And with a cinema I only get 24fps - enough that I don't see the different.
Fine for film, but not for anything else. Sports in particular.
Most new TVs are 16:9, and most digital channels are transmitted in 576 lines, 16:9 aspect ratio.
You missed the point. You can stretch it to widescreen, but that doesn't really improve anything, you've still got your 768x576 (max) resolution. With HDTV, you have square pixels, so the horizontal is much, much higher resolution than standard PAL.
human eye can't tell the difference. If the flicker bothers you then it can be fixed with a 100Hz CRT or an LCD.
Haha! Is this some sort of European propoganda spread in PAL countries?
Logic test: Tell me this. If your eye can't see the difference in 60fps, then why are flicker-free TVs 100Hz, rather than 50Hz? Or is 50-60 the magic point where your eye can't see the difference?
Besides, as you said, that's only the LOWEST of the HD resolutions. 1080 is a much, much larger jump... 3.5+ times the resolution of PAL, plus a much higher framerate (which you can see, BTW).
5760x3240 are 18.66 million pixels, 9 times as much as you are physically able to see even if you stick your head so close to the screen that you see only the screen and nothing else.
The movie studios must be made up of complete idiots (making millions), because they insist on resolutions of 4096x2160, which, according to you, is about 2X higher-res than any humans can actually SEE. And there, people aren't right up against the screens, they're a good distance away, so they must really be insane...
Either that, or you simply don't have your facts straight.
We have a multi-billion dollar industry on one hand, and an anonymous, random/.er on the other... Tough choice on who to assume is mistaken.
If we assume a smaller viewing angle (for example if you place the TV across the room) DVD is already pretty close to the limit of the eye
Sorry, but that doesn't even pass the laugh test. You're saying people can't tell the difference between HDTV and NTSC if it's a bit across the room? I think you've got your numbers wrong, or perhaps don't understand what they really mean.
Oh, I should mention that in MPEG-2 video, chroma is 4:2:0 subsampled, so only fraction of the resolution is color.
Actually it would make MUCH MORE SENSE to display more pictures per second than to up the resolution.
Which is something the HDTV standard also does. 720p is 60fps.
Right, "HDTV" 42" plasma with 1024 x 768 -- I looked at that TV in person and smaller text in HD content was very hard to read. On my 24" monitor with 1600x1200 resolution it was very sharp and far more detailed.
Solution: Don't buy a plasma display. Stick with LCD or CRT HDTVs (like the one I linked to).
Also, take HD and compress it with xvid or any modern codec (i.e. not format), keeping the resolution the same and a high enough bitrate and you can get indistinguishable quality from just 10GB per movie that is playable on even the most basic computers (1ghz plays just fine).
Since HD-DVD/Blu-ray use VC-1/H.264, Xvid is the primitive codec here... You're proposing reducing the bitrate by about 3X, and re-encoding to a less advanced codec at the same time.
That plan of yours will certainly work, if you don't mind turning your nice clean HD movies into blurry, blocky crap.
Storage is cheap, everyone knows that.
Discs are cheaper than hard drives. Everyone knows that.
Wonder why those TV sets under 35 inches do not support HDTV? Only the wealthy can afford them.
Really? Could have fooled me.
Now try to convince them to spend thousands of dollars on an HDTV system to play Blu-Ray and HD-DVD disks
I hate to tell you, but the poorest of the poor don't dictate what format becomes popular... As you said, if they did, VHS would still be the standard. HD-DVD/Blu-ray can get very popular, without these terribly poor people.
This is the BetaMax vs. VHS wars all over again.
Not even close. Sony learned it's lesson from Betamax, and is now the one with the most open standard, with widespread support. I'm not suggesting which one will win, but the situation isn't anything like VHS vs. Betamax.
You buy a MythTV box for around $500, and you have a player capable of playing 10x the quality of HD-DVD and Blueray with far superior capacity.
"10x the quality" my ass... The highest-end CPUs right now can just barely handle realtime playback of H.264 at 1080... I'd love to see what kind of framerate you'll get on 5760x3240 material (only 9x higher res).
and download anything you want
People don't want to buy a movie, then have to delete it because their hard drive is full. Let's use the example of a dual-layer blu-ray disc... Just how many 50GB movies can you store on your hard drive in your $500 MythTV system, and how much does that hard drive cost??? Who will pay even $5 for a movie, when costs them $25 for the hard drive space to save it? If anything, people would buy burners, and start storing their movies on discs... Selling the discs cuts out the middle man, and saves everyone's time and money.
