David Hingtgen

So 200 people in the world will have them at that rate. That's worse than Botcon TC I think...

Make Robocop a chick. Get the mecha-valk-girl fans to watch.

I wouldn't be so annoyed with the constant CC's if ONE WOULD HAVE A CHROME MASK. Destro got his chrome, why not CC?

IMHO, if you buy just one game for it, then the PS3 will have paid for itself as a "gaming-capable" Blu-Ray player. I plan to make it my main DVD player too, based on its upscaling capabilities. My "long-term" set-up will have my 360 as my main gaming machine, while the PS3 will mainly be a DVD and Blu-Ray player, plus the occasional exclusive game. (like MGS4 and FF XIII)

Yeah---I think that TC will be only SLIGHTLY cheaper and easier to get than a Botcon one. Sigh. If I could "just order them" I'd buy both the SW and TC, despite already having a Target SW. (The lavender is just so much more correct on the JP version). PS---I am so getting shiny chrome JP Movie Prime: http://transformers.hp.infoseek.co.jp/cgi-...80521010409.jpg (link is wonky--sometimes works, sometimes doesn't--try reloading, right-clicking, etc)

Problem is, all customer service support sucks AFAIK, though Samsung's seems even lower than average from what I've read. I don't know of anyone who's had an issue with a TV of any brand that was quickly and easily fixed. Basic scenario is "wait a few months for them to try to fix it a dozen times, then wait a few more for them to replace it".

I've had my TV for just over a week now, comments: 1. Despite how much I complained about them over the past few months, to the point of almost buying a Sony because of it----I never ever notice the glossy black bezel at all while watching. Gets linty in an instant, but I never notice reflections etc. 2. My TV seems flawless. No dead/stuck pixels. No clouds, flashlights, etc. Part of the reason I bought the TV I did is due to it seeming to have the lowest "issue" rate of any LCD TV ever. 3. The more I watch, the more I notice. My only HD source is my 360, and I've still only played Mass Effect on it---but I see new stuff in textures almost every time. It's not merely "this texture is slightly more detailed", it's "I always thought this was just an untextured plain yellow polygon, but now I see it's 3-dimensional ribbed fabric with a distinct pattern". 4. 32in at 4ft viewing distance is SLIGHTLY too close at times, I've had it around 4.5ft for most of the last week. Going to move it back up to around 4ft soon just to make sure, as I'm more used to such a large screen now. (The first day, it seemed gigantic). 5. Speakers much better than I thought, despite being hidden/downwards-facing. Of course, my last TV's were 3W... 5.5. Matte (or semi-matte) screens rock IMHO. I could "see myself" far too often reflected in my CRT screen when the lighting was right. The duller screen "breaks up" reflections, making it much harder to notice any reflected images since they're indistinct. Light itself spreads over a bit wider area, but it's a small price to pay---a larger generalized "glow" of light is FAR less annoying than the clear outline of my bedroom door (or me) appearing on screen. 6. General comment: A CRT's ability to "make" black is over-rated. Every CRT I've seen when OFF isn't black, they're dark grey. And they don't get any darker when turned on. POTC 3 in the theaters, the 30 sec pure black scene? Theater screen's grey, not black. Happened with Iron Man, too. Even a professional movie theater screen can't show pure black, so don't try to compare to (or strive for) PURE black. Off, my LCD's screen is distinctly "blacker" than any CRT I know of. On, in normal lighting, you can just barely tell it got brighter. Now, in pure darkness you can certainly tell my TV showing an "all black" screen is brighter/greyer than a CRT. But it's not a ton, and a big point of LCD's is their raw "power" allows them to be comfortably viewed in normal lighting. Theaters and CRT's are often watched "in the dark" because that's the only way to get the whites etc bright enough. But an LCD even at minimum power can still burn your eyeballs out with whiteness. I almost never watch "in the dark" now---there's no need, I can see everything fine in daylight due to how the LCD behaves overall. The "apparent" blackness of the screen in dark scenes/areas is 99% as black as the bezel, and in that measurement far exceeds my CRT in the same condition. Contrast ratio can (partly) compensate for black level--the brighter the whites, the darker the blacks appear. In summary: watching movies on my LCD, the letterboxing strips above and below are much more apparently black (compared to the bezel, etc) than with my old CRT. Yes, an LCD doesn't do that well in "light emission levels" compared to a CRT in the "totally dark room showing a pure black screen" test. But what's the point of that, when even a movie theater doesn't do that great in that condition? Showing an actual movie in normal lighting (a much more useful test IMHO) makes the LCD look superior to my eye.

550 series TV?

A HUD does not need a separate combiner glass, it is easily projected directly on the canopy. The difference is, without a combiner glass, you need a special type of glass for the canopy. F-14A's (and most F-14B's) (and my car) project their HUD directly onto the windscreen. F-14D, and F-15/16/18/20/22 etc have the more common combiner glass style of HUD. I'd guess the reason for a combiner glass is that it's much easier to make a small flat plate of the right type of glass, than an entire windscreen.

I asked because that's only the second time I've seen swords like that, but the function is so similar I imagined there must be a real design. Or maybe they just copied hers: http://sakasagami.deviantart.com/art/Shiki...pirits-60415070 (fan-art, but shows her swords better than anything official I could find)

Semi-related question: What's the term for a sword with a "ring" in the middle, like in the first pic?

I asked again about the mask because Toboro just said he got one 4 posts ago.

Does the newest CC have a chrome mask? I've been waiting for someone to actually get one and/or photograph it from less than 10 feet away.

