@bagellord:
DVDs store 4.8gb...and a lot of it is used up by menus and other crap. I guess there are dual layer DVDs but most of the time that is not used to give you better picture quality.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was Full MPEG-2 "quality."
It'd be nice if they gave us the HD version on a larger drive...I don't understand why in this day and age I can't get HD movies sans Blu-Ray...the HD content on iTunes isn't actually HD.
@trickflip1: Except it's not an image of the dvd like an ISO. It's the video_ts folder. I also like having the menu structure so that if my disk is messed up I can easily create a new one.
PS - not sure where the processor thing came from but I have a 3.0GHz Core 2 Duo in my iMac. The bottleneck for me copying a movie is the crappily slow DVD drive.
@bagellord: Oh, I was just simply saying if you had the time to test it, that it might take longer if you don't have a multi-core processor.
I, for example, am still using a Prescott P4 in my laptop as well as my current desktop setup. So it naturally takes me a long, long time to rip a DVD.
My mentioning of the file size was merely to state that it is possible for them to have a full DVD-quality video on the flash drive, given that the file size would be no larger than 2.2GB.
All I was saying is that I'm sure the flash drive does not contain the DVD iso. That I was sure it just contains a DVD quality "rip" of the movie itself, maybe a few special features as separate videos.
However, after someone saying they read the video will only take up 1.0 GB, it sounds like it will be less than DVD quality, or a "digital" copy like so many movies come with now.
and for anybody who doesnt feel like clicking through: "So to sum up: dumb movie, weak nonsense plot, incredibly preachy and sledgehammery. At the same time. it's a fun action movie with some nice set pieces, and the production design and world-building are really lovely. And it's mostly worth it for Bruce Willis' craggy, saggy, excessively mortal countenance, as he stumbles in some state of grievous injury through a landscape full of way too pretty people."
If this hasn't been said before, please let me be the first. THERE IS NO WAY TO EJECT FROM A MOVING VEHICLE AT MACH 2!!!
Terminal velocity, even at high altitudes is around 90m/s (for a seat+ pilot MAX). Mach 2 is somewhere around 680 m/s.
The sudden deceleration, even at a generous 1 second, would still be roughly 600m/s^2!! THAT's over 60 g-forces acting on a pilot's body. At 0.75 seconds it's roughly 110 g-forces. 0.5 seconds: 255 etc...
60 g-forces is the chest compression limit in a car crash (that's with airbags). It'll crush your heart and your aortic artery would tear off your heart like fruit off the stem. In fact if there's any plaque buildup in your arteries the artery is even more brittle.
There is no way a pilot is going to volunteer to do this stunt. He is almost a guaranteed to die.
Jesus, there's absolutely no question that the ejection wasn't at Mach 2. In the original linked article, all the pilot said is that he flew at Mach 2 with no canopy -- something that's definitely possible -- NOT that the passenger ejected at Mach 2. Because ejecting at Mach 2 that low in the atmosphere, which means that several pounds of air would be impacting every frontal inch of your body at 1500 mph, would kill you instantly.
The only US military aircraft that were designed for supersonic ejection used capsule ejection systems. Because you can't eject at Mach 2 unless you're enclosed in some protective structure.
Is anyone else missing Don LaFontaine? I think he might have been able to make a movie like this something I want to see. But yeesh, I hate movies that limit their baysplosions to simple gas bombs and squibs.
I am taking bets that the song "Rock The Casbah" will be played at least ONCE in this movie.
Damn you Maver-ski! You're ego's giving out bread your butt hasn't even waited in line for!
Red Square, this is Ghost Lenin, requesting a fly by!
Increase speed, Mav, or else the engines will Stalin!
maybe it's real, maybe it's fake, but if you're shooting a scene where a guy punches out at mach 2, it doesn't follow that you have to actually get a guy to punch out at mach 2. All you need to do is make it look like he's punching out at mach 2, and I think I'm not alone in not really being able to look at footage of a plane flying against the sky and tell the difference between mach 2 and, say, 200mph.
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
DVDs store 4.8gb...and a lot of it is used up by menus and other crap. I guess there are dual layer DVDs but most of the time that is not used to give you better picture quality.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was Full MPEG-2 "quality."
It'd be nice if they gave us the HD version on a larger drive...I don't understand why in this day and age I can't get HD movies sans Blu-Ray...the HD content on iTunes isn't actually HD.
10/12/09
10/12/09
Use Handbrake and rip a DVD's main Title (the movie alone) and check out the size difference. Rip it at full DVD resolution even.
Of course if you don't have a multi-core processor, it may take quite a long while to do it.
10/12/09
10/12/09
PS - not sure where the processor thing came from but I have a 3.0GHz Core 2 Duo in my iMac. The bottleneck for me copying a movie is the crappily slow DVD drive.
10/13/09
I, for example, am still using a Prescott P4 in my laptop as well as my current desktop setup. So it naturally takes me a long, long time to rip a DVD.
My mentioning of the file size was merely to state that it is possible for them to have a full DVD-quality video on the flash drive, given that the file size would be no larger than 2.2GB.
All I was saying is that I'm sure the flash drive does not contain the DVD iso. That I was sure it just contains a DVD quality "rip" of the movie itself, maybe a few special features as separate videos.
However, after someone saying they read the video will only take up 1.0 GB, it sounds like it will be less than DVD quality, or a "digital" copy like so many movies come with now.
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/27/09
07/29/09
Terminal velocity, even at high altitudes is around 90m/s (for a seat+ pilot MAX). Mach 2 is somewhere around 680 m/s.
The sudden deceleration, even at a generous 1 second, would still be roughly 600m/s^2!! THAT's over 60 g-forces acting on a pilot's body. At 0.75 seconds it's roughly 110 g-forces. 0.5 seconds: 255 etc...
60 g-forces is the chest compression limit in a car crash (that's with airbags). It'll crush your heart and your aortic artery would tear off your heart like fruit off the stem. In fact if there's any plaque buildup in your arteries the artery is even more brittle.
There is no way a pilot is going to volunteer to do this stunt. He is almost a guaranteed to die.
07/29/09
Allow me to second this.
Jesus, there's absolutely no question that the ejection wasn't at Mach 2. In the original linked article, all the pilot said is that he flew at Mach 2 with no canopy -- something that's definitely possible -- NOT that the passenger ejected at Mach 2. Because ejecting at Mach 2 that low in the atmosphere, which means that several pounds of air would be impacting every frontal inch of your body at 1500 mph, would kill you instantly.
The only US military aircraft that were designed for supersonic ejection used capsule ejection systems. Because you can't eject at Mach 2 unless you're enclosed in some protective structure.
Period.
End of discussion.
07/28/09
Even if they use a shopped image to represent the story, it doesn't necessarily mean the story itself is fake...
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
I am taking bets that the song "Rock The Casbah" will be played at least ONCE in this movie.
Damn you Maver-ski! You're ego's giving out bread your butt hasn't even waited in line for!
Red Square, this is Ghost Lenin, requesting a fly by!
Increase speed, Mav, or else the engines will Stalin!
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/27/09
What if I said this is a Michael Bay movie Jesus, would you still watch it?? HUH? HUH?
Not true of course... hopefully
07/27/09
@Bokusatsu_Tenshi:
Oh, you would, wouldn't you?
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/28/09
:)
07/27/09