There's a lot to be said for automation. Thanks to automated processes, our society hums along more nicely than it ever has. But should we include our playtime on the list of things we want to automate? Is it possible to enjoy something like an MMO if we really don't control it at all? If we assemble our army men and wind them up, is watching them go as much fun as controlling what they do?
Ah, such deep questions stemming from such a simple game. Crystal Saga
is a browser-based, free-to-play, Flash-based MMORPG (there's a mouthful) that allows players to do a lot of things, including fully automate the grinding process. I can hear the potential comments already, so click past the cut and let me explain it more.
I need to clarify what I mean when I say "fully automated." It's not as though you can tell your little on-screen character that you want it to go here, attack this, and rescue that. It's not quite that in-depth. Basically the developers have added in a system that allows you to place your character into "AFK mode." How much time he can remain in AFK mode depends on a special item that you can get from quests or from the cash shop (I was AFK for hours and hours and never spent a dime), and what happens during that AFK time depends on what specifically you told your avatar to do during that time.
You're essentially telling your character which mobs to attack, when to heal or use a healing potion, and whether to loot or not. As I say in the livestream, you "set it and forget it" like the Ronco Rotisserie. You can also click a link in your quest to auto-walk back to town or to a specific NPC, and you can auto-walk to any number of quest objectives. In fact, you can play this game and level up without ever really using more than a few buttons.
Gaming purists needn't worry; this system is not new or uncommon. In fact, if you have ever played EVE Online, Alganon or a few other titles, you have automated your play. Yep, if anything, the offline skill training that EVE popularized is much less labor-intensive than Crystal Saga's AFK mode. While I AFKed in Crystal Saga, I had to at least watch for enemies in case I was overwhelmed. Clicking "learn" in a game like Alganon takes no work at all. Hours or days later, you log in your character to find him or her smarter than before! The wonders of science!
More good news: You don't need to worry whether other players, readers, or super-cool column writers care about how you play. Crystal Saga is for younger players, true, but accessibility is not only for them. I found the automated system to be really fun. In an AFK way, of course. I liked coming back to backpacks filled with goodies, and I still had to go back to town and sell the items and organize my skills. In fact, I've realized that AFK modes in games like Crystal Saga only shine light on how incredibly boring and trivial leveling-up has become in many MMOs. The archaic system of advancement hasn't changed in years and years, so why not do away with the process, or make it something that we simply don't have to sit there and watch?
Again, I know what you are thinking. "But that's what makes MMOs fun!" I get that many of you might feel that playing the game is the fun part. I agree that playing is fun. But grinding is not. Of course, this raises another question: Why didn't Crystal Saga just design a better way of leveling? Or better yet, why doesn'tCrystal Saga do away with leveling altogether and invent a brand-new way to play MMOs? Good question, Beau. I think the answer is that these devs do not care to redesign the entire process but instead want to speed it up and get you to the good stuff. In a world filled with "AAA," indie, and free-to-play games that are all filled to the brim with massive amounts of grind, I appreciate these AFK systems that are showing up more often. Give me a cash shop filled with every single item in the game and we have a deal.
I've been playing Oblivion a lot lately. We have all probably played it a lot. If not, we jammed on Morrowindbefore that. Remember "fast travel?" You know, the ability to click on an area in the map and instantly transport there, instead of traveling the long, literal way on horseback? We have all used it at some point. I use it when I am faced with an incredibly long (but not difficult) ride. If it is dangerous and within a 15-minute window, I will be on the trail. Games like Crystal Saga allow for the same choices, and I appreciate that. Long ago I lost the feeling that even the mere presence of such systems tainted my gameplay. They exist, and I don't care.
The rest of the game is fun and colorful, including the pet system. I like the fact that the game runs on anything and that there are always players around. Other than those few facts, there's not much more you need to know about your first several hours in the game (which is how long I generally spend in a game before writing this column). It sort of pains me to say so, but the existence of an "AFK mode" is about the only thing I came across that makes Crystal Saga much fun. It sounds weird, but I got the same feeling when I found pocketfuls of goodies that I used to get when I logged into EVE and saw that my skill training was completed. It's worth checking out, even just to surprise yourself.
Next week I will be looking at Starjack Online, a free-to-play empire-builder that has sucked me in. For some reason, the game does not allow me to stream or video it, so look for a screenshot-heavy article next time. Now, go log in!
