This user has been banned.
So... that means... you've...you've....
YOU'VE NEVER SEEN "THE PROFESSIONAL"?!?!?!?!
Oh dear God, I didn't think it was possible...
I fully understand not liking the GUI. I have no problem with that, it's an understandable, reasonable complaint.
However, to respond to your more specific complaints:
You can maximize programs to fill the screen - that's what the green "+" button is for. I never use it 'cause I generally hate programs filling the whole screen unless there's good reason (like with Avid/Final Cut, or video games).
Yeah, the red X doesn't quit the program, it just closes the window. I, personally, highly prefer this to the Windows version, where you can't close the window without quitting the program - you can only minimize it.
And to properly quit, you either click on the program context menu > "Quit ___" or - my personal choice - Command+Q. (As I said before, keyboard shortcuts are the best thing ever, in any OS.)
there's really no task bar, it's just a bunch of fancy logos for software they assume you use. Can you even customize that thing? Where do you find out what programs are running? Task manager? Do macs even have one of those? Where do I find it because I would really like to know?
The Dock is 100% customizable. And it's super fucking easy to customize, too. You don't like seeing iTunes on your Dock when it isn't running? Drag it out of the Dock, it's gone. Want to put that new program you just installed onto the Dock? Go to the Applications folder, find it, and drag the application into the Dock.
Want to rearrange? Drag stuff around. Want it to be bigger or smaller? System Preferences > Dock. Want it to not do the "magnify" thing when you hover over it? System Preferences > Dock.
Want to know what programs are running? They have a blue dot underneath/next to them in the Dock. If it's a program you don't keep on the Dock, it will show up there when it starts running (with the blue dot), and will go away when you quit.
Task manager? If you're asking for a "Force Quit" window, i.e. a Mac equivalent to Ctrl+Alt+Del ... well, there is a "Force Quit" window, and you bring it up with Command+Option+Esc.
A more advanced Task Manager? Applications > Utilities > Activity Monitor. You can even put it on your Dock if you want - I have mine at the top, just in case I need it.
When you're doing high end video editing work like Adywan you have to go with a PC anyways, because I don't think even the most expensive Macs can handle that kind of work.
That is absolutely ridiculous. Of course Macs can handle "high end video editing." That's my job (as in, not a "fan editing" hobby), so I think I would know if Macs can do it.
And guess what? For more complex, "high-end" video/effects/CG work, I've found it to be much simpler to do on a Mac.
It seems to me that the majority of your complaints about Macs are unfounded, Windows-fanboy hearsay that have no basis in fact. I admit, some of your complaints are valid, but I could find equally valid complaints about Windows without resorting to "I hate it because I hear it can't do ______," even though it can do ______ very easily.
MSAGRO7 said:
The difference is very stark. In the MGM version, you only see up to the guys chin, while the IRE version shows his full face.
When the film was released, I'm sure the cinematographer wanted the screen filled.
I highly disagree with you. I remember this scene, and I remember feeling like not showing his face was making some sort of artistic statement, and I liked that a lot.
I stand by my theory that this film was never meant to be seen unmatted.
Thanks for quoting it for me, Frink. Saved me a little work.
Thanks for the info, Harmy - looks like I'll have to re-encode to get it to work on my player. Not a big issue, though - it means I can get rid of the black bars, too!
Another vote for the tweaks!
Double post, sorry, but I just saw this:
LexX said:
the whole Death Star sequence seems to have a bad green cast throughout (the scene I selected was almost the least greenest) and all of these shots, too, could use shifting towards magenta. So while there is some green in DS walls etc. I don't think they should be as green as some of you have tweaked them. If you've seen promotional images etc. DS was never green.
The Death Star sequences were originally color timed so the walls were a shade of greenish-blue instead of solid gray. Those caps are fairly accurate, though I think they are a little too green.
Exactly.
If you'd like to calibrate your display properly, the THX Optimode features on many DVDs is a good start, though they're supposedly designed specifically to match whatever film you have put in (I have strong doubts about this, though).
You could use SMPTE bars to set the brightness level, but they're useless for color and tint unless you have a blue filter, or a "Blue Only" setting on your TV.
Well, they may have faded, but those cels will have the final color correction baked in - it's just the way they did it then. The only print that wouldn't have any color correction applied would be the first interpositive, and maybe an internegative after that. (If what I understand about the pre-digital color timing process is accurate.)
My only thought is whether or not the 70mm version had different color timing than the 35mm version.
