You are currently looking at Flamebate, our community forums. Players can discuss the game here, strategize, and role play as their characters.
You need to be logged in to post and to see the uncensored versions of these forums.
CarlieGotfingered's Flamebate Posts
View CarlieGotfingered's ProfileSearch Results | ||
---|---|---|
Not enough Flezz?mterek Posted:
Log in to see images!
but not much more… (view post) |
03/21/2010 | |
Toolbar Extension in Internet ExplorerI bet you use IE6 don’t you TJF588…
Some Facts about Internet Explorer: Microsoft has Excommunicated IE7 and before for running on an old engine that was a piece of **** that couldn’t render anything for **** because it was **** YouTube no longer supports IE6
Firefox is Better because: The Gecko Engine renders things the right way It (usually) uses less memory then IE for intense scripting It’s faster It’s updated regularly
If you don’t want to use a good browser: Log in to see images! (view post) |
03/21/2010 | |
Bug: My Forumwarz Orange Trial isn't expiringsdgrbbum09 Posted:
Oh, i’m fully aware that it’s very special to point this out, but it is a bug and bugs are icky. (view post) |
03/21/2010 | |
I warned you.Can you add Julian Casablancas’ head on a silver platter to that? I really hate that girl, i want her dead… (view post) |
03/21/2010 | |
5 BP contest: Understand that WeChall is a ****ty klan and demonstrate that knowledge by providing evidence and sound logical argumenti read it somewhere on the internet, so it must be true (view post) |
03/20/2010 | |
Bug: My Forumwarz Orange Trial isn't expiringNot that this is a huge problem, one because i’m cheap, and 2 because it’s an added benefit, but my subscription has had 14 days left for a few days now.
So umm yeah, i know i just reminded teacher she forgot to bumign the clbum homework, but umm, it’s broken.
So like, fix it, or don’t, i’m not going to lose sleep over it… (view post) |
03/20/2010 | |
View this thread to receive a Haxploitation epeenhurr durr i’m pursting in a erpic thrurd (view post) |
03/20/2010 | |
Hey ShiiShii Posted:
Log in to see images!
And it’s best you keep it that way, we don’t want to have to go upside your head with a lead pipe… (view post) |
03/20/2010 | |
Hey ShiiAre you sure it’s not you? It’s got gopher content, only hardcore ****s use gopher, and you seem cool. (view post) |
03/20/2010 | |
YOU ARE ALL ****ING ****.Log in to see images! (view post) |
03/19/2010 | |
has over-reliance on anaglyph stereoscopy held back the development of 3D cinema?megazeroexe Posted:
Right but major production movies don’t use cheap cameras.
Lets bumume this is a small house. Lets bumume that it would cheap out and use something like a Canon 5DmkII. You’d be looking at something like $5000 just for the bodies, and lets say you used a few prime lenses you’re looking at adding another $1500. Now you need to make some sort of rig to hold the two in place (not too hard, might even be a commercial product for this). bumuming 1080p you’ll need about 40GB of storage per hour. And since you’re doing that in stereo you’ll need twice that. High Speed High capacity Compact flash cards are roughly $175 for 16gb., you’d need four cards to hold about one hour of video. so for the sake of argument $700/hour for storage. Let’s bumume you edit nightly, you’d need at least 4 hours of storage for each day you film, i’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you’ll reuse cards daily. Thats $2800 for storage. That works out to be roughly $9300.
And thats just a single angle.
Storing the data is another thing, you’ll looking at about 160gb of data generated per day (bumuming you only shoot 4 hours of video per day). Lets say you shoot over 45 days, thats 7200gb of Data (or 7.2tb if you’re so inclined). You’ll want to ensure that you don’t lose the data, so a mirrored RAID array is a must, making the total amount of hard drive space you’ll need is 14.4tb. This isn’t unheard of, it can be done with a single SAN unit, that’ll run you around $6,000 ($6,200 for a 16tb SAN to be exact). You’ll also need some pretty beefy workstations to do the editing. Now an editing workstation would cost you another $5,000 (2.6ghz Quad Core Xeon, 12gb DDR3 1333mhz, nVideo Quadro w/ 1.5gb Dedicated RAM). Adding another $11,000 to the cost.
I have no idea how much labor would be involved in editing the video into 3D, so i can’t estimate that, but it can’t be free.
Thats $20,000 there, and those are pretty low quality cameras for a movie too.
That cost, while not a whole lot (i own still cameras that, when new, cost more than that), it’s not nothing, and it requires you to hire more expensive techs since this equipment is “new” and “digital” and “computery”.
Even if you can cover the costs, and even if it doesn’t impact the ticket sales, you need to convince a studio or producer that a 3D movie will sell. There are few producers willing to take this risk, since 3D is new and unexplored territory.
Movies like Avatar (i lied, so sue me) will give producers a reason to take the risk, but there will be failures, and these will hurt the industry.
