I was gonna come up here and write about something else, which I was forming in my mind as I made myself something to eat: a 2/3-3/4lb hamburger, fried. Growing up around my mother's kitchen, I developed a rebellion against the blandness she tends to prefer. In other words, I spice the hell outta my cooking. My favorites include the crushed red pepper, garlic powder, black pepper, Italian seasoning (in small doses)... oh yeah, and Tabasco sauce.
I've fried burgers before, never did too well, until we started getting "logs" of ground beef from both Food Lion and Harris Teeter. It's real easy, cut off how much you want, put the slice flatways on your cutting board, and pound into a patty, rounding the edges with your hands. I could never get this right from ground beef in the trays, and it's actually cheaper this way if you catch the sales - I've gotten 2lb. logs for $2.98. You can't beat that.
Anyway, back to my burger. I've got at least 2/3lb of meat, but not much more than 3/4lb, if that. I hammer it out, and put my usual seasoning mix on the patty. I drop it facedown into the skillet, and then season the other side.
I walk away - no, not like that. I wasn't gone long, not at all. I think my problem was having the heat on too high. It wasn't on High, but it was close enough, and for a patty that thick, you gotta cook it longer, lower. That and maybe the Italian seasoning and/or minced onions, which I don't think I've put on a burger before. Either way, this terrible, horrible smell and there's more smoke than you'd believe coming off the skillet. The fan was on (leads directly outside) but it wasn't pulling enough.
So I run and get our spare fan, a piece of crap I got for under $5. It can push some air, but it won't keep ya cool. Got that set up to aid the wall fan - didn't do much, the smoke detector goes off. So I pull the smoke detector, toss it on the bed in the spare bedroom, and go get the main fan we have in the bedroom, opening the back door along the way. I put it by the front door, opened that too, had to prop it open with my cooler. And I turned the stove off.
Believe it or not, I plan on eating that burger. I don't think there's anything wrong with the meat itself, but I expect with the combination of spices, it may taste funky. Anyway, I checked the burger, put the slices of cheese on it, was about to take it, but thought twice. I cut it clean in half - red and bleeding in the middle. Now some folks would eat it like that, but not me. I don't like my cow to moo when I bite into it, y'know? Now it's cooking again - and not smoking near as much.
Update... It's done, and... Bloody hell, I forgot to put the fries on! I am going to call this the "Hell Burger". It was hell to make and it's gonna be hell to eat, too. And I'm pissed as hell I don't got my fries with it.
Another update, having taken a couple bites... It's not bad. A little chewy because the top and bottom got burned. I see a little pink in the middle, but that isn't bad. As long as meat's medium well - which this is - it's fine. But medium to rare or less cooked, and I just wouldn't be able to hold it down. I think my stomach will reject food that isn't cooked all the way (or maybe it's just a mental thing).
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
The ethics of emulation
First of all, to define emulation and give a little history on it. A flashcart is defined as a blank cartridge which fits a video game console the same way a game does, but comes blank and can be filled with one or more games. Japan, with its looser copyright laws, has toys you can't really get in America. One such toy, the cart copier, sits between a game and a console, with a wire that plugs into your computer (used to be serial, now USB, I imagine). You plug this bad boy up, and you can copy games to your computer or run games on the console, from the computer. I think the Japanese had services where you could pay to download games into a flashcart, like renting or maybe even buying. At some point, some genius somewhere took a game backup (aka, a ROM) and made a program which would let them play it on the PC. Now, many years later, every Nintendo, Super Nintendo, Game Boy, and Sega Genesis game ever made can be downloaded and played on your computer, you just gotta know where to look.
Naturally this has shaken up the gaming industry a bit. Most developers (Nintendo, for example) are completely opposed to it. Most gamers are on the fence - they couldn't care less. But a few of us are pretty passionate about emulation, one way or the other.
The argument against emulation is a strong one. If people don't buy games, the developers lose money. If a game doesn't meet sales expectations, the development team will be less inclined to make another one, or their publisher will be less inclined to ask for another one. And then of course you have the older-than-time argument that you should pay for what you use, regardless of how much money the industry has and what they do with it.
But I think the argument for emulation is stronger. While all but the last points apply to current games, the number of people pirating current games is much lower. And there is a difference in terminology here. You can't emulate current games. It is possible to play Xbox games illegally on an Xbox, or Nintendo DS games illegally on a DS. And of course PC games. But that isn't emulation, if it's same system to same system. It's only emulation if you use something else.
