Slashdot Mirror

Warning! Pictures are > 500kb each!

(Bypasses pointless `registration' on research page)

Philips Rush mp3 player

Philips Xenium 939 mobile phone

If you want more info and not so geeky pictures, check out Philips Research

Keeping track of the kids is easy in this smart kidswear concept which incorporates GPS-driven locators and miniature camera's allowing parents to ensure they're safe, while a computer game console worn on the sleeve keeps the kids happy.

That's my daughter in the silver jacket :-)

Both Philips and RCA appear to be working on MP3-CD players. I heard Casio is too, but I can't seem to find any info on that.

The Register recently had a story, "Philips to unite MP3 and CD technology", where it detailed a new CD/MP3 player that Philips have on the go. Philips call it the Expanium. They even have a free beta that you can sign up for to test the rather nice device...

Philips is currently beta testing its new Expanium portable CD player that plays regular audio CDs in adition to CDRs and CD-RWs of MP3 files.

(I'm going to regret saying this here since it will decrease my chances of being selected, but...)
Until July 17th, you can sign up to be one of 50 members of the general public to get a beta version of the player by going to their website.

I have the Philips Vesta Pro (pcvc680k) camera...

I installed the digimarc software, held the pic (wired mag) up to the camera as was about to reach around to focus it, point it in the right direction, etc...

and BING! The proggy caught the mark in about half a second, and sent my browser to the appropriate page.

I was impressed by the speed. And it didn't need to see the whole image. 'cept it's annoying to have to have the camera focussed on 5" all the time. (Actually, mine will work even when focussed at infinity, but much slower).

Think of the LCD screen as being divided into lots of tiny vertical stripes one pixel wide. Now you send the even stripes to your left eye and the odd stripes to your right eye (or the other way around). Naturally the image sent to the screen would not be a normal image but one where the left eye view is sent to the aforementioned even stripes and the right eye view to the odd stripes (this is done through the 3D API like DX7 or a special version of Open GL --though it might have to be a special version).

Of course, like normal photographic paper, normal computer displays (LCD or otherwise) do not usually do this. So now you have to modify them so they will. Both in the cases of 3D photographs and LCD screens this is done by fitting the surface with a v ertical lens over each right-left pair of image stripes which directs the appropriate stripe into the appropriate eye. This (plus the quirks of LCD technology) is why the display has to be viewed from a very narrow angle since from other angles the lenses would not work quite right

At least this is the way it's done sometimes (with the 3D photographs and the Phillips display) and I'm pretty sure this is the way this particular display must work as well.

after a little more research i came up with this Philips research paper. (be sure to look at the nice diagrams in the slides).

the gist of it is this: much like 3d postcards, they use a grid of cylindrical lens over the LCD panel. each lens covers a specified number of real LCD pixels, 4 being a common number. since the lens is constructed to have the LCD pixel be at the focal point, when you look at the screen through the lens your eye will be directed towards one of the 4 pixels and not the others. thus the lens has turned 4 real pixels into one 3d pixel. (and dropped your resolution to 1/4th!) if you shift your viewing angle then you will look at a different one. if, like many people, you have two eyeballs which are separated by a few inches, then each eye will see a different image.

another way of thinking about it is to imagine that four zones of images are being projected out from each pixel to your eyes. as long as your eyes are in separate zones then you are okay. this is the case if you are sitting at normal reading distance. but if you get too far away (or have a head the size of a mouse) then your eyes will end up in the same zone and you lose the 3d effect.

philips has also done some innovative work to even out the resolution loss and improve the viewing angle.

- joshy

after reading how it works i now understand why it's so dim. if there is a 4:1 ratio of real pixels to 3d pixels, then each eye is only getting 1/4 the light it used to. guess they are going to have to beef up that backlight. then you can switch back to 2d and have a blinding image reflect of your face, just like in the movies. :)

Most use a "lenticular sheet" on top of a standard LCD screen which is essentially an array if tiny lenses that transmit light from different pixels depending on viewing angle. Since your eyes are looking at the screen from two slightly different angles, they see different images.

