Keep in mind, there are two differnt end-uses being served here.
Firewire and DV are for capturing high-quality video for editing. USB and MPG 1/2/4, AVI and WMV (which this device uses) are for lower quality video that's not meant to be edited (at least not cleanly and easily).
Firewire has a mode which allows a device to reserve a certain amount of bandwidth. So your video caputure device is quaranteed the bandwidth it needs at all times. That means I can caputure video to an external FW drive while also copying large files to and from that same drive without losing a frame. USB can't do that (at least not reliably).
The DV format compresses each frame individually, there is no dependence on "reference" frames like in the MPEG and other "delivery" formats. That's what makes it a much better candidate for editing.
So, two different systems, two different purposes.
First, this is not uncompressed video (the writup is wrong)! If you RTFA is says "capture video in MPEG 1/2/4, AVI and Windows Media Format". That's not uncompressed, its just compressed less. The way the article says this makes it sound like they're talking about uncompressed video, but they're not.
Next, PC World gives 33.75 MBps (yes that's bytes, not bits) for unconpressed TV. Don't forget that each pixel requires 3 or 4 (depending on color space) 16-32 bit numbers (depending on depth used. That's a lot of data!
Not only that, the write-up is wrong. Its not uncompressed, its just compressed less! From the article "capture video in MPEG 1/2/4, AVI and Windows Media formats". Those are all compressed (and lossy) formats. Even DV, which most people use when using Firewire, is compressed. For truly uncompressed video, prepare to have your 200 GB hard drive melt down in a matter of a few 10's of minutes (if it can even keep up without dropping frames).
Despite regular purchases, my CD collection is barely bigger than my LP collection, and my DVD collection has a long way to go to catch up to the size of my VHS collection.
I have to say though that I don't feel near the compulsion to get all of my favorite VHS tapes on DVD as I did to get my LP's on CD. I don't think I'd feel any compulsion to get my current DVD's again in HD.
Me, I'm not going to worry for a long time to come.
That's fine for you, but I'm going to worry. Do you realize how many more trailers and boring interviews and other "extras" will fit on the new disks? Think FBI warnings 2 hours long, followed by another hour of MPAA "Don't Click" ads before they allow you to watch the movie!
Seriously, I do remember when some studio execs were interviewed and expressed their dismay that consumers expected DVD's to be chock-full of extras you don't get anywhere else -costing them a lot of extra money to put in. How are they going to feel if they have to fill a 25 GB disk (even with HD).
I'm wondering if they'd be better off initially to use the extra space to increase bit rate (assuming the players can handle it). That way everyone gets a boost in picture quality. Are there lossless video codecs that could put a 2 hr, non-HD movie on one of these disks?
I'd be very surprised to learn that movies are still distributed on a physical format in 10 years.
I wouldn't. Considering that broadband use just passed dialup use in the U.S., and IIRC the majority of homes don't have internet access at all (while virtually all have a TV/VCR), I'd be very surprised if physical media isn't still the dominant method of delivery. OTOH the people with the most disposable income to buy movies are most likely to have a broadband connection.
To be clear, I didn't say he was going to charge them, that was someone else. I'm just pointing out that he didn't really answer the question. That leaves each of us to our own interpretation. Mine simply differs from yours -which the cynical part of me says is exactly what Rob wanted (people to infer an answer not given).
IMO a big part of the problem with the cross-licensing that Real wanted to do is that they had nothing Apple wanted. And, the online music biz being what it is means Real isn't going to have a lot of cash to pay Apple to license their IP. Seems to me Real is in a very bad situation and hoping that one of their two main competitors (MS being the other) will help them out. Might be nice but I don't think Apple can afford to do it with the MS threat looming large.
He clearly stated that if QuickTime did the same thing as real did, he would have no problem with it.
I didn't see that at all. He did not say yes to the question, he said they'd "be happy to cross-license our DRM and formats". To my reading, he side-stepped the question as asked and answered the question he wanted to answer instead.
He was asked, "What would you do if the next version of Quicktime could play.rm files...?" He clearly didn't answer that question.
We'd be happy to license to Apple. I'm sure he would have boo to say if they refused and worked around Real, as he seems to think the law allows the workaround.