As for actual emulation, the systems being emulated are no longer sold in stores, nor are the games. There are some people who are technically losing money on emulation, though - the people trying to sell this stuff on eBay for hundreds of dollars. But no, Nintendo isn't losing money if you emulate, say, Super Metroid for the Super NES. They're no longer selling the title and have no plans to port it to the DS. That's a game I would pay for to play on my DS.
The biggest hole in the argument against emulation is that emulation - software piracy in general - cheats the publisher of money they would have made. In other words, if I were to hypothetically download Windows Vista, Ultimate Edition (which is hypothetical only because I'm on Dialup and it's over 4GB), I would be taking $400 from Microsoft. Now, I'm broke as a joke. I work for a living, and I got bills to pay. Not to mention this hospital bill from last year I got to pay off. Wife and I haven't eaten out since our anniversary, and we're buckling down on everything. Say, if I were to somehow acquire Vista Ultimate, and then send it back to Microsoft, could they send me the $400 I've given up? So that argument doesn't hold water, because something that is downloaded hasn't got the same value as the same thing in the store. Heck, Windows is a great example because it doesn't even have the same value from store to store. If you buy it with hardware it's cheaper (but the license is more restricted). If you're a student it's cheaper. If you buy more than 5 copies, or you're the right kind of journalist or blogger or other "friend" of Microsoft, it's cheaper. I think you can even get it for free (legally) if you know where to look, what deals to (legally) exploit. I could have got XP Pro for free (legally) from Microsoft, all I had to do was lie and say I worked for a place that sold XP, like Best Buy.
And then there's "pirates/emulators don't buy games". Well, I buy games. All the Super NES games I would like to emulate on my DS, except a couple, I owned. I owned my favorite 3: Super Metroid, Secret of Mana, and Zelda 3. I bought those games new, maybe used, but I legally bought them when I had a SNES. I bought the SNES, and Super Mario 3 (a NES title) with my own money, allowance I saved up when I was a kid. Other games, my parents bought me. We had probably 20 NES games, and 10-15 SuperNES games. We bought the N64 and half a dozen games. We bought the Playstation and Ps2, half a dozen games each. We as in, my parents, my brother, and I. I bought the Game Boy Advance, the Nintendo DS, and about half a dozen games between them. Not to mention countless PC games over the years. So I'm a fan of, and have financially supported the gaming industry over the years.
I don't believe that someone who has bought a few games has the "right" to download the rest of the games, not necessarily. NES, SNES, Genesis, nothing wrong with it, because these are "dead" systems. The publishers don't care about 99% of those titles (the other 1% having been ported to new systems) and the only people making money on legitimate purchases, are collectors. These people will tell you that Nintendo and whomever need to still make money on these games, even though that's not possible. What they really mean is they want you to give them money. As if somewhere they were guaranteed to sell their games or game system for two, three, four, five times what they paid for it in the 80s or 90s. And, ironically, it's these people who help to encourage emulation, or piracy, whatever you call it, because these systems and games are still around, but collectors keep the price high.
A little rich brat can buy an NES on eBay and some games for it, and that's fine, but us working class scrubs can play the games on the PC, and that's fine too. It may not be as authentic, and it may not be approved by Nintendo, and the collectors selling them on eBay might get mad, but there's really nothing wrong with emulation, in most forms. What Nintendo needs to do is spend more time listening to the consumers. They've ported a few NES games to the Game Boy Advance, and a couple SNES games, but only one of the best three. For a DS owner and PC user, emulation is still the only choice to play a lot of the classics.
Naturally this has shaken up the gaming industry a bit. Most developers (Nintendo, for example) are completely opposed to it. Most gamers are on the fence - they couldn't care less. But a few of us are pretty passionate about emulation, one way or the other.
The argument against emulation is a strong one. If people don't buy games, the developers lose money. If a game doesn't meet sales expectations, the development team will be less inclined to make another one, or their publisher will be less inclined to ask for another one. And then of course you have the older-than-time argument that you should pay for what you use, regardless of how much money the industry has and what they do with it.
But I think the argument for emulation is stronger. While all but the last points apply to current games, the number of people pirating current games is much lower. And there is a difference in terminology here. You can't emulate current games. It is possible to play Xbox games illegally on an Xbox, or Nintendo DS games illegally on a DS. And of course PC games. But that isn't emulation, if it's same system to same system. It's only emulation if you use something else.
