From Wikipedia: "Additionally, it is a reimagined remake the original Star Fox,"*
*Nintendo Power: Why did you make Star Fox 64 a remake of the original Star Fox? (an interview between Nintendo Power and Shigeru Miyamoto exclusive to the Star Fox 64 Player's Guide That won't eliminate confusion for anybody who has played StarFox 64. The controls are similar, but the level designs bear almost no resemblance to the original game. StarFox 64 is a sequel, not a remake.
"Where? The enthusiast press. Refer back to thetagger's original post. Do you not see the appriopriateness of his joke?"
Oh yes, I get the joke he's trying to make. Unfortunately he's saying more about himself than he is about the people running the sites he's describing.
"I anticipated this response even as I typed mine. "There is nothing to be won here, so just let me win."
Actually it's just: "Calm down." There's nothing for me to 'win' here.
"When Nestle's new candy bars come out, I want to hear about which SKUs relate to which flavors. You too can come off as a scanner-wielding stockboy and his all-knowing store manager!"
You've got consoles with several configurations, value points, and a high price tag on each. Anybody presented with the choice is going to temporarily become an enthusiast and want to know the difference. SKU is a perfectly reasonable term even though you haven't, for whatever reason, heard it before.
"Half the world's population could be register jockeys and marketing veeps and it still wouldn't be appropriate outside of sales and production."
Yep, cos nobody'd ever differentiate between two or more packages. MMmm hmmm.
"Let's take Super Mario Brothers. Now let's improve the graphics, the sound, tweak the controls to better fit today's control schemes, and what do you get?
Super Mario Brothers 3. Or Super Mario World. Or Mario 64. Or... you get the point."... um, no, not really. You picked a bad franchise to illustrate your point with. Heh Mario 64 is a graphical upgrade to Super Mario World. Cute.
"Video Games don't need to get remade."
Considering that platforms die, making it difficult to play games from 10 years ago on their native hardware, I don't agree. I didn't realize how much I missed those old games until I fired up the VC on the Wii.
"You can't deny that there are innumerable video game enthusiasts who speak in industry terms in order to inflate the credibility and perceived professionalism in their writings and speech."
I don't deny this. However, lots of people have worked in retail. You don't need to be an enthusiast to be exposed to the term. It also makes sense to use it when describing the various packages that get out. This isn't a direct example, but look at all the people trying to get certain PSPs because they know it's under a certain hackable firmware. Granted, these aren't the masses, but they're hardly 'zealous enthusiasts' or 'fanboys'. It's obvious that different iterations of consoles matter to a good deal of the people reading these articles. Never mind that the SKUs that show up in retail computers often end up spinning the rumor mills.
"Sorry buddy, not letting this one go."
If the term was multi-syllabalic or something more specific to the game platforms, I'd agree with you. In this case, I don't. Sorry buddy, but of all the battles to fight, this is pretty darned petty. If you don't like the term, fine, I get that. But that doesn't mean every time it's used it's because somebody's trying to sound cool. All anybody has to do get the term hammered into their brain is to get caught by their boss ringing up something incorrectly at a cash register.
"I mean, having kids doesn't suddenly mean that all criminal punishments are reduced because you have to take care of children."
If the jury's expected to take into account the RIAA's funny ideas about how much damage was done, then it's only fair that the jury have an idea of just how much damage the punishment will do for the defendent.
Having copyrighted material 'copied' doesn't mean all related criminal punishments should be multiplied by a ridiculous amount.
Your post is full on moderations, so sadly I cannot mod this up. But I wanted to at least drop you a note and say that I appreciate the time you took to write that. Good luck to you and your grandmother. I only wish I had the words to articulate my feelings a little better.
"on my reasonable mac, photoshop is the single application that can bring my mac to its knees. it looks like there is bloat, and possible memory leaks in it"
Mm sorry to hear that. If it's any consolation, I know several matte painters that work with 4K+ images and hundreds of layers that have Photoshop open for days at a time without trouble. That may indicate that it's possible to fix and you won't have that problem anymore.