For a more detailed explaination, look at this document from the Philips web site.

Jeroen

• linuxtv
• inria.fr
• dvb.org
• protocol notes
• gilat
• europeonline
• drdish
• helius
• telemann.com
• broadcast.philips

I bought the 14hr TiVo when it first came out. I have to say that I absolutely love it. With cable now about $60/mo, TiVo lets me extract the most of it. It catches all the bizarro shows that I like late at night, and I can watch them in any order, unlike a VCR.

If I was rich, I would have gotten the 30hr TiVo. I have my 14hr set at medium quality, which only gets me 8hrs of video that's a little better than VHS. I use medium quality because the sports shows I watch end up in a flurry of MPEG mosaics at low quality.

TiVo currently has an upgrade program at: http://www.personaltv.philips. com/upgrade/process.html. $299 to upgrade from the 14hr to 30hr, basically the price differential.

My TiVo is a little buggy. It never dials up by itself, I have to always manually dial-up. I called TiVo tech support and while they were nice enough, they never resolved the issue. It's not too much of a pain so I never bothered to get it fixed. Maybe 1.3 will solve it.

One of the things I wish I had was another remote for TiVo. I use a 2.4ghz NTSC in-home broadcaster to beam my TiVo's living room signals to my bedroom. A pair of infrared signal senders sends the remote's commands back, but my bedroom TV is different from my living rooms. Yeah yeah, I should get a multi-remote, but none of them are preprogrammed for TiVo. So I end up carrying my TiVo remote to my bedroom when I want to watch at night.

I also noticed I'm not getting shows in stereo. Not sure if this is TiVo or my cable service, have to look into that. I just got a new home theater system, so it's annoying that everything is in mono.

Anyway, I hope someone figures out how to hack TiVo so that you can put in any large HD you want. CircuitCity has 30 gig hard drives + UltraDMA66 interface cards for $199 right now (w/ rebates). Tempting, tempting. My TiVo is almost out of warrantee anyway, so I'd love to rip its guts open to put in a larger drive.

From one geek gal to all you geek boys...

I might be wrong, but doesn't those screen still have the problem with a limited view angle?

According to Philips's Password magazine, they have overcome some of this problem with "simple compensation foils". They also have a Colour 3D-LCD Evaluation Kit.

If only they would combine the two.

I might be wrong, but doesn't those screen still have the problem with a limited view angle?

According to Philips's Password magazine, they have overcome some of this problem with "simple compensation foils". They also have a Colour 3D-LCD Evaluation Kit.

If only they would combine the two.

Philips have a 3D LCD prototype:
http://www. research.philips.com/generalinfo/special/3dlcd/pro to/index.htm

Since this code was meant to be tinkered with by anyone in the OS community, the appropriate thing to do was release the source code to the Web, where anyone can make it into whatever they want.

Incidentally, it is not illegal to copy DVD disks, by that logic, CD duplicators would be illegal. (I know I've seen one advertised on TV from Philips, so if it is they are going to get caught soon.)

So, the fact that DeCSS can be used in the ungainly and useless for piracy purposes task (currently) of copying huge VOB files to a hard drive does not make it illegal, per se.

I submitted this to Slashdot's Your Rights Online section some weeks ago, but it was rejected. I think the article is pertinent here.

Recent stories on Slashdot have told of the ongoing "tennis match" between digital content providers versus consumers and technically skilled people. The recent cracking of DVD's Content Scrambling System (CSS) lent ammunition to the opinion held by computing professionals and users that copy protection systems are doomed to fail. The effort has been likened to building a dam against the ocean; a foolish and useless exercise. In Slashdot discussion fora, the point has often been raised, "If you can perceive it, you can copy it. What are they going to do, encrypt the bits all the way to the speaker/electron gun?" If the Copy Protection Technical Working Group gets its way, that is precisely what's going to happen.

