24 fps from a high-speed shutter camera (usually digital these days), can be disturbing.
What camera man in his right mind would shoot faster than 1/24s shutter speed and then display it at 24 FPS? This only happens when taking a live broadcast at a high frame rate and insta-converting to 24 FPS like they do (or did) with some awards shows. It would never happen in a movie.
Have you seen the movie yet? Reserve judgment until you do. My wife went into the viewing not really comprehending what "HFR" meant. About 30 seconds into the movie she leaned over and whispered, "Is the entire movie going to be like this???" and later, "It looks like a video game."
I was pretty well mentally prepared for the frame rate difference, so I was able to enjoy it as a spectacle if nothing else. But it added nothing of value to the movie itself, and speaking honestly the movie did lose something in the transition. It ceased to feel like a movie. It felt like an extremely high definition live broadcast.
I would like someone to explain to me, where is the inherent benefit with 48 FPS? Sure it's nice for directors who would love to shoot faster-moving pans, but how exactly does it make things nicer for the viewer? Do people complain of headaches when they watch movies? Seriously, where is the improvement?
I agree with everything you wrote there. A common, mind-numbing problem many stoplights have is that after they lose power for a period of time, a huge grid of them start blinking red! Why would the default be a blinking red? The default should at the very least be configurable and not a 4-way stop. Your mention of stoplights that "see" is far better still, of course.
But how much of that Office revenue stream belongs to consumers rather than businesses? Because businesses are going to be far more reluctant to switch to a web-based Office in the name of saving money. Businesses want the real Office and they're willing to pay for it. Who is even in second place?
My grocery store job questionnaire asked, "Have you ever lied?" I answered truthfully. Later I was told I passed the test, but my honesty score was a bit low.
You can't trust other people with your data, anymore than you can trust a random stranger to borrow your CD or car and return it unscratched/clean.
You can't? People have been for years now, and so far, it's working out great. Is your money in a bank account? Then you yourself are already trusting other people with your stuff.
You can't really trust yourself either, you know, or the variables within your own space. House fires? Power surges? Theft? The trick is to identify the risks and determine the best balance of risk and productivity.
I know this is inevitable and a nifty advancement, but it creeps me out. It's bad enough to have low-resolution cameras that can point in your general direction and maybe zoom in if they want to be extra nosy; now they'll have ultra high-resolution cameras with a 120 degree field of view that can identify you two blocks away.
Thanks for writing this. I think the genesis of the movement toward computers in the classroom was old people who recognized their own unfamiliarity with computers and the resulting fear and ineptitude of and with anything computer related. The obvious answer, to them, was to make computers more prolific in the classroom, to build that familiarity. They failed to understand the computer's extremely long list of uses. It's not *just* a tool, it's *the* tool of the 21st century. They didn't need to encourage computers in the classroom because kids were going to get their own computers, for their own entertainment purposes. Getting over a fear of computers is a feat necessary for older generations, not newer. The real fear for newer generations lies in the classroom subject matter, the same way it always has.
Never experienced the two-player bug, but that does not mean the single player game was designed poorly. I beat the game on single player, and while extremely tough it was certainly not poorly designed or fundamentally broken.
"The new iPad" is not the name... it's just the iPad. They are backtracking on their decision to add a number suffix to the iPad in the first place. The iPhone and the iPad are exceptions to Apple's loosely-applied rule of avoiding version numbers on hardware. For instance, every new version of the iMac is simply called the new iMac. So now I'm guessing the next iPhone will not be "iPhone 5", but rather, "iPhone".
You forgot to mention that Valve will have its box for sale, and its form factor and default software will be tailor made for TV use. The UI will probably be centered around a game pad. So not only do you have the specs, you have a marketable product.
And to reinforce what you already said: To the non-technical, buying a gaming PC is tricky. Countless people have no doubt been burned whey they bought a $300 PC hoping it would play the latest games, only to be disappointed when their on-board video card turned everything into a slide show. Or maybe they listened to the salesman at Best Buy who convinced them that to really play games smoothly they were going to have to drop at least $1,500. So you could deal with all that mess, or you could spend $300 on an XBox and KNOW you're good to go. Valve knows that if buying a gaming PC were as easy as buying an XBox that they could potentially see a lot more customers.
...so it's easier to make it a difficult experience for the grab and go customer who just want to buy four of the laptop with a $5 markup and leave none for customers who might potentially want to buy other items to go with it.
