After rooting it, you need to put it in true bridge mode and get a real router. That's what works. There were manual instructions for rooting at one time on that site. I don't know where to look
DMZ is not as clean as true bridge mode. And in many cases, there are protocols that just don't work. And then the modem/router is processing the packets and you're more bound by its (crappy) CPU.
You beat me to it. Thankfully, I don't have one. But if you do and you're stuck on AT&T, there is a good workaround (finally). It lets you have root via telnet and you can get true bridge mode. http://www.ron-berman.com/2011...
Artificially inflating the price of Internet and then giving a bundling discount is the same as forcing you to pay for the cable package. Don't look at the $0 on the column on the right. It's a dummy number.
It was broadband that killed that. The software (those distros, anyway) was free anyway unless you wanted support. As soon as it was easier and cheaper to download at home, that's what people did.
But even doing the maintenance and eating up the savings is fine if it doesn't come out taking longer overall. You spent the same amount of time working, but didn't have to do anything dull or repetitive.
But running software on a mainframe requires you to have "power...in an organization." Anyone can automate tasks from their own workstation without any authority needed.
Yes - the TV's all have de-interlacers. A still frame on 1080i is 1920x540 upscaled to 1920x1080 and another 1920x540 upscaled to 1920x1080. It's not necessarily as sharp, depending on the content, because you're still interpolating to get beyond 540p.
I realize you meant slow-moving, and not a still frame, but the point sort of still stands. I don't know if temporal resolution gains really even out with the eye because of how the LCD changes from one from to the other. Some newer TV's are blanking the screen with black between frames (at 600Hz) trying to trick the eye into seeing it as smooth as phosphor.
If you think that's all a good de-interlacer does, you're really misinformed. The in-between lines are interpolated pretty well- and they do not leave any visible oscillation. If you're talking about sending interlaced video to a TV from a computer using a progressive display resolution, you're doing it wrong. Either you send the display an interlaced video mode or you de-interlace it before sending it out.
Well, yes, that's precisely what CRTs did. They skipped the width of one scanline (a little more, or less, if not properly calibrated) between each scanline while rendering one field, then rendered the following field in between. This is still the only *proper* way to de-interlace interlaced video, anything else is just compensating for not knowing if the content its display is (properly) interlaced or not.
Again, it's not the only proper way. Modern de-interlacing algorithms aren't just in media player software - they're on any LCD TV. And they certainly go beyond simply weaving fields. De-interlaced video looks better than interlaced display on even high-resolution phosphor. The television doesn't compensate for not knowing - the television is told by the signal it's getting whether the content is interlaced or not.
I'm aware that some content is shot interlaced, but that does not matter here. You're oversimplifying by saying they're just lower-res frames; they're also comprised of alternating lines of the scene, and treating them simply as lower-res frames leads to (and I'm repeating myself, here) an image that appears to oscillate at your framerate (up on the even fields and down on the odd)
You're talking about the alignment of the half-resolution frame. The TV's already account for that. With modern de-interlacing algorithms, it's much easier to just think of it as double-framerate at half-resolution, since that's what the TV will do. That's what CRT's essentially did, but had phosphor fade to help them.
It's been slowly changing. Sports shot on video have traditionally (since the 60's) been shot at 60Hz (59.94 since color TV). When ATSC first came about, your choices were 720p at 29.97 (30p) or 1080i at 59.94 (60i). The natural choice was 1080i.
A lot of those decisions were made when HDTV's were still mostly CRT. So 1080i really did look a lot better - even on 720 sets.
My local NBC and CBS affiliate are still 1080i. ABC and Fox are 720p (presumably 60p).
720p60 is definitely sharper on LCD TV's (because interlaced video doesn't display well on LCD). But I don't see 1080i going away and throwing out all of the horizontal resolution either. Especially for 24p content that's pulled down (and is actually progressive underneath).
In native interlaced content, you are wrong. You're talking about film content that's been converted to an interlaced signal. A lot of drama TV was shot on film, but live content and many sitcoms were shot on native interlaced video. I was also referring to this video captured in native interlaced format - in that case, both fields are not halves of the same frame. They are two lower-resolution frames. They are displayed at the same time on interlaced CRT televisions, due to the first field not being completely faded while the second is being drawn. Most progressive TV's will upscale each field to 1080p (de-interlace) and only one field displays at a time - but at 60 frames per second. For film content, a good TV will reverse the 3:2 pulldown and upscale from the full image.
I was simplifying to not get into heavy detail. Yes, it's 59.94 fields per second. The point still stands - double the temporal resolution.
Or, you could really think of it as 540p60, and imagine that it's up to the TV to figure out how to display it. Interlacing isn't actually a thing done by TV hardware when it receives that signal anyway.
That doesn't apply to all DVD's. The ones encoded with 3:2 pulldown should have all 480p worth of image data spread across the fields. The progressive players will reverse the pulldown, get a 480p image, and then re-do pulldown for the TV (unless TV and player support 24p output). Not all progressive players actually do that. Another marketing term used to give false impressions.
The compromise was between TV's 4:3 (almost exactly film's original ratio) and 1.85:1 (non-anamorphic film ratio). Cinemascope/anamorphic didn't really factor into it.
Slashdot Mirror
After rooting it, you need to put it in true bridge mode and get a real router. That's what works. There were manual instructions for rooting at one time on that site. I don't know where to look
DMZ is not as clean as true bridge mode. And in many cases, there are protocols that just don't work. And then the modem/router is processing the packets and you're more bound by its (crappy) CPU.
