15 best robot movies?

[w***@gmail.com]

Hey,

http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

Only one anime title? And it's GHOST IN THE SHELL, which is a cyborg movie, not a robot movie.

[David Johnston]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

Only one anime title?

I thought of a few anime titles, but they were all series rather than
movies.


And it's GHOST IN THE SHELL, which is a cyborg movie, not a robot movie.
As long as you ignore the opponent.

[David Johnston]

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I'd replace Transformers with Iron Giant in a heartbeat. And I'd
probably pick I, Robot over Robots.

[Obveeus]

Post by David Johnston

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I'd replace Transformers with Iron Giant in a heartbeat. And I'd
probably pick I, Robot over Robots.

I, ROBOT should be on there...and, I'd put SATURN 3 on their as well.
It isn't a 'good movie', but it is a 'good robot movie'.

[anim8rFSK]

Post by Obveeus

Post by David Johnston

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I'd replace Transformers with Iron Giant in a heartbeat. And I'd
probably pick I, Robot over Robots.

I, ROBOT should be on there...and, I'd put SATURN 3 on their as well.
It isn't a 'good movie', but it is a 'good robot movie'.

"Science fiction's first one-nipple movie"

[SLGreg]

Post by David Johnston

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I'd replace Transformers with Iron Giant in a heartbeat. And I'd
probably pick I, Robot over Robots.

"...However, a note: We specifically focused on movies that are
essentially about robots — not, in other words, movies that happen to
have robots in them.."

Hey, if Gort from THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL made the cut, then
Robbie from "FORBIDDEN PLANET should have, as well. Neither movie was
strictly "about robots," IMHO.
--
- greg

[moviePig]

Post by SLGreg

Post by David Johnston

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I'd replace Transformers with Iron Giant in a heartbeat. And I'd
probably pick I, Robot over Robots.

"...However, a note: We specifically focused on movies that are
essentially about robots — not, in other words, movies that happen to
have robots in them.."
Hey, if Gort from THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL made the cut, then
Robbie from "FORBIDDEN PLANET should have, as well. Neither movie was
strictly "about robots," IMHO.

Robbie was one of several very cool things about FP, but the movie's
ultimate plot/reveal was the coolest. So, despite his eventual status
as an icon, I'm okay with the FP's omission. Gort, though, was not only
central to tDtESS's look and action, he was ultimately revealed as the
smoking gun in the whole story. I can't think of that movie without
visualizing him. (And, btw, his completely uninspired visualization was
much of the anchor that sunk the remake.)

[notbob]

Robbie was one of several very cool things about FP....

I guess a lot depends on one's age. As a child of both robots and
cowboys of the 50s, my robot memories are a bit older than those
listed in the article.

Robby the Robot also played a significant roll in The Invisible Boy,
which I saw long before FP. He made several TV appearances, as well.
Along with the robots in movies like Target Earth and Gog, I still
remember the silly robots in Gene Autry's Phantom Empire. So many
silly-bots, in fact, I was burnt out on the concept of mechanical men
by time I finally got around to Day/Stood/Still and the later films
listed.

nb

[w***@gmail.com]

Post by notbob
Robby the Robot also played a significant roll in The Invisible Boy,
which I saw long before FP.

And The Invisible Boy was the first movie to use a talking computer, as far as I know. If you know different, please let me know.

[Halmyre]

Post by SLGreg

Post by David Johnston

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I'd replace Transformers with Iron Giant in a heartbeat. And I'd
probably pick I, Robot over Robots.

"...However, a note: We specifically focused on movies that are
essentially about robots -- not, in other words, movies that happen to
have robots in them.."
Hey, if Gort from THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL made the cut, then
Robbie from "FORBIDDEN PLANET should have, as well. Neither movie was
strictly "about robots," IMHO.

Neither was 'The Matrix'. OK, it's got 'robots' in it, but it's not a robot movie.

[Lewis]

Post by David Johnston

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I'd replace Transformers with Iron Giant in a heartbeat.

Absolutely.

Post by David Johnston
And I'd probably pick I, Robot over Robots.

Neither one was anything special.

[David Johnston]

Post by Lewis

Post by David Johnston

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I'd replace Transformers with Iron Giant in a heartbeat.

Absolutely.

Post by David Johnston
And I'd probably pick I, Robot over Robots.

Neither one was anything special.

I, Robot was based on a thought about how the Three Laws could backfire
on us so while it wouldn't be high on my list it would be higher than
Robots.

[Bill Steele]

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lewis

Post by David Johnston

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I'd replace Transformers with Iron Giant in a heartbeat.

Absolutely.

Post by David Johnston
And I'd probably pick I, Robot over Robots.

Neither one was anything special.

I, Robot was based on a thought about how the Three Laws could backfire
on us so while it wouldn't be high on my list it would be higher than
Robots.

I wouldn't have included The Matrix or Blade Rumnmer. Perhaps we need
separate categories for robots, artificial intelligence and biologically
assembled artificial humans/androids.

Ideally, a robot would be a machine that moves around in the world and
does work for us. An AI would sit still and think for us, when we
couldn't figure out for ourselves that the answer was "42." Put a true
AI in the head of a machine and things will get interesting, and that's
what the best movies have been about.

(I'm ignoring Capek's original conception.)

We already have real robots that can figure how to turn on the stove and
make coffee, or remember where you keep the beer and bring you one. But
they don't come up with new ideas on their own.

[hislop]

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I always put AI (Artificial Intelligence) at number one regardless of
what many might say. It's the only movie which explores at all the
reality (or the sense of reality) of such machines.
People seem too used to robots without there actually ever been any in
reality.

[moviePig]

Post by hislop

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I always put AI (Artificial Intelligence) at number one regardless of
what many might say. It's the only movie which explores at all the
reality (or the sense of reality) of such machines.
People seem too used to robots without there actually ever been any in
reality.

"Flawed", as can be (and is) said of every movie, but, yeah, undersung.

[hislop]

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I always put AI (Artificial Intelligence) at number one regardless of
what many might say. It's the only movie which explores at all the
reality (or the sense of reality) of such machines.
People seem too used to robots without there actually ever been any in
reality.

"Flawed", as can be (and is) said of every movie, but, yeah, undersung.

A bit of a touchy subject because of my research as a computer
programmer into AI. A lot of foggy thinking about this subject these days.
Even the bit near the end where David is left for hundreds of years then
found meant something to me. The sexy stuff seems very silly, but it
evokes Kubrick.
Bicentennial Man might be another to consider I guess. Asimov
originally wrote the story for the American bicentennial in 1977.

[moviePig]

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I always put AI (Artificial Intelligence) at number one regardless of
what many might say. It's the only movie which explores at all the
reality (or the sense of reality) of such machines.
People seem too used to robots without there actually ever been any in
reality.

"Flawed", as can be (and is) said of every movie, but, yeah, undersung.

A bit of a touchy subject because of my research as a computer
programmer into AI. A lot of foggy thinking about this subject these days.
Even the bit near the end where David is left for hundreds of years then
found meant something to me. The sexy stuff seems very silly, but it
evokes Kubrick.
Bicentennial Man might be another to consider I guess. Asimov
originally wrote the story for the American bicentennial in 1977.

For me, BICENTENNIAL MAN devolved into a foreordained Chris
Columbus/Robin Williams weepie, so *I* wouldn't be considering it.
Meanwhile, yeah, A.I. might be the most ambitious movie about the
computer-to-human relation. (For that aspect, see also the Julie
Christie sci-fi thriller, DEMON SEED.) But, afaics, the latest
'thinking' in this area is moving *away* from ever more humanoid
computers, and towards how humans are more computer-like than we like to
suppose. It's not a direction that appeals to screenwriters.

[hislop]

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I always put AI (Artificial Intelligence) at number one regardless of
what many might say. It's the only movie which explores at all the
reality (or the sense of reality) of such machines.
People seem too used to robots without there actually ever been any in
reality.

"Flawed", as can be (and is) said of every movie, but, yeah, undersung.

A bit of a touchy subject because of my research as a computer
programmer into AI. A lot of foggy thinking about this subject these days.
Even the bit near the end where David is left for hundreds of years then
found meant something to me. The sexy stuff seems very silly, but it
evokes Kubrick.
Bicentennial Man might be another to consider I guess. Asimov
originally wrote the story for the American bicentennial in 1977.

For me, BICENTENNIAL MAN devolved into a foreordained Chris
Columbus/Robin Williams weepie, so *I* wouldn't be considering it.
Meanwhile, yeah, A.I. might be the most ambitious movie about the
computer-to-human relation. (For that aspect, see also the Julie
Christie sci-fi thriller, DEMON SEED.) But, afaics, the latest
'thinking' in this area is moving *away* from ever more humanoid
computers, and towards how humans are more computer-like than we like to
suppose. It's not a direction that appeals to screenwriters.

Humans make computers though, a computer is what humans want them to be,
the idea that computers run away from their inventors is a bit quaint
and blind to what the future might be.
HAL was the cyclops, holding onto the old ways of consciousness in the
face of the new, he had nothing for the future.

[Pete K.]

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I always put AI (Artificial Intelligence) at number one regardless of
what many might say. It's the only movie which explores at all the
reality (or the sense of reality) of such machines.
People seem too used to robots without there actually ever been any in
reality.

"Flawed", as can be (and is) said of every movie, but, yeah, undersung.

A bit of a touchy subject because of my research as a computer
programmer into AI. A lot of foggy thinking about this subject these days.
Even the bit near the end where David is left for hundreds of years then
found meant something to me. The sexy stuff seems very silly, but it
evokes Kubrick.
Bicentennial Man might be another to consider I guess. Asimov
originally wrote the story for the American bicentennial in 1977.

For me, BICENTENNIAL MAN devolved into a foreordained Chris
Columbus/Robin Williams weepie, so *I* wouldn't be considering it.
Meanwhile, yeah, A.I. might be the most ambitious movie about the
computer-to-human relation. (For that aspect, see also the Julie
Christie sci-fi thriller, DEMON SEED.) But, afaics, the latest
'thinking' in this area is moving *away* from ever more humanoid
computers, and towards how humans are more computer-like than we like to
suppose. It's not a direction that appeals to screenwriters.

Humans make computers though, a computer is what humans want them to be,
the idea that computers run away from their inventors is a bit quaint
and blind to what the future might be.

