Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 151 posts

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#61

Post by Eric_WVGG »

drcode wrote: post #14

I'm guessing that this was just the sort of typical letter that every company with an established brand sends to media whenever they use their trademark in a more generalized context. It's as if Ars had said "we googled up their website" while showing a picture of them using Bing, or if they had said "We enjoyed some Coke after the demo" and had a picture of them holding a can of Pepsi. I'm not saying that this lette…

That’s possible. It’s also possible that this is a deliberate media campaign to try and draw attention away from pervasive rumors that IMAX screen cause #buttcancer

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#62

Post by dpark »

Someone1234 wrote: post #47
murbard2 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) No, the resolution is a function of the solid angle taken by the screen. Yes, there needs to be an uptick in PPIs but 8000x10000 is basically a hard cap on what's necessary (corresponding to a field of view of 135x180 with a visual acuity of one arc minute). There are already prototypes doing 2000PPI so it'll be at most a few years. 2) It doesn't have to be clear that VR will succeed for it to represent a threat t…

I like with #1 how you start with the word "no" but then repeat back to me what I said. So we both agree, you need a higher resolution than we have today to clone IMAX in VR, and we won't get that unless VR takes off (as funding is needed to produce the screens). VR also has the weight X factor, how heavy is this prototype 2000 PPI screen? And much would one cost? Both we agree on #1, we both said the same thing. > I…

He didn't repeat back what you said at all. You said this:

> "But the "further" away you project the virtual movie screen, the higher the resolution of the VR headset needs to be to support it."

He's saying that's not true. He's also right. The resolution the physical VR screens need is completely unrelated to "how far" you project the virtual screen.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#63

Post by sangnoir »

mediocrejoker wrote: post #35
insipid wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even presuming we accept "trademark erosion" as a thing, it's still irrelevant here: the author wasn't using a trademark to describe a generic good (i.e., they didn't mean "a 'large-format' movie theatre with surround sound"), they were literally referring to the product (or, rather, one of the confusingly different products) traded under the "IMAX" mark (i.e., they meant, literally, AN IMAX THEATRE).

I think the quotee (not the article author, mind you) was, albeit indirectly, comparing the VR product to IMAX.

> I think the quotee (not the article author, mind you) was, albeit indirectly, comparing the VR product to IMAX.

Yes, everyone agrees that they were refering to IMAX. It is also legal for them to do so (and for Ars to publish this opinion) without seeking permission from IMAX first. Some people on HN are surprisingly disagreeing with this (or at least condoning IMAX's response)

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#64

Post by tgb »

Someone1234 wrote: post #47
murbard2 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) No, the resolution is a function of the solid angle taken by the screen. Yes, there needs to be an uptick in PPIs but 8000x10000 is basically a hard cap on what's necessary (corresponding to a field of view of 135x180 with a visual acuity of one arc minute). There are already prototypes doing 2000PPI so it'll be at most a few years. 2) It doesn't have to be clear that VR will succeed for it to represent a threat t…

I like with #1 how you start with the word "no" but then repeat back to me what I said. So we both agree, you need a higher resolution than we have today to clone IMAX in VR, and we won't get that unless VR takes off (as funding is needed to produce the screens). VR also has the weight X factor, how heavy is this prototype 2000 PPI screen? And much would one cost? Both we agree on #1, we both said the same thing. > I…

No, you said it depends on virtual screen distance, mubard said it depends on solid angle. Mubard is correct and more relevant to the idea of "make the virtual screen larger and further away" which has an implied constraint where the solid angle is kept constant.

No one would argue that the coming gen vr devices are at the pixels per degree of IMAX, that's just wrong.

Edit: why are so many comments (particularly top level ones) down voted in this thread?

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#65

Post by Retric »

murbard2 wrote: post #44
Someone1234 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With VR, you can effectively simulate an infinitely large screen infinitely far away. In theory. But the "further" away you project the virtual movie screen, the higher the resolution of the VR headset needs to be to support it. And considering that VR screens are already an inch from your face (and thus require a high-ish resolution to just basically "work") we're talking about better-than-exist resolution screens…

1) No, the resolution is a function of the solid angle taken by the screen. Yes, there needs to be an uptick in PPIs but 8000x10000 is basically a hard cap on what's necessary (corresponding to a field of view of 135x180 with a visual acuity of one arc minute). There are already prototypes doing 2000PPI so it'll be at most a few years. 2) It doesn't have to be clear that VR will succeed for it to represent a threat t…

It's worse than that due to aliasing effects. Remember your rods are not aligned on a strict grid so need more than one pixel per rod. And, the eye contains ~120 million rods, so ignoring motion your already at ~40k x 40k per eye. Assuming you’re not moving they screen around to follow they eye or projecting on the retina 'resolution' would cap out at around 10 billion - 1 trillion pixels per eye.

