Slashdot Mirror

That would be interesting, but these don't look much like DCT blocks used in JPEGs. here's an example. It works in a similar way though, presenting enough of the right cues to allow our eyes and brains to fill in the gaps.

The worst use of windows i have seen, is the Silicon Imaging SI-2K digital cinema-camera.
It's horrible when you power-up the camera, you have to wait until a full blown windows version is booted - in all it's graphics glory - before you are allowed to shoot anything.

You do know that your macbook pro has digital optical audio which will send dts surround don't you?

Well, in English, for Digital Media Net, I've also written an article about the exciting subject of... alpha channels:

http://digitalproducer.digitalmedianet.com/article s/viewarticle.jsp?id=135386

And I'll probably write a couple more, the first of which will be about HDR (high dynamic range) digital imaging. The problem with DMNet is they pay the same for a 3-paragraph article about "how to make your photos sharper in Photoshop" and a 20,000-word article about "how to build a working time machine and fix global warming", so I obviously don't have a big incentive (apart from "educating the masses") to take time off my normal job(s) to write for them.

I've also written a few guides & tips for my DVD site:

http://dvd-hq.info/Compression.html
http://dvd-hq.info/FAQ.html
http://dvd-hq.info/forum

BTW, despite a couple of thousand hits a day and a pretty decent search ranking for the relevant terms, the site has what financial experts call "negative profits". Turns out that educating the masses isn't very good business (even BBC Prime has replaced its "Learning Zone" documentaries with soap operas). On the plus side, I'm pretty sure I'm going to heaven... oh, wait, I'm agnostic. Damn. :-P

I'll probably write a couple of chapters (and do most graphics) for a book about photography that might get published within a year (depends on the main writer), but that'll be in Portuguese, and I doubt it'll ever get translated into English.

As to that JPEG 2000 plug-in, there are pretty big differences in implementation, yes. I don't know j2k, so I really can't say how it ranks. I've been using Luratech's plug-in on the grounds that it was the only one available when I got it. :-) Their browser plug-in is pretty bad, but the compressor seems to be quite good. In this comparison it ranked as the best (for Photoshop), only slightly behind ACDSee's built-in implementation:

http://www.compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/p df/jpeg2000_codec_comparison_en.pdf

Until all browsers (and some digital cameras) come with JPEG 2000 support, I don't see it taking off. Part of the problem lies with the JPEG 2000 specification itself, which is vague about some things, and lacking some basic features (like EXIF, to store camera data). Microsoft's WMP / HDPhoto format is pretty civilized (support for HDR, etc.), but it has somewhat lower quality than JPEG 2000 (it's optimized for speed), and the actual compression and decompression has to be done through Microsoft's APIs. Maybe if they improve it an open-source it (yeah, right), it'll get support from browser and camera makers.

And so you should describe it as "dividing numbers by two and then multiplying them again"...? In other words, a "simple" description is preferable, despite the fact that it's completely wrong...? Hell, "dividing numbers by two" isn't even an accurate description of quantization, let alone of a DCT.

I think I made a pretty decent job of explaining what "frequency space" is, and why it can be used to improve compression, here:

http://digitalproducer.digitalmedianet.com/article s/viewarticle.jsp?id=109739-2

(scroll down to "The transformers")

It also explains why DCT isn't a form of compression per se, it simply makes it possible to use quantization in a way that does not affect quality as much as it would in "pixel space".

Several "non-techies" have read that and, although they realised the transform itself is not something trivial, they understood what it did and what it was used for. Something that you can't really say about the Atomic article (or its author).

If by "similar" you mean "completely clueless", yes, I know a few, but can't really see the point in propagating them. :-) If you want an article with some theory and a visual comparison of JPEG and JPEG-2000, here:

http://digitalproducer.digitalmedianet.com/article s/viewarticle.jsp?id=109739

(disclaimer: I wrote it, but I don't get any $$$ from page views... unfortunately :-P)

There are lots of articles about sound codecs, but most of them seem a bit too "mystical" to me (as is typical with all things audiophiliac).