My monitor is capable of displaying 1600x1200 [...] I get BETTER quality on this cheap monitor than I get if I spend $10k and for what?
Not only is that not 10x the resolution of HDTV, it can't even display 1080 material. A very cheap HDTV will be higher resolution than your monitor, and even cheaper than an equivalent-sized monitor. Point me to a 50" computer monitor for under $1,000.
Believe me, if you spent $10k, you'd get a display that would put your monitor to shame.
I am really amazed your stupid, baseless, factually incorrect rant got modded up.
You can talk about the limits of analog and horizontal resolution if you want, but then I'll have to bring up the fact DVD's MPEG-2 is 4:2:0 chroma subsampled... You can't compare the two exactly, but it really was close to 2X.
If they buy an HD-DVD or BluRay player, it's not really going to look any better unless they buy a new HD TV.
There are a lot of people who own HDTVs already. Those that don't, will in the next few years. Witness the popularity of "progressive scan" DVD players, Composite video outputs, etc.
DVD sound is great - and I have to ask, how much better can the sound actually get with HD-DVD? We're back into CD vs SACD territory there.
No, actually were back to MP3 vs CD territory.
Until one HD format is settled on, I think most people will steer clear
You can think what you want, but it's just opinion. A large number of people could flock to one format or the other, and the competition could be pretty well settled in the first month.
Having the same physical dimentions, using the same video codecs, etc., it's exceedingly obvious that dual-format players will appear in a short ammount of time, so it really isn't a VHS vs. Betamax format war. You can buy into whichever has the cheaper/better movies, and know you'll be able to still find a compatible player for them in 10 years. DVD-R vs. DVD+R didn't exactly stop people from buying burners.
The step between 576 and 720 (PAL => cheap HD) is not as impressive, though.
Except with PAL you only have 25fps and it's 4/3. With HD at 720p you get 60fps (a HUGE improvement) and it's 16/9, which is also a nice improvement.
it's generally accepted to consider a 320x240 video to be of VCR quality. I think that's a fair approximation.
The horizontal is somewhat debatable, but the vertical isn't. VHS very simply has 480 lines. 320x480 is much more accurate (although 352x480 is the most common).
You can't state 6x between DVD and HD AND 2x between VHS and DVD. That's mixing apples and oranges.
The switch from VHS to DVD was analog to digital, but so is the switch from NTSC TVs to HDTVs... You can't ever have a perfect comparison, but I can't find any reason someone could consider my comparison unfair.
Ordinary DVDs, say both sides, are not big enough to cope with HDTV's memory-intensive images.
Of course they would say that, both sides have invested significant money in the newer formats competing with DVDs. You might as well ask Shell and BP if consumers are ready for all-electric cars...
Current DVDs are, in-fact, large enough to support HD content... just look at Terminator 2, any IMAX DVDs, or other WMVHD DVDs. The Chinese EVD standard could have had HD content on DVDs 6 years ago (in VP6 format) if it hadn't completely stalled. HP even insisted that the Blu-ray standard include support for HD content on current dual-layer DVDs, which should look just fine if encoded in H.264.
That's not to say I'm against a new format. It's just that, if the public resists Blu-ray and HD-DVD because of DRM that is too restrictive (like only having HDMI outputs, not being able to make backup copies, etc), high prices on content or players, or uncertainty over competing formats, you can bet that current DVDs will be able to pick up the slack, and become a high-def format.
We don't toss them out as being wrong because we don't need ultra-high precision for most activities.
We do, in fact, toss out old theories, when something more accurate comes along. You aren't still assuming that gravity is instantaneous, so you've obviously thrown-out Newtonian physics, so to speak.
Quantum mechanics works on the small scale, while relativity works on the large and high speed scales. They all have their applicable zones.
Not true at all. An accurate theory can be scaled up and down as needed. Electro-magnatism comes to mind.
That is how all of physics works. Do you have any experience whatsoever in the field?
Current theories need to be handled that way, but only because they are, provably, incorrect in some ways.
You can whine all you want, but you can't change that simple fact.
Just because it has happened in the past doesn't mean it will happen again,
Never bet against the house.