As for actual emulation, the systems being emulated are no longer sold in stores, nor are the games. There are some people who are technically losing money on emulation, though - the people trying to sell this stuff on eBay for hundreds of dollars. But no, Nintendo isn't losing money if you emulate, say, Super Metroid for the Super NES. They're no longer selling the title and have no plans to port it to the DS. That's a game I would pay for to play on my DS.
The biggest hole in the argument against emulation is that emulation - software piracy in general - cheats the publisher of money they would have made. In other words, if I were to hypothetically download Windows Vista, Ultimate Edition (which is hypothetical only because I'm on Dialup and it's over 4GB), I would be taking $400 from Microsoft. Now, I'm broke as a joke. I work for a living, and I got bills to pay. Not to mention this hospital bill from last year I got to pay off. Wife and I haven't eaten out since our anniversary, and we're buckling down on everything. Say, if I were to somehow acquire Vista Ultimate, and then send it back to Microsoft, could they send me the $400 I've given up? So that argument doesn't hold water, because something that is downloaded hasn't got the same value as the same thing in the store. Heck, Windows is a great example because it doesn't even have the same value from store to store. If you buy it with hardware it's cheaper (but the license is more restricted). If you're a student it's cheaper. If you buy more than 5 copies, or you're the right kind of journalist or blogger or other "friend" of Microsoft, it's cheaper. I think you can even get it for free (legally) if you know where to look, what deals to (legally) exploit. I could have got XP Pro for free (legally) from Microsoft, all I had to do was lie and say I worked for a place that sold XP, like Best Buy.
And then there's "pirates/emulators don't buy games". Well, I buy games. All the Super NES games I would like to emulate on my DS, except a couple, I owned. I owned my favorite 3: Super Metroid, Secret of Mana, and Zelda 3. I bought those games new, maybe used, but I legally bought them when I had a SNES. I bought the SNES, and Super Mario 3 (a NES title) with my own money, allowance I saved up when I was a kid. Other games, my parents bought me. We had probably 20 NES games, and 10-15 SuperNES games. We bought the N64 and half a dozen games. We bought the Playstation and Ps2, half a dozen games each. We as in, my parents, my brother, and I. I bought the Game Boy Advance, the Nintendo DS, and about half a dozen games between them. Not to mention countless PC games over the years. So I'm a fan of, and have financially supported the gaming industry over the years.
I don't believe that someone who has bought a few games has the "right" to download the rest of the games, not necessarily. NES, SNES, Genesis, nothing wrong with it, because these are "dead" systems. The publishers don't care about 99% of those titles (the other 1% having been ported to new systems) and the only people making money on legitimate purchases, are collectors. These people will tell you that Nintendo and whomever need to still make money on these games, even though that's not possible. What they really mean is they want you to give them money. As if somewhere they were guaranteed to sell their games or game system for two, three, four, five times what they paid for it in the 80s or 90s. And, ironically, it's these people who help to encourage emulation, or piracy, whatever you call it, because these systems and games are still around, but collectors keep the price high.
A little rich brat can buy an NES on eBay and some games for it, and that's fine, but us working class scrubs can play the games on the PC, and that's fine too. It may not be as authentic, and it may not be approved by Nintendo, and the collectors selling them on eBay might get mad, but there's really nothing wrong with emulation, in most forms. What Nintendo needs to do is spend more time listening to the consumers. They've ported a few NES games to the Game Boy Advance, and a couple SNES games, but only one of the best three. For a DS owner and PC user, emulation is still the only choice to play a lot of the classics.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Our DVD collection
I know sometimes I get to talking about movies and might come off like I know a lot or have seen a lot about movies, but all it takes is a quick look to the right to justify it.
If you want to see our DVD collection, click here. The site seems (to me anyway) a little more than it needs to be for what it does, but it lists the movies, and shows the covers. The covers might not be correct, because I don't always pay attention to what version, what region, etc. I figure it's the same movie regardless, and most people aren't going to care about those details. I got the movie and that's what matters. (Yes, I know this contradicts my earlier post explaining the difference between widescreen and fullscreen, but there is a difference. Somewhere.)
Anyway, we do have a lot of crap, but some of the best movies made are there, too. If you see a movie and you don't know it, you can click "imdb" to the right in the same row to look up the movie on IMDb, which has a ton of information on movies. Also the "amz" link in the same box will take you to its Amazon.com page, which will have some of the basic information, and then a lot of reviews.
