One thing to know... there is NO consumer television available that can fully resolve the resolution of the 1080i signal. Plasma can't, CRT tubes can't, rear projection sets can't.
Sorry, gotta call bullshit on this one. Here's why:
Take 1920x1080i @ 30hz
Deinterlace it.
Now you have 1920x540p @ 60hz
Now all that's needed (since 540p is a snap for any HD set now) is enough horizontal resolution to display 1920 horizontal pixels.
OK, here's where the importance of a widescreen set comes in.
In a 1:1 area, the height of the set, 1200 pixels can be resolved. Now, my set is 1.77:1 (16:9). So expanding that to the full width of the set, you get (1.77*1200) 2124 pixels.
So a widescreen 1080i capable set has more than enough resolution to display the full detail. Now with 4:3 in letterboxed mode, YMMV. You will most likely not get the full detail because the picture is forced into a desner area.
Wait a second... yeah, why isn't PLAYBOY or HOT NETWORK all OVER this shit yet? Come one! The first cable company to carry Playboy HD, or HotZone HD will be RAKING in the dough.
Also, just for the record, I am NOT a moron. But you are - the same math gives a 53" 4:3 TV a 42.4" wide screen. A 43" 16:9 screen gives you only a 37.47774" wide screen.
Hey... hello... I was referring to picture size when viewing widescreen programming, you know, what the majority of HDTV and DVDs contain?
Run through your math again with 1.77:1, 1.85:1, or 2.35:1 for a picture aspect ratio and you'll quickly see why a smaller widescreen TV can give the same or larger net result than a 4:3. I think this point is obvious and doesn't require mathmatical proof. Anyone who's watched a 2.35:1 movie on 32" tv, and saw their movie shrink to a little stripe knows what I'm talking about.
I apologize for the harsh tone, but I cannot understand how anyone wouldn't go for the widescreen format. It's just more natural to be looking at a screen that better fills your field of view.
I'll just gloss over the fact that I can't afford to drop $6k on a TV ----
Many, MANY HDTVs are available for under $2000 now. Also there are MANY bargains to be had for clearance items (saw two sets for under $1500 yesterday @ Best Buy).
If you buy a 4:3 HDTV set, your a moron. Sorry but WTF. Most HDTV signals will be 16:9 aspect ratio, so you will be forced to letterbox everything you watch. Yes, on a 16:9 I get the opposite, bars to the sides, when watching fullscreen or pan+scan content on cable, but I'd prefer to have my movies look as they should. Also with a widescreen TV you don't need to buy as large a set to compensate for the aspect ratio mismatch.
Example: a 43" 16:9 set will have a picture roughly the same size as a 53" 4:3 set when watching a widescreen movie.
First off, I bought an HDTV capable RPTV (rear-projection television) in April of 2002. It's a nice set, I mainly bought it because it was highly discounted as a customer return, a few scuffs, and nearly 40% off the normal price so I jumped on it.
My main motivation was to have a 16:9 format television because I love widescreen and can't stand mangled versions of movies designed to squeeze into the wrong sized screen. (See the Widescreen advocacy site for more info.).
This set has Y-Pr-Pb input (wideband component) which and supports 480p and 540p/1080i and upscales 480i beautifully. The results of this is gorgeous displays of widescreen DVDs.
My intent was to eventually have some HDTV to watch, but it hasn't happened. First, I live in an apartment. My cable company is clueless and does not carry any HDTV programming. There are some that do (Time-Warner Houston - 9 channels). My other options are satellite, or local broadcast. Neither of which really thrill me with the aspect of having to ask my landlord about installing stuff on his roof.
Aside from actually having the signal available, usually with satellite you need more than the basic receiver box you get for free when you sign up, you need one that goes for $400+ (last I checked it was 500). So that sucks.
So, net result, I own an HDTV set and still don't get to watch any high-res content. I'm happy though since my anamorphic widescreen DVDs look gorgeous. But I'd love to have some HDTV to watch. Eventually....
-------
Just a side note: The us "deadline" for digital TV does not mandate high definition, just that stations broadcast in digital format, which could simply be 480i upscaled to 480p (which is one of the standard digital formats).
Your comparing people who make movies with those who's business is to invest, finance, and eventually profit from them. The people using this software only care about quality and creating spectacular effects, and use the best tool for the job be it OSS or not.
I am not an electrician! Dont do this unless you know what you're doing! You can get electrocuted by phone lines!!