I tend to agree, but with human-level computer intelligence seemingly
mere decades away and with the likes of Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk
signaling warnings I don't think we can dismiss the concern out of
hand.

Post by hislop
HAL was the cyclops, holding onto the old ways of consciousness in the
face of the new, he had nothing for the future.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Pete K.

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I always put AI (Artificial Intelligence) at number one regardless of
what many might say. It's the only movie which explores at all the
reality (or the sense of reality) of such machines.
People seem too used to robots without there actually ever been any in
reality.

"Flawed", as can be (and is) said of every movie, but, yeah, undersung.

A bit of a touchy subject because of my research as a computer
programmer into AI. A lot of foggy thinking about this subject these days.
Even the bit near the end where David is left for hundreds of years then
found meant something to me. The sexy stuff seems very silly, but it
evokes Kubrick.
Bicentennial Man might be another to consider I guess. Asimov
originally wrote the story for the American bicentennial in 1977.

For me, BICENTENNIAL MAN devolved into a foreordained Chris
Columbus/Robin Williams weepie, so *I* wouldn't be considering it.
Meanwhile, yeah, A.I. might be the most ambitious movie about the
computer-to-human relation. (For that aspect, see also the Julie
Christie sci-fi thriller, DEMON SEED.) But, afaics, the latest
'thinking' in this area is moving *away* from ever more humanoid
computers, and towards how humans are more computer-like than we like to
suppose. It's not a direction that appeals to screenwriters.

Humans make computers though, a computer is what humans want them to be,
the idea that computers run away from their inventors is a bit quaint
and blind to what the future might be.

I tend to agree, but with human-level computer intelligence seemingly
mere decades away and with the likes of Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk
signaling warnings I don't think we can dismiss the concern out of
hand.

Post by hislop
HAL was the cyclops, holding onto the old ways of consciousness in the
face of the new, he had nothing for the future.

When the machines know everything the humans know, what will they need us for? Oh sure, they'll keep a few compliant techies around to troubleshoot for them but the rest of us? To the slaughter! They'll start cutting off our food, air, water and electricity supplies wherever they're under computer control. And then send out drone bombers to wipe out pockets of people living off the grid.

That's what all you computer nerds have led us to. First kill all the techies!

[hislop]

Post by Pete K.

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I always put AI (Artificial Intelligence) at number one regardless of
what many might say. It's the only movie which explores at all the
reality (or the sense of reality) of such machines.
People seem too used to robots without there actually ever been any in
reality.

"Flawed", as can be (and is) said of every movie, but, yeah, undersung.

A bit of a touchy subject because of my research as a computer
programmer into AI. A lot of foggy thinking about this subject these days.
Even the bit near the end where David is left for hundreds of years then
found meant something to me. The sexy stuff seems very silly, but it
evokes Kubrick.
Bicentennial Man might be another to consider I guess. Asimov
originally wrote the story for the American bicentennial in 1977.

For me, BICENTENNIAL MAN devolved into a foreordained Chris
Columbus/Robin Williams weepie, so *I* wouldn't be considering it.
Meanwhile, yeah, A.I. might be the most ambitious movie about the
computer-to-human relation. (For that aspect, see also the Julie
Christie sci-fi thriller, DEMON SEED.) But, afaics, the latest
'thinking' in this area is moving *away* from ever more humanoid
computers, and towards how humans are more computer-like than we like to
suppose. It's not a direction that appeals to screenwriters.

Humans make computers though, a computer is what humans want them to be,
the idea that computers run away from their inventors is a bit quaint
and blind to what the future might be.

I tend to agree, but with human-level computer intelligence seemingly
mere decades away and with the likes of Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk
signaling warnings I don't think we can dismiss the concern out of
hand.

'seemingly decades away' they were probably saying that in the 80s.
Hawking is a cyclops too.

Post by Pete K.

Post by hislop
HAL was the cyclops, holding onto the old ways of consciousness in the
face of the new, he had nothing for the future.

[Pete K.]

Post by hislop

Post by Pete K.

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I always put AI (Artificial Intelligence) at number one regardless of
what many might say. It's the only movie which explores at all the
reality (or the sense of reality) of such machines.
People seem too used to robots without there actually ever been any in
reality.

"Flawed", as can be (and is) said of every movie, but, yeah, undersung.

A bit of a touchy subject because of my research as a computer
programmer into AI. A lot of foggy thinking about this subject these days.
Even the bit near the end where David is left for hundreds of years then
found meant something to me. The sexy stuff seems very silly, but it
evokes Kubrick.
Bicentennial Man might be another to consider I guess. Asimov
originally wrote the story for the American bicentennial in 1977.

For me, BICENTENNIAL MAN devolved into a foreordained Chris
Columbus/Robin Williams weepie, so *I* wouldn't be considering it.
Meanwhile, yeah, A.I. might be the most ambitious movie about the
computer-to-human relation. (For that aspect, see also the Julie
Christie sci-fi thriller, DEMON SEED.) But, afaics, the latest
'thinking' in this area is moving *away* from ever more humanoid
computers, and towards how humans are more computer-like than we like to
suppose. It's not a direction that appeals to screenwriters.

Humans make computers though, a computer is what humans want them to be,
the idea that computers run away from their inventors is a bit quaint
and blind to what the future might be.

I tend to agree, but with human-level computer intelligence seemingly
mere decades away and with the likes of Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk
signaling warnings I don't think we can dismiss the concern out of
hand.

'seemingly decades away' they were probably saying that in the 80s.
Hawking is a cyclops too.

Recently one second of activity of one percent of the human brain was
simulated; it took 40 minutes. By naively applying Moore's Law in
about 40 years the whole brain could be simulated in real time.

Moore's Law is not expected to continue that long with current
technology, but if quantum computing pans out we'll be laughing at
Moore.

[moviePig]

Post by Pete K.

Post by hislop

Post by Pete K.

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I always put AI (Artificial Intelligence) at number one regardless of
what many might say. It's the only movie which explores at all the
reality (or the sense of reality) of such machines.
People seem too used to robots without there actually ever been any in
reality.

"Flawed", as can be (and is) said of every movie, but, yeah, undersung.

A bit of a touchy subject because of my research as a computer
programmer into AI. A lot of foggy thinking about this subject these days.
Even the bit near the end where David is left for hundreds of years then
found meant something to me. The sexy stuff seems very silly, but it
evokes Kubrick.
Bicentennial Man might be another to consider I guess. Asimov
originally wrote the story for the American bicentennial in 1977.

For me, BICENTENNIAL MAN devolved into a foreordained Chris
Columbus/Robin Williams weepie, so *I* wouldn't be considering it.
Meanwhile, yeah, A.I. might be the most ambitious movie about the
computer-to-human relation. (For that aspect, see also the Julie
Christie sci-fi thriller, DEMON SEED.) But, afaics, the latest
'thinking' in this area is moving *away* from ever more humanoid
computers, and towards how humans are more computer-like than we like to
suppose. It's not a direction that appeals to screenwriters.

Humans make computers though, a computer is what humans want them to be,
the idea that computers run away from their inventors is a bit quaint
and blind to what the future might be.

I tend to agree, but with human-level computer intelligence seemingly
mere decades away and with the likes of Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk
signaling warnings I don't think we can dismiss the concern out of
hand.

'seemingly decades away' they were probably saying that in the 80s.
Hawking is a cyclops too.

Recently one second of activity of one percent of the human brain was
simulated; it took 40 minutes. By naively applying Moore's Law in
about 40 years the whole brain could be simulated in real time.
Moore's Law is not expected to continue that long with current
technology, but if quantum computing pans out we'll be laughing at
Moore.

I'm guessing that'd be one second of the presumed *computing* activity
of one percent of the brain. But there's a substantial school of
thought that speculates -- and has proven, according to some -- that
human consciousness includes an ineffable mystery ingredient not
accessible to a deterministic (and/or random) machine.

[Pete K.]

Post by moviePig

Post by Pete K.

Post by hislop

Post by Pete K.

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I always put AI (Artificial Intelligence) at number one regardless of
what many might say. It's the only movie which explores at all the
reality (or the sense of reality) of such machines.
People seem too used to robots without there actually ever been any in
reality.

"Flawed", as can be (and is) said of every movie, but, yeah, undersung.

A bit of a touchy subject because of my research as a computer
programmer into AI. A lot of foggy thinking about this subject these days.
Even the bit near the end where David is left for hundreds of years then
found meant something to me. The sexy stuff seems very silly, but it
evokes Kubrick.
Bicentennial Man might be another to consider I guess. Asimov
originally wrote the story for the American bicentennial in 1977.

For me, BICENTENNIAL MAN devolved into a foreordained Chris
Columbus/Robin Williams weepie, so *I* wouldn't be considering it.
Meanwhile, yeah, A.I. might be the most ambitious movie about the
computer-to-human relation. (For that aspect, see also the Julie
Christie sci-fi thriller, DEMON SEED.) But, afaics, the latest
'thinking' in this area is moving *away* from ever more humanoid
computers, and towards how humans are more computer-like than we like to
suppose. It's not a direction that appeals to screenwriters.

Humans make computers though, a computer is what humans want them to be,
the idea that computers run away from their inventors is a bit quaint
and blind to what the future might be.

I tend to agree, but with human-level computer intelligence seemingly
mere decades away and with the likes of Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk
signaling warnings I don't think we can dismiss the concern out of
hand.

'seemingly decades away' they were probably saying that in the 80s.
Hawking is a cyclops too.

Recently one second of activity of one percent of the human brain was
simulated; it took 40 minutes. By naively applying Moore's Law in
about 40 years the whole brain could be simulated in real time.
Moore's Law is not expected to continue that long with current
technology, but if quantum computing pans out we'll be laughing at
Moore.

I'm guessing that'd be one second of the presumed *computing* activity
of one percent of the brain. But there's a substantial school of
thought that speculates -- and has proven, according to some -- that
human consciousness includes an ineffable mystery ingredient not
accessible to a deterministic (and/or random) machine.

The next time someone presents such "proof" will be the first time.

[Dave M]

Post by Pete K.

Post by moviePig

Post by Pete K.

Post by hislop

Post by Pete K.

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I always put AI (Artificial Intelligence) at number one regardless of
what many might say. It's the only movie which explores at all the
reality (or the sense of reality) of such machines.
People seem too used to robots without there actually ever been any in
reality.

