Is there some sort of Hollywood law or

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons (More info?)

rule that I don't know about that forces special effects for shows using
computers as props to be spectacularly bad or what? We've had PCs in the
work place for 20+ years now. You'd think that Hollywood could at least
have realistic screens for their little "hacker takes over the computer"
sequences.

There is NO static on computer screens. Repeat NO static. (Unless you're
using a TV receiver card and that is way to obscure for these "Legos are
too much for my children - they just like playing with mud" morons.)

--
The Polychromic Dragon of the -=={UDIC}==-
http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
http://home.comcast.net/~safehex/
RGCUD Photo Gallery: http://home.comcast.net/~rgcud/

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons (More info?)

"pibbur" <oops@dragonline.noland> wrote in message
newsp.ssurwsu4agez2c@nessus.adsl.tele2.no...
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 04:13:18 +0200, Polychromic <macecil@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> rule that I don't know about that forces special effects for shows using
>> computers as props to be spectacularly bad or what? We've had PCs in the
>> work place for 20+ years now. You'd think that Hollywood could at least
>> have realistic screens for their little "hacker takes over the computer"
>> sequences.
>>
>> There is NO static on computer screens. Repeat NO static. (Unless
>> you're
>> using a TV receiver card and that is way to obscure for these "Legos are
>> too much for my children - they just like playing with mud" morons.)
>>
> And characters usually don't appear on screen slowly, one at the time. And
> as a rule they don't display running C code to indicate that they're
> working.
>
> exit(PIBBUR);

It's all a matter of the balance between realism and drama...

--
The Triad

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons (More info?)

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 02:30:08 GMT, pibbur <oops@dragonline.noland>
wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 04:13:18 +0200, Polychromic <macecil@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>> rule that I don't know about that forces special effects for shows using
>> computers as props to be spectacularly bad or what? We've had PCs in the
>> work place for 20+ years now. You'd think that Hollywood could at least
>> have realistic screens for their little "hacker takes over the computer"
>> sequences.
>>
>> There is NO static on computer screens. Repeat NO static. (Unless
>> you're
>> using a TV receiver card and that is way to obscure for these "Legos are
>> too much for my children - they just like playing with mud" morons.)
>>
>And characters usually don't appear on screen slowly, one at the time. And
>as a rule they don't display running C code to indicate that they're
>working.
>
>exit(PIBBUR);
Yeah, and everything on the screen is in big bold letters. "Virus
Uploading", etc.
-=UDIC=-
Optician Dragon
"Life Is Like A Can Of Tuna Fish - Sometimes It's Good, Sometimes It's Not So Good"
-Alfred E. Neumann

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons (More info?)

Quoth Polychromic <macecil@comcast.net>:

> rule that I don't know about

Starting your sentence off in the subject line and running it straight
into the post's body is confusing to those like this bear of very
little brain. Please refrain from doing so.

--

___________________________________________________________
\^\^//
,^ ( ..) Samurai Dragon -==UDIC Sig Code==-
| \ \ -==(UDIC)==- d++e+N T--Om+U146MA7'! L8u uC++
\ `^--^ \\\\\\\\//////// uF-uG++uLB+uA+nC++uR nH+nP+++
\ \ \ (2 Attentive Points) nI--nPT nS+++nT--wM-wC y+ a29
ksj ^--^ ___________________________________________________________

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons (More info?)

The Triad wrote:
> "pibbur" <oops@dragonline.noland> wrote in message
> newsp.ssurwsu4agez2c@nessus.adsl.tele2.no...
>
>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 04:13:18 +0200, Polychromic <macecil@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>rule that I don't know about that forces special effects for shows using
>>>computers as props to be spectacularly bad or what? We've had PCs in the
>>>work place for 20+ years now. You'd think that Hollywood could at least
>>>have realistic screens for their little "hacker takes over the computer"
>>>sequences.
>>>
>>>There is NO static on computer screens. Repeat NO static. (Unless
>>>you're
>>>using a TV receiver card and that is way to obscure for these "Legos are
>>>too much for my children - they just like playing with mud" morons.)
>>>
>>
>>And characters usually don't appear on screen slowly, one at the time. And
>>as a rule they don't display running C code to indicate that they're
>>working.
>>
>>exit(PIBBUR);
>
>
> It's all a matter of the balance between realism and drama...
>
But it -won't- save you any money on car insurance.