"The folks who scream the most about their "art" being protected by the First Amendment are the first to scream when someone uses that First Amendment to make fun of them."
Yeah, but their right to bitch is also protected.:P
Ah, wait, I had €s and $ amounts mixed up, it's actually more expensive. Which of course is often the case when you buy direct from the publisher. Damn, sorry.
Have a look here. The prices listed are 887 for the extended version and 580 for the basic version. (Note: I think the basic one would more than suffice. It's been a while since I looked it up, but I don't think any serious photo critical tools are missing...) It shows the pounds symbol instead of euros... I don't understand that, I thought pounds were replaced by euros. I apologize for my ignorance, but I thought you'd at least like to know if it turns out the price is significantly cheaper.
I'll do my best to answer your question. I'd like to be up-front, though, and tell you that I don't have enough knowledge to give you a vs. comparison of the two. So what I'll do is list off a bunch of the useful features in PS, specifically those I didn't find when I used GIMP about a year ago. Hopefully somebody else can chime in and say "GIMP does this too". (I would VERY MUCH like to be more educated about the GIMP. Since it's free, there's no reason for me to prefer one to the exclusion of the other.)
Patch Tool: The Patch tool is a bit like the clone tool only it takes a stab at adjusting the colors of the new pattern to match what you're pasting it into. In simpler terms it's a clone tool with auto color-correction that makes it much much easier to remove blemishes and create seamless images.
Layer Groups and Nested Layers: Photoshop has something called 'Layer Groups' which are a little bit like using Folders. This makes organizing an image with tons of layers very easy. Through this organization, you can use one transparency mode for the entire group. A lot of the tricks I do in Photoshop are centered around organization of the layers. It's difficult to explain without showing you in person, but Layer Groups alone were worth the upgrade many years ago.
Adjustment Layers: Photoshop has non-destructive layers that do tasks like Levels Adjustment, Invert, Hue/Saturation, Brightness & Contrast, etc. Each of these layers has a B&W Alpha mask you can paint on straight away to limit the area of the image they work on. After you've set them, you can go back and change their values.
16-bit Support: I probably don't need to say too much here. Photoshop works in a 16-bit space. Although, just between you and me, I've found this less interestin since I have adjustment layers. I don't have to do a lot of re-fiddling with images in a destructive sense. But that's a personal preference thing.
Smart Objects: Photoshop will take whatever layers you have selected and create a 'Smart Object'. Basically it collapses those images down into a single layer. However, the original layers are still available. They're stored elsewhere. You can move, rotate, scale, warp, and do all kinds of stuff to a Smart Object without it being destructive. It's sort of like... well, imagine you saved a Photoshop file somewhere else. It has a bunch of layers etc. Then imagine opening a new PS Image and referencing that first one. It's just loading it in as it needs it just like an HTML page references a JPG file. If somebody changes that JPG file and reloads the HTML file, the image in the page changes, right? Well, Smart Objects are sort of like that. The key difference is that they're not external files, they're kept within the.PSD file. They show up as one layer, but when you double click them, they show up as a new document with all the layers in tact.
If you edit that document and save it, you'll see those changes propogated through every instance you used it in your main file. This means you can clone that image around as many times as you like, then change it later. I don't know if I'm explaining this very clearly or not. The simple version is that it's another non-destructive mode Photoshop has. It's relatively new to PS, but man, I cannot live without it.
Lens Blur: Making an 'out of focus' image isn't as simple as just applying a blur to it. Photoshop has a lens-blur filter that takes into account the shape of the iris, bloom of specular highlights, and so on. It looks pretty darned convincing. (I can easily picture photographers loving this.)
Text and Shape Layers: I'd be a bit surprised if the GIMP didn't have this, but I do not recall seeing it. Photoshop has vector based layers that are non-destructive. You can put in text or create shapes (stars, etc) or whate
I'm talking about the Windows version. By default, it maximizes and you get the grey background. If you 'Restore' it, you can size that Window anyway you want and the child windows exist outside of it.
