Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
an
Participant[quote=afx114]Apple didn’t invent the smartphone either. But they changed the game and upped people’s expectations on what a smartphone *should* be in 2007. Replace “smartphone” in the last sentence with “tablet” or “GUI” or “CGI” and that is the essence of Apple.[/quote]
Fixed. What you describe is just your typical leap frogging in technology industry. Android is doing to iOS what iOS did to Windows Mobile. Without Android pushing the envelope, we probably wouldn’t see multi-tasking in iOS. Even the current multi-tasking in iOS isn’t as robust as Android. Then there’s the tighter integration to the various Google services and social networking services. Windows Phone 7 took that integration to the next level. Same with tablet. You can say, tablets running Windows was before its time. A few years back, when Windows tablet came out, CPU choices were either powerful with poor battery life (x86 chips), or very low performance with better batter life (ARM). When the original iPad came out, ARM chips have gotten much more powerful. Also, some could say today’s tablet is nothing more than a phone with larger screen. It’s not like they put OSX on there. WRT to GUI, I don’t see it. Windows 7 GUI is so much more advance than OSX is. CGI is Pixar, not Apple. Pixar did solve a problem that many are not trying to solve. Even to this day, 100% CGI movies are a small subset of movies. Kind of like animated films. CGI mixed with human actors on the other hand have been going on for awhile now and continue to advance. This is the problem many companies are trying to solve.Participant[quote=CONCHO]I never said Pixar invented CGI. Pixar turned that technology into something that could be used to make movies. Big difference. And again, it was bound to happen? Jobs funded Pixar for nine years with no product to sell, no revenue coming in. Zero. Nada. Zilch. In that time they invented all of the tools and techniques necessary to make movies with it cost-effectively. Again, if you weren’t there at the time, you wouldn’t understand this, but no one ever thought that you would actually be able to make a movie with this stuff. There was no money to fund the research. There was no one willing to pay the bills to develop the software necessary for rendering these complex scenes on a massive scale, for animating all of those characters, for modeling all of the physics in a cost-effective manner, etc… — no one except Pixar and Jobs.
Lion King was made with a staff of 800 people and a $45M budget. Toy Story had a staff of 110 and a budget of $30M. If you have not been involved in this technology, if you didn’t live through that time, you may not be able to appreciate just how bold of a move Pixar was. It was literally viewed as insanity. Computers were a joke in Hollywood, they were still stuck in the 1960s, doing things the old-fashioned way with Panaflex cameras and miniatures. Pixar changed all of that in 1995.[/quote]
You’re right, I wasn’t there, so I don’t understand all the difficulties that they run into and have to solve to get Toy Story out. I gave Jobs mad props for sticking with Pixar and allow them to come up with all the tools that would make Toy Story happen in 1995. I’m not in the industry, so I could be wrong, but to say “Computers were a joke in Hollywood” is a little misleading, no? Consider the history of CGI and how it progress over the years, I still think it would bound to happen as technology improve. Pixar just have a single vision and problem they’re trying to solve, which is creating a movie that’s 100% CGI. Which would explain why they’re so far ahead than the rest of the field in this type of movie making. It seems like the rest of the field of CGI are spending more time and resources in using CGI in conjunction with human in the movie. Do you think the 2 usage of CGI are different? BTW, Casper was the first CGI lead character in feature-length film (preceded Toy Story by six months). First CGI characters to interact realistically with live actors. How do you think they made Casper if Pixar is the only company that was developing characters 100% in CGI? I guess I’m just not in awe about a movie 100% in CGI as you are. I actually prefer seeing CGI being used to improve the conventional movies with human in it (along the line of Avatar, Matrix, Lord of the Rings, etc). So, as a movie loving general public, I’m not sure if my movie enjoyment would be worse w/out movies made 100% in CGI.Participant[quote=CONCHO]I never said Pixar invented CGI. Pixar turned that technology into something that could be used to make movies. Big difference. And again, it was bound to happen? Jobs funded Pixar for nine years with no product to sell, no revenue coming in. Zero. Nada. Zilch. In that time they invented all of the tools and techniques necessary to make movies with it cost-effectively. Again, if you weren’t there at the time, you wouldn’t understand this, but no one ever thought that you would actually be able to make a movie with this stuff. There was no money to fund the research. There was no one willing to pay the bills to develop the software necessary for rendering these complex scenes on a massive scale, for animating all of those characters, for modeling all of the physics in a cost-effective manner, etc… — no one except Pixar and Jobs.
