Avatar
Mike O'Brien
Regards,
Mike O'Brien
life is full of choices. choices have consequences
Jules
> Saw it in 3D on the big screen with Dolby today. Way cool!
We're off with the kids and a couple of friends later tonight... assuming
we can get in (rebuilt movie theater just reopened up here, so I expect
it'll be busy)
Glad it's good, we have a couple of DVDs with 3D movies on and they just
make my eyes freak out, so I'm hoping it works better on the big screen!
:-)
cheers
Jules
Wayne Marsh
Jules <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote:
> Glad it's good, we have a couple of DVDs with 3D movies on and they just
> make my eyes freak out, so I'm hoping it works better on the big screen!
Newspaper article recently said that Sony is putting big bucks into 3D
TV, now that we've all bought flat-screen digital TVs. It'll require
battery powered specs that switch each eye on and off in sync with the
TV images. I think I'm going to skip that technology generation and wait
for the full holographic TV projector, as long as it doesn't cost more
than $588 at Best Buy.
Wayne Marsh Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
wayne...@mac.com
levi
> In article <pan.2009.12.18.23.43.26.482...@remove.this.gmail.com>,
>
> Jules <jules.richardsonn...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote:
> > Glad it's good, we have a couple of DVDs with 3D movies on and they just
> > make my eyes freak out, so I'm hoping it works better on the big screen!
>
> Newspaper article recently said that Sony is putting big bucks into 3D
> TV, now that we've all bought flat-screen digital TVs. It'll require
> battery powered specs that switch each eye on and off in sync with the
> TV images. I think I'm going to skip that technology generation and wait
> for the full holographic TV projector, as long as it doesn't cost more
> than $588 at Best Buy.
>
> Wayne Marsh Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
In the good old `90s, I was playing with
alternating eye glasses for 3-D on graphics
workstations. It's a grand trick, but did
not require a new monitor screen -- just the
special glasses and a box that sent a timing
signal to the glasses. I don't see any reason
why modern LCD (or plasma) TVs couldn't support
this in the same way...other than program source
issues.
Jules
> In article <pan.2009.12.18....@remove.this.gmail.com>,
> Jules <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Glad it's good, we have a couple of DVDs with 3D movies on and they just
>> make my eyes freak out, so I'm hoping it works better on the big screen!
>
> Newspaper article recently said that Sony is putting big bucks into 3D
> TV, now that we've all bought flat-screen digital TVs.
I've still got my old CRT TV... it'll get upgraded when the ratio of
content that I actually want to watch vs. content available is a lot
higher, and when they show less commercials, and when there's far less
pixel aliasing on the screen.
The only reason I'd consider upgrading a TV right now is for watching
DVDs - but to be honest, there are far better things to spend a few
hundred bucks on than something that would maybe benefit me a couple
of hours a week.
> It'll require
> battery powered specs that switch each eye on and off in sync with the
> TV images. I think I'm going to skip that technology generation and wait
> for the full holographic TV projector, as long as it doesn't cost more
> than $588 at Best Buy.
They'll figure out a way of feeding images straight into the brain one
day, I'm sure - no eyeballs needed :-)
cheers
Jules
Jules
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:26:36 -0600, Mike O'Brien wrote:
>
>> Saw it in 3D on the big screen with Dolby today. Way cool!
>
> We're off with the kids and a couple of friends later tonight... assuming
> we can get in (rebuilt movie theater just reopened up here, so I expect
> it'll be busy)
Just to follow up on that, we ended up seeing the 2D version - our friends
got there and were told there were plenty of tickets for the 3D version
left, so didn't reserve any for us; we got there no more than 5 mins later
and were told they were sold out, despite not many folk having come
through the door between. I guess the guy just screwed up about the
availability.
Anyway, can't comment on the 3D version as a result, but the movie itself
is certainly *awesome* - highly recommended.
cheers
Jules
Andy Wang
I saw Avatar in 3D on Sat night. We ordered tickets online and paid the
damn service fee becuase I noticed that the IMAX 3D tickets were sold
out for the whole day already I wasn't taking the chances. Got there 30
minutes early and 3 of us couldn't sit together unless we wanted to sit
on front rows. Why do modern theaters even have those anymore? If I
bought a ticket and those were the only seats I'd go out and bitch about
getting my money back. Neck strain is a bitch :)
Anyways, the movie itself can be summed up as an utterly trite story and
plot. Very basic simple ideas, think Disney movie for kids, but without
the singing. The realism (science and physics) were completely out of
whack with anything we know. But (and this is a big BUT) I enjoyed the
hell out of the movie. The imagery, immersive environment, everything
BUT the story completely sucked me in. It was a thoroughly amazing
theater viewing event :).
Basically, it was a bad B-sci-fi movie, with absolutely AMAZING visuals
that made it incredibly awesome.