That was one of the answers that weren't really answers. When asked if it was OK if Apple worked around their restrictions like Real did to Apple's, he doesn't say "yes", he says they'd be happy to license the IP. That leads me to believe he really would "have boo to say" if Apple made rm files run in Quicktime.
but seriously, Steve and Woz made a bad call when the named their company Apple.
I would just say they made an unfortunate choice. but I wouldn't say they made a bad call. We're talking about naming a computer company ~30 years ago. Jobs is noted as a "visionary", but I doubt he could have forseen trademark issues with a record company at that time.
Despite splitting in 1970, the Beatles interests are still administered by Apple Corps., which is owned by McCartney, Ringo Starr and the families of John Lennon and George Harrison.
Bdfore you can buy them, they have to be willing to sell. I don't know if that's the case here -I'm reasonably sure McCartney et al. want to keep control of their music. That's a problem for Apple Computer.
AFAIK, none of the Macs that run OS X need special ROMS -Apple got rid of those a long time ago.
But there is another reason it won't run OS X -there's more to a computer than the CPU. Specifically different busses and architectures to move data around. Take a look at http://www.apple.com/powermac/architecture.html , especially note 4: the Advanced PowerPC G5 System Controller. OS X is going to expect to do all of its communication through there -and its not going to find it in IBM's offerings.
If you find a 100 years old film sitting in an attic you'll be able to watch it pretty easily while I doubt you'll be able to do anything beside a decorative object of a 8" floppy disk, a 2" video tape or a vintage computer tape reel. So how will it be for a DVD 50 years from now?
Pretty good I would say.
Do you really think anyone would be able to view a 100 year old film stored in an attic? Very few people have the equipment to do that now, while there are millions of DVD players around. not to mention the fact that you're not going to want to run that fragile film through the usual mechanical playback/copying mechanisms.
One factor that everyone seems to ignore is the sheer simplicity of moving the digital data not only from one disk to another, but from one format to another. The difficulty with film is seen in the efforts it takes to try to restore the original to something resembling what it looked like when new -a lot of info has already been lost.
WRT your last point, that is a problem. The other side of the coin is that the longer you wait to do the restoration/digitization, the worse shape the film will be in.
And before you we start thinkiing of Apple as having any kind of monopoly, consider that a real monopoly (MS) is now leveraging their position in the PC industry to push their own music format and music store. Just like there is a herd of PC's manufacturers loading MS Windows to compete with Apple, there's now a herd of portable music players supporting MS's proprietary music format to compete with the iPod ant iTMS.
Apple isn't a monopoly -they were simply the first to offer what people wanted. As can be seen from the weekly "iPod Killer" and new music store announcements, there is no large barrier that prevents the entry of competitors.
We're sorry that this isn't easier - unfortunately Apple refuses to allow other companies to integrate with the iPod's proprietary music format.
Which is entirely untrue. The iPod plays industry standard mp4 and AAC (part of the mpeg4 standard, not a proprietary Apple standard as some think). What MS really means is, "Sorry, but we haven't been able to convince Apple its in their best interest to license our proprietary music format.
I could make a similar argument for an unlocked door. It has all these features made explicitly to facilitate opening the door to walk in.
I also don't buy the "free beverage" analogy as given. I still think its like everyone expecting free beverages unless there's a sign that says "No Free Beverages". After all, there's that unlocked door there, and we know everyone has beverages in there house.
I guess the bottom line is I think its bad form (not necessarily illegal) to use WiFi access without explicit permission. Others think its OK unless permission is explicity denied.
WiFi networks are able to be secured. As someone else pointed out, there are several places where WiFi access points are configured to give public access outside in public areas.
And in my experience these areas are always posted, which gives you explicit permission.
IMO using any WIFI hotspot without permission is like walking through someones front door if its not locked and sitting in their living room (though the latter is explicitly illegal).
Having a wifi connection that extends into a public area is like having a stereo turned up loud enough for people outside to hear.
No, what you're advocating is walking up with a transmitter tuned to the frequency they're using so that you can hijack the stereo to play your music. When you're linked, you're not just passively receiving a signal, you're sending one too.
