Hooked to the Silver Screen ... (3D Trifle part 1)

There were always advantages of viewing a film at the cinema: You can see it in wide screen, in complete surround sound and in 3D (if available). Pretty much like in your living room then? Viewing the same film at home on a top-of-the-line home cinema set-up can rival a theatre experience; you can watch a film on blu-ray on an HD screen, in the correct aspect ratio, in 7.1 surround and also in 3D.

With every advance the cinema has taken, the home cinema has soon caught up. Although I will admit that regardless the size of your television, it still doesn't beat actually going to the cinema. A real cinema experience (particularly one utilising actual film projection) has always been preferential to spending a night in front of your TV.

This is why I'm slightly saddened to report that this will no long be the case. ...in the near future.

Yes, this soothsaying genius has predicted the collapse of film industry funding. Ever rising tickets prices and an increasingly better quality of home cinema will cause more and more cinema to close in the future. The film industry won't die though thanks to blu-ray and film download sales, and the video games market. (more on this later).

The clear advantage of a cinema experience over watching a film in your living room was you can see it in 3D. Well now you can do so at home, but there's still the problem that you have to wear 3D glasses to do so. This will always be the case in the cinema, but at home there are a couple of technologies for 3D television that have not yet been mass marketed to the masses. If I were cynical I would suggest that this is because the folks in the industry don't want the 3D home experience to be better than that of the cinema. Lenticular, glasses-free TVs have already been produced, some to greater success than others. I personally am holding off buying a 3DTV for the day when the 3D technology is perfected enough to warrant the extortionate price I'll inevitably have to pay. ...And that day's not far off. The 3DTV industry has to move as one though; we can't have a variety of different technologies out there... (technically we can, but why waste all that extra bandwidth and conversion technology).

There is one obvious aspect of looking at an object in real life that differs from that of a 3D object on a screen, and that is focal point. I talking about creating movies more interactive (and this is where the crossover into video games territory comes in).

In real life you look round a room and your eyes focus on something. Look at something in the foreground and then something in the background. You can bring both into focus, but you can't focus on both at once. Ever since Orson Welles popularised the effect of deep focus in Citizen Kane, films have looked amazing artistically, but less realistic compared to how we see things in real life. Wouldn't it be marvellous to view a 3D film in which your focal length changes depending on which depth you're looking at? Well I've designed just such a device to do that. It won't change the way we view films in general, but it will make the 3d home cinema experience a lot more immersive and therefore more realistic. The same technology could however completely revolutionise the games industry.

Orson Welles, showing off in sharp focus in the background. (Citizen Kane, 1941)

More details on this genius invention at a later date. For now I need to look into whether anyone else has had the same idea. Surely some other genius will have thought up the same thing independently. But that's only an assumption; therefore I wouldn't want to reveal any details too soon.

Sunflower Redux

Before

I've now tweaked the only painting I did that I wasn't completely happy with. I've changed the colour, design and texture of the pollen/seeds as well as the colour of the petals.


After

I haven't actually touched the blue/green background which just goes to show what a rubbish camera my phone has.

The newer picture was taken in better light though and more skilfully corrected to colour-match the actual painting.

Is it an improvement? ... Well there's no Ctrl Z when you're painting, so it's staying like that.

THIS IS THE NEWWWWWWS!!!

I've done a new painting. Based on a still from the Edgar Wright film Hot Fuzz.
You can find Honk Honk amongst the rest of the shit in the Arts Hole.
It's for sale by the way. If you'd like this one-off 12x12" painting, make me an offer.




COMING SOON...
...To a genius blog near you.  ...(This one.)

NEW INVENTION
My latest idea that will revolutionise home cinema and gaming.

GRAVITY PART IV
I unlock more of the mystery surrounding this non-force force, whilst contradicting much of what I've said in Gravity Part I.

and...
SUNFLOWER: REDUX
I'll be re-finishing my second painting and uploading the results. You can tell me which version you prefer.   ...Although not that it really matters (there is no 'undo' button when you're painting.)

ALSO
Also, I'll be solving London Soho's traffic congestion problems in possibly the most genius (and expensive) way possible.... and revealing an alternative (and probably unprovable) theory as to the origin of mass in the universe.


