You're right, the next devices coming out are targetting the 800MiB/s implementation. We should see these Q4 of this year. Many of the vendors are targetting 1.6GiB/s for late 2003/early 2004 with 3.2 a year or so after that.
Actually, the newest rev of IEEE1394 can handle up to 3.2Gib/s.
Doesn't update iPod playlists?
on
iPod on Windows
·
· Score: 3, Informative
This doesn't appear to update the playlists on the iPod itself.
So far as I can tell, it's basically just using the iPod in FireWire target mode, where the device is basically just a harddrive.
I would guess that XPlay doesn't allow you to update the iPod playlists in the same manner that you do on the Mac, which means that anything you do only works so long as the iPod is attached to the PC.
I think most people are assuming this will work identically to the integration between iTunes and iPod, which doesn't sound likely.
Virtix has released plugins for iMovie (X and classic) that include both effects (Bravo) and transitions (Echo).
They were well worth the $39 I spent on them. You can see a quickie test I did with the "Sparkle" transition, which is basically a transporter effect.
I agree with everyone who says that iMovie is the best entry level editor around. For one-offs and quickies (like the above), I use iMovie and iDVD. For more involved projects, I own Final Cut Pro and DVD Studio Pro.
If anyone if unnerved by this event, you should read Clive Cussler's"Atlantis Found" which deals with an evil organization attempting to cause a similar event in order to take over the world. Good escapist reading.
Actually, my mermaids example was bad. I should have said, "people who would call a yawl a ketch". While they both float on the water they are not the same.
My problem is not with the format itself, it's with everyone calling it a DVD format when it isn't. My "obsession" with the DVD Forum is the same one I have with Phillips and the IETF. If I want to find out what makes a CD a CD, I go to Phillips who controls the CD licensing. Basically, I go to who controls the "thing".
If I wanted to find out what could be called a DVD+RW, I'd go to the DVD+RW Alliance, not the DVD Forum.
Nothing changes the fact that DVD+RW are not DVDs. Sorry. And that's my only point.
Frankly, I don't care that I get "mopped" up. There are a lot of people in the world who could care less about proper nomenclature and that's fine. These are generally the same people whose ancesters called manatees "mermaids".
There is a standard, and it's set by the DVD Forum. The standard for recordable DVD is DVD-R and DVD-RW. That's it.
Computer manufacturers came up with a format that is optimized for data storage and uses a disc similar to DVD. This format is called DVD+RW, which is disengenuous at best as discs produced by these systems cannot be called DVD.
Note that discs produced by DVD+RW drives are not DVDs nor can they legally be called DVD. The only writeable formats which can produce output media that can be called DVD are DVD-R and DVD-RW. DVD-RAM is also available, but is primarily just for data storage.
A lot of confusion could be cleared if people would stop referring to DVD+RW as a recordable DVD format.
$.02(US) is for producer, not consumer
on
More on MPEG4
·
· Score: 2
The two cents per hour charge is applied to the producer of the content, not the consumer.
The questions about how this additional charge would be audited is one of the major points that Apple and others have raised. None of them are happy with this, as it makes it difficult for their customers to make use of the technology.
There is a glaring problem with the chart included in the article.
According to the chart, DVD+RW is a DVD recordable format. This is incorrect, as the DVD Forum has not accepted DVD+RW into the DVD family of formats. At most, DVD+RW can only be described as a recordable format using media similar to standard DVDs.
The DVD+RW manufacturers are being disingenuous and misleading the unwashed by including the "DVD" in the format name when they know full well that discs produced in this format cannot legally be called DVDs.
If you read the article, Ridley Scott is not talking about making any significant structural changes to the film or adding any thematic elements.
When he says "I'm going back to the original negative and reorganising all the elements..."
He's obviously talking only about the mastering from the original film and sound elements. That will allow him to make some modifications to the length of several scenes that were deliberately cut long to allow the narration (which is no longer part of the film).