Now, you may ask, "Wouldn't they make the 70mm blowup from the color-corrected print?" Not necessarily. That would mean using an answer print struck from an internegative struck from an interpositive (that was possibly also struck from another internegative, which was struck from yet another interpositive) that was struck from the camera negatives.
This, naturally, means all the generational loss of a 35mm release print, just blown up to 70mm. But everything I've heard about the 70mm print says it has to have looked better than that.
So I think it's more likely that the 70mm blow-up was made from either the camera negatives (less likely), or the first master interpositive made from the conformed camera negatives (more likely). That would mean it would have to go through the same color timing process, but in 70mm (resulting in much less generational loss, though the release print would still be a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy).
Then again, that may have been too expensive, so I could be wrong and the 70mm blow-ups could have been struck directly from the final 35mm answer print.
I do think that Empire went through two distinctly different post processes for 70mm (first) and 35mm (second), accounting for the slight differences in editing, effects, and sound. So the 70mm Empire probably did have distinctly different color timing than the 35mm.
I have no idea about Jedi, though (seems to be a common theme for that film).
As a Mac user, I'm going to respond to all of your points.
Note I'm not saying OS X is better than Windows (I quite like Windows 7, myself), I just think a lot of your complaints are ill-informed.
A lot of these things depend on the hardware, so maybe the Macs you've been using simply haven't had enough processing power, or RAM, or a good enough video card for you to do all the things you've been bitching about. (I will admit that you can get a more powerful Windows machine for less money than a less-powerful Mac.)
Anyway, here goes:
Ghostbusters said:
Here's list of reasons why I don't like Apple:
Dysfunctional OS,
The task bar on bottom of the desktop looks flashy, but it makes it hard for me to tell what documents/programs are minimized, with Windows it is clear as day to distinct different documents minimized in the task bar.
Minimized documents/programs are put on the other size of the dividing bar next to the trash can. Also, the "task bar," as you call it (the dock), can be on the bottom, left, or right of the screen, and you can set it to hide when your mouse is elsewhere so it doesn't get in the way.
GUI,
Windows GUI is very customizable, with Macs you're forced to see what they give you. With Windows you can view your folder files in many different ways from Filmstrip to Details, with Macs you're forced to view files in a list and I like to view them as thumbnails, it feels the most intuitive and comfortable to me. Mac OS GUI don't feel intuitive to me like Windows OS. With Windows I feel like I have a very good sense of where everything is, but with Macs I feel like I'm kind of shooting in the dark.
There are four options in the Finder for viewing files:
In other words, you're not "forced to see what they give you" - you can change how you view items in the Finder, and your preference - thumbnails - is one of the options.
One-click Mouse,
I know they finally got rid of that damn thing not too long ago, but those things drove me nuts! To right-click you had to hit cnrl first, again, not intuitive.
You basically just said "This complaint is no longer valid, but I'm going to complain about it anyway!"
I'm using a Logitech 3-button mouse with my Mac, and I have been using the same Logitech 3-button mouse for five years on the same Mac. Two-button mouse capability has been in OS X for a very long time - Apple just didn't sell their own multi-button mice until three or four years ago (and I hate their mice anyway).
Quick-keys,
In my experience it seems like Macs require you to learn a lot of quick keys in order to perform functions. With Windows everything is layed out visually so you don't have to learn any quick keys
I use "quick keys" in Windows more than I use them in OS X. Besides, it's good to know keyboard shortcuts for any operating system - it exponentially speeds up your workflow.
Screens,
I don't know what it is about Macs, but their screens just don't looks as crisp and clear as PC screens.
...Huh?!
Gaming,
They're not designed for gaming and you have to wait a long time for the games to come on in Mac format after they come out for PCs.
Then use Boot Camp to install Windows on a second partition, and play games that way. That's what I do.
Besides, I never play games anyway, so I really don't give a damn about that.
Updating,
With all the add-ons/fixes/bugs/viruses these days on the internet you need to update frequently. I don't think Apple has nearly as much updating going on as Microsoft does. Of course they say that their platform is better, that is why they don't have the need to fix as many security holes/bugs/fixes and add-ons. But it is also because a lot less people use them, so it is less of a problem.
As someone who switches between OS X and Windows 7 semi-regularly (as in, I'll use my Windows partition once a month or so), I update on my OS X side multiple times per month, whereas I update once every two or three months on my Windows side.
Multitasking,
I don't know what the latest macs are like with multitasking, but the ones at my school would go to a crawl anytime you had more than one program running at time.
Right now, I'm listening to The Black Keys playing from iTunes, using Firefox with 9 tabs open, ripping a DVD to my external hard drive with MacTheRipper, and encoding other ripped DVDs to MKVs using HandBrake, all while using uTorrent to download ... ah ... stuff.
