Other alternatives could be riding your bike to work or finding housing close to your work. Public transportation or car pooling are less aggressive and still make a difference. Unlike your proposed solution, those all require some effort on your part. But then I'm not doing any of those either; Hi, Kettle! Nice to meet you.
They do 2 things. First, the CableCard is still used for decryption of the signal and use some proprietary mechanism to request switched channels. Second, they tape the CableCards in the slot so that it is always married to the same box.
The proprietary mechanism for channel selection is what breaks 3rd party support for switched video.
There is a speed limit. I obey the speed limit. The police enforce the speed limit. They don't install a speed limiter in my car that keeps me from driving faster than the posted limit.
You must have a Scientific Atlanta 8000HD/8300HD DVR with SARA firmware. You've described the foul thing my cable provider uses to a 'T'.
The software is a POS. The hardware is so flakey they force the device to power down over night to 'reduce hard drive wear'.
Betamax and BeOS I can understand. Divx? Pay-per-view Divx? Zero to drunk in $20 Divx? I'm intrigued; what technically inferior technology knocked Divx out?
I absolutely love my MX-500. It has every button of every one of my 6 devices programmed in, and they all have reasonable labels thanks to the renameable buttons up top. Runs about $100.
I suppose you might get really bad macro blocking right as it starts to change dark, but at that point you really won't be able to 'watch' it. It's not like you'll slowly develop scratches, grain and other issues of analog media.
The commentary track for that scene mentions that the serial stream of 1s and 0s spell out "GET A LIFE" in ascii (not sure if in 7 or 8 bit, and I haven't verified it myself).
Just curious. Have you ever watched Veggie Tales? Which ones? As an adult (without kids), I actually find them quite amusing.
If you are put off by the Christian content, that is one thing. If you don't find the humor to you liking, that is another. If you find the silly-song intermissions don't have any point, that is entirely another. What part of them is it you find "mind-numbingly vapid?"
Understanably, teens and tweens would probably reject Veggie Tales outright, simply because they can't see beyond "Veggie Tales are for kids and I'm not a kid any more". I've grew out of that thinking a long time ago and get a kick out of them.
Besides, everybody has a water buffalo. Mine is fast and yours is slow.
Breaking the Gigapixel Barrier (Last Updated: November 28, 2003)
Introduction. This page contains what I believe to be one of the highest resolution, most detailed stitched digital images ever created. It is the view from Bryce Point in Bryce Canyon National Park in Utah. It consists of 196 separate photographs taken with a 6 megapixel digital camera, and then stitched together into one seamless composite. The final image is 40,784 x 26,800 pixels in size, and contains about 1.09 billion pixels...a little more than one gigapixel. I have been unable to find any record of a higher resolution photographic (i.e. non-scientific) digital image that has been created without resizing a smaller, lower resolution image or using an interpolated image.
Resized version of 1.09 gigapixel image after stitching
How was it created? The first step in the creation of the image was to choose an appropriate subject. There are a number of technical issues that I had to consider that are not normally encountered when taking single images. For example, it took me 13 minutes simply to take all the photographs, and I was shooting as fast as my camera could write images to its memory card. So, I needed a subject that was relatively static. Secondly, I knew that I would have to use a very long focal length lens to take the image, otherwise the final composite would end up with an extremely wide field of view...something I didn't want. This also presented challenges due to the extremely short depth of field when using very long lenses.
The second step was to assemble the images. This was a complex and lengthy process. My normal procedure (using PTAssembler, Panorama Tools and Photoshop) was not sufficient in this case for a number of reasons because of the size and number of images I was working with. For example, the version of Photoshop that I use cannot work with images with pixel dimensions of more than 30,000. So, my solution was to modify some of the existing programs in my workflow, and write a number of new software programs to create this image.
196 component images before stitching
Technical Details. Here are some facts and figures about this image:
* Final image dimensions: 40,784 x 26,800 pixels
* Number of pixels in final image: 1,093,011,200 (1.09 gigapixel)
* Final image file format: RGB Tiff using deflate compression
* Final image file size: 2,068,654,055 bytes
* Number of source images: 196
* Number of pixels in source images: 1,233,125,376 (196 images * 3072*2048)
* Lens focal length: 280mm (equivalent to 450mm on a 35mm camera)
* Aperture: F9. Shutter speed: 1/400
* Number of control points in PTAssembler project: 779
* Number of seams that were manually blended after stitching: 364
* Horizontal field of view of final image: 63 degrees
* Time required to capture component images: 13 minutes
* Time required to set control points: 2 hours
* Time required to optimize project: 2 days
* Time required to stitch project: 4 days
* Time required to blend seams / correct misalignments / finalize image: 3 days
How much detail does it contain? Much, much more than would be captured by any conventional digital camera...even those that cost more than a new car. For example, the Canon 1Ds (about $8,000) captures 11 megapixels, while the BetterLight Super 10K-2 scanning back (camera not included!) captures 140 megapixels, but costs about $25,000. I also believe that a gigapixel image surpasses what even die-hard admirers of large format photography argue is possible with large format cameras. For more thoughts on this subject, you might also want to read this essay.
