I fully understand the difference between Open Matte and Hard Matte. I also understand that the key to this case is that the misleading graphic on the dvd box shows that FF = WS - sides cut off. This graphic is essentially true for P&S films, where the WS version is cropped and panned (ever catch "A League of Their Own" P&S on TBS, makes me dizzy). When the FS presentation is open matte, this graphic is of course false, but the WS version is still true to original release. Semantics, but no problem here.
What I don't understand is the particular settlement wording which says the movies which were "shot in 1.85:1" have the same "image width" in both 1.33:1 and 1.85:1 presentation. I am taking "shot in 1.85:1" to mean either shot (or transfered) with hard matte in place or shot (and subsequently projected) with anamorphic lenses. The only way for an anamorphic or hard matte film to have the same image width in both WS and FS presentations is if the original print was cropped to FS, then cropped again to WS (hence double-cropped). If the question is one of open matte vs WS, then the correct wording would be "presented in 1.85:1"
This list of eligible DVDs further complicates things, as the suit was originally filed with something like 4 films in question (I don't know which 4 films, and that might clear things up here). The final big list in the settlement is apparently every DVD which uses that WS vs FS graphic in a false way. This means either Open Matte or the WS version is double cropped.
My question still stands: are any of the films in question double-cropped? Given the number of botched transfers I have seen this is not an impossible scenario.
If the entire thing is just a matter of open matte FS presentation than this whole thing is pretty silly.
FWIW: Terminator and Silence of the Lambs are both on the big list and Hard-Matte
"...The gravamen of Plaintiffs' Complaint is that certain representations on the label and package insert of MGM's widescreen DVDs are false and misleading because MGM's widescreen DVDs for films shot in the 1.85 to 1 aspect ratio have the same image width as MGM's standard screen format DVDs.
MGM has denied and continues to deny that any portion of the packaging on the outside or inside of its widescreen DVDs is misleading...."
I take that to mean that the films were shot matted at 1.85:1 and presented theatrically at 1.85:1, either cropped or P&S for the 1.33:1 DVD presentation, which was further cropped for the 1.85:1 DVD presentation. That is stinky if indeed true.
It means that someone doesn't understand the purpose of a signature.
That "someone" would be the person at MS who wrote that dialog box. That dialog box says to the user that "signature"="this software is safe to run", when in fact a signature means "this software did in fact come from XYZ software company" nothing more. It might discourage a user from installing an unsigned version of IE full of spyware (from www.internetexplorer.com for example). While this is a good thing, you and I both know that a signature does not assure the "safety" of anything. The problem is that the dialog used in IE and WinXP does falsely give that assurance to the user. The author of the article is suggesting that no user should ever run "unsigned code" because its not safe.
Tommy: The point is, how do you know the Guarantee Fairy isn't a crazy glue sniffer? "Building model airplanes" says the little fairy, but we're not buying it. Next thing you know, there's money missing off the dresser and your daughter's knocked up, I seen it a hundred times.
Ted: But why do they put a guarantee on the box then?
Tommy: Because they know all they solda ya was a guaranteed piece of shit. That's all it is. Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time.
The point about Verisign is FUD. The truth is Firefox DOES use indeed use a verification system to ensure that the file you download from their site, or a mirror, is in fact the actual real-deal authentic firefox 1.0. This system is free and it works. It however is NOT seamlessly integrated with MSIE, like "digital signing" is.
The option for any software develepor/distributor is to either pay up for a cert or use md5 and have MS bloggers make fun of you.
Just bitch at them until they fix that. In the mean time use the "Launchy" extension which gives you a rt-click option to "open this link in IE" for the banking sites where you need IE.
Signatures aren't there to tell you if the software is safe to run or not. It's there to let you know where it came from and that it hasn't been tampered with.
The publisher was verified so you should install and run this software.
It's a web server that mozilla.org directs you to. If you're downloading Firefox, you need to trust mozilla.org. Likewise, if you're downloading Internet Explorer, you need to trust microsoft.com.
Just don't make the mistake of going to www.internetexplorer.com I get the strange suspicion they are not affiliated with MS. And the downloads they link to for IE6 are not signed by MS.
Please tell me what good is signing code? GAIN is signed. Who can you trust? How do I know if any software I install on my computer is what I think it is? MS thinks I should take Verisign's word for it. I don't know who Verisign is, why should I trust them? I know who MS is, they made the software that runs my computer, I trust(ed) them.
