Not only that, but the SciFi channel killed the series and told everyone to go home AFTER the season finale was in the can. In other words, it was just supposed to be a typical season finale cliffhanger...
To reverse pulldown you have to detect which fields go together. There's no other magic solution.
Pulldown reversal and pulldown detection are two different things. You need one to perform the other, but they're not the same thing.
Really? You're going to guarantee that the clock in your TV and the clock in your high-def player are going to be synchronous to at least 1/60th of a second, over the course of any arbitrary 4 hour period? Great!
Wow, I've never seen anyone suggest that detecting the current position in the field required checking the CLOCK in the TV... no wonder you think that the process is impossible.
No, it's mathematically impossible to display 30fps/60field interlaced material on a 30fps progressive display, without loss. Even if you could generate the "original progressive frame", you've still only got half the frame rate, and so, motion that is inherently twice as jerky.
You assume (incorrectly) that the frame rate of the original source material is always greater than 30fps.
The counter to your proof is one field of black followed (1/60th of a second later) with one field of white. Repeat that sequence endlessly. Now feed it to any deinterlacer.
I'm not the one claiming it was 100% mathematically IMPOSSIBLE to correctly reconstruct the frame, now was I? Now, when watching an interlaced program, which is more likely -- a portion of the scene remaining somewhat consistent from frame to frame, or a portion changing rapidly enough to cause an epileptic seizure?
That's beyond idiotic. It's ridiculous to suggest that ANY pulldown reversal algorithm always choses the correct field. And doing even basic analysis on HD material is very computationally intensive.
You don't need to analize the entire HD frame to determine where in the sequence you're at. Certainly, it would help the accuracy of the detection if you did. Of course, we were talking about actually reversing the 3:2 pulldown, not detecting it.
It's unheard of for any source to maintain a perfect 3:2 pattern for any length of time.
Unless, of course, your source is a hi-def player outputting 30fps 1080i content rendered from a 24fps 1080p source.
"Effective" could mean anything, so the above sentence says nothing at all.
Funny, one would think that "effective" would have the meaning it is defined to have in any common dictionary.
And even the best motion adaptive deinterlacers make occasional mistakes. How visible their mistakes are will vary.
I never said motion adaptive deinterlacers are perfect, just effective.
The fact is, there is no possible way to convert 60 fields into 30 frames, without losing significant information. It's mathematically impossible.
Bullshit. 60 fields of an interlaced source IS 30 frames.
For the sake of argument I'll assume you mean that it is "mathematically impossible" to reconstruct the original progressive frame from an interlaced source. To which I still call bullshit, and the proof is a simple white screen...
Uh, the player is still using a 1080p image as a source, and when you pause it, it should still be spitting out an interlaced version of that 1080p image instead of the current frame in the output buffer. And if it doesn't, it CAN, and is a mere reflection on the (lack of) quality of the player.
3:2 pulldown reversal is trivial to perform, and with a digital source (like the one provided via HDMI) is artifact free. If you've got a bad source and really REALLY crappy pulldown detection in your TV, you might go 5 frames (~150ms) before the reversal algorithm resyncs to a new sequence.
You're omitting the fact that deinterlacing is a difficult and inexact process that horribly mangles video.
You're omitting the fact that you don't know shit about what you're talking about. Even for straight up interlaced 30fps content, modern motion adaptive deinterlacing algorithms are incredibly effective. Horribly mangles video my ass...
There is no difference between 1080p output and 1080i output if your tv does proper pulldown detection. Gold plated jacks are also pointless if you're hooking everything using digital outputs. HDMI 1.3 might be interesting if you have equipment that supports it, but I certainly don't. And the difference in video processing primarily benefits upscaling of DVD's -- if you've already got a good upscaling player then that isn't necessary.
So I'd say $99 is a damn good deal if a) your tv isn't a pile of crap b) you're using HDMI for video c) you're using HDMI/spdif for audio
System.* contains way more than "operating system part" of the.Net API; in fact, I'd submit that most of the content under the System.* namespace isn't remotely comparable to the type of functionality present in POSIX. System.Xml, System.Text, System.Refleciton, System.Collections...
The $60 plan is the "hook" to make their pricing look reasonable; I couldn't find a comparable plan anywhere that had such a low number of minutes. Honestly, $60 for 8 hours of voice chat? Are you only supposed to charge the phone once a month?
The other plans costs about $10-$30 more per month than you can get elsewhere... For example, 1500 minutes + unlimited data is $80/mo with t-mobile.
The whole point of VMware is that you can have multiple machines hosted on a single server. If you switch out the hardware, odds are your original image will continue to work without problems -- however, a programmer CAN detect a change in the CPU he wants to.
Virtualization software isn't an emulator. Software running in a VM can "observe" the processor changing between different machines (which is one of the reasons why VM save states can't be "shared" between Intel and AMD processors, for example...).
