Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Archos Jukebox Multimedia Reviewed

Posted by timothy on from the do-everything dept.

An anonymous reader points to Richard Menta's review of the Archos Jukebox Multimedia (mentioned in this earlier Slashdot posting). Here's a snippet from the review: "Right now my wife and I are watching an old episode of a TV show no longer broadcast in our area or available tape. How are we watching it? We are playing it off of a 9oz. MP3 player -- where I have digitally stored the episode -- hooked up to the small TV in our room and inconspicuously placed on top."

5 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Picture Quality? by rco3 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The picture quality is MOST DEFINITELY not full DVD quality. See this: Archos's website. It's limited to "MPEG4 video compatible with DivX? (CIF format - 352x288 pixels, 25 frames/sec.)".

    Thanks, but no thanks. The reviewer mentions some pixelization - I think I know why! :-)

    Rob

    --

    Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
  2. CIF Resolution. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 5, Informative

    Umm. Unless you have a really nice TV, it's only displaying 352x240 NTSC or 352x288 PAL. The quality is the same as a VHS tape---if there's "pixelization", the reviewer probably means the blocking artifacts that DivX has at too-low bitrates.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:CIF Resolution. by rco3 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Does nice mean newer than 1940's?

      The NTSC format is, as I'm sure you're aware, 525 vertical lines. An average TV shows around 480 of those. Depending on quality, an average 19" TV probably is capable of better than 500 lines of horizontal resolution - the current version of my JVC 27" is capable of over 600 lines of horizontal resolution. Depending on how the signal gets to your TV, you may (OK, will) get lower effective resolution... but the source is what we're discussing here, isn't it?

      I've worked as a truck engineer in television production for the last 7 years, and regardless of what the local cable company may do to my signal you may rest assured that it's appreciably nicer than 352x240 when it goes up on the bird.

      Seriously. 352x240 on my home TV? If you've got $400 to spend on an Archos Jukebox, you aren't watching an 8" B&W portable.

      --

      Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
  3. From the betamax ruling: by therealmoose · · Score: 4, Informative
    In summary, the record and findings of the District Court lead us to two conclusions. First, Sony demonstrated a significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders who license their works for broadcast on free television would not object to having their broadcasts time- shifted by private viewers. And second, respondents failed to demonstrate that time-shifting would cause any likelihood of nonminimal harm to the potential market for, or the value of, their copyrighted works. The Betamax is, therefore, capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Sony's sale of such equipment to the general public does not constitute contributory infringement of respondents' copyrights.

    This doesn't seem to restrict based upon the type of the device very much.

  4. Re:USB 1.1 by XaXXon · · Score: 4, Informative

    err, did you read the article beyond the first paragraph? It SHIPS with a 1.1 cable, but it supports USB2.0 *AND* IEEE1394.

    Please read *carefully* before posting.

    Thank you and have a nice day.