Also, the TV-out connector on the 350 will always provide better quality for normal TV signal than any graphics card. HDTV is different, though - for HDTV you _want_ to use the TV-out on an XvMC-accelerated card, such as an NVidia.
How come this comment was rated Interesting? It's wrong!
All the DV and mini-DV camcorders on the market write DV content on the tapes, not raw video! Sure, it's not a.dv file, but the video stream is already encoded with the DV codec (pretty similar to MJPEG). The encapsulation (on-disk and on-tape format) does not matter, it's the video/audio codecs that matter.
Want proof? (aside from reading up the existing documentation on the Internet) The capacity of a 60 minutes mini-DV tape is about 12...15GB (i forgot the exact value). When you save to your computer an hour's worth of footage over FireWire, how big is the file? You bet, it's 12...15GB.
There are already many analog-to-DV hardware converters, but those have a different market as a target - amateur, semi-pro and pro movie making.
The MPEG2 cards are just for capturing TV shows. They use MPEG2 because the majority of their users tend to create DVDs out of those shows - hence, the cards create the capture files directly in DVD-compatible MPEG2.
MPEG2 is still popular for those cards because it's directly interoperable with the existing DVD players. The MPEG2 files captured by the MPEG2 cards can be directly imported into a DVD authoring software, no conversion (hence, no quality loss) required.
The guy recommends to use the graphics card video output instead of the PVR-350 output, which might be true for HDTV, but for regular TV, the PVR-350 output will Always have Much better quality.
If you look at the pictures, the splash droplets are actually taking off, much like a plane, because of the air drag (they're moving fast sideways, some air gets underneath, therefore they take off). If there's no (or little) air, the lift-off force is smaller, therefore they're less likely to take off.
That's pretty much like a high-speed boat (or car) tipping over because of the very high speed - if there wasn't air, it wouldn't tip over.
Tiny black holes just evaporate really quick, even if they fall into the Earth. It's called Hawking radiation, and the smaller they are, the stronger the radiation. Basically, they just go POOF! in a nanosecond or so. They are too tiny to suck in matter fast enough to compensate for the Hawking effect. The hole must have the mass of a mountain, or so, from the very beginning in order to just keep on growing by sucking up matter from the Earth. Any smaller than that and it evaporates.
Because of the Hawking radiation, tiny blackholes evaporate really fast - the smaller they are, the faster they evaporate. It takes the mass of a whole mountain, or so, to create a black hole that will not vanish but keep growing, sucking up matter from the Earth. At the moment, it seems pretty hard to make such a big black hole. If you don't make it that big from the beginning, it just disappears.
Black holes actually evaporate through the Hawking radiation: the smaller they are, the faster they evaporate. Only black holes large enough to not go POOF! in a nanosecond can survive by eating matter fast enough to counterbalance the Hawking radiation. Apparently, someone did the math and it takes a black hole as massive as a mountain, or something like that, to not disappear. Until we can create black holes that large from the very beginning i'd say we're safe.
I wonder what are the criteria used by Google to include a review in the search results? If i search for "Alexander movie review" with the normal www.google.com method, my movie review comes up around #60 or so, but if i do a "movie:Alexander" then my review does not show up at all. (Note: my review is on my blog)
You're done.:-) Both cards do not bother looking at the broadcast flag and both of them either let you watch the shows in real-time or dump them to the HDD as MPEG2 files. Air2PC is currently better at receiving digital cable, but pcHDTV is supposed to do that as well pretty soon. Both cards receive HDTV OTA with no problems.
Duhhh... My first attempt at "networked MythTV": I installed the full MythTV suite on a stationary PC, played with it, works fine. Then i installed mythfrontend only on a laptop, pointed it to the PC, boom! it works! No fiddling required. It just works. Just tell mythfrontend to use another backend than 127.0.0.1
It greatly depends on what kind of other hardware you're using. If you have a not-too-old GeForce board, the CPU requirements for HDTV (either 720p or 1080i) are reduced a lot. I think your little bullet list is so off, it's wrong.