That seems to be a common thread among failing businesses: They all have well-reasoned excuses to intentionally inconvenience their customers.
Mythbusters actually did an episode where they covered a car (much bigger than a golf ball, of course) in golfball-like dimples. Much to their surprise, it increased the gas mileage. Do you know how to explain that? You seem to know what you are talking about.
As much as I like Torchlight, it's not as good as D1 or D2, same team or not. The atmosphere, the weapons and spells, the music... none of it is quite as good. Still very good though.
On the other hand, religion has always been a big part of politics. This supposed "war on science" makes me laugh, partly because religion has probably never been *less* involved with politics than it is now, and partly because evangelicals commonly refer to the "war on Christianity". The world's out to get all of us! LOL.
It's like asking, "do you really need a computer?" Of course you don't. But its kind of an incomplete question. "Do you really need a smart phone to avoid becoming a homeless person?" No. "Do you really need a smart phone to fully understand how business and technology are evolving?" Maybe. But the degree to which is it useful depends on the user. Some people do a lot of real work on a smart phone. Others just kill time with it. Or both!
If you were a bit earlier to the party you could have paid $25 for unlimited text/data with 300 talk minutes from Virgin Mobile, with *no contract*. I used to think we had a great deal on our T-Mobile dumb phones at $50/mo for two lines ($60-$70 after the fees) with no texting or data. Now we spend $55 total for two smart phones, although we did have to invest $300 for the two phones (which are cheaper now, or can be purchased used). The price is up to $35 if you aren't grandfathered, but it's still a great deal.
You are right about not needing the features, but every time I send a guilt-free text, look up my next destination on a map, or catch a timely email I'm glad I didn't wait for, I definitely feel some appreciation for the thing.
(We're talking tech jobs right?) Wages fall, but so does the cost of the goods being manufactured; and if demand shrinks (for any reason, be that popularity or affordability), prices shrink along with it.
I really don't know what to think beyond that. I don't know enough about economics; I just wanted to point out that falling domestic demand isn't the whole story.
Slashdot Mirror
What camera man in his right mind would shoot faster than 1/24s shutter speed and then display it at 24 FPS? This only happens when taking a live broadcast at a high frame rate and insta-converting to 24 FPS like they do (or did) with some awards shows. It would never happen in a movie.
Have you seen the movie yet? Reserve judgment until you do. My wife went into the viewing not really comprehending what "HFR" meant. About 30 seconds into the movie she leaned over and whispered, "Is the entire movie going to be like this???" and later, "It looks like a video game."
I was pretty well mentally prepared for the frame rate difference, so I was able to enjoy it as a spectacle if nothing else. But it added nothing of value to the movie itself, and speaking honestly the movie did lose something in the transition. It ceased to feel like a movie. It felt like an extremely high definition live broadcast.
I would like someone to explain to me, where is the inherent benefit with 48 FPS? Sure it's nice for directors who would love to shoot faster-moving pans, but how exactly does it make things nicer for the viewer? Do people complain of headaches when they watch movies? Seriously, where is the improvement?
This is so annoying.
I agree with everything you wrote there. A common, mind-numbing problem many stoplights have is that after they lose power for a period of time, a huge grid of them start blinking red! Why would the default be a blinking red? The default should at the very least be configurable and not a 4-way stop. Your mention of stoplights that "see" is far better still, of course.
...with lean apps that did not strain the hardware, with reasonable screen sizes, and with practical human interface devices like keyboards.
But how much of that Office revenue stream belongs to consumers rather than businesses? Because businesses are going to be far more reluctant to switch to a web-based Office in the name of saving money. Businesses want the real Office and they're willing to pay for it. Who is even in second place?
My grocery store job questionnaire asked, "Have you ever lied?" I answered truthfully. Later I was told I passed the test, but my honesty score was a bit low.
You can't? People have been for years now, and so far, it's working out great. Is your money in a bank account? Then you yourself are already trusting other people with your stuff.
You can't really trust yourself either, you know, or the variables within your own space. House fires? Power surges? Theft? The trick is to identify the risks and determine the best balance of risk and productivity.
I know this is inevitable and a nifty advancement, but it creeps me out. It's bad enough to have low-resolution cameras that can point in your general direction and maybe zoom in if they want to be extra nosy; now they'll have ultra high-resolution cameras with a 120 degree field of view that can identify you two blocks away.
