"I think it would have been far, far, more impressive if Yoda moved around a lot less and demonstrated his skill with the speed, accuracy and ability to rapidly change his sabre strokes. He expended a lot of useless energy bouncing around"
I think he did all of that. And he did it while flying around. He was 2 feet tall! And his light saber wasn't much more, certainly not nearly as along as Dooku's. I don't know why they made his saber short... just to keep it in perspective I guess.
And, I believe, lightsaber blades don't have mass, so a longer saber isn't really a disadvantage.
You can't be more than 21. Nice comment--Feel better? Do you always get pissed off on behalf of others? Whoever it was that I offered my correction to didn't seem too upset about it.
I don't know why you read that as "Holier Than Thou." Maybe I should have said "Please, please don't be offended, I'd like to offer this bit of information. Disregard if you already knew this or it makes you angry." But damn, that disclaimer would be longer than the original message! If I thought that whoever that was knew it was "per se" and not "per say" I wouldn't have posted anything.
It was one sentence, and not a very long one at that. Impressive that you got so much out of it. On the other hand, your post had a definite Holier Than Thou feel to it. By your own reasoning you should hate yourself, which makes two of us.
Well, I've just seen it digitally. For the most part I couldn't tell a difference, which I think is a good thing.
I was pretty far back in the theatre, so maybe that helped... If I looked very carefully I could see pixelation on the subtitles. Nowhere else did I see pixelation.
Some of the dark scenes were too dark is the other thing I noticed. And I don't mean thematically.
Overall I thought it was a fine substitute for analog starwars. It'd be interesting to see how a traditional non-special effect laden film would look filmed on digital cameras and viewed both digitally and on film stock.
I've seen AOTC twice on film, and tomorrow I believe I am going to see it with DLP.
Anyway, am I correct in assuming The Big L filmed this in 1280x1024? Assuming that is right, and also assuming that 1280x1024 would look terrible on screen, then shouldn't the transference to film look pretty crappy too? Even worse maybe than digitally projected? Maybe not. Maybe the transferance had a natural "filtering" effect on the film, smoothing it out a bit (ha ha).
Well, it didn't. I paid pretty close attention to quality the second time I saw it, just out of curiosity. In between my two viewings of starwars I saw "Insomnia", filmed traditionally. I wasn't able to tell a big difference, subjectivly, between starwars and any other movie I've seen.
The only difference I noticed was that the colors of starwars seemed more vibrant, more reds and blues than I normally am used to seeing (that, and one purple lightsaber).
I'll try to post a follow up to this tomorrow once I've seen a digital projection of the flick.
I would have modded your post up if I hadn't already posted in this thread.
The 24 fps doesn't really bother me all that much, mostly because I am used to it. I think director's go out of their way to move the camera in such a way to minimize stuttering, so digital should allow more freedom in that sense.
What ticks me off is what I attribute to an aging bulb in a projector. It seems that they can't keep a consistent brightness, almost like a loose connection. I'm one of those lucky people who seems to notice and be bothered by monitor flicker more than the average joe, and the brightness flakeyness theatres really bothers me.
On Topic: How do ticket sales work at a movie theatre, regarding money distribution? Someone told me that the theatre doesn't get to keep any money from ticket sales--anyone know if that is true?
Off Topic: I posted that AC reply about your sig. Turns out even if you post anonymously your moderations are still un-done.
I suppose I could open up another browser window and log out... not sure how far slashdot takes the moderation stuff.
Incidentally, I took a look at your journal and noticed the entry regarding a tilt sensor. I'm working on a project, off and on in my spare time, that uses accelerometers. I put down some of my findings on a website, mainly because I couldn't find this info summarized on the web.
I suppose it could be that (the self defense argument). But in the real world, just pointing a gun at somebody is considered "the use of deadly force" and I do mean "use".
So, from and adult point of view, Han was morally free to shoot greedo at anytime while greedo was pointing the gun at him.
From a childs point of view, having greedo shoot first was maybe a way of making that point more clear.