You beat me to it. Thankfully, I don't have one. But if you do and you're stuck on AT&T, there is a good workaround (finally). It lets you have root via telnet and you can get true bridge mode.
http://www.ron-berman.com/2011...
Artificially inflating the price of Internet and then giving a bundling discount is the same as forcing you to pay for the cable package. Don't look at the $0 on the column on the right. It's a dummy number.
It was broadband that killed that. The software (those distros, anyway) was free anyway unless you wanted support. As soon as it was easier and cheaper to download at home, that's what people did.
So they've succeeded - and matched Microsoft's incompetence. Isn't that what it takes to go mainstream?
Distinction - 2014 is the year of the Linux Post-Desktop Era...
But even doing the maintenance and eating up the savings is fine if it doesn't come out taking longer overall. You spent the same amount of time working, but didn't have to do anything dull or repetitive.
I didn't forget. He tripled productivity! I was going to post a reference myself, but I decided to crowdsource it. Does that count as automation?
Welcome to Slashdot.
But running software on a mainframe requires you to have "power...in an organization." Anyone can automate tasks from their own workstation without any authority needed.
But who automates the automaters?
Way to miss the point. They are essentially two frames being displayed at once. The signal resolution was not what was being discussed.
The above is for anything that wasn't shot 24p, of course.
Yes - the TV's all have de-interlacers. A still frame on 1080i is 1920x540 upscaled to 1920x1080 and another 1920x540 upscaled to 1920x1080. It's not necessarily as sharp, depending on the content, because you're still interpolating to get beyond 540p.
I realize you meant slow-moving, and not a still frame, but the point sort of still stands. I don't know if temporal resolution gains really even out with the eye because of how the LCD changes from one from to the other. Some newer TV's are blanking the screen with black between frames (at 600Hz) trying to trick the eye into seeing it as smooth as phosphor.
If the fields are upscaled (height doubled)
If you think that's all a good de-interlacer does, you're really misinformed. The in-between lines are interpolated pretty well- and they do not leave any visible oscillation. If you're talking about sending interlaced video to a TV from a computer using a progressive display resolution, you're doing it wrong. Either you send the display an interlaced video mode or you de-interlace it before sending it out.
Well, yes, that's precisely what CRTs did. They skipped the width of one scanline (a little more, or less, if not properly calibrated) between each scanline while rendering one field, then rendered the following field in between. This is still the only *proper* way to de-interlace interlaced video, anything else is just compensating for not knowing if the content its display is (properly) interlaced or not.
Again, it's not the only proper way. Modern de-interlacing algorithms aren't just in media player software - they're on any LCD TV. And they certainly go beyond simply weaving fields. De-interlaced video looks better than interlaced display on even high-resolution phosphor. The television doesn't compensate for not knowing - the television is told by the signal it's getting whether the content is interlaced or not.
I'm aware that some content is shot interlaced, but that does not matter here. You're oversimplifying by saying they're just lower-res frames; they're also comprised of alternating lines of the scene, and treating them simply as lower-res frames leads to (and I'm repeating myself, here)
an image that appears to oscillate at your framerate (up on the even fields and down on the odd)
You're talking about the alignment of the half-resolution frame. The TV's already account for that. With modern de-interlacing algorithms, it's much easier to just think of it as double-framerate at half-resolution, since that's what the TV will do. That's what CRT's essentially did, but had phosphor fade to help them.
It's been slowly changing. Sports shot on video have traditionally (since the 60's) been shot at 60Hz (59.94 since color TV). When ATSC first came about, your choices were 720p at 29.97 (30p) or 1080i at 59.94 (60i). The natural choice was 1080i.
A lot of those decisions were made when HDTV's were still mostly CRT. So 1080i really did look a lot better - even on 720 sets.
My local NBC and CBS affiliate are still 1080i. ABC and Fox are 720p (presumably 60p).
720p60 is definitely sharper on LCD TV's (because interlaced video doesn't display well on LCD). But I don't see 1080i going away and throwing out all of the horizontal resolution either. Especially for 24p content that's pulled down (and is actually progressive underneath).
They're not drawn at the same time. Only half of the picture is drawn every 1/60th of a second.
In native interlaced content, you are wrong. You're talking about film content that's been converted to an interlaced signal. A lot of drama TV was shot on film, but live content and many sitcoms were shot on native interlaced video. I was also referring to this video captured in native interlaced format - in that case, both fields are not halves of the same frame. They are two lower-resolution frames. They are displayed at the same time on interlaced CRT televisions, due to the first field not being completely faded while the second is being drawn. Most progressive TV's will upscale each field to 1080p (de-interlace) and only one field displays at a time - but at 60 frames per second. For film content, a good TV will reverse the 3:2 pulldown and upscale from the full image.
I was simplifying to not get into heavy detail. Yes, it's 59.94 fields per second. The point still stands - double the temporal resolution.
Or, you could really think of it as 540p60, and imagine that it's up to the TV to figure out how to display it. Interlacing isn't actually a thing done by TV hardware when it receives that signal anyway.
That would be the case if it was vertical gaps. This renders with horizontal gaps. There are 1080 lines in each half frame, but only 960 columns.
Last time I checked, that phrase is still going strong. Course, I haven't checked in 5 years or so.
That doesn't apply to all DVD's. The ones encoded with 3:2 pulldown should have all 480p worth of image data spread across the fields. The progressive players will reverse the pulldown, get a 480p image, and then re-do pulldown for the TV (unless TV and player support 24p output). Not all progressive players actually do that. Another marketing term used to give false impressions.
The compromise was between TV's 4:3 (almost exactly film's original ratio) and 1.85:1 (non-anamorphic film ratio). Cinemascope/anamorphic didn't really factor into it.