Y'all have a good Coca-Cola sponsored secular winter festival. I'll be back in the new year.

Jon.

Lasered Eyes

So last week I had my eyes lasered.

It's something I've been thinking about for some time. I won't bore you with details, suffice to say that my vision was pretty much my only sense that I wasn't happy with. (I actually have an incredible sense of smell and taste... I'm what people describe as a supertaster.)

Anyhoo, after shopping around I settled on a laser clinic that seemed professional enough and surgeon that I was happy with (as well as a price I was happy with).

Getting your eyes cut by a laser can be quite scary. The actual procedure is painless, but the build up can be a little nerve wrecking. I don't mind telling you, I was bricking it in the waiting room.

It occurred to me whilst staring at the lights in surgery with the eye clamp on, that it would be a good idea to know what you're in for before you actually get it done. It would be good to see the laser experience on video.... but to my knowledge, no-one has made such a video.

I'm not talking about some CGI version of what happens to your eye during surgery. Nor do I think it's a good idea to see footage of an actual eye operation before you get yours done. (Warning: If you plan to ever get you eyes lasered, DO NOT watch the linked video! It'll freak you right out. - not least cos it looks like they used blade technology to remove the flap).

What I'm talking about a POV video. If someone made a video documenting the eye surgery process from the perspective of the patient then no -one would have any worries. The audio on the video can be from an actual operation, and the footage created using the actual LASIK laser looking down on the camera with a perspex/polythene "eye" mounted above it. Everything else (eye clamp, laser movement, surgeon applying drops and removing/replacing the flap) should be repeated for this fake camera eye exactly as it is done in an actual operation. There's an array of white, red and a single green light/LED that you stare at. Once your drops are in, you view goes a bit blurry. Then when you flap is peeled back, everything is even more diffused. It looks kind of trippy... like an unused scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Watching such a video, looking at the pretty colours whilst listening to a calming surgeons voice will be reassuring. It's a genius idea and would definitely make laser eye surgery more appealing for nervous people. It'll be certainly better than viewing the video I link to above. ... Go on, watch it. I dare you. I double dare you.

After Surgery

Initially I lost an outer layer of cells from my right eye. Whereas my left was near perfect straight away.

Ten days later and my left eye now has 20/12 vision (that's nearly twice as good as 20/20). My right is still fairly blurry, but I'm told it'll be great within a few weeks. It'll be awesome! In the meantime, I'm like a really shit super hero with half a superpower. 

Other such ridiculous semi-superpowers include my aforementioned ability to taste subtle flavours better than most people, the ability to go translucent, and the ability to fly (but limited to a walking-pace and only few inches off the ground). I've yet to acquire the last two half-arsed special powers, but should I do so, I will devout my life to fighting crime... some of the time. Well... occasionally. You know, if it happens to be going on near me. ...I won't go out of my way or anything. In fact if someone was robbing a shop I happen to be in I might make an effort to put a stop to it. ...maybe. ....I mean I might not. But maybe I'll at least hinder their escape. Probably. If I thought it was safe to do so. Otherwise I'd get out of their way. I mean, I wouldn't help them escape or anything.... unless they forced me. And I certainly won't be committing any actual crimes myself. ...Not often anyway. (unofficial video/music downloads and copyright infringement don't really count, yeah?) 

...And from then on I will be known as...FAIRLY-GOOD-BLOKE!

 

Incidentally, if anyone out there also has any actual useless semi-crap superpower, you're welcome to join my team of lazy-bastard superheroes The Non-Credibles.

Additions, Updates & Anymore?

What's new? I added a couple new poems (Same Old, Same Old and Trapped in Taupo) to this site. I wrote these in moments of boredom on my first excursion to the beautiful country of New Zealand in 2005 and 2006.

I've also included a new painting on the Art page.

I picked up this latest acquisition on one of my recent time-travel excursions to 1950s Soviet Union, and is evidence that supports my firmly held belief that propaganda for household cleaning products was key to eventually bringing about the end of communism in this part of the world.* More paintings coming soon.

*This may not be true.


So, I've not been here for a while.
Why? Well I've been busy doing other things. When you're a genius (like I am), you hardly see the point of blogging you latest ideas for the good of mankind. I mean, who really listens anyway?