Enough that I wanna do it again in IMAX 3D in the next few weeks :)
Andy
gol...@visi.com
> I've still got my old CRT TV... it'll get upgraded when the ratio of
> content that I actually want to watch vs. content available is a lot
> higher, and when they show less commercials, and when there's far less
> pixel aliasing on the screen.
>
> The only reason I'd consider upgrading a TV right now is for watching
> DVDs - but to be honest, there are far better things to spend a few
> hundred bucks on than something that would maybe benefit me a couple
> of hours a week.
Jules,
You might want to consider upgrading just for the power savings.
Glass tubes suck power. Switching television technology made
a noticable drop in my power bill.
Senjak
--
My day today? Nothing major, just Xenon base gone, Scorpio gone,
Tarrant dead, Tarrant alive and then I found out Blake sold us out.
catpandaddy
"Andy Wang" <do...@moonteeth.com> wrote in message
news:hgoaku$igo$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> I saw Avatar in 3D on Sat night. We ordered tickets online and paid the
> damn service fee becuase I noticed that the IMAX 3D tickets were sold out
> for the whole day already I wasn't taking the chances. Got there 30
> minutes early and 3 of us couldn't sit together unless we wanted to sit on
> front rows. Why do modern theaters even have those anymore?
Yeah, they should have only one row! Then there would be no front row....
um..... wait a minute.
osmium
> You might want to consider upgrading just for the power savings.
>
> Glass tubes suck power. Switching television technology made
> a noticable drop in my power bill.
I'm still using one of those old-fashioned, power hungry, glass-tube
jobbies. It draws 90 Watts (I just looked) so it costs about half a cent a
minute to have it on at NSP rates of six cents per KWhr.
Speaking of glass CRTs, how long is it supposed to take for all that
life-threatening lead to leach out into the landfills? I saw a thing on TV
that said in Missouri, they actually have lead IN THE GROUND! Imagine
living *there*!
osmium
LOL
Mark Olson
> I'm still using one of those old-fashioned, power hungry, glass-tube
> jobbies. It draws 90 Watts (I just looked) so it costs about half a cent a
> minute to have it on at NSP rates of six cents per KWhr.
I think you need to check your math one more time.
> Speaking of glass CRTs, how long is it supposed to take for all that
> life-threatening lead to leach out into the landfills? I saw a thing on TV
> that said in Missouri, they actually have lead IN THE GROUND! Imagine
> living *there*!
Your chemistry is OK, though.
osmium
> osmium wrote:
>
>> I'm still using one of those old-fashioned, power hungry, glass-tube
>> jobbies. It draws 90 Watts (I just looked) so it costs about half a cent
>> a minute to have it on at NSP rates of six cents per KWhr.
>
> I think you need to check your math one more time.
Damn! My notes were right, transcription is wrong. It is six/tenths of a
cent per hour.
Andy Wang
>> I saw Avatar in 3D on Sat night. We ordered tickets online and paid
>> the damn service fee becuase I noticed that the IMAX 3D tickets were
>> sold out for the whole day already I wasn't taking the chances. Got
>> there 30 minutes early and 3 of us couldn't sit together unless we
>> wanted to sit on front rows. Why do modern theaters even have those
>> anymore?
>
> Yeah, they should have only one row! Then there would be no front
> row.... um..... wait a minute.
You do know the difference between the front "floor" row seats at a
modern theater and the stadium seating in the rear right?
I used to love to sit in the front row of old floor seating only
theaters. It was never a problem. You take these modern screens are
much taller than they used to be and closer to the first floor row, and
if you sat in those floor rows, you're pretty much straining your neck
looking upwards the whole time.
Jules
>> The only reason I'd consider upgrading a TV right now is for watching
>> DVDs - but to be honest, there are far better things to spend a few
>> hundred bucks on than something that would maybe benefit me a couple
>> of hours a week.
>
Well, I don't think it's on enough for it to really be an issue. I suspect
our fridge/freezer (over 30 years old now) and electric stove contribute
far more to the monthly bills (we've got some electric baseboards for
heating, too, but they're on load control and very cheap to run)
> Glass tubes suck power.
They do, but I'm still looking for a nice computer CRT up this way as
looking at a LCD display for any length of time seems to give me a
headache :-( I've never tried watching a LCD TV for long enough to know
if the same's true there.
cheers
Jules
Jules
> I saw Avatar in 3D on Sat night. We ordered tickets online and paid the
> damn service fee becuase I noticed that the IMAX 3D tickets were sold
> out for the whole day already I wasn't taking the chances. Got there 30
> minutes early and 3 of us couldn't sit together unless we wanted to sit
> on front rows. Why do modern theaters even have those anymore? If I
> bought a ticket and those were the only seats I'd go out and bitch about
> getting my money back. Neck strain is a bitch :)
Yeah, we were near the front (our youngest decided that a 15 minute
bathroom break right when we were about to go in and get good seats was a
fantastic idea :-) That was annoying, because the screen's so wide that
you can't take in the whole picture when that close to it. The seats
at least recline in our theater, so I didn't get neck ache.