I dunno what kind of phone lines they have up in Winnipeg, but 'round these parts you should only see +5 VDC on your line. Now if a certain prankster wanted to CALL you while you were stipping wire for that last jack.. yeow! But It's still far from electrocution. Still common sense says uplug the wire before you do anything.. (some people are lazy);-)
these two factors are linked, as the dynamic range increases, the potential for a better s/n ratio also increases. notice i say potential, having the headroon does not mean it will be noise free. but pick up some data sheets and compare the s/n ratio of cd's and dvd's. there is a difference there of usually 10-20 db. that is one hell of alot of a difference. higher sample rates and more discret electronics allow for this.
anyway, i'm starting to think myself in circles, and i fear i have already made a fallacy or two, so i'm going to stop now.
Yep, you sure have.
Dude, you completely forget that anolog gear is most definately NOT noise-free. If you are looking for the highest dynamic range and signal to noice ratio, digital recording is the only way to get it.
With Sony Direct Stream Digital, the contest is basically over. It can completely reproduce the contents of ANY analog audio recording. Vinyl deteriorates, gets scratched/dusty, etc... bits don't.
Give the guy a LITTLE slack... created FreeDOS
on
The 1991 "X-Box"
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"Hi! I'm Jim Hall, and I founded the FreeDOS Project back in 1994 when I was a physics student at the University of Wisconsin-River Falls."
For the people tearing this apart and nitpicking, this isn't just some random slashdot reader. I think guy does know his stuff. Besides, what would he have to gain for making a hoax like this? He already said he definately does not claim any rights to the name.
You should check out the book "Smart Mobs" it has chapters on where P2P technology is headed, and reputation management systems, managing public goods, social habits, all very good stuff. I find it fascinating.
Ok, fair enough, I didn't buy it either, but has anyone tested the exploit posted to BUGTRAQ this morning for mpg123? Aren't there also known exploits for Winamp?
The claims were certainly possible... but not quite plausible.
Yes, major overscan issues. Most sets, including mine do at least 5% on all sides. Why? I have no clue. It seems like this was required back in the days when the signal was very noisy or the eletronics were very slow to lock to the sync plus so it kept the "garbage" off screen. But now I dont see any reason for it. Anyways, it'd be wicked cool if there were a driver option to compensate for the 5% overscan. What it would do, basically is, output the normal resolution, but force all screen content to be confined to the visible region. That would be very nice. Without that, it's just not usable. For playing movies, you don't notice too much, but when your taskbar is half off the screen, it kind of sucks.
Slashdot Mirror
And people laughed at me when they saw my TV filled the space to the sides with grey bars. That's designed to prevent this exact problem.
Sorry, gotta call bullshit on this one. Here's why:
Now all that's needed (since 540p is a snap for any HD set now) is enough horizontal resolution to display 1920 horizontal pixels.
OK, here's where the importance of a widescreen set comes in.
My set (which is fairly low end) has 1200 horizontal TV lines of resolution.
In a 1:1 area, the height of the set, 1200 pixels can be resolved. Now, my set is 1.77:1 (16:9). So expanding that to the full width of the set, you get (1.77*1200) 2124 pixels.
So a widescreen 1080i capable set has more than enough resolution to display the full detail. Now with 4:3 in letterboxed mode, YMMV. You will most likely not get the full detail because the picture is forced into a desner area.
Wait a second... yeah, why isn't PLAYBOY or HOT NETWORK all OVER this shit yet? Come one! The first cable company to carry Playboy HD, or HotZone HD will be RAKING in the dough.
though the Channel 13 weather girl here in L.A. who does the weather braless in her tank top and tight leather pants would sure look cool in HDTV! ;-)
Holy shit! Dude I gotta move to L.A....
;-)
Ehh, wait on second thought, can you just record that and send it to me
Also, just for the record, I am NOT a moron. But you are - the same math gives a 53" 4:3 TV a 42.4" wide screen. A 43" 16:9 screen gives you only a 37.47774" wide screen.
Hey... hello... I was referring to picture size when viewing widescreen programming, you know, what the majority of HDTV and DVDs contain?
Run through your math again with 1.77:1, 1.85:1, or 2.35:1 for a picture aspect ratio and you'll quickly see why a smaller widescreen TV can give the same or larger net result than a 4:3. I think this point is obvious and doesn't require mathmatical proof. Anyone who's watched a 2.35:1 movie on 32" tv, and saw their movie shrink to a little stripe knows what I'm talking about.
I apologize for the harsh tone, but I cannot understand how anyone wouldn't go for the widescreen format. It's just more natural to be looking at a screen that better fills your field of view.
----
Many, MANY HDTVs are available for under $2000 now. Also there are MANY bargains to be had for clearance items (saw two sets for under $1500 yesterday @ Best Buy).
However all the other points are valid.
