ipaul Posted January 2, 2010 Posted January 2, 2010 Just read all this. This deserves some kind of internet award for incompetent arguing, not just an n-e award. It was always suspected, but this confirms it: Choze, you're and idiot.
flameboy Posted January 2, 2010 Posted January 2, 2010 This 3D thing was previously interesting me as a gaming curio but now I've got to wear glasses for reading, using computers and using TV's...urgh how will I wear 3D specs, people what do we do?!!!!!
Wesley Posted January 2, 2010 Posted January 2, 2010 Wow... Is there some kind of web awards we can submit this argument to? I'm strangely interested in Choze now. Can you answer these questions quickly for us: How old are you? What's your job? Any mental illness in the family?
Shino Posted January 2, 2010 Posted January 2, 2010 3D POV porn will be out of this world. That's all I want.
CoolFunkMan Posted January 2, 2010 Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) The concept 3D gaming is rather intriguing, although I'm not sure if it's really needed. As long as I can see and play games nicely on my HD telly, that's all that matters to me. I can imagine survival horror games being absolutely teriffying in 3D though, so I guess that'd work quite well. Ashley, your blowing my mind. And being as you'll be watching 3D porn, your mind won't be the only thing that's being blown! Sorry, so sorry. Oh, and Choze, this is for you... Edited January 2, 2010 by CoolFunkMan
The Lillster Posted January 2, 2010 Posted January 2, 2010 I know Choze got owned, but you guys sure like rubbing it in. I guess Choze was never a popular character around here?
Tissue Town Posted January 2, 2010 Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) I know Choze got owned, but you guys sure like rubbing it in. I guess Choze was never a popular character around here? He's especially unpopular because he isn't part of The Order of Nintendo Knights. Wrong man, wrong forum. Edited January 2, 2010 by Tissue Town
Daft Posted January 2, 2010 Posted January 2, 2010 I don't think that's true. I think there are a lot of people on the Other boards that don't play Nintendo any more.
Tissue Town Posted January 2, 2010 Posted January 2, 2010 Right, just read briefly the thread. Right, Choze doesn't know what he's talking about, and there are some facts here and there that people are getting wrong: -Unless this was a typo, Imax is a film format.. and not a file format. -35mm film isn't measured by pixels. It can be 100000 pixels in theory, but that would take an age, and it would produce horrible results. In general film resolution is printed at a 2k resolution, pretty much on par with 1080 resolutions. There are exceptions of course, highlighted in Wikipedia. Movies that are done digitally are most of the time done in 2k resolutions as well. So in actual fact, Blu Ray movies, in terms of resolution, are as good as you will get. You won't get next gen movies in 4k, because most were not done at that resolution. -In regards to cinema, most cinemas use projectors, copies of the master print, which again is mostly in 2k. Projection based cinema is bad quality due to the scratches, dirt, being used a lot etc. -Digital cinemas are in 2K and are generally flawless. They use hard drives. -Again, Imax, like film, is done on film, 65mm to be exact. So resolution output isn't set in stone. But obviously, much higher quality, and higher resolutions can be achieved. The Imax cinemas in London are the BFI, Science Museums, Greenwich and Wimbledon.
The Lillster Posted January 2, 2010 Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) I don't think that's true. I think there are a lot of people on the Other boards that don't play Nintendo any more. I think your half right. I agree that there's a lot of people on this forum, that aren't interested in playing Nintendo as much as there used to be (me included) but ultimately I think we're all interested in what Nintendo is doing (in one way or another). I'll always be primarily a Nintendo fan (that's just the way I am). However, if you asked me what my favourite console is at the moment, I'd say the PS3 without any hesitation. Edit: Fixed for you Daft. Edited January 2, 2010 by The Lillster
Daft Posted January 2, 2010 Posted January 2, 2010 I'm only interested insofar as how Microsoft and Sony react and, as always happens, improve on any form of innovation. Plus, I said 'play' Nintendo. On the flip side, Nintendo are so resistant to react to other company's development and thus the Wii has a massive storage limitation and pitiful online. I used to be a Nintendo zealot. Went to the Wii launch and all. Now? I'm much happier with the direction Sony are heading.
