Jump to content

MattP

Member
  • Posts

    661
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MattP

  1. A pretty good game to end the season, at least if you're a fan of defense. Tebow's got to be the most overexposed, overhyped college football player ever, but darn if he doesn't just find a way to get it done.
  2. Please note that the first down marker is about a foot to the left of the forty yard line. The guy holding the first down marker is leaning to the right. Therefore, if you look at the top of the first down marker, it appears that the ball is across the first down marker. However, if you look at the base of the first down marker (which is the point where the first down is measured), the ball has not crossed the plane marking a new first down. The receiver's feet, obviously, have not only not crossed that plane, but they haven't crossed the forty yard line. Yes, this is picky, but by such inches games are won and lost. Conclusion: no first down. Buckeyes take over on downs, and in all likelihood win the game. Before the argument was that he didn't even reach the 40. You seem to be - ahem - moving the goalposts. In the end, the goalpost in that shot doesn't REALLY matter anyway, because weren't the chains actually on the other side of the field? I believe opposite side marker's basically just "eyeballed" by the official holding it. So the question is really did they spot the ball in the proper place compared to where the forward progress stopped. :hypnodisk: That isn't the game you're looking for... :hypnodisk: That's a great shot, thwackum. Should put the issue to rest for all but the most sweater-vested fans.
  3. MattP