Virtual machines are not emulators, and the non-virtualized "hardware" is not the same across VM software. Windows activation keys off of a number of hardware components, and it shouldn't come as a shock when different VMs running on different pieces of hardware "look" like completely different pieces of hardware to the software running in it.
It's going to be a short dance. From a legal dictionary:
"The term settlement is also applied to an agreement by which two or more persons, who have dealings together, so far arrange their accounts, as to ascertain the balance due from one to the other; and settlement sometimes signifies a payment in full."
You're definately not a us law expert, and you've obviously never invested any money in stocks.
Company profits don't have to be distributed to shareholders. Microsoft is entitled to a dividend if Immersion pays one out to share holders, but share holders aren't entitled to money Immersion decides to put in the bank.
The Sony settlement triggered a provision in the Microsoft settlement. End of story. This is completely unrelated to any Microsoft holdings of Immersion shares.
A $26M stake in the company is nowhere near a controlling interest. And their agreement has no provisions to lock Sony out. The lawsuit isn't about keeping Sony from using rumble, it's about being paid ~$27.5m under their contract terms.
This isn't a simpler matter of the price going up. This is the equivelent of your book ringing up at the register for $30 when the advertised price on the rack was $20.
Your commentary on the relative importance of TV applies to every form of entertainment -- books, movies, theater, music, video games, sports, etc.
I would expect you to feel a similar form of outrage should your chosen form of entertainment receive similar treatment. I don't disparage your entertainment preferences, and would encourage you to extend the same courtesy to those who prefer forms of entertainment different than your own.
This basically means that T2 felt that they couldn't sell more than $50m worth of DLC for the PS3 (we'll assume that every PS3 sale lost will result in one sale for the 360 version of the game)...
How is it artificially more difficult for a 3rd party search product to work with Vista? (keeping in mind the FUD about not being able to disable Vista's search functionality is not true...)
It is more of a case that one size doesn't fit all. The common control libraries are useful for a lot of "common" cases, but useless if your case isn't common.
For example, if you support some font attribute beyond the "common" set of attributes supported by the OS, the common control font selection dialog is inadequate. Tell me, how many applications on Windows render fonts in a manner not supported by the operating system? You can probably count them on your fingers...
Slashdot Mirror
Not only that, but the SciFi channel killed the series and told everyone to go home AFTER the season finale was in the can. In other words, it was just supposed to be a typical season finale cliffhanger...
To reverse pulldown you have to detect which fields go together. There's no other magic solution.
Pulldown reversal and pulldown detection are two different things. You need one to perform the other, but they're not the same thing.
Really? You're going to guarantee that the clock in your TV and the clock in your high-def player are going to be synchronous to at least 1/60th of a second, over the course of any arbitrary 4 hour period? Great!
Wow, I've never seen anyone suggest that detecting the current position in the field required checking the CLOCK in the TV... no wonder you think that the process is impossible.
No, it's mathematically impossible to display 30fps/60field interlaced material on a 30fps progressive display, without loss. Even if you could generate the "original progressive frame", you've still only got half the frame rate, and so, motion that is inherently twice as jerky.
You assume (incorrectly) that the frame rate of the original source material is always greater than 30fps.
The counter to your proof is one field of black followed (1/60th of a second later) with one field of white. Repeat that sequence endlessly. Now feed it to any deinterlacer.
I'm not the one claiming it was 100% mathematically IMPOSSIBLE to correctly reconstruct the frame, now was I? Now, when watching an interlaced program, which is more likely -- a portion of the scene remaining somewhat consistent from frame to frame, or a portion changing rapidly enough to cause an epileptic seizure?
That's beyond idiotic. It's ridiculous to suggest that ANY pulldown reversal algorithm always choses the correct field. And doing even basic analysis on HD material is very computationally intensive.
You don't need to analize the entire HD frame to determine where in the sequence you're at. Certainly, it would help the accuracy of the detection if you did. Of course, we were talking about actually reversing the 3:2 pulldown, not detecting it.
It's unheard of for any source to maintain a perfect 3:2 pattern for any length of time.
Unless, of course, your source is a hi-def player outputting 30fps 1080i content rendered from a 24fps 1080p source.
"Effective" could mean anything, so the above sentence says nothing at all.
Funny, one would think that "effective" would have the meaning it is defined to have in any common dictionary.
And even the best motion adaptive deinterlacers make occasional mistakes. How visible their mistakes are will vary.
I never said motion adaptive deinterlacers are perfect, just effective.
The fact is, there is no possible way to convert 60 fields into 30 frames, without losing significant information. It's mathematically impossible.
Bullshit. 60 fields of an interlaced source IS 30 frames.
For the sake of argument I'll assume you mean that it is "mathematically impossible" to reconstruct the original progressive frame from an interlaced source. To which I still call bullshit, and the proof is a simple white screen...