I have to conclude that the people who have the power to practically get things done in this world simply don't want to hear from a modestly self-confessed genius like myself. Or more likely they do want to hear my ideas but don't want to credit me for them. I guess I don't mind is this is the case. I really don't care that I can save man king and don't get any thanks. Just the knowledge that I can is reward enough for me. I'm kind of like Jesus that way; Doing good for mankind without wanting anything in return. Just so long as things get done.

A good example of this is when I solved the problem of the appalling air pollution in London. Having written this entry, I then contacted the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. I laid out my genius scheme to him succinctly and also left a link to my blog post. His website assures me that all messages to the Mayor get read by him or one of his assistance, and that I should receive a reply within 21 days. After 21 days I hadn't heard back from the Mayor. But he must have read it. In fact 5 months have been and gone between then and now, and I still haven't heard word back. The only logical conclusions to draw from this are that either a) The Mayor of London is an idiot who wouldn't recognise a good idea if it fell on him... or b) Boris saw my genius idea for what it is: A genius idea. Already he's put plans in place to make this tube cleaning idea a reality, but he's not returned my email as he doesn't want to acknowledge that it was my idea. He intends to take all the credit himself. This seems to be the most likely scenario. Boris is indeed smarter than he lets on, and only acts like a clumsy buffoon in public to mask his true persona as an evil genius. He and I are not so dissimilar after all.

Another example of ignorance in the face of genius came when I started this blog. I revolutionised the way to look at the universe with my trilogy of posts on gravity, focusing on space-time (part 1), matter (part 2) and the infinite omniverse (part 3). I contacted Professor Brian Cox about the first two of these, but didn't bother him about the third one. All I want to do is help accelerate Man's scientific knowledge, but if people aren't prepared to listen then I won't go out of my way to help too much. Having said that, I imagine Brian or one of his colleagues at CERN are currently writing lengthy papers on the very ideas and subjects that I have skimmed over in this blog. Again I don't mind. Just so long as the knowledge gets out there, I'm happy to help.


So what's next?
Well, the problem I have is that I have no problem.
Having solved the above, I've found time in my busy schedule to lay down the foundations that will inevitably lead to time travel. I've explored the consequences of such time travel, and predicted the future of robotics (along with the end of the human race). I've redesigned earth-to-orbit space travel and designed an exciting new purpose for the moon. I've revolutionised the criminal justice system and the future of space exploration in a single move. I've solved all of Mankind's energy problems, designed a hoverboard, written a box-office hit of a movie, and proposed a simple plan that will inevitably bring about world peace.

Now what?
Well, like I said, I'm all out of problems. Contentment's the enemy of invention. I'd need something to put my genius mind to. If you have a problem...if no one else can help...and if you can message me or leave a comment below, ... then maybe I'll get around to solving it in due course. Preferably something that might help mankind, or a universal mystery you'd like solving. Just don't ask me to take the lid of any pickle jars - I'm no good at that sort of thing.

Trolls!

 

Aaaagh! Trolls!?

Yeah, that's right kids. Trolls. Big beastly human-esque creatures, famous for hiding under bridges, eating children and billy-goats. They turn to stone in daylight, help orcs attack hobbits, are generally known for living on the end of pencils in the 1980's and have florescent pink hair.

Well now they're back.... in cinemas this week with the Norwegian release Troll Hunter.

"Whoa there Jon!" I hear you cry, "Are you now utilising your genius blog for film reviews?!"

Well no. I've not even seen the film yet. (Although I intend to catch it this week, I hear it's quite good). 

My trolls will be a cross between this
hideous ornament (but with a smaller nose)
and the more traditional troll image below.

I only bring it up as it reminds me of a film idea I had in 2006. It had a similar title ('Trolls') and was intended to be a supernatural suspense horror. After reading a Troll Hunter review I'm fairly convinced that my film is not at all similar. But it got me thinking that Hollywood will want to remake it. And then other troll ideas will come out of the woodwork. I'm sure other people have scripts involving trolls, but my point is that when I thought up my film 5 years ago, the troll phenomenon was a sub-genre that had yet to be tapped. (and no, I'm not counting the ridiculously terrible 80's flick Troll or it's hilarious, even worse, so-bad-it's-good, non-troll-related sequel Troll 2).

