Keep Calm And Discuss Retro Generally!

johnny_ultimate · 11-12-2012 12:49PM

Andrew76 wrote: »

How did you ignore the fact that the lead actor is also Tim from The Office? I can't take the chap seriously as Bilbo.

He's actually rather good, even if the film basically ignores him for near half-hour long stretches - certainly the most charismatic of the bunch (well, alongside Ian McKellen, but that's a given). But I'd associate him more these days with Hitchhiker's Guide and Sherlock than I would with The Office!

o1s1n · 11-12-2012 01:01PM

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

He's actually rather good, even if the film basically ignores him for near half-hour long stretches - certainly the most charismatic of the bunch (well, alongside Ian McKellen, but that's a given). But I'd associate him more these days with Hitchhiker's Guide and Sherlock than I would with The Office!

As someone who has never watched the updated Hitchiker's Guide (just couldn't bring myself to do it!) and haven't a clue what the hell Sherlock is, he's still in The Office to me. (And I can't stand The Office either)

Wow, I'm sure in a grumpy mood today

johnny_ultimate · 11-12-2012 01:06PM

o1s1n wrote: »

As someone who has never watched the updated Hitchiker's Guide (just couldn't bring myself to do it!) and haven't a clue what the hell Sherlock is, he's still in The Office to me. (And I can't stand The Office either)

Wow, I'm sure in a grumpy mood today

You should watch Sherlock (BBC 'update' of Sherlock Holmes) to cheer you up, it is fantastic!

Andrew76 · 11-12-2012 01:29PM

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

He's actually rather good, even if the film basically ignores him for near half-hour long stretches - certainly the most charismatic of the bunch (well, alongside Ian McKellen, but that's a given). But I'd associate him more these days with Hitchhiker's Guide and Sherlock than I would with The Office!

Hmmm any clips I've seen with him in it just doesn't sit right. What was all that techno-babble in the post you linked - basically it's crap in 3D? Better off watching in 2D if possible?

o1s1n wrote: »

As someone who has never watched the updated Hitchiker's Guide (just couldn't bring myself to do it!) and haven't a clue what the hell Sherlock is, he's still in The Office to me. (And I can't stand The Office either)

Wow, I'm sure in a grumpy mood today

Something not right with you so. :pac:

johnny_ultimate · 11-12-2012 01:42PM

Andrew76 wrote: »

Hmmm any clips I've seen with him in it just doesn't sit right. What was all that techno-babble in the post you linked - basically it's crap in 3D? Better off watching in 2D if possible?

Well the high frame rate delivery (double the frames of a normal film) is certainly a completely new experience, but it does significantly damage your ability to get drawn into the film. I would not recommend anyone to go to see it in Cineworld's new screen though, it's horrible. I'd always say go 2D if possible, although I'd be curious to find out if this film looks so downright ugly in 2D too.

CiDeRmAn · 11-12-2012 02:24PM

I really enjoyed the Hitchhikers movie, he was a good Arthur, more of a regular bloke than the Tv or radio iterations, and it was fun, Mos Def is a good Ford too.
But he has made plenty of other things, some British films and the like.
Sherlock is a departure, instead of the goofy muppet we get someone with dimension and not a set of polarised specs in sight! (pun intended)

CiDeRmAn · 11-12-2012 02:25PM

EnterNow wrote: »

I'm listening to the Sonic podcast here playing Half Life 3 on my 3DO with M2 chip...happy times

We've been drinking with Atavan again, haven't we?

Nerdkiller1991 · 11-12-2012 02:44PM

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Well the high frame rate delivery (double the frames of a normal film) is certainly a completely new experience, but it does significantly damage your ability to get drawn into the film. I would not recommend anyone to go to see it in Cineworld's new screen though, it's horrible. I'd always say go 2D if possible, although I'd be curious to find out if this film looks so downright ugly in 2D too.

Hey, if you're complaining about how ugly the movie looks at 48fps, don't fret...it's not available on the 2D version...wait, you're also talking about the digital camera look, right?

