Thanks for the info. That must be new with XP. In 2000 (still much more stable) you can't go below 2 MB, and it still insists on using it, even though it's so small. Perhaps there are registry hacks to do it, thanks again for the info!
The idea of RAM as storage is great and all, but can we work towards the elimination of STORAGE as RAM before we get to RAM as storage?
I mean, why *DO* we still have pagefiles?
A MS Gripe: I seriously don't understand why I can't turn it off completely. With multiple GB of RAM dirt cheap, writing to a disk pagefile slows my system down-- It has to!
While I know a PC is faster for any Adobe app, the actual page that links to that page has the context reveresed. It's not "ADOBE Prefers PCs." It's "If you Prefer PCs, read this!"
The inferrence I made was that MAC was still the de facto standard.
That your arguments make the (false) assumption that IP is valueless in all instances. Sure, the cost to copy digital information is (virtually) nothing, but that information itself has an inherent cost.
My brother is an independent recording artist. He's not signed to a label, but has a decent following. When he wants to produce a CD, the manufacture of tracks, mixing, engineering those tracks cost money. Hiring and paying engineers and additional musicians is not free. Even if you remove all barriers in distribution (ie distribute digitally; no record company) The actual recorded material has an inherent cost-- and therefore an inherent value.
While you're saying buzzwords like "rethinking the paradigms" perhaps you should be considering more than the distribution method.
While the most extreme of cyber-communists point to the open-source and free-software movements as an example of how "information should be free" They neglect to realize that the media created is a drop in the bucket compared to commercial software-- especially entertainment. Name one open source or free software game that can come close to competing with Grand Theft Auto or Age of Empires or Black and White or Resident Evil. They can't.
So, until the entire world becomes a communist state, where there is no money, and no motivation to work other than the betterment of mankind, (and this includes cleaning the toilets and laying the asphalt) people will be motivated by money, will need to be paid for their work, which will give an inherent value to IP.
Someone needs to come up with a network that has file-rights management that lets you literally *share* your music. Once every device is wireless, even with DRM, you can just own say 25 CDs, and you can allow them to be shared into the network, so long as you lose the right to listen to them as they're being played on someone else's device. Because you (currently) legally own the right to share it (ie, give it away temporarily, as you would a pressed CD), once you've listened to a song, it's released back into the system for someone else to borrow.
Basically, the system will allow you to legally borrow on a song by song basis. This should meet all current legal issues, because you will not be able to listen to a song while someone else is. But, because everyone doesn't listen to the same song at the same time, not everyone has to own every CD.
Even if DRM is implemented, there must be a way to transfer a file from device to device (assumably removing it from one device) This "system" will just facilitate that transfer on a temporary, song-by-song basis, and keep track of who permenently owns an individual song.
Think of it as a "universal library."
I would love to see the record companies try to find some problems with this. I think the supreme court would smack em on their collective asses.
Wireless+"True Sharing"+Lending Distributer = Totally legal way to screw the record companies.
A wrinkle laden aging speed metal rocker, wrapped in shredded leather pants; he's drinking from a bottle in a paper bag; sad music is playing.
The voice over says "When you pirate music, you steal money out of artists pockets. Now, how is this poor man going to afford his presidential suite, hookers, and 3 day liquor and heroin binges?"
...is found here Roger N. Clark's photography page provides supurb comparisons and information comparing film grain resolutions, and including digital cameras in the mix.
Many pundits here have been instantly shouting that 16+megapixels are unnecessary. They are very wrong. 16 megapixels only approxomate 35mm-- and don't even come close to large-format film.
The comparison is educational & eye opening and EXTREMELY well documented, with pictures.
The readers digest version is that "From these tests, it is my opinion that digital cameras will match Fujichrome Velvi 35mm film when they reach more than about 10 megapixels. Somewhere in the 12-16 megapixels will produce color image quality comparable to 35 mm film (this is a compromise of more intensity detail and less color detail than film). Somewhat fewer megapixels, approximately 7-8 Mpixels will match 35mm film intensity detail but at below 35mm film color detail.
Medium format film: about 50 digital camera megapixels are need to match Fujichrome Velvia in 6 x 4.5 cm.
Large format: more than 200 digital camera megapixels are need to match 4x5 Fujichrome Velvia film. How much more needs futher testing. "
Actually, the responder was (partially) mistaken. Although he was correct, that tivo changes resolutions, it never exceeds 544x480. (best) My original post was talking about default quality.
Perhaps DirecTivo operates at 720x480, but it is only saving the original DirecTV stream, so it's limited to whatever that is.
Tivo's only do standard resolution television. Therefore, you would need a HDTV box that has a s-video out to record, and it would be recorded at standard tivo resolution (480x480) on a stand-alone (non direcTV) Tivo.