Ahh, "cross your eyes". Therein lies the problem. You see, there are millions of people all over the world that don't see perfectly out of both eyes. I am one of these people (legally blind in one eye). To us, steroescopic images like the ones you describe will never be more than a blurred picture or static on the screen.
Dude, you can't see in 3D anyway...at least not through retinal disparity, so how would the sphere display help you out?
There are only two cues the human brain has to perceive 3 dimensions. One is the relative size of an object, assuming you have some idea how big it should appear at a given distance--focusing your vision is a part of this aspect as well.
The other is the slight difference in image perceived by each eye--called retinal disparity.
If you are blind in one eye, you'll never have anything better for depth cues than the relative sizing deal.
``What is true is not new, and what is new is not true''
Would this have been 'true' of the general theory of relativity just after it were published also? I think not! What kind of a bullshit attitude is that?
I think you misunderstand what was meant by that phrase. He wasn't saying that phrase applies to everything, he meant it applied specifically to Wolfram's book. That Wolfram put a lot of stuff in his book, and that the stuff that is true has all been shown before. And that the new stuff in the book simply wasn't true.
I hope that isn't the case though, I am looking forward to reading it. It won't be as fun if I believe it to be a load of crap.
A hypocratic oath for programmers? This bloated self righteousness is flabbergasting.
Dismissed unfairly? What a load of crap! You are hired to write code that your boss wants you to write. If you don't want to write it, don't. If you get fired, go get another frickin' job where you aren't asked to do what you don't want to do. Imagine a guy getting a job painting houses, but he refuses to paint with a roller because it isn't the "right way to do it". Or he refuses to paint a house blue because it "will be harmful to the neighborhood". That painter would be shitcanned in a minute.
Grow Up. Get Over It. You don't have a divine right to work at a company that doesn't want you. Amazing, isn't it?
I'm sure this will be marked as flamebait, but it is the truth.
You people aren't special. You aren't unique. You're about as indispensible as the typical taco bell employee. If you have enough money leftover at the end of the month to buy a snickers bar, you are overpayed.
I realize that most of you are probably still in college...and have yet to experience the "real world" as it is so frequently called. So your view on reality is pretty out of line with, say, everybody over the age of 30. But good grief, you're just programmers. You are pretty much the lowest guy on the totem pole, and you always will be.
Where do these egos come from? Intellectual Incest on slashdot probably.
"Of course, once you've spent nine hours sucking up a nest of yellowjackets, what do you do with the buggers?"
You freeze them overnight. They don't survive. Yellow jackets are a pretty serious problem here in florida, second only to fire ants.
The bug guys down here vacuum them into a tuperware like container, freeze them overnight, and then sell the carcasses to pharmaceutical companies that extract the toxin from each individual stinger to make an antidotes for people that are unfortunate enough to have disturbed a nest.
"...submerge the capture box, something like that."
That actually doesn't work very well. wasps and bees and such don't drown very fast.
This is a perfect example of fan fiction, and what lucas is trying to stop (regarding starwars).
He has that contest that was noted on slashdot a day or two ago, where he is only allowing paradies or something like that. And everybody on slashdot was getting bent out of shape over lucas preventing proper fan fiction.
Well the fact of the matter is we don't need his permission to do fan fiction. He can control the contest, but if I want to write a story about starwars characters, and taking place in the starwars universe, nobody can stop me. It's called a "derivative" work.
Actually selling it gets on shady ground legally, but I am pretty sure it isn't illegal in all cases.
Slashdot has a enough jon katz bozo's walking around... it'd be nice if we had some actual lawyers wandering around slashdot--although I suppose their sigs would be some horribly long disclaimer.
I think you are wrong there. When you gzip or tar or gpg a file, it isn't actually operating on the original file, it creates a new one. Then it deletes the old one.
So even if you encrypt all your files, there are probably still unencrypted versions that are findable on your drive.
An encrypted file system might be away around this, or use some program to repeatedly write and erase random data to the "blank" portions of your disk.