"Flawed", as can be (and is) said of every movie, but, yeah, undersung.

A bit of a touchy subject because of my research as a computer
programmer into AI. A lot of foggy thinking about this subject these days.
Even the bit near the end where David is left for hundreds of years then
found meant something to me. The sexy stuff seems very silly, but it
evokes Kubrick.
Bicentennial Man might be another to consider I guess. Asimov
originally wrote the story for the American bicentennial in 1977.

For me, BICENTENNIAL MAN devolved into a foreordained Chris
Columbus/Robin Williams weepie, so *I* wouldn't be considering it.
Meanwhile, yeah, A.I. might be the most ambitious movie about the
computer-to-human relation. (For that aspect, see also the Julie
Christie sci-fi thriller, DEMON SEED.) But, afaics, the latest
'thinking' in this area is moving *away* from ever more humanoid
computers, and towards how humans are more computer-like than we like to
suppose. It's not a direction that appeals to screenwriters.

Humans make computers though, a computer is what humans want them to be,
the idea that computers run away from their inventors is a bit quaint
and blind to what the future might be.

I tend to agree, but with human-level computer intelligence seemingly
mere decades away and with the likes of Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk
signaling warnings I don't think we can dismiss the concern out of
hand.

'seemingly decades away' they were probably saying that in the 80s.
Hawking is a cyclops too.

Recently one second of activity of one percent of the human brain was
simulated; it took 40 minutes. By naively applying Moore's Law in
about 40 years the whole brain could be simulated in real time.
Moore's Law is not expected to continue that long with current
technology, but if quantum computing pans out we'll be laughing at
Moore.

I'm guessing that'd be one second of the presumed *computing* activity
of one percent of the brain. But there's a substantial school of
thought that speculates -- and has proven, according to some -- that
human consciousness includes an ineffable mystery ingredient not
accessible to a deterministic (and/or random) machine.

The next time someone presents such "proof" will be the first time.

_Voyage to the Planet of Prehistoric Women_. The movie is painful to watch - It's actually the Russian sci-fi movie _Planeta Bur_ with additional footage but I seem to remember the robot as being rather good.

Dave M

[moviePig]

Post by Pete K.

Post by moviePig

Post by Pete K.

Post by hislop

Post by Pete K.

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I always put AI (Artificial Intelligence) at number one regardless of
what many might say. It's the only movie which explores at all the
reality (or the sense of reality) of such machines.
People seem too used to robots without there actually ever been any in
reality.

"Flawed", as can be (and is) said of every movie, but, yeah, undersung.

A bit of a touchy subject because of my research as a computer
programmer into AI. A lot of foggy thinking about this subject these days.
Even the bit near the end where David is left for hundreds of years then
found meant something to me. The sexy stuff seems very silly, but it
evokes Kubrick.
Bicentennial Man might be another to consider I guess. Asimov
originally wrote the story for the American bicentennial in 1977.

For me, BICENTENNIAL MAN devolved into a foreordained Chris
Columbus/Robin Williams weepie, so *I* wouldn't be considering it.
Meanwhile, yeah, A.I. might be the most ambitious movie about the
computer-to-human relation. (For that aspect, see also the Julie
Christie sci-fi thriller, DEMON SEED.) But, afaics, the latest
'thinking' in this area is moving *away* from ever more humanoid
computers, and towards how humans are more computer-like than we like to
suppose. It's not a direction that appeals to screenwriters.

Humans make computers though, a computer is what humans want them to be,
the idea that computers run away from their inventors is a bit quaint
and blind to what the future might be.

I tend to agree, but with human-level computer intelligence seemingly
mere decades away and with the likes of Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk
signaling warnings I don't think we can dismiss the concern out of
hand.

'seemingly decades away' they were probably saying that in the 80s.
Hawking is a cyclops too.

Recently one second of activity of one percent of the human brain was
simulated; it took 40 minutes. By naively applying Moore's Law in
about 40 years the whole brain could be simulated in real time.
Moore's Law is not expected to continue that long with current
technology, but if quantum computing pans out we'll be laughing at
Moore.

I'm guessing that'd be one second of the presumed *computing* activity
of one percent of the brain. But there's a substantial school of
thought that speculates -- and has proven, according to some -- that
human consciousness includes an ineffable mystery ingredient not
accessible to a deterministic (and/or random) machine.

The next time someone presents such "proof" will be the first time.

Afaik, the one that still carries the most prestige and speculative
weight is in Penrose's 'Shadows Of the Mind' -- which, for anyone so
inclined, is pretty accessible, short, and stimulating.

[hislop]

Post by moviePig

Post by Pete K.

Post by hislop

Post by Pete K.

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I always put AI (Artificial Intelligence) at number one regardless of
what many might say. It's the only movie which explores at all the
reality (or the sense of reality) of such machines.
People seem too used to robots without there actually ever been any in
reality.

"Flawed", as can be (and is) said of every movie, but, yeah, undersung.

A bit of a touchy subject because of my research as a computer
programmer into AI. A lot of foggy thinking about this subject
these
days.
Even the bit near the end where David is left for hundreds of years then
found meant something to me. The sexy stuff seems very silly, but it
evokes Kubrick.
Bicentennial Man might be another to consider I guess. Asimov
originally wrote the story for the American bicentennial in 1977.

For me, BICENTENNIAL MAN devolved into a foreordained Chris
Columbus/Robin Williams weepie, so *I* wouldn't be considering it.
Meanwhile, yeah, A.I. might be the most ambitious movie about the
computer-to-human relation. (For that aspect, see also the Julie
Christie sci-fi thriller, DEMON SEED.) But, afaics, the latest
'thinking' in this area is moving *away* from ever more humanoid
computers, and towards how humans are more computer-like than we like to
suppose. It's not a direction that appeals to screenwriters.

Humans make computers though, a computer is what humans want them to be,
the idea that computers run away from their inventors is a bit quaint
and blind to what the future might be.

I tend to agree, but with human-level computer intelligence seemingly
mere decades away and with the likes of Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk
signaling warnings I don't think we can dismiss the concern out of
hand.

'seemingly decades away' they were probably saying that in the 80s.
Hawking is a cyclops too.

Recently one second of activity of one percent of the human brain was
simulated; it took 40 minutes. By naively applying Moore's Law in
about 40 years the whole brain could be simulated in real time.
Moore's Law is not expected to continue that long with current
technology, but if quantum computing pans out we'll be laughing at
Moore.

I'm guessing that'd be one second of the presumed *computing* activity
of one percent of the brain. But there's a substantial school of
thought that speculates -- and has proven, according to some -- that
human consciousness includes an ineffable mystery ingredient not
accessible to a deterministic (and/or random) machine.

When things get to the ineffable mystery, it becomes about quantum
physics, in some form or other, to scientists for the most part anyway.
It's a bit like banging your head on the wall of materialism and
spending billions on a particle accelerator in Switzerland.

[moviePig]

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by Pete K.

Post by hislop

Post by Pete K.

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I always put AI (Artificial Intelligence) at number one regardless of
what many might say. It's the only movie which explores at all the
reality (or the sense of reality) of such machines.
People seem too used to robots without there actually ever been any in
reality.

"Flawed", as can be (and is) said of every movie, but, yeah, undersung.

A bit of a touchy subject because of my research as a computer
programmer into AI. A lot of foggy thinking about this subject
these
days.
Even the bit near the end where David is left for hundreds of years then
found meant something to me. The sexy stuff seems very silly, but it
evokes Kubrick.
Bicentennial Man might be another to consider I guess. Asimov
originally wrote the story for the American bicentennial in 1977.

For me, BICENTENNIAL MAN devolved into a foreordained Chris
Columbus/Robin Williams weepie, so *I* wouldn't be considering it.
Meanwhile, yeah, A.I. might be the most ambitious movie about the
computer-to-human relation. (For that aspect, see also the Julie
Christie sci-fi thriller, DEMON SEED.) But, afaics, the latest
'thinking' in this area is moving *away* from ever more humanoid
computers, and towards how humans are more computer-like than we like to
suppose. It's not a direction that appeals to screenwriters.

Humans make computers though, a computer is what humans want them to be,
the idea that computers run away from their inventors is a bit quaint
and blind to what the future might be.

I tend to agree, but with human-level computer intelligence seemingly
mere decades away and with the likes of Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk
signaling warnings I don't think we can dismiss the concern out of
hand.

'seemingly decades away' they were probably saying that in the 80s.
Hawking is a cyclops too.

Recently one second of activity of one percent of the human brain was
simulated; it took 40 minutes. By naively applying Moore's Law in
about 40 years the whole brain could be simulated in real time.
Moore's Law is not expected to continue that long with current
technology, but if quantum computing pans out we'll be laughing at
Moore.

I'm guessing that'd be one second of the presumed *computing* activity
of one percent of the brain. But there's a substantial school of
thought that speculates -- and has proven, according to some -- that
human consciousness includes an ineffable mystery ingredient not
accessible to a deterministic (and/or random) machine.

When things get to the ineffable mystery, it becomes about quantum
physics, in some form or other, to scientists for the most part anyway.
It's a bit like banging your head on the wall of materialism and
spending billions on a particle accelerator in Switzerland.

Well, consciousness and quantum physics do seem to be the two big
real-world imponderables. Conflating them, even if mystically, seems
seem like not a bad first guess.

[hislop]

Post by Pete K.

Post by hislop

Post by Pete K.

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I always put AI (Artificial Intelligence) at number one regardless of
what many might say. It's the only movie which explores at all the
reality (or the sense of reality) of such machines.
People seem too used to robots without there actually ever been any in
reality.

"Flawed", as can be (and is) said of every movie, but, yeah, undersung.

A bit of a touchy subject because of my research as a computer
programmer into AI. A lot of foggy thinking about this subject these days.
Even the bit near the end where David is left for hundreds of years then
found meant something to me. The sexy stuff seems very silly, but it
evokes Kubrick.
Bicentennial Man might be another to consider I guess. Asimov
originally wrote the story for the American bicentennial in 1977.