The Lillster Posted January 2, 2010 Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) I'm only interested insofar as how Microsoft and Sony react and, as always happens, improve on any form of innovation. Plus, I said 'play' Nintendo. On the flip side, Nintendo are so resistant to react to other company's development and thus the Wii has a massive storage limitation and pitiful online. I used to be a Nintendo zealot. Went to the Wii launch and all. Now? I'm much happier with the direction Sony are heading. Yeh, sorry about that, fixed now. I think it's good that Nintendo tries to be different from the other two but sometimes I think Nintendo tries to be different, just for the sake of being different. Edited January 2, 2010 by The Lillster
Sheikah Posted January 2, 2010 Posted January 2, 2010 I think Nintendo have completely focussed on pleasing a completely different set of customers, but they still produce the odd game that I just don't see on other consoles. I definitely play on my PS3 more, though. I love my RPGs.
Daft Posted January 2, 2010 Posted January 2, 2010 Yeh, sorry about that, fixed now. I think it's good that Nintendo tries to be different from the other two but sometimes I think Nintendo tries to be different, just for the sake of being different. Yeah, totally. Competition is key and I think all three companies innovate in very different areas, imo. Nintendo, originally focused on gameplay, is now pushing accessibility - that's had an obvious effect on Microsoft and Sony. Also, Nintendo are a first party powerhouse. Microsoft, in my eyes, really made a massive contribution with gametags (achievements, et al), a whole online ID and they've got the very robust - although probably more restrictive - XBL. PSN wouldn't be anywhere near as complete as it is if it didn't take after XBL. Sony, and this is why I like them so much, seem to really be pushing the medium with games like Heavy Rain and flower (even Uncharted 2 to an extent fits into this ethos) - games I don't see happening anywhere else. Also, their hardware is absolutely exceptional. I'm playing God of War II now and the step up from the first is massive. Likewise, with the PS3, upcoming games are looking better and better. Also, I know a lot of people criticize them for lacking innovation, but I love how they take and improve existing ideas (I think trophies are much better structured than achievements - although essentially they are the same thing). Sony also seem to have run away with first and second party titles - the sheer quantity is astonishing. Anyway, that was amazingly off topic.
dazzybee Posted January 2, 2010 Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) How did I miss this thread? Like tissue said, some things Choze said is actually right (if only he had the brains) and somethings Daft said was wrong. Cinema IS Filmed in 1080p digitally; 720, and 1080 are COMPLETELY cinema standards. Like Tissue said, Film isn't pixels or lines of resolution, but it is equivalent to about 4k lines of resolution (not 2k); the best HD cameras you can get can reach this level, but there aren't many. If you played a bluray at your local cinema on a 1080p capable projector (which 90% of all cinemas will have(2k minimum)) then it would look as good as anything else. I will also add that in the uk, from this year, all cinemas are getting rid of their film projectors and going digital, we are completely leading the way with the transfer over (for better and worse). Film to record on will stay around for a good while yet, but the first thing that will happen to those film reels it will get digitised! Edited January 2, 2010 by dazzybee
Tissue Town Posted January 3, 2010 Posted January 3, 2010 How did I miss this thread? Like tissue said, some things Choze said is actually right (if only he had the brains) and somethings Daft said was wrong. Cinema IS Filmed in 1080p digitally; 720, and 1080 are COMPLETELY cinema standards. Like Tissue said, Film isn't pixels or lines of resolution, but it is equivalent to about 4k lines of resolution (not 2k); the best HD cameras you can get can reach this level, but there aren't many. If you played a bluray at your local cinema on a 1080p capable projector (which 90% of all cinemas will have(2k minimum)) then it would look as good as anything else. 1080p is not what cinema resolution is referred to as. It's 2k, 4k etc. 1080p refers to HDTV video modes. Cinema has nothing to do with 1080p. Secondly, 1080(p) resolution is 1920 x 1080 2k resolution is 2048x1080, where the vertical pixel resolution differs depending on the aspect ratio. Also 720 isn't a cinema standard. Furthermore, 35mm film resolution is only comparable to 4k if the quality of the shot is good enough, otherwise everyone would just go 4k. Finally, HD digital film cameras shoot at various resolutions, all depends on the camera. One of the most common cameras, the Panavision outputs a resolution of 1920 x 1080 for example. Which is Blu Ray quality. Just to get facts straight.