That it has happened repeatedly in the past does not prove it will happen in the future, sure... But it does provide for very good odds that it will.
There aren't any case where faster than c phenomenon have been observed.
Not true at all. How about a complete waveform exiting an object before it has been completely sent? How about nonlocality/spooky action at a distance?
There is no basis for saying that "because relativity is known to fail in certain regimes, it may fail in its most accurate regime."
Sure there is. It's strong evidence that the theory is incomplete, or that it's basis is flawed. It's nonsense to say that a theory can apply "here", but not "there"...
I think that now is a good time to invest in an HTPC.
I thought so too... but that was about 4 years ago, now.
I would strongly suggest getting the fastest processor you can afford. The H.264 codec (used by Quicktime trailers, HD-DVD, Blu-ray, etc.) is incredibly CPU-intensive, and needs all the power you can give it.
There are significantly more pedestrian deaths in the U.S. _every_year_ than the World Trade Center deaths but I don't see people getting all weepy over it.
I can understand your cynicism, but personally, I'm amazed there aren't more deaths. I have seen so many idiots on foot, wearing all-black clothing, running across roads, ignoring the crosswalk just a few feet away, crossing against a "Do Not Walk" as cars slam on their breaks in-front of a green light to avoid the brainless moron on-foot, etc.
traded my SUV in for a mini-van that is about the same weight and gets about the same miles per gallon
While that may have been your situation, it's simply rarely the case. Mivivans are almost always lighter than SUVs or trucks (for good reason), and usually have smaller more fuel effecient engines (also for good reason). The fact that generalizations aren't always correct, doesn't mean they're not valid to begin with.
Instead of exploiting loops holes, non-US manufacturers developed hybrids and high efficiency vehicals. SO now while US car companies are in trouble, foreign car companies are gathering up more market share. Just another sign that US business leadership is screwed.
I hate to ruin your anti-American company rant here, but Ford happens to be one of the biggest innovators in hybrid technologies. Their hybrid tech is even licensed even by these amazingly wonderful foreign car companies you speak of.
Also, hybrids are getting a hell of a lot of hype, but there's no substance to it. You can get better fuel effeciency from a conventional engine, without the electronics, if people were willing to accept the same poor acceleration from lower priced conventional cars.
Hybrids have a greatly increased purchase price, much higher cost of maintenance, etc., which largely eliminates their fuel advantage. Right now, it seems to be the type of car to buy to make a political statement, and nothing more.
I'm not trying to bash hybrids (though I won't ever be buying one) but simply trying to make the point that it may very well turn out that the hybrid makers are going for the real short-term profits, and perhaps the US car companies may have the more tenable long-term position.
Simply because we would like to go somewhere and come back within our normal lifetimes doesn't mean it is possible.
True, but that isn't the question you posed... which I was responding to. That is still WHY people WANT to travel faster than light.
c is the universal speed limit.
History has shown that it's best to bet AGAINST the current scientific theories, as they will all be disproven eventually. There are many cases where faster-than-light phenomenon can be observered, and there are many cases where relativity falls down. I see no reason to believe that C is in-fact the universal speed limit.
It provides 720 x 480 interlaced and in many cases (ie if the source is not a TV program) that can be deinterlaced quite well.
Movies and animation are *not* interlaced, they are telecined (aka 3:2 pulldown) to be played back on interlaced displays. The difference being that soft-telecined material (most DVDs) is still progressive and doesn't need anything done to it to playback progressive. Hard-telecined material (eg. broadcasts) need a decent inverse telecine filter to return the content to progressive frames without artifacts, but it's still much easier to do than actual deinterlacing (which require intensive motion-adaptive analysis).
(For reference although it is an analog standard which makes it difficult to quantify, you would often get about the equivalent of 320 x 240 resolution from an NTSC source like laserdisc. You also have issues of chroma noise and other distractions). You're off by about a factor of 4. Laserdiscs aren't quite as high-res as DVDs, but rather close to it. There's no question they're a hell of a lot higher than 320x240. The reference I found says 567 x 480 which sounds quite close.
Laserdiscs (IIRC) also have a full chroma channel, unlike the 4:2:0 subsampled chroma of MPEG-2 used in DVDs.
