Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Try to break the forums!

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Try to break the forums! (Page 2)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: Try to break the forums!

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 12-04-2007 02:57 PM

My basic point is that this site really wouldn't benefit in any way from Flash... not even aesthetically. Nothing really scales or shrinks here which would be improved by vectors.

Of course we could always go back to having the site look like this:

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-04-2007 03:52 PM

Man, I remember older versions than that (before the chat room). I must be an old timer.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 12-04-2007 05:18 PM

So do I, that's just the oldest screenie I had laying around.

| IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 12-04-2007 08:59 PM

While posting a reply, I got:

quote:

An error has occurred:

I could not connect to the SMTP server.

Please inform the board administration of this error so that they
may fix the problem. Thank you!

--jhawk

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 12-04-2007 09:38 PM

quote: Joe Redifer
My basic point is that this site really wouldn't benefit in any way from Flash... not even aesthetically.

Again, I'm not suggesting the whole site be built in Flash...or even use Flash. There are other alternatives now.

All I'm saying is that when someone wants to show a graphical image in a image heavy thread it might be nice if someone could upload a .SWF-based image, or perhaps a more HTML code friendly SVG file or even a PDF. For example, that classic 70mm logo from the 1980s really sucks ass badly as a raster-based image. It works a whole hell of a lot better when displayed/reproduced from vector-based artwork.

Flash 8 has a hell of a lot more graphical capability to it than the older versions, especially anything used circa 2000. Flash 8 can animate both layered Photoshop and layered Illustrator graphics. It supports alpha transparency. It even has compatibility with alpha channels from Adobe After Effects. Put together some green screen video footage and Flash 8 will preserve the knocked out background. Of course that stuff is more file size intensive.

| 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 12-05-2007 03:52 AM

Thanks John. The mail server runs under VMware and has been having connectivity issues ever since moving film-tech.com and cinematour.com over to the same host server. The extra load is causing the TOE maximum number of concurrent sessions to be exceeded which is causing the persistent connections between the VMware host and guest to be dropped when they're pushed between the TOE and the native Windows TCP/IP stack.

I'm hoping that the latest Broadcom NIC driver that I've installed will finally resolve the issue. I'm pretty sure that it's an issue with broken (or at least mismatched to the MS Scalable Networking Pack) TOE support in the Broadcom driver that came with the server. The issue being that I couldn't convince TOE to disable itself.

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 12-05-2007 01:00 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
64-bit operating systems and Linux are not mainstream computer user items. Likewise, Adobe isn't in a big hurry to recompile all of their applications in 64-bit form.

1) 64-bit not mainstream? Buy a new decent computer now and you'll find it can do 64-bit. Heck, even the lower-level computers have 64-bit capable processors now. Both Vista and XP are available in 64-bit too.

2) It isn't that Adobe isn't in a hurry to recompile; it's the fact that they CAN'T just recompile. People have been asking them for at least a couple years for a 64-bit capable flash but the problem is that they'd have to rewrite the whole thing from scratch since there's no way for it to work in 64-bit as they've written it. Apparently, it relies heavily on 32-bit.

And I really dislike the reasoning of "you should use a more mainstream OS." This is like when some webmaster puts up a website that doesn't use internet standards then when someone says "That doesn't render right because you did X" then they respond with "It works with Internet Explorer."

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 12-05-2007 04:52 PM

The new server seems to have some growing pains. Mail isn't working.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 12-05-2007 04:54 PM

quote: Chris Slycord
64-bit not mainstream? Buy a new decent computer now and you'll find it can do 64-bit.

Sure, newer CPUs can compute 64-bit code -at least to some extent. Certain versions of newer operating systems can as well. But that capability is pretty much like tits on a bull if none of your applications are compiled for 64-bit operation.

The vast majority of mainstream computer applications are compiled only in 32-bit form. Further, very few of them are compiled in multi-threaded form either. Most people are only getting limited benefits from dual-core and multi-core CPUs.

This is essentially why 64-bit is not mainstream and won't be for at least another couple of years.

To make matters worse, 64-bit versions of Windows actually "break" a lot of functions in mainstream software and drivers for peripheral devices. Whenever any graphics people ask me about 64-bit, I tell them to avoid it. There's just too many problems with it.

The only way graphics people can deal with 64-bit is when it is loaded on a special purpose machine doing specialized tasks, such as doing 3D animation and effects composition in native 64-bit versions of Maya and Fusion. If they're expecting to do a lot of common graphics chores using applications from Adobe, Corel, Quark, etc., they're bound to have trouble when trying to run them in a 64-bit OS.

quote: Chris Slycord
It isn't that Adobe isn't in a hurry to recompile; it's the fact that they CAN'T just recompile.

Umm, where exactly am I disagreeing with that?

I know it isn't an easy task for Adobe to redo their apps in 64-bit. Unfortunately a lot of "power users" who just had to run out and load WinXP Pro x64 Edition or get the 64-bit version of Vista didn't realize that fact. They've been flaming Adobe for the last couple of years in not rushing out a "64-bit patch" of Photoshop. Too damned bad folks. They had more important fish to fry, such as finishing the CS3 suite with all those acquired Macromedia applications and having to settle for doing it all in 32-bit form for this round.

quote: Chris Slycord
And I really dislike the reasoning of "you should use a more mainstream OS."

Anyone can load up whatever operating system he likes. But that doesn't change the situation about 64-bit and the fact it is not mainstream.

I'm certainly not going to "upgrade" to a 64-bit OS anytime soon. The 32-bit version of WinXP Pro I am using works. My software and wide variety of devices work reliably under it. That's not the same issue with anything 64-bit.

It's one thing if a new 64-bit OS on someone's home system craps out because it can't run a certain video game or video applet. It's a much more serious problem if the 64-bit OS isn't compatible with your business work flow. I've got some really expensive large format printing equipment and CNC routing equipment operating from my machine. That gear cannot be rendered idle by a 64-bit OS that doesn't know how to play nice with it.

[ 12-05-2007, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: Bobby Henderson ]

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-05-2007 05:39 PM

The site seemed to "go down" last night for a while and then again today, but just for a few minutes each time. Also right now the chat room area has the blank "cannot display the webpage" look.

| 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 12-05-2007 08:02 PM

Yeah, the network interface in the server has been acting up. I was up till 5am last night trying to get the data center staff to resolve the issue.

It is still locking up periodically today but I've been able get the machine rebooted and functional (for a while) each time. The bits of downtime is the 3-5 minutes it takes for the server to reboot.

I'm currently building a duplicate server (same hardware and software) at home so that I can see for myself what the heck is going on.

| IP: Logged

Mike Olpin
Chop Chop!

Posts: 1852
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 12-06-2007 07:54 PM

Jebus Crackers, guys! I was joking about using flash and all that crap.

| 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 12-06-2007 10:45 PM

So does that mean I should stop working on the html-to-flash.pl script I've been working on?

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 12-06-2007 11:15 PM

Bobby,

That whole statement about why you don't want a 64-bit OS has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

All I was saying is "I'd prefer to not have the site in flash because, for me, the site wouldn't work as well as it does now."

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 12-08-2007 12:16 AM

Aside from mail still being extremely wonky, I have found a weird forum error that occurs from time to time. For example right now when I am out on the main page I see this:

It shows the Senator thread has a new post that was made at 11:45pm by Mark J. Marshall.

However if you go in to Film-Yak, you see this (click for bigger view):

You can see that the actual forum has not updated yet and it still thinks the last post in the Senator thread was made by Bill Gabel over an hour before. If you actually click in to the thread, Mark's post shows up.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.