Damn, I thought that painting analogy was perfect. I don't know much about licensing music.
I do know that it is illegal for me to start making copies of a Terry Redlin print I own. That seems to be pretty much in line with the music scenario. If I happen to spill bong water all over that print, I'm not going to get it out of the good nature of the folks that sold me the print. I'm not sure where the licensing fits in.
As for the topic, there is nothing illegal about creating a derivative work of anything. Happens all the time. As long as it is clearly a derivative and not a copy, there's no legal ground to stand on against it. All Georgy can do is regulate his contest. And try prevent other people from using his trademarks.
To demonstrate this, I'll create a really short derivative work based loosely on George Lucas's StarWars universe and characters:
Luke, being a big whiny dork, busts out his trusty lightsaber to end an arguement over whether or not it was incestuous of him to french kiss his own sister back on the Milennium Falcon.
Having recently overclocked his saber, through the use of some inovative water cooling (the gear for which being kept in his sleeve), the energy blade springs to life faster than ever. So fast, in fact, that the blade springs to life *before* he actually hits the button.
This, of course, causes the StarWars universe to implode, resulting in George Lucas getting an eight-ball hemmorhage in his left eye (not pretty), and losing all StarWars inspiration that may have once resided in that peanut between his ears.
Slashdot Mirror
"I think it would have been far, far, more impressive if Yoda moved around a lot less and demonstrated his skill with the speed, accuracy and ability to rapidly change his sabre strokes. He expended a lot of useless energy bouncing around"
I think he did all of that. And he did it while flying around. He was 2 feet tall! And his light saber wasn't much more, certainly not nearly as along as Dooku's. I don't know why they made his saber short... just to keep it in perspective I guess.
And, I believe, lightsaber blades don't have mass, so a longer saber isn't really a disadvantage.
looks like you're right based on some google searches. I just remember it wrong...
You can't be more than 21. Nice comment--Feel better? Do you always get pissed off on behalf of others? Whoever it was that I offered my correction to didn't seem too upset about it.
I don't know why you read that as "Holier Than Thou." Maybe I should have said "Please, please don't be offended, I'd like to offer this bit of information. Disregard if you already knew this or it makes you angry." But damn, that disclaimer would be longer than the original message! If I thought that whoever that was knew it was "per se" and not "per say" I wouldn't have posted anything.
It was one sentence, and not a very long one at that. Impressive that you got so much out of it. On the other hand, your post had a definite Holier Than Thou feel to it. By your own reasoning you should hate yourself, which makes two of us.
It's "STAR WARS", if you're picky.
Man that sig brings back scary memories. I had weeble wobbles when I was a kid.
I think you missed a wobble in the first part of your sig. "Weeble Wobbles wobble, but they don't fall down."
Just to let you know, the phrase is "per se" not "per say".
How is it possible to have (Score: 5, Offtopic)?
Well, I've just seen it digitally. For the most part I couldn't tell a difference, which I think is a good thing.
I was pretty far back in the theatre, so maybe that helped... If I looked very carefully I could see pixelation on the subtitles. Nowhere else did I see pixelation.
Some of the dark scenes were too dark is the other thing I noticed. And I don't mean thematically.
Overall I thought it was a fine substitute for analog starwars. It'd be interesting to see how a traditional non-special effect laden film would look filmed on digital cameras and viewed both digitally and on film stock.
I've seen AOTC twice on film, and tomorrow I believe I am going to see it with DLP.
Anyway, am I correct in assuming The Big L filmed this in 1280x1024? Assuming that is right, and also assuming that 1280x1024 would look terrible on screen, then shouldn't the transference to film look pretty crappy too? Even worse maybe than digitally projected? Maybe not. Maybe the transferance had a natural "filtering" effect on the film, smoothing it out a bit (ha ha).
Well, it didn't. I paid pretty close attention to quality the second time I saw it, just out of curiosity. In between my two viewings of starwars I saw "Insomnia", filmed traditionally. I wasn't able to tell a big difference, subjectivly, between starwars and any other movie I've seen.