No. He's simply saying that you have to follow the rules, whatever they are. The library owns the ball. You want to play with the ball, you play by their rules or they can refuse to let you play with the ball.
Its that simple.
If the library says you can only read their Harry Potter book in a climate controlled reading room while wearing latex gloves and a surgical mask, that's what you have to do if you want to read their book. Doesn't matter if you think its reasonable or not.
In this particular case though, I don't know that any of us know exactly what the library's rules are (I know I don't). I'm not even sure the police officer in question knows what the library's rules are.
s it the police's job to enforce public library rules? Do you expect uniformed policemen to knock on your door, asking for that overdue library book?
Possibly yes. At some point refusal to return the book or pay the fines (following the rules) turns into theft (a crime). But that's not relavent in this case.
It was an open, public hotspot.
Was it? OK, technically yes. My question is, has anyone seen an open, public hotspot that's meant to be used by anybody who wants, that isn't posted as such? I haven't.
So if your neighbor leaves his door unlocked, its OK to just walk into the house too?
As someone earlier pointed out, there's a difference between law, rules and etiquette. Generally speaking people don't assume if something is not locked up its OK to just take it or use it. If someone doesn't lock up there bike, is it OK to take it for a ride? Or would etiquette (if not the law in this case) require you ask first? (yes I know is some areas in some countries an unlocked bike is actually available for public use) Why is wireless access any different?
I was always taught that any time you use something that doesn't belong to you, you must first ask permission. I really don't understand why some people don't think this concept applies to WiFi - or maybe they do believe if its not locked down its mine for the taking.
Now if we get back to this specific case, it does get a bit muddier because its a public resource being used, but I'd argue the same applies from an etiquette (but maybe not a legal) standpoint.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep in mind, there are two differnt end-uses being served here.
Firewire and DV are for capturing high-quality video for editing. USB and MPG 1/2/4, AVI and WMV (which this device uses) are for lower quality video that's not meant to be edited (at least not cleanly and easily).
Firewire has a mode which allows a device to reserve a certain amount of bandwidth. So your video caputure device is quaranteed the bandwidth it needs at all times. That means I can caputure video to an external FW drive while also copying large files to and from that same drive without losing a frame. USB can't do that (at least not reliably).
The DV format compresses each frame individually, there is no dependence on "reference" frames like in the MPEG and other "delivery" formats. That's what makes it a much better candidate for editing.
So, two different systems, two different purposes.
First, this is not uncompressed video (the writup is wrong)! If you RTFA is says "capture video in MPEG 1/2/4, AVI and Windows Media Format". That's not uncompressed, its just compressed less. The way the article says this makes it sound like they're talking about uncompressed video, but they're not.
Next, PC World gives 33.75 MBps (yes that's bytes, not bits) for unconpressed TV. Don't forget that each pixel requires 3 or 4 (depending on color space) 16-32 bit numbers (depending on depth used. That's a lot of data!
Not only that, the write-up is wrong. Its not uncompressed, its just compressed less! From the article "capture video in MPEG 1/2/4, AVI and Windows Media formats". Those are all compressed (and lossy) formats. Even DV, which most people use when using Firewire, is compressed. For truly uncompressed video, prepare to have your 200 GB hard drive melt down in a matter of a few 10's of minutes (if it can even keep up without dropping frames).
I don't know about that.
Heck, most of my collection is in DVD format.
Ahhhh! A youngter!
Despite regular purchases, my CD collection is barely bigger than my LP collection, and my DVD collection has a long way to go to catch up to the size of my VHS collection.
I have to say though that I don't feel near the compulsion to get all of my favorite VHS tapes on DVD as I did to get my LP's on CD. I don't think I'd feel any compulsion to get my current DVD's again in HD.
Me, I'm not going to worry for a long time to come.
That's fine for you, but I'm going to worry. Do you realize how many more trailers and boring interviews and other "extras" will fit on the new disks? Think FBI warnings 2 hours long, followed by another hour of MPAA "Don't Click" ads before they allow you to watch the movie!
Seriously, I do remember when some studio execs were interviewed and expressed their dismay that consumers expected DVD's to be chock-full of extras you don't get anywhere else -costing them a lot of extra money to put in. How are they going to feel if they have to fill a 25 GB disk (even with HD).