"The Gimp isn't a free Photoshop clone! I want a free Photoshop clone that does everything exactly the same way, rather than learning how a different program works, even though it may be a more powerful interface in the end!"
Did I translate that right?
No, you didn't. It's more like this:
The GIMP is non-intuitive and nobody can explain to me how it's supposed to be better.
The rest of that fluff you added to the translation might actually hold water if there wasn't already enough demand to cause GIMPShop to be created.
"Gimp doesn't have the gray application background that hides whatever is behind it, making it much easier to multi-task and work with different applications."
Photoshop doesn't have it, either. It has the gray application background, but it does not hide the child windows. You can make that window small and still have all your docs etc outside of it. It's very dual-monitor friendly, too.
Sorry, I screwed up an italics tag and part of my post is unreadable. Here's what I originally meant to say:
$649 is not exactly cheap, but that's barely more than a PS3 or an iPhone. Unlike the PS3 and the iPhone, you can use Photoshop to make money. (I'm not implying that you couldn't with the GIMP, but arguably, you could go farther down that route with PS.) If anybody's curious, the educational version is $300. That's hardly the cost of an arm, leg, and both testicles, especially for a group of people already invested in hardware.
"...which costs an arm, leg, and both testicles..."make money. (I'm not implying that you couldn't with the GIMP, but arguably, you could go farther down that route with PS.) If anybody's curious, the educational version is $300. That's hardly the cost of an arm, leg, and both testicles, especially for a group of people already invested in hardware.
"...and doesn't run on anything but the crappiest of platforms."
Right, because ameteur photographers are all running Linux. Photoshop runs on Windows and Mac, plus it's possible to get it running in WINE. This is such a non-point it's not even funny.
The GIMP is fine for amateurs. Fine, we get that. It's still not Photoshop. If those amateurs want to one day be professionals, that's going to become an important point.
Re:I've never got the point of wireless synching.
on
ZOMG New Zunes
·
· Score: 1
"How difficult is it to plug your player in before you go to bed and in the morning it's charged and synched."
Not very difficult. But it is a good deal more convenient to sync wirelessly if you just want to add a couple of songs. If you've ever used BlueTooth or 802.11, you have all the pre-requisite knowledge needed to grasp this concept.
"Let's see, Apple is building an entire business around user friendly appliances and have a pretty good reputation for user interface design. Why not see what they can do with it?".. and then you drag the Enemy into the trash can.
"wikipedia reports 34 million users. this would it mean $294 per user... sounds a bit overpriced to me.."
If the growth has been rapid, then 34 mil today could be 50 mil in a few months. And even more down the road.
Re:Read between the lines
on
Halo 3 Review
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"That would be the point of view of Xbox 360 owners only, correct?"
Well, as a fanboy of another console, I probably could turn my head and pretend that Halo doesn't have a number of people salivating over it. That'd make me willfully ignorant, though.
"Haptic" is nothing but a disgustingly pretentious way to say "tactile". The dictionary definitions are the same. So let's stick with tactile, okay? People know what tactile feedback is. No need to be pretentious."
Wikipedia disagrees with you: "Although haptic devices are capable of measuring bulk or reactive forces that are applied by the user it should not to be confused with touch or tactile sensors that measure the pressure or force exerted by the user to the interface."
This isn't an author being pretentious. If the word 'tactile' had been used, this article would be full of complaints that there's no actual 'touching of surfaces' involved. It would have put the wrong picture in people's heads. It was the right use of the word and it wasn't a case of somebody showing off their Mr Spockian vocabulary.
Slashdot Mirror
From Wikipedia: "Additionally, it is a reimagined remake the original Star Fox,"*
*Nintendo Power: Why did you make Star Fox 64 a remake of the original Star Fox? (an interview between Nintendo Power and Shigeru Miyamoto exclusive to the Star Fox 64 Player's Guide That won't eliminate confusion for anybody who has played StarFox 64. The controls are similar, but the level designs bear almost no resemblance to the original game. StarFox 64 is a sequel, not a remake.