Last time i checked, doing a huge bunch of small things (such as creating many small files, etc.) is faster on Flash than on regular hard-drives, while writing a constant stream of large data (such as capturing video) is slower on Flash than on hard-drives. I did the tests by the end of 2004, using off-the-shelf components (mobo, HDD, flash).
Well, long time ago, people felt threatened by machines that were replacing manual labor, so they simply smashed and broke the machines. They probably weren't right. But...
But it seems to me that perhaps a random lynching or two of scrooge-ish CEOs by angry ex-employees might deliver a potent message to any prospective pursuants of this squeeze-then-kill strategy. You know, make them think twice or somesuch...;-)
Hm... What if you view 4:3 shows a lot on a 16:9 CRT? I betcha you didn't do that to your 35 year old CRT.
That's the problem with HDTV sets - there's still a lot of 4:3 content that will burn itself "nicely" into the phosphor.
No, stretching the image is not a solution. I will never own such a stupid device. If anyone would try to sell me such a thing, i'll probably get pretty angry. I mean, if my current TV would distort the images as badly as a 16:9 stretching a 4:3 image, i would probably throw it away.
I can't imagine how some people think that stretching images is normal. It isn't. It's a very stupid cover-up to a fundamental technical flaw. Just use 16:9's that don't burn in, dammit! DLPs are like that and, for the most part, LCDs too. CRTs are not, and plasma most definitely not.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, the TV-out connector on the 350 will always provide better quality for normal TV signal than any graphics card.
HDTV is different, though - for HDTV you _want_ to use the TV-out on an XvMC-accelerated card, such as an NVidia.
How come this comment was rated Interesting? It's wrong!
.dv file, but the video stream is already encoded with the DV codec (pretty similar to MJPEG). The encapsulation (on-disk and on-tape format) does not matter, it's the video/audio codecs that matter.
All the DV and mini-DV camcorders on the market write DV content on the tapes, not raw video! Sure, it's not a
Want proof? (aside from reading up the existing documentation on the Internet) The capacity of a 60 minutes mini-DV tape is about 12...15GB (i forgot the exact value). When you save to your computer an hour's worth of footage over FireWire, how big is the file? You bet, it's 12...15GB.
There are already many analog-to-DV hardware converters, but those have a different market as a target - amateur, semi-pro and pro movie making.
The MPEG2 cards are just for capturing TV shows. They use MPEG2 because the majority of their users tend to create DVDs out of those shows - hence, the cards create the capture files directly in DVD-compatible MPEG2.
MPEG2 is still popular for those cards because it's directly interoperable with the existing DVD players. The MPEG2 files captured by the MPEG2 cards can be directly imported into a DVD authoring software, no conversion (hence, no quality loss) required.
The guy recommends to use the graphics card video output instead of the PVR-350 output, which might be true for HDTV, but for regular TV, the PVR-350 output will Always have Much better quality.
Keep that in mind.
If you look at the pictures, the splash droplets are actually taking off, much like a plane, because of the air drag (they're moving fast sideways, some air gets underneath, therefore they take off).
If there's no (or little) air, the lift-off force is smaller, therefore they're less likely to take off.
That's pretty much like a high-speed boat (or car) tipping over because of the very high speed - if there wasn't air, it wouldn't tip over.
(this is the N-th time I'm posting this, sigh)
Tiny black holes just evaporate really quick, even if they fall into the Earth. It's called Hawking radiation, and the smaller they are, the stronger the radiation. Basically, they just go POOF! in a nanosecond or so. They are too tiny to suck in matter fast enough to compensate for the Hawking effect.
The hole must have the mass of a mountain, or so, from the very beginning in order to just keep on growing by sucking up matter from the Earth. Any smaller than that and it evaporates.
Calm down, we can't make them that big, not yet.
Because of the Hawking radiation, tiny blackholes evaporate really fast - the smaller they are, the faster they evaporate.
