VirtualDub is in my opinion the best application of its kind, commercial or otherwise. I use it on a daily basis, and it gives me precise and total control over my video processing. Not to mention the unbelievable assembly-optimized speed! VirtualDub is truly the Photoshop of video capture and linear editing.
Those interested in VirtualDub might want to check out the new Unofficial Virtualdub Support Forums. They're a good place to get tips and help if you're just getting started with VirtualDub. Even though they're not "official" VirtualDub forums, VirtualDub author Avery Lee does drop by every once in a while.
(Disclosure: I am one of the volunteer moderators on the site, in the newly inaugurated and not-yet-very-active VirtualDub Development Forum.)
You are assuming the pixels are square or otherwise equal dimensions horozontally and vertically. They may not be. For example, the Nikon D1X has rectangular sensor pits... twice the resolution horozontally than vertically. (The D1 and D1H had square sensors, and the D1X doubled the number horozontally in the same space, but has the same number vertically) D1X images are 3008x1960, but the sensor is 4,024 x 1,324.
Yes, I am indeed assuming that the pixels are square, but then again, so are you! Note that in my original post, I was talking about the pixel dimensions of an image from the camera -- not the raw pixel dimensions of the CCD, which are irrelevant to this discussion. I guessed the pixel dimensions to be 4096x2688. Assuming a target aspect ratio of exactly 1.5:1 (35mm standard), this produces pixels that are square within a 2% tolerance. (Or, looking at it the other way around, if you assume that the pixels are perfectly square, this results in a very slightly wide image, with an aspect ratio of ~1.52:1.)
In your Nikon D1X "counterexample", you quoted image pixel dimensions of 3008x1960. Well guess what: assuming the same 1.5:1 target aspect ratio, your example is also just over 2% of being perfectly square! (Or, if assumed to be perfectly square, it produces an aspect ratio of ~1.53:1.)
I should add that tolerances of 2% are really not significant, because even 35mm film almost always produces images that are a little wider than the nominal 1.5:1 ratio.
All of the digital cameras I've ever seen produce square pixels, whether the target aspect ratio is 1.5:1 or a more computer-friendly 4:3. Can you point to a real counterexample?
Given that the camera was quoted as having "11.1 megapixel" resolution, and that the nominal aspect ratio of 35mm film is exactly 1.5:1, I'd guess that the pixel dimensions of an image from this camera are 4096x2688. (This works out to 11,010,048 pixels.)
To get as close as possible to 11.1 megapixels while retaining a nice horizontal dimension of 4096 pixels, the vertical dimension would have to be 2710 pixels. However, 2710 isn't a typical "round" binary number, so the actual dimension is likely to be 2688 (11.01 MP), 2752 (11.27 MP), or 2816 (11.53 MP).
This is shamelessly stolen from Fredric Brown's excellent 1954 short story Answer.
Re:Lifetime subs just got cheaper, though...
on
TiVo Service Cost Rising
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The TiVo software has a feature called the Season Pass Manager, which is basically conflict management. It's a screen with a list of all your Season Passes that lets move shows up or down in priority. Shows that have higher priority will always take precedence over shows that have lower priority when they're both on at the same time.
Season Passes have other features as well, such as the 28-day rule and "keep at most".
The 28-day rule ensures that the same episode of a show (or in the case of movies, the same movie) will never be recorded twice in 28 days. This is useful for programs that shown multiple times a day.
"Keep at most" forces the TiVo recorder to never have more than N episodes of a certain show recorded. For example, you may have a Season Pass to the daily 7:00 news, but if you're gone for several days, you don't want several days worth of old news backed up on your recorder. So you set that season pass to "Keep at most 1". That way, only the latest episode of the Season Pass will occupy space on your recorder.
The $199 lifetime subscription promotion is valid only for units that had an active monthly subscription to the TiVo service as of 11:59pm PST on February 25, 2002 -- the day before the price increase was initially announced on the TiVo Community Forum by TiVo spokesperson Richard Bullwinkle.
