Atomicfog
-
Posts
511 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Articles
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Atomicfog
-
-
BTW, for those who aren't impressed with HD, wait until UHD comes out. I had a chance to see this amazing technology at NAB 2007, and it was WOW. Basically, it looks completely real from a few feet away, and if it weren't on a flat surface, it would look completely real.
This is shows how much space that technology takes up... We'll need HDVs.
http://www.answers.com/topic/ultra-high-definition-video?cat=technology
-
I do understand the disc reading technology involved. The HVDs have been around forever and they're going to need to do something impressive to maintain my attention. My confusion wound up being over the amount of space HD video (and what kind) takes up.
Umm... Blu-Ray and HD-DVDs are not holographic versatile discs.
Regular DVDs hold about 4.7 gigs, CDs have about 700mb, and Blu-rays can hold from 25 to 50 GBs.
Heres a list of amounts of space HD video takes up for you (though this doesn't include the high compression codecs, MPEG-2, H.264/AVC, and SMPTE VC-1, that Blu-Ray uses):
(http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/howto/articles/UnderstandingHDFormats.aspx)
-
I think you missed his point.
Source #1: http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6810011-1.html
(Incidentally Vega was referring to a point they made in #10)
Source #2: http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/
Source #3: http://www.hometheatermag.com/advicefromtheexperts/105tvshoptips/index.html
There are others readily available as well, like this question so frequently being referenced in HDTV Q&A on IGN. The end result is that it's not necessarily so important that the source is 1080p, depending on your screen size and how close you're sitting. Its different, as Vega pointed out, when it comes to computer resolutions, but when it comes to hooking up your 360, PS3, Blu-Ray player, or whatever other HD source that's the rule of thumb.
I only skimmed the articles, but I don't see anything that says anything about there not being "...a discernable difference between 720p and 1080p on displays smaller than 50". Also, sitting closeness is irrelevant, because sitting closer is something you can easily do.
-
When you're working with the compressed video of HDTV though, the difference is minimal at best typically what is meant. When dealing with computer resolutions, which are perfect, of course it's easy to tell the difference between sharper edges and stuff. However, for most people they simply watch TV on their TVs, and so 720p and 1080p are basically indistinguishable. Especially when there's basically no 1080p streaming TV out there. And with 1080i being upscaled to 1080p, the 1080i is considered good enough for almost anyone.
That might be a valid point if we were talking about T.V., but we're talking about Blu-Ray here (which is 1080P), not compressed T.V. HD.
-
The articles I've read on the subject have stated there are factors such as viewing distance to be considered, but the rule of thumb is there's not a discernable difference between 720p and 1080p on displays smaller than 50". I could dig up the articles later, so if someone really wants the sources I can post them, though they should be easy enough for someone to find.
.
Umm... No. Either your sources are crap, or you read them wrong (post them).
I have a 1080P 17" LCD on my latptop, and there is definitely a noticeable difference in quality between that and a laptops of lesser resolutions.
-
1080i resolutions in general even below 1080p are pretty good. 720p is still quite a bit above as I see it, but that's mostly a resolution for smaller HDTVs and LCDs.
Yeah, 720P is still quite difference, but I'd say 1080P blows it away (and I've got it on my 17" laptop LDC).
I doubt the footage on TV stores is that big a deal anymore unless they make a point to show non-HD channels on them (which is usual). content. I think they are doing more of that now than ever.It almost seems like they do make it a point in some stores.
-
Maybe this is just a difference of perspective and maybe you're looking at different HDTVs than I am, but when I see a beautiful panoramic shot of the Alps or something on an HDTV and I can stare deeper and deeper into it and see miniscule little details that would have just entirely been crushed, blurred or cut out of an old 4:3 tube tv, I'm wowed almost every time. My parents have an HDTV at home (a 52 inch Bravia) and at school I have a tube tv, maybe 2 feet or so square (I'm not sure of the exact dimensions). When I come home and I see this thing on the wall I feel almost excited to see it - it's brand new technology, it's beautiful, crisp and clean, and extremely powerful by today's standards. It's kind of like having a new car.
