Prompt's Blog
Uniltìrantokx for krr : Na’vi the new Klingon?
05 March 2010
Posted by Laurie SantaLucia
If you haven't heard of Navilator.com, maybe you've heard of the movie that it sprung from – a low-key, low-budget film called Avatar.
Yes indeed, James Cameron's latest box office hit has introduced the world to a planet full of an indigenous people who speak a completely different language called Na'vi. As it turns out, the language heard in the movie was created by linguistics professor, Paul Frommer from the University of Southern California, who designed the language by combining syntactic and grammatical rules from existing languages.
Soon after the release of the box office hit came the launch of Navilator.com – a website created as a translator for the Na'vi language. Upon first visit, the website looks an awful lot like a Google Translator page with a black background and flashes of red here and there.
A disclaimer reminds site visitors that, "Na'vi is a new and ever expanding language, so words that are not in the database today maybe tomorrow, new words are added every day." Words that haven't been added yet display in red, but that really doesn't take away from much of the fun – have a look and see for yourself. If you stick around long enough, maybe you will be graced with an ad for Rosetta Stone's language tutorial software like I was! Unfortunately, a Na'vi software pack is not yet available.
Labels: Avatar, Na'vi, Navilator
Sports will look as cool in 3D as you do wearing those glasses
26 January 2010
Posted by David Lindner
By now, you’ve seen Avatar, now the most lucrative film ever. You looked through your awkward 3D glasses, gazing past its Fern Gully-meets-The Last Samurai-meets-Dances with Wolves plot straight into the vivid world of Pandora. Avatar’s astronomic box office figures ensure one thing: we’ll see a lot of the technology that made it a success in some very unAvatar-like places very soon.
When South Africa and Mexico kick off the 2010 World Cup on June 11th, you’ll be able to watch it in the same stunning 3D. ESPN’s new 3D venture (unsurprisingly named ESPN 3D) could purportedly change the way we watch sports. It could even more easily not change a thing.
Most sports broadcasts make use of the same camera angle: at the midfield (or midcourt or midice or midanything) line, perched high above the action. While Avatar was urgent, yanking viewers by the collar and dragging them through Pandora, the traditional sports broadcast is more passive. During the run of play, viewers watch games unfold from this one, distant vantage point, taking stock of the entirety of the action, not just a few protagonists. Only in replays can producers find the right angles for the right plays, immersing viewers in the action from field level. Cameras can’t shift in live coverage from a player curling a free kick into the box to a goalkeeper rising to grab the ball during the run of play. They don’t know that it will happen. They didn’t receive a storyboard before the match started.
The medium, as it stands, isn’t ready for 3D. Sports broadcasting conventions don’t allow networks to make the technology worthwhile. That high-above-the-action camera is a staple because it works, consistently capturing the whole of the game. Jerking around viewers with constantly changing field-level shots will enhance the 3D experience, but take away from the game experience. High costs won’t dissuade early adopters, who’ll need to buy 3D TVs, the premium channel, and glasses. ESPN needs to make sure that an unexciting product doesn’t either.
When South Africa and Mexico kick off the 2010 World Cup on June 11th, you’ll be able to watch it in the same stunning 3D. ESPN’s new 3D venture (unsurprisingly named ESPN 3D) could purportedly change the way we watch sports. It could even more easily not change a thing.
Most sports broadcasts make use of the same camera angle: at the midfield (or midcourt or midice or midanything) line, perched high above the action. While Avatar was urgent, yanking viewers by the collar and dragging them through Pandora, the traditional sports broadcast is more passive. During the run of play, viewers watch games unfold from this one, distant vantage point, taking stock of the entirety of the action, not just a few protagonists. Only in replays can producers find the right angles for the right plays, immersing viewers in the action from field level. Cameras can’t shift in live coverage from a player curling a free kick into the box to a goalkeeper rising to grab the ball during the run of play. They don’t know that it will happen. They didn’t receive a storyboard before the match started.
The medium, as it stands, isn’t ready for 3D. Sports broadcasting conventions don’t allow networks to make the technology worthwhile. That high-above-the-action camera is a staple because it works, consistently capturing the whole of the game. Jerking around viewers with constantly changing field-level shots will enhance the 3D experience, but take away from the game experience. High costs won’t dissuade early adopters, who’ll need to buy 3D TVs, the premium channel, and glasses. ESPN needs to make sure that an unexciting product doesn’t either.