There is, of course, a massive difference between the old optical Sun and Apple mice that needed the special reflective surface to cause a pattern of light and dark as you moved the thing, and Microsoft's solution of a camera that can detect movement over any surface of your choosing.
Yes, they are both "optical", but that's about it. Not that I don't get all nostalgic about my little Sun.
I now have a 5.1 set up correctly again, yes. We tried adding two extra speakers to the setup, recalibrated everything, ran them for a couple of days and then took them back to the shop as for our setup it didn't help at all.
As I tried (and probably failed) to explain before, there are many and varied ways in which a centre-rear channel is useful in the home, so we're agreeing there. It's just that I'm fortunate enough that it doesn't help here, because the enlarged sweetspot isn't required.
As for the question of cost, this was running on a Meridian processor, so I doubt the issue was there! But you're right in that everything is relative. In a money-no-object scenario the speakers would probably have stayed, but instead it's going towards a nicer screen.
Hello, and welcome to the future! How was your trip from 1998?
Here you'll find we've got simply loads of DTS DVD releases, because people like yourself convinced the studios that slapping on a DTS mix would sell a few more copies of the disc.
Sorry, but if you encode the exact same mix (and don't let the nice guys at Digital Theater Systems give the bass a tweak as they so love to do) in 448kbps DD and 768kbps DTS (I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a DTS release get the full 1536kbps like they used to on LD, but the encoding algorithym has been improved to the point where you basically can't tell the difference any more) you end up with a sound mix where all of those people who like to rant about how DTS is better than DD complain that you've crippled the DTS mix deliberately to prove them wrong.
All those things that people prefer about DTS are the result of a different sound mix, and not the encoding at all.
Have you heard a good Dolby Digital laserdisc on a decent setup? Nearly every DD DVD uses a higher bitrate than laserdisc releases (448 vs 384 kbps), and yet there are some absolutely stunning things on laser.
In other words, it's not the encoding or anything, it's the original sound mix that you don't like. There are many DVDs where one version sounds "better" or "worse" than another, but really it's down to how the film has been remixed for home presentation (or just mixed for the cinema in the first place) that causes the differences.
But then, I've got my 5.1 set up correctly and I sit in the right place. In the same way, if you're in the sweet spot, then the centre speaker isn't needed either.
6.1/7.1 is a really useful invention for cinemas in particular, as it allows you a much larger range to sit in where the surround still 'works' correctly. Which is the whole article condensed, really. If you've got your speakers set up right, then adding an extra one or two directly behind you doesn't really add anything. If you've got multiple sofas in your room, then the people sitting to one side of the TV will get a better surround effect with that centre-rear channel.
So while I'd definitely agree with the premise that rubbishing the idea for home presentation is wrong, it _is_ worth considering on an individual basis whether it is worth spending money adding the extra channel to an existing setup.
I've seen a component capture card somewhere - it was about $150 or so, as it's a somewhat niche product. A friend of mine was considering one for running stuff through DScaler to HDTV, but I didn't get the link, sorry.
On the question of laserdiscs, however, the native image is stored on the disc in basic old-fashioned composite, so if you're transferring your Star Wars discs (I've already done mine) there's no need to bother hunting for a fancypants component card anyway - you're not going to get better image quality.
What neither the article nor the summary mention, however, is that AACS makes this blocking optional. So you really can blame the studio if the disc you buy won't transmit HD over component, because some other discs will allow you.
Furthermore, if it's anything like the similar restrictions on DVD players transmitting upscaled images over component, there are bound to be handset hacks or at least modchips on the market in fairly short order to get around the problem.
Above all, though, go borrow copies of Super Monkey Ball Deluxe for the PS2 and XBox. It's a better demonstration of how the Cube has the best analogue stick of the three machines than anything else - Expert is just terrifying without the standard of control the Cube gives.
