Keep Calm And Discuss Retro Generally!

OwaynOTT · 06-06-2013 07:45PM

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

What is this?
Some sort of scam?
Or is it an error?

Buyer is claiming its an unauthorised payment from their card with claim back for something that was sold back in Feb.
I mailed the person today but no response as of yet, so it's likely a scam.
Edit: no sorry their ebay account is closed.

Touch Fuzzy Get Dizzy · 06-06-2013 08:00PM

OwaynOTT wrote: »

Buyer is claiming its an unauthorised payment from their card with claim back for something that was sold back in Feb.
I mailed the person today but no response as of yet, so it's likely a scam.
Edit: no sorry their ebay account is closed.

Was the message from eBay real? If you're looking to contact PP and eB, phone seems to be a lot faster, guy I got on PP last time was very helpful.
I don't think they could do anything anyway, it's past the 40 days to claim? and you've protected as a seller with the tracking.

OwaynOTT · 06-06-2013 09:53PM

Sera wrote: »

Was the message from eBay real? If you're looking to contact PP and eB, phone seems to be a lot faster, guy I got on PP last time was very helpful.
I don't think they could do anything anyway, it's past the 40 days to claim? and you've protected as a seller with the tracking.

It's genuine all right. It's from paypal also. I'm just going to upload the proofs of postage. It was signed for at their address as well so hopefully that should be enough.

the groutch · 06-06-2013 10:20PM

only thing I can think of is if the item was paid for via paypal using a stolen/cloned credit card, but something like that should have been long since picked up on, and you shouldn't really be liable for that anyway imo.

Touch Fuzzy Get Dizzy · 07-06-2013 12:08AM

I'm crying I'm laughing so much! (;u; )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddAkaNw-pEs

The Last Bandit · 07-06-2013 12:32PM

So that new Xbox 1 game you just bought - well you don't own it and never will..

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-07-microsoft-kills-game-ownership-and-expects-us-to-smile

o1s1n · 07-06-2013 12:37PM

If Sony does the same thing with the PS4, it looks like the WiiU may be the last console you can collect games for in the traditional sense.

20 years down the line we're going to be left with gaping holes in our retro libraries from this generation of games (and I'm sure every subsequent generation after that if it is a success)

Retr0gamer · 07-06-2013 12:43PM

The Last Bandit wrote: »

So that new Xbox 1 game you just bought - well you don't own it and never will..

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-07-microsoft-kills-game-ownership-and-expects-us-to-smile

To be fair you actually don't own any game you ever bought, software has to use licenses because of an archaic workaround academics came up with at the dawn of the software age with an attitude of 'ah sure they'll fix it later on'. They never did and Microsoft is making damn sure it's exploiting that software loophole where software and only software copyrighted works are handled differently from everything else.

Myrddin · 07-06-2013 12:55PM

Retr0gamer wrote: »

To be fair you actually don't own any game you ever bought, software has to use licenses because of an archaic workaround academics came up with at the dawn of the software age with an attitude of 'ah sure they'll fix it later on'. They never did and Microsoft is making damn sure it's exploiting that software loophole where software and only software copyrighted works are handled differently from everything else.

Thats technically correct. But from a retrogaming perspective, this new system is definitely perceptually & physically different. I've a slew of Snes carts here on a shelf, in my head...I own them, they worked 20 years ago, they'll work in 20 years, they're real, you can touch them {hands off though!}

This new Xbox One way, gives the physical media the sole task of being an installation system for the game. Once installed, that disc is useless. It doesn't work on any other console. The original owner can sell the license to use that game one time only, but it'll be a license transfer, the disc is superfluous & irrelevant. This way, it's glaringly obvious that you don't own the content, you merely license it. In the past, such technicalities were not obvious, & never impacted on using nor collecting games.

Retr0gamer · 07-06-2013 01:01PM

Well I for one am far from happy with it. I doubt I'll pick up a Xbox One for a long time, possibly might not even get one.

Then again I really wouldn't put it past Sony to go the same route.

Myrddin · 07-06-2013 01:08PM

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well I for one am far from happy with it

Seriously? I don't condone Gamestop or their practices, but you're not p1ssed that it's a console that you won't be able to collect for much that same as all your other collections?