Hey everyone! I have an assignment about the topic of the ethics of dissecting animals in high school science class. I have a survey that asks about one's opinion on this topic. I thought it would be interesting to see what XDA members think about dissection in high schools so I would greatly appreciate it if you guys took a few minutes to fill out my survey on Google Forms. It would also be quite cool to hear about your experiences with dissection while you were in high school so feel free to start a conversation about that in this thread. Thanks everyone!
Here's the link to the survey: http://goo.gl/forms/xU2gjBTaQi
Over here animals used in labs for the purpose of education and study are never killed for that purpose. They're all roadkill, natural causes, diseased, etc. (This is in Western Europe, the law does not allow the killing of animals for laboratory pruposes.)
By dissecting an animal, people learn that animals are living creatures made of the same parts as themselves. That is a very important lesson, because the idea of humans being 'more' than animals, either special or better or 'god's favourite', is what leads to animal cruelty.
I always found it highly educational. Except the one time with the tarantula. I bloody hate spiders, dead or alive.
It also gives kids a stomach for blood, a great little reality check, a slap in the face about mortality, and it never fails to leave a lasting impression. Given the attitude of high school kids, that's a knock off their high horse they sorely need. If they cry and vomit, all the better. Life isn't pretty, welcome to the real world.
(A good friend of mine is a medical examiner, I sometimes help out as her assistant when they're short on staff, since I have had basic medical training. It's one of the reason why I do not care for someone's skin colour; I've seen up close that all humans look exactly the same inside their skin and when they're dead.)
I think dissection is fine, and is helpful if the dissector can handle the gore.
I grew up on a farm where we grew angus cattle, and lived off the meat we got from them. I was around during all the process, from the cow being shot, to the final cuts of meat being done. We also sometimes got a pet pig with the full intention of growing it out to eat.
When we started doing dissection I had no problem doing it, though I had a close friend who would stand in the corner, due to him not being able to stomach the gore. I always found dissection interesting, and it helped enforce the knowledge I had learned beforehand, however it was no use at all to the people who couldn't handle the gore.
ShadowLea said:
It also gives kids a stomach for blood, a great little reality check, a slap in the face about mortality, and it never fails to leave a lasting impression. Given the attitude of high school kids, that's a knock off their high horse they sorely need. If they cry and vomit, all the better. Life isn't pretty, welcome to the real world.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT ANY BETTER MYSELF. However I believe more needs to be done at younger ages to ease them into things like this, if you only get shown the gore etc in one full hit when your older, your more likely to be completely against it.
Overall people should be less sensitive, and dissection is good for learning
If you've seen the movie, go ahead and share your thoughts here. I'll go first. Obviously, I understand this is just a movie, it's made for the entertainment value, but I can't help picking it apart.
Overall, I think the movie did what it was supposed to do - a "feel good" flick about America. The nostalgia was nice. But, my experience as a Marine veteran as well as knowledge of military aviation raised a lot of issues for me.
First...The SR-72/Aurora/Darkwing project. It's plausible that someone like Maverick could indeed become a test pilot, but most such projects are run under the Air Force, at the end of a pilot's career. It would have made more sense to put this at the end of the movie, although he would have a literal snowflake's chance in hell of surviving a Mach 10+ disintegration. The human body cannot withstand supersonic ejection; the force of the air stream can literally rip your body apart. Maverick would have been pink mist. Also...You crash a multi-billion (if not trillion) dollar prototype, chances are you'll never fly again.
This brings me to the bar scene, where apparently no one knows who he is, and he eventually gets thrown out by Hangman and the other pilots. The problem with this is, someone like Maverick would have quite the reputation; everyone there would have been buying him drinks, not throwing him out on his ass. Not to mention anyone in the military knows you don't put your hands on an O-6.
I do like the line where he tells Penny "Being a fighter pilot is what I am". This is true for pretty much every career pilot I've known - their whole life revolves around it, and when it's over, they have a lot of trouble finding a sense of purpose. It's tough to know you're staring at the end of something you've done (and loved) your entire adult life, wondering what the hell do you do now?