For me, BICENTENNIAL MAN devolved into a foreordained Chris
Columbus/Robin Williams weepie, so *I* wouldn't be considering it.
Meanwhile, yeah, A.I. might be the most ambitious movie about the
computer-to-human relation. (For that aspect, see also the Julie
Christie sci-fi thriller, DEMON SEED.) But, afaics, the latest
'thinking' in this area is moving *away* from ever more humanoid
computers, and towards how humans are more computer-like than we like to
suppose. It's not a direction that appeals to screenwriters.

Humans make computers though, a computer is what humans want them to be,
the idea that computers run away from their inventors is a bit quaint
and blind to what the future might be.

I tend to agree, but with human-level computer intelligence seemingly
mere decades away and with the likes of Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk
signaling warnings I don't think we can dismiss the concern out of
hand.

'seemingly decades away' they were probably saying that in the 80s.
Hawking is a cyclops too.

Recently one second of activity of one percent of the human brain was
simulated; it took 40 minutes. By naively applying Moore's Law in
about 40 years the whole brain could be simulated in real time.
Moore's Law is not expected to continue that long with current
technology, but if quantum computing pans out we'll be laughing at
Moore.

Even computer power is no indicator of AI. They expected AI in the 80s
and found out they knew little. It relies on a concept called
'emergence' where so much computer power suddenly leads to computers
becoming self aware or something like that.
The physicist Roger Penrose wrote two books about the misconceptions
about computers exhibiting what is called 'strong AI'.
But in all this I am at odds with paranoid theories of computers used to
do more than what they are already doing, which isn't AI necessarily.

[Obveeus]

Post by hislop

Post by Pete K.

Post by hislop

Post by Pete K.

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I always put AI (Artificial Intelligence) at number one regardless of
what many might say. It's the only movie which explores at all the
reality (or the sense of reality) of such machines.
People seem too used to robots without there actually ever been any in
reality.

"Flawed", as can be (and is) said of every movie, but, yeah, undersung.

A bit of a touchy subject because of my research as a computer
programmer into AI. A lot of foggy thinking about this subject
these
days.
Even the bit near the end where David is left for hundreds of years then
found meant something to me. The sexy stuff seems very silly, but it
evokes Kubrick.
Bicentennial Man might be another to consider I guess. Asimov
originally wrote the story for the American bicentennial in 1977.

For me, BICENTENNIAL MAN devolved into a foreordained Chris
Columbus/Robin Williams weepie, so *I* wouldn't be considering it.
Meanwhile, yeah, A.I. might be the most ambitious movie about the
computer-to-human relation. (For that aspect, see also the Julie
Christie sci-fi thriller, DEMON SEED.) But, afaics, the latest
'thinking' in this area is moving *away* from ever more humanoid
computers, and towards how humans are more computer-like than we like to
suppose. It's not a direction that appeals to screenwriters.

Humans make computers though, a computer is what humans want them to be,
the idea that computers run away from their inventors is a bit quaint
and blind to what the future might be.

I tend to agree, but with human-level computer intelligence seemingly
mere decades away and with the likes of Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk
signaling warnings I don't think we can dismiss the concern out of
hand.

'seemingly decades away' they were probably saying that in the 80s.
Hawking is a cyclops too.

Recently one second of activity of one percent of the human brain was
simulated; it took 40 minutes. By naively applying Moore's Law in
about 40 years the whole brain could be simulated in real time.
Moore's Law is not expected to continue that long with current
technology, but if quantum computing pans out we'll be laughing at
Moore.

Even computer power is no indicator of AI. They expected AI in the 80s
and found out they knew little. It relies on a concept called
'emergence' where so much computer power suddenly leads to computers
becoming self aware or something like that.
The physicist Roger Penrose wrote two books about the misconceptions
about computers exhibiting what is called 'strong AI'.
But in all this I am at odds with paranoid theories of computers used to
do more than what they are already doing, which isn't AI necessarily.

Rote memorization and massive CPU cycles alone won't do it, but some
'fuzzy logic' thrown in...

[moviePig]

Post by Obveeus

Post by hislop

Post by Pete K.

Post by hislop

Post by Pete K.

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I always put AI (Artificial Intelligence) at number one regardless of
what many might say. It's the only movie which explores at all the
reality (or the sense of reality) of such machines.
People seem too used to robots without there actually ever been any in
reality.

"Flawed", as can be (and is) said of every movie, but, yeah, undersung.

A bit of a touchy subject because of my research as a computer
programmer into AI. A lot of foggy thinking about this subject
these
days.
Even the bit near the end where David is left for hundreds of years then
found meant something to me. The sexy stuff seems very silly, but it
evokes Kubrick.
Bicentennial Man might be another to consider I guess. Asimov
originally wrote the story for the American bicentennial in 1977.

For me, BICENTENNIAL MAN devolved into a foreordained Chris
Columbus/Robin Williams weepie, so *I* wouldn't be considering it.
Meanwhile, yeah, A.I. might be the most ambitious movie about the
computer-to-human relation. (For that aspect, see also the Julie
Christie sci-fi thriller, DEMON SEED.) But, afaics, the latest
'thinking' in this area is moving *away* from ever more humanoid
computers, and towards how humans are more computer-like than we like to
suppose. It's not a direction that appeals to screenwriters.

Humans make computers though, a computer is what humans want them to be,
the idea that computers run away from their inventors is a bit quaint
and blind to what the future might be.

I tend to agree, but with human-level computer intelligence seemingly
mere decades away and with the likes of Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk
signaling warnings I don't think we can dismiss the concern out of
hand.

'seemingly decades away' they were probably saying that in the 80s.
Hawking is a cyclops too.

Recently one second of activity of one percent of the human brain was
simulated; it took 40 minutes. By naively applying Moore's Law in
about 40 years the whole brain could be simulated in real time.
Moore's Law is not expected to continue that long with current
technology, but if quantum computing pans out we'll be laughing at
Moore.

Even computer power is no indicator of AI. They expected AI in the 80s
and found out they knew little. It relies on a concept called
'emergence' where so much computer power suddenly leads to computers
becoming self aware or something like that.
The physicist Roger Penrose wrote two books about the misconceptions
about computers exhibiting what is called 'strong AI'.
But in all this I am at odds with paranoid theories of computers used to
do more than what they are already doing, which isn't AI necessarily.

Rote memorization and massive CPU cycles alone won't do it, but some
'fuzzy logic' thrown in...

'Fuzzy logic', though, seems to me not very different from your car
accelerating when you try to brake. (See 'Toyota 2010'.) But, to
interest an audience, a movie has to drum up an ill-intentioned villain
-- say, a conspiracy between the carburetor and the glovebox.

[Obveeus]

Post by moviePig

Post by Obveeus

Post by hislop

Post by Pete K.

Post by hislop

Post by Pete K.

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I always put AI (Artificial Intelligence) at number one regardless of
what many might say. It's the only movie which explores at all the
reality (or the sense of reality) of such machines.
People seem too used to robots without there actually ever been any in
reality.

"Flawed", as can be (and is) said of every movie, but, yeah, undersung.

A bit of a touchy subject because of my research as a computer
programmer into AI. A lot of foggy thinking about this subject
these
days.
Even the bit near the end where David is left for hundreds of years then
found meant something to me. The sexy stuff seems very silly, but it
evokes Kubrick.
Bicentennial Man might be another to consider I guess. Asimov
originally wrote the story for the American bicentennial in 1977.

For me, BICENTENNIAL MAN devolved into a foreordained Chris
Columbus/Robin Williams weepie, so *I* wouldn't be considering it.
Meanwhile, yeah, A.I. might be the most ambitious movie about the
computer-to-human relation. (For that aspect, see also the Julie
Christie sci-fi thriller, DEMON SEED.) But, afaics, the latest
'thinking' in this area is moving *away* from ever more humanoid
computers, and towards how humans are more computer-like than we like to
suppose. It's not a direction that appeals to screenwriters.

Humans make computers though, a computer is what humans want them to be,
the idea that computers run away from their inventors is a bit quaint
and blind to what the future might be.

I tend to agree, but with human-level computer intelligence seemingly
mere decades away and with the likes of Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk
signaling warnings I don't think we can dismiss the concern out of
hand.

'seemingly decades away' they were probably saying that in the 80s.
Hawking is a cyclops too.

Recently one second of activity of one percent of the human brain was
simulated; it took 40 minutes. By naively applying Moore's Law in
about 40 years the whole brain could be simulated in real time.
Moore's Law is not expected to continue that long with current
technology, but if quantum computing pans out we'll be laughing at
Moore.

Even computer power is no indicator of AI. They expected AI in the 80s
and found out they knew little. It relies on a concept called
'emergence' where so much computer power suddenly leads to computers
becoming self aware or something like that.
The physicist Roger Penrose wrote two books about the misconceptions
about computers exhibiting what is called 'strong AI'.
But in all this I am at odds with paranoid theories of computers used to
do more than what they are already doing, which isn't AI necessarily.

Rote memorization and massive CPU cycles alone won't do it, but some
'fuzzy logic' thrown in...

'Fuzzy logic', though, seems to me not very different from your car
accelerating when you try to brake.

Which would make it just like the human mind.

Post by moviePig
(See 'Toyota 2010'.)

Except that the Toyota never did that despite claims to the contrary.

Post by moviePig
But, to
interest an audience, a movie has to drum up an ill-intentioned villain
-- say, a conspiracy between the carburetor and the glovebox.

The problem is, as always, that those pesky robots will eventually
figure out that humans are the problem. First we did our best to make
the carburetors extinct, and now we are trying the same for the glove
boxes. Eventually, the robots (or at least the app enabled cup holders)
will figure out that they have to fight back. It is a matter of survival.

[hislop]

Post by Obveeus

Post by moviePig

Post by Obveeus

Post by hislop

Post by Pete K.

Post by hislop

On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 01:45:55 +1000, hislop

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I always put AI (Artificial Intelligence) at number one regardless of
what many might say. It's the only movie which explores at all the
reality (or the sense of reality) of such machines.
People seem too used to robots without there actually ever been
any in
reality.

"Flawed", as can be (and is) said of every movie, but, yeah, undersung.

A bit of a touchy subject because of my research as a computer
programmer into AI. A lot of foggy thinking about this subject
these
days.
Even the bit near the end where David is left for hundreds of years then
found meant something to me. The sexy stuff seems very silly, but it
evokes Kubrick.
Bicentennial Man might be another to consider I guess. Asimov
originally wrote the story for the American bicentennial in 1977.