I'm wondering if they'd be better off initially to use the extra space to increase bit rate (assuming the players can handle it). That way everyone gets a boost in picture quality. Are there lossless video codecs that could put a 2 hr, non-HD movie on one of these disks?
I'd be very surprised to learn that movies are still distributed on a physical format in 10 years.
I wouldn't. Considering that broadband use just passed dialup use in the U.S., and IIRC the majority of homes don't have internet access at all (while virtually all have a TV/VCR), I'd be very surprised if physical media isn't still the dominant method of delivery. OTOH the people with the most disposable income to buy movies are most likely to have a broadband connection.
To be clear, I didn't say he was going to charge them, that was someone else. I'm just pointing out that he didn't really answer the question. That leaves each of us to our own interpretation. Mine simply differs from yours -which the cynical part of me says is exactly what Rob wanted (people to infer an answer not given).
IMO a big part of the problem with the cross-licensing that Real wanted to do is that they had nothing Apple wanted. And, the online music biz being what it is means Real isn't going to have a lot of cash to pay Apple to license their IP. Seems to me Real is in a very bad situation and hoping that one of their two main competitors (MS being the other) will help them out. Might be nice but I don't think Apple can afford to do it with the MS threat looming large.
It took a lot of complaints, time and revisions before Real got to an "acceptable" level of invasiveness.
AFAIK, there is no written policy stating that they won't put those things back into a future version.
Condidering those points, its going to be a long time before Real earns any trust from me.
He clearly stated that if QuickTime did the same thing as real did, he would have no problem with it.
.rm files...?" He clearly didn't answer that question.
I didn't see that at all. He did not say yes to the question, he said they'd "be happy to cross-license our DRM and formats". To my reading, he side-stepped the question as asked and answered the question he wanted to answer instead.
He was asked, "What would you do if the next version of Quicktime could play
We'd be happy to license to Apple. I'm sure he would have boo to say if they refused and worked around Real, as he seems to think the law allows the workaround.
That was one of the answers that weren't really answers. When asked if it was OK if Apple worked around their restrictions like Real did to Apple's, he doesn't say "yes", he says they'd be happy to license the IP. That leads me to believe he really would "have boo to say" if Apple made rm files run in Quicktime.
but seriously, Steve and Woz made a bad call when the named their company Apple.
I would just say they made an unfortunate choice. but I wouldn't say they made a bad call. We're talking about naming a computer company ~30 years ago. Jobs is noted as a "visionary", but I doubt he could have forseen trademark issues with a record company at that time.
From the article:
Despite splitting in 1970, the Beatles interests are still administered by Apple Corps., which is owned by McCartney, Ringo Starr and the families of John Lennon and George Harrison.
Bdfore you can buy them, they have to be willing to sell. I don't know if that's the case here -I'm reasonably sure McCartney et al. want to keep control of their music. That's a problem for Apple Computer.
Another big difference is that Power does not include AltiVec (aka Velocity Engine).
AFAIK, none of the Macs that run OS X need special ROMS -Apple got rid of those a long time ago.
But there is another reason it won't run OS X -there's more to a computer than the CPU. Specifically different busses and architectures to move data around. Take a look at http://www.apple.com/powermac/architecture.html , especially note 4: the Advanced PowerPC G5 System Controller. OS X is going to expect to do all of its communication through there -and its not going to find it in IBM's offerings.
If you find a 100 years old film sitting in an attic you'll be able to watch it pretty easily while I doubt you'll be able to do anything beside a decorative object of a 8" floppy disk, a 2" video tape or a vintage computer tape reel. So how will it be for a DVD 50 years from now?
Pretty good I would say.
Do you really think anyone would be able to view a 100 year old film stored in an attic? Very few people have the equipment to do that now, while there are millions of DVD players around. not to mention the fact that you're not going to want to run that fragile film through the usual mechanical playback/copying mechanisms.
One factor that everyone seems to ignore is the sheer simplicity of moving the digital data not only from one disk to another, but from one format to another. The difficulty with film is seen in the efforts it takes to try to restore the original to something resembling what it looked like when new -a lot of info has already been lost.
