my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Your Website (Page 2)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: Your Website Mike Williams Master Film Handler Posts: 255 From: Knoxville, TN Registered: Feb 2002 posted 04-02-2004 12:39 PM                     quote: This site is perfectly fine the way it is. I absolutely hate FLASH and all that fancy-schmancy crap. I agree... I personally think flash is not necessary unless you like playing games like the ones on The Addicting Games Website . That is why I put that link in my last post. I was being sarcastic.  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 04-02-2004 08:00 PM                     This whole website sucks. And talk about BORING! Projectors, projectors, projectors. Jeez. Somebody shoot me. And do you, by chance, work at the Sonoma Cinemas? Gosh, that place looks so 1994.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 04-02-2004 08:33 PM                        This site has experimented with Flash in the past. We had a Flash intro with Evans and myself (that was completely retarded) that I designed as well as Flash navigational buttons. But we found that Flash wasn't compaitble with everyone and it was just too "bloaty" for lack of a better term. I have come to hate websites designed in Flash. They move too slowly from one page to the next. But people love it due to all of the silly sounds and transitions you can make, and 99.999999999999999999999999% of Flash web designers overuse/misuse Flash when they make a website by just trying to make it fancy.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-02-2004 09:25 PM                        I hate sites that have a flash intro and they have a link that says "skip intro" so you click it (because you are on dialup) and then IT STILL LOADS THE WHOLE INTRO ANYWAY before skipping it. Simple = good. It has been a while since the FTF logo changed though...I remember in the old days a couple of years ago, it used to change every couple of weeks.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 04-02-2004 09:29 PM                        Mike, are you talking about the Film-Tech logo on the main page, or the Film-Tech Forums logo? If you are talking about the main page logo, it used to change every time you came to the site. And it still does if you link to Film-Tech with a banner!  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 04-02-2004 10:34 PM                     Since no else has bothered do so (and risk being flamed) I'll stand up and defend the use of Flash.... ...that is, Flash done sensibly. Many wannabe graphic artists out there seem to have no clue at all Flash can be used to display non animated, still graphics. They only seem to use Flash whenever they want to stall someone with a pretentious 600K intro download. Flash can display still image graphics, like logos and even graphic illustrations with better quality and better file size efficiency than GIF. JPEG doesn't even need to apply. A lot of people don't bother to explore Flash for still graphics image uses, preferring to do stupid things like using JPEG for that purpose. Now, I say "stupid" because it seems like 9 times out of 10 the person putting together the website is also the one designing the customer's "logo." And he does it using some bitmap image editor like Photoshop or Fireworks to put together the art instead of using a vector graphics program like Illustrator, CorelDRAW, Freehand or even Canvas to get the job done correctly. I'm sorry to sound arrogant about it, but I just laugh at people anymore who put together a "logo design" in Photoshop in crude 72ppi form and then expect that shit to fly in print production, or even worse in areas like large format outdoor advertising. I have to deal with lots of customer supplied artwork in my day job. If Flash were used more intelligently, I'm certain I would have more customers bringing me art someone else designed in vector form rather than the parade of stupid JPEGs. Several year ago (before the Internet became popular) that was indeed the case. Most customer supplied art came in vector form. The only issues I had to deal with back then were easy ones (missing fonts or the Mac/PC cross platform file exchange). It takes a lot more work to convert someone's pixellated raster image into a smooth piece of vector imagery. But they pay a $50 per hour digitizing charge to learn the deal. Or they can stay ignorant and keep shelling out those bucks.  |  IP: Logged Braden Mailloux Film Handler Posts: 19 From: Sonoma, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2004 posted 04-03-2004 02:57 AM                    Jesus you guys jumpe to conlusions. First of all, Flash is not a pixel based program. Its vector based art meaning no matter how many times you zoon in its still gonna look the same. Second... I never did say anything about making a flash intro for a website such as this one. I mean just a good label or a banner for the top of the site is all I wanted to do. Also if you wanna talk about pains in the ass... frames. What are you thinking about using frames? Puhleeze. Aside from that... why don't you ask questions and then shoot later for something that you may not like. ALso... I learned about the 72dpi thingy. I always try to pring out at the highest resolution that I possibly can. I made a poster for my project at svhs and it turned out quite nice after I turned up the rez. Thank you Brayshakes  |  IP: Logged Carl Martin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1424 From: Oakland, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 04-03-2004 03:55 AM                        out of curiosity, what's so bad about frames? carl  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 04-03-2004 03:56 AM                        They're the third evilest thing in the world, after cable select and whatever it was I declared the second evilest thing. Oh yeah... and "first of all", nobody said Flash was rastor based, although it was noted that it is indeed vector based. I guess while we jump to conclusions, you jump over posts.