Live data from Hacker News

IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

arstechnica.com

111–120 of 151 posts

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This just makes IMAX's case that consumer confusion is possible.

It's ironic that in an article documenting attempted censorship, I have to squint to read this legitimate comment because people think that disagreeing with someone gives them the right to censor them.

One interesting recent change is that you won't see your own downvoted comments as greyed out. You used to, but I think someone said it was offputting (which it kinda is) and dang & company changed it.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#112

It's worth noting IMAX does in fact have a trademark in the relevant fields - ": Consumer electronic products, namely, headphones, earphones, cables, camcorders, DVD players and stereos; home theater systems comprised of a projector system, a surround sound system, a screen, media servers and control devices; and gaming equipment, namely, video game machines for use with televisions and computers; video game controll…

This comment confuses me. Is it text on a web page or did i just actually watch an IMAX movie? I hope they don't send you a letter too!

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#113
post #85

I can only imagine the precious 5 seconds of thought given to the decision to respond to Ars by the IMAX Chief Admin Officer: "Hmm, we know we have nothing to stand on here, but if we politely ask Ars to remove references to IMAX and they do, matter ends there. If Ars doesn't comply, we just lost 5 minutes of drafting this pointless letter. Nothing really to lose." Hits send. The irony? IMAX is now paying the real co…

I completely agree - but i think there is another dynamic at work here: Companies can loose their trademark if the term becomes generic, and one way to defend against that in court is to show a history of defending the mark (I'm not lawyer but that's my simplistic explanation) this is a great article explaining the phenomena around derby pie http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/05/01/399842082/wha... My bet is th…

If IMAX's attorneys actually think nominative use in an article risks them losing the trademark, they need to fire their attorney. In no way is Ars using the IMAX mark to refer to a generic large screen (its an attributed quote, not an editorial comment) and there's no risk of confusion.

All the lawyers are doing is chasing a pay check

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#114
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As things get smaller a greater PPI is needed to render the same level of detail. You don't mind losing detail, sure, you can keep the resolution the same and keep making it smaller and smaller (distance and size are one in the same in this scenario). It ultimately boils down to "when detail gets smaller than a single pixel, it is lost." So the smaller the pixel the more detail you can render. To be honest if you're…

> As things get smaller a greater PPI is needed to render the same level of detail. It really doesn't work that way. If your VR display is too low-resolution to convincingly render a virtual display 15 feet away, then it's too low-resolution to convincingly render the virtual display 15 inches away. Your physical display has the same resolution regardless of where the virtual screen is, and if it lacks sufficient res…

> To put it another way, your display has the ability to render a certain amount of detail, full stop. Where a virtual object is rendered is irrelevant.

But we're talking about a virtual display displaying pre-existing content (e.g. video footage). We aren't talking about the object itself.

If it is one foot from you in virtual space, each pixel of video footage might be mapped 1:1 into each pixel of the VR headset's screen resolution. Therefore the loss of detail is 0%. Every pixel of video detail is transposed onto the display in the VR headset.

If the virtual object is further way (e.g. six feet) it takes up a smaller percentage of the VR headset's display, and therefore fewer physical pixels on the VR headset's display are used to render it. So now instead of 1:1 you might be 1:4, and you're seeing 25% of the video's original detail actually rendered on the VR headset's display.

> Try this. Sit close to your monitor, close enough that text isn't crisp enough. Now zoom your display (Ctrl+'+' in most browsers), which is equivalent to bringing a virtual display closer. Note that the text still isn't crisp. If you could see the pixelation before, you can still see it. Moving the virtual display closer does nothing, because you aren't adding more resolution to the physical display.

Your analogy is backwards and doesn't apply.

But sticking to that same analogy, go get 1080p resolution image. View it on a 1080p display. You're seeing 1:1 (100%) of the detail within the image (all of it). Now zoom out, and again, and again. Detail has been lost. First a little, then a lot, and as you go too far back substantial amounts have been. This is because a 1080p image on a 1080p display can only display 100% of the detail when it is viewed at 100%. As the image is zoomed (or further away in the VR headset's case) it is not possible to continue to consume all of the details as the pixels don't physically exist to display it.

So solve this problem you need a higher resolution than the source material, and it gets higher and higher the more you zoom. If you viewed a 1080p image on a 8640p display, you could zoom out significantly with absolutely no loss of detail, because the pixel density is such that it can still render every dot within the image.