Myrddin · 11-12-2012 02:46PM

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

We've been drinking with Atavan again, haven't we?

Not at all...the Sonic podcast is real I tells ya....real!

johnny_ultimate · 11-12-2012 03:01PM

Nerdkiller1991 wrote: »

Hey, if you're complaining about how ugly the movie looks at 48fps, don't fret...it's not available on the 2D version...wait, you're also talking about the digital camera look, right?

Yep, 48 FPS cannot be held responsible for how overly clean and artificial the image looks anyway. I know the camera they used for the film is terrific, so there's no excusing how distractingly fake everything looks up on the big screen. Which is a massive shame, because I absolutely love how Lord of the Rings looks - that was a trilogy that used technology both practical and digital perfectly.

o1s1n · 11-12-2012 03:08PM

Andrew76 wrote: »

Something not right with you so. :pac:

I'm perfectly fine, it's everyone else who's wrong!

I really cannot stand Ricky Gervais. In his acting roles, his stand up, his interviews - he such an unlikable cretin!

The Last Bandit · 11-12-2012 03:14PM

o1s1n wrote: »

I'm perfectly fine, it's everyone else who's wrong!

I really cannot stand Ricky Gervais. In his acting roles, his stand up, his interviews - he such an unlikable cretin!

Ya but the way he tortures Karl Plinkington makes up for those faults

Andrew76 · 11-12-2012 03:17PM

o1s1n wrote: »

I'm perfectly fine, it's everyone else who's wrong!

I really cannot stand Ricky Gervais. In his acting roles, his stand up, his interviews - he such an unlikable cretin!

He was good in The Office, Extras and parts of the Golden Globes. Everything else was very meh. Actually his podcasts with Merchant and Pilkington were funny.

CathalDublin · 11-12-2012 03:17PM

o1s1n wrote: »

I'm perfectly fine, it's everyone else who's wrong!

I really cannot stand Ricky Gervais. In his acting roles, his stand up, his interviews - he such an unlikable cretin!

I hear ya, can't stand him either.
The US office is alright though:)

Retr0gamer · 11-12-2012 03:24PM

Sega first pulls some bull**** by getting any video with Shining Force 3 or Shining the Holy Ark content taken down from youtube because they are afraid their new game won't top search results.

Now they are sueing Level-5 because they dared to make a game where you control the movement of a player with a touch screen:

http://kotaku.com/5967403/sega-is-suing-the-crap-out-of-level+5

In other crappy Sega news I just learnt that the source code of Panzer Dragoon Saga was lost because of a middle manager in sega was annoyed that the Saga team were taking resources away from his division so sabotagued the source back ups.

DinoRex · 11-12-2012 03:31PM

Have you guys seen Harry Enfield's take on Ricky Gervais?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvkVb8jUlm8

deathrider · 11-12-2012 03:35PM

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Sega first pulls some ull**** by getting any video with Shining Force 3 or Shining the Holy Ark content taken down from youtube because they are afraid their new game won't top search results.

Now they are sueing Level-5 because they dared to make a game where you control the movement of a player with a touch screen:

http://kotaku.com/5967403/sega-is-suing-the-crap-out-of-level+5

In other crappy Sega news I just learnt that the source code of Panzer Dragoon Saga was lost because of a middle manager in sega was annoyed that the Saga team were taking resources away from his division so sabotagued the source back ups.

At least the youtube part makes a tiny bit of sense, unlike Namco who won't allow people to upload Tekken Tag Team Tournament 2 footage because... eh... well, because they're mental, I reckon.

o1s1n · 11-12-2012 03:36PM

Retr0gamer wrote: »

In other crappy Sega news I just learnt that the source code of Panzer Dragoon Saga was lost because of a middle manager in sega was annoyed that the Saga team were taking resources away from his division so sabotagued the source back ups.

Holy ****!!!

We all knew the source code was lost, but feck sake, on purpose? That's crazy. I wonder was anything else destroyed.

