FWIW, IMAX has apologized: https://twitter.com/IMAX/status/611953957578018816
IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
121–130 of 151 posts
Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
#122It'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…
A little more research turned up this article that mentions IMAX partnering with Samsung's VR product.
http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/samsung-unveils-virtual...
Samsung's VR will offer "a selection of IMAX films in a virtual theater".
Samsung's VR is based on Oculus tech, and actually will be an IMAX theater in your house.
Heh.
Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
#123I 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…
It's 'lose' not 'loose'. They even use the term 'lose their trademark' in the article. Sorry - can't rest whilst someone's wrong on the internet :-)
Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
You can't see how claiming to meet the same standards as IMAX is not the same thing as claiming to be IMAX?
Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm quite depressed to see you being downvoted for making cogent points. It's a shame HN has become slashdot.
I've obviously given up caring about downvotes here or I wouldn't have said anything at all on this story. I don't understand why the mods think discouraging people from expressing unpopular opinions is desirable. It puzzles me to the extent that I wonder if I misunderstand the purpose of having comments at all. But it's how it is.
The problem isn't that your opinion is unpopular. The problem is that you're misrepresenting your opinion in terms of a legal concept. The term "confusion" has specific meaning in trademark law, which you seem to resist acknowledging. Even if you have a point, you're going to frustrate others by being thick-headed.
See dragonwriter's comment for a good concise clarification.
Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 the experience jump. (These are literal words from the quote.) He could have said the improvement is like driving a McLaren P1 to work. It wouldn't mean it's literally supposed to be the same as driving a McLaren.
You're completely missing the point anyway. You keep debating your ridiculous interpretation of the quote and it doesn't matter because even if your interpretation of the quote were correct, there would be no confusion created. Here, I'll say the thing you're pretending the quote says:
"SteamVR looks exactly like an IMAX screen"
No one will read that and think IMAX is selling, licensing, creating, or certifying SteamVR, because there's nothing in there that says that. Nor will anyone thing that SteamVR and IMAX are the same thing, because if they were the same thing, you wouldn't be comparing them.
Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
#127I 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?
Not necessarily, before this article I did not know that the range of screen sizes considered IMAX™, was so large. That's a pretty damning detail Ars slipped in there and will definitely make me think twice when going to the movies.
Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
#128FWIW, IMAX has apologized: https://twitter.com/IMAX/status/611953957578018816
I think that's worth a lot. You don't often see such a sincere apology in situations like this. Very cool on IMAX's part.
Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 so…
We're talking about rendering a more distant bigger screen, so the solid angle and the number of pixel used is constant. The point obviously isn't to give the appearance of a tv-sized image placed 100 meters away, it's to render the appearance of a kilometer-sized screen 100 meters away.
And if you're wondering: "but then what's the difference"? The difference is based on a number of perceptual clues, such as
- at what distance do your eyes have to focus (this one isn't handled by current generation VR displays and will be the trickiest to get)
- vergence: what the angle between your eyes is
- parallax between the screen and other objects in your field of view
Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
#130Earlier 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.
I take personal issue with the fading of downvoted comments.
1) The mechanic silences an opinion by making it harder to read/requiring highlighting to read
2) Swaying public opinion of a comment without even reading it. "Oh, it's already almost faded out entirely. It's probably a terrible post that I should just downvote without actually reading." (E: I understand HN requires you to "spend" a karma to downvote something. This doesn't prevent people from using their karma in this manner when they have 1,000's)
3) Allows self-validation of "others agree with me, because this comment has been downvoted and I disagree with this comment", which is fallacious reasoning. Popular/majority opinion can be wrong and patting yourself on the back for having other people agree with you can be detrimental. Self-validation without critically thinking about your opponents arguments is an injustice to them.
I have a rule in Stylish to set "font" to #333 so that all comments appear the same for me. Unless someone mentions "why is this downvoted", I'm completely unaware of any comments being downvoted. I find this leads to a better experience on HN.
Note: For #3 I use "you/yourself" in a "third party not necessarily you 'you'" way.