So I include here a brief synopsis of what my film is about, just so that when a similar movie does turn up on the big screen
(- and I'm sure it will, it's not just me out there with genius ideas you know), then you can believe me when I tell you I'd thought that idea up already.


A family (dad and two kids; Scott and Amy ages 6 and 9) move to a new neighbourhood. A country village. The mum died a year ago... of... well, of something. ...Let's just say she was tree surgeon, who one day had a fatal accident with a chainsaw. So a year later the family move (for his job) to a remote town... (always a remote town). I've not decided where yet. Initially I was thinking somewhere in deepest darkest Shropshire, Britain, or possibly somewhere in the US or Canada... but given our subject matter, it should really be set somewhere in Scandinavia. For the trolls in this tale will be the traditional folklore ones. They're 8 to 12 ft tall and as scary as shit.



The pre-titles sequence has a lone troll wandering a riverbank at night. There is a lone fisherman doing a bit of night fishing (like you do). There's a troll POV shot, some swearing, screaming and some unpleasantness involving arms being torn from their sockets.Then titles.

Like most title credit sequences, we need to set the scene by having a sequence of helicopter shots of the family driving to their new town on a lovely sunny day.*

Near the start of the film, the dad (or perhaps the child-minder) is reading the youngest a bedtime story of The Three Billy Goats Gruff. (There is also reference to the cheeky colourful haired trolls in the child's bedroom.)

*Although it might be a nice idea to have it overcast/raining at the start of the film for a change. And only have sun where the plot requires it (kids playing in the woods).

So the first troll encounter comes the next afternoon. The kids are playing in a small wood next to the house. They find what they assume are statues or gargoyles half buried with mud and leaves (it's autumn). They also meet another local kid (Ross) in the wood. Ross swears he'd been playing in the wood throughout the summer but never saw these statues before. Perhaps someone dumped them there recently? They agree to meet up the following day at the statues.

Next day they meet up the by the statues. They're in more or less the same place, but it looks like someone had moved the positions a little. Then the discover the shapes/poses were somewhat different. 

It's getting late and starting to get dark, so they agree to meet tomorrow after school and the siblings head back to the house for their dinner. Ross hangs around playing with near the 'statues' with a stick ...or something (you know what kids are like). Ross is sat on the ground digging in the dirt with his back to us. We see the stone troll in the foreground right (and out of focus) begin to move. The child is oblivious...

Cut to next day. Monday morning. The kids join their new classes. There's a spare seat in Amy's class.... where Ross usually sits. He's reportedly missing.

That afternoon the police are round the school to ask the kids and their dad (who conveniently works there) questions about when they last saw Ross. Later Amy shows her dad and the police where they were playing... but the statues had disappeared. She says she thinks it was here. Then finds 'Ross Rules' written in the mud.   ... Then evidence of blood. The police declare it a crime scene. and the dad says he doesn't want his kids to play outside any more. So ends the first act of the film.

So you can see where this is going.  It's kind of obvious. The film practically writes itself. Perhaps it's not such a genius idea after all, but I'm surprised no one has done it already.

The second act has more killings (children and adults) but usually individuals on their own. There's an incident with a dog walker and their dog (ref: Jonesy the Cat's finest moment in Alien). It'll also feature some survivor sightings where people have got away. Initially they will be children telling adults of what they've seen (and adults inevitably not quite believing them), but eventually the dad and the cool local cop team up and it becomes a buddy movie.

Final act. It being the countryside, lots of people have shotguns and a group get together to hunt down this troll and kill it. They set a trap. But the troll doesn't fall for it. A couple of deaths later and they've got it. Dead.

Then what might otherwise be a nice epilogue has another troll sighting the next evening. The kids remember seeing at least 6 stone trolls in the wood. but as they don't know their current hide-out, the cop and dad and other troll fodder find one and keeping their distance follow it back to it's new den. It's still nighttime. All the trolls are there and then the humans are surrounded. There is violence. death. blood. gore, and things of that nature... generally. Whether one or two (or any) of our heroes survive the battle, the trolls turn to stone by sun up. And the authorities arrive to either a) get a pneumatic drill on their collective asses, b) blow them up with explosives or c) load one of them into a giant metal crate for future study. 