The element of TOPGUN itself, the Navy's Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor program, was rather lacking. The pilots were all graduates of TOPGUN, sure...but the idea that only they could perform the mission doesn't make sense. In reality, the military would simply use whatever assets that were the closest and most capable. But, assuming all this...Why are all these pilots struggling against G's like 2nd week flight school boots in the G trainer? They're fighter pilots, not truck drivers. They should be well used to handling high Gs with composure. Then Phoenix crashes her jet...Bird strikes are a thing, engine flameouts are a thing, but she apparently forgot all the boldface procedures. Chances are she'd still have at least limited power even with a fragged motor, and there's no reason she'd lose control of the jet. Still, she crashed it, and they still somehow sent her on this high risk mission. In reality, that wouldn't happen...She wouldn't necessarily be grounded, but she'd be off the team after that. And why are they flying out of NAS North Island? TOPGUN has been at NAS Fallon since 1996, and it's just a waste of gas to fly back and forth that far. That being said, they could have been training at MCAGCC Twentynine Palms, also out in the middle of the Mojave desert. Also, why are two admirals running TOPGUN? And what's the point of Hangman? His story arc is basically "mean girl" > "Not mean girl". No pilot would volunteer for mission commander; if anything they'd fight about who DOESN'T want to be mission commander.
The mission itself doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's extremely unlikely that something high risk like this would be flown by a four ship strike package of Rhinos (Super Hornets). A real strike package would have included AWACS, air superiority fighters, SEAD taking out the SAMs, most likely some EA-18G Growlers...and if they absolutely had to be subtle, they'd use F-35Cs....assuming the mission wasn't carried out by Air Force B-2's. GPS jamming is a thing, but it's much harder to jam laser, and they'd probably drop some SEALs in to lase the target for them. The whole valley thing doesn't make a whole lot of sense, either. No way is any adversary going to leave such an obvious back door open. That entire valley would be littered with SAMs, MANPADs, and AAA....and if for whatever reason they didn't see them on radar (which they would have while they were out to sea) they would definitely have heard them. The TLAM strike does make sense, but they'd probably program them with an off-axis waypoint so they didn't come in from the same direction as the fighters. The pilots wouldn't be too happy about missiles flying a couple hundred feet over their heads; if one goes haywire, that could be it for you or your wingman. It's worth noting that TLAMs are subsonic cruise missiles, too, so they wouldn't be outrunning fighters cruising at 400+ knots.
The diving delivery doesn't make a whole lot of sense. F/A-18s are 4th generation fighters; laser guided bombs don't have to be dropped in a dive, they just have to be dropped into a virtual "basket" where the seeker head can acquire the laser signal. They could do this while staying under the rim of the mountain crater.
The F-14 scene is pretty cool, although if he'd taken off using flaps...he might have saved the nose gear. But, if he saved the nose gear, he wouldn't be able to barricade, and movies have to have tension, right? That being said, the chances of surviving against not just one, but two Su-57s in a F-14 are...Not great. The Felon's capabilities are doubted, sure...the cockpit looks like it has very poor rear visibility...but, it is a 5th gen fighter with 3D thrust vectoring. It would make quick work out of the heavy, ungainly F-35, let alone a Tomcat, and modern heat seeking missiles like the AIM-9X and R-73 (R-74 in the Su-57's case) are hard to decoy with flares. There's no way flying through a canyon would confuse the Felon's systems...they'd just hang back and keep firing missiles until they brought the Tomcat down. They wouldn't bother following it through the canyon, either...they could just fly a couple thousand feet above and behind and maintain visual contact.
Finally...nobody would be crowding the flight deck celebrating. Everyone topside has a job; if your job doesn't involve you being on the flight deck, you won't be there. Their first priority would be ensuring nothing caught fire, and they did that. Second priority would be clearing the deck, because an aircraft carrier is busy 24/7 with launches, recoveries, and training.
Anyway, that's just my take. Feel free to share yours.
We Were Soldiers and Hamburger Hill are good... never liked Tom bs Cruise at all.
blackhawk said:
We Were Soldiers and Hamburger Hill are good... never liked Tom bs Cruise at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hacksaw Ridge was pretty excellent too. I'm not a huge fan of Cruise either but the intent here is to talk about what we like or didn't like about Maverick
V0latyle said:
Hacksaw Ridge was pretty excellent too. I'm not a huge fan of Cruise either but the intent here is to talk about what we like or didn't like about Maverick
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Numerous technical errors as usual... try to pretend you're stupid, don't think, pretend it's not Tom Cruise and the movie might be ok.
Probably not.
I once shot out a 30" crt with a 9mm Glaser safety slug because Tom Cruise was on it at that time. Got him center mass
Deeply satisfying and the micro shrapnel from it was incredible. Replaced the crt for $169... it was so worth it.
After thinking over, watch Spy Hard instead. Far more believable, better script and acting too
Dang! Glad I saw the movie before reading all of this. I loved it! Could care less about all the technical authenticity or whatever, I go to the movies to forget about the real world, and if I wanted to see all this technical stuff, I could have saved the $60 bucks, had a few sips of Scotch and looked it all up on the interwebz, and forgotten all about it anyways!
