Slashdot Mirror

Sigh.

Trying to convince yourself you didn't get ripped off? Don't let me stop you with those inconvenient facts.

Inverse Square Law applies.

A good upsampling DVD player - functionally, giving you 720p quality on a "50 1080p" screen - at a normal couch distance of 10 feet will be nearly indistinguishable from putting the blu-ray disc in. That's reality.

Add on to that the crappy "own but don't really own" DRM attached to this, and the fact that it will only play on your PS3 and can't be traded/gifted/loaned to anyone else? Fuck it, just buy the goddamn movie on a real disc.

SoundAndVision.com (_Stereo Review_ magazine's website) is giving audiophile raves to a $180, 5.6 inch, 9.5 ounce portable speaker called Foxl. So the answer to the question is that for about $500, a projector and the Foxl could make a microscopic kit into a hugely entertaining movie theater.

1) Route sound around with cat5. Seriously. It transmits signals up to 100mhz, so audio frequencies are a cinch. I don't know though if you need differential drivers at each end or not.

2) Get a decent RF remote control (eg. the Gyration one) or RF keyboard, and make those keystrokes control your music apps via AutoHotkey. This is the DIY route, but AutoHotkey is fast, light, and can do almost everything.

The human eye isn't a 100% analog device either - it's a digital device which takes light sampling using rods (black/white luminance) and cones (color information) and sorts them together.

Damage the eye, and you can get a "blind spot" where all the rods and cones are defunct. Drop to low lighting conditions where there's not enough to activate the cones, and you switch to rod-only black and white "night vision" with the brain filling in what it *thinks* the color of something should be based on what you perceive objects to be.

The real problem is simply that human visual acuity isn't actually all that great. Can you tell the difference between a 480p and 720p image on your computer monitor? Probably, but you're sitting a foot and a half away from it.

From 10 feet away, you can *barely* distinguish a 480p image from a 720p image on a 30" set.
Go up to a 60" set and you can barely tell between 720p and 1080i/p from the same distance.

Me? I have a 50" TV. My max viewing distance is 12 feet. My minimum is 8 feet. (I occasionally move the couch). It's a 720p native screen and that's just fine by me.

I've saved a number of people on the order of $1000 by showing them this graph at a local Best Buy and having them simply stand in front of a TV known to be getting an HD feed and step back and forth. The salesmonkeys hate me for it.

Yes, DVD is convenient/etc. and I buy them aplenty. But the artifacts from the MPEG compression are sometimes simply teeth-gnashingly awful. Compare an S-VHS versus a DVD of movies with lots of water/ocean in them... Waterworld, Titanic, etc. I can nearly guarantee you that you'll prefer the S-VHS in terms of picture quality.. then hug the DVD because you can skip the awful, awful scenes (content-wise) in them.

That said, I'm sure the content mastering teams are to blame there. There's more than enough bits available to compress even the most difficult shots into perfectly good MPEG, switch to an all I-frame build-up if need be. But that actually requires them to do that work, and they tend to be too lazy. Having executives say "stick trailers for other movies, the leaders, the menus, 3 different audio languages, commentaries, cinematic trailer, making of, [voice fades as listing continues] .. onto the same DVD", cutting down the amount of space available to the actual movie, doesn't help.

HD-TV suffers from the same problem; Nobody tells the HD-TV broadcasters to actually use the bandwidth they have for a single show. They're perfectly welcome to splitit up into separate channels* and get multiple avenues for revenue; guess what they're more likely to do? So yes, you'll just get the same compression artifacts in high resolution.
(* http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?section_id=82&article_id=2061&page_number=1&print_page=y )

Links to top A/V sites:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p= 11351599
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=273
htt p://www.guidetohometheater.com/hddiscplayers/1206p s3blu/index3.html
http://www.insert25.com/playsta tion-3/ps3-better-console-or-blu-ray-player/
http ://www.soundandvisionmag.com/hd-dvd-bluray/1927/sh ootout-3-blu-ray-disc-players-page9.html

I could go on, but I don't need to. It says more that http://hdtvmagazine.com/ uses the PS3 as their "reference" player for BluRay. So does the fact that http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/ used it as well.

But it's not just a gaming machine. It plays games, but people have bought it for playing Blu-Ray movies too. In fact videophile sites such as this rave about it. Whatever way you dice it, it is selling Blu-Ray discs and lots of them. As for TIVO, you're right it doesn't have a video input and it annoys me. I griped that the 360 didn't have an input and I griped that the PS3 doesn't either. But you can run Linux and MythTV and you can plug a USB TV adapter if you wish. So in fact you can use it as a PVR if you desire. It stinks that it doesn't do it out of the box, but it is doable.