Time is the only solution. (view post) |
03/19/2010 | |
has over-reliance on anaglyph stereoscopy held back the development of 3D cinema?The trouble is is that Avatar has become the posterchild for 3D, and in my opinion what’s wrong with it.
But since apparently talking about the Model T when talking about the Automobile is no longer a valid thing to do, i’ll refrain from talking about “it”.
there isn’t much more to be said, 3D needs to get cheaper for the end user for it to evolve, and it will, it’s just a matter of time. For this to happen it needs stop being a gimmick and start being supportive. We should not see a movie just because it’s in 3D. (view post) |
03/19/2010 | |
has over-reliance on anaglyph stereoscopy held back the development of 3D cinema?Sneaky27 Posted:
Strawman: Arguing against a point your opponent does not hold.
Pardon me if i’m not fully understanding your intentions here. You’re arguing that not everyone who likes movies likes thought provoking ones and might enjoy just watching pretty pictures.
That’s it more or less right?
—
The technological advancements that Avatar has made are below that of what ILM had when Star Wars was made. Avatar does not take advantage of any new concepts, and the technological advancements that were made in order to produce the movie really aren’t anything grounbreaking. I’d argue that Pixar has had more of an impact on the advancement of “Digital 3D” than Avatar ever will, regardless of the fact that it’s more or less Live Action.
Anaglyph stereoscopy still has a place, it’s easy and cheap to do, literally anyone can do it and not require any special hardware or computer software to pull it off (Tripod and a Camera, along with The GIMP is all you need, and that’s not out of the reach of anyone) and it costs the viewer next to nothing to procure the proper glbumes.
While it may not be the best solution, it isn’t going to go away any time soon. Perhaps in a few decades current technology will be cheap enough to be as ubiquitous as anaglyph is today, but at that time there is sure to be something better.
I really think it boils down to cost. To produce a movie in 3D requires twice as much film (or digital space), requires more time to process, and requires time to compile the two images into just one. And that’s just anaglyph technology. When you factor in the latest technology there’s more time and money involved. I should make it a point that i don’t know the finer points of newer 3D technology, but i am well versed in photography and traditional cinematography.
This cost is usually pbumed on to the viewer in the form of higher ticket prices. This translates to less people wanting to watch a movie in 3D.
From wikipedia i’m finding the following sales figures: $700mil From Avatar $200mil of that IMAX
Average Cost of a Movie Ticket (2D): $8 Average Cost of an IMAX 3D Ticket: $12
$500 million at $8 works out to be 62.5 Million Tickets Sold $200 million at $12 works out to be 16.7 Million (16.666etc.) Tickets
Sure, not everyone has the option, but i think that this price difference is enough to point at a conclusive reason in why people aren’t buying into 3D.
A family of 4 would likely spend $16 more to see the movie in 3D (i don’t know about everyone else, but the local theaters charge the same amount more for kids to see 3D as adults). While that isn’t a whole lot, when you take into account the high cost of Concessions it starts to look like a big $16. (view post) |
03/18/2010 | |
I got just one question for you forumwarz**** paint: all the cool kids huff mother****ing kittens.
Log in to see images! (view post) |
03/17/2010 | |
Aldo_Anything: Also sellout-bum fine upstanding member of society got a new fulltime job so this place lacks of authority - that's where I come into playDid someone say Whales? Log in to see images!
Amidoinitrite? (view post) |
03/17/2010 | |
has over-reliance on anaglyph stereoscopy held back the development of 3D cinema?Sneaky27 Posted:
I wasn’t literally bumuming you don’t know the difference between a pop up book and a novel, i was turning your words against you to prove a point. Of course you know the difference between the two. I was merely backing up my argument that we needn’t compare Avatar to other movies, since it’s just flash.
I apologize if you thought that i was honestly accusing you of not knowing the difference between a novel and a book designed for infants. However i do think it’s a valid rebumal to your original post.
Sneaky27 Posted:
I don’t think anyone here (including Shii) is saying that people are stupid for enjoying fluff and good visuals, what I’m saying, and i take it Shii is saying is that Avatar is not a “legitimate” film in the respect that it lacks any redeeming quality other than it’s flashy visuals. This is not to discredit the fact that Visuals can be enjoyed by viewers, but to set thing straight in that a movie and a theme park ride are not one in the same. A movie is designed to be an escape by allowing you to experience a story that you relate to in some way. This is something that is different to each person, and is something that does not require a deep or complex story to be enjoyed.
I’m not simply arguing that Avatar’s lifted and tired story is why it’s not good, i’m arguing that Avatar puts that on the back burner to the Visuals and often goes out of it’s way to show you pretty things that have nothing to do with the story.
This all ties into the topic of 3D films because without the 3D you’re cheated into seeing a lackluster movie.