Good thing Badgers are simple creatures!
Badger50 said:
Dang! Glad I saw the movie before reading all of this. I loved it! Could care less about all the technical authenticity or whatever, I go to the movies to forget about the real world, and if I wanted to see all this technical stuff, I could have saved the $60 bucks, had a few sips of Scotch and looked it all up on the interwebz, and forgotten all about it anyways!
Good thing Badgers are simple creatures!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Any critter that decorates its den entrance with bones from its plunders isn't a simple creature
blackhawk said:
simple creature
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you meant, Simply effective!
Badger50 said:
I think you meant, Simply effective!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Simply hungry too
Meh... saw it.
Great cinematography... at times,
sound track- meh,
script- another death star miracle... it was pretentious and rehashed.
wokeness- a token women top gun, lame.
It had a click to it but it felt like a 80yo cougar making a pass at you.
It's ok... hella better then any of the new woke Disney crap
Guess I'll watch it again. Older Tom Cruise isn't nearly as anoying as young TC.
What do two F18 pilots, Wombat and Mover think?
They bring up some interesting aspects of the movie.
I want to believe... *explodes into pink mist*
The sequel to a classic created another classic...Tom Cruise back as Maverick is fantastic...a film to watch and re-watch..
V0latyle said:
If you've seen the movie, go ahead and share your thoughts here. I'll go first. Obviously, I understand this is just a movie, it's made for the entertainment value, but I can't help picking it apart.
Overall, I think the movie did what it was supposed to do - a "feel good" flick about America. The nostalgia was nice. But, my experience as a Marine veteran as well as knowledge of military aviation raised a lot of issues for me.
First...The SR-72/Aurora/Darkwing project. It's plausible that someone like Maverick could indeed become a test pilot, but most such projects are run under the Air Force, at the end of a pilot's career. It would have made more sense to put this at the end of the movie, although he would have a literal snowflake's chance in hell of surviving a Mach 10+ disintegration. The human body cannot withstand supersonic ejection; the force of the air stream can literally rip your body apart. Maverick would have been pink mist. Also...You crash a multi-billion (if not trillion) dollar prototype, chances are you'll never fly again.
This brings me to the bar scene, where apparently no one knows who he is, and he eventually gets thrown out by Hangman and the other pilots. The problem with this is, someone like Maverick would have quite the reputation; everyone there would have been buying him drinks, not throwing him out on his ass.
I do like the line where he tells Penny "Being a fighter pilot is what I am". This is true for pretty much every career pilot I've known - their whole life revolves around it, and when it's over, they have a lot of trouble finding a sense of purpose. It's tough to know you're staring at the end of something you've done (and loved) your entire adult life, wondering what the hell do you do now?
The element of TOPGUN itself, the Navy's Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor program, was rather lacking. The pilots were all graduates of TOPGUN, sure...but the idea that only they could perform the mission doesn't make sense. In reality, the military would simply use whatever assets that were the closest and most capable. But, assuming all this...Why are all these pilots struggling against G's like 2nd week flight school boots in the G trainer? They're fighter pilots, not truck drivers. They should be well used to handling high Gs with composure. Then Phoenix crashes her jet...Bird strikes are a thing, engine flameouts are a thing, but she apparently forgot all the boldface procedures. Chances are she'd still have at least limited power even with a fragged motor, and there's no reason she'd lose control of the jet. Still, she crashed it, and they still somehow sent her on this high risk mission. In reality, that wouldn't happen...She wouldn't necessarily be grounded, but she'd be off the team after that. And why are they flying out of NAS North Island? TOPGUN has been at NAS Fallon since 1996, and it's just a waste of gas to fly back and forth that far. That being said, they could have been training at MCAGCC Twentynine Palms, also out in the middle of the Mojave desert. Also, why are two admirals running TOPGUN? And what's the point of Hangman? His story arc is basically "mean girl" > "Not mean girl". No pilot would volunteer for mission commander; if anything they'd fight about who DOESN'T want to be mission commander.