My suspicion is that DVD could prevail over HD-DVD and Bluray just like audio CD has prevailed over SACD and DVD-Audio. Part of the equation is that it is good enough.
With SACD and DVD-Audio, people literally can't hear any difference. Few people can hear frequencies above what CDs can offer, so most literally just can't tell the difference.
HDTV is a different situation entirely. Anybody that isn't legally blind can certainly tell the difference between 720x480 and 1920x1080, so "good enough" doesn't describe the HDTV situation at all.
BluRay and HD-DVD can fail for a number of reason. DRM that is too restrictive (like only having HDMI outputs, not being able to make backup copies, etc). Consumer hesitation over buying into competing formats. Slow adoption of HD displays. etc. But I believe the deciding factor, well above and beyond all else, will be price... If studios think they can charge 2X as much for BluRay and HD-DVD discs as they do for DVDs right now, they may be in for a surprise. People may very well stick with DVDs. Dual-layer DVDs with 1080 video in WMV/H.264 could end up being the main home-video format for the next 30 years if BluRay/HD-DVD don't do this right.
It's a plain old disk transport and a bit of decoding electronics -- just like every DVD player already on the shelves.
It's not junh "a bit of decoding electronics". Decoding h.264 at 1080i is too CPU intensive for all but the very fastest PCs on the market right now. It would only slightly surprise me if they really had a full PC motherboard in that thing, with DDR memory, etc.
They need a hell of a lot of very fast (and hot) components in that thing to decode 1080 video in VC-1, and much, much more to handle H.264/AVC.
According to the HDTV Primer, it doesn't sound like 1080p gives you THAT much better performance than 1080i except to reduce flicker
You've got a terrible source there. 1080i vs. 1080p goes back to progressive vs interlacing, and is not about flicker at all.
With interlacing, you have pretty much the full resolution with a mostly-still picture, but with the camera panning, and objects moving around on the screen, you're really only getting half the vertical resolution.
You have problems like spatial/temporal aliasing due to interlacing, which you don't get with progressive video.
Then there is the "judder" you get when watching movies/animation interlaced, due to 3:2 pulldown.
You didn't mention it, but the article you copied also mentions: the jumpiness that currently plagues 1080i.
What do these shows have in common? These are great shows that were killed before their time due to poor decisions of TV execs.
Farscape started out as a really amazing show, but got so off-the-wall stupid and devolved into a lot of out-of-character petty bickering and an extensive love story that it was so bad as to be unwatchable, by about the 4th season, IIRC. "The Peacekeeper Wars" was so bad I wish I could un-watch it.
Now, perhaps the execs somehow caused that to happen (getting rid of writers, drastically cutting funds, etc) but I really can't say Farscape was killed before it's time. If anything, I would have liked to see it put out of it's misery a season or two earlier.
Family Guy was a great show, but unfortunately, has returned as a shadow of it's former self. About half the shows are decent, and only a fraction of those are "good". If they can't do any better for Futurama, perhaps it would be better off staying dead. (Sorry guys)
There are a great many conflicts of interest in the computer industry... While VIA makes chipsets for Intel/AMD, they are also trying to push their own CPU at the same time. Sony hates Microsoft more than any other company that comes to mind, but would you like to guess what operating system their PCs and Notebooks run?
So long as you aren't too dependant on a company, you can hate them all you want. Microsoft is only buying a product from IBM, they don't have to love them to do so.
Nope. During the first antitrust trial, when it looked like Microsoft was really going to be split into two different companies, Bill resigned as CEO and took the new job (that he had just created) of the "Chief Software Architect" or something very similar to that.
I was never entirely sure of the real reason for him doing that, but it seemed to me that he wanted to make very sure which of the two Microsoft companies he would be head of.
Slashdot Mirror
Fine for film, but not for anything else. Sports in particular.
You missed the point. You can stretch it to widescreen, but that doesn't really improve anything, you've still got your 768x576 (max) resolution. With HDTV, you have square pixels, so the horizontal is much, much higher resolution than standard PAL.
Haha! Is this some sort of European propoganda spread in PAL countries?
Logic test: Tell me this. If your eye can't see the difference in 60fps, then why are flicker-free TVs 100Hz, rather than 50Hz? Or is 50-60 the magic point where your eye can't see the difference?