The way he's proposed to do it (using the original elements) is really the only way to do it properly, as he'll be able to make new transitions work properly, from both a scene cut beat and, more importantly, for the sound mix.
This has been a known factor in HDTV circles for several years now. Anyone who purchased an HDTV set should have known this was coming because the change was highly publicized (due to the wrangling over it). Anyone who claims they didn't know about it, simply decided to forego the homework that should go in to any purchase like this.
These are the same people that will buy a widescreen LCD or plasma display HDTV for home that downconverts resolution because it doesn't have enough columns/rows and then complain about the lack of quality. Should have spent the extra $5K for one that could display full resolution up to 720p.
Much of what he recommends in the article sounds like the old OpenDoc initiative.
For example, " Let's completely modularize each tool function (such as layout, fonts, kerning, textures, linking, math and tables) and make each a separate interactive GUI tool. Like an erector set, applications could be constructed for specific needs. And like hammers, saws, wrenches and screwdrivers in the physical realm, such tools are easier to utilize than large factories (or contemporary application programs)."
This couldn't be a better description of what OpenDoc was supposed to have accomplished. Unfortunately, OpenDoc is another (predominantly) IBM technology that they had zero idea what to do with.
Providing engineering and marketing resources for an Intel port of OS X would be a tragic and fatal mistake for Apple.
First, the Microsoft trial still hasn't been finished and nothing in the proposed settlement really makes a difference for the Dells and Sonys of the world. None of them ship Linux as a regular and promoted desktop now. They didn't hop onto BeOS and it had no licensing fees toward the end.
Additionally, one reason Apple works so well is that they control all aspects of the platform, hardware and software. Microsoft would love to have this power but they have to deal with every piece of garbage add-on card that comes out. I don't have a problem with Apple having this control, because they're peanuts compared to MSFT. Without control of the devices that people want to attach to the Intel box, Apple would end up with many of the same problems endemic to Windows.
I would say that Apple should stay exactly where they are. If they choose to move to an Intel box, they should provide their own hardware and not sell shrinkwrapped copies of the OS.
Did Corel really do any good for the Linux community? There Linux distro was lamentable and I wouldn't consider their contibutions to Wine to be of any help to anyone other than those Linux users who were previously WordPerfect users and wanted to use it under Linux regardless of the problems with it.
I by a lot of commercial software for personal use (several thousand dollars worth a year) and Corel Office for Linux was one of the few I've regretted buying. It once again proved that Wine should not be pursued as a legitimate means of providing Linux apps. It looked like a Windows apps, acted like a Windows app, and was, in fact, a Windows app!
I saw a demo screening of a digital-to-digital production early last year in Chicago and was not impressed.
Color fringing was substantial (note that company engineers were there to calibrate the projection system, so it was set up properly) on horizontal motion and you could actually see the pixel rows when sitting in seats near the screen. Contrast was a problem.
I'm not sure why people are on this bandwagon. I have a degree in cinema production and can say without hesitation that digital projection is a long way off in quality when compared to film.
Also, before anyone starts with the "scratches, dust, blah, blah, blah" I have this to say: with the exception of the film element, digital projection suffers from 90% of the problems film does. Dust in the mechanics and lenses (don't forget there is also a giant Xenon bulb housing back there), stained, gouged, and otherwise abused screens, broken seats, etc. Digital projection is going to make little difference in the quality of the viewing experience because the venue owner must take resposibility for providing a well maintained facility. If this hasn't happened already, it's not going to happen with digital projection. I can already tell you that instead of the occasional flash of dust or scratch, you'll have the constant presence of dead array elements showing up on the screen like black Legos. Think the theatre owner will rush out to buy a new DLP array? Not likely. He already doesn't have employees clean the screen once a month.
