecting the nature of industry. You also mention the Birdbot episode - where they make fun of environmentalists - as well as industry. Again, hardly preachy.
No, that episode does not deal with DRM, and especially not in the way the other poster wants it to be. In the end, it is the upgrade that saves them. This is about much bigger ideas of obsoleteness, and nature. It really has the opposite message - as Bender never has the upgrade removed, and it is what saves them.
No, that does NOT deal with DRM at all - it deals with the much broader theme of obsoleteness and upgrades, and ludditism. And Bender does not remove the upgrade or "fight the government" - in the end, the upgrade saves him. If anything, it draws the opposite conclusion to yours.
That was exactly my point. It makes people believe the police can do things they can't. And of course it has to do with fear. If it didn't, they wouldn't have any emotional appeal to ordinary TV viewers.
NPR/PBS are probably more left-wing than the networks you listed as "tainted with leftist ideals!"
What a load of crap. In actual fact, the most recent scandal was the guy who was hired to push right wing agendas at PBS/NPR, and to "investigate" the so called "liberal bias." Have you ever seen the Newshour with Jim Lehrer? That thing is almost purely conservative/right wing, and liberal views are marginalized.
Nah, it's popular because of fear. people like the excitement of feeling there are evil people doing evil things to innocent, attractive victims - but they also want to be reassured that the police are all-knowing experts, who will painstakingly track every strand of hair and every drop of blood. It's fantasy about the competence of law enforcement. In reality, the police are nowhere near that effective.
Welcome to the 21st Century - where the government doesn't need to push propaganda on you, because people will happily pay money for it.
Re:Will Fry and Leela finally get together?
on
Futurama Returns
·
· Score: 1
What, you mean "The Devil's Hands are Idle Playthings"? Surely, you kid.
Robot Devil: That episode is as lousy as it is brilliant!
Slashdot Mirror
But it does. Have you ever heard of a headache? Much of what we call eyestrain is a combination of physical and mental fatigue. 3D images are much more prone to the "brainstrain" or headaches. Photographic images are less prone to this than digital images, but even photographic 3D images give a lot of mental strain.
I really don't know what to say if you don't think that mental strain does not exist. Visual perception has as much to do with the brain as it does with the eyeballs.
There is a huge difference between 'real' and 'comfortable to view' you appear to be mixing them up. If you can provide 3D vision well enough the imagery can be as real or as unreal as you want itll still be a pleasant experience.
But this is nearly impossible. It just is not a pleasant experience over extended times for most people, and would probably take decades of development before we reach that point.
Would you like to back that up with any evidence at all? The only reason we see 2D images from televisions with recognisable 3D is because of the translation the brain does on the information.
Right - and people are prone to headaches and fatigue when watching TV and movie screens. This is even more pronounced for a virtual image. Do you really have so little experience with reality that you can't see that? People view the world by scanning theior eyes, and making small movements of their head. For a true 3D experience, your head has to be fixed at exactly one point for it to work. You can't "look around" the sides of an object to inspect them. It's rather Clockwork Orange watching stereocopy, your head must be fixed, and you must look where the camera looks. In reality, we "map" our world by scanning, and linking many different visual cues. We do not see the way a camera "sees." We don't take two flat images and combine them. We take lots of little slices and perspectives to create a mental model.
Yet your saying it takes more effort for your brain to take the two images fed in from 3D glasses than it would for the brain to take in two images from reality? They're exactly the same process. All the work done is accomplished by the glasses themselves.
That is absolutely incorrect. Stereoscopy is two 2D images being fed through glasses to create a virtual image that is in front of or behind the actual projection screen. And like I said, you cannot "move around". With viewing solid 3D objects, you can turn them, roatate them, move your head. When viewing a 2D projection screen, you are also looking at the image on the same surface of the screen. You can sit in different parts of the auditorium, and it still works. With stereoscopy, it only really works from one location in the cinema.
Jesus - my life is photography, visual perception, computer graphics - the representation, perception, and distortion of reality. I've spent over 20 years building a career in it, and it is much more than a career, it's a passion. I've been making stereo images since childhood. If anyone thinks that current 3D techniques are anything like the way we look at the physical world, they are either misinformed, or have a very limited senses of perception. It is true that many people don't have good vision, or are unable to analyse the way they see things, and there will always be some people who are impressed by shiny things. But nothing we have in terms of photographic or digital reproduction even comes close to the richness of reality. Although it is probably closer in sound. Binaural recording via dummy head sounds extremely realistic if you close your eyes. But I'm more of a visual person, with trained eyes. A musician or audio engineer with trained ears would probably find it much less effective than I would.
While sorting out focus may still be an issue there is no problem with overloading the senses here.
This will pretty much always be a problem with the media. It will be
That is correct. It is very different. Physical objects are much easier for your brain to process than virtual images. That's not even taking into consideration resolution limits - or a big one for theaters - different viewpoints. A stereoscopic image only truly works from one vantage point. A theater, by necessity, has many different seats, with widely different perspectives. It just won't work for everyone.