Retr0gamer · 11-12-2012 03:42PM

Apparently the the director of Saga mentioned it in a Games TM article according to sketchz at HG101 who used to freelance for them.

o1s1n · 11-12-2012 04:40PM

Ah well, at least we can all still play it via original copies/emulation/modded consoles. Would be nice to see a HD version - but the game is still great as is.

Nerdkiller1991 · 11-12-2012 04:55PM

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Yep, 48 FPS cannot be held responsible for how overly clean and artificial the image looks anyway. I know the camera they used for the film is terrific, so there's no excusing how distractingly fake everything looks up on the big screen. Which is a massive shame, because I absolutely love how Lord of the Rings looks - that was a trilogy that used technology both practical and digital perfectly.

Well, I'm not really in favour of the use of digital cameras in films. The end result most of the time, is that they just have this artificial look to them. I was watching the new Muppets movie the other night and as great as that movie was, the digital look was somewhat offputting. Which is a shame, since I think 3D filmmaking can work when it wants to.

o1s1n wrote: »

Ah well, at least we can all still play it via original copies/emulation/modded consoles. Would be nice to see a HD version - but the game is still great as is.

Tell Sega to get Bluepoint to port it. They've been known to make their HD games from using actual retail games rather than just using the original game's source code.

Retr0gamer · 11-12-2012 05:20PM

Nerdkiller1991 wrote: »

Tell Sega to get Bluepoint to port it. They've been known to make their HD games from using actual retail games rather than just using the original game's source code.

Bluepoint charge a lot of money for what they do since they are far and away the best people in the industry doing it. Sega wouldn't have a hope of making that back.

I'd give it to the people that did the Guardian Heroes and Radiant Silvergun ports but I'm pretty sure those are source ports.

Myrddin · 11-12-2012 05:22PM

Is there no way Sega could decompile it & go from there?

Retr0gamer · 11-12-2012 05:38PM

EnterNow wrote: »

Is there no way Sega could decompile it & go from there?

Source code isn't just ones and zeroes, it's the code written in a language that is easy to understand for humans and also includes notes on what each piece of code means and what each variable does and the variables name. When you compile that code the variables are given simpler names, possibly about a byte big, and all the operators in the code are simplified to machine code operators. It means it's less memory intensive and the machine can understand it.

You can't just decompile it and expect to understand the code you get back, it will be completely different to the original code without notes or variable names. You won't know what each variable does or what it affects or what collection of operators does since the structure of machine code is different to written code. It would take some one a lifetime probably to understand the code of a simple game.

With source code you can usually convert the game quite easily to another language or machine since really the only thing that changes is the syntax of the code or some other niggles of that coding language. You would understand how the game works by looking at it and it would be easy to write code to make the game act the same way in another environment.

Hey, I learnt something in college!

o1s1n · 11-12-2012 05:43PM

Has anyone ever tried running it in a Saturn emulator and upping the resolution?

I have Saturn emulation running pretty nicely on my pc at home. Must try out PDS on it.

johnny_ultimate · 11-12-2012 05:56PM

Nerdkiller1991 wrote: »

Well, I'm not really in favour of the use of digital cameras in films. The end result most of the time, is that they just have this artificial look to them. I was watching the new Muppets movie the other night and as great as that movie was, the digital look was somewhat offputting. Which is a shame, since I think 3D filmmaking can work when it wants to.

Properly shot, graded and projected a digital image can look absolutely stunning, especially if shot on an Arri Alexa or RED. A considerable percentage of the best looking films from the last few years have been digital - from Prometheus and Skyfall to David Fincher and Steven Soderburgh films. I'm a massive fan of traditional film (The Master in 70mm =

), but we're finally at the point when in terms of cost and practicality digital cameras are actually probably the most viable option for the majority of productions. Done well, you should barely notice the difference, or should be easily forgivable. The problem is many films just haven't used the technology properly, and result in that nasty 'clean' and even uncinematic image. It's often noticeable on Blu-Rays of newer films particularly. The Hobbit (trying to pull this back to a vaguely topical response

) was the first time I think comparisons to the look of modern games was warranted, and that to me is not a welcome development