    Big Hollywood

    Say hello to Big Hollywood. Apparently this launched yesterday. It looks like a Huff-style blog aggregation site focused on right-leaning politics and culture, particularly as they pertain to Hollywood. Breitbart is/was Matt Drudge's right hand man at The Drudge Report, and also runs breitbart.com, which was no doubt set up to take advantage of the fact that Drudge was sending so many eyeballs to AP-type stories that they might as well keep all that revenue to themselves. I found out about this from Dallas Jenkins, who has one of the first posts up: Does Hollywood Love Christians Now?
  4. Look at that still I posted. His knees are right at the 40. The rest of his body is leaning forward. Look at the first down marker on the sideline behind him. I'm not sure where the argument that he didn't reach the 40 is coming from.
  5. ::doh:: Ha ha! Denial is a truly powerful thing I guess. Here's a link to the same video I grabbed that screenshot from. (By the way, it took me way longer to create this fake computer generated highlight video and hack it onto Fox's site than it did to photoshop that picture, so I hope you enjoy it. )
  6. Since I had erased the game already, I had to grab this from a screenshot of a streaming highlights video on the Fox Sports website, so the quality's pretty bad. I don't remember the broadcast well enough to even remember if they showed this angle during the broadcast or not to be honest. I agree that the two refs did a really bad job of initially spotting him down in two different places, but it looks like in the end they got it right to me.
  7. Andy, which play are you talking about? (Sorry, I'm being serious.) I was assuming you're talking about the 4th and 3 that was challenged with about :40 seconds to go, but that was with the Texas receiver needing to reach the Ohio State 40, not needing to reach the Texas 45, so I'm wondering if you're talking about a different play. Unfortunately I've already deleted the game off my DVR, so I can't go back and replay it to find out for sure. If you ARE talking about the challenged spot with about :40 left, well, I really do wish we didn't seem to end up on opposite sides of every discussion, but I'm fairly confident that I could at least find a screenshot for you showing that the call was the correct one.
  8. Not sure if it counts since it's the early 60's, but after watching a few Mad Men episodes lately I'm definitely feeling the "not-so-good-old-days" as a recurring theme. When was the last time there was a high profile "those really WERE the good old days" film? Maybe some people still look back on it that way, but apparently not many filmmakers, me thinks...
  9. Hmm. Spacewise, I need a 40-46 inch. I was thinking a Samsung LCD LN46A550 or something like that. But I was sold on 1080P--why don't you think that's a must have? The difference between 1080p and 720p is limited completely to the number of lines of resolution that the screen natively displays. So more is better, right? The problem is, there's a limit to the number of lines of resolution that our eyes can really sees, and it's dependent of course on how far from the tv you sit. Consider a situation where you're sitting 50 feet from a tv. Not likely I know, but as an example, you might not even be able to tell the difference between HD and SD at that distance, and the difference there is huge. The difference between 1080p and 720p is small enough that the vast majority of people will never be able to tell the difference, regardless of how close they're sitting. But most of the quasi-scientific evidence I've seen suggests that even for those who know enough to be able to see the difference up close, they have to be seated closer than 8 feet or so from the screen on a 42-26" screen. Any farther than that and your eye's simply not powerful enough to resolve the extra detail in the image. Like Alan, I've got a 720p projector. Since it's on a massive screen, I'm sure you could tell the difference in 1080p on it. But there are so many things about an image that are more important than those extra lines of resolution (proper color, contrast, black level, etc.) that it would've cost me a fortune to get a 1080p that was as good in those areas. Most of the time, for "budget" 1080p sets, you're going to sacrifice stuff like color and black levels to be able to afford the extra resolution. And it just doesn't make any sense if you're sitting far enough away (8+ feet on your size screen) that you won't be able to notice the difference anyway. I initially bought a high def player (mine was HD-DVD, but the quality and resolution are the same as Blu-Ray) before I had my projector. Hooking it up to my 50" plasma I could see marginally better picture quality. A little sharper, the colors popped a little better. But I'm talking marginally. I actually had to switch back and forth for an A-B comparison between the dvd and hd-dvd versions of the movies I had to even pinpoint the differences. I'm a stickler for PQ, and price wasn't a huge factor as the player was for sale, but even still I returned it. I just couldn't see enough benefit from it. Now, fast forward to my new house where I was able to install a projector, and it became almost mandatory for me. The PQ difference on my size screen is massive between the two, and now SD dvds look blurry to me. It's actually kind of frustrating, because I would probably be generally happy watching SD dvds still if it weren't for knowing I had a BD player sitting there next to it. So I pretty much never rent or buy anything SD anymore unless they just don't offer it in BD. Blu-ray's still going to be the standard for a good while. In fact, because everyone knows that the future will always be downloads, blu-ray may be the last real disc based format to gain any ground at all. The problem with downloads is that it's still really hard to find many good HD downloads, whereas more and more catalog films are being released on BD. And the time it takes to download them is extremely long compared to the SD versions. For me, it's way quicker to run to blockbuster if I don't have what I need already at the house than it would be to download/stream an HD film. And then of course there's the lack of any extras on download versions... Not just Comcast, but virtually all of the cable/sat companies compress their HD to a greater or lesser degree. Directv has been really bad about it for years now. If at all possible, it's always best to get all the channels you can OTA. People are shocked when they watch tv at our house to find that not only is over-the-air HD free, but it's also higher quality than you'll get from any cable or satellite company. It's amazing that so few people know that you can get HD programming for free with just a cheap basic antenna. But since nobody makes money off of it, nobody markets it. Of course, this is only for networks and local channels, not stuff like ESPN or CNN. But since you mention it, the problem's just as bad (if not worse) on HD downloads. Everybody's focused on resolution, but they need to get download sizes as small as possible for fast download and lower cost, so they just cut the bitrate and compress everything to death. HD doesn't always mean HD unfortunately. (Or rather, there's unfortunately no hard definition for what HD means to begin with, so companies can pretty much get away with calling whatever they want HD.