I don't update DVDaf every time I get a DVD, so when I do update it, I scramble to figure out what all DVDs I've acquired since the last time. I may have missed a couple. But if that's not all of them, it's most of them.
Again, our movie collection.
Oh and this picture is a little dated - a month old, so maybe not - but it has most of the movies. I have more in a binder that I just didn't have room for and are separated from their cases, which are boxed up...
If you want to see our DVD collection, click here. The site seems (to me anyway) a little more than it needs to be for what it does, but it lists the movies, and shows the covers. The covers might not be correct, because I don't always pay attention to what version, what region, etc. I figure it's the same movie regardless, and most people aren't going to care about those details. I got the movie and that's what matters. (Yes, I know this contradicts my earlier post explaining the difference between widescreen and fullscreen, but there is a difference. Somewhere.)
Anyway, we do have a lot of crap, but some of the best movies made are there, too. If you see a movie and you don't know it, you can click "imdb" to the right in the same row to look up the movie on IMDb, which has a ton of information on movies. Also the "amz" link in the same box will take you to its Amazon.com page, which will have some of the basic information, and then a lot of reviews.
I don't update DVDaf every time I get a DVD, so when I do update it, I scramble to figure out what all DVDs I've acquired since the last time. I may have missed a couple. But if that's not all of them, it's most of them.
Again, our movie collection.
Oh and this picture is a little dated - a month old, so maybe not - but it has most of the movies. I have more in a binder that I just didn't have room for and are separated from their cases, which are boxed up...
Movie Review: Black Snake Moan (2007)
I remember when Black Snake Moan came out. What I remember most about it - besides, of course, Samuel L. Jackson chaining Christina Ricci up - was accusations on the Internet that the movie was racist. "What would people think," they asked, "if it were some young black actress chained up by some old white actor?" I couldn't really disagree, it was a good point.
I should start out by saying that she's not chained up for the whole movie. She's chained up for 33 minutes of it - from 43 minutes in to 77 minutes in, of a 115 minute movie, so just over a quarter of the movie. Compare this to, basically the entire trailer, and it's a big difference. Well, I could have just said that the part about Ricci being chained up was a small part of the movie, Sam Jackson making a point, but as my friends from work would tell you, sometimes I gotta get all technical about it.
If there would be one point to the movie, aside from the obvious, I would say it's about Samuel L. Jackson's character dealing with the loss of his wife to his younger brother, and part of how he deals with that involves him trying to cure Ricci's character of what amounts to chronic nymphomania - the overwhelming desire of sex. In her case, it was brought on by her abusive mom and her boyfriend (him for doing it, her for approving of it and allowing it) but also, to a lesser extent, the film implies, by sin, temptation, maybe even the Devil.
This is one of the better movies I've seen recently. It's a great story, beyond the fact that Samuel L. Jackson is one of my favorite actors. I'm not too big a fan of the blues, but the music helped make the movie, from the music in the background, to what Jackson sings at home and in the bar, to even what Ricci sings later on in the movie. It's also good because there aren't too many movies like this - and if they are, they don't have the chain part, and they probably don't have Jackson, who really does add to any movie he's in. I was trying to watch Justin Timberlake as well, as he's not too well liked in online movie communities, accused of being a bad actor. I haven't really got an eye for that, but I tried, and couldn't find any fault with his performance. He was just as convincing in his role (albeit a small one) as Jackson and Ricci were in theirs.
The only thing I could possibly have wanted more would be to see Ricci's mom or the other abuser
I would recommend this movie for anyone - adults, anyway. The profanity in this movie seemed just a little over the top (were the Star Wars prequels the only movies Jackson didn't say "motherf***er"?) even for a Samuel L. Jackson picture - and I've seen movies with more profanity. It was more than fit, I think. And the sexuality, while it had a point (and did fit), had more than your average R-rated movie. So for adults it's fine, and in this day and age most teenagers have seen more - just don't show around any young kids, because that wouldn't be right.
PS - When we went to see a movie - damn it, but we can't remember which one, they had a big cardboard cutout promo for Black Snake Moan, complete with mini half-sheet posters. They had a ton, so we didn't get any when we came in. I grabbed two - one for me, one for this dude I work with who I know is a Jackson fan. As we were leaving, I noticed they had Jackson on one side, Ricci on the other, so I went back for a third. They're both up in our living room. The one on the left is the poster on IMDb (link above, or here), the right one is basically the same with Christina Ricci, laying down, and some minor differences. They don't go together or anything, but they look good together. See? (You can click it to see it bigger.)