dazzybee Posted January 3, 2010 Posted January 3, 2010 I never said it was "referred" to as. I was saying that digital cameras shoot on those formats, I use them all the time. I've used the best HD Digital cameras on the market and they shoot in 1080P or whatever you want to shoot it in. I don't understand your comment about 35mm only being 4k if the shot is good enough. Well I'm sure you mean the lighting conditions (if you're working with professionals it should always be good enough ); maybe so, but still , ultimately it's at about 4k. With regards to digital cameras, the very few that shoot at 4k is the closest you get to film; they're pretty much comparable (though the image has different qualities). As for 720 being cinema standard, I'm referring to what stuff is shot at. There have been films which have been shot at this standard which have had theatrical releases, thats what I meant. I think Daft scoffed at Choze using 720 and 1080, I was saying this standard IS used in cinema. Does that make sense?
Daft Posted January 3, 2010 Posted January 3, 2010 I just want to point out I had very little idea what I was talking about. Through this entire thread.
dazzybee Posted January 3, 2010 Posted January 3, 2010 I just want to point out I had very little idea what I was talking about. Through this entire thread. Who cares, you owned him In Style I may add. You were pretty much spot on throughout.
Tissue Town Posted January 3, 2010 Posted January 3, 2010 I never said it was "referred" to as. I was saying that digital cameras shoot on those formats, I use them all the time. I've used the best HD Digital cameras on the market and they shoot in 1080P or whatever you want to shoot it in. I don't understand your comment about 35mm only being 4k if the shot is good enough. Well I'm sure you mean the lighting conditions (if you're working with professionals it should always be good enough ); maybe so, but still , ultimately it's at about 4k. With regards to digital cameras, the very few that shoot at 4k is the closest you get to film; they're pretty much comparable (though the image has different qualities). As for 720 being cinema standard, I'm referring to what stuff is shot at. There have been films which have been shot at this standard which have had theatrical releases, thats what I meant. I think Daft scoffed at Choze using 720 and 1080, I was saying this standard IS used in cinema. Does that make sense? Shooting at 1080p makes no sense to me, as that is video display. Unless the camera you have used refer to your shooting mode as 1080p, which is just weird and makes no sense. And once again, 35mm film doesn't have any resolution. It's output to 2k most of the time because that is the best resolution you can get the majority of the time. This is why you rarely see 4k movies. And if you could name a few movies shot at 720, that would be great.
dazzybee Posted January 3, 2010 Posted January 3, 2010 Well shit loads. A recent big-ish one would be 28 days later. But films have been shot on loads worse - Pi, El Mariachi, Blair Witch, wouldn't surprise me if Paranormal Activity was. And what are you on about 35mm outputs to 2k? *sometimes* when it's transferred to film print it goes 2k, but I would say 4k more so. And ultimately, what it ends up as isn't as important. All films end up on DVD, but a 4k film will look different to a 2k film; even though they both end up the same. The cameras I use? The same cameras used to shoot the Starwars prequels, Miami Vice, Che films and pretty much the same if not better than every single digital film out there.
Tissue Town Posted January 3, 2010 Posted January 3, 2010 Well shit loads. A recent big-ish one would be 28 days later. But films have been shot on loads worse - Pi, El Mariachi, Blair Witch, wouldn't surprise me if Paranormal Activity was. And what are you on about 35mm outputs to 2k? *sometimes* when it's transferred to film print it goes 2k, but I would say 4k more so. And ultimately, what it ends up as isn't as important. All films end up on DVD, but a 4k film will look different to a 2k film; even though they both end up the same. The cameras I use? The same cameras used to shoot the Starwars prequels, Miami Vice, Che films and pretty much the same if not better than every single digital film out there. These films were not shot at 720. They were filmed on 16mm film or cheaper film cameras. Again, resolution isn't set. And regarding the outputs.. I've honestly lost track of what we're debating on that topic. Film is film, it's not digital, and thus, there is no pixel resolution. I was just referring to the most common resolution used in cinema. So I think we can leave it at that, because we're not going anywhere.
Recommended Posts