The mission itself doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's extremely unlikely that something high risk like this would be flown by a four ship strike package of Rhinos (Super Hornets). A real strike package would have included AWACS, air superiority fighters, SEAD taking out the SAMs, most likely some EA-18G Growlers...and if they absolutely had to be subtle, they'd use F-35Cs....assuming the mission wasn't carried out by Air Force B-2's. GPS jamming is a thing, but it's much harder to jam laser, and they'd probably drop some SEALs in to lase the target for them. The whole valley thing doesn't make a whole lot of sense, either. No way is any adversary going to leave such an obvious back door open. That entire valley would be littered with SAMs, MANPADs, and AAA....and if for whatever reason they didn't see them on radar (which they would have while they were out to sea) they would definitely have heard them. The TLAM strike does make sense, but they'd probably program them with an off-axis waypoint so they didn't come in from the same direction as the fighters. The pilots wouldn't be too happy about missiles flying a couple hundred feet over their heads; if one goes haywire, that could be it for you or your wingman. It's worth noting that TLAMs are subsonic cruise missiles, too, so they wouldn't be outrunning fighters cruising at 400+ knots.
The diving delivery doesn't make a whole lot of sense. F/A-18s are 4th generation fighters; laser guided bombs don't have to be dropped in a dive, they just have to be dropped into a virtual "basket" where the seeker head can acquire the laser signal. They could do this while staying under the rim of the mountain crater.
The F-14 scene is pretty cool, although if he'd taken off using flaps...he might have saved the nose gear. But, if he saved the nose gear, he wouldn't be able to barricade, and movies have to have tension, right? That being said, the chances of surviving against not just one, but two Su-57s in a F-14 are...Not great. The Felon's capabilities are doubted, sure...the cockpit looks like it has very poor rear visibility...but, it is a 5th gen fighter with 3D thrust vectoring. It would make quick work out of the heavy, ungainly F-35, let alone a Tomcat, and modern heat seeking missiles like the AIM-9X and R-73 (R-74 in the Su-57's case) are hard to decoy with flares. There's no way flying through a canyon would confuse the Felon's systems...they'd just hang back and keep firing missiles until they brought the Tomcat down. They wouldn't bother following it through the canyon, either...they could just fly a couple thousand feet above and behind and maintain visual contact.
Finally...nobody would be crowding the flight deck celebrating. Everyone topside has a job; if your job doesn't involve you being on the flight deck, you won't be there. Their first priority would be ensuring nothing caught fire, and they did that. Second priority would be clearing the deck, because an aircraft carrier is busy 24/7 with launches, recoveries, and training.
Anyway, that's just my take. Feel free to share yours.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The best Way to explain what I think is summed up in the video of this guy..
*not my video* hope it’s ok to post
I think maverick died in the beginning and lived his dream afterlife. However, we will never know.
I’ve read many posts about it, so I don’t think I’m the only one (besides the guy making the video).
It makes sense. But if he died that also means.. no part 3. 🫤
Cv7676 said:
The best Way to explain what I think is summed up in the video of this guy..
*not my video* hope it’s ok to post
I think maverick died in the beginning and lived his dream afterlife. However, we will never know.
I’ve read many posts about it, so I don’t think I’m the only one (besides the guy making the video).
It makes sense. But if he died that also means.. no part 3. 🫤
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's one way to put it.
On another topic, I saw several comments on YouTube insisting that they used minimal CGI in the movie because Tom Cruise apparently doesn't like doing CGI. So, explain these:
- The SR-72 Darkstar is still in development; if there are any flying prototypes, they are undoubtedly UAVs, much less capable of Mach 10.
- The US military has very specific rules on "safety bubbles" in training - a buffer zone around your aircraft that MUST be clear of other aircraft, the only exceptions being formation flight. Even professional stunt pilots like the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds maintain "bubbles" of at least several hundred feet and use perspective angles to create the illusion of much closer proximity for maneuvers such as the head on break. Why would the military break hard and fast rules written in blood for a film?
- There are only 5 total flying Su-57/PAK-FA fighters, all in the Russian Air Force. How exactly did the Navy gain cooperation from a historically belligerent foreign military to use their 5th generation fighters for a film?
- The only flying F-14 Tomcats are all owned by Iran, again historically belligerent towards the United States, so same problem as above. While a real F-14 was used in the movie, it's a non-flying airframe with no engines or avionics that was shipped in pieces to the film set.
- The missiles...think those were real?
- The one thing that MIGHT be real would be the Mi-24 helicopter, just because there are so many all around the world.
V0latyle said:
That's one way to put it.
On another topic, I saw several comments on YouTube insisting that they used minimal CGI in the movie because Tom Cruise apparently doesn't like doing CGI. So, explain these:
- The SR-72 Darkstar is still in development; if there are any flying prototypes, they are undoubtedly UAVs, much less capable of Mach 10.
