I feel like I am just pointing out the obvious here, but the X-15 was powered by a rocket engine. It's altitude ceiling was not limited by wing lift, but by the available rocket fuel.
Perhaps I should have said "the current (official) flight altitude record for a fixed-wing aircraft achieving lift using its wings..."
The space shuttle had wings too, but you could hardly use it as an example of fixed-wing flight to the Karman Line.
I appreciate the reference, since it provides a reason for settling on a definition near 100km. Is airplane flight at the Karman Line actually achievable though? The current (official) flight altitude record for a fixed-wing aircraft is 123,520 ft (23.4 miles). That's a far cry from the Karman Line, and still less than half the 50 mile altitude that Virgin Galactic would reach.
The 62-mile internationally-accepted boundary is a completely arbitrary artifact of the metric system. It happens to be a nice, even 100 kilometers. There is nothing physically distinct about hitting 100 kilometers that makes it become "space". NASA previously defined it as 50 miles because they also wanted a nice even-sounding number and they were using imperial units to express it.
I agree that if I got into a rocket, blasted off, saw the curvature of the earth and the blackness of space (and felt weightlessness for an appreciable period of time), I would say I have been to space, whether it meets the internationally-accepted definition or not.
I think you are mixing your classical Newtonian physics and relativistic physics. The Schwartzschild radius equation accounts for relativistic effects, but the "a = GM/R^2" does not, so it should not be valid near the event horizon.
Google can't actually use this patent. Google made their name and their money by providing information to users. It is the core of their business model. Dynamic pricing, on the other hand, relies on lack of information. If you know you are getting screwed you get mad and won't pay. Google can either: 1) Continue providing information people want, empowering the users to make wise choices; or 2) Stop providing pricing information data and lose customers to a search engine that will actually provide needed information.
If it was simply psychological conditioning you would be correct. But it is not. There is something akin to the "uncanny valley" happening as well.
When the action looks very natural and lifelike, the experience is more like watching a play than watching a movie. When watching a play it is difficult to suspend disbelief and feel as if you are really there.
I imagine that if the cinematic world is authentic enough or the reality depicted is similar enough to what you experience everyday you may be able to overcome the uncanny valley, but for a fantasy-theme movie set in a world of hobbits it is extremely hard to make that mental leap.
The artifacts of 24 fps shooting immediately create an "other-wordly" feel that makes it easier to accept what is seen as an alternate reality. That's why I suggested that perhaps there is something else we can do along with frame smoothing to maintain a good cinematic experience. I just don't know what it is. Whatever it is would have to have an "unnatural" feel to it though. Getting used to a higher frame rate won't change the fact that realistic scenes cause viewers to compare the scene to normal reality and judge what is viewed more harshly. As long as that happens, it will be difficult to suspend disbelief and enjoy the film.
Out of curiosity, have you tried watching 24 fps back-to-back with a high frame rate viewing yet? Perhaps not everyone experiences the problem. Personally I was never distracted by "rainbow artifacts" associated with DLP projection technology, but some people have real problems with it. Maybe I'm just in the unlucky group when it comes to 24fps motion.
Home theater buff reporting in. It really isn't about the "traditional frame rates", and you can already see LOTR in higher frame rates if you want to make a comparison. The LOTR blu-ray displays video at 24 fps, but most modern displays allow you to turn on some version of "frame interpolation" which generates additional frames to smooth out motion. The result eliminates the judder that is very noticeable and distracting at 24 fps on a large screen. I was very excited about being able to run movies at 60 fps instead.
HOWEVER, I quickly discovered that as bad as the motion jerking is, it was essential to the cinematic experience. For example, in one scene Sam and Frodo are climbing a hill toward the viewer. At 24 fps, it is a beautiful scene with fantastic landscape, and two hobbits walk uphill toward the viewer. At 60 fps, 2 actors dressed as hobbits walk toward the camera. The frame rate directly affected my ability to suspend disbelief and lose myself in the movie. I really wish I could enjoy high frame rates, since motion judder drives me crazy. Prior to doing this test I would have scoffed at the idea that a high frame rate could impair the visual experience. But it does. Try it yourself. I cannot be sure that frame rate is really what drives this experience. Perhaps there is some other related element that changes as the frame rate changes and there is some way to replicate the 24fps experience at a higher frame rate. I hope that is the case, but I am not very optimistic. There is also a chance that I will be able to acclimate to a higher frame rate and not experience the dreaded "soap opera" effect. It hasn't happened yet.
Another problem plagues 3D movies: Focal plane. For any (non-animated) movie, the limited depth of focus of the film makes some portions of the shot in focus and others blurry. Viewing in 3D you can look around the scene and what happens is unnatural. Specifically, when you are looking at the intended scene subject everything looks correct and in focus, but when you try to look around the scene and look at something that is not within the focal plane you will find you can resolve depth, but you cannot focus on the object, since the film is unable to compensate for where you are looking. In 2D, this effect forces your attention on the portion of the screen the director intended you to view. But in 3D you are free to look around. When you do so, you break the illusion of a true 3D world. Shooting with a very high depth of field minimizes this problem, but requires a very small aperture, which in turn requires lower frame rates and/or increased lighting. For some scenes, it just won't work well. As camera sensors improve hopefully this will get better.
Both of these problems are not applicable to an animated production, where there need not be a plane of focus, and you won't ever feel like you are looking at actors on a set. If you want to watch Pixar movies, by all means go for the high frame rate and 3D. But if you want to watch a cinematic masterpiece, these technological advances are a giant leap backward.