Space Quest I and Leisure Suit Larry 1, as well as Police Quest I and Quest for Glory I, were all remade with 256-color VGA graphics, a mouse-only interface, but no speech (using the SCIV interpreter).
King's Quest I, on the other hand, was remade with 320x200 16-color EGA graphics (the original had 160x200 16-color EGA/Tandy/PCjr graphics), a primarily-text interface, and also no speech (using the SCI0 interpreter).
It is not clear at this point whether the rumored new Space Quest release will be a completely new game or a remake. Sierra has a long history of doing remakes, so I would not be quick to rule out the latter possibility.
Those who might be interested in remakes of classic Sierra adventures should definitely check out Tierra Entertainment. Tierra is basically a bunch of old Sierra game fanatics who are trying to revive the adventure game genre by remaking classic Sierra titles, as well as creating new ones.
So far, they have actually completed a remake of the original King's Quest [I], with VGA-like graphics and full speech. Technology- and interface-wise, the game looks and plays roughly like KQ5. They even managed to get the guy who voiced King Graham in KQ5 to voice him in their remake of KQ1!
They have several other games currently under development, including:
a Quest for Glory II remake
a King's Quest II remake
I discovered them a few months ago, and was very impressed by what they had accomplished. I would highly recommend that any classic Sierra adventure game fans give them the support and encouragement they deserve.
They are using a game engine called Adventure Game Studio, which has been used by others to create other Sierra-like adventure games as well.
XP? When you say "XP", what are you referring to? Word XP? Excel XP? Office XP? Or perhaps you're referring to Windows XP -- in which case, why, you should say "Windows XP".
This is *almost* as bad as referring to Windows 2000 as "2000". Whenever someone tells me that so-and-so "doesn't run under 2000", I tell them that it's a good thing 2000 is over.
There was no MGA before the CGA. There was an MDA, but that didn't do graphics. You might be thinking of the HGC (Hercules Graphics Controller), which was MDA-compatible but could do a cool 720x348 in black-and-white.
MGA nowadays actually refers to Matrox Graphics Adapter.
True, but it's still available in some stores, so grab one while you still can.
The good news is that there are several other remotes that are also JP1-compatible. It's just that the 15-1994 seems to be the most popular one for JP1 hacking (this will inevitably change as the supply runs dry), and it's the one I own. It has a nice button layout and overall feel, and I find the backlighting indispensable.
Hey, you're the first person who's ever acknowledged my sig! Hail!
I should have been more clear in my original post. The 15-1994 does have X10 capability, but only of the IR type, not RF. However, you can use it with an IR543 Infrared Mini-Controller (~$23) to get full RF X10 capability.
Get yourself a Radio Shack 15-1994 6-in-1 Smart A/V Remote, hack it with a JP1 Interface, and for under $50, you've bought yourself an infinitely customizable IR remote (with X10 capability!), and with all nice tactile hard buttons to boot!
As did I! Perhaps you misunderstood my original post. I consider the Fate interface the pinnacle of adventure game UI design. This was before LucasArts decided to dumb things down (Sam and Max Hit the Road, Full Throttle, The Dig, and so on).
The on-screen non-dismissable interface used in Fate and other classic LucasArts adventures may have taken up a significant amount of screen real estate, but it had the happy advantage of making the play area "widescreen", which made for a more cinematic experience. Clearly, this was intentional, because the aspect ratio was defined in a precise way, by dividing the screen at literally an odd point. --
That's 320x200. World of a difference (320x240 has a full 20% more pixels than 320x200!).
Interestingly, the actual game area, if you subtract the area used for the verb-and-inventory UI, was far smaller: 320x143. That works out to a visual aspect ratio of 1.86:1, which is suspiciously close to 1.85:1, a standard aspect ratio used in many movies today. Fate of Atlantis was a bona-fide widescreen game, folks!