I've never had my Mac crash from running too many things at once. The worst that'll happen is that any video file above 480p won't play smoothly while encoding video, which makes perfect sense.
Oh, and did I mention this is all on a 5-year-old MacBook Pro?
Video Editing,
Everybody says Macs are the best when it comes to video editing and Photoshop. I've had a better experience doing both on a PC. Again Macs are slower and harder to multitask, key things you need to have when video editing and photoshoping.
"Macs are slower?" Nope, sorry.
"Harder to multitask?" Again, nope.
The biggest reason why having a Mac in the video editing world is so important? Interchangeability.
What if I'm cutting something in Avid on a Windows machine, and then it turns out the colorist wants to work in Apple's Final Cut Studio Color (which is not available on anything but OS X)? This is a huge obstacle that is immensely difficult to work around.
What if I'm cutting something in Avid on a Mac, and the colorist wants to work in Final Cut Studio's Color? Guess what, that exact same thing happened to me last semester. We transferred it in a day. You know what my post supervisor said to me? "Thank fucking Christ you weren't working in Windows."
Plus, I've found Avid to run much better on OS X than Windows.
Speed,
Macs just by nature seem to be slow and I don't think they can be overclocked?
Yes, Macs can be overclocked, and I have no idea where you're getting this "Mac = slow" mentality. I maintain that it's because you're used to working on Windows computers with better hardware than the Macs you've used.
Proprietary Everything,
With Macs you're forced to buy proprietary everything made by apple. The hardware, software, and even internet connection has to be proprietary and you pay a premium for all these that are way cheaper with PCs for the same performance.
Price,
Everything with apple costs at least twice as much for the equivalent of PCs.
You're right on the money there. Apple products are way overpriced.
The iPhone,
The iPhone was the most overrated piece of crap. Steve Jobs said the iPhone is going to be way ahead of everything else out there but instead turned out to be 2 years outdated by the time it came out. Many phones had the same features an iPhone had 2 years before it came out. And you're forced to use AT&T for the phone service, buy far the worst and most expensive phone service provider out there. I do know that people can hack iPhones to work with different carriers.
I have an Android phone, so I can't comment on the iPhone.
However, in less than a month the iPhone 4 will be available from Verizon (without hacking), so your "AT&T Suxxorz" sentiment is moot.
iTunes
I never cared for the software, it's too busy and always pops up after download a music file, and I couldn't find a way to turn that off. It gets annoying. I like to view the files in a folder, with iTunes you have to view them in the software. I heard it will automatically tag your music files but that didn't work for me. I ended up uninstalling the program because of the stupid pop-up feature.
You can get rid of iTunes and use a wide variety of alternative software. I have no idea what the "pop-up" feature you speak of is. I don't mind iTunes, though, so I use it (for music only, I hate using it for video).
Also, I will state here that iTunes on Windows blows giant monkey chunks. It wasn't designed for Windows, and it works like shit on it.
Quicktime,
Quicktime and it seems like every other software program made by Apple runs a lot more resource intensive than any other software made by a different company.
That's only on Windows (see my iTunes-on-Windows comment above - it applies to Quicktime as well). Quicktime is very resource-light on a Mac, and it works very well for what it does.
I don't use it. I use VLC. Yes, on my Mac.
The drag and drop feature,
Their dragging drives into the Trash Bin to eject disks is really old fashioned and amateur. It makes it feel like a computer made for babies.
Command+delete = item goes to trash.
Right click+"Move to Trash" = item goes to trash.
Right click+"Eject Disk" = disk is ejected.
You don't have to drag-and-drop a damn thing if you don't want to.
But I thought you were all about the all-clicking-on-things, no-shortcuts GUI of Windows earlier? Surely dragging-and-dropping is the kind of thing you want, right? No? Hmm...
Amateurish,
It feels like it is made for people who don't know how to use computers
Says the person who thinks Apple has a "proprietary" way to connect to the Internet that you have to use.
What are you thoughts on Apple products? I have not kept up to date with Apple so they might have changed a lot in the last few years and my complaints about the software might be my fault. I've used older Macs, I know their newer ones are a lot better than their older ones.
So what you're saying is, you don't like Macs because you used very outdated versions of them (going by your complaints, anyway), therefore they must still suck as hard today? Interesting.
---
Anyway, what are my thoughts?