Here's another way to think about it. Given that the resolving power of the human eye (under ideal conditions at the center of the retina) is about 1 arcminute (1/60th of one degree), this image captures considerably more detail than I (or any other normal sighted human) was able to see w
But you will never find a good or great book that is surpassed by a movie version.
The Princess Bride.
I read the book after seeing the movie, which may very well color my remembrance. The wit in the book was hit or miss, and some of the drier segments dragged on a little too long for my taste. The book was still quite good. The movie was spot on to the essence of the book, and didn't have a single wasted moment.
Are there any 3D technologies that don't rely on the assumption that the viewer has two functioning eyes? I can't imagine that any 'passive' display (including the 'real world') that doesn't rely on that. Direct neural stimulation is still in the relm of Science Fiction.
Have you actually *looked* at pictures printed in a magazine or the newspaper? My ink jet printer makes better pictures than those things. What is the resolution of most magazine prints? 72-300 dpi? Wouldn't a 2 megapixel camera be good enough for just about any magazine?
I'm sure there are photography magazines that use some higher quality images, but the ones at the checkout lane at the grocery store sure don't.
Customer: I'd like to buy MegaSoft Doors 2K3 Retailer: How does $200 sound? C: Way too high. R: Then $100? C: I'll pass. R: But that's a deal! The last guy who was in here paid $150! C: Would you take $20? R: If I say no are you going to download it from Kazza? C: Yep. R: Where is the pre-crimes enforcement division when you need them?
Of course, all of this is commodity hardware. No problem. Cost would be low, the OS is free.
Now, tell me, where do you get the nice UI to do all this stuff? I mean really nice, not just for the geeks like you and me where a $ prompt is all we need. Nice like my mom can use it. Nice like my wife can use it. Simple things are simple. All that development is going to cost you time or money
Where are you going to get the guide data? As a commercial product, you can't rely on a screen scraper. You are going to have to pay for your users' guide data.
All of a sudden your commodity hardware + free os isn't inexpensive enough to reach a wide enough user base to achive profitibility, and all the geeks will say, "Why should I buy jonwil-Corp's DVR? I could just build my own with commodity hardware and Linux for cheaper!"
The point is you can build your own for 'cheap', but you cannot build one for the marketplace 'cheap'.
Slashdot Mirror
Other alternatives could be riding your bike to work or finding housing close to your work. Public transportation or car pooling are less aggressive and still make a difference. Unlike your proposed solution, those all require some effort on your part. But then I'm not doing any of those either; Hi, Kettle! Nice to meet you.
They do 2 things. First, the CableCard is still used for decryption of the signal and use some proprietary mechanism to request switched channels. Second, they tape the CableCards in the slot so that it is always married to the same box. The proprietary mechanism for channel selection is what breaks 3rd party support for switched video.
There is a speed limit. I obey the speed limit. The police enforce the speed limit. They don't install a speed limiter in my car that keeps me from driving faster than the posted limit.
Clearly you haven't been reading the Wheel of Time. I finally gave up on it just looking at the spine for Winter's Heart.
With the magic of DirectShow Dump any player that can read MPEG2 can be used, and that includes burning to DVD.
You must have a Scientific Atlanta 8000HD/8300HD DVR with SARA firmware. You've described the foul thing my cable provider uses to a 'T'. The software is a POS. The hardware is so flakey they force the device to power down over night to 'reduce hard drive wear'.
Betamax and BeOS I can understand. Divx? Pay-per-view Divx? Zero to drunk in $20 Divx? I'm intrigued; what technically inferior technology knocked Divx out?
I absolutely love my MX-500. It has every button of every one of my 6 devices programmed in, and they all have reasonable labels thanks to the renameable buttons up top. Runs about $100.
DIGITAL
You will either be able to view it, or you won't.
I suppose you might get really bad macro blocking right as it starts to change dark, but at that point you really won't be able to 'watch' it. It's not like you'll slowly develop scratches, grain and other issues of analog media.
The commentary track for that scene mentions that the serial stream of 1s and 0s spell out "GET A LIFE" in ascii (not sure if in 7 or 8 bit, and I haven't verified it myself).
Mods, parent is insightful, not funny!
Oh well, no karma for parent.
Just curious. Have you ever watched Veggie Tales? Which ones? As an adult (without kids), I actually find them quite amusing.
If you are put off by the Christian content, that is one thing. If you don't find the humor to you liking, that is another. If you find the silly-song intermissions don't have any point, that is entirely another. What part of them is it you find "mind-numbingly vapid?"
Understanably, teens and tweens would probably reject Veggie Tales outright, simply because they can't see beyond "Veggie Tales are for kids and I'm not a kid any more". I've grew out of that thinking a long time ago and get a kick out of them.
Besides, everybody has a water buffalo. Mine is fast and yours is slow.
Seen a Newton lately?
HE WAS YELLING!