Lion King was made with a staff of 800 people and a $45M budget. Toy Story had a staff of 110 and a budget of $30M. If you have not been involved in this technology, if you didn’t live through that time, you may not be able to appreciate just how bold of a move Pixar was. It was literally viewed as insanity. Computers were a joke in Hollywood, they were still stuck in the 1960s, doing things the old-fashioned way with Panaflex cameras and miniatures. Pixar changed all of that in 1995.[/quote]
You’re right, I wasn’t there, so I don’t understand all the difficulties that they run into and have to solve to get Toy Story out. I gave Jobs mad props for sticking with Pixar and allow them to come up with all the tools that would make Toy Story happen in 1995. I’m not in the industry, so I could be wrong, but to say “Computers were a joke in Hollywood” is a little misleading, no? Consider the history of CGI and how it progress over the years, I still think it would bound to happen as technology improve. Pixar just have a single vision and problem they’re trying to solve, which is creating a movie that’s 100% CGI. Which would explain why they’re so far ahead than the rest of the field in this type of movie making. It seems like the rest of the field of CGI are spending more time and resources in using CGI in conjunction with human in the movie. Do you think the 2 usage of CGI are different? BTW, Casper was the first CGI lead character in feature-length film (preceded Toy Story by six months). First CGI characters to interact realistically with live actors. How do you think they made Casper if Pixar is the only company that was developing characters 100% in CGI? I guess I’m just not in awe about a movie 100% in CGI as you are. I actually prefer seeing CGI being used to improve the conventional movies with human in it (along the line of Avatar, Matrix, Lord of the Rings, etc). So, as a movie loving general public, I’m not sure if my movie enjoyment would be worse w/out movies made 100% in CGI.Participant[quote=CONCHO]I never said Pixar invented CGI. Pixar turned that technology into something that could be used to make movies. Big difference. And again, it was bound to happen? Jobs funded Pixar for nine years with no product to sell, no revenue coming in. Zero. Nada. Zilch. In that time they invented all of the tools and techniques necessary to make movies with it cost-effectively. Again, if you weren’t there at the time, you wouldn’t understand this, but no one ever thought that you would actually be able to make a movie with this stuff. There was no money to fund the research. There was no one willing to pay the bills to develop the software necessary for rendering these complex scenes on a massive scale, for animating all of those characters, for modeling all of the physics in a cost-effective manner, etc… — no one except Pixar and Jobs.
Lion King was made with a staff of 800 people and a $45M budget. Toy Story had a staff of 110 and a budget of $30M. If you have not been involved in this technology, if you didn’t live through that time, you may not be able to appreciate just how bold of a move Pixar was. It was literally viewed as insanity. Computers were a joke in Hollywood, they were still stuck in the 1960s, doing things the old-fashioned way with Panaflex cameras and miniatures. Pixar changed all of that in 1995.[/quote]
You’re right, I wasn’t there, so I don’t understand all the difficulties that they run into and have to solve to get Toy Story out. I gave Jobs mad props for sticking with Pixar and allow them to come up with all the tools that would make Toy Story happen in 1995. I’m not in the industry, so I could be wrong, but to say “Computers were a joke in Hollywood” is a little misleading, no? Consider the history of CGI and how it progress over the years, I still think it would bound to happen as technology improve. Pixar just have a single vision and problem they’re trying to solve, which is creating a movie that’s 100% CGI. Which would explain why they’re so far ahead than the rest of the field in this type of movie making. It seems like the rest of the field of CGI are spending more time and resources in using CGI in conjunction with human in the movie. Do you think the 2 usage of CGI are different? BTW, Casper was the first CGI lead character in feature-length film (preceded Toy Story by six months). First CGI characters to interact realistically with live actors. How do you think they made Casper if Pixar is the only company that was developing characters 100% in CGI? I guess I’m just not in awe about a movie 100% in CGI as you are. I actually prefer seeing CGI being used to improve the conventional movies with human in it (along the line of Avatar, Matrix, Lord of the Rings, etc). So, as a movie loving general public, I’m not sure if my movie enjoyment would be worse w/out movies made 100% in CGI.Participant[quote=CONCHO]I never said Pixar invented CGI. Pixar turned that technology into something that could be used to make movies. Big difference. And again, it was bound to happen? Jobs funded Pixar for nine years with no product to sell, no revenue coming in. Zero. Nada. Zilch. In that time they invented all of the tools and techniques necessary to make movies with it cost-effectively. Again, if you weren’t there at the time, you wouldn’t understand this, but no one ever thought that you would actually be able to make a movie with this stuff. There was no money to fund the research. There was no one willing to pay the bills to develop the software necessary for rendering these complex scenes on a massive scale, for animating all of those characters, for modeling all of the physics in a cost-effective manner, etc… — no one except Pixar and Jobs.