Dish network is working on an HDTV PVR, the 921, and Sony is rumored to be working on an HDTV unit as well, but no word whether tivo technology will be used on that.
You should check out this forum For the latest on tivo technology. A few tivo employees are active contributers-- and the news always hits this place first.
I can't say for sure, because I didn't see the ones you did, but I think the ones you've seen are the 35MM prints shown on an IMAX screen-- so they are what their original formats were --widescreen.. Beauty and the Beast was actually reproduced on IMAX stock-- and it was letterboxed.
There've been a couple of movies specifically re-done on IMAX, but not very many.
Actually, I did. And you're right, it looked much, much better. However, IMAX is a celluloid process, and doesn't benefit from those features of DLP-- And I find it hard to believe that if they could have done something to lessen the artifacts on the celluloid for the theater, or 95% of the the viewers of this movie, they didn't. So, I fully expect the IMAX version to have these issues, and more.
Well, that should make the pixels on the screen that I saw on standard 35mm about as big as a life-size R2. Nausiating Pixelicous goodness.
Seriously, though, "Beauty and the beast" was hard to watch in IMAX, because you could see every little artist flaw, and the 1990-era CGI looked really terrible. And 'clones' was shot in 1920x1080, that should make the pixels approxamately, what, one foot square each? Yikes.
Slashdot Mirror
...that Star Wars is the REAL Holy Grail of DVD buyers...
Where the hell is PIMP WARS?
Thanks for the info. That must be new with XP. In 2000 (still much more stable) you can't go below 2 MB, and it still insists on using it, even though it's so small. Perhaps there are registry hacks to do it, thanks again for the info!
The idea of RAM as storage is great and all, but can we work towards the elimination of STORAGE as RAM before we get to RAM as storage?
I mean, why *DO* we still have pagefiles?
A MS Gripe: I seriously don't understand why I can't turn it off completely. With multiple GB of RAM dirt cheap, writing to a disk pagefile slows my system down-- It has to!
While I know a PC is faster for any Adobe app, the actual page that links to that page has the context reveresed. It's not "ADOBE Prefers PCs." It's "If you Prefer PCs, read this!"
The inferrence I made was that MAC was still the de facto standard.
recall the deathstar drives, we'd be making progress.
Seriously, I had 2 drives (same manu. date/place) go within a day of each other. Coincidence? I think not. (Link goes to Class action lawsuit page)
Considering MY DSL provider just tanked.
;-)
Thanks Slashdot, for making the holidays truly happy.
That your arguments make the (false) assumption that IP is valueless in all instances. Sure, the cost to copy digital information is (virtually) nothing, but that information itself has an inherent cost.
My brother is an independent recording artist. He's not signed to a label, but has a decent following. When he wants to produce a CD, the manufacture of tracks, mixing, engineering those tracks cost money. Hiring and paying engineers and additional musicians is not free. Even if you remove all barriers in distribution (ie distribute digitally; no record company) The actual recorded material has an inherent cost-- and therefore an inherent value.
While you're saying buzzwords like "rethinking the paradigms" perhaps you should be considering more than the distribution method.
While the most extreme of cyber-communists point to the open-source and free-software movements as an example of how "information should be free" They neglect to realize that the media created is a drop in the bucket compared to commercial software-- especially entertainment. Name one open source or free software game that can come close to competing with Grand Theft Auto or Age of Empires or Black and White or Resident Evil. They can't.
So, until the entire world becomes a communist state, where there is no money, and no motivation to work other than the betterment of mankind, (and this includes cleaning the toilets and laying the asphalt) people will be motivated by money, will need to be paid for their work, which will give an inherent value to IP.
Someone needs to come up with a network that has file-rights management that lets you literally *share* your music. Once every device is wireless, even with DRM, you can just own say 25 CDs, and you can allow them to be shared into the network, so long as you lose the right to listen to them as they're being played on someone else's device. Because you (currently) legally own the right to share it (ie, give it away temporarily, as you would a pressed CD), once you've listened to a song, it's released back into the system for someone else to borrow.
Basically, the system will allow you to legally borrow on a song by song basis. This should meet all current legal issues, because you will not be able to listen to a song while someone else is. But, because everyone doesn't listen to the same song at the same time, not everyone has to own every CD.
Even if DRM is implemented, there must be a way to transfer a file from device to device (assumably removing it from one device) This "system" will just facilitate that transfer on a temporary, song-by-song basis, and keep track of who permenently owns an individual song.
Think of it as a "universal library."
I would love to see the record companies try to find some problems with this. I think the supreme court would smack em on their collective asses.