For those keeping score, that's yet another reason to consider the classic pre-dumbed-down SCUMM interface the pinnacle of adventure game UI design.
BTW, in case anyone was wondering, the Indy movies were all shot using Panavision, an anamorphic process that produces an even wider aspect ratio of 2.35:1. --
At first glance, the 1365x768 pixel dimensions might seem a little arbitrary or strange. (When was the last time you saw a display with an odd horizontal pixel count?)
Things get clearer when you realize that 1365x768 works out to a 16:9 aspect ratio, which is the standard for widescreen TV (and fairly close to the aspect ratio of most widescreen movies). It seems likely that the designers chose a nice "round" vertical pixel count (768), and simply multiplied it by 16/9 to get the 1365 that we now have.
Thing is, how "round" is 768, really? I mean, sure it's a nice multiple of 2^8, but consider:
High definition TV (US standard) has a vertical pixel count of 480, 720, or 1080. DVD has a vertical pixel count of 480. None of these will scale cleanly to 768. To get decent (but not great) picture quality, you'll have to do some fairly sophisticated bilinear or bicubic resampling, or -- in the case of a 720p signal -- be willing to tolerate a small black border in order to get as sharp a picture as possible.
I'm wondering why the designers didn't choose, say, 720, 960, or 1080 as the vertical pixel count instead. Any of these choices would have made for optimal image quality in at least one format. But as it stands, the display is a "jack of all trades, master of none" -- and needlessly so, at that.
Anyone care to enlighten me on this design decision? --
Slashdot Mirror
VirtualDub is in my opinion the best application of its kind, commercial or otherwise. I use it on a daily basis, and it gives me precise and total control over my video processing. Not to mention the unbelievable assembly-optimized speed! VirtualDub is truly the Photoshop of video capture and linear editing.
Those interested in VirtualDub might want to check out the new Unofficial Virtualdub Support Forums. They're a good place to get tips and help if you're just getting started with VirtualDub. Even though they're not "official" VirtualDub forums, VirtualDub author Avery Lee does drop by every once in a while.
(Disclosure: I am one of the volunteer moderators on the site, in the newly inaugurated and not-yet-very-active VirtualDub Development Forum.)
Dammit, what kind of nonsense is that?! It's back to drams and stone for me!
There really are very few basic, basic units, and the kilogram is currently the only one which still relies on an actual physical prototype....
Don't you mean the gram? The kilogram is not a basic unit.
You are assuming the pixels are square or otherwise equal dimensions horozontally and vertically. They may not be. For example, the Nikon D1X has rectangular sensor pits... twice the resolution horozontally than vertically. (The D1 and D1H had square sensors, and the D1X doubled the number horozontally in the same space, but has the same number vertically) D1X images are 3008x1960, but the sensor is 4,024 x 1,324.
Yes, I am indeed assuming that the pixels are square, but then again, so are you! Note that in my original post, I was talking about the pixel dimensions of an image from the camera -- not the raw pixel dimensions of the CCD, which are irrelevant to this discussion. I guessed the pixel dimensions to be 4096x2688. Assuming a target aspect ratio of exactly 1.5:1 (35mm standard), this produces pixels that are square within a 2% tolerance. (Or, looking at it the other way around, if you assume that the pixels are perfectly square, this results in a very slightly wide image, with an aspect ratio of ~1.52:1.)
In your Nikon D1X "counterexample", you quoted image pixel dimensions of 3008x1960. Well guess what: assuming the same 1.5:1 target aspect ratio, your example is also just over 2% of being perfectly square! (Or, if assumed to be perfectly square, it produces an aspect ratio of ~1.53:1.)
I should add that tolerances of 2% are really not significant, because even 35mm film almost always produces images that are a little wider than the nominal 1.5:1 ratio.
All of the digital cameras I've ever seen produce square pixels, whether the target aspect ratio is 1.5:1 or a more computer-friendly 4:3. Can you point to a real counterexample?