But I'm getting sidetracked. Some people want HD because it's "HD" and it's the most recent thing out - it's a buzzword, and it's something to throw money at. But if you really get technical or you see it side by side with an old TV, I think you'll agree watching the old TV is like looking through a tunnel. Maybe it's just me but at that point you have to realize that the old TV is extremely outdated and it's time to move on to something new.
As for DVDs, you've got to make the same realization - that they're very outdated as well. You're correct that Sony is in a difficult position in trying to convert people who just got DVD players 8 or 9 years ago. But technology increases in complexity at an exponential rate, and it takes less and less time for a new format to be released that trumps the old one - and at this point, DVDs really are getting very constricting to quality, and it's about time they're left behind. I suppose it would be difficult to figure out how to market something that completely blows yesterday's format away - but that's the way they've got to do it. At least new machines are backward compatible. Sometimes these things have to be forced on people or there's no way the businesses can profit...just look at the digital TV forced conversion next year. It's got to be done or there's going to be a huge gap developing between people on the edge of new stuff and people who have been left behind.
I agree, this pretty much what I would say, though maybe a bit less "block"
I have few things I'd like to add though:Technically speaking, HDTV (at 1080p) is more of a jump in resolution than standard T.V (usually 480i) to DVD (which are only 480P). I guess this doesn't mean much to most people, but let me explain something to said people.
The appeal of an HDTV might not be apparent at first, but once you sit back and watch footage on one for a day or so and become adjusted -- it's really hard to go back. It's really a privilege to your eyes, and though DVDs still look great, there is quite a difference (I'm speaking of 1080P mostly).
Now, for those who still don't notice a real difference, I'm assuming you've either only seen 720P, or you've seen a lesser resolution footage on an HDTV (VERY common at stores). I'd argue that most people sitting down to watch a true 1080P video (no upconverting), will notice an apparent difference, and given time to use the format, would prefer it. I'm also fairly certain that Blu-Ray will trump DVDs as DVDs did with VHS.
-
Had the 360 featured HD-DVD by default, the fight would likely have gone the other way.
ble to back up that much data to optical is really appealing...
Yeah, probably, but there is no Microsoft would be willing to lose that much money for a format that isn't there own.
BTW, for those who own blu-ray players - HIGHLY recommended: http://www.ocremix.org/amazon/?id=/detail/B000MRAAJM/Want.
I wonder if this means Microsoft will have to buy Sony's format for Xbox720... awkward... MS should just buy Sony then.Yeah it will be interesting to see how that turns out... Seeing the money Microsoft put forth in an attempt to buy Yahoo, I hope Sony would be able to resist such an offer.
-
Now, the war isn't over yet, but if you read IGN's article, it seems it's about to be.
http://gear.ign.com/articles/852/852769p1.html
I knew it would probably be Blu-Ray after seeing everyone using the PS3 as Blu-Ray player at NAB 2007. Hasn't done much else yet, but the PS3 is definitely what did it.
Actually, it's funny, because I have some video footage from CES 2002 of some serious biz Toshiba guys gathering around an HD-DVD ("blue laser") prototype that long ago.
Edit: I just realized, this is the first format war Sony has won in... Awhile.
-
I love it, and I really hope to hear more Threads of Fate remixes.
-
I felt totally opposite to what you felt
But thank you for the link! I was wondering what that was!
I'm hoping for no sequals.
Please let there be a movie out this year that will not see a sequel later in its marketing life
Oh, screw being against sequels. It's not like you have to watch them or anything. Besides, I think most people would agree that this movie does, in fact, deserve a sequel.
I didn't like the attacks on the monster at all. 4-5 bombs blowing up on its back in succession causing its face to slam into a building should at least slow the fucker down or show significant damage.Bullets doing nothing I can understand. Explosions with no effect I can understand. Not head trauma though.
