Warp wrote:
>   This must be an extreme case:
> 
> http://www.ms-studio.com/typecasting.html
> 
>   Example (when talking bout L.A. Confidential):
> 
> "A newspaper dated 1953 has headlines set in Helvetica Black (1959) and
> Univers (1957) - typefaces which weren't commonly available in the U.S.
> until the sixties."

My own goof spotting in movies is limited to CGI films, and that's when 
I can see what are supposed to be solid objects intersecting (there's a 
scene in the Iron Giant where this happens), or when the use of normal 
perturbation to simulate a pavement crack is painfully obvious (in, to 
my surprise, a scene in Pixar's _Cars_).

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Mike the Elder wrote:
> I know a clone of this guy.  Furthermore, he insists on giving out this
> "valuable" information in the theater WHILE everyone is trying to watch the
> movie. 

I was watching Hackers or some movie like that, where the guy is held on 
a boat by mobsters, trying to break into some remote compter, getting 
smacked around every couple minutes just to make it exciting. The geeks 
around me were all like "that isn't how you break a password" and "why 
doesn't he just use the ssh hole?" when someone else commented "I bet 
there's a mob boss three rows back going 'that isn't how you pistol-whip 
somebody.'"



-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> My own goof spotting in movies is limited to CGI films, and that's when 
> I can see what are supposed to be solid objects intersecting (there's a 
> scene in the Iron Giant where this happens), or when the use of normal 
> perturbation to simulate a pavement crack is painfully obvious (in, to 
> my surprise, a scene in Pixar's _Cars_).

  In Chicken Little it bothered me that soft shadow borders were evenly
soft, without taking into account the distance between the shadowing object
and the surface onto which the shadow was being cast. That is, for example,
when a character was standing on the ground, its shadow border was equally
smooth right where its feet touched the ground as at the part of the shadow
farthest away.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp escribió:
>   In Chicken Little it bothered me that soft shadow borders were evenly
> soft, without taking into account the distance between the shadowing object
> and the surface onto which the shadow was being cast. That is, for example,
> when a character was standing on the ground, its shadow border was equally
> smooth right where its feet touched the ground as at the part of the shadow
> farthest away.
> 

Really? I have even seen a trick to do *correct* soft shadows in 
realtime with fairly basic OpenGL features. I can't believe they didn't 
do proper shadows on a pre-rendered movie...

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   In Chicken Little it bothered me that soft shadow borders were evenly
> soft, without taking into account the distance between the shadowing object
> and the surface onto which the shadow was being cast.

That sucks. I don't really want to buy an HDTV because I can still see 
all the digital compression artifacts after working on image compression 
code for a few years. Must be awful to be so attuned to CGI stuff that 
it can distract you from the content of a movie to notice stuff like the 
edges of shadows not being right. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> That sucks. I don't really want to buy an HDTV because I can still see 
> all the digital compression artifacts after working on image compression 
> code for a few years.

  Finland switched to digital TV broadcasting recently (not necessarily
a good thing IMO), but I haven't bothered buying any kind of receiver
(too expensive, especially for the cable version).

  I recently was at a home where they were watching TV and I got to watch
it from really close. I was shocked at the bad quality of the image! It was
full of mpeg compression artifacts. It was almost like watching a youtube
video in full-screen.

  It seems that digital TV broadcasts use less than half the bitrate of
a typical DVD, and you can sometimes spot mpeg artifacts even in DVD movies.
No wonder the image quality of the digital TV was so bad.

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

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> "I bet 
> there's a mob boss three rows back going 'that isn't how you pistol-whip 
> somebody.'"

roflcakes!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> That sucks. I don't really want to buy an HDTV because I can still see 
>> all the digital compression artifacts after working on image compression 
>> code for a few years.
> 
>   Finland switched to digital TV broadcasting recently (not necessarily
> a good thing IMO), but I haven't bothered buying any kind of receiver
> (too expensive, especially for the cable version).
> 
>   I recently was at a home where they were watching TV and I got to watch
> it from really close. I was shocked at the bad quality of the image! It was
> full of mpeg compression artifacts. It was almost like watching a youtube
> video in full-screen.
> 
>   It seems that digital TV broadcasts use less than half the bitrate of
> a typical DVD, and you can sometimes spot mpeg artifacts even in DVD movies.
> No wonder the image quality of the digital TV was so bad.
> 
>   I clearly remember how they advertised digital TV as increasing the
> image quality compared to analog broadcasts. BS.
> 
The signal to noise ratio is much better for digital. Simply because 
they broadcast the artifacts so if you receive them correctly that is 
within specifications. What you would have preferred is a better signal 
to disturbance ratio, where the signal is the original uncompressed 
signal and the disturbance is anything, noise or artifact that is in the 
received image different from the original. These are two entirely 
different concepts and you can not blame an advertiser to choose the one 
that suits the paying company best.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:47625b72@news.povray.org...
>   This must be an extreme case:
>

I remember going to watch WaterWorld with some of  my 1st year physics
class, the evening after our final exam. We tore it to shreds/

Comments about spring constant, static friction, pressure gradients and the
like.

Fortunatly it was a big movie house, and we were towards the back

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:

> I remember going to watch WaterWorld with some of  my 1st year physics
> class, the evening after our final exam. We tore it to shreds/
> 
> Comments about spring constant, static friction, pressure gradients and the
> like.
> 
> Fortunatly it was a big movie house, and we were towards the back

LOL! I almost want to mate with you...

Don't watch The Matrix. Awesome film, but... not very physically 
correct. (Especially the implied perpetual motion machine.) Fortunately, 
that doesn't detract too much.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message