Sort of - I was meaning that the 360 (like just about every console on the market, if I'm being fair) has a custom video connector on the back, rather than standard connectors like you'd see with any other piece of A/V equipment. So while you can hook it up to a monitor, you've got to buy that $20 lead, rather than just a standard VGA cable you probably already have lying around.
No, Microsoft would much rather make an extra $20 selling you a special 360-to-VGA lead than letting you use one off the shelf.
Still, if your point is that you'd rather just hook these machines up to a monitor than fork out for a HDTV, then yes you can do that. It's not even anything new - my Dreamcast looks stunning through VGA.
You're right, of course. I read it that way too, for what it's worth.
However, I do think I remember fiddling around with remote X sessions back in the mid-90s. But then I'm sure it was done long before I first connected to a NeXT box, too.
Stuff infrared, if we can play the "more energetic == more harmful" game, then I want to know why his shitty excuse for a teaching establishment still has lightbulbs.
Well, yes, you are indeed welcome to spout a bunch of made-up drivel to support what you say. However, unlike the grandparent, we'll all have a whale of a time ripping your utter incompetence to understand basic physics to shreds.
I don't know about your Motorola, but my U6 PEBL, and for that matter, the V3 RAZR a bunch of friends have, uses the same standardized mini-USB2 cable that came with my digital camera. And even if it hadn't done, the phone came with another I can leave at work.
So Motorola are pretty good at that sort of thing at the moment. Which is nice, because I've got Katamari tunes for ringtones.
You're quite welcome to boycott it if that's your choice.
Personally, I don't think the problems that affected Dice's inability to write stable, crack-proof network code are particularly relevant to Criterion's single-player game. On the other hand, I'm not desperate for yet another FPS game (even if it's supposedly very good), so I'm not buying it for that reason.
Sony have had the F1 license for many years now, so there aren't even any EA F1 games for you to buy if you were prepared to do so.
They're made by Sony Liverpool (they guys behind the WipEout series and ex-Psygnosis), so if you can get a cheap PS2 I'd recommend giving them a look; they're good fun with a force-feedback wheel.
"First game length related to price. Full price == baldur gate type length. 8 hour play time == $4.95... canadian."
Oh Dear God No, Not Again.
We've been down the route of that suggestion over and over again, and all it has really done to affect the industry is that games have more and more pointless tedium that serves to do little other than stretch the game out so you can't have too much fun in the length of time it takes to rent it.
But then, you've reference Baldur's Gate, so I'm guessing that your tastes somewhat differ from mine - I prefer things like Super Monkey Ball, Mario Kart, Crazy Taxi and other arcadey things.
The closest I can come up with for an argument for the stupid thing goes something like this:
1920x1080p is really good quality. REALLY good quality, as in better than some people are shooting on digital right now, and better than many people were using for digital effects work until fairly recently. So it's no surprise that many studio people think letting that kind of quality into the hands of consumers is, frankly, insane if you ever want them to come to the cinema again.
So you can play by their rules, or you can be denied HD movies at all - people unwilling to submit to their paranoid ideas of copy control are still welcome to have a standard-def output from these new things.
It's not ideal, but encrypted HD is better than no HD at all, and that's what they would much rather have given you.
On the other hand, if we're talking about H.264 content that is playable on an iPod, then you're not talking HDTV, you're talking 320x240.
Which is leading rapidly to the "but you're in a Blockbuster, the place where they have hundreds of films at 720x480 on DVD for you to rent instead" question, which is why I just don't get where Cringely is going with this.
Slashdot Mirror
There is, of course, a massive difference between the old optical Sun and Apple mice that needed the special reflective surface to cause a pattern of light and dark as you moved the thing, and Microsoft's solution of a camera that can detect movement over any surface of your choosing.
Yes, they are both "optical", but that's about it. Not that I don't get all nostalgic about my little Sun.
Come again? Every processor worth the name has the option to put the dialogue channel in the fl and fr outputs if that's your bag.