> Anyways, the movie itself can be summed up as an utterly trite story and
> plot. Very basic simple ideas, think Disney movie for kids, but without
> the singing. The realism (science and physics) were completely out of
> whack with anything we know. But (and this is a big BUT) I enjoyed the
> hell out of the movie.
Yeah, that's the thing I found. I like the concept of the story, but it
didn't exactly have deep character devlopment. And bad science or
engineering in a movie normally drives me nuts - but that wasn't the
case here; the visuals were so captivating that I didn't really pay
it any mind at the time.
We'll get it on DVD at some point I expect, and it'll be interesting to
see how it holds up then...
cheers
Jules
catpandaddy
"Jules" <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.12.21....@remove.this.gmail.com...
>
>> Anyways, the movie itself can be summed up as an utterly trite story and
>> plot. Very basic simple ideas, think Disney movie for kids, but without
>> the singing. The realism (science and physics) were completely out of
>> whack with anything we know. But (and this is a big BUT) I enjoyed the
>> hell out of the movie.
>
> Yeah, that's the thing I found. I like the concept of the story, but it
> didn't exactly have deep character devlopment. And bad science or
> engineering in a movie normally drives me nuts - but that wasn't the
> case here; the visuals were so captivating that I didn't really pay
> it any mind at the time.
In other words, it is the "Star Wars" of this generation's film makers.
Advances the state of the art in visual effects wrapped around a safely
bland story. I refer to these films as "Proof of Concept Productions." And
not just for the cool acronym it spells out.
Jules
>> Yeah, that's the thing I found. I like the concept of the story, but it
>> didn't exactly have deep character devlopment. And bad science or
>> engineering in a movie normally drives me nuts - but that wasn't the
>> case here; the visuals were so captivating that I didn't really pay
>> it any mind at the time.
>
> In other words, it is the "Star Wars" of this generation's film makers.
Hey, I like that - sums it up very well. In terms of entertainment
value, it's certainly akin to the first three Star Wars movies (I mean the
first three made, obviously - the less said about the more recent ones the
better :-)
> Advances the state of the art in visual effects wrapped around a safely
> bland story. I refer to these films as "Proof of Concept Productions." And
> not just for the cool acronym it spells out.
Ha!
I heard that there's the possibility of another two movies if this one
does succeed (and I'm sure it will). I suppose they can re-use a lot of
the models for those... (I think this one was something like $200m to
make, and 2 petabytes of data storage for the planet models)
Mike H
wrote:
> They do, but I'm still looking for a nice computer CRT up this way as
> looking at a LCD display for any length of time seems to give me a
> headache :-( I've never tried watching a LCD TV for long enough to know
> if the same's true there.
>
> cheers
>
> Jules
Jules,
If you're finding eye distress from the LCD, it's a good bet there is
a problem with the LCD or how you have it configured. LCD's, Plasma,
DLP televisions (basically digital displays) have a fixed physical
resolution in bits that represent each transistor group that can be
controlled. If you drive the display with a resolution other than the
fixed physical resolution, image clarity is negatively affected and
can lead to eye strain
Also, many LCD panels used for monitors have limited brightness. As
such, they can appear dim in bright ambient light. Working with a dim
monitor in a bright room can lead to eye strain.
A good quality LCD can be extremely comfortable to work with. For me,
I prefer an LCD to a CRT. But I work with the highest resolution LCD
I can get at the size I can afford.
One other point, if you use Windows, you may want to play with turning
Cleartype on and off. Cleartype is a font technology that Microsoft
implemented and is used to improve the appearance of text on LCD
screens. For some, cleartype makes it difficult to read the text.
For others, it looks better. Much of the difference depends on the
monitor.
As far as using a LCD tv, they generally work pretty well, the main
issue being off axis viewing. Just like a LCD screen,the LCD Tv image
degrades as you move more from the center of the screen. Newer
displays do better, but they still have a fairly narrow range of high
image quality. Plasma screens are much better with great off axis
viewing, similar to what you are used to with a CRT. Plasma screens
though tend to have issues in bright rooms due to reflections off the
glass surface. Anti-reflective coatings on newer plasma's help, but
LCD's with mat finish screens will always do better in a sunny room.
catpandaddy
>
> Ha!