I like Apple laptops quite a bit. iMacs are okay. Mac Pros are immensely powerful desktops, and I want one really badly.
iPhone? Don't care, I like my Droid, thanks.
iPad? Don't care, I don't feel like I'd ever use it.
That's about it. I'm not the "OMG Apple announced something new IWANTITNOW!!!!" Apple-fanboy guy - I like some of their products. The ones I prefer to their competition's, I'll purchase. The ones I don't, I won't. Simple as that.
Mac computers are pretty important to me in my (future) profession, as it requires me to be proficient not only in cross-platform programs, but in OS X-exclusive programs as well. If I couldn't use Final Cut, I'd lose out on, like, 50% of all the video editing/colorist jobs out there.
So I'll stick with my Mac. But as I said, I do sneak into good old Windows on occasion...
The thing is, when a filmmaker releases a film, he wants it to look a certain way, and he wants everyone to see it the same way. This is why you should properly calibrate your television/display and then leave it that way.
(Actually, that's not entirely true - you should re-calibrate it every time you sit down to watch something, just in case, but who the hell wants to do that? I say every few months.)
If you calibrate your display to 601 SMPTE bars, then it will accurately replicate what the director, cinematographer, and colorist intended when they color timed the film, as their displays are calibrated to 601 SMPTE bars as well.
For example, say you pop in Saving Private Ryan, and you think it looks almost black and white. So you boost the saturation on your TV, and it looks better, like it's in real color, right?
Wrong. Saving Private Ryan was color timed to be very desaturated intentionally. That's the way Steven Spielberg meant for you to watch it, so that's how you should watch it, not with the color boosted. That changes the aesthetic feel of the film, which goes against the filmmakers' intent.
So, the idea is for the color to look consistently good (and the same) on all displays, provided they are calibrated properly.
Unfortunately, the 2004 Star Wars DVDs did not do this, and they still look like utter balls even if your display is properly calibrated.
George Lucas owns Lucasfilm. He is quality control. He can fire anyone who disagrees with him. Do you really think anyone working for George Lucas - the man who created Star Wars - would tell him he's doing Star Wars wrong?
I like them better with the corrections than without.
Picture 2 looks great, Harmy. Picture 5 has a bit too much of a yellow cast in the highlights - the silver droid behind Threepio looks gold, and the walls look stained. 4 is too blue.
I really think these need to be color corrected scene-by-scene and not "overall," as it were.
Been trying to watch your MKV on my Seagate FreeAgent Theater+, and I get audio but no video. What video codec did you use? (I'd rather not re-encode if I don't have to.)
Though from skimming through it on my computer in VLC, it looks very, very good!
Um. Right. You know, she's a very good actress when she's in good films with good directors. In fact, she's been winning award after award for Black Swan.
Everyone was bad in the prequels. Everyone. Yes, even Liam Neeson (he looks bored as shit the entire time) and Ian McDiarmid (in Episode III, anyway). McGregor got off lucky for episodes II and III, but he wasn't very good in episode I.
So yeah - a Star Wars prequel is not a very good indicator of acting ability.
I know that McKellen has signed on officially. Haven't hear a damn thing about Blanchett or Serkis (though I'd be shocked if Serkis wasn't in it), but where the fuck are you getting Elijah Wood? How does he have any place in The Hobbit?
Well, Ady tried to do Empire in 1080p, and I remember several 1080p clips that, quite frankly, looked ridiculous because the source for stuff Ady was adding to the shot was far too low a resolution to look good at 1080p, but it was all he could use. That's why he decided to do the Revisited saga at 720p instead.
I think. My memory could be failing me on this one.
I disagree - A Study in Pink was my favorite episode, but I loved the third, and loved what they did with Moriarty (though I have to admit, if there's one character that does not fall into the "incredibly faithful to Arthur Conan Doyle's writings" category, it's Moriarty).
The Blind Banker(?) was a bit "meh," though, you're right about that.
Two recent things:
1. BBC's Sherlock. Fantastic modern-day version of Holmes. Benedict Cumberbatch is absolutely amazing as Holmes, and Martin Freeman (aka Future/Past Bilbo) is every bit as great as straight-man Watson.
There are a lot of nice touches about this series. For instance, when Sherlock is deducting something, the viewer is shown on the screen, via inobtrusive titles, what he's thinking. This same technique is used for the viewing of text messages (something any film/TV show utilizing texts should adopt).