I received a piece of email spam today, which actually turned out to be useful (probably the only time that's ever happened anywhere). It directed me to a flat panel display industry group. Among others, one of the links pointed to the California Display Network, which had a link pointing to technical info on flat panel technology. Since I currently earn my living writing graphics card and display drivers, I clicked through to see what I could learn.

I found an entry for an overview of digital visual interfaces, provided by Silicon Image. As I reviewed the headings of the slides, one entry stopped me cold: Conten t Protection Status. Content protection? In a flat panel?? Yup: "Implementation of DVI content protection is suitable for PCs and monitors." [emphasis mine]

Thus began an evening of link clicking and Google searches to find out what this off-handed remark could mean. The slide made mention of the 'CPTWG'. This is the Copy Protection Technical Working Group, a consortium of content providers (movie companies), consumer electronics manufacturers, and players in the IT industry. This is the same group that developed CSS for DVD players.

One paragraph from the above page is particularly disturbing:

CPTWG has focused until now only on "casual piracy [sic]", characterized as what a grandmother can do in her home with her DVD. Piracy [sic] requiring even the level of expertise (and equipment) of her grandson, who might be an EE student, has been excluded from consideration. There is a growing awareness that a broader content protection effort may be necessary.

The most recent meeting of the CPTWG was yesterday, 8 December, 1999. Their meeting announcements may be found here. According to the December meeting announcement, the next meetings will occur on 11 January, 2000, and 9 February, 2000. It costs $100 to attend.

The attendance roster from the November meeting (PDF file, sorry) lists a very interesting, and possibly worrying, mix of organizations. A partial list of representatives included:

• MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America),
• AFMA (American Film Marketing Association),
• Sony Pictures Entertainment,
• Universal Studios,
• Warner Bros.,
• Disney,
• Paramount,
• CEMA (Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association),
• MEI (parent company to Panasonic), makers of consumer electronics,
• Pioneer, makers of consumer electronics,
• JVC, makers of consumer electronics,
• Philips, makers of consumer electronics and VLSI components (including video encoders),
• Sony, makers of consumer electronics, computers, and displays,
• Toshiba, makers of consumer electronics, computers, flat panels, disk drives, digital cameras, copiers, and laser printers,
• NEC, makers of computers, displays, printers, and telecomm equipment,
• Hewlett Packard, makers of computers, printers, and testing/measuring equipment (oscilloscopes, logic analyzers, etc.),
• Quantum, makers of disk drives,
• IBM, makers of computers, disk drives, and bunches of other stuff,
• Compaq, makers of computers,
• Apple Computer, makers of computers,
• ATI Technologies, makers of PC graphics cards,
• Dolby Labs, creators and licensors of audio enhancement technologies,
• Intel, makers of microprocessors, motherboard controllers, and graphics and peripheral chips,
• Microsoft, software market monopolists,
• Dow Chemical (I have no idea why they're here),
• A number of law firms.

If you download the roster and read closely, you'll see every major piece of your computer represented. There is no doubt that at least one part of your computer -- your CPU, your RAM, your disk drive, your graphics card, your monitor -- is manufactured by one of these companies.

If you look further still, you'll see there are no consumer advocacy groups listed.

What are they all working toward? Quite simply, to prevent you from using your lawfully obtained digital material in any way they don't want.

Here's one example of how they'll do it: If you've visited Fry's or CompUSA recently, you'll notice that full-size flat panel displays are starting to appear. Currently, most of these displays are based on the old VGA analog signals, which are converted into the digital signals needed by the panels. The Digital Display Working Group is working on a new connector and signalling standard called Digital Visual Interface (DVI) that will allow computer displays to go all-digital. You won't need a DAC on the video card; the digital signals will be fed straight through to the display. Image fidelity will be much higher, since there won't be any intervening DAC/ADC conversions. Version 1.0 of the standard has been published and is available for download (PDF format). The DVI spec currently does not stipulate copy protection measures. However, plans are in the works to incorporate it.