I now have a 5.1 set up correctly again, yes. We tried adding two extra speakers to the setup, recalibrated everything, ran them for a couple of days and then took them back to the shop as for our setup it didn't help at all.
As I tried (and probably failed) to explain before, there are many and varied ways in which a centre-rear channel is useful in the home, so we're agreeing there. It's just that I'm fortunate enough that it doesn't help here, because the enlarged sweetspot isn't required.
As for the question of cost, this was running on a Meridian processor, so I doubt the issue was there! But you're right in that everything is relative. In a money-no-object scenario the speakers would probably have stayed, but instead it's going towards a nicer screen.
Wilkinson Sword > Gilette, any day.
Hello, and welcome to the future! How was your trip from 1998?
Here you'll find we've got simply loads of DTS DVD releases, because people like yourself convinced the studios that slapping on a DTS mix would sell a few more copies of the disc.
Sorry, but if you encode the exact same mix (and don't let the nice guys at Digital Theater Systems give the bass a tweak as they so love to do) in 448kbps DD and 768kbps DTS (I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a DTS release get the full 1536kbps like they used to on LD, but the encoding algorithym has been improved to the point where you basically can't tell the difference any more) you end up with a sound mix where all of those people who like to rant about how DTS is better than DD complain that you've crippled the DTS mix deliberately to prove them wrong.
All those things that people prefer about DTS are the result of a different sound mix, and not the encoding at all.
Have you heard a good Dolby Digital laserdisc on a decent setup? Nearly every DD DVD uses a higher bitrate than laserdisc releases (448 vs 384 kbps), and yet there are some absolutely stunning things on laser.
In other words, it's not the encoding or anything, it's the original sound mix that you don't like. There are many DVDs where one version sounds "better" or "worse" than another, but really it's down to how the film has been remixed for home presentation (or just mixed for the cinema in the first place) that causes the differences.
I can't tell the difference.
But then, I've got my 5.1 set up correctly and I sit in the right place. In the same way, if you're in the sweet spot, then the centre speaker isn't needed either.
6.1/7.1 is a really useful invention for cinemas in particular, as it allows you a much larger range to sit in where the surround still 'works' correctly. Which is the whole article condensed, really. If you've got your speakers set up right, then adding an extra one or two directly behind you doesn't really add anything. If you've got multiple sofas in your room, then the people sitting to one side of the TV will get a better surround effect with that centre-rear channel.
So while I'd definitely agree with the premise that rubbishing the idea for home presentation is wrong, it _is_ worth considering on an individual basis whether it is worth spending money adding the extra channel to an existing setup.
Is your video card an ATI? If so, they sell a fairly cheap adaptor cable, and the card can output component through the DVI-I socket.
It's not ideal, but it's a lot cheaper than a $150 transcoder.
I've seen a component capture card somewhere - it was about $150 or so, as it's a somewhat niche product. A friend of mine was considering one for running stuff through DScaler to HDTV, but I didn't get the link, sorry.
On the question of laserdiscs, however, the native image is stored on the disc in basic old-fashioned composite, so if you're transferring your Star Wars discs (I've already done mine) there's no need to bother hunting for a fancypants component card anyway - you're not going to get better image quality.
Tough luck - BluRay has this as well.
What neither the article nor the summary mention, however, is that AACS makes this blocking optional. So you really can blame the studio if the disc you buy won't transmit HD over component, because some other discs will allow you.
Furthermore, if it's anything like the similar restrictions on DVD players transmitting upscaled images over component, there are bound to be handset hacks or at least modchips on the market in fairly short order to get around the problem.
Above all, though, go borrow copies of Super Monkey Ball Deluxe for the PS2 and XBox. It's a better demonstration of how the Cube has the best analogue stick of the three machines than anything else - Expert is just terrifying without the standard of control the Cube gives.