Unless option c above happens then I'll also have evidence to the viewer that they've missed one... a little further away from the others: One troll's stone hand is barely visible having buried himself in the ground. Roll credits. Commission sequel.

I've told a couple of people of this idea since, but one in particular who I worked with was an amateur film maker (when I knew him in 2008) who one day out of the blue just said to me 'Jon, have you any ideas for a good horror film?'... So I told him. He started taking notes. Then I said 'You're gonna steal my idea aren't you?'. He didn't answer he just smiled. I then said that I probably wasn't going to make the film myself  and asked that if he did, to give me a creative credit on the film.... No promises were made. I wish I could remember his name.

So if you're a film director/producer & you'd like a stab at this cinematic gem of genius, then be my guest. But please let me know or at least credit me for the concept. Ok, so the basic story structure is ripped off of M Night Shyamalan's Signs, except with trolls instead of aliens, but that's hardly original. In case you were wondering, also borrowed are ideas from Arachnophobia, Invaders From Mars, and any number of Stephen King films.

Scary as fuck.

Gravity Part III: The End (The Life of the Universe ...and Everything)

The universe is an interesting place. I should know, I've lived in it most of my life. But how did it get here? Will it be here forever? And if not, what happens when it dies?

Various theories have been bandied about on the subject of the universe's longevity. It seems that the scientific community's jury is still out on these matters, so I think it only right for a probable genius such as myself to illuminate the truest most probable scenario.

Current scientific speculation about the universe. All wrong for the most part.

Gravity is the key to the end of time. Of the current opinions, the most common ones suggest that either all mass in our universe will stop accelerating away from each other and then gravity will make it fall back on itself (The Big Crunch) ...or all the galaxies in the universe will continue to get further and further away from one-another, in which case after a stupidly long period of time, entropy will set in, everything will cool down and break up into their component atoms until they simply disappear. And the end of matter in the universe means the end of time itself. It is believed that this second scenario is the more likely of the two, because there currently isn't enough known matter in the universe for the first scenario to happen. Well I'm here to tell you that both of these scenarios are wrong...

...sort of.

It is my (unquestionably correct) opinion that the universe is infinite. That is to say that it's always been here. There is no start and there is no end. But there are cycles of similar (but not identical) repetition within. Time and space in the universe are not constant. They are infinite, however I will concede that it is acceptable to call them finite as time and space can only be measured in relation to something else. They are concepts that are relative to the observer and it is impossible to view the space-time continuum in a non-objective way. When I refer to the universe then, I am of course referring to everything and not perhaps 'the universe' as you would understand it.

Perhaps I should redefine this term. It is my belief that the universe as we know it is in fact just a small part of a wider universe. A multiverse or omniverse if you will. I will opt to call it the latter as multiverse suggests that the whole thing is just made up of multiple universes, but it's a bit more complex than that. Omniverse seems the right word to me at it means 'all', and in this case we truly mean all.

To begin with I reasoned the following idea to be a plausible model for an infinite omniverse:

All the galaxies in our universe are getting further away from each other... As there isn't enough matter to pull it all back together (because antimatter is probably responsible long ago for the annihilation of a great number of galaxies in our universe, hence the gaps. See Gravity Part II for more details on this phenomenon.), all the galaxies will spread out and disintegrate as mentioned in the 2nd scenario above. Eventually after what can be described as a literal eternity, all that's left of these vastly sparse galaxies is an innumerable number of basic component atoms. But this is where gravity comes back in, because even in an infinite universe with a finite number of atoms,... given a long enough time period (and we're talking an infinite time period here), all it takes is two of these atoms to collide in order to attract further atoms from across the endless cosmos. I should remind you that matter has a gravitation affect on all other matter in the universe, no matter the matter of the distance from the matter. It may sound fairly unlikely, but even if the effect of gravity didn't exist, so long as the atoms are moving and given an infinite amount of time these atoms will find each other... every time. So this is how new universes are born from dead universes. And that cycle goes on and on forever.