Intel is one of the primary contributors to this effort. On Intel's developer site, they have some papers on copy protection for IEEE 1394 (Firewire) digital streams. In two separate articles, 1394-based Digital Content Protection: an Intel Proposal, and Content Protection for IEEE 1394 Serial Buses (the latter being a Powerpoint presentation masquerading as a PDF file), Intel outlines its proposal for protecting digital content over Firewire. By using cryptographic authentication techniques, a device offering digital content will "handshake" with other devices on the bus to assure that digital data is only received by, "compliant devices." In a revised overview of the proposal, IDF Talk: Content Protection for the IEEE 1394 Bus, Intel offers concrete implementation details, including:

• DSS (Digital Signature Standard)
• Diffie-Hellman key exchange for device authentication,
• Blowfish cipher for content encryption, with a keylength of 32-128 bits,
• Digital watermarking techniques to declare "rights" (right to playback, right to copy, etc.) to the receiving device.

The full proposal (currently version 0.91), with lots of technical detail, is mirrored on CPTWG's site (the links to Intel's site don't work).

Intel's proposal also recommends that the copy protection system be field-upgradeable to thwart ongoing attacks, and that it should be possible to revoke (read: disable) a device determined to be "compromised." (The tone of the proposals is also interesting. It's previously been thought that, because of USB, Intel is hostile to IEEE 1394. Yet these proposals suggest that Intel's quite enthusiastic about 1394... Once copy protection is incorporated.)

Intel's proposal mentions only IEEE 1394. However, it also mentions that there's nothing preventing the technique being applied generally to any bi-directional link. So for all occurrences of '1394', substitute 'DVI', and you've got an idea of what to look forward to in your new digital monitor. And your new DVD player. And your new HDTV set. And your new USB speakers.

Intel goes even further in their paper, A Framework for DVD-Audio Content Protection. In it, the author suggests that DVD-Audio recorders permanently remember the IRSC (International Standard Recording Code) of every song the device is asked to copy, so that it may only be copied once, period. They go on to suggest that the recorder could have a modem built-in to authorize (read: purchase) the ability to make additional copies.

In short, through this industry consortium, Hollywood proposes to exert control over every link in the digital chain, from the digital camera, to the disk drive, to the CPU, to the graphics card, to your display. They will decide what rights you have. Even if a court decides Fair Use includes multiple copies for personal use (such as assembling a video montage), it won't matter. Your computer will still refuse to make the copies (and probably fink on you, as well).

This coordinated effort is ostensibly to combat unsanctioned copying (which the industry chronically refers to incorrectly as 'theft' and 'piracy'). However, no one has ever been able to provably quantify the value of unrealized sales due to such copying. All dollar estimates that have been published are just that: estimates, based on idealized extrapolations of what-if scenarios. Moreover, although the industry claims to "lose" billions every year, they continue to post record profits. Finally, despite the proliferation of CDR drives and the Internet, most unrealized sales are the result of organized mass counterfeiting rings, not casual copying. None of the proposed methods I've seen appear to thwart mass counterfeiting at all. So clearly there's some other reason for all this.

The thing that puzzles me most is why the computer and consumer electronics industries haven't told Hollywood to take a hike. Intel's copy protection proposals state, in bold letters, "No content protection = No Hollywood content." This belief is taken as axiomatic by all the players, and appears to be the driving force behind the entire effort. This belief is also false.

Audio on CDs are recorded as plaintext, and the music industry continues to earn rapacious profits. Even the with the advent of CDRs, no music industry executive in his right mind would suggest dropping CD sales and going strictly with cassettes and vinyl. If nothing else, the manufacturing costs for CDs are lower than those for cassettes and vinyl. Likewise, DVDs are tremendously cheaper to produce than videotapes. Videotape duplication is a labor-intensive process; DVDs can be stamped out automatically. The savings in cost-of-goods alone would more than balance against any unrealized sales from casual copying. Corporate shareholders, always mindful of the bottom line, will also demand that the studios move to the cheaper, higher-quality process, copy protected or not.