Besides, as you said, that's only the LOWEST of the HD resolutions. 1080 is a much, much larger jump... 3.5+ times the resolution of PAL, plus a much higher framerate (which you can see, BTW).
The movie studios must be made up of complete idiots (making millions), because they insist on resolutions of 4096x2160, which, according to you, is about 2X higher-res than any humans can actually SEE. And there, people aren't right up against the screens, they're a good distance away, so they must really be insane...
Either that, or you simply don't have your facts straight.
We have a multi-billion dollar industry on one hand, and an anonymous, random
Sorry, but that doesn't even pass the laugh test. You're saying people can't tell the difference between HDTV and NTSC if it's a bit across the room? I think you've got your numbers wrong, or perhaps don't understand what they really mean.
Oh, I should mention that in MPEG-2 video, chroma is 4:2:0 subsampled, so only fraction of the resolution is color.
Which is something the HDTV standard also does. 720p is 60fps.
Solution: Don't buy a plasma display. Stick with LCD or CRT HDTVs (like the one I linked to).
Since HD-DVD/Blu-ray use VC-1/H.264, Xvid is the primitive codec here... You're proposing reducing the bitrate by about 3X, and re-encoding to a less advanced codec at the same time.
That plan of yours will certainly work, if you don't mind turning your nice clean HD movies into blurry, blocky crap.
Discs are cheaper than hard drives. Everyone knows that.
$406.59 27" 1080i CRT, available at most Best Buy stores: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=700
Really? Could have fooled me.
I hate to tell you, but the poorest of the poor don't dictate what format becomes popular... As you said, if they did, VHS would still be the standard. HD-DVD/Blu-ray can get very popular, without these terribly poor people.
Not even close. Sony learned it's lesson from Betamax, and is now the one with the most open standard, with widespread support. I'm not suggesting which one will win, but the situation isn't anything like VHS vs. Betamax.
"10x the quality" my ass... The highest-end CPUs right now can just barely handle realtime playback of H.264 at 1080... I'd love to see what kind of framerate you'll get on 5760x3240 material (only 9x higher res).
People don't want to buy a movie, then have to delete it because their hard drive is full. Let's use the example of a dual-layer blu-ray disc... Just how many 50GB movies can you store on your hard drive in your $500 MythTV system, and how much does that hard drive cost??? Who will pay even $5 for a movie, when costs them $25 for the hard drive space to save it? If anything, people would buy burners, and start storing their movies on discs... Selling the discs cuts out the middle man, and saves everyone's time and money.
Not only is that not 10x the resolution of HDTV, it can't even display 1080 material. A very cheap HDTV will be higher resolution than your monitor, and even cheaper than an equivalent-sized monitor. Point me to a 50" computer monitor for under $1,000.
Believe me, if you spent $10k, you'd get a display that would put your monitor to shame.
I am really amazed your stupid, baseless, factually incorrect rant got modded up.
No, 352x480 to 720x480 is exactly 2X.
You can talk about the limits of analog and horizontal resolution if you want, but then I'll have to bring up the fact DVD's MPEG-2 is 4:2:0 chroma subsampled... You can't compare the two exactly, but it really was close to 2X.
There are a lot of people who own HDTVs already. Those that don't, will in the next few years. Witness the popularity of "progressive scan" DVD players, Composite video outputs, etc.
No, actually were back to MP3 vs CD territory.
You can think what you want, but it's just opinion. A large number of people could flock to one format or the other, and the competition could be pretty well settled in the first month.
Having the same physical dimentions, using the same video codecs, etc., it's exceedingly obvious that dual-format players will appear in a short ammount of time, so it really isn't a VHS vs. Betamax format war. You can buy into whichever has the cheaper/better movies, and know you'll be able to still find a compatible player for them in 10 years. DVD-R vs. DVD+R didn't exactly stop people from buying burners.
Except with PAL you only have 25fps and it's 4/3. With HD at 720p you get 60fps (a HUGE improvement) and it's 16/9, which is also a nice improvement.
The horizontal is somewhat debatable, but the vertical isn't. VHS very simply has 480 lines. 320x480 is much more accurate (although 352x480 is the most common).
The switch from VHS to DVD was analog to digital, but so is the switch from NTSC TVs to HDTVs... You can't ever have a perfect comparison, but I can't find any reason someone could consider my comparison unfair.