Lion King was made with a staff of 800 people and a $45M budget. Toy Story had a staff of 110 and a budget of $30M. If you have not been involved in this technology, if you didn’t live through that time, you may not be able to appreciate just how bold of a move Pixar was. It was literally viewed as insanity. Computers were a joke in Hollywood, they were still stuck in the 1960s, doing things the old-fashioned way with Panaflex cameras and miniatures. Pixar changed all of that in 1995.[/quote]
You’re right, I wasn’t there, so I don’t understand all the difficulties that they run into and have to solve to get Toy Story out. I gave Jobs mad props for sticking with Pixar and allow them to come up with all the tools that would make Toy Story happen in 1995. I’m not in the industry, so I could be wrong, but to say “Computers were a joke in Hollywood” is a little misleading, no? Consider the history of CGI and how it progress over the years, I still think it would bound to happen as technology improve. Pixar just have a single vision and problem they’re trying to solve, which is creating a movie that’s 100% CGI. Which would explain why they’re so far ahead than the rest of the field in this type of movie making. It seems like the rest of the field of CGI are spending more time and resources in using CGI in conjunction with human in the movie. Do you think the 2 usage of CGI are different? BTW, Casper was the first CGI lead character in feature-length film (preceded Toy Story by six months). First CGI characters to interact realistically with live actors. How do you think they made Casper if Pixar is the only company that was developing characters 100% in CGI? I guess I’m just not in awe about a movie 100% in CGI as you are. I actually prefer seeing CGI being used to improve the conventional movies with human in it (along the line of Avatar, Matrix, Lord of the Rings, etc). So, as a movie loving general public, I’m not sure if my movie enjoyment would be worse w/out movies made 100% in CGI.Participant[quote=CONCHO]I never said Pixar invented CGI. Pixar turned that technology into something that could be used to make movies. Big difference. And again, it was bound to happen? Jobs funded Pixar for nine years with no product to sell, no revenue coming in. Zero. Nada. Zilch. In that time they invented all of the tools and techniques necessary to make movies with it cost-effectively. Again, if you weren’t there at the time, you wouldn’t understand this, but no one ever thought that you would actually be able to make a movie with this stuff. There was no money to fund the research. There was no one willing to pay the bills to develop the software necessary for rendering these complex scenes on a massive scale, for animating all of those characters, for modeling all of the physics in a cost-effective manner, etc… — no one except Pixar and Jobs.
Lion King was made with a staff of 800 people and a $45M budget. Toy Story had a staff of 110 and a budget of $30M. If you have not been involved in this technology, if you didn’t live through that time, you may not be able to appreciate just how bold of a move Pixar was. It was literally viewed as insanity. Computers were a joke in Hollywood, they were still stuck in the 1960s, doing things the old-fashioned way with Panaflex cameras and miniatures. Pixar changed all of that in 1995.[/quote]
You’re right, I wasn’t there, so I don’t understand all the difficulties that they run into and have to solve to get Toy Story out. I gave Jobs mad props for sticking with Pixar and allow them to come up with all the tools that would make Toy Story happen in 1995. I’m not in the industry, so I could be wrong, but to say “Computers were a joke in Hollywood” is a little misleading, no? Consider the history of CGI and how it progress over the years, I still think it would bound to happen as technology improve. Pixar just have a single vision and problem they’re trying to solve, which is creating a movie that’s 100% CGI. Which would explain why they’re so far ahead than the rest of the field in this type of movie making. It seems like the rest of the field of CGI are spending more time and resources in using CGI in conjunction with human in the movie. Do you think the 2 usage of CGI are different? BTW, Casper was the first CGI lead character in feature-length film (preceded Toy Story by six months). First CGI characters to interact realistically with live actors. How do you think they made Casper if Pixar is the only company that was developing characters 100% in CGI? I guess I’m just not in awe about a movie 100% in CGI as you are. I actually prefer seeing CGI being used to improve the conventional movies with human in it (along the line of Avatar, Matrix, Lord of the Rings, etc). So, as a movie loving general public, I’m not sure if my movie enjoyment would be worse w/out movies made 100% in CGI.Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=AN]”Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit/allow abortion.”