  10. 2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned...
  11. Panasonic's a really good brand. You can get their consumer line 42" plasma for under $750 pretty regularly. For heaven's sake, don't buy into the 1080p marketing (unless you're watching on something bigger than 50" or sitting REALLY close, and even then the difference is negligible.) Costco is a great place to buy - usually good prices and a great return policy compared to anywhere else. Online, VisualApex is good. Longevity on anything you're buying now will be fine. By the time you need a replacement you'll be way behind the times again anyway. Don't base your purchase on what you see in a store ever. If the display's calibrated properly on the set you're looking at, it's wrong on the one you're comparing it to, or vice verse. Base your purchase on what you read on a forum like avsforum.com. As always, extended warranties depend on how long you're getting for how much, but usually they're a pretty bad deal. Visual Apex had a special going when I got my 50" Panasonic plasma from them where they were offering a free 5-year warranty, but otherwise no way would I have bought one. If you're only spending $750, chances are good that an equivalent replacement for the tv you buy will be under $500 in a year or two, and the chances that your $200 warranty is going to end up helping you are pretty low. There's a reason stores push them so hard - that's where their highest profit margins are. And finally, and this is just my opinion (but it's the right one!) if you have a chance to, go with plasma, not LCD. LCDs in general look much more "digital", whereas a good plasma has a smoother, more film-like look. LCDs are all the rage right now, and manufacturers are pushing them because they're cheaper to manufacturer, but you just can't beat a good plasma. If LCD fanboys try to warn you about plasma burn-in, I've had 3 plasmas and never had a problem with it. I'm pretty sure it's a non-issue ever since the first few years. My model's two years old now, and I watch any and everything on it - stuff with black bars, stuff with static logos, video games, pause it on static images for hours, you name it, and there's zero burn in. I say "if you have a chance to" because I'm not even sure if they make plasmas under 42". But there are plenty of opportunities to find good (not off-brand Walmart stuff) 42" plasmas for your price range. I heavily recommend you read up on avsforum about the 42" Panasonic line. It's been a fan favorite over their for years due to its great value and high PQ. I've seen them for sale a few times recently for $699. I've got the 50" version and have literally never seen another tv - 1080p or otherwise - for under $3000 that has better PQ to my eye. But if you've got to go under 42" for space reasons or something, I'm not sure if you'll be able to stay away from LCD. Hope something in there helps.
  12. Interesting running thread in those reviews Peter. Thanks for posting them. I don't know, it's definitely warped, but I don't know if I wouldn't characterize it at least partly as love. At least as it relates to Dawson's character. I'm thinking specifically of the scene where Ben questions the doctor towards the end of the film. At this point, it seems apparent that he really is concerned more with her than with himself, and does what he does (or goes through with doing what he already planned to do) against his growing desire not to for her ultimate well-being. This is the one case where it feels like he's thinking ultimately of the other and not of himself. FWIW, I found this article (I linked to page 2 of it) that contains an interesting tidbit. Smith too had a few notes, including revising the original fantastical ending to make it more relatable. "That turned out to be a great note because it allowed me to bring the love story (involving a cardiac patient) full circle in a way that I never had in my earlier drafts," Nieporte says. I'd love to know he's talking about there, specifically.
  13. Yeah, I could be wrong about that. I'm remembering off some quotes from the Ace Ventura days if I remember correctly, so who knows.
  14. FWIW, the screenwriter - Grant Nieporte - is a Christian. Which, depending on if/how you like to categorize these things, means three of the biggest movies of the past two weekends (Seven Pounds, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Yes Man) were all heavily influenced by the work of self-proclaimed Christians. (Nieporte, Smith, Derrickson, Carrey)
  15. Sorry BBB, not sure what you're referring to. I skimmed some of the comments, but didn't notice a cohesive thread other than "good luck." Will it work? I don't know. I generally believe in the ability of the masses to stay one step ahead of the authorities if they work hard enough at it. Can it work? It can certainly work a lot better than the lawsuits have.
  16. Sure it does. The problem the RIAA has had all along is that it's so costly to sue, and so difficult to prove offense if a case actually goes to court, that file sharers aren't the least bit scared by the infinitesimally small chance of getting sued. The ISPs on the other hand, have all the necessary info to really do damage to the sharers. They know exactly who's using the services in question, and not just an IP, but name, address, etc. And they have the potential to do damage to them much easier - ie. cut off or disrupt their service, or eventually charge them. If the RIAA can convince the ISPs that they're better off working with them instead of against them (with their customers?) they'll be able to do much more to actually disrupt file sharing than they've been able to do so far. And all it's likely to take to convince the ISPs is a big enough financial incentive.
  17. MattP

