the more money the mafiaa makes me pay for watching their rubbish the less i want to pay. anyone remember an article from yesterday pointing out that the encoding and decoding of a standard definition raw video stream on hdmi requires at least a quad core 2ghz x86 class cpu? ok maybe it's not well optimised code yet but please explain to me the logic of encrypting a point to point connection that is at most 6 metres long? without talking about fables about how all the people who leech a movie from torrents had the money to spend on movies in the first place (i for one can barely afford rent and food and infrequent transport and my internet spend is only about the same as 2 movies a month if i buy popcorn). where do they think i'm gonna extract that extra money from? sell my blood or something? i don't have haemochromatosis, and the blood bank doesn't want my blood anyway because i used needles years ago even though i have been tested clear of blood borne diseases the whole time since.

anyway, wikipedia does better movie entries than the imdb. for that matter filmographies too. and if your interest is music, discogs is the best place to go and wouldn't you know it, it's user content driven... i'm boycotting imdb from now on, not that i'd ever click on their stupid ads. i also don't go to cinemas much anymore... not that there's much worth really watching anyway... but there's an IMAX sized theatre not far from me right in the middle of a major student district that will let you watch most of the mainstream releases on an imax-sized screen for aud$6.50 full adult ticket price... now and then i'd be happy to go there but the rest of the city has your regular 100sq/m theatres with 5 metre wide screens and $12 ticket prices... who are these twits getting their data from?

can anyone else spot the irony about their nonsense about losing money to piracy when they aren't obeying the laws of economics they profess are godsent about price elasticity? goodbye imdb, and good riddance... you don't have a monopoly on publicly available information.

viewmaster? i always wondered why everything on those things seemed like multilayer cels like in animations... so the viewmaster people were too cheap to even use stereoscopic cameras eh? if they did that to any movie it would make it unwatchable. it'd look better if it was rotoscoped with fingerpaint.

yeah, the fact it takes a 2ghz cpu to decrypt standard definition fast enough should be sufficient to argue that it's not only a waste of time (keys are already cracked and now the algorithms are out in the wild) - the whole thing is defunct. it is only a matter of a very short time before they can't stop anyone plugging a computer into a hdmi output from an 'authorised' playback device and the computer pretends to be a monitor that knows the seekrits and voila, 100% pristine, unencrypted video dumped onto a hard drive (or piped into an encoder).

if only this was enough of a point to suggest they are wasting their energy and that any law that permits such stupidity is a bad law. let's not forget the stupid dvd/bluray disc is also encrypted and before it gets re-encrypted again, it has to be decrypted. that's three totally wasteful processing loads that are so big that for the same processing cost you could be decoding the whole stream in high definition if it wasn't encrypted.

i'll stop downloading bluray rips from the interwebs when they stop costing me twice as much electricity as is neccessary to decode their crappy movies. oh, and when they start realising that tiny little 2 metre high cinema screens, cruddy overpriced popcorn and no comfy seats and beers to drink are gonna make me think my 42 inch bravia and 8 channel surround system in my own loungeroom is much more pleasant. i'm sure i'm not alone and if the lawyers ever come to my house making overblown claims about how much i owe them i'll spend that money they are demanding on laywers to put them back in their place. not just violating the laws of cryptography but also the laws of free market economics. which on any other subject they will swear black and blue is 'The Way'.

oh and what are they going to do when high def eyegoggles finally hit the market? they better be hoping someone makes processors that are about 10x as calculation-per-second-per-watt more efficient than any portable media playing device can handle, cos otherwise the technology would be dead in the water.

hehe yep nothing to see here except wild claims from one site on the first page of results with not even an attempt to convince me with marketing woo. just 'we can make your 2d 3d kthxbye' puhlease.

it's possible to generate 3d models from multiple 2d image sources, microsoft was showing one off a year or two ago but that thing required at least two to generate any depth and of course the more different views the more accurate it would have been with regard to surface textures.

i personally want this technology to become more widely developed and available, being able to turn photos into a mesh even if it is relatively primitive would be immensely useful. for one thing it'd mean no more funny looking facial skin textures because the model would be directly derived from the photos rather than wrapped onto a model which may or may not match the image in the first place. plus i still haven't got around to learning how to use a 3d modelling program and being able take a real object and turn it into 3d would be very useful.

my biggest interest is in digitising body parts, specifically hands and feet, because they are extremely difficult to create perfectly fitting tailoured hm... 'garments' to put over them. if i could digitise my feet i could use that to warp a design or generate a new design and - for example - use it to generate a 3d printed prototype for moulding a urethane mould to make soles, for example, or to make gloves that have knuckle protection and knife-edge protection that actually protects those parts properly. on-demand fabrication of custom made items would be made so much simpler if the person simply needed to stand in front of a pair of mirrors oriented at 45 degrees either side, it would be enough, along with some kind of measuring scale, to be able to warp a clothing pattern automatically for a tailored fit without all the fiddling and prototyping required normally.

how the hell do you turn a fully 2d primary source into 3d? and 3d that doesn't make you want to scream 'FAKE!'...

if anyone can post a link in reply to my post showing that from a single 2d image source a 3d image can be created that doesn't look a bit wonky i'll stfu. sure, piece of cake converting all that 3d graphics to stereoscopic, but, and maybe i am not understanding the filming process with that expensive 70mm cinema type film, but there is definitely only one 'good' copy of all the shots in 2d, there isn't inadvertently gonna suddenly be a second one... i mean, i would guess you could work on something if there was a second cam recording at the same time at a slightly different but convergent view, but really, you'd have to have one on each side, that could give you a volume model that could let you do the 3d but even still... i call bullshit on converting star wars to 3d. i don't see how it could be done. i'd love to know how such a thing could be done. 3d won't work if you can't flesh out the occluded parts that you see to the left and right of the 2d original.

yeah, what i want to see is a lawyer who has a bit of a bee in their bonnet about police brutality and abuse of privilege doing him a lawsuit pro bono for having a gun waved at him without legal justification.

yeah, i'd say that'd be the next issue to come up for this guy, i bet the compensation for being threatened like that will cover the traffic fine HAHAHA stupid pig.