[/quote]His personal position on abortion is very clear.[/quote]
Yes, and his view of the federal government’s role on abortion is very clear as well. Since you like to pick one word to emphasize, I’ll fix that for you. Glass half empty vs glass half full.Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=AN]”Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit/allow abortion.”
[/quote]His personal position on abortion is very clear.[/quote]
Yes, and his view of the federal government’s role on abortion is very clear as well. Since you like to pick one word to emphasize, I’ll fix that for you. Glass half empty vs glass half full.Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=AN]”Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit/allow abortion.”
[/quote]His personal position on abortion is very clear.[/quote]
Yes, and his view of the federal government’s role on abortion is very clear as well. Since you like to pick one word to emphasize, I’ll fix that for you. Glass half empty vs glass half full.Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=AN]”Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit/allow abortion.”
[/quote]His personal position on abortion is very clear.[/quote]
Yes, and his view of the federal government’s role on abortion is very clear as well. Since you like to pick one word to emphasize, I’ll fix that for you. Glass half empty vs glass half full.Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=AN]”Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit/allow abortion.”
[/quote]His personal position on abortion is very clear.[/quote]
Yes, and his view of the federal government’s role on abortion is very clear as well. Since you like to pick one word to emphasize, I’ll fix that for you. Glass half empty vs glass half full.Participant[quote=CA renter]No Gates or Brin/Page? How not?[/quote]
I would give credits for today’s computer and its GUI to the scientists at Xerox PARC, not Gate or Jobs. They both basically took a lot of those research and create viable products/companies out of them. Although first Mac came out in 1984, first Windows came out in 1983. Here’s a history of Windows: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/history. Both the first Windows and the first Mac have a mouse, but that was developed initially by Xerox PARC as well. So, in essence, Mac and Windows came out at right around the same time. Gates was just more success than Jobs in monetizing AND expanding Windows’ market share through software licensing vs a one stop shop. We’re seeing a similar result happening today w/ smartphone OS (Android vs iOS). Although Gates, Jobs, Brin/Page were all founders of companies with a product that’s original. Gates and Brin/Page were able to change the landscape of how we use computer and how we search for information on the Internet. After almost 30 years, PC and Windows still have the lion share of the market. Google have the lion share of the search market and Android is blowing past iOS after just 3 years. Make no mistake, Jobs is up there in importance, I just don’t think his company made as big of an impact as Windows, Google Search, and Android. This is just MHO though. This is also why I put him in the Jack Welch category (both are great CEO who turn around failing companies).In response to CONCHO and Pixar, I view CGI is just another technology in a long line of technologies that improve our way of watching movies. I group CGI with color film, audio added to silent film, HD recording, 3D films, surround sound, etc. They all are ground breaking for their time, but I wouldn’t say one technology is greater than another. BTW, Pixar didn’t invent CGI. Here’s a history of CGI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_computer_animation_in_film_and_television.
So, although Pixar came out with the first movie fully done in CGI, I would say, sooner or later, it was found to happen, since CGI started in the 70s and Toy Story came out when the technology was mature enough to support a feature-length film. In 1996, Dragonheart came out. It was the first 2D all-CGI backgrounds with live actors. Basically, what I’m trying to say is, CGI is much bigger than Pixar and have a much longer history. I wouldn’t lay the credit for CGI in film at the foot of Pixar. They’re just one of many companies that help advance CGI. This is not even giving credit to the chip makers for designing and releasing CPUs that are fast enough to do these kind of calculation.