    Mondegreens!

    My favorite was my best friend, who was convinced that the chorus in Beck's "Loser" started "Smo-oh-oh-kin the dope." When I told him it was "Soy un perdador" he laughed and mockingly said "Sure, whatever that means." The same friend sing the national anthem in school as "Oh, sake and you see." I didn't even realize it until I saw him write the lyrics of the song on his Trapper Keeper one day.
  18. Wow, that's strange. I've never seen that before. (Panning-and-scanning outside the 2.4 image.) What sort of film were they shooting that they felt they had enough resolution to not use the full image for the desired framing? It makes me think of the new camera coming out from RED that will shoot up to a ridiculous 28k. My plan is to set one up pointed out a window of a downtown highrise at the city streets and just let it roll for a few hours. Then I'll spend a few years in post zooming into all the different parts of the image to find interesting things going on and cut a story together with them.
  19. My bad on the IMAX aspect ratio. I was getting it confused with the European thing. (Can you tell I've only rarely even been to an IMAX theater?) The scaling thing is not zooming, but it does involve stretching. The overall purpose of a CIH theater is to replicate what you see traditionally in movie theaters - a "constant image height" whether you're watching 1.85 or 2.4. Instead of adding black bars to the top and bottom for stuff wider than 1.85, you simply open the sides curtains wider. The result is that 2.4 stuff always looks "bigger" than 1.85 stuff in a scope theater (the way God intended ). At home, whether I watch 4:3, 16:9, or 2.4:1, everything stays a constant height, but the picture gets wider or narrower. 4:3 stuff is the smallest, 16:9 is in the middle, and 2.4:1 is the biggest. On a 16:9 screen, 16:9 material looks the biggest and 2.4 material has the huge black bars. (Unfortunately some theaters are starting to add masking to the top and bottom instead of the sides now as well. A prime example was when I went to see Australia at a different theater than I'm used to. To my dismay, we were treated to 20 minutes of trailers and commercials in 1.85, then the screen shrunk for the supposedly epic movie. It just felt wrong.) Back to the scaling thing. One way to technically accomplish the above is to literally zoom the projector so the black bars go off the top and bottom of the screen. Of course this zooms the sides out as well, which makes the picture fit properly on a wider scope screen. BUT, you're only using about 66% of the vertical pixels on the projector because many of them are being wasted on black bars you're not seeing. This means you're getting worse resolution, bigger, more noticeable pixels, and you're losing 1/3 of the projector's light potential as well. The other option involves scaling the images instead of zooming it. Picture a 2.4 image on a 16:9 screen. Now imagine that you have a device (sometimes the projector, sometimes an external scaler) that is capable of removing the black bars and stretching the image vertically to fit the full screen. Now you're using all the light output of the projector, and you're using all of the projector's pixels. Of course, the image is stretched vertically though, which is why the key component in a scope theater is an anamorphic lens adapter that stretches the image the same 33% horizontally that the scaler stretched it vertically. Now you've got your 2.4 image with no black bars, you're using 100% of the projector's pixels and light, and you get to watch scope material in the largest size possible. (BTW, if you've ever seen a strip of anamorphic 35mm film, this is exactly the way that they do it as well. The film frames are each "stretched" vertically to fill the roughly 1.85 aspect ratio of the film frame, and then the theater's projector uses an anamorphic lens that stretches it horizontally to achieve the proper ratio.) Here are a few pics of the end result on my theater. (I also slightly curved the screen and put the speakers behind it to really try to replicate the theater experience.) 4:3 (image is washed out, but you get the idea) 16:9 2.4:1 But I suppose we're pretty OT here at this point. Sorry Alan...
  20. Just watched the bluray. My theater has a 2.4:1 "scope" aspect ratio, so the experience was a little different for me than it will be for most, but on a 16:9 screen yes, the black bars will disappear during the IMAX sequences. I believe true IMAX aspect ratio is 1.66:1, so they did "adjust" it to fit the 1.78:1 of 16:9 tvs. Of course, almost every 1.78:1 movie does this nowadays, as "enhanced for widescreen dvds" that you see on most dvds basically means they've cut the original 1.85 to fit 1.78, otherwise you'd have little black bar slivers on almost every movie. (And of course when shooting film, there's traditionally at least some visual information missing even on a standard 35mm print being shown on a 1.78 screen, as the director typically has "title safe" areas that all the important information is kept within due to overscan on the projectors at the theater, variance in masking standards from theater to theater (among theaters that mask at the lens instead of just letting the "extra" information bleed out onto the black masking around the screen), etc....) FWIW, when I tried it in my theater with my screen in 16:9 mode, I didn't find the experience to be all that impressive, probably because the changes to 1.78 are not as drastic as 1.66 would have been in the IMAX. It definitely wasn't enough of a wow factor for me to abandon watching it in full 2.4 scope mode. Which basically replicated the non-IMAX theater experience; no changing aspect ratios, but no black bars at all at any time. Oh, and from what I've read, the regular dvd just does the 2.4 without the 1.78 stuff. EDIT: Just for you Peter, because I know you like arcane trivia like this so much: there's a bit of a mini-uproar among a subset of CIH (constant image height) home theater aficionados over the decision by WB to do the switching aspect ratios on the bluray without providing a 2.4-only option like the regular dvd uses. Why, you ask? Because whereas most CIH theaters (like mine) use a scaler to scale the 2.4 image to the full 1.78 height, effectively cutting out the black bars in the process, some do a sort of "poor man's CIH" where they just zoom the projector image so that the black bars are projected off of the screen onto the masking. On TDK bluray, when I watch it using the scaler, the "extra" IMAX bits just get scaled off into never-never land and they never factor in to my viewing experience. For those using the zoom method, the IMAX image is now projected off the top and bottom of their screen onto their masking, or wall, or whatever. Which obviously isn't the look they're going for. But anyway, all this may be outside even your bounds of curiosity...
  21. You buckeye fans still have about 2 years worth of built-up chips on your shoulders, huh? I'm amazed at how everyone quotes the old adage "Defense wins championships" yet no one seems to believe it. A high scoring offense without a defense is like a pretty girl with an STD. Everything seems perfect until they get tested...
  22. Man, you guys up there just never learn do you? The sooners have no defense. Sure, they're the #1 scoring offense, but FL is #3. On the other side of the ball though, FL is #5 compared to OU's #57. I hesitate to say that this game's not going to be close, but add in Stoops' propensity to blow big games, and OU's miserable BCS record in general, and this one's got all the makings of an SEC three-peat.
  23. They were still stuck in Moscow, according to what I've read.
  24. Haven't used it myself, but I've had GIMP come really recommended from a few folks before. I believe it's free. EDIT: Or if you're no longer able to use it, ebay your Windows Photoshop and use the cash to buy Mac Photoshop.
  25. MattP

    In Bruges (2008)

    Not sure how he wouldn't be lead, unless you're suggesting that the film doesn't have a lead at all. He's the screen-time focus and emotional center of the film, imo.
×
×
  • Create New...