logo Sign In

Stinky-Dinkins

User Group
Members
Join date
10-Jun-2005
Last activity
23-Mar-2024
Posts
1,265

Post History

Post
#286302
Topic
Hi Definition adopters food for thought
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286302/action/topic#286302
Time
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Originally posted by: Stinky-Dinkins
The ultra HD stuff is only useful for large movie theater screens.

It's difficult to discern the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 50 inch screen for the vast, vast majority of eyes (especially taking into account the "average consumer,") if you think consumer home devices with "ultra HD" resolution are anywhere on the horizon you just don't know much about HT in general. Why? It would be outrageously expensive for the consumer, it would be outrageously expensive for the manufacturer (in addition to providing no real visual benefit,) 720p, 1080i, and 1080p have already cemented themselves as “the” HD formats for consumer HD material (1080i and sometimes 720p for broadcast and 1080p home video,) broadcasters would NEVER be able to provide the bandwidth for resolutions that immense, and you wouldn't see a damn bit of difference on most for-use-in-home screens between the HD now and the “ultra crazy stuff” you're talking about. On a spec sheet the differences appear to be gigantic, in practice that could not be further from the truth.


Right now. Never is a long time. I have no doubt that within 10 years, maybe 20 at the most, 1080p will seem like analog broadcast. Those giant resolutions are only expensive until there's a cheap way to get it to the consumer.

I'm sure that when color televisions were introduced, people thought "Well, I doubt it'll ever get better than this". That is, consumers probably thought that. Every step makes it look a little better. I expect to see much higher resolutions being totally pervasive in the next 10 years. And with better mediums for transmission, there'll be plenty of bandwidth to push the content.

I don't think you're understanding me, the issue of expense is not the "make or break" issue here.

The differences in resolution you're referring to are NOT perceptible to the human eye when implemented on a consumer TV set (because the screens are too small for the increased resolution to be appreciated,) it's an issue of diminishing returns. Unless you plan on inventing and distributing new sets wacky robot eyes to everyone on the planet or convince everyone watching TV to sit no more than 6 inches from their screens then no - it just won't happen within the next several decades. THese extreme resolutions are only able to be considered when dealing with very large theater (non in the home) screens.

It is absolutely nothing like the difference between a black and white image and a colorized image, that is instantly noticeable to any non-colorblind viewer.



Post
#286264
Topic
Hi Definition adopters food for thought
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286264/action/topic#286264
Time
The ultra HD stuff is only useful for large movie theater screens.

It's difficult to discern the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 50 inch screen for the vast, vast majority of eyes (especially taking into account the "average consumer,") if you think consumer home devices with "ultra HD" resolution are anywhere on the horizon you just don't know much about HT in general. Why? It would be outrageously expensive for the consumer, it would be outrageously expensive for the manufacturer (in addition to providing no real visual benefit,) 720p, 1080i, and 1080p have already cemented themselves as “the” HD formats for consumer HD material (1080i and sometimes 720p for broadcast and 1080p home video,) broadcasters would NEVER be able to provide the bandwidth for resolutions that immense, and you wouldn't see a damn bit of difference on most for-use-in-home screens between the HD now and the “ultra crazy stuff” you're talking about. On a spec sheet the differences appear to be gigantic, in practice that could not be further from the truth.

Extremely large movie theater screens are a different story.

So “is it worth it” to buy into HD right now [for use in the home]?

Yes, yes it is..... because nothing you're talking about will have an impact on home theater in the next handful decades (if ever.)
Post
#286252
Topic
The Matrix
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286252/action/topic#286252
Time
The first one is a great movie.

The second and third are complete pieces of shit. Don't waste your time with the sequels.

EDIT: I just noticed that you already watched the second and totally dug it. I'm going to special order a stamp that says "Terrible taste in movies" and press that fucker right up against your forehead.
Post
#286251
Topic
The Now-Released Spider-Man 3 Thread
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286251/action/topic#286251
Time
Dug the first two.

Saw 3 on opening night.

It fucking blew.

Not a good movie.

Heads up, here's the official Dinkins Good/Bad Spiderman 3 breakdown:



The Bad:

Kirsten Dunst's singing. Fucking terrible.