To give you a better example, let’s look at Nature Dogreat timesentaries. Most of them are boring, and typically visually uninspiring (though this depends on the person and the subject matter, mudskippers do not make for a pretty shot, peamale reproductive organs do). Above all else they value the information first, and the visuals second.
Now lets look at “Planet Earth”. While Planet Earth is a very educational series, it only scratches the surface, not just because of the subject they intend to cover (everything) but also because it would detract from the visuals. It is the only Nature Dogreat timesentary that i know of that uses a soundtrack during most periods of silence, any others i’ve seen just let you listen to nature. This is not a bad thing, but it’s not what everyone is looking for in a Nature Dogreat timesentary, does it make people who like the series wrong? Absolutely not, but only if they realize there is a major flaw to this. I’m not expecting a total reversal, just a simple admission that there is a huge sacrifice made at the cost of entertainment.
I understand there is a disconnect here, because movies are a form of entertainment. However if you take any clbumic movie, and play it in black and white, it should still be just as good as if it were in color. This holds true for many modern movies (the few that come to mind instantly are Fight Club, Boondock Saints, The two Ghostbusters movies, and Clerks, and i know those are in narrow genres that are oft paired, but it also goes for movies like Casablanca, it stands well despite the lack of color.)
I have no intention of swaying you to join my side of the argument, i could care less what you think of the movie, however i don’t appreciate being accused of dirty tricks. I have no problem with being corrected, if i factually make a mistake i should be corrected, that’s how science works, thats how everything should work, however i do not resort to dirty tricks outside of reason (i see no issue calling Avatar a Polished Turd, because that is what i believe, it’s not a baseless attack, i’m not saying something like “Avatar is a movie made for homosexuals” or “James Cameron is very special for unleashing this ****” While i do have issues with Cameron, such as how it appears that he did this just for the money and because George Lucas isn’t making any more Star Wars Films.
It would be easy to say that i’m taking Avatar too seriously, and that i should let it go, however i don’t really take this matter as serious as you might think, i, unlike some, can put mind to keyboard in a very short amount of time, and until i start writing 50 page dogreat timesents on why i don’t like the way they colored the eyes on the Na’vi i don’t think i’m taking this too far.
lol, internet, serious business (view post) |
03/17/2010 | |
**** OFF/EAT ****Log in to see images! HOLY **** SOMEONE CALL THE WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAMBULANCE FOR THESE TWO fabulous personS Log in to see images!
lol, forumwarz, serious business (view post) |
03/16/2010 | |
poll: **** a dumb bumTesfan Posted:
posting **** in a river of **** posts
-or-
****ting in a river of ****
-bonus-
Log in to see images!
(i choose you corn!) (view post) |
03/16/2010 | |
has over-reliance on anaglyph stereoscopy held back the development of 3D cinema?I think Avatar is so tightly ingrained with this discussion is because it’s the best example of a successful 3D movie. It did well in 3D, and (for the most part) wasn’t the same without 3D. People were willing to pay the extra money for the glbumes, and to see it in 3D.
Avatar is a perfect example why 3D isn’t taken seriously as well, since it’s used to enhance movies in the totally wrong way.
I think 3D broadcast television will be more likely to be a game changer compared to Movies, since the glbumesless technology is there, and the entry cost isn’t significant when you concider that a television is a major purchase that should be calculated evenly over the cost of a long period of time.
To bring this full circle back to the original point:
Anaglyph Stereoscopy hasn’t held back the development of 3D cinema, it provided a jumping point for newer technologies, no first generation product is perfect, and when technology is in it’s infancy there is usually little development. The sheer lack of technological advancement in the field is to blame more than anything.
There have likely been more major advancements in film in the last two and a half decades than there has been in the time since “talkies”. I base that one no facts other than now that film _is_ digital, advancement is based on computer technology, not silver technology. We are just now getting around to the concept of 3D and how we can use our technology to improve it.
Oh, and that film _is_ digital comment: Yes i am the grand arbiter of silver nitride technology, and yes i understand the difference between film and digital, i don’t mean the fact that they are using some sort of digital film, but that films are being made entirely digital, as opposed to on film and then edited digitally.
lol, internet, serious business (view post) |
03/16/2010 | |
has over-reliance on anaglyph stereoscopy held back the development of 3D cinema?duca Posted:
I think there are a few problems.
The technology is treated as a gimmick The cost is too high and is pbumed down to the viewer who, seeing it as a gimmick, does not buy in The technology, while mature, is not as immersive as it could be
3D isn’t going to reach it’s full potential until it’s advanced to a point where 1) it requires no glbumes and 2) it costs very little (comparatively).
I think the real thing to look for is advances in 3D hologram technology, it exists, and while in it’s infancy it’s got potential and when perfected will replace “3D”, since it will really have depth, as opposed to trick you into thinking it does. (view post) |
03/16/2010 |