Slashdot Mirror
I feel like I am just pointing out the obvious here, but the X-15 was powered by a rocket engine. It's altitude ceiling was not limited by wing lift, but by the available rocket fuel. Perhaps I should have said "the current (official) flight altitude record for a fixed-wing aircraft achieving lift using its wings..." The space shuttle had wings too, but you could hardly use it as an example of fixed-wing flight to the Karman Line.
I appreciate the reference, since it provides a reason for settling on a definition near 100km. Is airplane flight at the Karman Line actually achievable though? The current (official) flight altitude record for a fixed-wing aircraft is 123,520 ft (23.4 miles). That's a far cry from the Karman Line, and still less than half the 50 mile altitude that Virgin Galactic would reach.
The 62-mile internationally-accepted boundary is a completely arbitrary artifact of the metric system. It happens to be a nice, even 100 kilometers. There is nothing physically distinct about hitting 100 kilometers that makes it become "space". NASA previously defined it as 50 miles because they also wanted a nice even-sounding number and they were using imperial units to express it. I agree that if I got into a rocket, blasted off, saw the curvature of the earth and the blackness of space (and felt weightlessness for an appreciable period of time), I would say I have been to space, whether it meets the internationally-accepted definition or not.
I think you are mixing your classical Newtonian physics and relativistic physics. The Schwartzschild radius equation accounts for relativistic effects, but the "a = GM/R^2" does not, so it should not be valid near the event horizon.
Google can't actually use this patent. Google made their name and their money by providing information to users. It is the core of their business model. Dynamic pricing, on the other hand, relies on lack of information. If you know you are getting screwed you get mad and won't pay. Google can either: 1) Continue providing information people want, empowering the users to make wise choices; or 2) Stop providing pricing information data and lose customers to a search engine that will actually provide needed information.
In the long run I'm sure you are right.
If it was simply psychological conditioning you would be correct. But it is not. There is something akin to the "uncanny valley" happening as well.
When the action looks very natural and lifelike, the experience is more like watching a play than watching a movie. When watching a play it is difficult to suspend disbelief and feel as if you are really there.
I imagine that if the cinematic world is authentic enough or the reality depicted is similar enough to what you experience everyday you may be able to overcome the uncanny valley, but for a fantasy-theme movie set in a world of hobbits it is extremely hard to make that mental leap.
The artifacts of 24 fps shooting immediately create an "other-wordly" feel that makes it easier to accept what is seen as an alternate reality. That's why I suggested that perhaps there is something else we can do along with frame smoothing to maintain a good cinematic experience. I just don't know what it is. Whatever it is would have to have an "unnatural" feel to it though. Getting used to a higher frame rate won't change the fact that realistic scenes cause viewers to compare the scene to normal reality and judge what is viewed more harshly. As long as that happens, it will be difficult to suspend disbelief and enjoy the film.
Out of curiosity, have you tried watching 24 fps back-to-back with a high frame rate viewing yet? Perhaps not everyone experiences the problem. Personally I was never distracted by "rainbow artifacts" associated with DLP projection technology, but some people have real problems with it. Maybe I'm just in the unlucky group when it comes to 24fps motion.
Home theater buff reporting in. It really isn't about the "traditional frame rates", and you can already see LOTR in higher frame rates if you want to make a comparison. The LOTR blu-ray displays video at 24 fps, but most modern displays allow you to turn on some version of "frame interpolation" which generates additional frames to smooth out motion. The result eliminates the judder that is very noticeable and distracting at 24 fps on a large screen. I was very excited about being able to run movies at 60 fps instead. HOWEVER, I quickly discovered that as bad as the motion jerking is, it was essential to the cinematic experience. For example, in one scene Sam and Frodo are climbing a hill toward the viewer. At 24 fps, it is a beautiful scene with fantastic landscape, and two hobbits walk uphill toward the viewer. At 60 fps, 2 actors dressed as hobbits walk toward the camera. The frame rate directly affected my ability to suspend disbelief and lose myself in the movie. I really wish I could enjoy high frame rates, since motion judder drives me crazy. Prior to doing this test I would have scoffed at the idea that a high frame rate could impair the visual experience. But it does. Try it yourself. I cannot be sure that frame rate is really what drives this experience. Perhaps there is some other related element that changes as the frame rate changes and there is some way to replicate the 24fps experience at a higher frame rate. I hope that is the case, but I am not very optimistic. There is also a chance that I will be able to acclimate to a higher frame rate and not experience the dreaded "soap opera" effect. It hasn't happened yet. Another problem plagues 3D movies: Focal plane. For any (non-animated) movie, the limited depth of focus of the film makes some portions of the shot in focus and others blurry. Viewing in 3D you can look around the scene and what happens is unnatural. Specifically, when you are looking at the intended scene subject everything looks correct and in focus, but when you try to look around the scene and look at something that is not within the focal plane you will find you can resolve depth, but you cannot focus on the object, since the film is unable to compensate for where you are looking. In 2D, this effect forces your attention on the portion of the screen the director intended you to view. But in 3D you are free to look around. When you do so, you break the illusion of a true 3D world. Shooting with a very high depth of field minimizes this problem, but requires a very small aperture, which in turn requires lower frame rates and/or increased lighting. For some scenes, it just won't work well. As camera sensors improve hopefully this will get better. Both of these problems are not applicable to an animated production, where there need not be a plane of focus, and you won't ever feel like you are looking at actors on a set. If you want to watch Pixar movies, by all means go for the high frame rate and 3D. But if you want to watch a cinematic masterpiece, these technological advances are a giant leap backward.