they had to cgi the source video to remove backgrounds i think! lies! also im watching it on a computer so i am a lie


there should be some interesting work to be done, if you can port your textures from the computer to an object and change your make-up/sets cheaply... remember the blank room overlayed with projectors to change its decor

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Lucky is just being modest. I also blame myself for the lack of focus. I've got two kids and for once ... A day job that I feel pretty good about. Part of this post is a confession that I fee guilty about cheating on VideoSift. Did I mention that I bought a 1080p projector?

In space, no one can hear your sarcasm.

>> ^ForgedReality:

The production values of this video are top notch!
Reminds me of watching stupid indoctrinating films on the overhead projector in grade school.

The production values of this video are top notch!

Reminds me of watching stupid indoctrinating films on the overhead projector in grade school.

Imagine this with three mics, so you could triangulate the touch position, and a projector (or AR glasses) that sync to the position of the mics.

Instant touch screen interface on almost any surface.

I work in IT for state gov't and I think the argument that private sector being more efficient than private sector is a bit deceptive.

I think the reason that phenomenon exists is that private sector is allowed to offer better pay to attract the better talent. Gov't often has a very rigid pay structure for the workers. A few years ago we wanted to hire a database admin and we were forced to take our 3rd choice for the job because the 1st and 2nd demanded higher pay and we simply aren't allowed to meet that demand. Not that we couldn't meet that demand. So gov't is being forced to have one hand tied behind their back to start with so IMO you can't judge public vs private with the same metric. The contest is rigged. Then on top of it, this rigid pay structure only appears to apply to the lower and middle levels of gov't. Very often are the pay grades for the upper level directors and commisioners that get appointed are listed as "discretionary" In other words, the bureaucrats made a back room deal.

It gets even worse typically when a Republican gets in office. The same guy that would give himself and his workers bonuses in the private sector is telling public employees that they're going to lay them off or give them furloughs or de-fund various agencies. It's a double standard. So we have this situation where we elect into government, someone who hates gov't and sabotages it and then whines about how gov't is inefficient. They're the ones that MADE it inefficient. They talk about free markets, but then they rig the game in their favor.

It's even more interesting when we occasionally hire someone who used to work in the private sector. They always complain that we don't have some luxury perk or why we don't have legions of interns to do the grunt work for them. Speaking for myself personally, there was this one time I was helping a coworker set up a presentation with their laptop and a simple projector and this guy who used to work for the private sector started complaining about how we didn't have the sophisticated AV system and the sound proofed auditorium that his private sector job had. He was just that spoiled that he simply didn't understand why we didn't have those things that we didn't even need for a basic presentation.

So if you actually want to talk about efficiency? a Lower or middle level gov't employee typically receives far less pay than their private sector counterpart, but yet is usually expected to produce the same level of work. So in that regard, gov't is far more efficient. It gets muddled when you factor the higher level positions and factor in other agencies. News flash: not all gov't agencies are the same, speaking from experience, some have higher standards than others. You simply can't lump them all and judge them the same way.

I hope so. I'd guess they used a 60Hz cam to record a 24Hz or so hologram; otherwise, this video would be irrelevant.

>> ^elrondhubbard:

Cool! But the video flickers so much it's kinda hard to watch -- near seizure material. Hopefully that's just a frame rate mismatch between the 3D projector and the video camera, and the image would look much steadier in person.

Pretty awesome... although being that it requires high power lasers to work in air, does that mean that if you happened to look down on the projector that you'd be blinded?

Cool! But the video flickers so much it's kinda hard to watch -- near seizure material. Hopefully that's just a frame rate mismatch between the 3D projector and the video camera, and the image would look much steadier in person.

yeah your to far gone no saving you If I was you I would end your life now , you are forbidden from enjoying something I hate so much!