In fact, modern projection equipment is so good that we should rarely see significant film wear. Anything we do see is generally caused by poorly trained projection staff and cheap owners. Any lontime projectionist becomes as familiar with the equipment as a mechanic with a favorite car. You can tell by the sound of the projector whether something is ailing or not. At the first sign of trouble, the projector should be immediately checked. Unfortunately, most theatre chains wait until the unit is in the obvious throws of breakdown before calling repair. These are the same people who will own the digital projectors. Does anyone think it will be any different? I don't.
Slashdot Mirror
They are very nice. Frankly, they're much better than the Windows versions.
But they also cost $460. That's a pretty steep price for someone who may just want a general suite.
Even AppleWorks (which is very funtional) costs $129.
Details on this IBM storage research from the Watson research facility can be found in this PDF file.
Ooops, all of the B's should have been b's. I'd kill for a 800GiB/s firewire connection.
You're right, the next devices coming out are targetting the 800MiB/s implementation. We should see these Q4 of this year. Many of the vendors are targetting 1.6GiB/s for late 2003/early 2004 with 3.2 a year or so after that.
I'm not sure why this is a problem.
A company promoting piracy is even worse than the individual person who feels it's OK to shoplift or steal music.
What type of "fair use" could possibly apply here?
Actually, the newest rev of IEEE1394 can handle up to 3.2Gib/s.
So far as I can tell, it's basically just using the iPod in FireWire target mode, where the device is basically just a harddrive.
I would guess that XPlay doesn't allow you to update the iPod playlists in the same manner that you do on the Mac, which means that anything you do only works so long as the iPod is attached to the PC.
I think most people are assuming this will work identically to the integration between iTunes and iPod, which doesn't sound likely.
They were well worth the $39 I spent on them. You can see a quickie test I did with the "Sparkle" transition, which is basically a transporter effect.
I agree with everyone who says that iMovie is the best entry level editor around. For one-offs and quickies (like the above), I use iMovie and iDVD. For more involved projects, I own Final Cut Pro and DVD Studio Pro.
If anyone if unnerved by this event, you should read Clive Cussler's "Atlantis Found" which deals with an evil organization attempting to cause a similar event in order to take over the world. Good escapist reading.
Actually, my mermaids example was bad. I should have said, "people who would call a yawl a ketch". While they both float on the water they are not the same.
Apple sells the media for $24.99 for a box of five. This will probably drop again this summer.
If I wanted to find out what could be called a DVD+RW, I'd go to the DVD+RW Alliance, not the DVD Forum.
Nothing changes the fact that DVD+RW are not DVDs. Sorry. And that's my only point.
Frankly, I don't care that I get "mopped" up. There are a lot of people in the world who could care less about proper nomenclature and that's fine. These are generally the same people whose ancesters called manatees "mermaids".
Actually, I don't think that's "what people want", but hey, I also don't steal music.
In any case, DVD-R media is already under $5/disc, so I'm not sure what your response means.
Computer manufacturers came up with a format that is optimized for data storage and uses a disc similar to DVD. This format is called DVD+RW, which is disengenuous at best as discs produced by these systems cannot be called DVD.
A lot of confusion could be cleared if people would stop referring to DVD+RW as a recordable DVD format.
For more info, see my FAQ.
The two cents per hour charge is applied to the producer of the content, not the consumer.
The questions about how this additional charge would be audited is one of the major points that Apple and others have raised. None of them are happy with this, as it makes it difficult for their customers to make use of the technology.
According to the chart, DVD+RW is a DVD recordable format. This is incorrect, as the DVD Forum has not accepted DVD+RW into the DVD family of formats. At most, DVD+RW can only be described as a recordable format using media similar to standard DVDs.
The DVD+RW manufacturers are being disingenuous and misleading the unwashed by including the "DVD" in the format name when they know full well that discs produced in this format cannot legally be called DVDs.
When he says "I'm going back to the original negative and reorganising all the elements..." He's obviously talking only about the mastering from the original film and sound elements. That will allow him to make some modifications to the length of several scenes that were deliberately cut long to allow the narration (which is no longer part of the film).