Given that the camera was quoted as having "11.1 megapixel" resolution, and that the nominal aspect ratio of 35mm film is exactly 1.5:1, I'd guess that the pixel dimensions of an image from this camera are 4096x2688. (This works out to 11,010,048 pixels.)
To get as close as possible to 11.1 megapixels while retaining a nice horizontal dimension of 4096 pixels, the vertical dimension would have to be 2710 pixels. However, 2710 isn't a typical "round" binary number, so the actual dimension is likely to be 2688 (11.01 MP), 2752 (11.27 MP), or 2816 (11.53 MP).
No, two: side A and side B.
This is shamelessly stolen from Fredric Brown's excellent 1954 short story Answer.
The TiVo software has a feature called the Season Pass Manager, which is basically conflict management. It's a screen with a list of all your Season Passes that lets move shows up or down in priority. Shows that have higher priority will always take precedence over shows that have lower priority when they're both on at the same time.
Season Passes have other features as well, such as the 28-day rule and "keep at most".
The 28-day rule ensures that the same episode of a show (or in the case of movies, the same movie) will never be recorded twice in 28 days. This is useful for programs that shown multiple times a day.
"Keep at most" forces the TiVo recorder to never have more than N episodes of a certain show recorded. For example, you may have a Season Pass to the daily 7:00 news, but if you're gone for several days, you don't want several days worth of old news backed up on your recorder. So you set that season pass to "Keep at most 1". That way, only the latest episode of the Season Pass will occupy space on your recorder.
The $199 lifetime subscription promotion is valid only for units that had an active monthly subscription to the TiVo service as of 11:59pm PST on February 25, 2002 -- the day before the price increase was initially announced on the TiVo Community Forum by TiVo spokesperson Richard Bullwinkle.
Space Quest I and Leisure Suit Larry 1, as well as Police Quest I and Quest for Glory I, were all remade with 256-color VGA graphics, a mouse-only interface, but no speech (using the SCIV interpreter).
King's Quest I, on the other hand, was remade with 320x200 16-color EGA graphics (the original had 160x200 16-color EGA/Tandy/PCjr graphics), a primarily-text interface, and also no speech (using the SCI0 interpreter).
It is not clear at this point whether the rumored new Space Quest release will be a completely new game or a remake. Sierra has a long history of doing remakes, so I would not be quick to rule out the latter possibility.
Those who might be interested in remakes of classic Sierra adventures should definitely check out Tierra Entertainment. Tierra is basically a bunch of old Sierra game fanatics who are trying to revive the adventure game genre by remaking classic Sierra titles, as well as creating new ones.
So far, they have actually completed a remake of the original King's Quest [I], with VGA-like graphics and full speech. Technology- and interface-wise, the game looks and plays roughly like KQ5. They even managed to get the guy who voiced King Graham in KQ5 to voice him in their remake of KQ1!They have several other games currently under development, including:
I discovered them a few months ago, and was very impressed by what they had accomplished. I would highly recommend that any classic Sierra adventure game fans give them the support and encouragement they deserve.
They are using a game engine called Adventure Game Studio, which has been used by others to create other Sierra-like adventure games as well.
Don't forget Scrubs and Undeclared, the latter of which, unfortunately, is in danger of being canceled.
Scrubs, on the other hand, has just been renewed for a second season. Dr. Cox r00lz!
XP? When you say "XP", what are you referring to? Word XP? Excel XP? Office XP? Or perhaps you're referring to Windows XP -- in which case, why, you should say "Windows XP".
This is *almost* as bad as referring to Windows 2000 as "2000". Whenever someone tells me that so-and-so "doesn't run under 2000", I tell them that it's a good thing 2000 is over.
There was no MGA before the CGA. There was an MDA, but that didn't do graphics. You might be thinking of the HGC (Hercules Graphics Controller), which was MDA-compatible but could do a cool 720x348 in black-and-white.
MGA nowadays actually refers to Matrox Graphics Adapter.
True, but it's still available in some stores, so grab one while you still can.