Sort of - I was meaning that the 360 (like just about every console on the market, if I'm being fair) has a custom video connector on the back, rather than standard connectors like you'd see with any other piece of A/V equipment. So while you can hook it up to a monitor, you've got to buy that $20 lead, rather than just a standard VGA cable you probably already have lying around.
No, Microsoft would much rather make an extra $20 selling you a special 360-to-VGA lead than letting you use one off the shelf.
Still, if your point is that you'd rather just hook these machines up to a monitor than fork out for a HDTV, then yes you can do that. It's not even anything new - my Dreamcast looks stunning through VGA.
Will you fuckers all stop downloading shit? I want this bandwidth to myself - Can't you understand that your needs aren't as important as mine?
I'm a professional, Goddamn it!
You're right, of course. I read it that way too, for what it's worth.
However, I do think I remember fiddling around with remote X sessions back in the mid-90s. But then I'm sure it was done long before I first connected to a NeXT box, too.
Don't be silly. Just think for one moment how much Prior Art the USPO have on the granting of stupid patents. You don't stand a chance against them.
Stuff infrared, if we can play the "more energetic == more harmful" game, then I want to know why his shitty excuse for a teaching establishment still has lightbulbs.
Well, yes, you are indeed welcome to spout a bunch of made-up drivel to support what you say. However, unlike the grandparent, we'll all have a whale of a time ripping your utter incompetence to understand basic physics to shreds.
I don't know about your Motorola, but my U6 PEBL, and for that matter, the V3 RAZR a bunch of friends have, uses the same standardized mini-USB2 cable that came with my digital camera. And even if it hadn't done, the phone came with another I can leave at work.
So Motorola are pretty good at that sort of thing at the moment. Which is nice, because I've got Katamari tunes for ringtones.
You're quite welcome to boycott it if that's your choice.
Personally, I don't think the problems that affected Dice's inability to write stable, crack-proof network code are particularly relevant to Criterion's single-player game. On the other hand, I'm not desperate for yet another FPS game (even if it's supposedly very good), so I'm not buying it for that reason.
Actually, just about every review I've seen so far of Black has been positive. Far more positive than they are about most EA games, certainly.
So there's more to it than this, I'd suggest.
Sony have had the F1 license for many years now, so there aren't even any EA F1 games for you to buy if you were prepared to do so.
They're made by Sony Liverpool (they guys behind the WipEout series and ex-Psygnosis), so if you can get a cheap PS2 I'd recommend giving them a look; they're good fun with a force-feedback wheel.
"First game length related to price. Full price == baldur gate type length. 8 hour play time == $4.95... canadian."
Oh Dear God No, Not Again.
We've been down the route of that suggestion over and over again, and all it has really done to affect the industry is that games have more and more pointless tedium that serves to do little other than stretch the game out so you can't have too much fun in the length of time it takes to rent it.
But then, you've reference Baldur's Gate, so I'm guessing that your tastes somewhat differ from mine - I prefer things like Super Monkey Ball, Mario Kart, Crazy Taxi and other arcadey things.
The closest I can come up with for an argument for the stupid thing goes something like this:
1920x1080p is really good quality. REALLY good quality, as in better than some people are shooting on digital right now, and better than many people were using for digital effects work until fairly recently. So it's no surprise that many studio people think letting that kind of quality into the hands of consumers is, frankly, insane if you ever want them to come to the cinema again.
So you can play by their rules, or you can be denied HD movies at all - people unwilling to submit to their paranoid ideas of copy control are still welcome to have a standard-def output from these new things.
It's not ideal, but encrypted HD is better than no HD at all, and that's what they would much rather have given you.
On the other hand, if we're talking about H.264 content that is playable on an iPod, then you're not talking HDTV, you're talking 320x240.
Which is leading rapidly to the "but you're in a Blockbuster, the place where they have hundreds of films at 720x480 on DVD for you to rent instead" question, which is why I just don't get where Cringely is going with this.