The way he's proposed to do it (using the original elements) is really the only way to do it properly, as he'll be able to make new transitions work properly, from both a scene cut beat and, more importantly, for the sound mix.
These are the same people that will buy a widescreen LCD or plasma display HDTV for home that downconverts resolution because it doesn't have enough columns/rows and then complain about the lack of quality. Should have spent the extra $5K for one that could display full resolution up to 720p.
Caveat emptor.
Much of what he recommends in the article sounds like the old OpenDoc initiative.
For example, " Let's completely modularize each tool function (such as layout, fonts, kerning, textures, linking, math and tables) and make each a separate interactive GUI tool. Like an erector set, applications could be constructed for specific needs. And like hammers, saws, wrenches and screwdrivers in the physical realm, such tools are easier to utilize than large factories (or contemporary application programs)."
This couldn't be a better description of what OpenDoc was supposed to have accomplished. Unfortunately, OpenDoc is another (predominantly) IBM technology that they had zero idea what to do with.
First, the Microsoft trial still hasn't been finished and nothing in the proposed settlement really makes a difference for the Dells and Sonys of the world. None of them ship Linux as a regular and promoted desktop now. They didn't hop onto BeOS and it had no licensing fees toward the end.
Additionally, one reason Apple works so well is that they control all aspects of the platform, hardware and software. Microsoft would love to have this power but they have to deal with every piece of garbage add-on card that comes out. I don't have a problem with Apple having this control, because they're peanuts compared to MSFT. Without control of the devices that people want to attach to the Intel box, Apple would end up with many of the same problems endemic to Windows.
I would say that Apple should stay exactly where they are. If they choose to move to an Intel box, they should provide their own hardware and not sell shrinkwrapped copies of the OS.
I need to pay more attention to my "there", "theirs", etc..
I by a lot of commercial software for personal use (several thousand dollars worth a year) and Corel Office for Linux was one of the few I've regretted buying. It once again proved that Wine should not be pursued as a legitimate means of providing Linux apps. It looked like a Windows apps, acted like a Windows app, and was, in fact, a Windows app!
Color fringing was substantial (note that company engineers were there to calibrate the projection system, so it was set up properly) on horizontal motion and you could actually see the pixel rows when sitting in seats near the screen. Contrast was a problem.
I'm not sure why people are on this bandwagon. I have a degree in cinema production and can say without hesitation that digital projection is a long way off in quality when compared to film.
Also, before anyone starts with the "scratches, dust, blah, blah, blah" I have this to say: with the exception of the film element, digital projection suffers from 90% of the problems film does. Dust in the mechanics and lenses (don't forget there is also a giant Xenon bulb housing back there), stained, gouged, and otherwise abused screens, broken seats, etc. Digital projection is going to make little difference in the quality of the viewing experience because the venue owner must take resposibility for providing a well maintained facility. If this hasn't happened already, it's not going to happen with digital projection. I can already tell you that instead of the occasional flash of dust or scratch, you'll have the constant presence of dead array elements showing up on the screen like black Legos. Think the theatre owner will rush out to buy a new DLP array? Not likely. He already doesn't have employees clean the screen once a month.
In fact, modern projection equipment is so good that we should rarely see significant film wear. Anything we do see is generally caused by poorly trained projection staff and cheap owners. Any lontime projectionist becomes as familiar with the equipment as a mechanic with a favorite car. You can tell by the sound of the projector whether something is ailing or not. At the first sign of trouble, the projector should be immediately checked. Unfortunately, most theatre chains wait until the unit is in the obvious throws of breakdown before calling repair. These are the same people who will own the digital projectors. Does anyone think it will be any different? I don't.
What?!?
Doesn't .NET allow developers to explicitly include "dangerous" code? I would say then that .NET is not immune to these problems.