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 04-03-2004 04:16 AM                        I used to hate frames and I'm sure Brad can tell you that I threw a bit of a fit when this site converted to frames. But now I've grown to like them. They are convenient. I don't think Lynx users like them, though. Maybe Lynx is not too accepting of them. I have no idea. And Braden, we are just all discussing what we like and what we don't. We're not coming down on you or your idea. This site could be done in Flash without frames, yet still have the benefits of frames. But still, only the logos and original art would benefit from the Flash design. Member pics would still be JPGs, as well as 99% of all the image content here. I don't think the site would move any quicker. In fact it could be slower. I've seen input fields in Flash and they were dreadfully slow. Even when you step up to Director as was the case at my job, it just seems sluggish compared to HTML in regards to the text fields. By the way, GIFs suck ass. JPEGs KILL GIFs (and any other format that is limited to a pathetic 255 colors) for still images. I'll take a bit of compression artifacts over a tremendous loss of color any day (unless the original graphic only has a few colors, like forum icons). The only real use for GIFs other than that are animated thingies like this:  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 04-03-2004 05:22 AM                  Joe: That gif is HOT! Please email me the full version! Rach: Oh Puleeze! The website Phil's Sexxx Den has been 'up' and running for a long time... You just DON'T know the password cuz you have been BANNED! >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Brian Michael Weidemann Expert cat molester Posts: 944 From: Costa Mesa, CA United States Registered: Feb 2004 posted 04-03-2004 05:44 AM                        The only issue I have with this site's frames is that it cuts off the buttons, so they read "Foru, Produ, Manu, Pictu, Revie, Vide, Tip, Reel, Cha, Lin, Hom, Contac, and Uplo" ...not to mention the scroll bars (horizontal AND vertical) that appear there. Not EVERYONE has their browser maximized all the time, you know! I'm set to 1152x864 with my browser windows usually around 800x600. I think Outlook Express is the only program I ever use maximized. Most sites seem to align nicely regardless of browser size, but then, I'm not really in charge, now am I?  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 04-03-2004 11:54 AM                     quote: ALso... I learned about the 72dpi thingy. I always try to pring out at the highest resolution that I possibly can. I made a poster for my project at svhs and it turned out quite nice after I turned up the rez. Actually, that's the attitude that gets me on my personal rant, and how I widely deride the Internet as being one of the worst things that ever happened to graphic design. You don't "turn up the rez" somewhere down the road when you make an original graphic design. Items like logotypes, corporate signatures and many other types of graphical design and illustration are far better realized and reproduced when created natively in vector form. A vector graphic has lots more flexibility. And if there needs to be a rasterized version, any drawing program can create it in whatever ppi rating is desired. That way the image doesn't look soft or have any pixels visible! Or you can copy the vector paths into Photoshop and do the same thing. Vector to raster is easy. Raster to vector is a pain in the ass. Unfortunately there's a lot of dumbasses out there writing magazine articles for Photoshop User and other publications showing how Photoshop or any other image editor can be used to design logos. Fucking wrong! When the end result is some dopey bitmap, the work gets an "F" in my book. For one thing, any basic logo design needs to start out with its first version as one single ink color and able to print at small sizes. It's pretty damned stupid to design a logo in Photoshop with all sorts of rastery effects that require four ink plates (CMYK) and doesn't reproduce worth a shit when shrunk down on a business card. I wouldn't be so irritated by this kind of thing if it were only hobbyists putting together their own graphics schemes in Photoshop --only to use on their personal web pages. That's fine. The problem is there's lots of amateurs out there taking paying graphics jobs doing the same damn thing. These guys are screwing up graphics workflows for the people who know what their doing: professional like me who actually bear formal training, degrees and paid registrations for their software. On top of that, they've driven down the wage scales for graphics people to such a degree that many folks with real talent are just leaving in disgust to find something else to do for a living. The logos as JPEGs from amateur designers just adds more irritating insult to injury.  |  IP: Logged Braden Mailloux Film Handler Posts: 19 From: Sonoma, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2004 posted 04-03-2004 04:32 PM                    Yar... whole lotta anger on your side of the market. I try not to be trendy and all that shit and I don't particulary care about people out there who are so bitter about something like web design. Whats to be bitter about? Nothing... its people that get bitter about this kinda stuff that really bring the market down. Instead of educating that would rather rant and just bitch about what needs to be changed instead of taking action (no offense)  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 04-03-2004 04:53 PM                     quote: Yar... whole lotta anger on your side of the market. The anger is justified. The state of graphic design in America on average is laughably pathetic. Good quality design is hard to find and the commercial landscape is rife with shit design. You really see the difference if you compare the work in Europe compared to what gets produced here. Lots of unqualified amateurs with little in the way of talent or credentials got into the field because they thought it was something cool or easy to do. They were willing to work for much less than most professionals and succeeded in driving wage scales way down. Most professions in the United States require some kind of formal education or certification for a worker to gain entry into the field. Doctors, lawyers, teachers, electricians, engineers and many others require those kinds of things to get a job. This is not true anymore for the graphics industry. The computer has a lot to do with that. People hiring staffers stupidly look at lists of applications the candidate supposedly knows rather than do something more logical such as examinging a portfolio of work. The availability of pirated software via KaZaa has allowed a new class of hacks to weasel their way into the market. Aside from the bad business climate, the amateurs out there don't know much of anything about making art that conforms to different workflows. They just design something they can slap on a web page. quote: I don't particulary care about people out there who are so bitter about something like web design. Whats to be bitter about? Nothing... its people that get bitter about this kinda stuff that really bring the market down. See if you can stick to that tune if you earn a four year art degree, or at the bare minimum invest in (pay for) the software you use. You will not be so accomodating of amateurs driving down your wages then.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.