I should start out by saying that she's not chained up for the whole movie. She's chained up for 33 minutes of it - from 43 minutes in to 77 minutes in, of a 115 minute movie, so just over a quarter of the movie. Compare this to, basically the entire trailer, and it's a big difference. Well, I could have just said that the part about Ricci being chained up was a small part of the movie, Sam Jackson making a point, but as my friends from work would tell you, sometimes I gotta get all technical about it.
If there would be one point to the movie, aside from the obvious, I would say it's about Samuel L. Jackson's character dealing with the loss of his wife to his younger brother, and part of how he deals with that involves him trying to cure Ricci's character of what amounts to chronic nymphomania - the overwhelming desire of sex. In her case, it was brought on by her abusive mom and her boyfriend (him for doing it, her for approving of it and allowing it) but also, to a lesser extent, the film implies, by sin, temptation, maybe even the Devil.
This is one of the better movies I've seen recently. It's a great story, beyond the fact that Samuel L. Jackson is one of my favorite actors. I'm not too big a fan of the blues, but the music helped make the movie, from the music in the background, to what Jackson sings at home and in the bar, to even what Ricci sings later on in the movie. It's also good because there aren't too many movies like this - and if they are, they don't have the chain part, and they probably don't have Jackson, who really does add to any movie he's in. I was trying to watch Justin Timberlake as well, as he's not too well liked in online movie communities, accused of being a bad actor. I haven't really got an eye for that, but I tried, and couldn't find any fault with his performance. He was just as convincing in his role (albeit a small one) as Jackson and Ricci were in theirs.
The only thing I could possibly have wanted more would be to see Ricci's mom or the other abuser
I would recommend this movie for anyone - adults, anyway. The profanity in this movie seemed just a little over the top (were the Star Wars prequels the only movies Jackson didn't say "motherf***er"?) even for a Samuel L. Jackson picture - and I've seen movies with more profanity. It was more than fit, I think. And the sexuality, while it had a point (and did fit), had more than your average R-rated movie. So for adults it's fine, and in this day and age most teenagers have seen more - just don't show around any young kids, because that wouldn't be right.
PS - When we went to see a movie - damn it, but we can't remember which one, they had a big cardboard cutout promo for Black Snake Moan, complete with mini half-sheet posters. They had a ton, so we didn't get any when we came in. I grabbed two - one for me, one for this dude I work with who I know is a Jackson fan. As we were leaving, I noticed they had Jackson on one side, Ricci on the other, so I went back for a third. They're both up in our living room. The one on the left is the poster on IMDb (link above, or here), the right one is basically the same with Christina Ricci, laying down, and some minor differences. They don't go together or anything, but they look good together. See? (You can click it to see it bigger.)
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Oh, how I love that woman...
No, I haven't had any to drink. Well... OK, I used mudslide mix as coffee creamer in my last cup, so I have a bit of a buzz. But that doesn't change anything, except perhaps to lower my inhibitions to write a sappy blog post half the recipients of my Blogmail newsletter don't want to see... Anyway.
Last night I told Jen to wake me up by 3 or 4 if she wanted to do anything special. We're broke and will stay that way for a while, but I figured we might go walking somewhere, go see friends, something like that. I woke up, briefly, at 5 - this is PM, now - and quickly dozed off again. When I woke up at 6, I called to her - or at least thought I did - nothing. So, still tired, I get up and come out... What's she doing?
Is she browsing MySpace or the UDMB (the latest incarnation of the board we met on)? Is she reading GameFAQs, doing one of those stupid quizzes, or answering a survey that will just end up telling her she's not in the 2% of the population the survey's sponsor is looking for? Is she watching some Family Guy or Law & Order episodes?
Nope, she's cleaning the kitchen. And I don't mean doing the dishes - she did that last night. No, she's got the counter cleared, has cleaned it, and is straightening up the mess that is our kitchen. And then she mops (well, Swiffer, but the same thing) the floor, but not before letting me get 2 cups of coffee.
So I'm on the Net, surfing forums, doing my normal thing, and at some point she's not around. I kind of knew she wanted to cut the grass, but it didn't quite register - I guess I was still waking up.
So I go into the kitchen - floor's dried by now - and I'm standing there, looking out at her. I cut the over-the-sink light on, hoping she'll see me, but she doesn't, just busy, hard at work, pacing back and forth on the lawn, and we have a huge front lawn. I talk about how we need to get out and walk, but she just spent the last couple hours walking back and forth on the grass.