-thehawk

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons (More info?)

On 24 Jun 2005 22:33:00 GMT, Samurai <nospam@dev.nul> wrote:

>Quoth Polychromic <macecil@comcast.net>:
>...
>> Without realism all drama is killed because there is no suspension
>> of disbelief.
>
>Suspension of disbelief is perfectly possible without realism (viz.
>James and the Giant Peach, than which few things could be /less/
>realistic). It's simply a little more difficult -- try harder. ;P

The difference is that with JatGP you're watching a cartoon or animation
and with most tech-oriented shows with the computer effects they're trying
to be realistic. When they do something so bone-jarringly stupid and
unrealistic, it knocks you out of the illusion.

For instance I was watching the preview of the new Bones series about a
forensic anthropologist helping the FBI. Her assistant/co-worker just
happens to have created a holographic display to show reconstructed
bones/bodies/etc. And it has huge freaking horizontal scanlines. How
bogus. The emitter is either at the top or the bottom, there could maybe
be vertical scan lines but not horizontal ones.

I just wish they would stick to the actual software and techniques
actually used in the field.

--
The Polychromic Dragon of the -=={UDIC}==-
http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
http://home.comcast.net/~safehex/
RGCUD Photo Gallery: http://home.comcast.net/~rgcud/

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons (More info?)

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 02:49:24 -0500, Polychromic <macecil@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On 24 Jun 2005 22:33:00 GMT, Samurai <nospam@dev.nul> wrote:
>
>>Quoth Polychromic <macecil@comcast.net>:
>>...
>>> Without realism all drama is killed because there is no suspension
>>> of disbelief.
>>
>>Suspension of disbelief is perfectly possible without realism (viz.
>>James and the Giant Peach, than which few things could be /less/
>>realistic). It's simply a little more difficult -- try harder. ;P
>
>The difference is that with JatGP you're watching a cartoon or animation
>and with most tech-oriented shows with the computer effects they're trying
>to be realistic. When they do something so bone-jarringly stupid and
>unrealistic, it knocks you out of the illusion.
>
>For instance I was watching the preview of the new Bones series about a
>forensic anthropologist helping the FBI. Her assistant/co-worker just
>happens to have created a holographic display to show reconstructed
>bones/bodies/etc. And it has huge freaking horizontal scanlines. How
>bogus. The emitter is either at the top or the bottom, there could maybe
>be vertical scan lines but not horizontal ones.
>
>I just wish they would stick to the actual software and techniques
>actually used in the field.
Did you ever wonder why in Star Wars, they had all this super-science,
but their holograms were incredibly poor?
"Help me, bbzzztt buuzz Obi-Wan, you're our only zzzzap hope!"
-=UDIC=-
Optician Dragon
"Life Is Like A Can Of Tuna Fish - Sometimes It's Good, Sometimes It's Not So Good"
-Alfred E. Neumann

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons (More info?)

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 11:37:15 GMT, Optician Dragon
<DragonLensman1@verizon.net> wrote:

>"Help me, bbzzztt buuzz Obi-Wan, you're our only zzzzap hope!"

Not really. An old hologram recorded in an emergency, I figured some
leeway could be given to Princess Leia (sp?). Now the holograms where the
Emperor communicates with his minions are another matter.

--
The Polychromic Dragon of the -=={UDIC}==-
http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
http://home.comcast.net/~safehex/
RGCUD Photo Gallery: http://home.comcast.net/~rgcud/

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons (More info?)

Polychromic wrote:
> On 24 Jun 2005 22:33:00 GMT, Samurai <nospam@dev.nul> wrote:
>
>
>>Quoth Polychromic <macecil@comcast.net>:
>>...
>>
>>>Without realism all drama is killed because there is no suspension
>>>of disbelief.
>>
>>Suspension of disbelief is perfectly possible without realism (viz.
>>James and the Giant Peach, than which few things could be /less/
>>realistic). It's simply a little more difficult -- try harder. ;P
>
>
> The difference is that with JatGP you're watching a cartoon or animation
> and with most tech-oriented shows with the computer effects they're trying
> to be realistic. When they do something so bone-jarringly stupid and
> unrealistic, it knocks you out of the illusion.
>
> For instance I was watching the preview of the new Bones series about a
> forensic anthropologist helping the FBI. Her assistant/co-worker just
> happens to have created a holographic display to show reconstructed
> bones/bodies/etc. And it has huge freaking horizontal scanlines. How
> bogus. The emitter is either at the top or the bottom, there could maybe
> be vertical scan lines but not horizontal ones.
>
> I just wish they would stick to the actual software and techniques
> actually used in the field.

