On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 00:28:17 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 23 Jan 2009 19:25:02 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:23:41 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 23 Jan 2009 13:44:15 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> Any examples?
>>>>
>>>>Let me see if I can track it down again....
>>>>
>>>>Here's the Slashdot article I started from http://tech.slashdot.org/
>>>>article.pl?sid=08/11/14/1653221
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Thanks
>>
>>Handy that it was still in my RSS reader. :-)
>>
>>
> Rune did that years ago :)

Well, yeah - and I loved the hologram projector video he did, too.  This 
particular software doesn't need camera tracking, though, which Rune 
used.  In the demo app, you can plug in a video and define a region in 
one frame, and the program tracks it and replaces it.  It even deals with 
occluding objects passing between the camera and the target frame in the 
video.

That's pretty cool.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 24 Jan 2009 00:59:06 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>That's pretty cool.

True.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, yeah - and I loved the hologram projector video he did, too.  This
> particular software doesn't need camera tracking, though, which Rune
> used.  In the demo app, you can plug in a video and define a region in
> one frame, and the program tracks it and replaces it.  It even deals with
> occluding objects passing between the camera and the target frame in the
> video.

Not sure what you mean with "camera tracking". As far as I know, Rune didn't
use any hardware that recorded the camera movement. He used software that
analyzed the video and figured out how the camera had moved.

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Invisible [mailto:voi### [at] devnull]
> Yeah - because nobody would take SD content and put it onto an HD disk
> and attempt to sell it as HD. No sir! ;-)

Up until a few years ago, everything was done on film.  Film doesn't
have resolution.

IIRC, Ep II was the first movie filmed entirely with digital cameras,
and they were HD cameras.

Now, everything filmed digital is HD.

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Up until a few years ago, everything was done on film.  Film doesn't
> have resolution.

Yes, it does. It's called "grain". Look at really old film (or see the 
opening scenes in the newer Casino Royale James Bond film for a 
post-processing effect).

What movie film *does* have is grain that's far higher resolution than your 
display.

> IIRC, Ep II was the first movie filmed entirely with digital cameras,
> and they were HD cameras.

But they were only 1280x1024 tricolor-pixel cameras, so it's not even what 
you get on a HDTV, if I recall correctly.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Darren New [mailto:dne### [at] sanrrcom]
> Chambers wrote:
> > Up until a few years ago, everything was done on film.  Film doesn't
> > have resolution.
>
> Yes, it does. It's called "grain". Look at really old film (or see the
> opening scenes in the newer Casino Royale James Bond film for a
> post-processing effect).

True, and it's one of those differences between the ideal and reality.  In 
reality, film grain limits the effective resolution of the image.

> > IIRC, Ep II was the first movie filmed entirely with digital cameras,
> > and they were HD cameras.
>
> But they were only 1280x1024 tricolor-pixel cameras, so it's not even
> what
> you get on a HDTV, if I recall correctly.

Cool, I didn't remember the exact resolution.  I do remember that they 
couldn't carry the storage on the camera; they had to use multiple 
cables[1] from each camera to a separate storage server, where the images 
were stored uncompressed[2] for processing.

[1] Due to high bandwidth needs, I'm pretty sure they used multiple cables 
per camera.
[2] Film / audio used in a studio is usually stored uncompressed for 
processing.  But everyone here probably already knows that...

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen [mailto:mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom]
> I read recently that because of that there is a scheme being trailed
> (in the UK)
> to place adverts in clear areas of the screen. Even more obtrusive to
> my mind.

In the US they already do that.  Placing adverts at the bottom of the
screen, or on the side, while the show is on.

Extremely annoying, especially when some goofball on one of the comedies
dances around the screen in the middle of a movie.

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

A render isn't slow unless it won't finish until after your next
birthday.

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: scott [mailto:sco### [at] scottcom]
> What they need is a two-tier system, where you can pay extra to
> have channels with no adverts, but not sure how that might work.
> Those sort of systems can make more money than having just one product.

Maybe the two-tier system should be:

1) A la carte pay-per-view, with no commercials.  Whether it's a show, or 
a movie, or the news, you pay for what you watch (pro-rating the ones you 
cut short, so you can watch eg the first half hour of a movie and decide 
you don't like it).

2) Internet style, one segment of the screen is the show, and the rest of 
it (bottom and side 25%, maybe) is adverts.  The show is uninterrupted, 
and so are the adverts, but it's free for everyone to watch.

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:24:43 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, yeah - and I loved the hologram projector video he did, too. 
>> This particular software doesn't need camera tracking, though, which
>> Rune used.  In the demo app, you can plug in a video and define a
>> region in one frame, and the program tracks it and replaces it.  It
>> even deals with occluding objects passing between the camera and the
>> target frame in the video.
> 
> Not sure what you mean with "camera tracking". As far as I know, Rune
> didn't use any hardware that recorded the camera movement. He used
> software that analyzed the video and figured out how the camera had
> moved.

From what I remember, he used a piece of software that used to be free 
that isn't any more.  But I don't remember the details now....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> 1) A la carte pay-per-view, with no commercials.  Whether it's a show, or
> a movie, or the news, you pay for what you watch (pro-rating the ones you
> cut short, so you can watch eg the first half hour of a movie and decide
> you don't like it).
>
> 2) Internet style, one segment of the screen is the show, and the rest of
> it (bottom and side 25%, maybe) is adverts.  The show is uninterrupted,
> and so are the adverts, but it's free for everyone to watch.

You'd have to make sure that cost of 2) + bigger TV + piece of black 
cardboard was greater than cost of 1) :-)

Post a reply to this message