HDTV is 6 TIMES the resolution of DVDs. If you can't see the difference in a 6X resolution increase, you must be legally blind...
Seriously, the upgrade from VHS to DVDs was only about a 2X improvement, and people were constantly saying how much better DVDs looked.
I suspect you've never even seen HDTV content.
Of course they would say that, both sides have invested significant money in the newer formats competing with DVDs. You might as well ask Shell and BP if consumers are ready for all-electric cars...
Current DVDs are, in-fact, large enough to support HD content... just look at Terminator 2, any IMAX DVDs, or other WMVHD DVDs. The Chinese EVD standard could have had HD content on DVDs 6 years ago (in VP6 format) if it hadn't completely stalled. HP even insisted that the Blu-ray standard include support for HD content on current dual-layer DVDs, which should look just fine if encoded in H.264.
That's not to say I'm against a new format. It's just that, if the public resists Blu-ray and HD-DVD because of DRM that is too restrictive (like only having HDMI outputs, not being able to make backup copies, etc), high prices on content or players, or uncertainty over competing formats, you can bet that current DVDs will be able to pick up the slack, and become a high-def format.
We do, in fact, toss out old theories, when something more accurate comes along. You aren't still assuming that gravity is instantaneous, so you've obviously thrown-out Newtonian physics, so to speak.
Not true at all. An accurate theory can be scaled up and down as needed. Electro-magnatism comes to mind.
Current theories need to be handled that way, but only because they are, provably, incorrect in some ways.
You can whine all you want, but you can't change that simple fact.
Well, if that "single chip solution" happens to draw 500watts, that might also explain it (hugh heatsink, cooling fans, massive power supply).
;-)
Other than that... no idea. We'll find out in about a week when the first review site takes one apart
Never bet against the house.
That it has happened repeatedly in the past does not prove it will happen in the future, sure... But it does provide for very good odds that it will.
Not true at all. How about a complete waveform exiting an object before it has been completely sent? How about nonlocality/spooky action at a distance?
Sure there is. It's strong evidence that the theory is incomplete, or that it's basis is flawed. It's nonsense to say that a theory can apply "here", but not "there"...
Sorry to ruin it for you.
Personally, I'd turn-down the resolution to 720p, and use that instead (assuming your HDTV display is CRT-based and can do that natively).
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6029_7-6405160-1.htm
I thought so too... but that was about 4 years ago, now.
I would strongly suggest getting the fastest processor you can afford. The H.264 codec (used by Quicktime trailers, HD-DVD, Blu-ray, etc.) is incredibly CPU-intensive, and needs all the power you can give it.
I can understand your cynicism, but personally, I'm amazed there aren't more deaths. I have seen so many idiots on foot, wearing all-black clothing, running across roads, ignoring the crosswalk just a few feet away, crossing against a "Do Not Walk" as cars slam on their breaks in-front of a green light to avoid the brainless moron on-foot, etc.
While that may have been your situation, it's simply rarely the case. Mivivans are almost always lighter than SUVs or trucks (for good reason), and usually have smaller more fuel effecient engines (also for good reason). The fact that generalizations aren't always correct, doesn't mean they're not valid to begin with.
I hate to ruin your anti-American company rant here, but Ford happens to be one of the biggest innovators in hybrid technologies. Their hybrid tech is even licensed even by these amazingly wonderful foreign car companies you speak of.
Also, hybrids are getting a hell of a lot of hype, but there's no substance to it. You can get better fuel effeciency from a conventional engine, without the electronics, if people were willing to accept the same poor acceleration from lower priced conventional cars.
Hybrids have a greatly increased purchase price, much higher cost of maintenance, etc., which largely eliminates their fuel advantage. Right now, it seems to be the type of car to buy to make a political statement, and nothing more.
I'm not trying to bash hybrids (though I won't ever be buying one) but simply trying to make the point that it may very well turn out that the hybrid makers are going for the real short-term profits, and perhaps the US car companies may have the more tenable long-term position.
True, but that isn't the question you posed... which I was responding to. That is still WHY people WANT to travel faster than light.
History has shown that it's best to bet AGAINST the current scientific theories, as they will all be disproven eventually. There are many cases where faster-than-light phenomenon can be observered, and there are many cases where relativity falls down. I see no reason to believe that C is in-fact the universal speed limit.