It would either be too unexciting or it would be too complicated for the
layman. Not everyone watching these shows has a Master's in Comp Sci. Or
Forensics. Or whatever else.

Speaking of these crime shows, I've caught a fair amount by proxy - my
mom likes them - and from what I've seen, some of their methods do look
improbable enough that even Holmes would likely have trouble
extrapolating the way they do. But it makes good TV, and that's pretty
much the point of a TV show: to entertain the viewers.

-Lumina Dragon

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons (More info?)

Samurai wrote:
> Quoth Lumina Dragon <kewhitte@hotmail.com>:
> ...
> > Speaking of these crime shows, I've caught a fair amount by proxy
> > - my mom likes them - and from what I've seen, some of their
> > methods do look improbable enough that even Holmes would likely
> > have trouble extrapolating the way they do.
>
> I've communicated with US cops who tell me that CSI is, by and large,
> utter nonsense. Given the inconsistency of approach the characters
> display, I can well believe it.
>
> Entertaining enough, though, as you say.

I would argue that both "NYPD Blue" and "Between The Lines" were
responsible for what has been a long downturn in the veracity of
investigative drama on television since the Golden Age of social
realism, as typified by The Sweeney, Campion, and Miss Marple.

Certainly, we never saw Joan Hickson bending over a box brownie waiting
for what appears to be an application of rather dodgy-looking powder
and a magnifying glass unveil the reflection caught in the glint of the
crowned front tooth of the guy behind the till who in any case appeared
to be facing away from the hooded rapscallion with the Thompson gun,
whose balaclava was in such a fashion unmistakably revealed to be woven
in the style of an exclusive Atwill St. tailor interrogated earlier in
the week whose clientele numbered a suspiciously large proportion of
ex-servicemen-turned-soldiers-of-fortune ONE OF WHOM happened to have
been in attendance at the dinner-party at Rawlinson End the night
before the robbery, where (as the butler later revealed) he had sat on
some of that horrible chicken!

> > But it makes good TV,and that's pretty much the point of a TV
> > show: to entertain the viewers.
>
> I still want one of those image enhancers that can turn a single
> pixel on a blurry CCTV image into a readable licence plate.

Mmm. This is *good* coffee.

Heeeee. What's that saying about brevity again?

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons (More info?)

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:25:47 +0200, Claus Dragon
<claus@ultima-dragons.org> wrote:

>Words to the wise, Samurai <nospam@dev.nul> wrote:

>>I still want one of those image enhancers that can turn a single
>>pixel on a blurry CCTV image into a readable licence plate.

>Yeah, saw that and couldnt stop laughing for quite some time

To be fair, with video it's much easier to do this sort of thing than
it is with a single image (like, say, they did in Blade Runner;
remember that?). There are software programs that look at the frames
ahead and behind and interpolate the data into a single-image. So if
in frame 1 all you can make out is the top half of the letter "A", and
in frame 2 all you can make out is the bottom half of the same letter,
the software combines these two into a recognizable A. The more
frames, the better (higher quality video and less motion helps, of
course).

Which isn't to say that you can create data if there's nothing there
in the first place; if all the frames are blurry images the software
doesn't have anything to work with. And it needs multiple images to
work with in the first place. A single pixel won't cut it, of course.
But the basic concept isn't as outlandish as it might seem.

Of course, a lot of the survelliance cameras used to have really low
framerates anywhere (sometimes only 1 per minute), so the odds of
capturing the face or license plate you need was pretty rare. And the
video was often purged fairly quickly (so you could reuse the tapes).
At least, that's the way it used to be; with storage costs having
dropped so radically in the past few years it's probably not as common
anymore. But I'm sure there are still a lot of cheap survellience cams
out there so it is still not a dependable source of evidence. Heck, I
remember reading that a lot of cameras aren't even plugged in; they're
just there for deterence.

Disclaimer: I never watch any of these "crime dramas" so I don't know
what sort of Hollywood magic they cops are using. But getting
recognizable images from blurry video is sometimes possible, even
without resorting to theatrical license.