The only difference I noticed was that the colors of starwars seemed more vibrant, more reds and blues than I normally am used to seeing (that, and one purple lightsaber).
I'll try to post a follow up to this tomorrow once I've seen a digital projection of the flick.
"and they're only supposed to last for 12-odd viewings."
My local theatres play a film 8 times a day. I don't think they swap prints every day.
I would have modded your post up if I hadn't already posted in this thread.
The 24 fps doesn't really bother me all that much, mostly because I am used to it. I think director's go out of their way to move the camera in such a way to minimize stuttering, so digital should allow more freedom in that sense.
What ticks me off is what I attribute to an aging bulb in a projector. It seems that they can't keep a consistent brightness, almost like a loose connection. I'm one of those lucky people who seems to notice and be bothered by monitor flicker more than the average joe, and the brightness flakeyness theatres really bothers me.
On Topic:
How do ticket sales work at a movie theatre, regarding money distribution? Someone told me that the theatre doesn't get to keep any money from ticket sales--anyone know if that is true?
Off Topic:
I posted that AC reply about your sig. Turns out even if you post anonymously your moderations are still un-done.
I suppose I could open up another browser window and log out... not sure how far slashdot takes the moderation stuff.
don't worry about it. I'm just being an ass.
Incidentally, I took a look at your journal and noticed the entry regarding a tilt sensor. I'm working on a project, off and on in my spare time, that uses accelerometers. I put down some of my findings on a website, mainly because I couldn't find this info summarized on the web.
I thought you might be interested:
http://web.tampabay.rr.com/rambling
Looks like 2 months since I last edited the page. Time flies...
I suppose it could be that (the self defense argument). But in the real world, just pointing a gun at somebody is considered "the use of deadly force" and I do mean "use".
So, from and adult point of view, Han was morally free to shoot greedo at anytime while greedo was pointing the gun at him.
From a childs point of view, having greedo shoot first was maybe a way of making that point more clear.
"So no, he didn't succeed. Sorry."
Apology accepted. lol.
You're just throwing more gasoline on the fire.
"it would be fun to use them to break into a friend's place and leave them a note to freak them out..."
That would piss me off to very great degree. Door locks aren't to just prevent people from stealing. It is a way of enforcing privacy.
You couldn't get laid in college? I thought everyone got laid in college.
That was a nice attempt at trying to make me look bad, but you failed.
Actually the AC succeeded quite well.
Ahh, "cross your eyes". Therein lies the problem. You see, there are millions of people all over the world that don't see perfectly out of both eyes. I am one of these people (legally blind in one eye). To us, steroescopic images like the ones you describe will never be more than a blurred picture or static on the screen.
Dude, you can't see in 3D anyway...at least not through retinal disparity, so how would the sphere display help you out?
There are only two cues the human brain has to perceive 3 dimensions. One is the relative size of an object, assuming you have some idea how big it should appear at a given distance--focusing your vision is a part of this aspect as well.
The other is the slight difference in image perceived by each eye--called retinal disparity.
If you are blind in one eye, you'll never have anything better for depth cues than the relative sizing deal.
I don't see how this sphere would help you.
``What is true is not new, and what is new is not true''
Would this have been 'true' of the general theory of relativity just after it were published also? I think not! What kind of a bullshit attitude is that?
I think you misunderstand what was meant by that phrase. He wasn't saying that phrase applies to everything, he meant it applied specifically to Wolfram's book. That Wolfram put a lot of stuff in his book, and that the stuff that is true has all been shown before. And that the new stuff in the book simply wasn't true.
I hope that isn't the case though, I am looking forward to reading it. It won't be as fun if I believe it to be a load of crap.
A hypocratic oath for programmers? This bloated self righteousness is flabbergasting.