Also, the characters of Sherlock Holmes and John Watson are perfectly transplanted from the late 19th century to the early 21st, without making them different characters. Moffat and Gatiss have stayed remarkably close to the source material for something intended to be different. If Cumberbatch and Freeman had been cast in the Guy Ritchie Holmes movie, they could play the characters exactly the same way they do on Sherlock, and it would not feel out of place at all. (I'm also going to go out on a limb here and say that Sherlock is infinitely better than the Guy Ritchie/Robert Downey Jr./Jude Law film.) Hell, the first episode ("A Study in Pink") is directly based on the first Arthur Conan Doyle story featuring Holmes (A Study in Scarlet).
Perhaps my favorite thing about the series, though, is that each episode is a movie. I don't mean "movie-like," I mean each episode is a ninety-minute movie. Series 1 is essentially a trilogy of ninety-minute films. And series 2 next year will be another trilogy of ninety-minute films. (Yes, it's only 3 episodes per series, but hell, they're feature-length episodes, so who cares if it's only 3?) Really makes you feel like you get your money's worth with each episode (even if, you know, you didn't pay any money).
Sherlock is highly recommended to anyone with an interest in Sherlock Holmes. And anyone who likes cop shows, or House.
Alright, now the second thing:
2. How I Met Your Mother.
I watched the entire first season of this show in two (three?) days. It's absolutely fucking hilarious. If you think this show is your average, groan-every-time-the-laugh-track-comes-on sitcom, I have three names to say to you:
These three people make the show, and have perfect chemistry together. If you are remotely a fan of any of these people, watch this show. It's awesome. And very addicting.
I sort of made it a rule for myself that if it's a sitcom, and it's recent, it probably won't be good so I won't watch it. I stumbled across How I Met Your Mother while channel-surfing and stayed on it because of the above three people, and I loved it.
Now, though, I feel like I may be missing out on some good shows that I dismiss simply because they're modern-day sitcoms. So, if anyone has any "If you like HIMYM, you'd like _________!"-type things for me, let me know, because I'm always willing to try out new shows.
So, TL;DR:
- Sherlock on the BBC is just awesome, and you should watch it if you like Sherlock Holmes, good detective/cop stories, or House.
- How I Met Your Mother is hilarious, and you should watch it if you have a sense of humor.
Warbler said:
Red Dragon. I have seen both Red Dragon and Manhunter. Everyone seems to think Manhunter is the version. I think I prefer Red Dragon. It might be because I am so used to seeing Hopkins playing Lekter.
See, for me it's Ralph Fiennes as the "Tooth Fairy" that makes me prefer Red Dragon. That, and the ending. And Ed Norton. And Philip Seymour Hoffman...
Basically, I never really liked Manhunter. However, it did do one thing better than Red Dragon did: It made Graham into less of a Sherlock Holmes and more of a holy-shit-this-guy-might-be-as-crazy-as-the-guys-he-puts-away kind of guy. That psychological aspect was drastically reduced in Red Dragon, to its detriment.
Also, Red Dragon focuses FAR too much on Lecter. The "What's her name?" ending makes me cringe something fierce, the whole opening sequence where Graham catches Lecter is unnecessary (and not at all accurate to the book) ... hell, Lecter only needs to be in three scenes: the first time Graham meets him at the asylum, the scene where Graham meets him and Lecter is "excercising" on the leash thing, and the scene where they search his room. Even the finale he should only narrate - we shouldn't see him.
Sorry, I'm just of the opinion that Red Dragon as a novel is superior to The Silence of the Lambs as a novel, and it really pains me that it hasn't been done right as a movie. Not that I dislike The Silence of the Lambs as a movie - it's fantastic. I just wish Red Dragon and/or Manhunter had lived up to its potential.
I'll be re-upping them early next week, when I again have access to that hard drive.
I vote for DJ's shots.
Since I have Avid Media Composer, I also have a bunch of professional-level test patterns that I can send to people.
The patterns I have are made for 16-235. HOWEVER, if you import them into Avid using Computer RGB (0-255) levels, you WILL get inaccurate color (I've seen this personally many times - your blacks will be super intensely crushed). Therefore, they need to be imported into Avid at 601 (CCIR) color (16-235). I know how to do this on Avid, but I'm not sure how to do it in other programs.
I have (at NTSC and PAL SD, and 720p/1080p):
SMPTE Bars
Color Bars
Bowtie
B&W Ramp
Multi-Burst
If anyone wants any of these test patterns, let me know and I'll send them to you.
IIRC, version 1 and 2 are almost the same. The only differences are:
V1 - Yellow subtitles in letterboxing, not on image; ESB "Magic Tree" sequence has judder issues
V2 - Yellow subtitles in image itself; ESB "Magic Tree" sequence fixed
Am I right about that, DJ? I only ever had V1.