The fact is that the computer and electronics firms are in the driver's seat, and are free to dictate how the new digital formats will work. Hollywood will use whatever format becomes popular, whether it has copy protection or not. They may grumble about it, but they'll use it. The economics afford them little choice.

We are only now beginning to explore the social and ethical consequences of a Star Trek-like universe where everything can be infinitely duplcated at zero cost. We have no idea where things will end up. But now is not the time to start erecting electronic walls and imposing artificial scarcity. The ignoble and richly-deserved death of DIVX showed -- fairly unequivocally, I thought -- that consumers want to make free, fair use of their digital media, without interference from outside. I believe its death reinforces the future toward which we've been pushing for centuries: Increased abundance at reduced cost.

Nevertheless, the CPTWG and the organizations supporting it are blindly moving forward. It may turn out it's impossible to dam the ocean, but they're gearing up to give it one hell of a try. We can only hope that the lesson of DIVX will be repeated until it is learned.

Schwab

If you're like me, you have a DVD and VCR. I happen to have a decent VCR, meaning there is a jog shuttle. I use this to edit, and cannot do without it. There is no universal remote that has a jog shuttle of any kind, making the whole concept of universal remote moot if you have decent video gear, let alone professional.

It's true, it would be nice if the Pronto was an inch and a half taller and had a programmable jog-shuttle wheel on it. What I did when I laid out the pages for my devices with J/S wheels was add buttons for several speeds:

• • [] [>>] [>>>]

Then I had it memorize 3 positions in either direction on the wheel (well, 5 positions plus "play".) This works fairly well for normal viewing usage. (Though technically I guess I've only programmed "shuttle", not "jog".)

However, I can't imagine trying to do video editing with an IR remote at all! Do you actually do that? My VCRs (Panasonic AG-1950s, thirteen years old and still going strong!) have a hardwired edit controller that can control both decks in sync or independently, that has its own J/S wheel, as well as controls for edit-lists.

IR is nice, but never underestimate the power and flexibility of a 20' cable. I can reach the whole room with it, and I don't have to point it in any particular direction.

The Pronto Edit software is very easy to use; I generally do all my programming of it with the computer instead of by hand on the remote.

I only wish I could figure out how to make VMware talk to my serial port, so that I wouldn't have to boot Windows to do this, sigh...

One of the interesting things you will discover the first time you try to use a touchscreen as a remote control is that it's slightly harder to operate in the dark: because you have to actually turn your head and look at the (backlit) screen to find the buttons, you can't just feel around for them. But that's another of the benefits of the Pronto over something more Pilot-like: it has seven physical buttons that are also per-page programmable (laid out for Mute, Ch +/-, Vol +/-, Left and Right) so I tend to use those for the most frequent actions, and don't actually have to look at it much except when changing pages.

I bought a Philips Pronto, a similar product, just last night. This is one of the coolest products Philips has ever released. I decided to buy the Pronto over the Harmon Kardon for a few reasons. First, the Harmon Kardon was co-developed with Microsoft. I don't trust a software company who can't make software with making consumer electronics. That's just me tho'. Second, the screen is not as big. Third, it has NO WHERE NEAR the expandability that the Pronto has. --!Switching to Plug mode!-- The Pronto has a meg of flash and is completely programmable. You can learn commands sent at frequencies of up to 56KHz, so that will cover most consumer-grade remotes. I have completely programmed my Pronto to control my TV (Picture-in-Picture as well), my DVD player, my Amp, and my 50CD jukebox. The touch screen is more than responsive enough for my needs. You can download pre-programmed configuration files for common components of your home audio/video system on to your PC, and then download those files over a serial port to the Pronto. Firmware upgrades are also available through the PC software. The list price on the Pronto is $399 but I got mine for $275. I can't say where, but you can get them from J&R for I believe $300. If you want the rechargable pack, you need to pay another $80, so I skipped on that and am using Double A's (4 of them). I've been told one set of batteries will get you about 6 months of normal usage. Phillips has certainly outdone themselves on this one. I'm really happy with mine. Some sites you may want to check out if interested: Remote Central - reviews of both the Harmon Kardon, Pronto, and another similar Sony product, features&specs lists, cool stuff Remote Central Review of the Pronto - nice review, nice pictures Philips Pronto site - nice pictures of the unit Pronto Edit - this is the free software you can use to download to/update the Pronto Pretty sweet unit, I highly reccomend it.