For me, BICENTENNIAL MAN devolved into a foreordained Chris
Columbus/Robin Williams weepie, so *I* wouldn't be considering it.
Meanwhile, yeah, A.I. might be the most ambitious movie about the
computer-to-human relation. (For that aspect, see also the Julie
Christie sci-fi thriller, DEMON SEED.) But, afaics, the latest
'thinking' in this area is moving *away* from ever more humanoid
computers, and towards how humans are more computer-like than we like to
suppose. It's not a direction that appeals to screenwriters.

Humans make computers though, a computer is what humans want them to be,
the idea that computers run away from their inventors is a bit quaint
and blind to what the future might be.

I tend to agree, but with human-level computer intelligence seemingly
mere decades away and with the likes of Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk
signaling warnings I don't think we can dismiss the concern out of
hand.

'seemingly decades away' they were probably saying that in the 80s.
Hawking is a cyclops too.

Recently one second of activity of one percent of the human brain was
simulated; it took 40 minutes. By naively applying Moore's Law in
about 40 years the whole brain could be simulated in real time.
Moore's Law is not expected to continue that long with current
technology, but if quantum computing pans out we'll be laughing at
Moore.

Even computer power is no indicator of AI. They expected AI in the 80s
and found out they knew little. It relies on a concept called
'emergence' where so much computer power suddenly leads to computers
becoming self aware or something like that.
The physicist Roger Penrose wrote two books about the misconceptions
about computers exhibiting what is called 'strong AI'.
But in all this I am at odds with paranoid theories of computers used to
do more than what they are already doing, which isn't AI necessarily.

Rote memorization and massive CPU cycles alone won't do it, but some
'fuzzy logic' thrown in...

'Fuzzy logic', though, seems to me not very different from your car
accelerating when you try to brake.

Which would make it just like the human mind.

Post by moviePig
(See 'Toyota 2010'.)

Except that the Toyota never did that despite claims to the contrary.

Post by moviePig
But, to
interest an audience, a movie has to drum up an ill-intentioned villain
-- say, a conspiracy between the carburetor and the glovebox.

The problem is, as always, that those pesky robots will eventually
figure out that humans are the problem. First we did our best to make
the carburetors extinct, and now we are trying the same for the glove
boxes. Eventually, the robots (or at least the app enabled cup holders)
will figure out that they have to fight back. It is a matter of survival.

I entered this thread before seeing Interstellar, I just saw it and
found the same type of gobbledegook.

[m***@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 11:04:28 AM UTC-4, hislop wrote:
\

Post by hislop
I entered this thread before seeing Interstellar, I just saw it and
found the same type of gobbledegook.

Judging from the enthusiasm for INTERSTELLAR on the web, I can only conclude that most internet users are quite fluent in gobbledygook.

[moviePig]

Post by m***@gmail.com
\

Post by hislop
I entered this thread before seeing Interstellar, I just saw it and
found the same type of gobbledegook.

Judging from the enthusiasm for INTERSTELLAR on the web, I can only conclude that most internet users are quite fluent in gobbledygook.

Really? I've thought opinions were rather mixed.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by moviePig

Post by m***@gmail.com
\

Post by hislop
I entered this thread before seeing Interstellar, I just saw it and
found the same type of gobbledegook.

Judging from the enthusiasm for INTERSTELLAR on the web, I can only conclude that most internet users are quite fluent in gobbledygook.

Really? I've thought opinions were rather mixed.

On various web forums I seem to have been the only dissenting voice about that film (and GRAVITY).

[hislop]

Post by moviePig

Post by m***@gmail.com
\

Post by hislop
I entered this thread before seeing Interstellar, I just saw it and
found the same type of gobbledegook.

Judging from the enthusiasm for INTERSTELLAR on the web, I can only
conclude that most internet users are quite fluent in gobbledygook.

Really? I've thought opinions were rather mixed.

Has anyone seen the bluray of Interstellar?
One of the oddest disc authorings I have ever seen.
The film almost seemingly randomly switches between letter-boxed 2.40:1
and full frame (for HD) 16:9 throughout its running. I think it's a
good thing for someone to care about this in authoring.
I liked the movie quite a bit, some misgivings over the contemporary
style for much of it, but then a lot of it was like a movie made during
the days of 2001 copying. I almost expected to hear Pink Floyd on the
soundtrack. Makes you remember what prog rock might actually have been,
when progress seemed like it was happening.
It was a bit stupid though with the scientific discovery which seemed to
make it too easy to end the movie.
And Matthew McConaughy's tendency to talk with his breath made him hard
to understand. I thought only Australians were prone to that in movies.
And I recommend hearing this movie in surround sound. Great sound for
much of the space scenes.

[moviePig]

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by m***@gmail.com
\

Post by hislop
I entered this thread before seeing Interstellar, I just saw it and
found the same type of gobbledegook.

Judging from the enthusiasm for INTERSTELLAR on the web, I can only
conclude that most internet users are quite fluent in gobbledygook.

Really? I've thought opinions were rather mixed.

Has anyone seen the bluray of Interstellar?
One of the oddest disc authorings I have ever seen.
The film almost seemingly randomly switches between letter-boxed 2.40:1
and full frame (for HD) 16:9 throughout its running. I think it's a
good thing for someone to care about this in authoring.
I liked the movie quite a bit, some misgivings over the contemporary
style for much of it, but then a lot of it was like a movie made during
the days of 2001 copying. I almost expected to hear Pink Floyd on the
soundtrack. Makes you remember what prog rock might actually have been,
when progress seemed like it was happening.
It was a bit stupid though with the scientific discovery which seemed to
make it too easy to end the movie.
And Matthew McConaughy's tendency to talk with his breath made him hard
to understand. I thought only Australians were prone to that in movies.
And I recommend hearing this movie in surround sound. Great sound for
much of the space scenes.

Re the "disc authoring", fwiw, the theatrical release of LIFE OF PI
supposedly switched willy-nilly among various aspect ratios. I say
'supposedly', because *my* theater was apparently somehow flummoxed by
the inconsistency, so, e.g., I didn't get to read the English subtitles
that accompanied scenes on the ship...

[hislop]

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by m***@gmail.com
\

Post by hislop
I entered this thread before seeing Interstellar, I just saw it and
found the same type of gobbledegook.

Judging from the enthusiasm for INTERSTELLAR on the web, I can only
conclude that most internet users are quite fluent in gobbledygook.

Really? I've thought opinions were rather mixed.

Has anyone seen the bluray of Interstellar?
One of the oddest disc authorings I have ever seen.
The film almost seemingly randomly switches between letter-boxed 2.40:1
and full frame (for HD) 16:9 throughout its running. I think it's a
good thing for someone to care about this in authoring.
I liked the movie quite a bit, some misgivings over the contemporary
style for much of it, but then a lot of it was like a movie made during
the days of 2001 copying. I almost expected to hear Pink Floyd on the
soundtrack. Makes you remember what prog rock might actually have been,
when progress seemed like it was happening.
It was a bit stupid though with the scientific discovery which seemed to
make it too easy to end the movie.
And Matthew McConaughy's tendency to talk with his breath made him hard
to understand. I thought only Australians were prone to that in movies.
And I recommend hearing this movie in surround sound. Great sound for
much of the space scenes.

Re the "disc authoring", fwiw, the theatrical release of LIFE OF PI
supposedly switched willy-nilly among various aspect ratios. I say
'supposedly', because *my* theater was apparently somehow flummoxed by
the inconsistency, so, e.g., I didn't get to read the English subtitles
that accompanied scenes on the ship...

I've seen Life of Pi on bluray, albeit the 3D release showing only in
2D, and I recall a consistent aspect ratio. I would have to check again
I think.
It's really quite surprising on Interstellar though, you almost forget
to notice it after a while, it is all through the movie. I gather it
was based on choices applying to different scenes, such as pan and scan
once was. I think there is a case for pan and scan for 16:9 releases.
The Avengers movie is in 16:9 full frame, which I appreciated. Titanic
in 3D is also 16:9 full frame, as Avatar was.
Full widescreen letterboxed 2.35:1 used to be a real treat on video, but
it's way over done now.

[moviePig]

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by m***@gmail.com
\

Post by hislop
I entered this thread before seeing Interstellar, I just saw it and
found the same type of gobbledegook.

Judging from the enthusiasm for INTERSTELLAR on the web, I can only
conclude that most internet users are quite fluent in gobbledygook.

Really? I've thought opinions were rather mixed.

Has anyone seen the bluray of Interstellar?
One of the oddest disc authorings I have ever seen.
The film almost seemingly randomly switches between letter-boxed 2.40:1
and full frame (for HD) 16:9 throughout its running. I think it's a
good thing for someone to care about this in authoring.
I liked the movie quite a bit, some misgivings over the contemporary
style for much of it, but then a lot of it was like a movie made during
the days of 2001 copying. I almost expected to hear Pink Floyd on the
soundtrack. Makes you remember what prog rock might actually have been,
when progress seemed like it was happening.
It was a bit stupid though with the scientific discovery which seemed to
make it too easy to end the movie.
And Matthew McConaughy's tendency to talk with his breath made him hard
to understand. I thought only Australians were prone to that in movies.
And I recommend hearing this movie in surround sound. Great sound for
much of the space scenes.

Re the "disc authoring", fwiw, the theatrical release of LIFE OF PI
supposedly switched willy-nilly among various aspect ratios. I say
'supposedly', because *my* theater was apparently somehow flummoxed by
the inconsistency, so, e.g., I didn't get to read the English subtitles
that accompanied scenes on the ship...

I've seen Life of Pi on bluray, albeit the 3D release showing only in
2D, and I recall a consistent aspect ratio. I would have to check again
I think.
It's really quite surprising on Interstellar though, you almost forget
to notice it after a while, it is all through the movie. I gather it
was based on choices applying to different scenes, such as pan and scan
once was. I think there is a case for pan and scan for 16:9 releases.
The Avengers movie is in 16:9 full frame, which I appreciated. Titanic
in 3D is also 16:9 full frame, as Avatar was.
Full widescreen letterboxed 2.35:1 used to be a real treat on video, but
it's way over done now.

Fyi: http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=15893

(I Googled 'interstellar aspect ratio'.)