"Where? The enthusiast press. Refer back to thetagger's original post. Do you not see the appriopriateness of his joke?"
Oh yes, I get the joke he's trying to make. Unfortunately he's saying more about himself than he is about the people running the sites he's describing.
"I anticipated this response even as I typed mine. "There is nothing to be won here, so just let me win."
Actually it's just: "Calm down." There's nothing for me to 'win' here.
"When Nestle's new candy bars come out, I want to hear about which SKUs relate to which flavors. You too can come off as a scanner-wielding stockboy and his all-knowing store manager!"
You've got consoles with several configurations, value points, and a high price tag on each. Anybody presented with the choice is going to temporarily become an enthusiast and want to know the difference. SKU is a perfectly reasonable term even though you haven't, for whatever reason, heard it before.
"Half the world's population could be register jockeys and marketing veeps and it still wouldn't be appropriate outside of sales and production."
Yep, cos nobody'd ever differentiate between two or more packages. MMmm hmmm.
"Let's take Super Mario Brothers. Now let's improve the graphics, the sound, tweak the controls to better fit today's control schemes, and what do you get?
... um, no, not really. You picked a bad franchise to illustrate your point with. Heh Mario 64 is a graphical upgrade to Super Mario World. Cute.
Super Mario Brothers 3. Or Super Mario World. Or Mario 64. Or... you get the point."
"Video Games don't need to get remade."
Considering that platforms die, making it difficult to play games from 10 years ago on their native hardware, I don't agree. I didn't realize how much I missed those old games until I fired up the VC on the Wii.
"You can't deny that there are innumerable video game enthusiasts who speak in industry terms in order to inflate the credibility and perceived professionalism in their writings and speech."
I don't deny this. However, lots of people have worked in retail. You don't need to be an enthusiast to be exposed to the term. It also makes sense to use it when describing the various packages that get out. This isn't a direct example, but look at all the people trying to get certain PSPs because they know it's under a certain hackable firmware. Granted, these aren't the masses, but they're hardly 'zealous enthusiasts' or 'fanboys'. It's obvious that different iterations of consoles matter to a good deal of the people reading these articles. Never mind that the SKUs that show up in retail computers often end up spinning the rumor mills.
"Sorry buddy, not letting this one go."
If the term was multi-syllabalic or something more specific to the game platforms, I'd agree with you. In this case, I don't. Sorry buddy, but of all the battles to fight, this is pretty darned petty. If you don't like the term, fine, I get that. But that doesn't mean every time it's used it's because somebody's trying to sound cool. All anybody has to do get the term hammered into their brain is to get caught by their boss ringing up something incorrectly at a cash register.
"I mean, having kids doesn't suddenly mean that all criminal punishments are reduced because you have to take care of children."
If the jury's expected to take into account the RIAA's funny ideas about how much damage was done, then it's only fair that the jury have an idea of just how much damage the punishment will do for the defendent.
Having copyrighted material 'copied' doesn't mean all related criminal punishments should be multiplied by a ridiculous amount.
"...browsing fanboi websites that use terms such as "SKU"."
SKU isn't a fanboy term. The term's been around for ages, it's more descriptive, and it's only 3 letters long.
Seriously guys, let this one go.
Your post is full on moderations, so sadly I cannot mod this up. But I wanted to at least drop you a note and say that I appreciate the time you took to write that. Good luck to you and your grandmother. I only wish I had the words to articulate my feelings a little better.
"on my reasonable mac, photoshop is the single application that can bring my mac to its knees. it looks like there is bloat, and possible memory leaks in it"
Mm sorry to hear that. If it's any consolation, I know several matte painters that work with 4K+ images and hundreds of layers that have Photoshop open for days at a time without trouble. That may indicate that it's possible to fix and you won't have that problem anymore.
With all the noise Slashdot gets in the comments section, has disabling of anonymous posting ever been considered?
"The folks who scream the most about their "art" being protected by the First Amendment are the first to scream when someone uses that First Amendment to make fun of them."
:P
Yeah, but their right to bitch is also protected.