WRT your last point, that is a problem. The other side of the coin is that the longer you wait to do the restoration/digitization, the worse shape the film will be in.
Yes it is a standards war. MPEG4 (of which AAC is a part and Apple aready supports in QuickTime) vs. WMV.
The question is, will the next generation of content be controlled by a group, or by a single company?
I'm a machine, You're a Machine!
Everyone you know, you know they are machines...
Now I'm not going to get that Schoolhouse Rock song out of my head for the rest of the day.
Thanks for nothing!
And before you we start thinkiing of Apple as having any kind of monopoly, consider that a real monopoly (MS) is now leveraging their position in the PC industry to push their own music format and music store. Just like there is a herd of PC's manufacturers loading MS Windows to compete with Apple, there's now a herd of portable music players supporting MS's proprietary music format to compete with the iPod ant iTMS.
Apple isn't a monopoly -they were simply the first to offer what people wanted. As can be seen from the weekly "iPod Killer" and new music store announcements, there is no large barrier that prevents the entry of competitors.
Exactly. Microsoft says,
We're sorry that this isn't easier - unfortunately Apple refuses to allow other companies to integrate with the iPod's proprietary music format.
Which is entirely untrue. The iPod plays industry standard mp4 and AAC (part of the mpeg4 standard, not a proprietary Apple standard as some think). What MS really means is, "Sorry, but we haven't been able to convince Apple its in their best interest to license our proprietary music format.
I could make a similar argument for an unlocked door. It has all these features made explicitly to facilitate opening the door to walk in.
I also don't buy the "free beverage" analogy as given. I still think its like everyone expecting free beverages unless there's a sign that says "No Free Beverages". After all, there's that unlocked door there, and we know everyone has beverages in there house.
I guess the bottom line is I think its bad form (not necessarily illegal) to use WiFi access without explicit permission. Others think its OK unless permission is explicity denied.
WiFi networks are able to be secured. As someone else pointed out, there are several places where WiFi access points are configured to give public access outside in public areas.
And in my experience these areas are always posted, which gives you explicit permission.
IMO using any WIFI hotspot without permission is like walking through someones front door if its not locked and sitting in their living room (though the latter is explicitly illegal).
Having a wifi connection that extends into a public area is like having a stereo turned up loud enough for people outside to hear.
No, what you're advocating is walking up with a transmitter tuned to the frequency they're using so that you can hijack the stereo to play your music. When you're linked, you're not just passively receiving a signal, you're sending one too.
"It's more like you are saying..."
No. He's simply saying that you have to follow the rules, whatever they are. The library owns the ball. You want to play with the ball, you play by their rules or they can refuse to let you play with the ball.
Its that simple.
If the library says you can only read their Harry Potter book in a climate controlled reading room while wearing latex gloves and a surgical mask, that's what you have to do if you want to read their book. Doesn't matter if you think its reasonable or not.
In this particular case though, I don't know that any of us know exactly what the library's rules are (I know I don't). I'm not even sure the police officer in question knows what the library's rules are.
s it the police's job to enforce public library rules? Do you expect uniformed policemen to knock on your door, asking for that overdue library book?
Possibly yes. At some point refusal to return the book or pay the fines (following the rules) turns into theft (a crime). But that's not relavent in this case.
It was an open, public hotspot.
Was it? OK, technically yes. My question is, has anyone seen an open, public hotspot that's meant to be used by anybody who wants, that isn't posted as such? I haven't.
So if your neighbor leaves his door unlocked, its OK to just walk into the house too?
As someone earlier pointed out, there's a difference between law, rules and etiquette. Generally speaking people don't assume if something is not locked up its OK to just take it or use it. If someone doesn't lock up there bike, is it OK to take it for a ride? Or would etiquette (if not the law in this case) require you ask first? (yes I know is some areas in some countries an unlocked bike is actually available for public use) Why is wireless access any different?
I was always taught that any time you use something that doesn't belong to you, you must first ask permission. I really don't understand why some people don't think this concept applies to WiFi - or maybe they do believe if its not locked down its mine for the taking.
Now if we get back to this specific case, it does get a bit muddier because its a public resource being used, but I'd argue the same applies from an etiquette (but maybe not a legal) standpoint.