She's a good woman and I'm lucky to have her. It's days like these I feel it was so worth it to drive all the way across the country to be with her.
Last night I told Jen to wake me up by 3 or 4 if she wanted to do anything special. We're broke and will stay that way for a while, but I figured we might go walking somewhere, go see friends, something like that. I woke up, briefly, at 5 - this is PM, now - and quickly dozed off again. When I woke up at 6, I called to her - or at least thought I did - nothing. So, still tired, I get up and come out... What's she doing?
Is she browsing MySpace or the UDMB (the latest incarnation of the board we met on)? Is she reading GameFAQs, doing one of those stupid quizzes, or answering a survey that will just end up telling her she's not in the 2% of the population the survey's sponsor is looking for? Is she watching some Family Guy or Law & Order episodes?
Nope, she's cleaning the kitchen. And I don't mean doing the dishes - she did that last night. No, she's got the counter cleared, has cleaned it, and is straightening up the mess that is our kitchen. And then she mops (well, Swiffer, but the same thing) the floor, but not before letting me get 2 cups of coffee.
So I'm on the Net, surfing forums, doing my normal thing, and at some point she's not around. I kind of knew she wanted to cut the grass, but it didn't quite register - I guess I was still waking up.
So I go into the kitchen - floor's dried by now - and I'm standing there, looking out at her. I cut the over-the-sink light on, hoping she'll see me, but she doesn't, just busy, hard at work, pacing back and forth on the lawn, and we have a huge front lawn. I talk about how we need to get out and walk, but she just spent the last couple hours walking back and forth on the grass.
She's a good woman and I'm lucky to have her. It's days like these I feel it was so worth it to drive all the way across the country to be with her.
The real difference between Fullscreen and Widescreen on DVD
In my own words, of course - there's probably a lot more on Wikipedia, other sites, not to mention the preachings of home theater enthusiasts (aka DVD snobs) such as myself. I'm tired of educating boneheads on sites populated by militant movie buffs living in their parents' basements downloading scripts and sharing insider information about people they claim to despise yet can't stop discussing... Oh wait, that was Affleck's line in "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back", wasn't it? Yeah... Now then...
Lesson One: How movies are shot (filmed)
Most movies are filmed using a wide-angle lens. There are several choices to choose from, one of the more common being 16:9 (meaning the frame is not quite as wide as it is tall, but close). Some are wider still, like you may see 2.39:1 or 2.85:1, meaning it's much wider than it is tall. However, most television programs are shot with a 4:3 lens - you guessed it, almost square. Nowadays, television programs are starting to be shot at 16:10, but I'll get to that in Lesson Three. There isn't much else to cover except to go over the various aspect ratios. As to the why, it's up to the director and/or producers. Human vision is naturally wide-angled, but most TVs are 4:3, so it's a balance of convenience and staying natural.
Lesson Two: DVD Choices (more than you think)
You probably know about Fullscreen and Widescreen, but within those categories, there are a couple subchoices. Fullscreen is a misnomer, assuming your screen is 4:3, and refers to the fact that the image will most likely fill your screen, corner to corner, top to bottom, left to right. And widescreen is also a misnomer, being that it implies it fills a wide TV, when the reality is that, unless the movie is anamorphic or 16:10, you still get black bars (albeit smaller).
Fullscreen is usually substituted for Pan & Scan, which is what they were called in the VHS days. Since a fullscreen transfer loses about a third of the picture, the transfer process involves choosing what will be cut. Mostly it's extra landscape that isn't needed, but sometimes there is important visual data on both edges. A pan is when the camera slides to the side or up and down in a straight line, but in this case it's when the focus shifts from one edge of the frame to the other. Sometimes you can tell - I can. It'll seem unnaturally smooth. The camera isn't moving per se, but you go from, for example, looking at the very right, to looking at the very left.
Then there's letterbox, and it's important to differentiate widescreen from letterbox. On widescreen, there are no black bars - the black bars you see is just where there is no visual data. A letterboxed movie uses 4:3 frames, and the black bars are added to force the director's original vision onto a 4:3 TV. A proper widescreen video on a fullscreen TV will often stretch vertially to fill the TV, depending on the TV and DVD player. Letterbox is fine if you have a 4:3 TV, but it's terrible on a widescreen TV, because you get the black bars all around.