>
> I heard that there's the possibility of another two movies if this one
> does succeed (and I'm sure it will). I suppose they can re-use a lot of
> the models for those... (I think this one was something like $200m to
> make, and 2 petabytes of data storage for the planet models)
>
>
"Petabytes"? Are you talking about the Griffin clan on Family Guy, or those
zany animal-rights celebs?
Jules
> "Petabytes"? Are you talking about the Griffin clan on Family Guy, or those
> zany animal-rights celebs?
:-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petabyte
... one thousand ("decimal") terabytes, or [Dr. Evil voice] one
million gigabytes. Big numbers!
(I miss the good old days when numbers related to computing were always
powers of 2 and there was no confusion!)
Jules
> Jules,
>
> If you're finding eye distress from the LCD, it's a good bet there is
> a problem with the LCD or how you have it configured. LCD's, Plasma,
> DLP televisions (basically digital displays) have a fixed physical
> resolution in bits that represent each transistor group that can be
> controlled. If you drive the display with a resolution other than the
> fixed physical resolution, image clarity is negatively affected and
> can lead to eye strain
Definitely not a resolution issue...
> Also, many LCD panels used for monitors have limited brightness. As
> such, they can appear dim in bright ambient light. Working with a dim
> monitor in a bright room can lead to eye strain.
I wonder if it's something to do with that. I've always had good CRTs and
run them with high contrast and low brightness, which seemed to suit me. I
find a lot of LCDs feel either way too bright - or if the brightness is
lowered they don't handle "black" very well (it comes out gray and the
whole display looks a bit 'washed out')
I do notice that I can look at white text on a black background on this
laptop's LCD for much longer than I can black text on a white background.
With a TV maybe it's less of an issue because the picture's always moving.
> One other point, if you use Windows
Generally, no (I can boot into XP on this system, but it's rare that I
need to, and when I do it's usually just to do something quick)
Oh, other thing I miss about big CRTs - I always used to park 'urgent'
stuff in a stack on top of the CRT. I can't do that with an LCD... ;-)
I'm always keeping eyes peeled for a nice CRT Sony or IIyama up here, but
they just don't seem to be around (either folk never had them, they've all
gone to the dump, or they're buried in attics because owners think nobody
could possibly want them)
cheers
Jules
Mike H
wrote:
...
>
> I do notice that I can look at white text on a black background on this
> laptop's LCD for much longer than I can black text on a white background.
When coding I use a black or dark background with light colored
foreground text. I find it handles the lower quality LCD's I can be
stuck with at some companies better and is easier on my eyes. It also
allows for decent contrast if I turn down the brightness when working
in the dark.
..
> Oh, other thing I miss about big CRTs - I always used to park 'urgent'
> stuff in a stack on top of the CRT. I can't do that with an LCD... ;-)
Having worked in a few cubes with the monitors placed in the corner, I
made a table that fits in the corner and is just slightly taller than
the monitors. I set things on that, including pictures of my kids and
various notes. I just took a large round chunk of wood I picked up at
home depot and cut a wedge out of it.(about 2/3 of the total) I then
took some 1.5" wood dowels and made a 3 legs for the table. I
positioned the legs carefully to go around a large 20" CRT that I was
using at the time I originally made it. It's worked well since the
move to dual LCD displays.
Mike H
wrote:
> I heard that there's the possibility of another two movies if this one
> does succeed (and I'm sure it will). I suppose they can re-use a lot of
> the models for those... (I think this one was something like $200m to
> make, and 2 petabytes of data storage for the planet models)
James Cameron was on Attack of the Show recently and we saw some
behind the scenes clips of some of the production. It appears that a
large amount of the movie where the actors were used was done via
motion capture, similar, but more advanced than how they did the Golem
character in LOTR. This allows the humanoid animation to look much
better than other movies where the entire humanoid character is
computer derived. It also requires much more of the actor, as the
motions and actions seen on the screen were derived directly from what
the actor did. A new facial capturing system was also used that
captured significantly more detail in facial movements than had been
possible before. Wired has a good video on it:http://www.wired.com/
video/latest-videos/latest/1815816633/avatar-catches-real-emotions-
with-performance-capture/57975931001
the point is, while they certainly had a bunch of models that they can
reuse, they also will need to do quite a bit of actual filming.
Whoever mentioned Star Wars in relation to this movie is very correct,
at least certainly in relation to movie making. How this movie was
made is as ground breaking as the original Star Wars was.
CarlSwanson
hmm.... Avatar..be prepared to be disappointed....terrible script,
fair acting. I will give it a 3 of 5 for the SE and for the 3D and
the visit to a new planet. I would say the tobacco industry got a $1BB
of long term value for that disgusting cigarette smoking Sigourney
Weaver segment.
Let's face it... the first critics out of the gate panned the film and
the 20th Century Fox- Murdoch boys scrambled and the next thing you
know... the critics coast to coast called the flick the greatest thing
since sliced bread. Bought and sold critics. The politics of the film
reviews. There continues to be no integrity in leadership throughout
the USA society.