I bought a Philips Pronto, a similar product, just last night. This is one of the coolest products Philips has ever released. I decided to buy the Pronto over the Harmon Kardon for a few reasons. First, the Harmon Kardon was co-developed with Microsoft. I don't trust a software company who can't make software with making consumer electronics. That's just me tho'. Second, the screen is not as big. Third, it has NO WHERE NEAR the expandability that the Pronto has. --!Switching to Plug mode!-- The Pronto has a meg of flash and is completely programmable. You can learn commands sent at frequencies of up to 56KHz, so that will cover most consumer-grade remotes. I have completely programmed my Pronto to control my TV (Picture-in-Picture as well), my DVD player, my Amp, and my 50CD jukebox. The touch screen is more than responsive enough for my needs. You can download pre-programmed configuration files for common components of your home audio/video system on to your PC, and then download those files over a serial port to the Pronto. Firmware upgrades are also available through the PC software. The list price on the Pronto is $399 but I got mine for $275. I can't say where, but you can get them from J&R for I believe $300. If you want the rechargable pack, you need to pay another $80, so I skipped on that and am using Double A's (4 of them). I've been told one set of batteries will get you about 6 months of normal usage. Phillips has certainly outdone themselves on this one. I'm really happy with mine. Some sites you may want to check out if interested: Remote Central - reviews of both the Harmon Kardon, Pronto, and another similar Sony product, features&specs lists, cool stuff Remote Central Review of the Pronto - nice review, nice pictures Philips Pronto site - nice pictures of the unit Pronto Edit - this is the free software you can use to download to/update the Pronto Pretty sweet unit, I highly reccomend it.

Microsoft and Harmon remote

Sony RM-AV2000

Philips Pronto

I have been looking long and hard at the Philips Pronto remote, which is pretty much just a remote control made out of a Nino. I hope they don't cancel it too!

This does bring me to a kind of off topic question though that I think should be asked - who will be the next to leave the CE camp? How indicative is this of what CE is doing in the marketplace? When will MS be posting a PalmOS FUD document like they did for Linux? My guess on the last question is Real Soon Now.

This should be fun to watch for!

941415926518293950285123123568785948184839358193 948913958495
80124569890476636201512012315668018651125564087489 7980465063

A basic MPEG-2 encoder card can currently be had for around $2000. Word is that more affordable (sub-$500) MPEG-2 encoder cards are on their way and should be out be the end of the year. I'm having no luck finding references on this, but Philips has a new low-cost single-chip encoder (the SAA6750H) that's supposed to find its way onto these cards. These chips weigh in at about US$40 (in lots of 100,000) so that may give a good idea of the cost of the final product.
--

A basic MPEG-2 encoder card can currently be had for around $2000. Word is that more affordable (sub-$500) MPEG-2 encoder cards are on their way and should be out be the end of the year. I'm having no luck finding references on this, but Philips has a new low-cost single-chip encoder (the SAA6750H) that's supposed to find its way onto these cards. These chips weigh in at about US$40 (in lots of 100,000) so that may give a good idea of the cost of the final product.
--

See either http://www.cdrom.com/pub/png/pngs.html or http://www.cdrom.com/pub/png/pngs-img.ht ml for some transparent PNG images (especially the bottom one), using either OBJECT or IMG, respectively. There will be at least three more as soon as I have time to add them to the web pages. Two are already available in the img_png subdirectory: IceAlpha-sml.png and RedbrushAlpha-sml.png, both by Pieter van der Meulen. (The third one is an excellent shot of an owl, and I may add a magnolia tree, too. All are 8-bit RGBA-palette images, btw.)

Oh, and http://www.cdrom.com/pub/png/pngpic2.html has more PNG images, though not with transparency.