Within widescreen, you have all the different aspect ratios, of course. The main choice here is Anamorphic, which means it'll stretch to fit the screen. Apparently, this is a good thing, as opposed to a widescreen DVD stretching to fill a TV. I actually don't understand this, and Wikipedia is a little too technical on the issue.
So you have Letterboxed Fullscreen (Rare, avoid this), Pan & Scan Fullscreen (common, second choice), and Widescreen (best choice).
Lesson Three: Your TV, and choosing the best DVDs
As I understand it, there are two kinds of TVs as far as aspect ratio goes. 4:3 is your average TV. At least 90% of televisions are 4:3. Your grandfather's TV was 4:3. The TV in your work's break room is probably 4:3. With rare exception, most TVs most people will have will be 4:3. Within 4:3, there are two kinds - round and flat. This refers to the front surface of the tube. If the face is flat, resolution will be much higher. If you must get a 4:3 TV, make sure it's flat (this doesn't mean LCD/Plasma). Usually these are CRT - tube based and heavy - but there are a few LCD ones, and the big projection TVs that were hot in the 80s.
Then there are 16:10 TVs, and they come in a few flavors of their own. They actually make CRT wide TVs, and they are comparable in price to the 4:3 TVs. LCD is the base flat kind, and then Plasma if you have the money. These are what home theater enthusiasts have or want.
If you have a 4:3 TV and 1) you don't plan on getting a 16:10 TV and 2) you don't really care about that extra third of the frame in your movies, Fullscreen Pan & Scan is your best choice. If you plan on getting a 16:10 TV in the future, you should probably select Widescreen. Fullscreen movies look bad on 16:10 TVs. Instead of black bars on top and bottom with widescreen, they're on the sides, and it's much worse. (As I said, the human eyes naturally see "wide", so it obscenely looks as though something is missing.)
Most TV programs are shot in 4:3, or at least they used to be. Some still are, but some now (and more later) are shot in an anamorphic ratio that almost fills the screen on a 4:3 TV (you might notice real small black bars) and fills a widescreen TV perfectly. This format will probably take over. I'm not even sure if HD-DVD and Blu-Ray (DVD's would-be succeesors) even come in fullscreen. We could be looking at a future (say, 5 years down the road) where everything is simply widescreen, except for some "archaic" movies and TV sets.
Stanley Kubrick was known for shooting movies in 4:3. Full Metal Jacket certainly is; as for the others, I think some are and some aren't. But if you have a wide TV, there's almost no getting around buying movies or TV shows in the format they were shot in - for those, you'll most likely have the choice to stretch them, or just watch them as intended.
Lesson One: How movies are shot (filmed)
Most movies are filmed using a wide-angle lens. There are several choices to choose from, one of the more common being 16:9 (meaning the frame is not quite as wide as it is tall, but close). Some are wider still, like you may see 2.39:1 or 2.85:1, meaning it's much wider than it is tall. However, most television programs are shot with a 4:3 lens - you guessed it, almost square. Nowadays, television programs are starting to be shot at 16:10, but I'll get to that in Lesson Three. There isn't much else to cover except to go over the various aspect ratios. As to the why, it's up to the director and/or producers. Human vision is naturally wide-angled, but most TVs are 4:3, so it's a balance of convenience and staying natural.
Lesson Two: DVD Choices (more than you think)
You probably know about Fullscreen and Widescreen, but within those categories, there are a couple subchoices. Fullscreen is a misnomer, assuming your screen is 4:3, and refers to the fact that the image will most likely fill your screen, corner to corner, top to bottom, left to right. And widescreen is also a misnomer, being that it implies it fills a wide TV, when the reality is that, unless the movie is anamorphic or 16:10, you still get black bars (albeit smaller).
Fullscreen is usually substituted for Pan & Scan, which is what they were called in the VHS days. Since a fullscreen transfer loses about a third of the picture, the transfer process involves choosing what will be cut. Mostly it's extra landscape that isn't needed, but sometimes there is important visual data on both edges. A pan is when the camera slides to the side or up and down in a straight line, but in this case it's when the focus shifts from one edge of the frame to the other. Sometimes you can tell - I can. It'll seem unnaturally smooth. The camera isn't moving per se, but you go from, for example, looking at the very right, to looking at the very left.
