Best ps3 zombie game?

roblay · 2012-05-26T08:18:49.788828+00:00

hands down, this.

Blakwulf · 2012-05-26T05:17:27.371538+00:00

you are all over the place:

hyper motion of 40fps compared to the day dream effect of 27.5 fps is really a cool thing

this has nothing to do with resolution.

to return to the original issue of perceptible difference: if you catch a film in a good theater, or in an early screening (or more likely both), you will get a chance to see it in a resolution higher than 2, 4, 6, or 8k, since you will basically be looking at an extremely early generation 35 (or 70)mm negative's first generation print (eg. answer print), which has atomic resolution, from which for example an 8k extract is actually, in theory, a downres.

there is most definitely 4k material, captured and piped back at 4k. there is also material digitally acquired at 4k (eg red-one data), which can then be projected back at 4k via sdi and a 4k projector (of which not many exist).

again, and to my initial point: 4k to 2k is not a fourfold increase in perceptible difference, and many viewers will not be able to percieve the difference.

Blakwulf · 2012-05-26T04:20:59.574740+00:00

don't doubt it. i've seen 4k projections too, both via filmout and via digital projection. is there a quality increase? yes. it is a four fold increase increase over 2k? extremely unlikely any viewer would experience that.

as i said, i did not say the difference was imperceptible. i said the average viewer may not perceive it.

Blakwulf · 2012-05-26T00:32:44.294311+00:00

some context from the film industry:

most films you see (projected 40, 50 feet across) are 2k. even if they are filmouts being projected from a 35mm print, the DI process was using 2k frame scans to print to the 35mm projection print.

the average audience cannot tell the difference between a projected 2k, 4k, 6k and 8k image.

that is not to say that there is not a perceptible difference, but at some point you are just dealing with monster cables and audiophile equipment (in the resolution world). the average viewer will not notice.

Hardisk · 2 days

strongly recommend you try pftrack/pfmatchit in order to track, it is by far the finest 3d tracker i've ever had the pleasure of working with, and is extraordinarily affordable (pfmatchit).

you may be able to use an assisted manualcamera move + detail movement track to create a usable shot.

rahmad · 7 days

fricking amazing lift from 2.00 to 3.00...

Crabes · 8 days

not banned. dude hired a pr company and essentially created a false mediastorm against ted because he wanted to use this video to drive a moveon.org agenda.

ted, feeling that the video lacked depth and objectivity, chose not to publish it (only a very small selection of many thousands of ted and tedx events are officially published as ted videos).

dude uses pr company to batter ted for 'silencing' him. redditors and folks like OP assist in this campaign by mindlessly repeating words like 'banned by ted'.

profit?

in terms of being banned, a good metaphor is this. a thousand people send letters to the editor of a newspaper. the editor picks the best dozen to print in the 'letters to the editor' section. are the remaining 9000 odd letters 'banned?', or did they just not get as much attention as their authors thought they deserved...

kazidamui · 8 days

pretty unlikely... hands are pretty easy to drive with driven key based animation... and faces you can get away with blend shapes if you don't want to do facial mocap.

hypoid77 · 10 days

totally not what pixar should be making.

not that it should'nt get made, but what makes pixar brilliant is the fact that they exactly don't do this kind of film.

tboneplayer · 12 days

seen this? http://alexcpeterson.com/spacescape

morningr · 13 days

not sure if this is helpful to you, but there's a modification to the batch process script which uses save for web module to generate the file vs. regular saving, you can stick your color space modifier in the middle as an action.

i think this was it: http://www.ps-scripts.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2276 (cursory googling, may want to dig deeper... ran on 5.5 just fine, haven't tested on 6).

birdinspace · 13 days

I feel like i've heard morgan freeman read this... was linked during a previous repost... anyone remember?

jdpruitt · 13 days

good on you man. find, enjoy, explore, understand, respect. your relationship with these creatures is full of win.

rahmad · 14 days

Yes, the coopting of words like modern and progressive (among others, the right for example is quick to co-opt phrases like family values) serves only to ambiguate the political process, it hurts both sides of the argument by confusing the terms of engagement.

rahmad · 14 days

I see your point, but the optic of time has scales. If you compare a 500 GB harddrive to a 650 GB harddive, it would be hard to argue that the 650 GB harddrive represents modern technology compared to the 500, even though it is a generation newer. Compare a 500 GB hard drive to a 5.25 inch floppy disk and the word modern now means something. I would argue sociopolitical change, specifically when speaking about what is new vs. what is old must be viewed with the same ruleset.

In politics, I think there's a tendency for both 'modern' and 'progressive' labels to be coopted to mean the agenda of liberal politicians, but on a global scale that falsehood can easily be exposed.

The hyperislamization of countries like pakistan, turkey, afghanistan is both modern and progressive via their internal optics.

rahmad · 14 days

Not sure I agree with you.

Progressivism = the politics of change. Modern = New, change from old.

Still not getting it.

rahmad · 14 days

I had a feeling, but I don't get how it's oxymoronic.

rahmad · 14 days

just because i'm curious, your username is modernprogressive.

define to me what you think is a modern and progressive political stance.

(not trying to start an argument. i want to hear your thoughts).

sparrowvsrevolution · 16 days

This is an important point to make, and one that I was not aware of... I thought it was the other way round (as with ESPN, where they pay the cable companies to air).

The nexus one issue, though similar, is really a different animal. Asking someone to pay $400 dollars vs. 3 or 4 or 5 is a world of a difference in terms of accomplishability.

In rainbows, and the Louis CK comedy special come to mind.

papersailboat · 16 days

FYI. Movies viewed on Netfix, Amazon Instant Streaming and via torrent will now carry the same amount of unskippable government warnings as before. Zero.

sparrowvsrevolution · 16 days

yes. that has always been their business model. having said that, however, assume population (x) represents current non subscribers who are interested in their shows.

of population (x), two subsets, population (y) represents people who may potentially subscribe, and population (z) represents people who will never subscribe.

If they can monetize population (z) by providing an alternate revenue stream, and the revenue on that stream matches the potential revenue of population (y), they have achieved a zero sum game.

For population (z), the monetization pathway is potentially more profitable for them. By eliminating the cable company, they remove a huge chunk of the pie in terms of cost, and they can take a slice of that back into their distribution cost, thus exceeding the per unit income compared to via cable subscription.

The question is, which monetization pathway has better numbers. I don't know the answer to the question, but just because their business model has always been try to lure (y) into monetization, doesn't mean it's the most profitable.

By providing a monetization pathway for population (z), they may not actually destroy all of population (y). A certain subset of (y) may move into (z) and choose the alternative monetization pathway. If (z) exceeds (y), they are ahead overall.

Right now, group (z) and a section of group (y) simply have no options, and their monetization goes to places that are not HBO (for ex. seedboxes, display ads for pron sites, cable/dsl internet expenses, hard drive manufacurers etc.)

josbos · 17 days

I would argue the same case could be made for even having an inbox. "My boss was looking over my shoulder and saw I was having a conversation with another company, subjectline: revised offer."

If you've got a shoulder watcher, you've got a privacy problem unless you're looking at a blank screen.

josbos · 17 days

arguable. personally i find it a useful feature and i'm glad they made it opt-out, or i probably would not have discovered it until further down the road.

i make a point, if privacy is a concern, to not open my email in front of said individuals at all... lock screen.

Four-Year Club	reddit gold Charter Member
Charter Member	Verified Email

rahmad

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login