However, clearly you can get away with far less than that. But, the point where increasing resolution is not noticeable at some level is ridiculously high.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#66

Post by sangnoir »

mcphage wrote: post #53
moey wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing the point. When most people think of fascial tissue, they think of Kleenex. They call any brand of fascial tissue Kleenex. IMAX doesn't want people calling any large format theater IMAX. So they over-reach anytime someone mentions the word I assume. Not justifying the actions, just trying to clear things up. Personally, I think it's ridiculous.

> IMAX doesn't want people calling any large format theater IMAX. Of course they don't. But that doesn't give them legal ground to send out C&Ds when people do. They're allowed to protect their trademark in specific, legally defined situations. This isn't one of them, no matter how much IMAX wishes it were so.

> > IMAX doesn't want people calling any large format theater IMAX.

Also, there is no evidence that this is what happened here! The developer quoted by Ars might/might not have literally been referring to IMAX(tm). Only he knows for sure. This is not what the lawyer was whining about either - they were claiming that Ars should have sought permission from IMAX before using the trademarked term in the article. Which is bullshit.

I don't understand how people can condone that - it's only a stones-throw away from a scenario where Google/Apple sues you for using their trademark without permission in your negative comment about one of their products.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#67

Post by Someone1234 »

tgb wrote: post #64
Someone1234 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like with #1 how you start with the word "no" but then repeat back to me what I said. So we both agree, you need a higher resolution than we have today to clone IMAX in VR, and we won't get that unless VR takes off (as funding is needed to produce the screens). VR also has the weight X factor, how heavy is this prototype 2000 PPI screen? And much would one cost? Both we agree on #1, we both said the same thing. > I…

No, you said it depends on virtual screen distance, mubard said it depends on solid angle. Mubard is correct and more relevant to the idea of "make the virtual screen larger and further away" which has an implied constraint where the solid angle is kept constant. No one would argue that the coming gen vr devices are at the pixels per degree of IMAX, that's just wrong. Edit: why are so many comments (particularly top…

> No, you said it depends on virtual screen distance, mubard said it depends on solid angle.

No, I said it cannot do virtual screen rendering at lower resolutions. mubard agreed. The virtual screen would look terrible as you pulled back if the resolution wasn't high enough to support it (which I don't believe it is, yet).

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#68

Post by JoeAltmaier »

Retric wrote: post #65
murbard2 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) No, the resolution is a function of the solid angle taken by the screen. Yes, there needs to be an uptick in PPIs but 8000x10000 is basically a hard cap on what's necessary (corresponding to a field of view of 135x180 with a visual acuity of one arc minute). There are already prototypes doing 2000PPI so it'll be at most a few years. 2) It doesn't have to be clear that VR will succeed for it to represent a threat t…

It's worse than that due to aliasing effects. Remember your rods are not aligned on a strict grid so need more than one pixel per rod. And, the eye contains ~120 million rods, so ignoring motion your already at ~40k x 40k per eye. Assuming you’re not moving they screen around to follow they eye or projecting on the retina 'resolution' would cap out at around 10 billion - 1 trillion pixels per eye. However, clearly yo…

Confused: Sqrt(120M) is around 11000. Where did 40K come from?

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#69

Post by dpark »

mikeash wrote: post #28
jasode wrote: post #12

I understand that IMAX's demands look silly but if we accept that " trademark erosion "[1] is a real phenomenon, the question is: What forms of human communication are exempt from that? In other words, no matter how silly and innocent the passing reference to IMAX is, is it possible that IMAX lawyers must pursue those genericized uses even though those lawyers (and the client IMAX itself) knows it generates negative…

Trademark erosion is about using a trademark to describe a similar but differently-branded product. Like if you said, "I saw Star Trek at the IMAX last night" when in fact that theater is not IMAX©®™ƒ branded, but some other big-screen movie theater. Real-life examples include "give me a kleenex" when you just want any random facial tissue, "give me a coke" when you're just asking for any soft drink (this use is comm…

> "I saw Star Trek at the IMAX last night"

This is actually still an example of trademark erosion, even if referring to an actual IMAX theater. This is using the brand to refer to the abstract thing. It's not an IMAX. It's an IMAX theater.

For a relevant example, look at Google's guidance to journalists. They say not to write "I googled X", but "I searched for X using Google". Using "google" as the verb, even when literally referring to Google, erodes the brand, because it conflates the brand with the thing.

Post reply on HN