Then there's letterbox, and it's important to differentiate widescreen from letterbox. On widescreen, there are no black bars - the black bars you see is just where there is no visual data. A letterboxed movie uses 4:3 frames, and the black bars are added to force the director's original vision onto a 4:3 TV. A proper widescreen video on a fullscreen TV will often stretch vertially to fill the TV, depending on the TV and DVD player. Letterbox is fine if you have a 4:3 TV, but it's terrible on a widescreen TV, because you get the black bars all around.
Within widescreen, you have all the different aspect ratios, of course. The main choice here is Anamorphic, which means it'll stretch to fit the screen. Apparently, this is a good thing, as opposed to a widescreen DVD stretching to fill a TV. I actually don't understand this, and Wikipedia is a little too technical on the issue.
So you have Letterboxed Fullscreen (Rare, avoid this), Pan & Scan Fullscreen (common, second choice), and Widescreen (best choice).
Lesson Three: Your TV, and choosing the best DVDs
As I understand it, there are two kinds of TVs as far as aspect ratio goes. 4:3 is your average TV. At least 90% of televisions are 4:3. Your grandfather's TV was 4:3. The TV in your work's break room is probably 4:3. With rare exception, most TVs most people will have will be 4:3. Within 4:3, there are two kinds - round and flat. This refers to the front surface of the tube. If the face is flat, resolution will be much higher. If you must get a 4:3 TV, make sure it's flat (this doesn't mean LCD/Plasma). Usually these are CRT - tube based and heavy - but there are a few LCD ones, and the big projection TVs that were hot in the 80s.
Then there are 16:10 TVs, and they come in a few flavors of their own. They actually make CRT wide TVs, and they are comparable in price to the 4:3 TVs. LCD is the base flat kind, and then Plasma if you have the money. These are what home theater enthusiasts have or want.
If you have a 4:3 TV and 1) you don't plan on getting a 16:10 TV and 2) you don't really care about that extra third of the frame in your movies, Fullscreen Pan & Scan is your best choice. If you plan on getting a 16:10 TV in the future, you should probably select Widescreen. Fullscreen movies look bad on 16:10 TVs. Instead of black bars on top and bottom with widescreen, they're on the sides, and it's much worse. (As I said, the human eyes naturally see "wide", so it obscenely looks as though something is missing.)
Most TV programs are shot in 4:3, or at least they used to be. Some still are, but some now (and more later) are shot in an anamorphic ratio that almost fills the screen on a 4:3 TV (you might notice real small black bars) and fills a widescreen TV perfectly. This format will probably take over. I'm not even sure if HD-DVD and Blu-Ray (DVD's would-be succeesors) even come in fullscreen. We could be looking at a future (say, 5 years down the road) where everything is simply widescreen, except for some "archaic" movies and TV sets.
Stanley Kubrick was known for shooting movies in 4:3. Full Metal Jacket certainly is; as for the others, I think some are and some aren't. But if you have a wide TV, there's almost no getting around buying movies or TV shows in the format they were shot in - for those, you'll most likely have the choice to stretch them, or just watch them as intended.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Funniest videos on the Net
I can't now recall if, when posting about the vacation, I posted a link to the wrestling fan crying. I belive that I did, but if not, here it is: It's still real to him!
We saw that on TV, on a VH1 program called Web2.0, and at the time, it was the funniest thing I'd seen in a long time.
No more.
There is a new "funniest video on the Net", and it's not surprising it involves a little kid. What would be surprising is if you hadn't heard something about this. Ellen even flew her out for an interview.
Little girl kicks monster's ass Ellen interview
If you don't care to watch it, or if your connection is too slow, here's the transcript:
We saw that on TV, on a VH1 program called Web2.0, and at the time, it was the funniest thing I'd seen in a long time.
No more.
There is a new "funniest video on the Net", and it's not surprising it involves a little kid. What would be surprising is if you hadn't heard something about this. Ellen even flew her out for an interview.
Little girl kicks monster's ass Ellen interview
If you don't care to watch it, or if your connection is too slow, here's the transcript:
MOM: And tell Mommy again what you said you were gonna do to him if he came here.New funniest video ever. The transcript is funny, now that I read it, but you have to see the video for how it's said.
GIRL: I said, "I'm gonna kick his ass."
M: Oh... *laughs* That's not nice.
G: If he's gonna come in here, he's gonna kick my ass!
M: *laughs* He will?
G: Yeah, uh huh... he's gonna come outta the movie, come out, he will come out and kick my ass.
M: *laughs* OK
G: And I can kick his ass!
M: OK... But that's not a nice word. You should say "kick his butt".
G: ....Oh...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)