Skyfall: Homage to the Bond classics

This weekend I saw the latest addition to the Bond legacy, Skyfall.  This film was able to appeal to the current generation's "action movie go-er" while still paying homage to the classic Bond spy movies.  Regardless of the movies attempt to have a more realistic plot/take than some of the old Bond movies the director took special care to not over step his bounds and preserving many aspects of the older films.

First off James Bond/ Agent 007 kept his name as did "Mom" and eventually Agent Moneypenny, along with several other characters. The preservation of names, regardless of how silly they seem now, directly points out the commitment to maintaining the tradition of "Bond."

Throughout the movie old plot points from previous Bond films were brought up such as exploding pens and ejector seats.  These moments of brief dialogue were directly for those who knew the old movies and allows the audience into the mind of the writer/director of the film saying, "No this is not a remake of the old Bond movies but instead another chapter in the legacy." Such comments pass right over the heads of people who don't know the movies, but add another dimension to those who have been following Bond from the beginning.

The film even went as far as to reintroduce the spy car the original James Bond used in the past films.
Recognition of the creators of Skyfall to address the fact that the film industry has changed and that the plots of action films today differ from those in the past allow them to change the story/character accordingly to still preserve Bond as an admirable, suave, and all around "cool"character.  The idea of an exploding pen would be better suited for a comedy than a serious action film is the perfect example of this.  However the fact that Skyfall incorporated and worked so hard to bring back elements of the old movies in the best way they could added an entirely new dimension to the film.  In my opinion the new Skyfall movie did the Bond series justice and through its homages to the classics of the past appeased many fans who may have been apprehensive about re-igniting the Bond legacy and tradition.

Mega-Misconceptions. Why Megapixels mean nothing.

So, I was just in a discussion with my roommate about what makes a high quality camera (He's a PC, and I'm a Mac, so we always get into tech debates). He was extolling the latest offering from Sony, which touts over 16 megapixels. Thinking he was talking about a video camera, I called foul. Though he was discussing a still camera with video capabilities, it sparked a discussion about the difference between resolution for video and still photography.

My roommate is a Photoshop junkie, and a bit of a HD fanatic. When I told him that DVD's resolution wasn't even half a megapixel, his jaw just about hit the floor. But it's true! Take a look at some common resolutions broken down below:

• DVD - 720 x 480 = 345600 = .35 megapixels
• 720p - 1280 x 720 = 921600 = .92 megapixels
• 1080p - 1920 x 1080 = 2073600 = 2.07 megapixels

So right now, the gold standard of HD video is basically the same quality than my very first cellphone's camera, almost 6 years ago. What gives?

Well, for one, still photos use resolution in a very different way than video does. Traditionally, high quality printed images use 300 pixels per inch. The standard for media seen on any type of screen is actually only 72 pixels per inch. This originally stems from technical limitations (It's really hard to make screens with 300 pixels per inch, let alone process the signal to it), but it is part of the viewer's expectation, and seems totally normal to us now. If you were to print out a web image though, you could easily see the pixelation, which seems like a rather low quality picture on paper.

The the thing is, you never print videos onto paper, so video image quality never has to be seen in the harsh light of print. Even tech-lover director James Cameron isn't in a race for more pixels. He said, “4K (ultimate HD) is a concept born in fear. I would vastly prefer to see 2K/48 frames per second.” So there you have it! If 2 megapixel images are enough for James Cameron, then they are good enough for me!