From the first day I plugged my PC into broadband internet, things changed. (Win XP Pro retail, default install, about 6 months from shelf to net) Runs slower, searches get redirected, desktop is full of pop-ups I cant get rid of, I can't even bring up task manager with the 3-finger salute anymore. I trusted MS and they screwed me. Now they tell me I shouldn't run software unless they (or Veriwho?) tell me it's safe. They told me the OS and browser package they sold me was safe. All I had to do was plug it in the internet and I get screwed.
Tommy: The point is, how do you know the Guarantee Fairy isn't a crazy glue sniffer? "Building model airplanes" says the little fairy, but we're not buying it. Next thing you know, there's money missing off the dresser and your daughter's knocked up, I seen it a hundred times.
Ted: But why do they put a guarantee on the box then?
Tommy: Because they know all they solda ya was a guaranteed piece of shit. That's all it is. Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time.
Agreed. The lines between virus/spyware/malware/hi-jack-ware is very thin theses days.
The problem is some of these things are technically installed with user consent. Sometimes the click-through EULA actually says what the software does. Of course nobody reads that crap, and even if they did, the language is more confusing than informative.
A combined anti-virus/anti-spyware product from Symantec or McAfee would potentially be removing legitimately installed software thereby causing financial damages to legitimate software vendors (aka scumbags). I'm sure there are lawyers somewhere salivating over such prospects right now.
The key to optical swithcing speed is to reduce the number of optical to elecrical (O->E) signal conversions and reconversions (E->O).
Current optical switches work like this: Light (Data + switch signal) goes in, convert both to electrical, electronically route the signal, convert to light, light comes out. (2 O->E, 2 E->O)
Mems: Light (data + switch signal) in, convert switch signal to electrical, redirect light using mirrors or waveguides, light comes out. (1 O->E)
All optical switch: Light (data + switch signal) in, redirect light using all optical components, light comes out. (no conversions)
The all optical switch is theoretically fastest, provided the opto-optic effect used in the switch device is very fast. That is the first hard thing to do and what is highlighted in the Cornell work.
All-optical switching also requires that the switching signal be distinguishable from the data signal. In this case it means either extracting the switching signal from the optical data signal (think packet header) which potentially means O->E + E->O or you have a separate wavelength or fiber devoted to carrying the switching signal.
See, Dan Rather is right 95% of the time and it's "disgusting" that people attack him. Bush is right 95% of the time, and by golly, get him the hell out of here.
Not anymore. They switched to a "customer number" system, and for a little while you had the option to have your SSN show on your license as well. (In VA it is law that you must present proof of SSN to law enforcement if asked.) As of at least 5/2003, they have done away with the SSN entirely, optional or otherwise. No more SSN on your DL in VA.
Problem is sensors are all different. There are different geometric pixel layouts, ie at least 3 variations of Bayesian and various stacked sensors. New designs are being toyed with constantly, which implies new algorithms to generate a usable image. Fuji has a rather interesting sensor that uses high sensitivity sites along side low sensitivity sites to improve contrast in low light conditions. Other infrared sensors utilize 7 or more "colors".
The RAW formats used by camera makers generally have pixel level information + jpg (or other low size compressed) preview + various metadata. RAW lets the operator tune the color response and even sharpen an image using cleaner algorithms than possible with a TIFF or JPG, because you are dealing with geometry and pixel levels directly, not some approximation done in-camera by interpolation and conversion to a color space. Yes even TIFFs out of your camera are "lossy" due to the unavoidable in-camera processing.
RAW allows for much more control, but you must have some information about the specific sensor being used and the appropriate (and sometimes proprietary) algorithms. There are several different algorithms for each camera maker's RAW format, including the ones that come with Photoshop CS. They all yield different results. I generally prefer the colors I get using the Fuji RAW converter versus that of CS on my S2.
This new DNG format is just like existing RAW, in that is contains pixel data + preview + metadata, only it standardizes the metadata and requires enough metadata to be able to interpret the pixel data into a useable image. That means a developer can look at a DNG and instantly know what sensor configuration and characteristics, lens settings etc, and how to interpret the pixel data (at some useable level). It also allows for manufacturers to include proprietary data, useful to their own specific interpretation algorithms. For the user/developer the actual interpretation is still left to your algorithm of choice.