I'm thinking it had some sort of regenerative abilities, especially now that I know the end said "it's still alive".
Try ANY Akira Ifukube CD...Gawd what a rip...
I guess I will if it's anything like that.
-
If only I lived somewhere near NY. Wait, wasn't there some kind of disaster there? Something having to do with clovers or something?
-
Production has already been completed, fortunately. That sucks though.
-
Michael Giacchino is a beast
Funny way to put it, but yeah. It sucks that I cannot find this piece of music anywhere on the interweb
-
Oh yeah, and the overture at the end (Roar!), was an epic orchestral score. I'm trying to find it everywhere to no avail.
BTW, if anyone who stayed for through the credits was wondering what that voice clip at the very end said, it's revealed here:
http://boards.ign.com/teh_vestibule/b5296/157534266/r157535371/
-
:As hisself: HOLY SHIT. I came out of the theatre and I hugged my wife because I hadn't seen a monster movie that fantastic since...like, ever. It was the single greatest monster movie I've ever seen. I love how it was done, all through a video camera. The monster design: insane. Never seen anything like it. Was it man-made? Alien? Some sort of cosmic disaster? WHO KNOWS. They left it a blank and I kinda like it like that. I LOVED it. Now give me a sequel.
My thoughts exactly.
..why? Not that it's even out in Norway yet. I haven't even been subjected to the hype. Convince me.If you don't see it your missing out on a spectacular movie. That's all I have to say.
-
If by "depends on what group thinking tells us to do" you mean "I'm going to see Cloverfield on Monday", you just made a great decision. If not, well, there is no if not. That needs to be what it means.
Cloverfield lived up to the hype. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. In fact, I'd say it exceeded the hype. It was AWEsome.
FYI 77% on Rotten Tomatoes.
-
Now.......
-
some prophet
-
Isn't it obvious guys?
-
...
His music will live on as long as I am around.
-
Yeah, Playstation and N64 emulation on the computer is really fun, better than the actual consoles if you have a good controller. I would imagine that using an Xbox 360 controller would be the best solution, and those come built to work.
For those that want to use an N64 controller: http://www.jandaman.com/games.mvc?p=n64psxusb&Category_code=N64
-
Also, I'd like to point out that Zelda 64 (and other N64 games) look amazing on Project 64 if you have a decent video card. You can bring games up to 1080P, add major anti-aliasing, and anisotropic filtering + smoothing, but I would recommend 800x600 to 1024x768 for the sake of the textures on OoT. Some games, like Starfox, look extremely good at even higher resolutions though. Emulating these games is so much better if you have a decent PC controller.
-
Believe it or not, but Mario64 and Zelda64's graphics still hold up for me. Every time I go back to those games I'm actually MORE impressed by how good they looked for their time. The fact that they couldn't (or at least didn't) use fancy textures (going back to my "pure" comment) means they had to actually put effort into making amazing *models*, and it totally works. All too often I would see PSX games that would use textures as a crutch, as a replacement for detail instead of a complement, and N64 games were a refreshing change of aesthetics.
I agree that many PSX games did use textures as a crutch, but the ones that didn't blow their N64 counterparts away in terms of graphics that hold up.
I think OoT may still hold up for me because of the models, but I only played the very beginning recently.
Psychological movies
in General Discussion
Posted
Yes, psychological thrillers are often great. I've seen almost every movie recommended so far, and almost every movie recommended so far is awesome.In addition I highly recommend Primer and Collateral .
I'd also like to specifically second Being John Malkovich (especially), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Donnie Darko, and Cube, Saw (only the original) and Memento.
I really need to watch Pi, I have it, I just have to get to it. The Machinist was decent, but I preferred Fight Club, and The Machinist seemed like a Fight Club rip-off, so I'd recommend Fight Club instead. Once you've seen one, you the other will be completely predictable.