Edit - Lol, I read that wrong...I read it that you are happy with it

Retr0gamer · 07-06-2013 03:29PM

Ah Terranigma... There's always one prick on ebay that wants to more than me

deathrider · 07-06-2013 07:22PM

Picked up Tekken Tag Tournament today on PS2 and jammed on it there for an hour or two. It's reconfirmed what I've been thinking for quite a while. Not just that Paul Pheonix is as baddass as his hair is dumb, but also that I really need to pick up a stick for my PS2!

Retr0gamer · 07-06-2013 07:24PM

Started Asura's Wrath and have to say I'm enjoying it immensely. Once you get over the fact that there's feck all gameplay and you spend most of your time watching it and doing the odd QTE, it's actually really enjoyable. It's not really a game, it's more like a Dragon Ball Z type bonkers anime that so happens to run on your PS3/360. Sure it's even presented that way with it broken into 20 minute chapters that have credits at the start, before/after ad break stills and each episode ends with a coming next week style preview. I have to salute Cyberconnect 2 for trying something so different, it's just a pity a lot of people just didn't grasp what they were going for.

deathrider · 07-06-2013 07:30PM

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Started Asura's Wrath and have to say I'm enjoying it immensely. Once you get over the fact that there's feck all gameplay and you spend most of your time watching it and doing the odd QTE, it's actually really enjoyable. It's not really a game, it's more like a Dragon Ball Z type bonkers anime that so happens to run on your PS3/360. Sure it's even presented that way with it broken into 20 minute chapters that have credits at the start, before/after ad break stills and each episode ends with a coming next week style preview. I have to salute Cyberconnect 2 for trying something so different, it's just a pity a lot of people just didn't grasp what they were going for.

I played the demo of it aaaaaaaaaaaaages ago, and it didn't really sell it too well. Since that, I've been waiting for it to become rideiculously cheap before I take the risk on it.

Retr0gamer · 07-06-2013 07:48PM

deathrider wrote: »

I played the demo of it aaaaaaaaaaaaages ago, and it didn't really sell it too well. Since that, I've been waiting for it to become rideiculously cheap before I take the risk on it.

It's 20 in Gamestop, it's probably for nothing online. Wasn't impressed by the demo either but you kind of have to forget it's a game and treat it more like an anime series and it makes more sense.

CiDeRmAn · 07-06-2013 07:54PM

Perhaps, at some indeterminate future date, we will see games released from their server based bonds, reverting the right to play them back to the owner of the disk.
That would take care of the worry of your game collection becoming dead as a dodo's toenail in years hence.
But we won't know for another 10 years or so, which might mean I'll probably not live to see it, being all old and stuff....

deathrider · 07-06-2013 07:57PM

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It's 20 in Gamestop, it's probably for nothing online. Wasn't impressed by the demo either but you kind of have to forget it's a game and treat it more like an anime series and it makes more sense.

I might have to invest in it just to try it out. I had a funny feeling that the demo wasn't a great representation of the full game. It's a break from the norm, so it'll worth giving a spin.

Steve X2 · 08-06-2013 11:13PM

I feel like such a hipster :0(
Had an argument earlier in a pub (ok ok, a 1920's style cocktail club to make it worse) about The Hobbit and in particular how its filmed.
I've never felt so close to going out and buying a trilby hat in all my life :'0(

Nerdkiller1991 · 08-06-2013 11:20PM

Steve SI wrote: »

I feel like such a hipster :0(
Had an argument earlier in a pub (ok ok, a 1920's style cocktail club to make it worse) about The Hobbit and in particular how its filmed.
I've never felt so close to going out and buying a trilby hat in all my life :'0(

I really want to see what the whole movie is like at 48fps. Only time I've seen it at that framerate was the trailer I downloaded.

Shame that it's digitally shot, though, even if 3D is an added bonus.

Steve X2 · 08-06-2013 11:29PM

Nerdkiller1991 wrote: »

I really want to see what the whole movie is like at 48fps. Only time I've seen it at that framerate was the trailer I downloaded.

Shame that it's digitally shot, though, even if 3D is an added bonus.

I went to see it in 3D/48fps.
Didn't really love the frame rate for most of the film. It looked well for the sweeping landscape scenes etc and the big effects shots but the indoor/slow stuff looked awful i thought. I re-watched it in 24fps and 48fps when it came out a while back on download/bluray. Still prefer 24fps by a long way.