So in order for a VR headset to be able to render stuff far away with no loss of detail the resolution of the headset has to be much higher than the source video. The further away the video gets, the higher the resolution. Again, that is if you want absolutely no loss of detail (in the real world, some loss of detail is acceptable).

In order to play back a 1080p video on a 1080p VR headset, the video either needs to be right in front of the viewer (at 1:1), you'll have to accept loss of detail when moving it further away, or you'll need a higher resolution on the VR headset than the source video (e.g. 4x more pixels on the headset than the source video, when it only takes up 1/4th of the VR headset's display space).

If the virtual display-video is only 1cm squared on each of the VR headset's displays, then that 1cm needs to have the same pixels as 1080p to display 1080p video with no loss of detail. It is just physics. As you move things further away in virtual reality they get rendered by fewer pixels on the real-world VR headset displays, and therefore loss of detail is unavoidable. You can only counteract this with higher PPI than the source video (or just accepting the loss of detail).

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This just makes IMAX's case that consumer confusion is possible.

It's ironic that in an article documenting attempted censorship, I have to squint to read this legitimate comment because people think that disagreeing with someone gives them the right to censor them.

Except it relies on a false fact, that this has anything to do with the legal concept of "consumer confusion". It's not just an opinion, it's actively promoting falsehoods.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#116
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMAX isn't a 35 foot movie screen. The value of the IMAX trademark is that it's a set of standards for image projection, which is how it's being used in the quote. As if the product, which is concerned with image projection, is up to those standards. Harley-Davidson, to my knowledge, isn't involved in image projection standards. Say a lamp which isn't UL certified had a quote "It's like having a UL certified lamp in…

> The value of the IMAX trademark is that it's a set of standards for image projection, which is how it's being used in the quote What article did you read? The quote most certainly did not refer to IMAX as a "set of standards for image projection". Here's the quote again: > "The jump up in tech between playing a normal video game and playing with Kinect was X. The jump between a regular game and playing a room scale…

"The jump up in tech between playing a normal video game and playing with Kinect was X. The jump between a regular game and playing a room scale VR experience is X times 100. It’s like saying, 'I have an IMAX theater in my house.' It’s so much better that we can get away with a cumbersome setup."

You can't see how that quote implies it's up to IMAX standards? Why even use the IMAX name if not to invoke the idea that it's up to their standards?

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#117
post #102
post #85

I can only imagine the precious 5 seconds of thought given to the decision to respond to Ars by the IMAX Chief Admin Officer: "Hmm, we know we have nothing to stand on here, but if we politely ask Ars to remove references to IMAX and they do, matter ends there. If Ars doesn't comply, we just lost 5 minutes of drafting this pointless letter. Nothing really to lose." Hits send. The irony? IMAX is now paying the real co…

Or perhaps it was intentional? They got an article on ARS, mentioning their brand 26 times... All publicity is good publicity, right?

Hehe. I swear I had plans for Mad Max on IMAX this weekend way before hearing about this story. Good publicity? So, I will resist buying the super-sized popcorn as my attempt to protest.

I still love IMAX.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

No you said: "But the "further" away you project the virtual movie screen, the higher the resolution of the VR headset" That is wrong, plain and simple. How far the movie screen appears in the VR headset has no impact whatsoever on pixelization and is purely a stereoscopic effect.

> How far the movie screen appears in the VR headset has no impact whatsoever on pixelization and is purely a stereoscopic effect

We're talking about rendering pre-existing video at those distances, so it absolutely DOES cause pixelation as fewer pixels are used to render the video content than its native resolution.

A lot of people calling me wrong seem to be under the odd mistaken impression that we're rendering some generic object far away, but the discussion is about display pre-existing video footage at a distance.

If the VR headset is 1080p and the video footage is 1080p, if you put it far away (i.e. it only takes up 50% or 25% of the VR headset's screen real-estate) then it obviously cannot be rendered using all 1080p of the video's original pixels (since many are in use on the VR headset's display for non-video footage) and therefore a loss of detail is unavoidable.

The only solution to this is having a higher PPI than the source video. And as you move the video footage further and further away, the PPI needs to increase to keep the video footage rendered at its native resolution.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#120

IMAX demands are ridiculous, but Ars's claim that IMAX is merely used as an example of "something awesome" is dubious when high quality VR happens to provide a substitute for going to an IMAX theater. This is why IMAX is annoyed: they understand that VR is a huge threat to their business. The reason watching a movie on a very large screen is better than watching it up-close on a small screen is that in the case of th…

This just makes IMAX's case that consumer confusion is possible.

Be serious.
Post reply on HN