Guess I should have done an ASCII conversion and posted that. ;)
Breaking the Gigapixel Barrier
(Last Updated: November 28, 2003)
Introduction. This page contains what I believe to be one of the highest resolution, most detailed stitched digital images ever created. It is the view from Bryce Point in Bryce Canyon National Park in Utah. It consists of 196 separate photographs taken with a 6 megapixel digital camera, and then stitched together into one seamless composite. The final image is 40,784 x 26,800 pixels in size, and contains about 1.09 billion pixels...a little more than one gigapixel. I have been unable to find any record of a higher resolution photographic (i.e. non-scientific) digital image that has been created without resizing a smaller, lower resolution image or using an interpolated image.
Resized version of 1.09 gigapixel image after stitching
How was it created? The first step in the creation of the image was to choose an appropriate subject. There are a number of technical issues that I had to consider that are not normally encountered when taking single images. For example, it took me 13 minutes simply to take all the photographs, and I was shooting as fast as my camera could write images to its memory card. So, I needed a subject that was relatively static. Secondly, I knew that I would have to use a very long focal length lens to take the image, otherwise the final composite would end up with an extremely wide field of view...something I didn't want. This also presented challenges due to the extremely short depth of field when using very long lenses.
The second step was to assemble the images. This was a complex and lengthy process. My normal procedure (using PTAssembler, Panorama Tools and Photoshop) was not sufficient in this case for a number of reasons because of the size and number of images I was working with. For example, the version of Photoshop that I use cannot work with images with pixel dimensions of more than 30,000. So, my solution was to modify some of the existing programs in my workflow, and write a number of new software programs to create this image.
196 component images before stitching
Technical Details. Here are some facts and figures about this image:
* Final image dimensions: 40,784 x 26,800 pixels
* Number of pixels in final image: 1,093,011,200 (1.09 gigapixel)
* Final image file format: RGB Tiff using deflate compression
* Final image file size: 2,068,654,055 bytes
* Number of source images: 196
* Number of pixels in source images: 1,233,125,376 (196 images * 3072*2048)
* Lens focal length: 280mm (equivalent to 450mm on a 35mm camera)
* Aperture: F9. Shutter speed: 1/400
* Number of control points in PTAssembler project: 779
* Number of seams that were manually blended after stitching: 364
* Horizontal field of view of final image: 63 degrees
* Time required to capture component images: 13 minutes
* Time required to set control points: 2 hours
* Time required to optimize project: 2 days
* Time required to stitch project: 4 days
* Time required to blend seams / correct misalignments / finalize image: 3 days
How much detail does it contain? Much, much more than would be captured by any conventional digital camera...even those that cost more than a new car. For example, the Canon 1Ds (about $8,000) captures 11 megapixels, while the BetterLight Super 10K-2 scanning back (camera not included!) captures 140 megapixels, but costs about $25,000. I also believe that a gigapixel image surpasses what even die-hard admirers of large format photography argue is possible with large format cameras. For more thoughts on this subject, you might also want to read this essay.
Here's another way to think about it. Given that the resolving power of the human eye (under ideal conditions at the center of the retina) is about 1 arcminute (1/60th of one degree), this image captures considerably more detail than I (or any other normal sighted human) was able to see w
I read the book after seeing the movie, which may very well color my remembrance. The wit in the book was hit or miss, and some of the drier segments dragged on a little too long for my taste. The book was still quite good. The movie was spot on to the essence of the book, and didn't have a single wasted moment.
Good book. Great movie.
Welcome to the TiVolution!
Anyone know why the adblock page is so faded and hard to read? Is that by design?
I didn't see Highlander 2, but was duped into Highlander 3. Much like The Matrix, there should have been only one!
You mean for links like this one?
Are there any 3D technologies that don't rely on the assumption that the viewer has two functioning eyes? I can't imagine that any 'passive' display (including the 'real world') that doesn't rely on that. Direct neural stimulation is still in the relm of Science Fiction.
I'm sure there are photography magazines that use some higher quality images, but the ones at the checkout lane at the grocery store sure don't.
Customer: I'd like to buy MegaSoft Doors 2K3
Retailer: How does $200 sound?
C: Way too high.
R: Then $100?
C: I'll pass.
R: But that's a deal! The last guy who was in here paid $150!
C: Would you take $20?
R: If I say no are you going to download it from Kazza?
C: Yep.
R: Where is the pre-crimes enforcement division when you need them?
Now, tell me, where do you get the nice UI to do all this stuff? I mean really nice, not just for the geeks like you and me where a $ prompt is all we need. Nice like my mom can use it. Nice like my wife can use it. Simple things are simple. All that development is going to cost you time or money
Where are you going to get the guide data? As a commercial product, you can't rely on a screen scraper. You are going to have to pay for your users' guide data.
All of a sudden your commodity hardware + free os isn't inexpensive enough to reach a wide enough user base to achive profitibility, and all the geeks will say, "Why should I buy jonwil-Corp's DVR? I could just build my own with commodity hardware and Linux for cheaper!"
The point is you can build your own for 'cheap', but you cannot build one for the marketplace 'cheap'.