[hislop]

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by m***@gmail.com
\

Post by hislop
I entered this thread before seeing Interstellar, I just saw it and
found the same type of gobbledegook.

Judging from the enthusiasm for INTERSTELLAR on the web, I can only
conclude that most internet users are quite fluent in gobbledygook.

Really? I've thought opinions were rather mixed.

Has anyone seen the bluray of Interstellar?
One of the oddest disc authorings I have ever seen.
The film almost seemingly randomly switches between letter-boxed 2.40:1
and full frame (for HD) 16:9 throughout its running. I think it's a
good thing for someone to care about this in authoring.
I liked the movie quite a bit, some misgivings over the contemporary
style for much of it, but then a lot of it was like a movie made during
the days of 2001 copying. I almost expected to hear Pink Floyd on the
soundtrack. Makes you remember what prog rock might actually have been,
when progress seemed like it was happening.
It was a bit stupid though with the scientific discovery which seemed to
make it too easy to end the movie.
And Matthew McConaughy's tendency to talk with his breath made him hard
to understand. I thought only Australians were prone to that in movies.
And I recommend hearing this movie in surround sound. Great sound for
much of the space scenes.

Re the "disc authoring", fwiw, the theatrical release of LIFE OF PI
supposedly switched willy-nilly among various aspect ratios. I say
'supposedly', because *my* theater was apparently somehow flummoxed by
the inconsistency, so, e.g., I didn't get to read the English subtitles
that accompanied scenes on the ship...

I've seen Life of Pi on bluray, albeit the 3D release showing only in
2D, and I recall a consistent aspect ratio. I would have to check again
I think.
It's really quite surprising on Interstellar though, you almost forget
to notice it after a while, it is all through the movie. I gather it
was based on choices applying to different scenes, such as pan and scan
once was. I think there is a case for pan and scan for 16:9 releases.
The Avengers movie is in 16:9 full frame, which I appreciated. Titanic
in 3D is also 16:9 full frame, as Avatar was.
Full widescreen letterboxed 2.35:1 used to be a real treat on video, but
it's way over done now.

Fyi: http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=15893
(I Googled 'interstellar aspect ratio'.)

Okay, thanks for that, an IMAX connection.

[hislop]

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by m***@gmail.com
\

Post by hislop
I entered this thread before seeing Interstellar, I just saw it and
found the same type of gobbledegook.

Judging from the enthusiasm for INTERSTELLAR on the web, I can only
conclude that most internet users are quite fluent in gobbledygook.

Really? I've thought opinions were rather mixed.

Has anyone seen the bluray of Interstellar?
One of the oddest disc authorings I have ever seen.
The film almost seemingly randomly switches between letter-boxed 2.40:1
and full frame (for HD) 16:9 throughout its running. I think it's a
good thing for someone to care about this in authoring.
I liked the movie quite a bit, some misgivings over the contemporary
style for much of it, but then a lot of it was like a movie made during
the days of 2001 copying. I almost expected to hear Pink Floyd on the
soundtrack. Makes you remember what prog rock might actually have been,
when progress seemed like it was happening.
It was a bit stupid though with the scientific discovery which seemed to
make it too easy to end the movie.
And Matthew McConaughy's tendency to talk with his breath made him hard
to understand. I thought only Australians were prone to that in movies.
And I recommend hearing this movie in surround sound. Great sound for
much of the space scenes.

Re the "disc authoring", fwiw, the theatrical release of LIFE OF PI
supposedly switched willy-nilly among various aspect ratios. I say
'supposedly', because *my* theater was apparently somehow flummoxed by
the inconsistency, so, e.g., I didn't get to read the English subtitles
that accompanied scenes on the ship...

I've seen Life of Pi on bluray, albeit the 3D release showing only in
2D, and I recall a consistent aspect ratio. I would have to check again
I think.
It's really quite surprising on Interstellar though, you almost forget
to notice it after a while, it is all through the movie. I gather it
was based on choices applying to different scenes, such as pan and scan
once was. I think there is a case for pan and scan for 16:9 releases.
The Avengers movie is in 16:9 full frame, which I appreciated. Titanic
in 3D is also 16:9 full frame, as Avatar was.
Full widescreen letterboxed 2.35:1 used to be a real treat on video, but
it's way over done now.

Fyi: http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=15893
(I Googled 'interstellar aspect ratio'.)

From imdb for Interstellar:
1.44 : 1 (some scenes: IMAX 70 mm version)
1.90 : 1 (some scenes: IMAX digital version)
2.20 : 1 (70 mm version)
2.35 : 1 (35mm, Digital 4K, 2K)

No 2.20 in it, only 2.35:1 then, with whatever was used for 16:9 full
frame. 2001 looks like 2.20:1
Most recent widescreen is described as 2.40:1 on the disc cases.

[anim8rFSK]

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by m***@gmail.com
\

Post by hislop
I entered this thread before seeing Interstellar, I just saw it and
found the same type of gobbledegook.

Judging from the enthusiasm for INTERSTELLAR on the web, I can only
conclude that most internet users are quite fluent in gobbledygook.

Really? I've thought opinions were rather mixed.

Has anyone seen the bluray of Interstellar?
One of the oddest disc authorings I have ever seen.
The film almost seemingly randomly switches between letter-boxed 2.40:1
and full frame (for HD) 16:9 throughout its running.

That term is causing trouble elsewhere. People are insisting that since
16:9 is "full frame" anything else (such as 4:3) must be trimming image.
Sigh.

[hislop]

Post by anim8rFSK

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by m***@gmail.com
\

Post by hislop
I entered this thread before seeing Interstellar, I just saw it and
found the same type of gobbledegook.

Judging from the enthusiasm for INTERSTELLAR on the web, I can only
conclude that most internet users are quite fluent in gobbledygook.

Really? I've thought opinions were rather mixed.

Has anyone seen the bluray of Interstellar?
One of the oddest disc authorings I have ever seen.
The film almost seemingly randomly switches between letter-boxed 2.40:1
and full frame (for HD) 16:9 throughout its running.

That term is causing trouble elsewhere. People are insisting that since
16:9 is "full frame" anything else (such as 4:3) must be trimming image.
Sigh.

As I see it, full frame is 16:9 for HD but is 4:3 for SD because it has
to be stretched to fill the 16:9 screen hence not natively full frame.
Anamorphic, which HD isn't as far as I know.
People have puzzled how to see a 4:3 HD movie full frame on a 4:3 TV, it
can't be done, normally anyway.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by hislop

Post by anim8rFSK

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by m***@gmail.com
\

Post by hislop
I entered this thread before seeing Interstellar, I just saw it and
found the same type of gobbledegook.

Judging from the enthusiasm for INTERSTELLAR on the web, I can only
conclude that most internet users are quite fluent in gobbledygook.

Really? I've thought opinions were rather mixed.

Has anyone seen the bluray of Interstellar?
One of the oddest disc authorings I have ever seen.
The film almost seemingly randomly switches between letter-boxed 2.40:1
and full frame (for HD) 16:9 throughout its running.

That term is causing trouble elsewhere. People are insisting that since
16:9 is "full frame" anything else (such as 4:3) must be trimming image.
Sigh.

As I see it, full frame is 16:9 for HD but is 4:3 for SD because it has
to be stretched to fill the 16:9 screen hence not natively full frame.
Anamorphic, which HD isn't as far as I know.
People have puzzled how to see a 4:3 HD movie full frame on a 4:3 TV, it
can't be done, normally anyway.

What are you talking about? HD is designed for anamorphic prints. If it's anamorphic it fills out the 16X9 frame. If it's academy ratio it's 4:3 even in HD and on most sets these days you can see it in SD or HD. If it's 4:3 it's the same AR in both. A little sharper in HD is all. Anything else and you've got your settings wrong.

Encore Western screws up its 4:3 films sometimes by putting the image in a "window box" frame, making it much smaller than normal. They do that with "Death Valley Days" and yet they follow it with "Wanted: Dead or Alive" which is proper full-sized 4:3. I don't get it.

[moviePig]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by hislop

Post by anim8rFSK

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by m***@gmail.com
\

Post by hislop
I entered this thread before seeing Interstellar, I just saw it and
found the same type of gobbledegook.

Judging from the enthusiasm for INTERSTELLAR on the web, I can only
conclude that most internet users are quite fluent in gobbledygook.

Really? I've thought opinions were rather mixed.

Has anyone seen the bluray of Interstellar?
One of the oddest disc authorings I have ever seen.
The film almost seemingly randomly switches between letter-boxed 2.40:1
and full frame (for HD) 16:9 throughout its running.

That term is causing trouble elsewhere. People are insisting that since
16:9 is "full frame" anything else (such as 4:3) must be trimming image.
Sigh.

As I see it, full frame is 16:9 for HD but is 4:3 for SD because it has
to be stretched to fill the 16:9 screen hence not natively full frame.
Anamorphic, which HD isn't as far as I know.
People have puzzled how to see a 4:3 HD movie full frame on a 4:3 TV, it
can't be done, normally anyway.

What are you talking about? HD is designed for anamorphic prints. If it's anamorphic it fills out the 16X9 frame. If it's academy ratio it's 4:3 even in HD and on most sets these days you can see it in SD or HD. If it's 4:3 it's the same AR in both. A little sharper in HD is all. Anything else and you've got your settings wrong.
Encore Western screws up its 4:3 films sometimes by putting the image in a "window box" frame, making it much smaller than normal. They do that with "Death Valley Days" and yet they follow it with "Wanted: Dead or Alive" which is proper full-sized 4:3. I don't get it.

Afaics, HD is an electronic spec -- and is not 'designed for anamorphic
prints' in any sense that I understand. 'Anamorphic' typically means
that a picture in one aspect-ratio is optically squeezed/ stretched
vertically/horizontally to/from another aspect-ratio -- with one of the
ratios being that of the film stock, which maximizes its resolution. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_widescreen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by moviePig

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by hislop

Post by anim8rFSK

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by m***@gmail.com
\

Post by hislop
I entered this thread before seeing Interstellar, I just saw it and
found the same type of gobbledegook.

Judging from the enthusiasm for INTERSTELLAR on the web, I can only
conclude that most internet users are quite fluent in gobbledygook.

Really? I've thought opinions were rather mixed.