Movies and animation are *not* interlaced, they are telecined (aka 3:2 pulldown) to be played back on interlaced displays. The difference being that soft-telecined material (most DVDs) is still progressive and doesn't need anything done to it to playback progressive. Hard-telecined material (eg. broadcasts) need a decent inverse telecine filter to return the content to progressive frames without artifacts, but it's still much easier to do than actual deinterlacing (which require intensive motion-adaptive analysis).
(For reference although it is an analog standard which makes it difficult to quantify, you would often get about the equivalent of 320 x 240 resolution from an NTSC source like laserdisc. You also have issues of chroma noise and other distractions).
You're off by about a factor of 4. Laserdiscs aren't quite as high-res as DVDs, but rather close to it. There's no question they're a hell of a lot higher than 320x240. The reference I found says 567 x 480 which sounds quite close.
Laserdiscs (IIRC) also have a full chroma channel, unlike the 4:2:0 subsampled chroma of MPEG-2 used in DVDs.
With SACD and DVD-Audio, people literally can't hear any difference. Few people can hear frequencies above what CDs can offer, so most literally just can't tell the difference.
HDTV is a different situation entirely. Anybody that isn't legally blind can certainly tell the difference between 720x480 and 1920x1080, so "good enough" doesn't describe the HDTV situation at all.
BluRay and HD-DVD can fail for a number of reason. DRM that is too restrictive (like only having HDMI outputs, not being able to make backup copies, etc). Consumer hesitation over buying into competing formats. Slow adoption of HD displays. etc. But I believe the deciding factor, well above and beyond all else, will be price... If studios think they can charge 2X as much for BluRay and HD-DVD discs as they do for DVDs right now, they may be in for a surprise. People may very well stick with DVDs. Dual-layer DVDs with 1080 video in WMV/H.264 could end up being the main home-video format for the next 30 years if BluRay/HD-DVD don't do this right.
Well, I feel retarded now... The last word is supposed to be "just"... Just one-key off on both accounts.
It's not junh "a bit of decoding electronics". Decoding h.264 at 1080i is too CPU intensive for all but the very fastest PCs on the market right now. It would only slightly surprise me if they really had a full PC motherboard in that thing, with DDR memory, etc.
They need a hell of a lot of very fast (and hot) components in that thing to decode 1080 video in VC-1, and much, much more to handle H.264/AVC.
You've got a terrible source there. 1080i vs. 1080p goes back to progressive vs interlacing, and is not about flicker at all.
With interlacing, you have pretty much the full resolution with a mostly-still picture, but with the camera panning, and objects moving around on the screen, you're really only getting half the vertical resolution.
You have problems like spatial/temporal aliasing due to interlacing, which you don't get with progressive video.
Then there is the "judder" you get when watching movies/animation interlaced, due to 3:2 pulldown.
You didn't mention it, but the article you copied also mentions: the jumpiness that currently plagues 1080i.
Farscape started out as a really amazing show, but got so off-the-wall stupid and devolved into a lot of out-of-character petty bickering and an extensive love story that it was so bad as to be unwatchable, by about the 4th season, IIRC. "The Peacekeeper Wars" was so bad I wish I could un-watch it.
Now, perhaps the execs somehow caused that to happen (getting rid of writers, drastically cutting funds, etc) but I really can't say Farscape was killed before it's time. If anything, I would have liked to see it put out of it's misery a season or two earlier.
Family Guy was a great show, but unfortunately, has returned as a shadow of it's former self. About half the shows are decent, and only a fraction of those are "good". If they can't do any better for Futurama, perhaps it would be better off staying dead. (Sorry guys)
IBM... So what?
There are a great many conflicts of interest in the computer industry... While VIA makes chipsets for Intel/AMD, they are also trying to push their own CPU at the same time. Sony hates Microsoft more than any other company that comes to mind, but would you like to guess what operating system their PCs and Notebooks run?
So long as you aren't too dependant on a company, you can hate them all you want. Microsoft is only buying a product from IBM, they don't have to love them to do so.
Nope. During the first antitrust trial, when it looked like Microsoft was really going to be split into two different companies, Bill resigned as CEO and took the new job (that he had just created) of the "Chief Software Architect" or something very similar to that.
I was never entirely sure of the real reason for him doing that, but it seemed to me that he wanted to make very sure which of the two Microsoft companies he would be head of.