The big deal of DNG is that a program that supports it (ie PhotoShop with DNG update) should, at some level at least, support DNG files from all existing and future sensors and cameras right out of the box, without a software update. Of course it is reasonable to expect that the best image possible might not come from generic DNG interpretations, but manufacturer specific ones which rely on the proprietary data within the DNG files.
It is called color compensating. You tint with complementary colors to neutralize a color cast. Yes it will make the window appear a bit tinted as less total light gets through, but it would be less yellow.
Important: After installing iTunes 4.5 for Windows, you'll only be able to transfer music to your iPod using iTunes. To transfer music from MusicMatch Jukebox or Audible Manager to your iPod, you'll need to first import the music into iTunes. For more information, search iTunes and Music Store Help.
I can vouch that equations in Office XP and Office X (Mac) are less than compatible. Throw MathType (the equation editor "upgrade") in the mix and all bets are off. In fact it seems, in my experience at least, Word XP routinely converts editable equations into uneditable pictures for no apparent reason.
I wouldn't be surprised in this post-9/11, constant terrorst threat, war on everything world that more and more things that have substancial legal uses but are more commonly used for evil or breach of copyright/licence will be outlawed.
...It's not a DVD... That's just it. It's not a DVD, but costs as much as one, except you get only 24 hrs to watch the thing. For myself, the trip to Hollywood Video is worth it, same price, better quality, more features and 5 nights to watch the thing. Oh and most importantly the DVD usually works without interuption.
Personally, I have had nothing but horrible reception on analog and digital (including frequent drops in the cable modem) since I moved to this place, so I suspect my particular problem to be a line issue. However, I have complained to Comcast MANY times about this and they have sent techs out to investigate each time. Every time they do the same thing: change ground block, new connectors. I'm done letting Comcast know what is worth my money. The bastards refused to give me a service credit for a downed line which left me without service for 2 weeks. They will hopefully get the hint when I switch to Dish. I just need to sneak onto he roof when the landlord isn't around.
This i think is a big problem with cable (telephone, wireless or ISP) companies today. They are so concerned with what they think customers want, that they often fail to provide what they REALLY want: high quality service. I want my cable TV to deliver nice picture and sound reliably. I want to place and recieve calls reliably on my cell phone. I want my "always on" "high speed" broadband connection to stay connected when I'm using it. All the added "features" don't mean squat if the basic quality of service is not there.
I have Comcast for all these things, basically because they are the only game in town. I have had line technicians at my apartment at least twice a year for the 3 years I have lived in the same place for the same problem. I am convinced that monopolistic companies (like Comcast) don't care about what the customer wants, they have little incentive to keep us happy. Until I have a choice in cable providers, I will likely be stuck with horrible service and high rates.
Slashdot Mirror
So let's see your militia get its shit together and start defending the other 9 amendments in the bill of rights. That's what it is there for no?
I fully understand the difference between Open Matte and Hard Matte. I also understand that the key to this case is that the misleading graphic on the dvd box shows that FF = WS - sides cut off. This graphic is essentially true for P&S films, where the WS version is cropped and panned (ever catch "A League of Their Own" P&S on TBS, makes me dizzy). When the FS presentation is open matte, this graphic is of course false, but the WS version is still true to original release. Semantics, but no problem here.
What I don't understand is the particular settlement wording which says the movies which were "shot in 1.85:1" have the same "image width" in both 1.33:1 and 1.85:1 presentation. I am taking "shot in 1.85:1" to mean either shot (or transfered) with hard matte in place or shot (and subsequently projected) with anamorphic lenses. The only way for an anamorphic or hard matte film to have the same image width in both WS and FS presentations is if the original print was cropped to FS, then cropped again to WS (hence double-cropped). If the question is one of open matte vs WS, then the correct wording would be "presented in 1.85:1"
This list of eligible DVDs further complicates things, as the suit was originally filed with something like 4 films in question (I don't know which 4 films, and that might clear things up here). The final big list in the settlement is apparently every DVD which uses that WS vs FS graphic in a false way. This means either Open Matte or the WS version is double cropped.
My question still stands: are any of the films in question double-cropped? Given the number of botched transfers I have seen this is not an impossible scenario.
If the entire thing is just a matter of open matte FS presentation than this whole thing is pretty silly.