Uh, the player is still using a 1080p image as a source, and when you pause it, it should still be spitting out an interlaced version of that 1080p image instead of the current frame in the output buffer. And if it doesn't, it CAN, and is a mere reflection on the (lack of) quality of the player.
3:2 pulldown reversal is trivial to perform, and with a digital source (like the one provided via HDMI) is artifact free. If you've got a bad source and really REALLY crappy pulldown detection in your TV, you might go 5 frames (~150ms) before the reversal algorithm resyncs to a new sequence.
You're omitting the fact that deinterlacing is a difficult and inexact process that horribly mangles video.
You're omitting the fact that you don't know shit about what you're talking about. Even for straight up interlaced 30fps content, modern motion adaptive deinterlacing algorithms are incredibly effective. Horribly mangles video my ass...
Sooner or later yes. But is it really worth waiting 3 years to save $25?
There is no difference between 1080p output and 1080i output if your tv does proper pulldown detection. Gold plated jacks are also pointless if you're hooking everything using digital outputs. HDMI 1.3 might be interesting if you have equipment that supports it, but I certainly don't. And the difference in video processing primarily benefits upscaling of DVD's -- if you've already got a good upscaling player then that isn't necessary.
So I'd say $99 is a damn good deal if
a) your tv isn't a pile of crap
b) you're using HDMI for video
c) you're using HDMI/spdif for audio
System.* contains way more than "operating system part" of the .Net API; in fact, I'd submit that most of the content under the System.* namespace isn't remotely comparable to the type of functionality present in POSIX. System.Xml, System.Text, System.Refleciton, System.Collections ...
...which would, ironically, make the purpose of the recording non-personal, thus negating the entire argument...
The $60 plan is the "hook" to make their pricing look reasonable; I couldn't find a comparable plan anywhere that had such a low number of minutes. Honestly, $60 for 8 hours of voice chat? Are you only supposed to charge the phone once a month?
The other plans costs about $10-$30 more per month than you can get elsewhere... For example, 1500 minutes + unlimited data is $80/mo with t-mobile.
The whole point of VMware is that you can have multiple machines hosted on a single server. If you switch out the hardware, odds are your original image will continue to work without problems -- however, a programmer CAN detect a change in the CPU he wants to.
Virtualization software isn't an emulator. Software running in a VM can "observe" the processor changing between different machines (which is one of the reasons why VM save states can't be "shared" between Intel and AMD processors, for example...).
Virtual machines are not emulators, and the non-virtualized "hardware" is not the same across VM software. Windows activation keys off of a number of hardware components, and it shouldn't come as a shock when different VMs running on different pieces of hardware "look" like completely different pieces of hardware to the software running in it.
It's going to be a short dance. From a legal dictionary:
"The term settlement is also applied to an agreement by which two or more persons, who have dealings together, so far arrange their accounts, as to ascertain the balance due from one to the other; and settlement sometimes signifies a payment in full."
You're definately not a us law expert, and you've obviously never invested any money in stocks.
Company profits don't have to be distributed to shareholders. Microsoft is entitled to a dividend if Immersion pays one out to share holders, but share holders aren't entitled to money Immersion decides to put in the bank.
The Sony settlement triggered a provision in the Microsoft settlement. End of story. This is completely unrelated to any Microsoft holdings of Immersion shares.
Conflict of interest for what? Seriously, I'm curious what derranged explanation you can come up with...
A $26M stake in the company is nowhere near a controlling interest. And their agreement has no provisions to lock Sony out. The lawsuit isn't about keeping Sony from using rumble, it's about being paid ~$27.5m under their contract terms.
This isn't a simpler matter of the price going up. This is the equivelent of your book ringing up at the register for $30 when the advertised price on the rack was $20.
Your commentary on the relative importance of TV applies to every form of entertainment -- books, movies, theater, music, video games, sports, etc.
I would expect you to feel a similar form of outrage should your chosen form of entertainment receive similar treatment. I don't disparage your entertainment preferences, and would encourage you to extend the same courtesy to those who prefer forms of entertainment different than your own.
Satellite isn't always available. Line of sight and all that. And don't get me started on ATSC tuners...
Oh, so getting ripped off by a monopoly is ok because you can live without it?
That only works when there is somewhere else to take your money to.
This basically means that T2 felt that they couldn't sell more than $50m worth of DLC for the PS3 (we'll assume that every PS3 sale lost will result in one sale for the 360 version of the game)...
How is it artificially more difficult for a 3rd party search product to work with Vista? (keeping in mind the FUD about not being able to disable Vista's search functionality is not true...)
unless they're too crappy to commonly use
It is more of a case that one size doesn't fit all. The common control libraries are useful for a lot of "common" cases, but useless if your case isn't common.
For example, if you support some font attribute beyond the "common" set of attributes supported by the OS, the common control font selection dialog is inadequate. Tell me, how many applications on Windows render fonts in a manner not supported by the operating system? You can probably count them on your fingers...