The screen size thing dosen't matter if you have a 1080p tv or hd projector or evan better 2 hd projectors stitched and you sit relatively close to it then the screen size difference interms of what is in your fov will not be that grate ( obviously it depends on what focal range your eyes are comfortable with but sitting withint he range of 2-5m from 70" screen should be fine ) The effective resolution of 35mm film is about 4000x2000 , but now allot of cinimas use digital projectors and many of them project at 2048×1080 , so all in all a $1000 Tv or $1500 projector will likely do a fairly comparable job. the massive advantage with home system is you can set it up to your taste not some arbatrery pre-decided spec some company has come up with and for sound especially everyone has different taste.

also I don't see the piont of a shaired exsperance with people you dont know and will never talk to . I understand watching a film with some friends or a group and then talking about it but with total randoms that you will never interact with dosent make sense. ( it might make sense when you have a cinema full of black people (or one of those special film nights some cinemas do) and they all screem and shout at the film getting involved more and what have you as that is truly an original exsperance (not one I enjoy but I can certainly see how that could be enjoyable and different from watching a film at home).

The only cinema exsperance I ever had that was better than what could be achieved at home was watching a documentary on a proper spec I max screen ( before they did the bullshit I-max licensing) and at a theem park in France called http://uk.futuroscope.com/ where they had a screen below the floor as well as a normal imax one.

Id probably enjoy going to an american outdoors cinima where you park a car , or evan one where its just in a park or something ,



I think what makes me ill with bog standard cinema is its so procedural with you just been a chiken stuffed in a pen and fed bullshit useless advertising and constantly told ITS THE BEST EXSPERANCE YOU CAN HAVE ON THE BIG SCREEN when infact for allot of people its probably not.

Finaly to finish of my waist of time writing !

I concide that if the cinima is


1) empty or near empty to the piont i cannot notice other people or the only people in it are people i know and are firends with
2) set up correctly sound focus screen everything
3) has comfortable seats not sticky shit on the floor smells nice
4) no quing up no bullshit adverts and no trailers that ruin the plot of new films ( or its possible to miss them all some how)

Then it is better than what you will get at home and will be far more enjoyable in general , having said that that scenario has happened to me 3 times in 14 years and from going to over 30 different cinemas in 2 different countries.





>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^westy:
Although I enjoyed your discussion home cinimas are infinetly better than going out to watch a film evan if you only have a 42" 2 year old LCD tv and bog standard surround sound system.
maybe you have super awesome cinemas where you are but in the uk there is always something objectively wrong and not in a "charming way" ( listed above in my other comment )

I can see where you're coming from, westy. There are so many things that can (and do) go wrong with the theatrical experience: inconsiderate jerks, bad projection, bad sound, uncomfortable seats, lighting issues, too many commercials, and so on, and so on. But I just love going to the movies.
You ask why you'd want to watch a movie in a room full of people you don't know. But I think that sitting in a darkened room full of strangers and having a shared experience is one of the things that makes going to the movies so special.
There's also the fact that, no matter how big the screen is in your home theatre, it's still a mere fraction of the size of a decently-sized theatre. The sound will never be as good at home (assuming the theatre is doing what they're supposed to be doing). The image will never look as good as well-projected film. And again, watching alone at home can never compare to being in a room full of people who are laughing when they're supposed to, or who are all thrilled, or scared, or moved at the same time you are.
But then I've been going to the movies on a regular basis since I was old enough to sit in the seats, so maybe, like you said, I can never be truly objective about it. I don't care how good home theatre technology gets, I'll be going to the movies until the day I die.

The cinema is so shit its not funny and if you are seeing more than 40 films a year you might as well get a HD projector and decent surround sound system it will be infinetly better than what a cinema can offer.

even though technically a cinema should be able to do things better they muck it up getting sound levels wrong , focus wrong , marks on scree, idiots in room with you WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU WANT TO WATCH A FILM IN A ROOM FILLED WITH PEOPLE you don't know !? , noisy food , uncomfortable seats , adverts before film , trailers that show whole fucking plot of future films , anti piracy bullshit messages , waiting in-line for a ticket , 60% of the seats in places that are a detremnt to the viewing angle and the sound.

for $3500 you can get a home system that avoids all the shit of the cinema and delivers things to a higher quality than what would happen on average when you see a film at the cinema.

Granted you might just "enjoy the cinima" for no real objective resoins purely its an engraind thing you have done from a young age and then regardless of all the shit you will probably enjoy it more than a home cinima , and there are definelty some cinimas around that actualy have a degree of charm and add something to the exsperance , but if you are talking about your average multiplex cinima when a new film is out or when its normaly operating the cinima is utter wank.

sorry if you read all that !