Almost no kit in the world is truly pre-painted. They can however, be molded in numerous small colors so that they can have intricate patterns, yet still require no painting. Think of say, a Yamato 1/48 Milia. It's molded mostly in red, with a lot of white parts. Most of it has no paint. Just a bit here and there where needed to "correct" the scheme. If you removed all the paint a 1/48 Milia has, it'd still have roughly the correct scheme, since the plastic is molded fairly close to the right colors to start with. A modern high-end Bandai MG kit is molded with even more attention paid to colors---even small bits are often a separate piece with a separate inherent color. All the little yellow vents on a Gundam? A good kit will have every one of them a separate little yellow piece, to have the proper "color accent" against the blue and white parts. A lesser kit would have them molded onto the "background" piece, and you'd have to paint them yelow.

I'm guessing you need an amazingly smooth, super-new road to be able to do that at over 2mph...

I really wanted a gunmetal PS3, but not for 600 bucks.

Side view of battroid: Also, Hasegawa seems to be releasing VF-1's with different (semi-canon) markings. Here's the best pic I found. I could also tell from the background of another pic that there will be a similar one with markings based on VF-21. (It's possible you'll get decals for all)

VF-31 and VF-213's final cruise it looks like. All F-14D's.

No, can't afford those, plus they're more conspicuous. When photographing airliners nowadays, security/cops frown upon people with BIG cameras with BIG lenses. (and even MP's at airshows) One of the nifty features of mine is that the zoom is "internal" so that even at 12x zoom, the lens doesn't protrude any further than when the camera's zoomed out. Much less "imposing" than 3+ inches of lens sticking out. It's a "large compact", which is just below the mini-SLR category. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_s3is.asp I'm probably one of the few people that has "needs to look like a common tourist with a typical family-photo camera" as a requirement.

There is the "evil" in CG in that it allows "tweaking". Most notably, the Enterprise-E was modified between movies. (Well, the CG model was, the "real" one wasn't). Nacelles were moved back and up, with the pylons re-shaped to accomodate. It's supposed to "look better" but it totally violates all sense/canon to do so. Plus the saucer extensions which remove the possibility of saucer separation. (the E was designed to separate, plenty of drawings from its creator showing such) Real models are of course modified, but only with good sense/reason, since you have to physically go and make the changes. You don't change the tilt of a large part of it by 2.4 degrees to "look" better just because you can do it with 2 mouse clicks.

You want DPreview.com They are insanely detailed in their reviews. Seriously, 20+ pages on "notable" cameras. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsd870is/ http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsd1100is/ I also like imaging resource: http://www.imaging-resource.com/MFR1.HTM?view=Canon_reviews Info on sensor size: http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=sensor%20sizes

I spent quite a while researching my camera. As photographing planes up in the air was a high priority, I put a lot of weight in "biggest zoom I can afford". Having read stuff, IMHO the most important factor in "image quality" is actually "how many megapixels are SQUEEZED into a given sensor size". Fewer is better. The $5000 cameras of the world? They are not "34 megapixels" for their excellent pic quality. They are like 5 or 6 megapixels, but on a BIGGER SENSOR, for fewer pixels on a given sensor size. Trying to squeeze a zillion pixels onto a small sensor is what makes noise. (I went with big zoom, and fewest pixels----my choice was borne out by the latest revised model of my camera being nigh-identical to mine, except one more megapixel---and the overall pic quality of the new model went down because of it---they squeezed too many pixels on that sensor--but it sells better because the masses like that 1 extra megapixel listed on the box) The main differences between those two Canons (I have an S3IS btw) are the zoom and megapixels. Sensor size is the same. The 870 has a better zoom (3.8 vs 3) but slightly more "pixels on the sensor" (8 vs 7). If I had to guess, I'd say the 1100 would take slightly higher quality images. But a 3.8 zoom is a decent step over 3. The short version of digicamera buying? Get the biggest CCD/sensor you can combined with the lowest megapixel count for that sensor size. That'll give raw quality. Plus--big lens. More glass is better. Just go by sheer looks--what camera "shows the most glass" when you look at it from the front? More glass=more light=more quality.

Gah, if they would just hurry up and RELEASE the Street Fighter figs. We've seen pics of them for months. But I think they're being held back until the game's done.

787 seems more "production issues" than "design". While the majority of airliners get to "first flight" without anything needing re-design, it's not that uncommon. 737 and A330 both needed their rear spars redesigned/strengthened, so the 787 needing its center wing box (basically the front and rear spar connection) strengthened is not unusual---it's the most common "fix" needed for a new airliner. I think the 787's real issue is still lack of quality/assembly from the subcontractors. Design is fine on 99% of the plane, they're just not building it right. Plus the infamous "fastener shortage". A380 is still mostly "backlog" AFAIK---nothing much more to redesign, but it still has to be implemented---just a trillion man-hours of labor to re-do what's been done (mainly wiring-wise), and it's slowing down the whole line.

Saw Premium Prime, Megs, Blackout today. Still planning on getting a JP Prime. I need chrome. Blackout---toy's gimmicks still hinder the figure too much. And the coloring's still really wrong. Both Barricade and Blackout could have had significantly better toys given their price-point, if their gimmicks didn't compromise the Transformation. Note concept BB---no gimmick, and he's awesome. Blackout just has WAY too much "non-transforming tail kibble" in robot mode. Barricade has the entire sides of the car as his arms. Barricade is almost certain to return, and thus will get/deserve a new toy. Blackout--maybe/hopefully.