In double-blind tests most people can't really tell the difference between uncompressed audio and the main codecs (WMA, MP3, OGG, etc.), beyond a bitrate of 256 kb/s or so. Some people can, but most just think they can... and get it wrong half the time (which is why double-blind tests are important).

God, I've just read his description of DCT. It's even worse. He seems to think that DCT consists of "dividing numbers by two" (he doesn't even use the word "quantization", that probably has too many syllables). And people complain about Wikipedia...

Time to shamelessly plug my articles about compression. Some parts are simplified (they're aimed at "end users") but, compared to this Atomic article, anything is flawless:

Lossless (data, image, audio)
http://digitalproducer.digitalmedianet.com/article s/viewarticle.jsp?id=106309

Lossy + Hybrid (image, audio)
http://digitalproducer.digitalmedianet.com/article s/viewarticle.jsp?id=109739

Video (lossless, lossy)
http://digitalproducer.digitalmedianet.com/article s/viewarticle.jsp?id=125089

God, I've just read his description of DCT. It's even worse. He seems to think that DCT consists of "dividing numbers by two" (he doesn't even use the word "quantization", that probably has too many syllables). And people complain about Wikipedia...

Time to shamelessly plug my articles about compression. Some parts are simplified (they're aimed at "end users") but, compared to this Atomic article, anything is flawless:

Lossless (data, image, audio)
http://digitalproducer.digitalmedianet.com/article s/viewarticle.jsp?id=106309

Lossy + Hybrid (image, audio)
http://digitalproducer.digitalmedianet.com/article s/viewarticle.jsp?id=109739

Video (lossless, lossy)
http://digitalproducer.digitalmedianet.com/article s/viewarticle.jsp?id=125089

God, I've just read his description of DCT. It's even worse. He seems to think that DCT consists of "dividing numbers by two" (he doesn't even use the word "quantization", that probably has too many syllables). And people complain about Wikipedia...

Time to shamelessly plug my articles about compression. Some parts are simplified (they're aimed at "end users") but, compared to this Atomic article, anything is flawless:

Lossless (data, image, audio)
http://digitalproducer.digitalmedianet.com/article s/viewarticle.jsp?id=106309

Lossy + Hybrid (image, audio)
http://digitalproducer.digitalmedianet.com/article s/viewarticle.jsp?id=109739

Video (lossless, lossy)
http://digitalproducer.digitalmedianet.com/article s/viewarticle.jsp?id=125089

Carrier's high-end residential HVAC can be programmed over the net. Climate Control Over the Internet

Hm, perhaps you better go let your eyes be checked:

DELL

Apple

And IMO especially Apples mainboards ARE beautyfully laid out.

Hm, perhaps you better go let your eyes be checked:

DELL

Apple

And IMO especially Apples mainboards ARE beautyfully laid out.

There sure was something seriously wrong with your GF's PC.

Dell 2.53GHz Pentium 4 Runs Circles Around Fastest Mac G4

That is a safe guess, regardless, considering the Mac's tiny share of the market!

In any case, you still might want to pick up an Apple USB Keyboard "

There is no such problem on my desktop, but the ports are really crammed in there on my PC notebook. Looking at some pics (I don't know anyone with a Powerbook to check for real), it appears that Mac notebooks might have the problem too: Look at this powerbook pic. They look rather crammed on this one as well.

Or maybe an XL1 or XL1S, now that they aren't top of the line, you will see a price drop because everyone wants the XL2. Besides, they look so much cooler...

Yeah... I kill me too ;)

Sometimes it's just a problem of companies being too lazy to take advantage of Mac-specific optimizations. You can double After Effects' Mac performance with a few minutes of tweaking.

If you like the canondv site, check out this Panasonic High Def Video Camera. This think will set you back about 60k for the 'base model'. The HD mixer they sell for it is another 80-100k depending on NTSC/PAL, etc. [Panasonic HD Cinema]