What I was arguing about earlier was the colour saturation and how everything and everyone in the movie has to be more colourful (clothes and makeup as well) as the RED system they are using captures a very desaturated image.
The reason it popped up in conversation was that picture of Angelina Lily or whatever her names is as an elf thats been online the last week or so. She looks crap and almost like a cartoon with the colours. But I think thats a photography of her and not a scene captured by the RED system. Anyway, all nerd stuff really and not for this forum.

Edit:
I even made a quick gif while in the pub of that picture to show how it was photographed and how it might actually look if it was shot on RED.
http://www.myspacegens.com/animated_gif/uploads/6c522abffaed05f89feabc5debb0e174/animations/3157924.gif

CiDeRmAn · 08-06-2013 11:34PM

I saw it in the faux Imax on parnell st.
In 48fps and in 3d.
Gave everyone eyestrain and headaches but due to what I call "the Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome" no one thought to complain, fearing they were the only one to be having difficulty.
After nearly an hour of this they stopped the film, apologised saying they made a mistake with the projector setup and continued with the film.
Got a voucher, unused, for the screen by way of a sorry.

The overall effect of the film technique is to emphasise the artificiality of the movie, I must get the Blu ray to compare.

Nerdkiller1991 · 08-06-2013 11:44PM

Steve SI wrote: »

I went to see it in 3D/48fps.
Didn't really love the frame rate for most of the film. It looked well for the sweeping landscape scenes etc and the big effects shots but the indoor/slow stuff looked awful i thought. I re-watched it in 24fps and 48fps when it came out a while back on download/bluray. Still prefer 24fps by a long way.

What I was arguing about earlier was the colour saturation and how everything and everyone in the movie has to be more colourful (clothes and makeup as well) as the RED system they are using captures a very desaturated image.
The reason it popped up in conversation was that picture of Angelina Lily or whatever her names is as an elf thats been online the last week or so. She looks crap and almost like a cartoon with the colours. But I think thats a photography of her and not a scene captured by the RED system. Anyway, all nerd stuff really and not for this forum.

Edit:
I even made a quick gif while in the pub of that picture to show how it was photographed and how it might actually look if it was shot on RED.
http://www.myspacegens.com/animated_gif/uploads/6c522abffaed05f89feabc5debb0e174/animations/3157924.gif

Wouldn't that be the sort of thing that could be done on a digital intermediate?

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

I saw it in the faux Imax on parnell st.
In 48fps and in 3d.
Gave everyone eyestrain and headaches but due to what I call "the Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome" no one thought to complain, fearing they were the only one to be having difficulty.
After nearly an hour of this they stopped the film, apologised saying they made a mistake with the projector setup and continued with the film.
Got a voucher, unused, for the screen by way of a sorry.

The overall effect of the film technique is to emphasise the artificiality of the movie, I must get the Blu ray to compare.

Wow. If that's how the public is reacting to HFR, I'm not sure if it can get beyond a limited release for the other movies. And more so for the Avatar sequels as Cameron is planning to shoot both of them at 60fps.

Steve X2 · 08-06-2013 11:47PM

Nerdkiller1991 wrote: »

Wouldn't that be the sort of thing that could be done on a digital intermediate?

I'm no expert but I would say most definitely.
But its the way Peter Jackson has decided to do it.

johnny_ultimate · 09-06-2013 12:30AM

The Hobbit in 48 FPS is straight up one of the ugliest films I've ever seen on a big screen. It was the worst film I can think of to introduce hyper clarity, as it just distracts you with its fakeness - the LotR films looked much better with their more capable mix of SFX techniques both modern and old school. I'm sure I've ranted about it elsewhere

Will be sticking with standard FPS in 2D for part two. Watching a gorgeous 35mm print today reminded me digital projection has got nothing on the old school - and I say that as a proponent of digital film-making in general!

