CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Richard Howard2 › Posts

Posts by Richard Howard2

326 posts shown.

Baraka in Movies ·
I haven't actually sat down to watch it yet, though I've been meaning to...

I assume you're familiar with Koyaanisqatsi? It’s the first installment in that series, and apparently, they spent eight years filming it.

I haven't gotten around to the sequels—Powaqatsi or Nagoyaqatsi—nor have I seen Baraka, but the consensus seems to be that Koyaanisqatsi remains the standout masterpiece.

I happen to have a copy on DivX if you're interested in borrowing it...
Radiohead sucks in Music ·
Radiohead gets on my nerves too. It’s just constant, pathetic whining masquerading as depth. And then everyone sits there listening to it. Then they have the nerve to claim I just don't "get" them.

Of course, those who claim to "understand" are usually the ones talking—people like Pink Floyd, considering they actually wrote a song protesting teachers... 🙄
Rewritable discs do exist, though the real headache is the sheer number of different formats out there—mostly just a byproduct of all those massive tech giants fighting for market dominance...

Anyway, these days you’re mostly seeing people pick up DVD-RW media; the standard ones will probably be obsolete before we know it...
nimblemarlin17 said:If they don't introduce a flat-rate plan, you're honestly better off just renting an original DVD from Blockbuster or borrowing one from a buddy than trying to download movies online.

So, what is the actual subject here: some global shift in technology, or just the typical social and criminal dysfunction we deal with in America?

It seems we are perhaps the only nation left without a decent high-speed flat-rate option...
nimblemarlin17 said:Since we are on the subject of the DVD format, I wonder if anyone else has noticed that the prediction about DivX becoming the "MP3 of movies" hasn't really panned out. The cost of burning movies onto blank DVDs has plummeted so much that using DivX isn't even cheaper or more practical anymore.😁

Precisely. The whole point of DivX is becoming questionable, though it certainly hasn't died off just yet.

The issue is that since a large portion of DVD movies come as dual-layer discs (8.4 GB), I still find myself needing those dual-layer DVDs. They remain quite expensive—roughly $33 per unit—so during this brief window where prices are dropping, we can still take advantage of DivX to squeeze those types of films onto single-layer 4.7 GB discs.

Now, DivX quality is inferior to a standard DVD when you cram it onto a single CD, but if you stretch it across a 4.7 GB DVD, there is, quite literally, no discernible difference in quality.

Furthermore, DivX will likely persist as a medium for internet sharing and backups. Just as we utilize MP3s for music, we will soon be burning DVDs containing compilations of multiple DivX films (you can fit about 10 to 15 movies on one dual-layer disc) and exchanging them over the net.
Richard Hernandez13 said:It is my firm belief that recorders and hard drives integrated into DVD players ought to support real-time recording capabilities. It is a basic necessity.

How much quality can we actually expect from these modern recorders?
Is there some sort of compromise being made between recording speeds and image quality?

Technology continues its relentless march forward, yet I find myself thinking that we aren't even facing any significant hurdles as it stands.

Modern devices equipped with an HDD now feature time-shifting capabilities. This essentially means that while a program is still being recorded, you can already begin watching what has been captured. Furthermore, they offer on-screen editing tools for your recorded material, which you can eventually burn onto a DVD.

Everything out there offers far superior alternatives to VHS. The only real issue is that many of us simply aren't used to it; people struggle to believe that the whole process is actually much simpler than they think. When you factor in that a standard DVD now costs about the same as an old VHS tape—and considering we can record significantly more footage onto an HDD depending on the quality and capacity—VHS just doesn't stand a chance anymore.

It’s only a matter of time—give it a year or two, maybe less—but the distribution of VHS films is going to grind to a complete halt. It's inevitable.

If we push this line of thinking even further, what year are we actually looking at—maybe 2006 or 2007—for when Blu-ray and HD-DVD finally hit the shelves here in the States? We're talking about formats with capacities around 30GB that will actually carry high-definition footage. It might be the moment we finally experience true digitalization.

The fundamental issue remains that even with today's hardware, the entire system hasn't truly achieved full digitalization yet.
The reality of our setup is somewhat underwhelming. Most of the footage we capture—and frankly, most of the cameras used in filmmaking in general—is primarily analog, with the exception of digital satellite broadcasts. However, even those digital signals aren't truly digital by the time they reach us. Our satellite receivers lack any legitimate digital outputs; instead, they provide standard analog RCA connections. This means the signal is forced through a D/A converter before it ever hits our gear. From there, we feed those analog inputs into a system that records onto a digital DVD format. Consequently, we aren't achieving a true full-path digital transfer. It is, quite simply, a loss in quality.

The digital revolution finally arrived this year with the introduction of HDMI devices. Specifically, we saw the debut of the first HDMI DVD player, the Pioneer 868, alongside the first HDMI-compatible display, the Pioneer plasma PDP-HD404.