Participant[quote=CA renter]No Gates or Brin/Page? How not?[/quote]
I would give credits for today’s computer and its GUI to the scientists at Xerox PARC, not Gate or Jobs. They both basically took a lot of those research and create viable products/companies out of them. Although first Mac came out in 1984, first Windows came out in 1983. Here’s a history of Windows: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/history. Both the first Windows and the first Mac have a mouse, but that was developed initially by Xerox PARC as well. So, in essence, Mac and Windows came out at right around the same time. Gates was just more success than Jobs in monetizing AND expanding Windows’ market share through software licensing vs a one stop shop. We’re seeing a similar result happening today w/ smartphone OS (Android vs iOS). Although Gates, Jobs, Brin/Page were all founders of companies with a product that’s original. Gates and Brin/Page were able to change the landscape of how we use computer and how we search for information on the Internet. After almost 30 years, PC and Windows still have the lion share of the market. Google have the lion share of the search market and Android is blowing past iOS after just 3 years. Make no mistake, Jobs is up there in importance, I just don’t think his company made as big of an impact as Windows, Google Search, and Android. This is just MHO though. This is also why I put him in the Jack Welch category (both are great CEO who turn around failing companies).In response to CONCHO and Pixar, I view CGI is just another technology in a long line of technologies that improve our way of watching movies. I group CGI with color film, audio added to silent film, HD recording, 3D films, surround sound, etc. They all are ground breaking for their time, but I wouldn’t say one technology is greater than another. BTW, Pixar didn’t invent CGI. Here’s a history of CGI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_computer_animation_in_film_and_television.
So, although Pixar came out with the first movie fully done in CGI, I would say, sooner or later, it was found to happen, since CGI started in the 70s and Toy Story came out when the technology was mature enough to support a feature-length film. In 1996, Dragonheart came out. It was the first 2D all-CGI backgrounds with live actors. Basically, what I’m trying to say is, CGI is much bigger than Pixar and have a much longer history. I wouldn’t lay the credit for CGI in film at the foot of Pixar. They’re just one of many companies that help advance CGI. This is not even giving credit to the chip makers for designing and releasing CPUs that are fast enough to do these kind of calculation.
Participant[quote=CA renter]No Gates or Brin/Page? How not?[/quote]
I would give credits for today’s computer and its GUI to the scientists at Xerox PARC, not Gate or Jobs. They both basically took a lot of those research and create viable products/companies out of them. Although first Mac came out in 1984, first Windows came out in 1983. Here’s a history of Windows: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/history. Both the first Windows and the first Mac have a mouse, but that was developed initially by Xerox PARC as well. So, in essence, Mac and Windows came out at right around the same time. Gates was just more success than Jobs in monetizing AND expanding Windows’ market share through software licensing vs a one stop shop. We’re seeing a similar result happening today w/ smartphone OS (Android vs iOS). Although Gates, Jobs, Brin/Page were all founders of companies with a product that’s original. Gates and Brin/Page were able to change the landscape of how we use computer and how we search for information on the Internet. After almost 30 years, PC and Windows still have the lion share of the market. Google have the lion share of the search market and Android is blowing past iOS after just 3 years. Make no mistake, Jobs is up there in importance, I just don’t think his company made as big of an impact as Windows, Google Search, and Android. This is just MHO though. This is also why I put him in the Jack Welch category (both are great CEO who turn around failing companies).In response to CONCHO and Pixar, I view CGI is just another technology in a long line of technologies that improve our way of watching movies. I group CGI with color film, audio added to silent film, HD recording, 3D films, surround sound, etc. They all are ground breaking for their time, but I wouldn’t say one technology is greater than another. BTW, Pixar didn’t invent CGI. Here’s a history of CGI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_computer_animation_in_film_and_television.
So, although Pixar came out with the first movie fully done in CGI, I would say, sooner or later, it was found to happen, since CGI started in the 70s and Toy Story came out when the technology was mature enough to support a feature-length film. In 1996, Dragonheart came out. It was the first 2D all-CGI backgrounds with live actors. Basically, what I’m trying to say is, CGI is much bigger than Pixar and have a much longer history. I wouldn’t lay the credit for CGI in film at the foot of Pixar. They’re just one of many companies that help advance CGI. This is not even giving credit to the chip makers for designing and releasing CPUs that are fast enough to do these kind of calculation.
-
AuthorPosts