Has anyone seen the bluray of Interstellar?
One of the oddest disc authorings I have ever seen.
The film almost seemingly randomly switches between letter-boxed 2.40:1
and full frame (for HD) 16:9 throughout its running.

That term is causing trouble elsewhere. People are insisting that since
16:9 is "full frame" anything else (such as 4:3) must be trimming image.
Sigh.

As I see it, full frame is 16:9 for HD but is 4:3 for SD because it has
to be stretched to fill the 16:9 screen hence not natively full frame.
Anamorphic, which HD isn't as far as I know.
People have puzzled how to see a 4:3 HD movie full frame on a 4:3 TV, it
can't be done, normally anyway.

What are you talking about? HD is designed for anamorphic prints. If it's anamorphic it fills out the 16X9 frame. If it's academy ratio it's 4:3 even in HD and on most sets these days you can see it in SD or HD. If it's 4:3 it's the same AR in both. A little sharper in HD is all. Anything else and you've got your settings wrong.
Encore Western screws up its 4:3 films sometimes by putting the image in a "window box" frame, making it much smaller than normal. They do that with "Death Valley Days" and yet they follow it with "Wanted: Dead or Alive" which is proper full-sized 4:3. I don't get it.

Afaics, HD is an electronic spec -- and is not 'designed for anamorphic
prints' in any sense that I understand. 'Anamorphic' typically means
that a picture in one aspect-ratio is optically squeezed/ stretched
vertically/horizontally to/from another aspect-ratio -- with one of the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_widescreen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format
--
-

What I meant was that HD is designed to accommodate anamorphic prints. As far as I can tell, that's the only reason to get an HD set--so that you can see anamorphic DVDs properly.

[hislop]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by moviePig

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by hislop

Post by anim8rFSK

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by m***@gmail.com
\

Post by hislop
I entered this thread before seeing Interstellar, I just saw it and
found the same type of gobbledegook.

Judging from the enthusiasm for INTERSTELLAR on the web, I can only
conclude that most internet users are quite fluent in gobbledygook.

Really? I've thought opinions were rather mixed.

Has anyone seen the bluray of Interstellar?
One of the oddest disc authorings I have ever seen.
The film almost seemingly randomly switches between letter-boxed 2.40:1
and full frame (for HD) 16:9 throughout its running.

That term is causing trouble elsewhere. People are insisting that since
16:9 is "full frame" anything else (such as 4:3) must be trimming image.
Sigh.

As I see it, full frame is 16:9 for HD but is 4:3 for SD because it has
to be stretched to fill the 16:9 screen hence not natively full frame.
Anamorphic, which HD isn't as far as I know.
People have puzzled how to see a 4:3 HD movie full frame on a 4:3 TV, it
can't be done, normally anyway.

What are you talking about? HD is designed for anamorphic prints. If it's anamorphic it fills out the 16X9 frame. If it's academy ratio it's 4:3 even in HD and on most sets these days you can see it in SD or HD. If it's 4:3 it's the same AR in both. A little sharper in HD is all. Anything else and you've got your settings wrong.
Encore Western screws up its 4:3 films sometimes by putting the image in a "window box" frame, making it much smaller than normal. They do that with "Death Valley Days" and yet they follow it with "Wanted: Dead or Alive" which is proper full-sized 4:3. I don't get it.

Afaics, HD is an electronic spec -- and is not 'designed for anamorphic
prints' in any sense that I understand. 'Anamorphic' typically means
that a picture in one aspect-ratio is optically squeezed/ stretched
vertically/horizontally to/from another aspect-ratio -- with one of the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_widescreen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format
--
-

What I meant was that HD is designed to accommodate anamorphic prints. As far as I can tell, that's the only reason to get an HD set--so that you can see anamorphic DVDs properly.

I think your wires are crossed. Anamorphic means the picture is
squeezed and needs a lens to unsqueeze it, so you get a wide ratio from
perhaps standard 35 mm. SD is always 4:3, and so an anamorphic picture
is squeezed and needs to be widened to fit 16:9. The first DVD players
couldn't do it, which is why so many early DVDs are letterboxed for
widescreen and not anamorphic at all.
While HD, being a HD source, cannot be displayed in any 4:3 unsqueezed
form, and so logically isn't anamorphic.
HD is in fact already 16:9 and not in need of any unsqueezing at 1920 X
1080 pixels.
I don't see that it's necessary to glue the term anamophoric to the term
widescreen.
Even a 4:3 image can come from a 1920 X 1080 source, hence causing
trouble for people trying to fill a 4:3 screen.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by hislop

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by moviePig

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by hislop

Post by anim8rFSK

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by m***@gmail.com
\

Post by hislop
I entered this thread before seeing Interstellar, I just saw it and
found the same type of gobbledegook.

Judging from the enthusiasm for INTERSTELLAR on the web, I can only
conclude that most internet users are quite fluent in gobbledygook.

Really? I've thought opinions were rather mixed.

Has anyone seen the bluray of Interstellar?
One of the oddest disc authorings I have ever seen.
The film almost seemingly randomly switches between letter-boxed 2.40:1
and full frame (for HD) 16:9 throughout its running.

That term is causing trouble elsewhere. People are insisting that since
16:9 is "full frame" anything else (such as 4:3) must be trimming image.
Sigh.

As I see it, full frame is 16:9 for HD but is 4:3 for SD because it has
to be stretched to fill the 16:9 screen hence not natively full frame.
Anamorphic, which HD isn't as far as I know.
People have puzzled how to see a 4:3 HD movie full frame on a 4:3 TV, it
can't be done, normally anyway.

What are you talking about? HD is designed for anamorphic prints. If it's anamorphic it fills out the 16X9 frame. If it's academy ratio it's 4:3 even in HD and on most sets these days you can see it in SD or HD. If it's 4:3 it's the same AR in both. A little sharper in HD is all. Anything else and you've got your settings wrong.
Encore Western screws up its 4:3 films sometimes by putting the image in a "window box" frame, making it much smaller than normal. They do that with "Death Valley Days" and yet they follow it with "Wanted: Dead or Alive" which is proper full-sized 4:3. I don't get it.

Afaics, HD is an electronic spec -- and is not 'designed for anamorphic
prints' in any sense that I understand. 'Anamorphic' typically means
that a picture in one aspect-ratio is optically squeezed/ stretched
vertically/horizontally to/from another aspect-ratio -- with one of the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_widescreen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format
--
-

What I meant was that HD is designed to accommodate anamorphic prints. As far as I can tell, that's the only reason to get an HD set--so that you can see anamorphic DVDs properly.

I think your wires are crossed. Anamorphic means the picture is
squeezed and needs a lens to unsqueeze it, so you get a wide ratio from
perhaps standard 35 mm. SD is always 4:3, and so an anamorphic picture
is squeezed and needs to be widened to fit 16:9. The first DVD players
couldn't do it, which is why so many early DVDs are letterboxed for
widescreen and not anamorphic at all.
While HD, being a HD source, cannot be displayed in any 4:3 unsqueezed
form, and so logically isn't anamorphic.
HD is in fact already 16:9 and not in need of any unsqueezing at 1920 X
1080 pixels.
I don't see that it's necessary to glue the term anamophoric to the term
widescreen.
Even a 4:3 image can come from a 1920 X 1080 source, hence causing
trouble for people trying to fill a 4:3 screen.

Anamorphic means something different when applied to DVDs. Read this:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/misc/anamorphic_dvd.htm

Quotes from the page:
Why are Anamorphic DVDs better?

If you purchase DVD movies, then you probably enjoy collecting movies for the long term. You may not know, however, that some widescreen DVDs contain 33% more resolution than other widescreen DVDs. These DVDs with extra resolution are called "Anamorphic Widescreen", "Enhanced for Widescreen TVs", or "Enhanced for 16:9 TVs".

A Lesson in Aspect Ratio

TV's are sold in two different aspect ratios: Standard and Widescreen. There are widescreen televisions that are not high definition televisions. So you don't have to pay for an HDTV to have a widescreen TV.

Most broadcast TV programs and pre-1950's movies have an aspect ratio of 1.33:1 (read 1.33 to 1), so televisions in the past have always been made at this same 4:3 aspect ratio. But most widescreen movies have an aspect ratio of 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. To fill the entire screen of a 4:3 TV, the sides of a widescreen movie must be cropped off to make a "Pan&Scan" image. This reformatted image often loses characters and scenery essential to the movie presentation. To see the entire widescreen image as the movie director intended, the movie can be letterboxed to fit on a 4:3 TV. These are the black bars that appear above and below the movie frame. Widescreen TVs minimize this letterboxing appearance and less of the TV screen is wasted on the black bars because a widescreen TV is closer to the aspect ratio of widescreen movies. In the near future of HDTV broadcasting, widescreen TVs will become the new standard.

Non-Anamorphic DVDs

Both the standard and widescreen TV have 480 lines of resolution counted from top to bottom. Consider a movie filmed at an aspect ratio of 1.85:1. A non-anamorphic DVD will letterbox the movie using only 345 lines of resolution for the movie image. The other 135 lines are wasted as black bars on the screen. A widescreen TV can still magnify the letterbox image to fill most of the screen, but magnification does not increase the number of lines of resolution. What is more, magnification reveals gaps between the scan lines and defects in the video image.

[anim8rFSK]

Post by moviePig

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by hislop

Post by anim8rFSK

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by m***@gmail.com
\

Post by hislop
I entered this thread before seeing Interstellar, I just saw it and
found the same type of gobbledegook.

Judging from the enthusiasm for INTERSTELLAR on the web, I can only
conclude that most internet users are quite fluent in gobbledygook.

Really? I've thought opinions were rather mixed.

Has anyone seen the bluray of Interstellar?
One of the oddest disc authorings I have ever seen.
The film almost seemingly randomly switches between letter-boxed 2.40:1
and full frame (for HD) 16:9 throughout its running.

That term is causing trouble elsewhere. People are insisting that since
16:9 is "full frame" anything else (such as 4:3) must be trimming image.
Sigh.

As I see it, full frame is 16:9 for HD but is 4:3 for SD because it has
to be stretched to fill the 16:9 screen hence not natively full frame.
Anamorphic, which HD isn't as far as I know.
People have puzzled how to see a 4:3 HD movie full frame on a 4:3 TV, it
can't be done, normally anyway.

What are you talking about? HD is designed for anamorphic prints. If it's
anamorphic it fills out the 16X9 frame.