FWIW: Terminator and Silence of the Lambs are both on the big list and Hard-Matte
I take that to mean that the films were shot matted at 1.85:1 and presented theatrically at 1.85:1, either cropped or P&S for the 1.33:1 DVD presentation, which was further cropped for the 1.85:1 DVD presentation. That is stinky if indeed true.
Ok maybe not in my pocket, but the mini would fit in my pocket if I wore cargo pants.
That "someone" would be the person at MS who wrote that dialog box. That dialog box says to the user that "signature"="this software is safe to run", when in fact a signature means "this software did in fact come from XYZ software company" nothing more. It might discourage a user from installing an unsigned version of IE full of spyware (from www.internetexplorer.com for example). While this is a good thing, you and I both know that a signature does not assure the "safety" of anything. The problem is that the dialog used in IE and WinXP does falsely give that assurance to the user. The author of the article is suggesting that no user should ever run "unsigned code" because its not safe.
The point about Verisign is FUD. The truth is Firefox DOES use indeed use a verification system to ensure that the file you download from their site, or a mirror, is in fact the actual real-deal authentic firefox 1.0. This system is free and it works. It however is NOT seamlessly integrated with MSIE, like "digital signing" is.
The option for any software develepor/distributor is to either pay up for a cert or use md5 and have MS bloggers make fun of you.
Just bitch at them until they fix that. In the mean time use the "Launchy" extension which gives you a rt-click option to "open this link in IE" for the banking sites where you need IE.
The publisher was verified so you should install and run this software.
WTF does that mean in your language???
It's a web server that mozilla.org directs you to. If you're downloading Firefox, you need to trust mozilla.org. Likewise, if you're downloading Internet Explorer, you need to trust microsoft.com.
Just don't make the mistake of going to www.internetexplorer.com I get the strange suspicion they are not affiliated with MS. And the downloads they link to for IE6 are not signed by MS.
From the first day I plugged my PC into broadband internet, things changed. (Win XP Pro retail, default install, about 6 months from shelf to net) Runs slower, searches get redirected, desktop is full of pop-ups I cant get rid of, I can't even bring up task manager with the 3-finger salute anymore. I trusted MS and they screwed me. Now they tell me I shouldn't run software unless they (or Veriwho?) tell me it's safe. They told me the OS and browser package they sold me was safe. All I had to do was plug it in the internet and I get screwed.
"mirror lock-up"
Agreed. The lines between virus/spyware/malware/hi-jack-ware is very thin theses days.
The problem is some of these things are technically installed with user consent. Sometimes the click-through EULA actually says what the software does. Of course nobody reads that crap, and even if they did, the language is more confusing than informative.
A combined anti-virus/anti-spyware product from Symantec or McAfee would potentially be removing legitimately installed software thereby causing financial damages to legitimate software vendors (aka scumbags). I'm sure there are lawyers somewhere salivating over such prospects right now.
The key to optical swithcing speed is to reduce the number of optical to elecrical (O->E) signal conversions and reconversions (E->O).
Current optical switches work like this:
Light (Data + switch signal) goes in, convert both to electrical, electronically route the signal, convert to light, light comes out. (2 O->E, 2 E->O)
Mems:
Light (data + switch signal) in, convert switch signal to electrical, redirect light using mirrors or waveguides, light comes out. (1 O->E)
All optical switch:
Light (data + switch signal) in, redirect light using all optical components, light comes out. (no conversions)
The all optical switch is theoretically fastest, provided the opto-optic effect used in the switch device is very fast. That is the first hard thing to do and what is highlighted in the Cornell work.
All-optical switching also requires that the switching signal be distinguishable from the data signal. In this case it means either extracting the switching signal from the optical data signal (think packet header) which potentially means O->E + E->O or you have a separate wavelength or fiber devoted to carrying the switching signal.
See, Dan Rather is right 95% of the time and it's "disgusting" that people attack him. Bush is right 95% of the time, and by golly, get him the hell out of here.
When Dan Rather is wrong, nobody dies.
Not anymore. They switched to a "customer number" system, and for a little while you had the option to have your SSN show on your license as well. (In VA it is law that you must present proof of SSN to law enforcement if asked.) As of at least 5/2003, they have done away with the SSN entirely, optional or otherwise. No more SSN on your DL in VA.
Problem is sensors are all different. There are different geometric pixel layouts, ie at least 3 variations of Bayesian and various stacked sensors. New designs are being toyed with constantly, which implies new algorithms to generate a usable image. Fuji has a rather interesting sensor that uses high sensitivity sites along side low sensitivity sites to improve contrast in low light conditions. Other infrared sensors utilize 7 or more "colors".