The good news is that there are several other remotes that are also JP1-compatible. It's just that the 15-1994 seems to be the most popular one for JP1 hacking (this will inevitably change as the supply runs dry), and it's the one I own. It has a nice button layout and overall feel, and I find the backlighting indispensable.
Hey, you're the first person who's ever acknowledged my sig! Hail!
I should have been more clear in my original post. The 15-1994 does have X10 capability, but only of the IR type, not RF. However, you can use it with an IR543 Infrared Mini-Controller (~$23) to get full RF X10 capability.
Get yourself a Radio Shack 15-1994 6-in-1 Smart A/V Remote, hack it with a JP1 Interface, and for under $50, you've bought yourself an infinitely customizable IR remote (with X10 capability!), and with all nice tactile hard buttons to boot!
Star Wars 2: Electric Boogaloo
Actually, I *loved* the interface.
As did I! Perhaps you misunderstood my original post. I consider the Fate interface the pinnacle of adventure game UI design. This was before LucasArts decided to dumb things down (Sam and Max Hit the Road, Full Throttle, The Dig, and so on).
The on-screen non-dismissable interface used in Fate and other classic LucasArts adventures may have taken up a significant amount of screen real estate, but it had the happy advantage of making the play area "widescreen", which made for a more cinematic experience. Clearly, this was intentional, because the aspect ratio was defined in a precise way, by dividing the screen at literally an odd point.
--
You're correct. There were eight Crusades, all in all. The one depicted in the movie would have been the ninth (and thus the last).
--
That's 320x200. World of a difference (320x240 has a full 20% more pixels than 320x200!).
Interestingly, the actual game area, if you subtract the area used for the verb-and-inventory UI, was far smaller: 320x143. That works out to a visual aspect ratio of 1.86:1, which is suspiciously close to 1.85:1, a standard aspect ratio used in many movies today. Fate of Atlantis was a bona-fide widescreen game, folks!
For those keeping score, that's yet another reason to consider the classic pre-dumbed-down SCUMM interface the pinnacle of adventure game UI design.
BTW, in case anyone was wondering, the Indy movies were all shot using Panavision, an anamorphic process that produces an even wider aspect ratio of 2.35:1.
--
So use the last four digits of the actual phone number of an actual person listed in your PDA. Someone I know does that.
--
At first glance, the 1365x768 pixel dimensions might seem a little arbitrary or strange. (When was the last time you saw a display with an odd horizontal pixel count?)
Things get clearer when you realize that 1365x768 works out to a 16:9 aspect ratio, which is the standard for widescreen TV (and fairly close to the aspect ratio of most widescreen movies). It seems likely that the designers chose a nice "round" vertical pixel count (768), and simply multiplied it by 16/9 to get the 1365 that we now have.
Thing is, how "round" is 768, really? I mean, sure it's a nice multiple of 2^8, but consider:
High definition TV (US standard) has a vertical pixel count of 480, 720, or 1080. DVD has a vertical pixel count of 480. None of these will scale cleanly to 768. To get decent (but not great) picture quality, you'll have to do some fairly sophisticated bilinear or bicubic resampling, or -- in the case of a 720p signal -- be willing to tolerate a small black border in order to get as sharp a picture as possible.
I'm wondering why the designers didn't choose, say, 720, 960, or 1080 as the vertical pixel count instead. Any of these choices would have made for optimal image quality in at least one format. But as it stands, the display is a "jack of all trades, master of none" -- and needlessly so, at that.
Anyone care to enlighten me on this design decision?
--
IIRC, Buffalo 66, in independent film that which used the same effect in one key scene towards the end, came out before any of those ads.
--
Games before VGA:
- Ultima III: Exodus (CGA: 320x200x4c)
- SimCity (64K EGA: 640x350x16c)
- King's Quest IV: The Perils of Rosella (64K EGA: 320x200x16c)
- Test Drive (EGA: 320x200x16c)
--