Nobody has yet posted the appalling cigarette loving Sigourney Weaver
takes. I would say the tobacco industry got a $1BB of long term
value for that disgusting scripting. Who got the visible money? Only
a good muckraker will find out for us and there ain't any left!
As an aside....It is a good time for Jesse Ventura "Conspiracy
Theory" on TruTV ...to attempt illuminating the lies of government,
the military-industrial complex and the greediest of our business
leaders...all trampling on the consititution and the Bill of Rights.
Of course..will Jesse attempt any objective reporting? Probably not
but I did find the InfraGard expose more than interesting.
Scott Smith
wrote:
>Anyways, the movie itself can be summed up as an utterly trite story and
>plot. Very basic simple ideas, think Disney movie for kids, but without
>the singing. The realism (science and physics) were completely out of
>whack with anything we know. But (and this is a big BUT) I enjoyed the
>hell out of the movie. The imagery, immersive environment, everything
>BUT the story completely sucked me in. It was a thoroughly amazing
>theater viewing event :).
>
>Basically, it was a bad B-sci-fi movie, with absolutely AMAZING visuals
>that made it incredibly awesome.
I pretty much agree with Andy. The plot of the movie is simply OK,
at best. But the visuals and environment of the movie are amazing.
I really can't believe that some right-wingers are annoyed by the
"message" of the movie, to the point of calling it "anti-American".
WTF?
Jules
> I really can't believe that some right-wingers are annoyed by the
> "message" of the movie, to the point of calling it "anti-American".
>
> WTF?
Perhaps their security blanket's in the wash...
Melba's Jammin'
Scott Smith <scott...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> I pretty much agree with Andy. The plot of the movie is simply OK,
> at best. But the visuals and environment of the movie are amazing.
That was exactly my son and husband's assessment, Scott.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller 12/28/2009
Scott Smith
wrote:
>In article <d797k59pv1dimr611...@4ax.com>,
> Scott Smith <scott...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>> I pretty much agree with Andy. The plot of the movie is simply OK,
>> at best. But the visuals and environment of the movie are amazing.
>
>That was exactly my son and husband's assessment, Scott.
I'm not sure it warrants a "best picture" Academy Award
nomination, but it should certainly win several technical
awards for the filmmaking.
John A. Weeks III
Scott Smith <scott...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:36:46 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> <barbsc...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <d797k59pv1dimr611...@4ax.com>,
> > Scott Smith <scott...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I pretty much agree with Andy. The plot of the movie is simply OK,
> >> at best. But the visuals and environment of the movie are amazing.
> >
> >That was exactly my son and husband's assessment, Scott.
>
> I'm not sure it warrants a "best picture" Academy Award
> nomination, but it should certainly win several technical
> awards for the filmmaking.
Was there any film actually used? I'd agree that it is an
interesting work of technical moviemaking, but not filmmaking.
I find that I lose interest in many of the modern movies because
nothing is real in them anymore--and you can never tell what
is real and what is CGI.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 jo...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
Mike O'Brien
http://www.oddcast.com/home/demos/tts/tts_example.php?sitepal
Craig A. Finseth
John A. Weeks III <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote:
...
>I find that I lose interest in many of the modern movies because
>nothing is real in them anymore--and you can never tell what
>is real and what is CGI.
That's sort of the point: if properly done, you shouldn't be able to
tell.
Why does it matter? From its earliest days, moviemakers used the
capabilities of the camera to create new realities, we've just kept
improving things.
It's not like there was some early nirvana where movies were used to
document reality in its purest form: movies have always been about
creating new realities.
Craig
Jules
> I find that I lose interest in many of the modern movies because
> nothing is real in them anymore--and you can never tell what
> is real and what is CGI.
I find the opposite - I can usually tell CGI from 'real'. I always think
it's down to making the age of things look convincing: it's a lot easier
to make a model* look a little beaten-up or dusty or dirty or scratched or
with faded paint, than it is with CGI. Not that it can't be done in CGI,
but they rarely bother (it'd take years) - and I usually find that CGI
just looks too darn clean and crisp as a result.
* except these days they sometimes simplify the physical models to fit in
with the CGI, so it is harder to tell them apart. I'm not convinced
that's a good thing...
In the Avatar case, portraying a largely-organic environment, I don't
remember much in the way of dirt on stuff, bug-damage on the plants,
leaves blowing from the trees and things like that that'd make it seem
more natural. It's certainly a big step forward - but a very long way off
anything like perfection.
cheers
Jules
John A. Weeks III
That is just my point...I want real reality. So many people these
days are stuck in fantasy that they don't have any first hand real
experiences any more. I'd rather have things be a little more
personal and a little less metallic. For example, I like songs
where you can understand the words and music that has notes.
