About a month ago, Sony online services was struck a rather large blow. Someone had hacked into the network, completely shut it down, and stole a multitude of customer information. However, the "stolen information" part wasn't revealed until a week later. Needless to say, there was an outcry from the community. Things got worse, as Sony was faced with lawsuits and subpoenas afterwards. Then, a couple weeks later, Sony Online Entertainment was hacked, with more customer information stolen, as well as potential credit card theft (although this time, Sony was kind enough to worn people right away). Today, the Playstation Network was relaunched with limited capabilities, with services to be fully relaunched by the end of the month.
Who caused the damage has been somewhat mysterious. As far as Sony could figure, it was caused by the publicly unknown (and aptly named) group Anonymous. Why them? Two reasons supported their argument. First, someone had actually left a logo as a taunt on the wrecked servers. Although the group as a whole has denied their involvement, they did not deny that there were a couple people who didn't get a memo to lay off the attacks, which leads to the second piece of "evidence." After Sony had started a lawsuit with a system modder (someone who makes alterations to either the programming or physical state of a console) known as "Geohotz" for creating alterations to allow homebrewing (another terms for using downloaded titles on the system) on their systems, Anonymous had initiated an attack as retribution, feeling that they were unfairly targeting him. The basis of Sony's actions was due to the idea of promoting piracy, which Geohotz never did. He advocated such modding for personal use, not to cause damage to Sony's company. The only reason Anonymous decided to call a truce was because they did not want to affect the community and the users.
In the end, I can't help but feel Sony shot themselves in the foot over this. Sony staunchly opposes piracy and punishes anyone they can who tries it. However, in some strange sense of irony, they never really took any preventative measure against truly defending it, relying simply on the technology at hand. Blu-rays, because of their unique format and date encryption, are naturally difficult to pirate (which is probably one of the reasons Sony advocated this format and used it for there Playstation 3s). For their networks, they used internal means to "encode" their data based on the programs that were naturally used to run the servers. However, they never really go as far to make things more difficult for people to pirate objects. In the end, they are about reaction, rather than preventative action.
While it's certainly a problem that they are suffering this hack with drastic effects on everyone (digital distribution has been halted for various companies as well as denying users content that they pay for), one has to wonder if Sony didn't have this coming? What if they had done more to stop such things from happening? If they focused on the long run rather than just deal with the problems as they come, would there have been potential to stop the network hacks? While there is still the possibility of someone still getting in, there would still be less blame to put on Sony's shoulders had they followed this route.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Real 3D vs. Conversion 3D
I saw Thor last night until early this morning (I'm just going to say it wasn't the smartest idea to see it right before midnight) in 3D. The movie itself wasn't bad. It was a great character study between Thor, his brother Loki, and their father Odin. A lot of the characters felt rather pointless and unnecessary, but the core story shined through quite strongly. The 3D wasn't bad either. It was nothing special, but it helped accentuate some of the vast locations. However, I felt that it could have looked better. There is a reason for this: the film was converted into 3D from a 2D film source. The process isn't complicated, but it is quite tedious and takes several months to get a strong image. This makes me wonder why the producers behind this didn't just use a 3D camera to begin with?
The fact of the matter is, real 3D has a stronger sense of depth to it, due to the fact that it captures images similar to the way we as people view something. It capture the image at two different angles with the ability to adjust the main plane or object of focus in the image. It is, in a sense, a complete image. With 3D conversion however, a duplicate of the image is made and warped to mimic the angular difference that would be perceived from the different eyes. There are several problems with this. First off, it doesn't look like true 3D. With real 3D recording, there isn't just depth of the plane, but there is obviously more depth with the object. With converted 3D, unless done properly, the objects are described as looking like cardboard layered on top of each other. While there is depth in plane, the objects appear rather flat. Another problem is that because of the image warping, it can result in what is basically a "squashed" image. In essence, it isn't as wide as compared to real 3D.
This makes one ask why would one prefer to use converted 3D versus the real 3D? One key reason is due to the size of the camera. The Fusion/ Pace camera system, co-developed by James Cameron and Vincent Pace, can capture a true 3D image, due to it's use of horizontal mirrors to capture an image, is considered to be a massive piece of equipment. Basically, one can only carry it at around 20 minutes at a time, due to it's size and weight. Another problem is that, because of his size, it's hard to get complex shots where one has to move around comfortably. This would be the main basis for conversion; it allows one to get more complex shots with ease. The other reason is that the cost of the equipment is rather high, costing tens of thousands. With conversion, despite it's long time, still cost less in comparison.
The idea of converted 3D vs real 3D is under hot debate. Although when used properly, converted 3D looks quite decent (specifically, Piranha 3D and Alice in Wonderland), but it still lacks the overall punch real 3D has. The quality of converted 3D is generally weaker and less pronounced, and sometimes non-existent given the situation (such as Clash of the Titans, which at some points had no 3D image whatsoever). Still, one can argue that, because the technique is relatively new, it'll evolve over time. Some looked quite decent, and upcoming movies also look promising(such as Captain America).One can assume that at some point we wouldn't need the 3D cameras at some point when it's perfected.
The fact of the matter is, real 3D has a stronger sense of depth to it, due to the fact that it captures images similar to the way we as people view something. It capture the image at two different angles with the ability to adjust the main plane or object of focus in the image. It is, in a sense, a complete image. With 3D conversion however, a duplicate of the image is made and warped to mimic the angular difference that would be perceived from the different eyes. There are several problems with this. First off, it doesn't look like true 3D. With real 3D recording, there isn't just depth of the plane, but there is obviously more depth with the object. With converted 3D, unless done properly, the objects are described as looking like cardboard layered on top of each other. While there is depth in plane, the objects appear rather flat. Another problem is that because of the image warping, it can result in what is basically a "squashed" image. In essence, it isn't as wide as compared to real 3D.
This makes one ask why would one prefer to use converted 3D versus the real 3D? One key reason is due to the size of the camera. The Fusion/ Pace camera system, co-developed by James Cameron and Vincent Pace, can capture a true 3D image, due to it's use of horizontal mirrors to capture an image, is considered to be a massive piece of equipment. Basically, one can only carry it at around 20 minutes at a time, due to it's size and weight. Another problem is that, because of his size, it's hard to get complex shots where one has to move around comfortably. This would be the main basis for conversion; it allows one to get more complex shots with ease. The other reason is that the cost of the equipment is rather high, costing tens of thousands. With conversion, despite it's long time, still cost less in comparison.
The idea of converted 3D vs real 3D is under hot debate. Although when used properly, converted 3D looks quite decent (specifically, Piranha 3D and Alice in Wonderland), but it still lacks the overall punch real 3D has. The quality of converted 3D is generally weaker and less pronounced, and sometimes non-existent given the situation (such as Clash of the Titans, which at some points had no 3D image whatsoever). Still, one can argue that, because the technique is relatively new, it'll evolve over time. Some looked quite decent, and upcoming movies also look promising(such as Captain America).One can assume that at some point we wouldn't need the 3D cameras at some point when it's perfected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)