HDMI It is finally happening. After more than two decades of being stuck with the limitations of SCART, we are seeing a global standard that actually moves us forward—a fully digital transfer for both audio and video capable of handling massive amounts of data. Up until this point, our only options for purely digital transfers were DVI, which is strictly video-only, or FireWire via i.Link, which could handle both audio and video for DV camcorders. However, both of those standards fall short because they simply lack the necessary bandwidth to sustain a high-quality signal. For instance, FireWire tops out at 400 Mbit/s, which is barely enough to push through basic television resolution. We need more.
That is precisely why we have HDMI. With a bandwidth reaching up to 5 Gbps—which, if you think about it, is roughly ten times faster than a standard HDD—it provides the necessary headroom to handle high-definition video and audio from next-gen media like HD-DVD and Blu-ray. It’s also designed to accommodate those high-definition TV signals that have already been broadcasting here in the US and over in Japan for several years now. As for Europe, they should be seeing similar transitions around 2006.

The role of legacy FireWire is finally shifting toward high-end digital music transfer. For much of the last decade—that awkward transition period from analog to digital—we’ve relied on coaxial or optical connections. Honestly, those have always provided enough bandwidth for standard CD players or even Dolby Digital and DTS tracks on a DVD. But let’s face it: the era of the basic CD is dying. We are moving into the age of Super Audio CD and DVD-Audio, which demand true high-definition sound. Up until now, you were pretty much stuck using analog connections to hear that level of detail, but starting this year, we are seeing FireWire integrated for digital signal transfer. It’s an ideal solution.

And just like that, we are witnessing the total transition to a full-digital workflow. It’s happening right before our eyes. Back in 2001, Pitof shot the first entirely HDD-based film—not a single scrap of tape used—captured on a digital camera, titled *Vidocq*. Later, in 2002, they went ahead and transferred it onto standard tape. The editing was handled on an Apple Mac G4. A strange era, really. Moving from physical reels to bits and bytes... quite a shift.

Back in 2002, George Lucas released Star Wars: Attack of the Clones, which stands as the first true digital Hollywood production. His original intention was to bypass analog film entirely, but he was ultimately forced to concede. It turns out that even here in the States—let alone across the rest of the world—there simply weren't enough fully digital theaters available to make such a move commercially viable at the time.

The avalanche has officially begun. Once DVD, Blu-ray, HD-DVD, and HDTV become deeply ingrained in our American consumer habits—and once movie theaters finally finish their modernization—we’re going to see the systematic recording of digital films.

As the right technology becomes available (think full-path digital A/V receivers, Sony already has one for about $27 $0.00, along with HDMI-equipped HD LCD and Plasma screens, projectors, and eventually DVD/Blu-ray players), I can say with some confidence that we are entering an era where we can experience all media, whether audio or video, exactly as it was intended in the studio. No loss, no compromise.
nimblemarlin17 said:Of course it's a hundred times better. You won't even need DVDs anymore, except for the originals you buy. Everything you burn will just sit on a hard drive with about 200 GB of space. Why bother with discs when you have a hard drive like that?

Transfer methods will likely dwindle down to just flash cards. We can already pick up a 1 GB USB flash drive, and in just a few years, we'll be buying 10-20 GB cards for next to nothing.

A year ago, a PC DVD burner cost $667, now it's $167, while a high-end model was $2667, and now it's only 2000-$1000.

I suppose the conclusion is that the future looks promising...
Drew Young10 said:I miss being able to record whatever I want directly from my TV—like catching a series, or pausing a movie because I have to step out for a second. This modern tech just doesn't allow for that.😢
In my view, that's a massive drawback for the DVD format.


Perhaps you overlooked this, but DVD recorders have actually been around for quite some time now.
Raymond Jones78 said:Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

Absolutely terrible!

A complete and utter disaster!

A comic book movie should be something, but this? It’s nothing.👎

For today's audience, it isn't even remotely funny—just a miserably misguided attempt at entertainment. Good grief, what a waste of precious time spent sitting in a theater watching this garbage!

Wait, you actually went to see it!? Well, I suppose I'll have to watch my step next time...
Richard Hernandez13 said:Things to Come is serious sci-fi, written by H. G. Wells as a response to Lang's Metropolis.

There's zero pulp to be found in that.


And what, exactly, was it supposed to be?
casualotter21 said:Yeah, I heard. Watched it! It was on some American TV station back when I was starting elementary school, and I sat through the whole thing.

My take? It probably influenced the Sky Lord, but honestly, it’s just another sci-fi romp from the 1930s. I can't find anything in that movie that hasn't been seen elsewhere—at least not regarding the design of the tanks, planes, and whatnot.