Case in point are the neighbors on either side of my house...
neither one will even look up or wave to me, let alone say
"hi" once in a while. The one to the right of me might be the
worlds best gamer, but he hasn't said for than 3 words in a
row to anyone in the 7 years that I have lived in Burnsville.
Perhaps I am the last of the luddites.
levi
> In article <john-B09CD7.20521305012...@news-3.octanews.net>,
> John A. Weeks III <j...@johnweeks.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> >I find that I lose interest in many of the modern movies because
> >nothing is real in them anymore--and you can never tell what
> >is real and what is CGI.
>
> That's sort of the point: if properly done, you shouldn't be able to
> tell.
I'm with Jules -- I can tell.
>
> Why does it matter? From its earliest days, moviemakers used the
> capabilities of the camera to create new realities, we've just kept
> improving things.
>
> It's not like there was some early nirvana where movies were used to
> document reality in its purest form: movies have always been about
> creating new realities.
>
> Craig
I think that one of the hardest things to
do with a camera is to fully achieve a
true documentation of reality. A camera
does allow us to focus in on a specific
part of our reality, speed or slow up time,
etc. etc.,
WDS
> Case in point are the neighbors on either side of my house...
> neither one will even look up or wave to me, let alone say
> "hi" once in a while. The one to the right of me might be the
> worlds best gamer, but he hasn't said for than 3 words in a
> row to anyone in the 7 years that I have lived in Burnsville.
This is so different than when? 40-some years ago when I was a kid
there were a couple of our neighbors who never interacted with anyone.
Well, the one guy used to yell at us kids to get off his lawn. Heck,
there was one couple I never even *saw* the 10+ years they lived 2
houses away. Yeah, people may be more isolated now than some supposedly
idyllic time in the past but it's not like everyone used to be some big
happy family.
WDS
> In the Avatar case, portraying a largely-organic environment, I don't
> remember much in the way of dirt on stuff, bug-damage on the plants,
> leaves blowing from the trees and things like that that'd make it seem
> more natural. It's certainly a big step forward - but a very long way off
> anything like perfection.
Actually there was. They even had dust floating in the air and tiny
bugs flying around and such.
Scott Smith
Yes, that was one of the very cool things they did with the 3D. The
bugs, leaves, dust, etc. all seemed to float out into the theater. It
was one of the very cool things about the 3D that I noticed.
levi
: > neither one will even look up or wave to me, let alone say
: >"hi" once in a while.
<grin> Perhaps they read mn.general too.
Mine smile, wave, run their snowblower down
my sidewalk.
<grin> Maybe they don't read mn.general.
dr...@bin.sh
> I find that I lose interest in many of the modern movies because
> nothing is real in them anymore--and you can never tell what
> is real and what is CGI.
clarity shall be forthcoming, soon it'll all be CGI.
--
/\_-\ dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
<((_))> -------------------------------------------------------------------
\- \/ "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long
plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men
die like dogs. There's also a negative side."
-- Hunter S. Thompson
levi
In truth, the level of realism that can be
achieved is limited only by the amount of
computer power available and the patience
and talent of the graphics artist.
Perhaps someday they'll be able to "fool"
me. I'm not sure that I'm anxious for
that to happen. Faked film evidence is
tough enough to prove/disprove, e.g., Oswald
holding a Mannlicher-Carcano, or even the
videos and pics of Armstrong hopping.
Jules
Interesting; maybe I do need to go back and see the 3D version as maybe
it's more noticable there.
But I'm not really talking about stuff floating in the 'air', I suppose.
As an example, leaves with dirt on them and bugs on them and holes chewed
in them and where they're all different shapes on a tree, rather than
being clones of the same basic leaf - just as they'd be in reality.
I think that kind of thing will become standard, but it's maybe a little
way off yet. The missing step might be that the animators have *too much*
control over the models right now - it's a bit like painting a picture,
and that takes time, so there's a lot of repetition and corner-cutting.
Give it a few years and the computers themselves will be generating the
worlds - and introducing all the randomness and noise and physics that
they need. You won't be able to say "make me a tree that looks like xyz"
by that route, but you'll be able to let the computers make something
that's a lot more convincing.
Avatar's awesome for the effects, it really is - but it still felt like I
was looking at a computer-generated world, rather than feeling like I was
seeing something "real".
cheers
Jules
Scott Smith
<jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote:
>Give it a few years and the computers themselves will be generating the
>worlds - and introducing all the randomness and noise and physics that
>they need. You won't be able to say "make me a tree that looks like xyz"
>by that route, but you'll be able to let the computers make something
>that's a lot more convincing.