You may correctly claim this is irrelevant to the mass majority but so what? If we're going to make comparisons to the TIVO, bear in mind that a TIVO series 3 costs MORE than a PS3. Is it entirely feasible that Sony could produce a USB dongle or a rev 2 that did include a PVR and still be cheaper than a TIVO with a machine that does so much more.

Absolutely, positively, INCORRECT. Sony did not SELL 1.8m PS3's...they SHIPPED 1.8 million PS3's. Many of them are sitting in stores, right next to the ones that were returned by many eBayers unopened because they eBay sales tanked. THEY ARE NOT SELLING. Period. End of story. Sitting there collecting dust. They are not coming in and going right out and then being restocked - they are just sitting there. You honestly are the first person I've seen with the balls to argue otherwise, because arguing anything but is like saying New Coke wasn't so bad.

Bollocks. Clearly they were sold and clearly Sony have manufactured and sold many thousands more since. Besides, MS claimed 10 million sold too, but guess what - they meant shipped as well and went through all kinds of verbal gymnastics to explain why sold meant shipped. Either way that's the only metric these companies have the ability to actually say with certainty. Just accept it and move on.

LOL, Sony has really sold you, haven't they? It's clear I'm having a discussion with a fan - for the record, I own neither an XBOX 360 nor a PS3. It's clear you understand the company line that Sony wants people to believe; problem is, just because they cross their fingers and wish real hard doesn't mean it's going to come true. You really believe all the hype, huh?

I don't own a PS3 or XBox 360 either so what's your point? I'm certainly interested in the PS3 but that's because I can see the potential for the system in all sorts of ways. It doesn't mean I'm going to queue up at midnight to get one though. Better to wait and see.

Check out this writeup praising the PS3 (by a non-gamer at that.) As I recall, he preferred the [HDMI Blu-ray] video quality/playback features of the PS3 over [more expensive] standalone units. He also praises the multimedia (card reader features) and multi-audio format playback options. http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/hd-dvd-bluray/192 7/shootout-3-blu-ray-disc-players-page2.html

this site has a 19khz and 17khz 3-second clip. The 17 is very easy to hear and would chase me off after awhile and I'm going on 30. I can't hear the 19khz at all, guess I don't have to buy those headphones that go up to 22khz anymore ;)

The really scary thing is anyone who can't hear these frequencies could crank this and play 24/7 for free with only a PC and speakers, no need to spend $1,000 for that device. They'd have to play it through their windows since these frequencies don't travel well through walls, or if they want to go all out I'm sure they could get a loudspeaker from RadioShack and mount it permanently like the Mosquito.

There are only 5-10 tvs that will even display 1080p right now, not even the Sony SXBRs can (NOTE many TVs actually display 1080p, but only accept 1080i input, like the SXBR for example).

As can be seen on this chart 720p will do for for most people. The human eye can't resolve the extra detail in the picture from 8' on a 42" diagonal.

Broadcast radion in general is purely an annoyance to listen to. Yes, I am an XM radio subscriber. In fact, I have XM at home and in my vehicle. I love it. Why? Well, it's very simple. You don't hear stupid "radio voices". You don't hear all the damn commercials for stuff you don't want from companies who are too cheap to film TV commercials. You can get specialized content and stations that you can't get anywhere else. The stations are added and deleted based on listener support of a station. You can see title and artist of songs and hear a lot more music in the spectrum because they're not driven completely on playlists. They have REAL deejays that do take requests.

Now for those of you with the torches out, cap them please. Don't trip over your 8-tracks while trying to flame me. People try to make tha argument of, "Well, there are still commercials on XM!" Well, that's true, but the "commercials" on the music stations are really lineup notes. They advertise about other special programs on other XM channels. With such a wide variety of stations and content, the average listener would never been able to know what was on. The "ads" are relevent to the listenership of that particular station. You're not going to hear commercials for "XM 66 RAW (Uncensored Hip Hop Station)" on "XM 121 Fox News". It doesn't fit the demographic for that channel. So I would say they do a pretty good job there.

If I hear another "Free FM" radio spot, I might vomit. It really is a sad thing. "Free radio" had no problem running XM's radio spots when XM was getting started [read as, 'taking XM's money while in infancy'] because they never thought it would take off. With the new portable radios that XM is putting out, the Pioneer Inno and the Samsung Helix, XM will actually become portable, aside from the already available XM Delphi MiFi that is kind clunky. Sirius' best offering is a little behind with a potable that's more like a brick than a radio -- so they're a little behind in that department. Anyway, my .02.
Xserv

You're absolutely correct from what I've seen. Most of the audio manufacturers' flavors of wireless multiroom entertainment (a bunch are covered in http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?secti on_id=2&article_id=831&page_number=1) are awfully expensive, on the magnitude of dropping multiple thousands of bucks.