BTW, Icepick, I am finally sitting down to write that film review for the blog! 👋


Unfortunately, I didn't make it out to New York with my college crew for the international art and design expo this year, but I've been briefed on what was shown. Among the exhibits, you'll find the entire architectural landscape of the 20th century. Included in those selected cult studies are futuristic visions by famous architects created specifically for film—everything from Metropolis to Blade Runner—and one of the more intriguing pieces is certainly the set design from Things to Come.
I’m not entirely sure if you folks have ever heard of this particular motion picture, but it stands as one of those rare films that had a profound influence on GNISS— http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/archives/thingstocome1024x768.jpg]Things to Come[/URL] directed by Cameron Menzies back in 1936.
Icepick said:The Incredibles is an animated film, whereas GNISS is not....


Really? I don't follow...

Regardless, they share a conceptual foundation—both deal with a fairy-tale-esque world defined by its visual aesthetic. That specific style is pushed to its absolute limit and fully realized in The Incredibles, whereas in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, it just isn't quite there.
I just finished watching an excellent copy of The Incredibles...

In my estimation, conceptually speaking, The Incredibles actually pulled off what Sky Captain failed to achieve.

That whole island setting and those robots? They bear an incredible resemblance to Sky Captain, though one leans heavily into a 30s aesthetic while the other goes for a more modern 60s vibe...

Ultimately, the point is that a film doesn't need to be somber—Sky Captain certainly didn't intend to be—but internal consistency is something The Incredibles maintains, whereas Sky Captain completely loses its way during the second half.
I don't have the same issues you people do. I typically seek out those films that aren't exactly mainstream hits, or if I do decide to see a blockbuster, I wait until its run is nearly over. My actual grievance lies with the advertisements and the exorbitant price I'm forced to pay—essentially paying a premium just to sit through commercials.
Adam Wright56, just because I mentioned the movie lacks internal consistency doesn't mean I’m demanding it be some heavy-handed drama. You're acting like I'm some kid who can't grasp adult nuance here.

Look, I realize the film isn't "serious." But the core philosophy it established early on? It just evaporated halfway through. The whole vibe was built on atmosphere and nostalgia, yet by the end, all that remained was pure silliness and naivety. I have nothing against being lighthearted or naive, but that specific atmospheric concept—that was lost entirely.

To put it in perspective—it’s like if they filmed a Batman movie that started out being truly Burtonesque, specifically like Batman Returns—dark, grotesque, naive, even a bit funny—but then suddenly pivoted into a Schumacheresque mess like Batman Forever, all bright colors and cheap effects with zero trace of that initial mood left.

Do you see my point? Both the beginning and the end are comic-bookish and silly, but the inconsistency lies in the shift.
nimblemarlin17 said:I actually don't mind commercials since I'm usually running late anyway; I have nothing against a little extra lead time. But those AT&T ads? Yeah, I agree, they're completely unnecessary and just annoying. Honestly, I usually end up going to Regal Cinemas because the free parking is a huge plus for me when I'm driving.

Just remember you're paying for $12 a movie ticket—which is one standard ticket plus paying for parking twice. 😉
coastalorca3 said:Honestly, everyone is just being far too high-strung. It's all quite unnecessary.

I have always had a penchant for watching the highlights. During the commercial breaks, I find myself messing around with my friends.

If you truly want to experience hell on earth, try watching a movie on Italian television. You get five or six commercial breaks scattered throughout the entire film. Compared to that, what we deal with here is nothing.


Look, let’s be honest: Italians are arguably the biggest bunch of hicks on the planet, right up there with Americans. It’s just a fact. But honestly? CNN is catching up to them fast.
Here is the crux of the matter.

After being slapped with outrageously high bills for utilizing technology that’s basically a century old—I am talking about a landline phone here—after being fleeced for amounts that exceed my actual income, this very same corporation proceeds to rob and belittle me. They even go so far as to coerce and blackmail me when I pay my hefty $12 for movie tickets.

The implication is clear: they are stealing from me even when I am not using their services. It means they are imposing costs upon me and extorting me for things that simply do not function. It is pure exploitation.
I am fully aware that movie theater advertisements have the most significant impact precisely because you are forced to sit there and watch them. But quite simply, this is a violation of basic moral principles. An individual who, as an honest citizen, pays a premium—given the current cost of living—should not be coerced into consuming advertisements. In a theoretical world governed by justice, everything should have its limits, yet in practice, it seems there are none at all.

Regardless, the powerless individual always loses while massive corporations exploit us like dictators, and I believe one ought to fight against such things.

Why are there laws designed to protect pathetic corporations from the illegal distribution of pirated movies and music, yet there are absolutely no laws to protect a single, struggling person from being exploited by corporations through coercion and extortion?

We live in a democratic society? Is that the claim? I certainly haven't noticed.