Which of course is often the case when you buy direct from the publisher. Damn, sorry.
Thanks for helping me with my ignorance. Hehe.
Have a look here. The prices listed are 887 for the extended version and 580 for the basic version. (Note: I think the basic one would more than suffice. It's been a while since I looked it up, but I don't think any serious photo critical tools are missing...) It shows the pounds symbol instead of euros... I don't understand that, I thought pounds were replaced by euros. I apologize for my ignorance, but I thought you'd at least like to know if it turns out the price is significantly cheaper.
If you edit that document and save it, you'll see those changes propogated through every instance you used it in your main file. This means you can clone that image around as many times as you like, then change it later. I don't know if I'm explaining this very clearly or not. The simple version is that it's another non-destructive mode Photoshop has. It's relatively new to PS, but man, I cannot live without it.
I'm talking about the Windows version. By default, it maximizes and you get the grey background. If you 'Restore' it, you can size that Window anyway you want and the child windows exist outside of it.
No, you didn't. It's more like this:
The rest of that fluff you added to the translation might actually hold water if there wasn't already enough demand to cause GIMPShop to be created.
"Gimp doesn't have the gray application background that hides whatever is behind it, making it much easier to multi-task and work with different applications."
Photoshop doesn't have it, either. It has the gray application background, but it does not hide the child windows. You can make that window small and still have all your docs etc outside of it. It's very dual-monitor friendly, too.
"Many of the features that I use on a regular basis are available to photoshop users only if they buy commercial plugins from third parties."
Like what? I already own Photoshop, but if GIMP does stuff that PS doesn't, then I'd love to add to my toolbox.
I apologize for not using Preview.
"...which costs an arm, leg, and both testicles..."make money. (I'm not implying that you couldn't with the GIMP, but arguably, you could go farther down that route with PS.) If anybody's curious, the educational version is $300. That's hardly the cost of an arm, leg, and both testicles, especially for a group of people already invested in hardware.
"...and doesn't run on anything but the crappiest of platforms."
Right, because ameteur photographers are all running Linux. Photoshop runs on Windows and Mac, plus it's possible to get it running in WINE. This is such a non-point it's not even funny.
The GIMP is fine for amateurs. Fine, we get that. It's still not Photoshop. If those amateurs want to one day be professionals, that's going to become an important point.
"How difficult is it to plug your player in before you go to bed and in the morning it's charged and synched."
Not very difficult. But it is a good deal more convenient to sync wirelessly if you just want to add a couple of songs. If you've ever used BlueTooth or 802.11, you have all the pre-requisite knowledge needed to grasp this concept.
"Current laptop 17" LCDs have power consumption around 15W or so."
Yeah, but not at that brightness level. I'd be more curious to compare it to a desktop LCD or a modern LCD TV.
"Let's see, Apple is building an entire business around user friendly appliances and have a pretty good reputation for user interface design. Why not see what they can do with it?" .. and then you drag the Enemy into the trash can.
"wikipedia reports 34 million users. this would it mean $294 per user... sounds a bit overpriced to me.."
If the growth has been rapid, then 34 mil today could be 50 mil in a few months. And even more down the road.
"That would be the point of view of Xbox 360 owners only, correct?"
Well, as a fanboy of another console, I probably could turn my head and pretend that Halo doesn't have a number of people salivating over it. That'd make me willfully ignorant, though.
"Haptic" is nothing but a disgustingly pretentious way to say "tactile". The dictionary definitions are the same. So let's stick with tactile, okay? People know what tactile feedback is. No need to be pretentious."
Wikipedia disagrees with you: "Although haptic devices are capable of measuring bulk or reactive forces that are applied by the user it should not to be confused with touch or tactile sensors that measure the pressure or force exerted by the user to the interface."
This isn't an author being pretentious. If the word 'tactile' had been used, this article would be full of complaints that there's no actual 'touching of surfaces' involved. It would have put the wrong picture in people's heads. It was the right use of the word and it wasn't a case of somebody showing off their Mr Spockian vocabulary.