Tom Galvin wrote:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9HhktCTMNY

I was thinking more "Jetsons" than "Flintstones" though XD

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I clearly remember how they advertised digital TV as increasing the
> image quality compared to analog broadcasts. BS.

One of my hobbies is explaining to people how it is actually impossible 
for a digital system to rival the quality of an analog.

I don't seem to have dented CD sales yet, but I'm trying.*

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

*BTW, I recently heard a salesperson in a car audio store describing HD 
Radio as "making AM sound as good as FM, and FM sound as good as a CD!"

I find it sad that so few people realize that CDs have such low quality 
sound...

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:
> If every violation of physics made me hate a movie, I wouldn't watch any,
> ever

Some are worse than others, but in general I know what you mean :)

One of my favorites is from "The Core"... the main guy toasts a peach 
with a can of hairspray and a lighter, and says "This is the earth 
without its electromagnetic field"...

Despite that, I enjoyed the movie :)

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> The Matrix is not a film that can be rationally dissected IMO; it's all 
> utter nonsense from beginning to end (why use humans as batteries? even 
> if you do, why bother keeping their minds active with all that 
> complicated VR? leave them vegetative!),

http://www.wylfing.net/essays/

Supposedly written between the second and third films; if so, the 
analysis is very well done and thoroughly explains some of the apparent 
inconsistencies such as the human battery thing.

If, OTOH, it was written after the third movie came out, than it's just 
a matter of seeing what you're looking for.

I don't know which it is, since I only found it a few months ago.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> But once you get past those, I guess the rest of it does make a kind of 
> sense. Although I dislike cliched plot devices like restricted 
> exit/entry points and dying IRL if you get capped in the Matrix. And I 
> still think the agents would be more deadly.  They can dodge bullets 
> most of the time, but fists, only sometimes. This means most of the 
> time, their reflexes are the same as humans, but only sometimes speed up 
> to what they would actually be. Why? What's the point? Grrr. :-)

You think that just because they're machines, their logic is perfect? 
Grr, those machines were originally programmed by people... maybe even 
by Microsoft.  Why can't they have bugs?

Even if they have been programmed by machines for several generations 
now (machines making machines that make machines, etc), they'll still 
probably have bugs in them.  Their reflexes matching the incoming threat 
is probably one of those (or a misapplication of an optimization or 
something).

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> One of my hobbies is explaining to people how it is actually impossible 
> for a digital system to rival the quality of an analog.

  The problem with analog sound/video is that it's very difficult, if not
impossible, to transfer the data without any modification. There will always
be some noise which was not in the original material.

  Digital audio/video can be used to transfer the information unmodified.
You just need to have enough bitrate in an non-lossy format for it to
easily become of much higher quality than the analog equivalent (because
there's no noise).

  The problem with CDs, although they are lossless, is that the bitrate is
not high enough to rival the quality of a very high-quality analog tape
(those used in the past for studio sound recording). You would need at
least 24-bit 96 kHz sound for that.

  And the major problem with DVDs and especially digi-TV is that it's lossy
and with a rather low bitrate, and thus cannot compete with an analog
broadcast with good reception. Lossless HDTV could, though.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> One of my hobbies is explaining to people how it is actually impossible 
> for a digital system to rival the quality of an analog.

It isn't impossible; you don't even need to duplicate the exact shape of 
a sine wave to reach a quality level accomplished by common analog 
sources.  It just needs to be close enough that the *human ear* can't 
detect the difference.  Just because most digital recordings cut corners 
to reduce costs doesn't mean that it's an inherent quality of the 
medium; the other thread about hating DVD as a medium isn't about hating 
DVD as a medium, it's about hating the way it's *commercially used*, not 
using it to anywhere near the level it could be.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

476b7880$1@news.povray.org...

> One of my hobbies is explaining to people how it is actually impossible 
> for a digital system to rival the quality of an analog.

But isn't that theoretical and only true for high-end analog hardware?
Before digital, most people had low-end analog devices that produced crappy 
and noisy output. My VCR, TV, record player and film camera sure did. As far 
as I'm concerned, their digital versions are a massive improvement, 
quality-wise.
While audiophiles, videophiles or film camera addicts can truly claim that 
their (costly) analog system is better than its digital counterpart, it 
doesn't mean that it's true for the rest of us, so the theoretical benefits 
of analog technologies are a moot point.

G.

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> http://www.wylfing.net/essays/

  I think those essays about the two latter movies of the trilogy are
really insightful.

  Some people might consider them retrofitting, but I find that doubtful.
I believe that the original script writers had to had at least some of the
same ideas as noted by those essays. For some reason (most probably very
purposefully) they chose to not to deliver the deep symbolism and allegories
readily ruminated on a silver plate to the viewers, but left much of it to
be deduced.

  I think that's one aspect of the Matrix trilogy that sets it apart from
your typical Hollywood movie: It doesn't explain everything in simple terms
for anyone to understand, but leaves much for the viewer to think about and
to try to deduce using (sometimes obscure) clues. No wonder so many people
hate it, because they don't "get it" and they are not accustomed to having
to think so much about a Hollywood blockbuster.

  (Of course part of the hatred is caused by false expectations after seeing
the first movie: Many people formed their own opinions and expectations of
how the trilogy should continue, and when it, quite naturally, didn't go as
they expected, they hated it.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> Tom Galvin wrote:
> 
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9HhktCTMNY
> 
> I was thinking more "Jetsons" than "Flintstones" though XD

Fred is flying, while George is grounded.

Post a reply to this message