Nerdkiller1991 · 11-12-2012 06:15PM

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Properly shot, graded and projected a digital image can look absolutely stunning, especially if shot on an Arri Alexa or RED. A considerable percentage of the best looking films from the last few years have been digital - from Prometheus and Skyfall to David Fincher and Steven Soderburgh films. I'm a massive fan of traditional film (The Master in 70mm = ), but we're finally at the point when in terms of cost and practicality digital cameras are actually probably the most viable option for the majority of productions. Done well, you should barely notice the difference, or should be easily forgivable. The problem is many films just haven't used the technology properly, and result in that nasty 'clean' and even uncinematic image. It's often noticeable on Blu-Rays of newer films particularly. The Hobbit (trying to pull this back to a vaguely topical response ) was the first time I think comparisons to the look of modern games was warranted, and that to me is not a welcome development

I think the other real problem with digital filmmaking is that it's not exactly futureproof. The earliest digital films were shot at around 1080 (e.g. Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith, but those are story's for another day) and many films (like The Avengers) are only shot on 2K, which isn't much better than 1080. Now that 4K TV's are on the horizon (and possibly 8K in the next decade), they're not really going to do their best to take advantage of the new format. I also read that digital formats are actually more expensive to store than film and that since there are newer codecs that come out from time to time, there is a chance that an older digital film may be incompatible with newer hardware for a future home release...but only time will tell if that is going to happen.

And regarding digital cinema projection, I'm not sure if it really is cost effective for cinemas. While a digital print is indeed cheaper than a film one, the projecters aren't. And don't expect them to be long lasting either. While a traditional film projector, if well maintained, can last about 20 years or more, you're lucky if a digital projector can last more than 5 before becoming obsolete. The constant upgrades just cannot bode well for the cinemas in terms of cost.

DinoRex · 11-12-2012 06:26PM

Well 3D was how the cinemas where hoodwinked into investing in digital.

3D is already losing popularity and the studios don't mind, as they've now tricked all the cinemas into building a super cheap digital distribution system for them.

johnny_ultimate · 11-12-2012 06:39PM

Digital distribution has been a major boon for independent distributors, though - have cut replication fees by probably around 75-90%, if not more. Yes the studios benefit massively, but it's the little guy who benefits most. It's still stunning to see a good print on a screen, but the costs are so gargantuan in comparison to digital it's simply not feasible anymore for new releases. It is depressing to hear of multiplexes going fully digital though - we need to support and appreciate cinemas that continue to screen traditional prints now more than ever. There's a place for both.

As for future proofing? Only the earliest digital films will suffer in that regard, most films these days would have 4 or 5K masters. 8K? Well since film itself is approximately equal to 4-5K resolution, the battle for picture clarity will plateau when 4K becomes commonplace. Everything will suffer if it climbs even higher than that - imagine how **** retro games will look on an 8K monitor, let alone 1080p ones

Nerdkiller1991 · 11-12-2012 06:50PM

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Digital distribution has been a major boon for independent distributors, though - have cut replication fees by probably around 75-90%, if not more. Yes the studios benefit massively, but it's the little guy who benefits most. It's still stunning to see a good print on a screen, but the costs are so gargantuan in comparison to digital it's simply not feasible anymore for new releases. It is depressing to hear of multiplexes going fully digital though - we need to support and appreciate cinemas that continue to screen traditional prints now more than ever. There's a place for both.

As for future proofing? Only the earliest digital films will suffer in that regard, most films these days would have 4 or 5K masters. 8K? Well since film itself is approximately equal to 4-5K resolution, the battle for picture clarity will plateau when 4K becomes commonplace. Everything will suffer if it climbs even higher than that - imagine how **** retro games will look on an 8K monitor, let alone 1080p ones

Well then, I guess I'll have to start campaigning for the return of 70mm film. It's a far cry, but hey. I think the execs are willing to part with a few bob to make that happen.

Yeah, like that'll ever happen.

Keep Calm And Discuss Retro Generally!

Comments