The key is the consumer-friendliness other posters have noted. Personally, I entered the world of open source when I pulled an old Pentium II machine out of the closet and installed the Slimserver software on it (http://www.slimdevices.com/pi_features.html ). I also like SlimServer because their hardware for wireless streaming is cheap compared to other solutions (roughly $300 if I remember right), so you can have mutiroom pretty cheap if you're providing your own server. I skipped the wireless hardware they sell for now and just have a second PC hooked up to the stereo.

Recycling a couple of unused computers meant my cost of entry was almost $0. I enjoyed selecting, installing and configuring an operating system, ripping CDs using EAC and LAME or FLAC, etc. But I have to think that most consumers probably don't want anything to do with any of that! They'll spend the multiple thousands of bucks to avoid the geeked-out installation, configuration, maintenance and day-to-day usage.

While we're on the subject: if anyone is considering dropping those thousands just to utilize their iPod or similar device in their house, I'd advocate that you to do something the article mentioned, but without the Sonos or any other fancy device: go buy a 1/8 stereo to RCA adapter for <$7 at Radio Shack or Wal-Mart, and plug your iPod into your stereo that way. Sure, you get no fancy touch-screen remote and the ability to change music while you're on the toilet, but so what? Your receiver (or even your TV!) likely has front-panel inputs. Plug your portable player into that: just because there's a video plug sitting there doesn't mean you have to plug anything into it.

I guess Lucas is guilty of pirating his own films . . . The concept of extreme protection of digital content is really getting out of hand when someone like Lucas can't legally "backup" his films onto another media. I don't really understand this when no one prosecutes the average Joe from copying a CD to tape or CD to MP3 player for convenience . . . Isn't this all that the Kaleidescope box does? Copies from one media to another for ease and convenience?

If you can do it with music, then why can't you do it with movies?

I guess Lucas is guilty of pirating his own films . . .

Kind of a weird interview that really doesn't say much about anything . . .

More info about making the movie look better than the original: "In the first movie, you have C-3P0 and R2-D2 walking across the desert, and I think half of that desert sand ended up in the camera. It was unbelievable. One technique we use is where you look at the frame before and the frame after to determine what is dirt on the frame in between. When you have as much dirt as this, though, the before and after frames have the same damn dirt -- and more. It's really hard for the program to separate what's dirt and what's image. It led to a lot of extra work -- run it again, check it again, multiple passes, a lot of hand work at the end."

here

I read Playboy, Sound & Vision, Computer Gaming World, Popular Science, and MSN's Slate. each has a different point of view concerning computers and technology (yes, even playboy), and of the four i don't dislike the way any of them writes about the subject. S&V is 99.9% focused on Home Theater rather than PC related tech, but they do the best job in that category.

...its a great way for artists that does not have a major record company in the back to pay for tv ads etc. I for one am buying a lot more records since i started downloading files on soulseek, mostly because Im able to discover a lot more good artists. instead of futile resistance the market must adopt to new technology. the days of record company behemoths are numbered. interesting article on non-piracy reasons for declining sales

or subscribe to widescreen review and sound & vision to start off with... there's a zillion different magazines on the rack that are good starter points...

Even a Sony PlayStation 2 has a frequency response of 20 Hz to 17.9 kHz with only +0.12, -3 dB variation. You better have a really kick-butt sound system to hear anything better than that.

Reviews: 1, 2, 3.

I don't trust USB completely. I've had problems with hubs deciding not to supply power, and the bandwidth is too narrow. From what I've heard about USB CD recorders, I'm not alone.

When I burned my first couple of cd's I was careful not to use the machine (laptop, PIII 750) for fear of swamping the USB's bandwidth... I've got a USB keyboard, USB mouse, USB compact flash reader and a USB cable for my PDA.

However, I'm happy to report, everything seems to work just fine and dandy when using other USB devices. Granted, I haven't tried using everything at the exact same time... but, I'm pleasantly surprised by the performance.

Maybe tonight I'll try my hardest at making a coaster... </evilgrin>

Anyway, I've also been thinking about getting a USB sound device... either the Stereo-Link or Extigy. I like the Extigy because it's got a lot of "stuff" (sparing the details). But, I also like the Stereo-Link because it's not Creative's product. I haven't quite decided, yet... here are some reviews:

• Extigy: 1, 2, 3;
• Stereo-Link: 1, 2, 3.

This was also in some stupid DVD production newsletter I received a few years ago). Wish I had the stuff to back it up though.

But hey things change, and early DVDs did suck. Artifacts abound. That also changed when someone who actually cared about the movie (sometimes the actual producers), made sure that it was looking good.

whatever, i just woke up

Yeah, hackerish types can play with em, and I reckon we can break the watermarks and have them sound virtually the same or better.

Remember this? Not even experts can tell the diffrence all the time, so how can Joe Public do it?

-- Reverend Vryl