I believe Cyberdyne Systems is working on something like that right
now in California. ;)
Doc O'Leary
"John A. Weeks III" <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote:
> That is just my point...I want real reality.
You never got it before, so why do you expect it now? Movies have
always been full of fake. Even the documentaries are cut and packaged
to play to a particular narrative. Just because computers alter the
pixels now doesn't change the picture that much.
> For example, I like songs
> where you can understand the words and music that has notes.
Get your hearing checked.
> Case in point are the neighbors on either side of my house...
> neither one will even look up or wave to me, let alone say
> "hi" once in a while. The one to the right of me might be the
> worlds best gamer, but he hasn't said for than 3 words in a
> row to anyone in the 7 years that I have lived in Burnsville.
Why should anyone talk to you just because they live nearby? Physical
proximity only presents a very small number of things for people to have
in common these days. If you're lacking for the neighborly feeling, why
not *give* in some way that creates it? Shovel their sidewalk. Offer
to do some shopping for them. Open up your WiFi. There are so many
ways that we can be helpful, yet we get stuck dwelling on stupid things
like saying an empty "hi" or "Merry Christmas".
> Perhaps I am the last of the luddites.
Perhaps you're just not as personable as you'd like to believe you are.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com,
and probably your server, too.
catpandaddy
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 09:38:41 -0600, Scott Smith wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 09:30:52 -0600, WDS <Bi...@seurer.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 1/6/2010 8:17 AM, Jules wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In the Avatar case, portraying a largely-organic environment, I don't
>>>> remember much in the way of dirt on stuff, bug-damage on the plants,
>>>> leaves blowing from the trees and things like that that'd make it seem
>>>> more natural. It's certainly a big step forward - but a very long way
>>>> off
>>>> anything like perfection.
>>>
>>>Actually there was. They even had dust floating in the air and tiny
>>>bugs flying around and such.
>>
>> Yes, that was one of the very cool things they did with the 3D. The
>> bugs, leaves, dust, etc. all seemed to float out into the theater. It
>> was one of the very cool things about the 3D that I noticed.
>
> Interesting; maybe I do need to go back and see the 3D version as maybe
> it's more noticable there.
>
> But I'm not really talking about stuff floating in the 'air', I suppose.
> As an example, leaves with dirt on them and bugs on them and holes chewed
> in them and where they're all different shapes on a tree, rather than
> being clones of the same basic leaf - just as they'd be in reality.
That's not the fault of the tech, it's a matter of where the artists'
attentions are. If you can make the dust in the air, you can make it
conform to the surface normals of the leaf. Adding chewed holes to selected
leaves is a matter of reconfiguring the mesh, etc. The film was a big
undertaking already because of the new things they were trying. All the
time spent on making the "expressive eyes" work might well have been spent
on more complicated leaf models otherwise and for the same budget and time
alotted.
And make no mistake about it... the best special effects are essentially
invisible. The best compliment a realism-based FX artist can get is "What
effect? I didn't see any." And they are used much more often than we
realize.
Scott Smith
<drolear...@1q2010.subsume.com> wrote:
>In article <john-1DE295.0...@news-1.octanews.net>,
> "John A. Weeks III" <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>
>> Case in point are the neighbors on either side of my house...
>> neither one will even look up or wave to me, let alone say
>> "hi" once in a while. The one to the right of me might be the
>> worlds best gamer, but he hasn't said for than 3 words in a
>> row to anyone in the 7 years that I have lived in Burnsville.
>
>Why should anyone talk to you just because they live nearby? Physical
>proximity only presents a very small number of things for people to have
>in common these days. If you're lacking for the neighborly feeling, why
>not *give* in some way that creates it? Shovel their sidewalk. Offer
>to do some shopping for them. Open up your WiFi. There are so many
>ways that we can be helpful, yet we get stuck dwelling on stupid things
>like saying an empty "hi" or "Merry Christmas".
Exactly.
I'm on friendly terms with most of my neighbors and even go out for
dinner/drinks or to neighborhood BBQ's with some. But the next door
neighbors that DO wave and say 'hello' are some of the biggest
assholes I've ever had the displeasure of living next to (always
yelling and swearing at each other, not shoveling or doing
yardwork, etc.), so I'm usually not very friendly back. I'm sure
they wonder why we're not very neighborly to them...but the fact
is that we don't really want to know them any better than we are
already forced to.
Jules
Oh for sure - but the way things are now, there just isn't *time*, not to
do that and everything else. Where I can see things heading is to the
point where the computer power has increased sufficiently to let you
almost "grow" a scene and then model it in real-time, rather than
having artists manually create and place all the minor details.
> Adding chewed holes to selected
> leaves is a matter of reconfiguring the mesh, etc.