32" 480-line 4:3 TV
If you buy a 4:3 HDTV set, your a moron. Sorry but WTF. Most HDTV signals will be 16:9 aspect ratio, so you will be forced to letterbox everything you watch. Yes, on a 16:9 I get the opposite, bars to the sides, when watching fullscreen or pan+scan content on cable, but I'd prefer to have my movies look as they should. Also with a widescreen TV you don't need to buy as large a set to compensate for the aspect ratio mismatch.
Example: a 43" 16:9 set will have a picture roughly the same size as a 53" 4:3 set when watching a widescreen movie.
An issue near and dear to my heart:
First off, I bought an HDTV capable RPTV (rear-projection television) in April of 2002. It's a nice set, I mainly bought it because it was highly discounted as a customer return, a few scuffs, and nearly 40% off the normal price so I jumped on it.
My main motivation was to have a 16:9 format television because I love widescreen and can't stand mangled versions of movies designed to squeeze into the wrong sized screen. (See the Widescreen advocacy site for more info.).
This set has Y-Pr-Pb input (wideband component) which and supports 480p and 540p/1080i and upscales 480i beautifully. The results of this is gorgeous displays of widescreen DVDs.
My intent was to eventually have some HDTV to watch, but it hasn't happened. First, I live in an apartment. My cable company is clueless and does not carry any HDTV programming. There are some that do (Time-Warner Houston - 9 channels). My other options are satellite, or local broadcast. Neither of which really thrill me with the aspect of having to ask my landlord about installing stuff on his roof.
Aside from actually having the signal available, usually with satellite you need more than the basic receiver box you get for free when you sign up, you need one that goes for $400+ (last I checked it was 500). So that sucks.
So, net result, I own an HDTV set and still don't get to watch any high-res content. I'm happy though since my anamorphic widescreen DVDs look gorgeous. But I'd love to have some HDTV to watch. Eventually....
-------
Just a side note: The us "deadline" for digital TV does not mandate high definition, just that stations broadcast in digital format, which could simply be 480i upscaled to 480p (which is one of the standard digital formats).
In fact, why was the previous post modded up in the first place?
Your comparing people who make movies with those who's business is to invest, finance, and eventually profit from them. The people using this software only care about quality and creating spectacular effects, and use the best tool for the job be it OSS or not.
I thought for a second they were lowering the caffeine content of jolt. Yikes. What a nightmare, first diet Red Bull, now this??
Quick someone mirror the photos! Please? I dont want to wait till tuesday to see them :-(
Headers added by spamassassin:
It still sounds like I should upgrade to 2.5 when it comes out, sounds like some very nice features. Keep up the good work.
See Also: SneakeMail
I dunno what kind of phone lines they have up in Winnipeg, but 'round these parts you should only see +5 VDC on your line. Now if a certain prankster wanted to CALL you while you were stipping wire for that last jack.. yeow! But It's still far from electrocution. Still common sense says uplug the wire before you do anything.. (some people are lazy) ;-)
DES is obsolete and would not be used for sensitive information by the US Military.
But they didn't say who's military ;-)
DES hasn't been cracked per-se but the 40bit keyspace can be scanned very efficiently now with distributed computing and specialized hardware.
This time, it's even pointing to the same exact article, not just the same story covered by someone else
A new all-time slashdot low...
Just posted Sunday: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/26/028207
Yep, you sure have.
Dude, you completely forget that anolog gear is most definately NOT noise-free. If you are looking for the highest dynamic range and signal to noice ratio, digital recording is the only way to get it.
With Sony Direct Stream Digital, the contest is basically over. It can completely reproduce the contents of ANY analog audio recording. Vinyl deteriorates, gets scratched/dusty, etc... bits don't.
For the people tearing this apart and nitpicking, this isn't just some random slashdot reader. I think guy does know his stuff. Besides, what would he have to gain for making a hoax like this? He already said he definately does not claim any rights to the name.
Sheeeesh...
You should check out the book "Smart Mobs" it has chapters on where P2P technology is headed, and reputation management systems, managing public goods, social habits, all very good stuff. I find it fascinating.
The claims were certainly possible... but not quite plausible.
If you can't beat em, sue 'em?
Yes, major overscan issues. Most sets, including mine do at least 5% on all sides. Why? I have no clue. It seems like this was required back in the days when the signal was very noisy or the eletronics were very slow to lock to the sync plus so it kept the "garbage" off screen. But now I dont see any reason for it. Anyways, it'd be wicked cool if there were a driver option to compensate for the 5% overscan. What it would do, basically is, output the normal resolution, but force all screen content to be confined to the visible region. That would be very nice. Without that, it's just not usable. For playing movies, you don't notice too much, but when your taskbar is half off the screen, it kind of sucks.