Wireless+"True Sharing"+Lending Distributer = Totally legal way to screw the record companies.
Microsoft paid Slashdot for me to view this article. I *LOVE* that!
Click here for screen grab
Yeah, I know it's 8 color. I'm trying to save on some bandwidth, okay?
A wrinkle laden aging speed metal rocker, wrapped in shredded leather pants; he's drinking from a bottle in a paper bag; sad music is playing.
The voice over says "When you pirate music, you steal money out of artists pockets. Now, how is this poor man going to afford his presidential suite, hookers, and 3 day liquor and heroin binges?"
Then a black screen with white text comes up:
"Help the Fella, Don't Gnutella."
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that pay services have gotten much better in the past 18 months, with far more selection? Just maybe?
No, no, it's because they killed napster. Idiots.
...is found here Roger N. Clark's photography page provides supurb comparisons and information comparing film grain resolutions, and including digital cameras in the mix.
Many pundits here have been instantly shouting that 16+megapixels are unnecessary. They are very wrong. 16 megapixels only approxomate 35mm-- and don't even come close to large-format film.
The comparison is educational & eye opening and EXTREMELY well documented, with pictures.
The readers digest version is that "From these tests, it is my opinion that digital cameras will match Fujichrome Velvi 35mm film when they reach more than about 10 megapixels. Somewhere in the 12-16 megapixels will produce color image quality comparable to 35 mm film (this is a compromise of more intensity detail and less color detail than film). Somewhat fewer megapixels, approximately 7-8 Mpixels will match 35mm film intensity detail but at below 35mm film color detail.
Medium format film: about 50 digital camera megapixels are need to match Fujichrome Velvia in 6 x 4.5 cm.
Large format: more than 200 digital camera megapixels are need to match 4x5 Fujichrome Velvia film. How much more needs futher testing. "
Thanks Roger N. Clark.
If he's anything like this Q, he'd just stop time, arrest the criminals, put them on trial for the crimes of humanity, and be done with it.
Actually, the responder was (partially) mistaken. Although he was correct, that tivo changes resolutions, it never exceeds 544x480. (best) My original post was talking about default quality.
Perhaps DirecTivo operates at 720x480, but it is only saving the original DirecTV stream, so it's limited to whatever that is.
Here is a link with the resolutions.
Tivo's only do standard resolution television. Therefore, you would need a HDTV box that has a s-video out to record, and it would be recorded at standard tivo resolution (480x480) on a stand-alone (non direcTV) Tivo.
Dish network is working on an HDTV PVR, the 921, and Sony is rumored to be working on an HDTV unit as well, but no word whether tivo technology will be used on that.
You should check out this forum For the latest on tivo technology. A few tivo employees are active contributers-- and the news always hits this place first.
I can't say for sure, because I didn't see the ones you did, but I think the ones you've seen are the 35MM prints shown on an IMAX screen-- so they are what their original formats were --widescreen.. Beauty and the Beast was actually reproduced on IMAX stock-- and it was letterboxed.
There've been a couple of movies specifically re-done on IMAX, but not very many.
Actually, I did. And you're right, it looked much, much better. However, IMAX is a celluloid process, and doesn't benefit from those features of DLP-- And I find it hard to believe that if they could have done something to lessen the artifacts on the celluloid for the theater, or 95% of the the viewers of this movie, they didn't. So, I fully expect the IMAX version to have these issues, and more.
According to this site, the average imax screen is 21.5m x 15.6m.
The resolution of 'Clones' was in the neighborhood of 2000x1000 (2.2 million pixels sony 24p)
We can assume it will be pan and scan (as all IMAX-conversions so far have been)--IMAX is 4:3.
Therefore, the vertical resolution will be about 1000 pixels per 15.6m, or 1.56 CM each. That's a pretty huge pixel. Ow.
Well, that should make the pixels on the screen that I saw on standard 35mm about as big as a life-size R2. Nausiating Pixelicous goodness.
Seriously, though, "Beauty and the beast" was hard to watch in IMAX, because you could see every little artist flaw, and the 1990-era CGI looked really terrible. And 'clones' was shot in 1920x1080, that should make the pixels approxamately, what, one foot square each? Yikes.
this picture be more appropriate?
And as long as I'm on the subject, you might want to learn the difference between USER IDs and Message IDs, moron.
Well, Sherlock, why don't you read our histories and see if we're remotely the same person. Yes, coincedences happen. We're not the same person.
Why did this guy get modded down--? it's hysterical.!
Read the EULA carefully before you open the box, or Gator will relay your sitting habits back to the company, or even the Government.
I can see it now:
"Where is citizen 24601XGRB?"
"At home on his IKEA Sofa, Sir."