- The US military has very specific rules on "safety bubbles" in training - a buffer zone around your aircraft that MUST be clear of other aircraft, the only exceptions being formation flight. Even professional stunt pilots like the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds maintain "bubbles" of at least several hundred feet and use perspective angles to create the illusion of much closer proximity for maneuvers such as the head on break. Why would the military break hard and fast rules written in blood for a film?
- There are only 5 total flying Su-57/PAK-FA fighters, all in the Russian Air Force. How exactly did the Navy gain cooperation from a historically belligerent foreign military to use their 5th generation fighters for a film?
- The only flying F-14 Tomcats are all owned by Iran, again historically belligerent towards the United States, so same problem as above. While a real F-14 was used in the movie, it's a non-flying airframe with no engines or avionics that was shipped in pieces to the film set.
- The missiles...think those were real?
- The one thing that MIGHT be real would be the Mi-24 helicopter, just because there are so many all around the world.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you watch Hamburger Hill or We Were Soldiers you don't have turn off your your intellect while watching, but it may get bruised. Hamburger Hill is one of the most realistic war movies ever made. My Nam buddy Al said "It was like that!". It seems plotless and random, horrible $hit happens just like war. Hard to say who "won".
I've watched Hamburger Hill over a dozen times.
Das Boot (director's cut) is another excellent war movie. Uboat ace Captain Eric Topp was a consultant for that film.
blackhawk said:
If you watch Hamburger Hill or We Were Soldiers you don't have turn off your your intellect while watching, but it may get bruised. Hamburger Hill is one of the most realistic war movies ever made. My Nam buddy Al said "It was like that!". It seems plotless and random, horrible $hit happens just like war. Hard to say who "won".
I've watched Hamburger Hill over a dozen times.
Das Boot (director's cut) is another excellent war movie. Uboat ace Captain Eric Topp was a consultant for that film.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah. And the whole point of Top Gun is a feel good all American movie. If we want to talk about ridiculously unrealistic, how about Mission: Impossible...
V0latyle said:
Yeah. And the whole point of Top Gun is a feel good all American movie. If we want to talk about ridiculously unrealistic, how about Mission: Impossible...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah I blew MI off after a few minutes
The Bruce Lee movies still impress, he was pulling punches and nunchuk hits so fast it was a blur even at 40fps? Wow. Like Jimi on the guitar, where they mere mortals?
Two oldies but goodies are the original Freaks (all the freaks are real) and Spider Baby with a young Sid Haig, a stellar performance from Lon Chaney jr plus more top shelf character actors.
blackhawk said:
Yeah I blew MI off after a few minutes
The Bruce Lee movies still impress, he was pulling punches and nunchuk hits so fast it was a blur even at 40fps? Wow. Like Jimi on the guitar, where they mere mortals?
Two oldies but goodies are the original Freaks (all the freaks are real) and Spider Baby with a young Sid Haig, a stellar performance from Lon Chaney jr plus more top shelf character actors.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Typical movie framerate is 24fps. I've honestly never watched the Bruce Lee movies so I don't know.
V0latyle said:
Typical movie framerate is 24fps. I've honestly never watched the Bruce Lee movies so I don't know.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe 36fps, they deliberately used a higher frame rate to shoot the action scenes. Don't ask me how they integrated that?
blackhawk said:
Maybe 36fps, they deliberately used a higher frame rate to shoot the action scenes. Don't ask me how they integrated that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now there's a technical brain teaser. Before digital film, both cameras and film projectors were mechanical, so the movie had to be played at the same rate at which it was filmed. Variable speeds would be a problem since the soundtrack was synchronized to the film as well. It's not so difficult with digital technology, but most video encoders use a static frame rate - the BIT rate can be variable, wherein the "depth" of the information recorded can vary, but the frame rate generally doesn't.
Now if they shot the entire movie in 36fps, that would make sense.
V0latyle said:
Now there's a technical brain teaser. Before digital film, both cameras and film projectors were mechanical, so the movie had to be played at the same rate at which it was filmed. Variable speeds would be a problem since the soundtrack was synchronized to the film as well. It's not so difficult with digital technology, but most video encoders use a static frame rate - the BIT rate can be variable, wherein the "depth" of the information recorded can vary, but the frame rate generally doesn't.
Now if they shot the entire movie in 36fps, that would make sense.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
36fps it appears to be. Lee was incredibly fast and formidable.
blackhawk said:
36fps it appears to be. Lee was incredibly fast and formidable.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh okay, so they shot at 34fps, which resulted in a bit of a "slow motion" effect when played at the standard 24fps.