Wait, how is that useless? I wish so badly that I had that ability. I imagine my ability to self-educate would shoot through the roof.
Too many Pirates of the Caribbean movies, I agree.
Thanks for writing this. I think the genesis of the movement toward computers in the classroom was old people who recognized their own unfamiliarity with computers and the resulting fear and ineptitude of and with anything computer related. The obvious answer, to them, was to make computers more prolific in the classroom, to build that familiarity. They failed to understand the computer's extremely long list of uses. It's not *just* a tool, it's *the* tool of the 21st century. They didn't need to encourage computers in the classroom because kids were going to get their own computers, for their own entertainment purposes. Getting over a fear of computers is a feat necessary for older generations, not newer. The real fear for newer generations lies in the classroom subject matter, the same way it always has.
What's wrong with ScriptNo? Works fine for me.
Never experienced the two-player bug, but that does not mean the single player game was designed poorly. I beat the game on single player, and while extremely tough it was certainly not poorly designed or fundamentally broken.
"The new iPad" is not the name... it's just the iPad. They are backtracking on their decision to add a number suffix to the iPad in the first place. The iPhone and the iPad are exceptions to Apple's loosely-applied rule of avoiding version numbers on hardware. For instance, every new version of the iMac is simply called the new iMac. So now I'm guessing the next iPhone will not be "iPhone 5", but rather, "iPhone".
You forgot to mention that Valve will have its box for sale, and its form factor and default software will be tailor made for TV use. The UI will probably be centered around a game pad. So not only do you have the specs, you have a marketable product.
And to reinforce what you already said: To the non-technical, buying a gaming PC is tricky. Countless people have no doubt been burned whey they bought a $300 PC hoping it would play the latest games, only to be disappointed when their on-board video card turned everything into a slide show. Or maybe they listened to the salesman at Best Buy who convinced them that to really play games smoothly they were going to have to drop at least $1,500. So you could deal with all that mess, or you could spend $300 on an XBox and KNOW you're good to go. Valve knows that if buying a gaming PC were as easy as buying an XBox that they could potentially see a lot more customers.
With prolific obstacles come a proliferation of solutions. The availability of breathalyzer hacks will skyrocket.
That seems to be a common thread among failing businesses: They all have well-reasoned excuses to intentionally inconvenience their customers.
Mythbusters actually did an episode where they covered a car (much bigger than a golf ball, of course) in golfball-like dimples. Much to their surprise, it increased the gas mileage. Do you know how to explain that? You seem to know what you are talking about.
As much as I like Torchlight, it's not as good as D1 or D2, same team or not. The atmosphere, the weapons and spells, the music... none of it is quite as good. Still very good though.
I'm not understanding this post. Any time a movie is shown in 3D, there are 2D showings of the same movie right along side it.
On the other hand, religion has always been a big part of politics. This supposed "war on science" makes me laugh, partly because religion has probably never been *less* involved with politics than it is now, and partly because evangelicals commonly refer to the "war on Christianity". The world's out to get all of us! LOL.
It's like asking, "do you really need a computer?" Of course you don't. But its kind of an incomplete question. "Do you really need a smart phone to avoid becoming a homeless person?" No. "Do you really need a smart phone to fully understand how business and technology are evolving?" Maybe. But the degree to which is it useful depends on the user. Some people do a lot of real work on a smart phone. Others just kill time with it. Or both!
If you were a bit earlier to the party you could have paid $25 for unlimited text/data with 300 talk minutes from Virgin Mobile, with *no contract*. I used to think we had a great deal on our T-Mobile dumb phones at $50/mo for two lines ($60-$70 after the fees) with no texting or data. Now we spend $55 total for two smart phones, although we did have to invest $300 for the two phones (which are cheaper now, or can be purchased used). The price is up to $35 if you aren't grandfathered, but it's still a great deal.
You are right about not needing the features, but every time I send a guilt-free text, look up my next destination on a map, or catch a timely email I'm glad I didn't wait for, I definitely feel some appreciation for the thing.
(We're talking tech jobs right?) Wages fall, but so does the cost of the goods being manufactured; and if demand shrinks (for any reason, be that popularity or affordability), prices shrink along with it.
I really don't know what to think beyond that. I don't know enough about economics; I just wanted to point out that falling domestic demand isn't the whole story.