Peter Parker's ridiculous symbiote haircut.

Peter Parker's ridiculous symbiote behavior.

Peter Parker's jazz piano sequence (what the fuck.) Don't stop the jazz hands!

Peter Parker's music video "Point 'n shoot the ladies" sequence.

The fact that the above took up more screen time than all of Venom's appearances combined.

The Goblin's butler. I don't use this very often but "lolz." That segment seemed like a 4th grader's submission as to how to "Make the Goblin a 'good guy'." Didn't he breathe in the crazy evil fart gas? Gimme a break and I'll throw a "nigga please" in there for good measure.

Venom was thin and emaciated looking. Hardly impressive.

Venom's CG. The mouth was so terribly animated when the "costume" spoke.

Every fight scene in the movie was CG, and all organic matter was animated unconvincingly and was rubbery/soft looking. The Goblin using his dumb flying surfboard to shoot fire at a 6 story Sandman, yahahaha. Go fuck yourself.

The movie was 90% CG, and 85% of it blew. Watching this movie 5 or ten years from now (why anyone would do that I have no idea) is going to seem like Special Effect Amateur hour.

The dialogue was consistently awkward - shitloads of lines felt horrendously out of place.

The villains' plotlines were sloppily woven together. Monkeys wrote the script, apparently. Listen, maybe concentrating on one villain and really fleshing out his storyline would've been a better idea, two at most. The villains in this movie were underdeveloped and the conflicts they caused were resolved terribly. They tried to cram way, way too much bullshit into the script, like those fat Hispanic sluts that have giant thighs and huge fat asses yet are somehow under the delusion that they look great in jeans made for good looking girls. Way too much sausage, way too little casing.


Many more.



The Good:

Bruce Campbell's restaurant cameo.

The Willem Dafoe painting, just because I think it would make for an interesting conversation piece hanging in my place.

That's about it.



The Ugly:

We got there late so we had to sit in the front row, the very fucking front row, so the entire time I was loaded and stoned out of my mind while bending my neck so I could see this towering, distorted shitheap of a movie. My time would've been better spent staring at the floor, and it would've been easier on my spine, too.

I had to piss wicked bad for the last 40 minutes of the movie.



The Verdict:

F-
Post
#280949
Topic
R.I.P. Bob Clark
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/280949/action/topic#280949
Time
Originally posted by: CNN
The driver of the other vehicle, Hector Velazquez-Nava, 24, of Los Angeles and his passenger, described as a 29-year-old woman, were taken to UCLA Medical Center with minor injuries.

Velazquez-Nava was arrested Wednesday afternoon and booked for investigation of driving under the influence of alcohol and gross vehicular manslaughter. He was being held on $100,000 bail.

"The initial investigation has concluded that Nava was driving without a license northbound in the southbound lanes while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage," Vernon said.


"Driving without a license."

Yeah, no shit..... "Hector Velazquez-Nava" probably had a tough time finding a legit American driving license in Mexico.

It's a damn good thing Border Jumping Jimmy decided to fill up on Corona's before tooling around in his shit kicker.

Cock sucker.
Post
#280616
Topic
The Go-Mer-Tonic™ Thread - Today's Topic: Whose your favorite author and why?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/280616/action/topic#280616
Time
Originally posted by: sean wookie
Do we really want to end up like some stupid country that can only speak its own language? How else are we going to speak with our neighbors?



Our neighbors?

Well, shit - I guess with Canadians we'll just use English and with Mexicans we'll use Mexican sign language (meaning we'll just point to the area of grass that we want cut.)

Problem solved.
Post
#279985
Topic
LOST
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/279985/action/topic#279985
Time
Originally posted by: Rob
Lost officially jumped the shark when Hurley got the VW bus engine to turn over while barreling down that hill. Since that moment, the show has been one stinking pile of ass jelly. What a fucking waste of time. Sometimes when you guys discuss current episodes I think you lack perspective. Don't you remember when it was actually interesting, well written, and well acted? For fuck sake this show is nothing but the young and the restless on an island now. Gay, sooooooo gay.



Nothing Hurley has ever done on the show was "well acted," 60 Watt.