Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Why such paranoia ? (Score 1) 187

The ability to brick phones without the consent of the one who possesses the phone inherently indicates that the user does not actually control their phone.

Any information a company possesses on your behalf, including any codes, messages, or instrumentality necessary to brick a brickable phone, must be disclosed if the government agent has a warrant. Your consent is absolutely not required by any known legal principle.

That's just bog-standard liberal-democratic law, consistent with the constitutional order of any modern western country, no need for secret spy agencies or black sites. You don't have allodial title to your cellphone.

Comment: Re:which turns transport into a monopoly... (Score 1) 229

by iluvcapra (#47716521) Attached to: Helsinki Aims To Obviate Private Cars

Except it's not, because of scale. If your elevator sucks, you can just move to the next building over.

I admire how this crystalizes the contrary position. If a building's elevators stop working, telling families they can move out whenever they want is preferable to The State (evil music here) ensuring elevators are in working order.

The terminal libertarian solution to every problem: move. Your city too congested? Move to the suburbs. Too far from work? Get another job. Isolated from friends, family and culture? We have Internet now, and Internet (praise be upon it) replaces all forms of community interaction.

And just remember, you might not like living in the exurbs, 20 miles from a movie theater, making ends meet with freelance coding and Uber shifts, but the alternative was putting up kiosks where you could order a rideshare, you monster.

Comment: Re:im a music mixer in hollywood... (Score 1) 197

by iluvcapra (#47689945) Attached to: Is Dolby Atmos a Flop For Home Theater Like 3DTV Was?

This is something I don't have enough information on -- I figure they're doing something like this, but Dolby is being somewhat vague with the branding and not really making a clear distinction.

I wonder how much this will complicate mixes though. As it is, we can spend a month doing the final mix on a big action movie, and then two months making all of the deliverables:

  • 7.1 (2D and 3D)
  • 7.1 home theater (2D and 3D)
  • 5.1 (2D and 3D)
  • 5.1 home theater (2D and 3D)
  • Atmos (2D and 3D)
  • Auro 13.1 (2D and 3D)
  • Auro 11.1 (2D and 3D)
  • IMAX (which has its own system) (2D and 3D)
  • stereo
  • Dolby SR (2D and 3D)
  • Dolby Pro Logic 2 (2D and 3D)

All of these mixes are slightly different, mixed on appropriate speakers, and then you do a second version of most of these for the 3D, to accentuate panning effects. I guess to this we'd add to that the Atmos home theater mix.

Comment: Re:im a music mixer in hollywood... (Score 1) 197

by iluvcapra (#47689871) Attached to: Is Dolby Atmos a Flop For Home Theater Like 3DTV Was?

Again, you highlight the key argument here: how is the incremental cost justifying the incremental benefit? 3D did the same thing and I doubt the theater owners ever recovered their investment.

3D doesn't actually cost theaters that much. The business model is very slick for them-- all the projection hardware is leased from Real3D (or whatever) and paid for with some percentage/per-seat formula off the top of each ticket sold. Real3D handles all the glasses, the DCP and other delivery chain items are basically the same. The downside risk to offering 3D for an exhibitor is actually quite low, the upfront costs are marginal and they're effectively guaranteed a return as long as they get butts in seats.

Comment: Re:im a music mixer in hollywood... (Score 2) 197

by iluvcapra (#47689303) Attached to: Is Dolby Atmos a Flop For Home Theater Like 3DTV Was?

Better for doing this is a wavefront system, where you capture the whole wavefront of the soundwaves approaching the listener.

There is a film wavefront synthesis system: IOSONO. There were a few screens at the Mann Chinese here in LA wired for it, it sounds amazing and you get real 3D depth through the screen, but it never really caught on for business reasons. These mixes didn't use live recording either, they were multitrack, but IOSONO had a panner algorithm that could position a sound source in depth by artificially synthesizing a wavefront for it.

Dolby isn't interested in this because the theaters aren't. Dolby didn't really want to make Atmos: AMC came to them and asked them to develop a sound system that would justify a $20 ticket in AMC's premium rooms. The Atmos speaker array is the "Fuck It, We're Going to Five Blades" approach, and the theater owners make sure that all the speaker emplacements are clearly visible to the audience, so they know that they're paying for all those speakers, and Moar is Better.

Comment: Re:im a music mixer in hollywood... (Score 2) 197

by iluvcapra (#47689255) Attached to: Is Dolby Atmos a Flop For Home Theater Like 3DTV Was?

This really isn't how we do music recording. I had the opportunity to work with John Eargle before he passed on, he had a bunch of Grammys and had done hundreds of classical and jazz albums, and his standard rig for live-house music recording was an 8-track recorder, with maybe 2 of those tracks set aside for spot mics -- the rest were a Decca tree or other stereo array, plus room mics. We use more spot mics for film music recording, but we do that specifically so we can reposition and alter the relationship between the soloist and ensemble, not to preserve it.

Also, nobody uses the pannable objects for music, it's just not done. The composer's scoring engineer makes a 7.1 or 9.1 and this is what you end up hearing.

If a 6600 used paper tape instead of core memory, it would use up tape at about 30 miles/second. -- Grishman, Assembly Language Programming