The RAW formats used by camera makers generally have pixel level information + jpg (or other low size compressed) preview + various metadata. RAW lets the operator tune the color response and even sharpen an image using cleaner algorithms than possible with a TIFF or JPG, because you are dealing with geometry and pixel levels directly, not some approximation done in-camera by interpolation and conversion to a color space. Yes even TIFFs out of your camera are "lossy" due to the unavoidable in-camera processing.
RAW allows for much more control, but you must have some information about the specific sensor being used and the appropriate (and sometimes proprietary) algorithms. There are several different algorithms for each camera maker's RAW format, including the ones that come with Photoshop CS. They all yield different results. I generally prefer the colors I get using the Fuji RAW converter versus that of CS on my S2.
This new DNG format is just like existing RAW, in that is contains pixel data + preview + metadata, only it standardizes the metadata and requires enough metadata to be able to interpret the pixel data into a useable image. That means a developer can look at a DNG and instantly know what sensor configuration and characteristics, lens settings etc, and how to interpret the pixel data (at some useable level). It also allows for manufacturers to include proprietary data, useful to their own specific interpretation algorithms. For the user/developer the actual interpretation is still left to your algorithm of choice.
The big deal of DNG is that a program that supports it (ie PhotoShop with DNG update) should, at some level at least, support DNG files from all existing and future sensors and cameras right out of the box, without a software update. Of course it is reasonable to expect that the best image possible might not come from generic DNG interpretations, but manufacturer specific ones which rely on the proprietary data within the DNG files.
Of course! Now I'm off to drink some liquid hydrogen!
It is called color compensating. You tint with complementary colors to neutralize a color cast. Yes it will make the window appear a bit tinted as less total light gets through, but it would be less yellow.
I don't like to read. I want my iPod to read eBooks to me.
From the license aggrement:
Important: After installing iTunes 4.5 for Windows, you'll only be able to transfer music to your iPod using iTunes. To transfer music from MusicMatch Jukebox or Audible Manager to your iPod, you'll need to first import the music into iTunes. For more information, search iTunes and Music Store Help.
What the hell is that?
I can vouch that equations in Office XP and Office X (Mac) are less than compatible. Throw MathType (the equation editor "upgrade") in the mix and all bets are off. In fact it seems, in my experience at least, Word XP routinely converts editable equations into uneditable pictures for no apparent reason.
I heard this works well. It emulates Bose RF controls to be used with the IR remote of your choice.
I wouldn't be surprised in this post-9/11, constant terrorst threat, war on everything world that more and more things that have substancial legal uses but are more commonly used for evil or breach of copyright/licence will be outlawed.
Except guns. Republicans like guns.
...It's not a DVD... That's just it. It's not a DVD, but costs as much as one, except you get only 24 hrs to watch the thing. For myself, the trip to Hollywood Video is worth it, same price, better quality, more features and 5 nights to watch the thing. Oh and most importantly the DVD usually works without interuption.
Personally, I have had nothing but horrible reception on analog and digital (including frequent drops in the cable modem) since I moved to this place, so I suspect my particular problem to be a line issue. However, I have complained to Comcast MANY times about this and they have sent techs out to investigate each time. Every time they do the same thing: change ground block, new connectors. I'm done letting Comcast know what is worth my money. The bastards refused to give me a service credit for a downed line which left me without service for 2 weeks. They will hopefully get the hint when I switch to Dish. I just need to sneak onto he roof when the landlord isn't around.
1. What do customers want?
This i think is a big problem with cable (telephone, wireless or ISP) companies today. They are so concerned with what they think customers want, that they often fail to provide what they REALLY want: high quality service. I want my cable TV to deliver nice picture and sound reliably. I want to place and recieve calls reliably on my cell phone. I want my "always on" "high speed" broadband connection to stay connected when I'm using it. All the added "features" don't mean squat if the basic quality of service is not there.
I have Comcast for all these things, basically because they are the only game in town. I have had line technicians at my apartment at least twice a year for the 3 years I have lived in the same place for the same problem. I am convinced that monopolistic companies (like Comcast) don't care about what the customer wants, they have little incentive to keep us happy. Until I have a choice in cable providers, I will likely be stuck with horrible service and high rates.