Yes, that's where I can see it changing - one day we'll just throw
some bugs into the pot. Bugs eat leaves, and the computer will handle the
rest. Maybe there are other critters that eat bugs, so once in a while
you'll see a bug getting chomped on-camera. The computer can handle where
the leaves go on the trees, and where the trees go in the forest, and
what happens when the wind blows or when it rains.
It's not really a new concept as such, but the horsepower just isn't there
yet to do that kind of thing in any great detail (outside of narrow
simulations).
> And make no mistake about it... the best special effects are essentially
> invisible. The best compliment a realism-based FX artist can get is
> "What effect? I didn't see any." And they are used much more often
> than we realize.
Yes, I think you're right there. But Avatar - enjoyable and dazzling
though it was - still left me feeling like I was watching something fake;
perhaps more so than something like the 'original' Star Wars trilogy with
all its cardboard and plastic and painted sets did.
It (Avatar) is a major step forward (I watched Lord of the Rings again the
other day and it's funny how dated its effect look in comparison) - but I
also think there's a long way to go yet, and it'll be interesting to see
what movies in ten years time are like...
cheers
Jules
Scott Smith
<barbsc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article <d797k59pv1dimr611...@4ax.com>,
> Scott Smith <scott...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>> I pretty much agree with Andy. The plot of the movie is simply OK,
>> at best. But the visuals and environment of the movie are amazing.
>
>That was exactly my son and husband's assessment, Scott.
I saw this today and it made me laugh (probably because it's so true).
Pocahontas=Avatar:
osmium
Somehow, I get the feeling that the warm glow of the Christmas season is
over ...
Jim Elwell
> But I'm not really talking about stuff floating in the 'air', I suppose.
> As an example, leaves with dirt on them and bugs on them and holes chewed
> in them and where they're all different shapes on a tree, rather than
> being clones of the same basic leaf - just as they'd be in reality.
>
> I think that kind of thing will become standard, but it's maybe a little
> way off yet. The missing step might be that the animators have *too much*
> control over the models right now - it's a bit like painting a picture,
> and that takes time, so there's a lot of repetition and corner-cutting.
It's a fine line between too much detail and too little. The "Final
Fantasy: The Spirit Within" (2001) film reportedly rendered each of the
60,000 hairs on the head of the female protagonist separately. It
supposedly required 960 workstations an hour and a half to render each
frame and consumed a significant fraction of the total budget.
But it still didn't get it quite right. Although realistically
rendered, the hair was too "alive" (think Medusa).
> Give it a few years and the computers themselves will be generating the
> worlds - and introducing all the randomness and noise and physics that
> they need. You won't be able to say "make me a tree that looks like xyz"
> by that route, but you'll be able to let the computers make something
> that's a lot more convincing.
I agree. It'll get there. Introducing random variation is more of an
artistic than technical problem.
catpandaddy
When I hear cardboard and paint, it sounds like Star Trek to me. The
original Star Wars film was the opposite of that... very good about making
things dirty and keeping them dirty. They even had to go to great lengths
to prevent the cleaning crew from doing its job. They wanted real dirt and
they got it.
catpandaddy
"Jim Elwell" <jel...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:nrydnVyrz77fZdnW...@posted.visi...
> Jules wrote:
>
>
>> Give it a few years and the computers themselves will be generating the
>> worlds - and introducing all the randomness and noise and physics that
>> they need. You won't be able to say "make me a tree that looks like xyz"
>> by that route, but you'll be able to let the computers make something
>> that's a lot more convincing.
>
> I agree. It'll get there. Introducing random variation is more of an
> artistic than technical problem.
What he said.
Jules
>> Yes, I think you're right there. But Avatar - enjoyable and dazzling
>> though it was - still left me feeling like I was watching something fake;
>> perhaps more so than something like the 'original' Star Wars trilogy with
>> all its cardboard and plastic and painted sets did.
>
> When I hear cardboard and paint, it sounds like Star Trek to me.
No, not at all. Bad choice of wording, I guess :-) Star Wars did a pretty
excellent job with the sets - same with things like Alien and Aliens
(hey, James!). I was just trying to say that physically building
something using whatever materials are to hand can make for a very
convincing environment, more so than CGI currently can. Of course there
have been plenty of terrible cardboard sets, too ;)
Can't remember if I quoted this URL before, but it's quite a nice little
overview of different SciFi 'corridor' sets:
http://architexploitation.blogspot.com/2009/09/corridors-in-space.html
cheers
Jules
catpandaddy
Thanks for the link. Looks like some stuff I can use.
D.A.Tsenuf
"osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7qk9j8...@mid.individual.net...
Must have been good Gl�gg to have lasted this long.
Scott Smith
>"osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> Somehow, I get the feeling that the warm glow of the Christmas season is
>> over ...
>Must have been good Gl�gg to have lasted this long.
Is that what you're drinking?
I knew it had to be *something*.