Only if the ratio it expands to is 16x9. For instance, DVDs have 2.35
anamorphic that expands to fill the frame widthwise but would be
letterboxed top and bottom.

If it's academy ratio it's 4:3 even

Post by moviePig

Post by m***@gmail.com
in HD and on most sets these days you can see it in SD or HD. If it's 4:3
it's the same AR in both. A little sharper in HD is all. Anything else and
you've got your settings wrong.
Encore Western screws up its 4:3 films sometimes by putting the image in a
"window box" frame, making it much smaller than normal. They do that with
"Death Valley Days" and yet they follow it with "Wanted: Dead or Alive"
which is proper full-sized 4:3. I don't get it.

Afaics, HD is an electronic spec -- and is not 'designed for anamorphic
prints' in any sense that I understand. 'Anamorphic' typically means
that a picture in one aspect-ratio is optically squeezed/ stretched
vertically/horizontally to/from another aspect-ratio -- with one of the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_widescreen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format

Right. Anamorphic was a way of squeezing more out of DVD resolution.
By squeezing left to right you effectively create a higher vertical
resolution at viewing time.

AFAIK you're right, there's no such thing as anamorphic Blu-ray. I have
read people insisting that there *should* be because it would increase
the resolution of 2.35 movies, but I can't follow their math at all.

[moviePig]

Post by anim8rFSK

Post by moviePig

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by hislop

Post by anim8rFSK

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by m***@gmail.com
\

Post by hislop
I entered this thread before seeing Interstellar, I just saw it and
found the same type of gobbledegook.

Judging from the enthusiasm for INTERSTELLAR on the web, I can only
conclude that most internet users are quite fluent in gobbledygook.

Really? I've thought opinions were rather mixed.

Has anyone seen the bluray of Interstellar?
One of the oddest disc authorings I have ever seen.
The film almost seemingly randomly switches between letter-boxed 2.40:1
and full frame (for HD) 16:9 throughout its running.

That term is causing trouble elsewhere. People are insisting that since
16:9 is "full frame" anything else (such as 4:3) must be trimming image.
Sigh.

As I see it, full frame is 16:9 for HD but is 4:3 for SD because it has
to be stretched to fill the 16:9 screen hence not natively full frame.
Anamorphic, which HD isn't as far as I know.
People have puzzled how to see a 4:3 HD movie full frame on a 4:3 TV, it
can't be done, normally anyway.

What are you talking about? HD is designed for anamorphic prints. If it's
anamorphic it fills out the 16X9 frame.

Only if the ratio it expands to is 16x9. For instance, DVDs have 2.35
anamorphic that expands to fill the frame widthwise but would be
letterboxed top and bottom.
If it's academy ratio it's 4:3 even

Post by moviePig

Post by m***@gmail.com
in HD and on most sets these days you can see it in SD or HD. If it's 4:3
it's the same AR in both. A little sharper in HD is all. Anything else and
you've got your settings wrong.
Encore Western screws up its 4:3 films sometimes by putting the image in a
"window box" frame, making it much smaller than normal. They do that with
"Death Valley Days" and yet they follow it with "Wanted: Dead or Alive"
which is proper full-sized 4:3. I don't get it.

Afaics, HD is an electronic spec -- and is not 'designed for anamorphic
prints' in any sense that I understand. 'Anamorphic' typically means
that a picture in one aspect-ratio is optically squeezed/ stretched
vertically/horizontally to/from another aspect-ratio -- with one of the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_widescreen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format

Right. Anamorphic was a way of squeezing more out of DVD resolution.
By squeezing left to right you effectively create a higher vertical
resolution at viewing time.
AFAIK you're right, there's no such thing as anamorphic Blu-ray. I have
read people insisting that there *should* be because it would increase
the resolution of 2.35 movies, but I can't follow their math at all.

Since Blu-Ray (shirley) employs some sort of content-compression, the
letterboxes enclosing a 2.35 movie should be "free", pixel-wise. So,
there could be less compression imposed on the sliver of actual movie.
But that's not "anamorphic" -- which is about shape, not information.

[hislop]

Post by anim8rFSK

Post by moviePig

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by hislop

Post by anim8rFSK

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by m***@gmail.com
\

Post by hislop
I entered this thread before seeing Interstellar, I just saw it and
found the same type of gobbledegook.

Judging from the enthusiasm for INTERSTELLAR on the web, I can only
conclude that most internet users are quite fluent in gobbledygook.

Really? I've thought opinions were rather mixed.

Has anyone seen the bluray of Interstellar?
One of the oddest disc authorings I have ever seen.
The film almost seemingly randomly switches between letter-boxed 2.40:1
and full frame (for HD) 16:9 throughout its running.

That term is causing trouble elsewhere. People are insisting that since
16:9 is "full frame" anything else (such as 4:3) must be trimming image.
Sigh.

As I see it, full frame is 16:9 for HD but is 4:3 for SD because it has
to be stretched to fill the 16:9 screen hence not natively full frame.
Anamorphic, which HD isn't as far as I know.
People have puzzled how to see a 4:3 HD movie full frame on a 4:3 TV, it
can't be done, normally anyway.

What are you talking about? HD is designed for anamorphic prints. If it's
anamorphic it fills out the 16X9 frame.

Only if the ratio it expands to is 16x9. For instance, DVDs have 2.35
anamorphic that expands to fill the frame widthwise but would be
letterboxed top and bottom.
If it's academy ratio it's 4:3 even

Post by moviePig

Post by m***@gmail.com
in HD and on most sets these days you can see it in SD or HD. If it's 4:3
it's the same AR in both. A little sharper in HD is all. Anything else and
you've got your settings wrong.
Encore Western screws up its 4:3 films sometimes by putting the image in a
"window box" frame, making it much smaller than normal. They do that with
"Death Valley Days" and yet they follow it with "Wanted: Dead or Alive"
which is proper full-sized 4:3. I don't get it.

Afaics, HD is an electronic spec -- and is not 'designed for anamorphic
prints' in any sense that I understand. 'Anamorphic' typically means
that a picture in one aspect-ratio is optically squeezed/ stretched
vertically/horizontally to/from another aspect-ratio -- with one of the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_widescreen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format

Right. Anamorphic was a way of squeezing more out of DVD resolution.
By squeezing left to right you effectively create a higher vertical
resolution at viewing time.
AFAIK you're right, there's no such thing as anamorphic Blu-ray. I have
read people insisting that there *should* be because it would increase
the resolution of 2.35 movies, but I can't follow their math at all.

It sounds like the concept of up sampling a picture to make it a higher
resolution, which any bluray player does anyway with a DVD.
No unsqueezed picture with an upsampled DVD, and so it depends then very
much on the DVD's own internal settings, which can be wrong sometimes.

[Lewis]

Post by hislop

Post by moviePig

Post by m***@gmail.com
\

Post by hislop
I entered this thread before seeing Interstellar, I just saw it and
found the same type of gobbledegook.

Judging from the enthusiasm for INTERSTELLAR on the web, I can only
conclude that most internet users are quite fluent in gobbledygook.

Really? I've thought opinions were rather mixed.

Has anyone seen the bluray of Interstellar?
One of the oddest disc authorings I have ever seen.
The film almost seemingly randomly switches between letter-boxed 2.40:1
and full frame (for HD) 16:9 throughout its running. I think it's a
good thing for someone to care about this in authoring.

That's what the IMAX movie did as well.

[Alan Smithee]

Post by hislop
I always put AI (Artificial Intelligence) at number one regardless of
what many might say. It's the only movie which explores at all the
reality (or the sense of reality) of such machines.

An updated 'Pinocchio' story!

[Pete K.]

Post by hislop

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

I always put AI (Artificial Intelligence) at number one regardless of
what many might say. It's the only movie which explores at all the
reality (or the sense of reality) of such machines.
People seem too used to robots without there actually ever been any in
reality.

Best Spielbrick movie ever.

[tomcervo]

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

Per the comments:
TZ's "The Lonely" said as much or more than "Blade Runner", and said it in 24 minutes.

[Obveeus]

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

So, will any new films be added to the list this year? Maybe they all
get disqualified for being about something more than robots?

EX MACHINA (out today for those in LA).
AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTON (May Day alert).
TERMINATOR GENISYS (out on time for Independence Day...or loss thereof).

rec.arts.current-films added.

[moviePig]

Post by Obveeus

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

So, will any new films be added to the list this year? Maybe they all
get disqualified for being about something more than robots?
EX MACHINA (out today for those in LA).
AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTON (May Day alert).
TERMINATOR GENISYS (out on time for Independence Day...or loss thereof).
rec.arts.current-films added.

I wonder what's with the EX MACHINA Oscar-run in April. This flick,
which I hadn't heard of, looks so good in Metacritic's numbers that I'm
staying clear of the words:

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/ex-machina/critic-reviews

[Obveeus]

Post by moviePig

Post by Obveeus

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

So, will any new films be added to the list this year? Maybe they all
get disqualified for being about something more than robots?
EX MACHINA (out today for those in LA).
AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTON (May Day alert).
TERMINATOR GENISYS (out on time for Independence Day...or loss thereof).
rec.arts.current-films added.

I wonder what's with the EX MACHINA Oscar-run in April. This flick,
which I hadn't heard of, looks so good in Metacritic's numbers that I'm
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/ex-machina/critic-reviews

It does seem like a promising visit to the theater.

[Lewis]

Post by moviePig

Post by Obveeus

Post by w***@gmail.com
Hey,
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/15-best-robot-movies-of-all-time.html

So, will any new films be added to the list this year? Maybe they all
get disqualified for being about something more than robots?
EX MACHINA (out today for those in LA).
AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTON (May Day alert).
TERMINATOR GENISYS (out on time for Independence Day...or loss thereof).
rec.arts.current-films added.

I wonder what's with the EX MACHINA Oscar-run in April. This flick,
which I hadn't heard of, looks so good in Metacritic's numbers that I'm

I saw about 3 seconds of one trailer and decided I had to see it.

I was *very* annoyed to discover it had not opened this weekend as every
site, blog, preview, and poster claimed.

Sure, it must be showing somewhere (LA only?) but what the hell? Who
opens a movie in micro release in April?

And Kumiko The Treasure Hunter doesn't get here until the 17th. Sigh.