Cinimas drive me mental every now and again I fall for the trap and go along thinking oh hay this time it might be ok and every time there is always some shit.

If sum one said you can see a film for free at a cinama or pay £2 not to see it and you had to chose I would pay £2 not to see it.



>> ^budzos:

I came close to that pace in 2001 and 2002 and 2003, seeing 75+ movies theatrically in each of those years...
Drive is showing in the local VIP auditorium, which charges a premium for nicer seats (basically leather recliners) and reserved seating. You can also have a beer in the licensed lounge beforehand, and have drinks delivered to your seat, as it's age restricted to 19 years and up (the legal drinking age here). You can usually count on less miscreants being at those screenings than say the Friday midnight screening of Transformers 3 that I attended in a town that is, shall we say, closer to the airport. However, you still can't count on actual conscientious comportment. In fact I would say most of the most eggregious cases of talking or what I call cinema calisthenics have occured in VIP screenings. Not to mention the actual screen is garbage and I always forget to check but I'm pretty sure they leave the 3D lens on at all times.
I'll probably go see Drive tonight or tomorrow night, and keep my fingers crossed. Because I do really want to see it, and I haven't seen a movie for at least a month.
>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^budzos:
I know what you're saying but I honestly can't remember the last movie that was both really good and unspoiled by the audience and or exhibitors. My best movie-going experiences of the past five years can only be described as tolerable. The best ones were probably when I was going through an alcoholic phase in early 2008 and seeing lesser-grade movies while drunk and sneaking beer and cider in there with me (helps when it's winter).
I'm currently having the dilemma that I really want to see DRIVE, especailly after loving the shit out of VALHALLA RISING by the same director on blu-ray. But I know if I see the movie in theatres some jackass will be there on a first date, or with his little brother, or having some other reason for non-stop jabber.

As someone who sees something like a hundred movies theatrically per year, I definitely feel your pain. There's nothing worse than having your theatre-going experience ruined by some no-good douchebag who thinks it's okay to talk, or to text, or to generally be an asshole in the theatre. But it is possible to have a good movie-going experience. Sometimes it's even in your control -- one big tip is to be willing to move, which seems obvious but a lot of people aren't willing to do it, for whatever reason. Obviously this doesn't work when the movie is packed, but otherwise, even just moving a couple of rows away from a talking douchebag is generally far enough to be able to enjoy the movie again.
There's also some theatres that, for whatever reason, seem to attract a certain group of people. Figure out what these theatres are, and avoid them. Then of course, there are going to be times when you're going to have a bad experience no matter what. But, to me at least, the good experiences make up for the bad ones.
And see Drive. That is a seriously good movie -- probably one of my favourites of the year so far.

>> ^westy:

probably the future of gaming but not using a projector , it would use augmented reality on vr glasses/contacts/headset , the tek already exists just need better vr glasses really.
saying that thought it was a realy good video clip I do however feel he missed an opportunity to do something that was likely/realistic.
visually i thought it was pretty cool and easy for people to understand and i'm sure that's what his main proities were


Yeah, I had basically that exact idea bout 10 years ago. Then I realized you can't just 'invent' things that use technology that doesn't exist yet.

Augmented reality glasses are going to be a huge deal when they finally get it right. And then it's just a couple of years until they start implanting that shit in your eye and we all have personalized HUD's

Then next thing you know you can't tell what's real if 'they' don't want you to. Like people going all Laughing Man from Ghost in the Shell.

the projector only projects forward, how did the blood splatter from behind?

probably the future of gaming but not using a projector , it would use augmented reality on vr glasses/contacts/headset , the tek already exists just need better vr glasses really.

saying that thought it was a realy good video clip I do however feel he missed an opportunity to do something that was likely/realistic.

visually i thought it was pretty cool and easy for people to understand and i'm sure that's what his main proities were

I bet you could so something with 1/50th the computer power that the end user perceives to be pretty much the same.


I think individual domes using two 1080p projectors that a user sits in and can navigate and exsplore themselves would be far better and far more educational/captivating than this massive set up they have.

the fundamental issue with planitarums is that it is not real and so you will always have a disconnect from reality regardless of the resolution. that is why they would de better of with what I said above and then maby building something on a hill that you can get access to that has a huge glass roof.