Dismissed unfairly? What a load of crap! You are hired to write code that your boss wants you to write. If you don't want to write it, don't. If you get fired, go get another frickin' job where you aren't asked to do what you don't want to do. Imagine a guy getting a job painting houses, but he refuses to paint with a roller because it isn't the "right way to do it". Or he refuses to paint a house blue because it "will be harmful to the neighborhood". That painter would be shitcanned in a minute.
Grow Up. Get Over It. You don't have a divine right to work at a company that doesn't want you. Amazing, isn't it?
I'm sure this will be marked as flamebait, but it is the truth.
You people aren't special. You aren't unique. You're about as indispensible as the typical taco bell employee. If you have enough money leftover at the end of the month to buy a snickers bar, you are overpayed.
I realize that most of you are probably still in college...and have yet to experience the "real world" as it is so frequently called. So your view on reality is pretty out of line with, say, everybody over the age of 30. But good grief, you're just programmers. You are pretty much the lowest guy on the totem pole, and you always will be.
Where do these egos come from? Intellectual Incest on slashdot probably.
" From the description:
;) "
With the italics, that thing looks like it is missing an eye and not a nose.
"Of course, once you've spent nine hours sucking up a nest of yellowjackets, what do you do with the buggers?"
You freeze them overnight. They don't survive. Yellow jackets are a pretty serious problem here in florida, second only to fire ants.
The bug guys down here vacuum them into a tuperware like container, freeze them overnight, and then sell the carcasses to pharmaceutical companies that extract the toxin from each individual stinger to make an antidotes for people that are unfortunate enough to have disturbed a nest.
"...submerge the capture box, something like that."
That actually doesn't work very well. wasps and bees and such don't drown very fast.
--Scott
This is a perfect example of fan fiction, and what lucas is trying to stop (regarding starwars).
He has that contest that was noted on slashdot a day or two ago, where he is only allowing paradies or something like that. And everybody on slashdot was getting bent out of shape over lucas preventing proper fan fiction.
Well the fact of the matter is we don't need his permission to do fan fiction. He can control the contest, but if I want to write a story about starwars characters, and taking place in the starwars universe, nobody can stop me. It's called a "derivative" work.
Actually selling it gets on shady ground legally, but I am pretty sure it isn't illegal in all cases.
Slashdot has a enough jon katz bozo's walking around... it'd be nice if we had some actual lawyers wandering around slashdot--although I suppose their sigs would be some horribly long disclaimer.
--Scott
I think you are wrong there. When you gzip or tar or gpg a file, it isn't actually operating on the original file, it creates a new one. Then it deletes the old one.
So even if you encrypt all your files, there are probably still unencrypted versions that are findable on your drive.
An encrypted file system might be away around this, or use some program to repeatedly write and erase random data to the "blank" portions of your disk.
Damn, I thought that painting analogy was perfect. I don't know much about licensing music.
I do know that it is illegal for me to start making copies of a Terry Redlin print I own. That seems to be pretty much in line with the music scenario. If I happen to spill bong water all over that print, I'm not going to get it out of the good nature of the folks that sold me the print. I'm not sure where the licensing fits in.
As for the topic, there is nothing illegal about creating a derivative work of anything. Happens all the time. As long as it is clearly a derivative and not a copy, there's no legal ground to stand on against it. All Georgy can do is regulate his contest. And try prevent other people from using his trademarks.
To demonstrate this, I'll create a really short derivative work based loosely on George Lucas's StarWars universe and characters:
Luke, being a big whiny dork, busts out his trusty lightsaber to end an arguement over whether or not it was incestuous of him to french kiss his own sister back on the Milennium Falcon.
Having recently overclocked his saber, through the use of some inovative water cooling (the gear for which being kept in his sleeve), the energy blade springs to life faster than ever. So fast, in fact, that the blade springs to life *before* he actually hits the button.
This, of course, causes the StarWars universe to implode, resulting in George Lucas getting an eight-ball hemmorhage in his left eye (not pretty), and losing all StarWars inspiration that may have once resided in that peanut between his ears.
The End.
Or Is It?