You mustn't have much experience with virtual 3D images, stereoscopy and similar technologies, then. I was actually a stereoscopy enthusiast, and have made them and seen many examples, over many years. Even the best photographic stereocopic images, with a viewer specifically adjusted for the individual, require some strain to coalesce the images. It can look fantastic, but it's never quite "real." Even with 2D computer and TV displays, your brain has to work to fill in the gaps between the pixels. But you are still looking at a 2D surface, at some distance, and you are not trying to fool yourself into thinking it's real. people still get eyestrain. With a virtual image, you are focusing on an image that doesn't really "exist" as such.
People are impressed by the novelty, but they aren't really interested in seeing it all the time. This will take a long time to overcome. Even if it did get nearly "real" - that's not what people want, either. Look at art, at film. Most viewers don't go to art galleries to see photorealistic images. Even in photography and film, the most celebrated work involves interesting camera angles, and abstraction. It's not about realism, it's about emotion, creativity, entertainment, telling a story. When people look at porn, most don't want a gynaeocological, medically accurate picture of genitalia. They want eroticism. Sport is about the battle, the heroism and the camaraderie, not the pixels or realism.
Whether you look at it on a technological level, a philosophical, artistic or entertainment level, 3D just isn't ready yet. Almost all breakthroughs in media begin with some sort of artistic or philosophical underpinning. The technology alone is not enough.
But purely technically - our best supercomputers cannot even come close to simulating reality. Nobody with experience in the real world is tricked into believing that 3D or high resolution images are real.
2D screens also suffer from this problem, but to a lesser degree, because there is another layer of abstraction there. We aren't trying to trick ourselves into thinking it's real - we just go to watch a show. I'd prefer to spend more time looking at natural objects, anyway. Mmmmm. Boobies.
I don't see how that follows. The GPL provides a mechanism of attribution and source distribution. Even if copyright did not exist, how would you guarantee attribution without some sort of license? What would stop somebody from plagiarising code or other creative works?
But GPL code itself is copyrighted. So, Stallman is also arguing that it is OK to "steal" GPL code and violate the GPL under certain circumstances. How is that not hypocritical?
You need to think about this a little harder.
If this law passes, it will force Napster and the others to open their format to the iPod. So, if Apple shut down iTunes Music Store in France - why would French people suddenly stop buying iPods in favor of other players? The Napster files would be forced by law to work on the iPod. So, why would people move from the iPod to other players?
Not to mention that the record companies or Microsoft would probably force Napster and others to shut down in France, if it became legal to remove the DRM.
You don't know anyone with an iPod?
No, this is much worse.
Futurama is actually one of the few shows I have paid for. I own all of the released DVDs, and apparently I am not alone, as it is an extremely popular seller on DVD. I don't care if Futurama goes straight-to-DVD, and I think Futurama episodes on DVD would sell better than Futurama movies.
Ahhh, I didn't know that. But a binaurally-encoded stereo signal can get unbelievable results. Ever listened to one of those "dummy head" recordings through a good set of headphones? Beats any 5.1 setup I have ever heard.
But how is it "preachy"? It's just reflecting the nature of industry. You also mention the Birdbot episode - where they make fun of environmentalists - as well as industry. Again, hardly preachy.
No, that episode does not deal with DRM, and especially not in the way the other poster wants it to be. In the end, it is the upgrade that saves them. This is about much bigger ideas of obsoleteness, and nature. It really has the opposite message - as Bender never has the upgrade removed, and it is what saves them.
No, that does NOT deal with DRM at all - it deals with the much broader theme of obsoleteness and upgrades, and ludditism. And Bender does not remove the upgrade or "fight the government" - in the end, the upgrade saves him. If anything, it draws the opposite conclusion to yours.
You do realize that you only have two ears, and that headphones only have two speakers, right?
That word does not mean what you think it does. "monoaural" is the word you are looking for. Binaural is a standard set of headphones.
Bite my shiny metal 7.2 volt battery ... I mean ass.
Sorry, it's maybe an idea for a good one-liner, but hardly the entire basis of the plot. Futurama also typically avolves around broader human themes.
They will when they see my film - Amish Girls Gone Wild II: The Plough.
That was exactly my point. It makes people believe the police can do things they can't. And of course it has to do with fear. If it didn't, they wouldn't have any emotional appeal to ordinary TV viewers.
This is all well and good, but how am I going to afford the alcohol to fuel its power cells?
What a load of crap. In actual fact, the most recent scandal was the guy who was hired to push right wing agendas at PBS/NPR, and to "investigate" the so called "liberal bias." Have you ever seen the Newshour with Jim Lehrer? That thing is almost purely conservative/right wing, and liberal views are marginalized.
Welcome to the 21st Century - where the government doesn't need to push propaganda on you, because people will happily pay money for it.
Robot Devil: That episode is as lousy as it is brilliant!
Fry: What's wrong with it?
Bender: Well, aside from causing eye cancer, these things had a lousy low-definition picture.
Amy: That's true. On a TV like this I bet you couldn't even make out my obscene tattoo.
Leela: That's cute!