It takes the mass of a whole mountain, or so, to create a black hole that will not vanish but keep growing, sucking up matter from the Earth. At the moment, it seems pretty hard to make such a big black hole. If you don't make it that big from the beginning, it just disappears.
Black holes actually evaporate through the Hawking radiation: the smaller they are, the faster they evaporate. Only black holes large enough to not go POOF! in a nanosecond can survive by eating matter fast enough to counterbalance the Hawking radiation.
Apparently, someone did the math and it takes a black hole as massive as a mountain, or something like that, to not disappear. Until we can create black holes that large from the very beginning i'd say we're safe.
Yes, a black hole "pendulum" swinging back and forth through the planet will indeed gain mass.
I wonder what are the criteria used by Google to include a review in the search results?
If i search for "Alexander movie review" with the normal www.google.com method, my movie review comes up around #60 or so, but if i do a "movie:Alexander" then my review does not show up at all.
(Note: my review is on my blog)
Get a decent PC, make sure it's quiet enough, install Linux, then install MythTV.
:-) Both cards do not bother looking at the broadcast flag and both of them either let you watch the shows in real-time or dump them to the HDD as MPEG2 files. Air2PC is currently better at receiving digital cable, but pcHDTV is supposed to do that as well pretty soon. Both cards receive HDTV OTA with no problems.
Then either get a pcHDTV or better yet an Air2PC.
You're done.
Duhhh...
My first attempt at "networked MythTV": I installed the full MythTV suite on a stationary PC, played with it, works fine. Then i installed mythfrontend only on a laptop, pointed it to the PC, boom! it works!
No fiddling required. It just works. Just tell mythfrontend to use another backend than 127.0.0.1
Air2PC - does it ignore the broadcast flag?
It greatly depends on what kind of other hardware you're using.
If you have a not-too-old GeForce board, the CPU requirements for HDTV (either 720p or 1080i) are reduced a lot.
I think your little bullet list is so off, it's wrong.
Hm, i thought they were just making cuts.
Yes you can. I run MythTV on a stationary PC, while running only mythfrontend on a laptop, so i can watch Star Trek while taking a dump. :-)
No, right now you're wasting time on Slashdot. :-P
Of course, first thoughts are to the sound system.
:-)
Geek.
There are many Windows apps that run just fine on top of Linux, by virtue of various emulation techniques such as WINE, etc.
Last time i checked, doing a huge bunch of small things (such as creating many small files, etc.) is faster on Flash than on regular hard-drives, while writing a constant stream of large data (such as capturing video) is slower on Flash than on hard-drives.
I did the tests by the end of 2004, using off-the-shelf components (mobo, HDD, flash).
Well, long time ago, people felt threatened by machines that were replacing manual labor, so they simply smashed and broke the machines.
;-)
They probably weren't right. But...
But it seems to me that perhaps a random lynching or two of scrooge-ish CEOs by angry ex-employees might deliver a potent message to any prospective pursuants of this squeeze-then-kill strategy. You know, make them think twice or somesuch...
And the winner is... :-(
On Linux, it's relatively painless to install RealPlayer.
Also, most of the media players on Linux (xine, totem, etc.) support DivX out of the box.
Hm...
What if you view 4:3 shows a lot on a 16:9 CRT? I betcha you didn't do that to your 35 year old CRT.
That's the problem with HDTV sets - there's still a lot of 4:3 content that will burn itself "nicely" into the phosphor.
No, stretching the image is not a solution. I will never own such a stupid device. If anyone would try to sell me such a thing, i'll probably get pretty angry.
I mean, if my current TV would distort the images as badly as a 16:9 stretching a 4:3 image, i would probably throw it away.
I can't imagine how some people think that stretching images is normal. It isn't. It's a very stupid cover-up to a fundamental technical flaw.
Just use 16:9's that don't burn in, dammit! DLPs are like that and, for the most part, LCDs too. CRTs are not, and plasma most definitely not.