So, are you with me so far? Did you understand the basic principle laid out in the last paragraph. Okay, now I'd like you to forget about all of that, because as I said, the above was just my initial reasoning and I'd like you to see some of the workings of a genius mind such as my own. The true nature of the universe is so much more beautiful than that. It is far more complex, and yet it is a simpler solution at the same time. Allow me to explain in such terms that even a non-genius (such as yourself) can understand:...

My ultimate theory on the infinite universe states that there is only one universe. There are however an infinite number of universes that exist in a reality of there own. I call this a dimension-straddling omniverse. The basic model goes along with current scientifically known fact; there is a big bang, the universe is created, and then there's some time.... and 'some time' later the universe dies. The End.

Except it is not the end. It doesn't answer the question of what caused the big bang in the first place. It ultimately has to do with gravity. When a sun goes supernova and collapses in on itself it become a black hole. These black holes create new universes within the 5^th dimension. The term 'black hole' is perhaps a bad description for the phenomena. It may appear black (because light cannot escape it's gravity) but it is not a hole. It is a singularity that sucks in matter, light and time. Effectively it's a pinched section of space-time.

The 3D black-hole effect on a 2D universe.

It may help you to imagine this on a 2D plane rather than the 3D plane we're used to. If space-time is represented by a tablecloth then a black hole would be represented by the effect that a vacuum cleaner would have when applied to that tablecloth. The hoover bag in this analogy represents a new universe. But this cosmic carpet cleaner is not within the 2D universe we know, it exists within an extra dimension.

Now lets add a couple of dimensions to the above tablecloth/hoover scenario. We have the 4 dimensional universe of space-time that we know and love, and then we have the 5 dimensional omniverse that consists of numerous 4D universes.
This all ties in neatly with my theory that gravity itself is caused by gaps in space-time displacing the continuum, as stated in Gravity Part I.

So, ... every black hole in our universe will create another universe. And our universe was created by the black hole phenomena of another universe. Although our universe is massive, it is also finite, and so every universe will create a finite number of universes. How many? ...depends on how many black-holes are created in a universe.

This* is not a literal representation of the omniverse.

At this stage the numbers don't really matter. Perhaps the effect of all black holes in one universe combine to create the same universe and so you would only ever get one new universe created out of the previous one. Or perhaps numerous universes are created from one, the number of which would entirely depend on the mass content and/or relative gravity of any given source universe. And some of those universes won't contain enough matter for gravity to take effect to cause more black-holes, but some would, and therefore create numerous universes within the 5D omniverse. Either way, each and every universe will have a finite lifespan, but the omniverse will be infinite. Every universe will be the product of every universe before it, and in theory all these can run parallel with each other: They don't have to happen sequentially in time as we're talking about space-time making more space-time outside of space-time. The effect will be like some kind of beautiful infinite cosmic omniversal fractal pattern. For every black hole, a universe is created, and within every universe that is created at least one (but more likely numerous) black-holes will form. It goes on forever. A universe is born and will die but the omniverse has no beginning or end. It's kind of like life. So long as life is around, more life will be created given the right circumstances. And as long as there is matter in the universe (any universe) then further universes will be created. Such is the nature of the omnivese, it has always been here and will always be here.

All the above is fact. Some of these facts may yet to be proven as 'facts', but that's for the scientific community to get it's head around. I don't have the time to wait for these supposed experts to catch up. Nor do I possess the time or resources to devote my life to such a simple (and obvious) cause as the nature of the omniverse. But take my word for it, this is the way it is. Fact.

Oh and for all the people with faith who believe that God created the universe: Some of you might want to embrace this new wisdom of mine, and try and explain that this scenario still fits with in your beliefs; that each universe is indeed created by an unknown higher power, that the vacuum cleaner in my earlier analogy is in fact God Himself, constantly creating universes from the remnants of previous universes, and technically being 'omni-present' within the 5 dimensional omniverse.... Well it isn't. It's not him. He doesn't exist. Get over it!


* Just some nice art work (admittedly pilfered from someone else's site) which nicely illustrates the infinite and procreative nature of the omniverse. It obviously doesn't look like that. The universes aren't even sharing the first four dimensions. Don't take it literally.