Nerdkiller1991 · 09-06-2013 12:50AM

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The Hobbit in 48 FPS is straight up one of the ugliest films I've ever seen on a big screen. It was the worst film I can think of to introduce hyper clarity, as it just distracts you with its fakeness - the LotR films looked much better with their more capable mix of SFX techniques both modern and old school. I'm sure I've ranted about it elsewhere

Will be sticking with standard FPS in 2D for part two. Watching a gorgeous 35mm print today reminded me digital projection has got nothing on the old school - and I say that as a proponent of digital film-making in general!

Well there's a reason why Amazing Spiderman 2 is being shot on film instead of digital like the last movie...I forget. Steve, you remember. He used to drive that blue car?

I don't know why I said that just now.

But yeah, did you say that RED cameras were good emulating that film feel? Well it didn't look right when they used them on the new Muppets movie.

On another note, with the way digital projection is taking over cinemas, Lincoln may very well be the last movie I'll ever see in a mainstream cinema that I saw projected through film.

DinoRex · 09-06-2013 01:08AM

Yep. Definitely getting a PS4 now:

Nerdkiller1991 · 09-06-2013 01:13AM

DinoRex wrote: »

Yep. Definitely getting a PS4 now:

I'm not so sure. On NeoGAF, they locked two threads discussing this because they lacked a reliable source, but in good time. In good time.

johnny_ultimate · 09-06-2013 01:37AM

Nerdkiller1991 wrote: »

But yeah, did you say that RED cameras were good emulating that film feel? Well it didn't look right when they used them on the new Muppets movie.

Arri Alexa is generally considered superior to the RED line by a lot of digital sceptics like Roger Deakins (who shot Skyfall on it I believe, which looked astonishing). But it's all down to what you do with the various cameras. In the hands of a good operator, with good grading no reason a film shouldn't look astonishing shot on any of the major digital cameras. I tend to find a problem - especially on BluRay - is that the films simply aren't graded well enough. They look too clear and show up all the various visual deficiencies. The wonders a bit of artificial grain can do - the film look is after all deeply (ahem) engrained in all our consciousness.

I love the look of film, and never want it to disappear, and 70mm is still better than anything for those who can afford to shoot on it. But with a good team, digital is great too, and much more practical. Been some stunning looking digital films every bit the equal of good film films!

On another note, with the way digital projection is taking over cinemas, Lincoln may very well be the last movie I'll ever see in a mainstream cinema that I saw projected through film.

Not necessarily. Plenty of cinemas around Dublin still show prints regularly - Savoy and IMC Dun Laoghaire both show a lot of new releases in 35mm.

Nerdkiller1991 · 09-06-2013 01:56AM

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Arri Alexa is generally considered superior to the RED line by a lot of digital sceptics like Roger Deakins (who shot Skyfall on it I believe, which looked astonishing). But it's all down to what you do with the various cameras. In the hands of a good operator, with good grading no reason a film shouldn't look astonishing shot on any of the major digital cameras. I tend to find a problem - especially on BluRay - is that the films simply aren't graded well enough. They look too clear and show up all the various visual deficiencies. The wonders a bit of artificial grain can do - the film look is after all deeply (ahem) engrained in all our consciousness.

I love the look of film, and never want it to disappear, and 70mm is still better than anything for those who can afford to shoot on it. But with a good team, digital is great too, and much more practical. Been some stunning looking digital films every bit the equal of good film films!

One small problem I have with the Alexa. It's only 2.8k. Not exactly a round number by any means, but we're going into 4k now. I think it's time Arri stepped up their game and brought out something better. Same goes for Panavision and their dinosaur of a camera, the Genesis. 1080p my ass. I think they still manufacture film cameras, though, but I don't expect them to develop any more of them.

And I'd love for a return to 70mm cinema. Not necessarily the projectors but the cameras. Paul Thomas Anderson shot his last movie on 70mm I believe. IMAX would be good too if the cameras weren't so noisy and cumbersome. Hell, I wonder if there's any way of developing higher resolution film. I'd love to see a 35mm negative in IMAX quality if it was possible.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Not necessarily. Plenty of cinemas around Dublin still show prints regularly - Savoy and IMC Dun Laoghaire both show a lot of new releases in 35mm.

But from what I've heard, Fox is going to stop distributing film prints by either the end of this year or the next (I can't remember) and I wouldn't be surprised if the other studios followed suit.

Wow, I'm quite the talkative type when it comes to this.

Keep Calm And Discuss Retro Generally!

Comments