Why isn't Star Wars on either of the next-gen formats?.... and find it ludicrous that they think a movie three decades old is going to really benefit from high def.
Like Star Wars (1977) ?
Citizen Kane on Blu Ray
Let's hope so. 35mm film has more resolution than 1080p HD. So it would be a big improvement (given a good restoration).
New and shiny digital HD has still not caught up to the quality of 35mm film, let alone exceeded it, and 70mm quality is decades away.
I think you're thinking of Windows 9x, which (not having a "real" kernel) didn't use the HALT instruction. IIRC.
Windows 2000 might have had slightly simpler power management than XP, but more likely it just wasn't configured right or didn't have the right drivers.
Whether or not it is illegal or ethical, some of those guys are going to want to damage him any way they can. If he's lucky, none of them will lose their jobs or marriages.
Secondly, it's alarming to see the division in the responders: a HUGE percentage who think that it's OK or even cool, for various reasons. These people are themselves somewhat sociopathic. Some of them are obviously kids, but others are not, and those are scary.
"They were married" - well, a few of them were. What about the other 150? "These guys are cruising for sex" - not a crime. Not even morally wrong for many people. "They used work addresses" - only a few of them. "They responded to a public posting" - but by private email. "Email is not private" - but you still can't post other people's private information in public without their permission. Yes, there really are laws about that. No, the "internet" doesn't make it different. Yes, there are ethical and social reasons as well.
One thing that has made the situation trickier is lead-free solder for the EU. It also requires different flux. And can't be mixed well with leaded solder. I wonder if that was an issue for him here.
I did a search, and the most of the first page of results was talking about television. That's clearly a different case from HD-DVD where the source is 1080p24.
If you don't feel like answering the specific points I raised/asked about, perhaps you shouldn't post in a discussion about it. Most of your posts have been dismissive of everyone else as beneath you.
Personally, I'm happy that I can see why 1080p24->1080i60->1080p24 can be done very accurately for HD-DVD, so I believe those who say it doesn't matter.
How about free rights to enter your house and inspect your DVD collection and equipment? Rights to check your bank records for purchases from non-approved outlets?
And the answer for HD-DVD would seem to be: hardly ever for film, because the source [from film] is 1080p24 in the digital domain, and the DVD player just has to mechanically convert that by 3:2 pulldown to 1080i60. There is no reason for it to break cadence in any continuous sequence. Unless of course the source material broke from correct 1080p24 sequence...
So, summarising: source 1080p24 -> 1080i60 is done trivially by the player. Converting 1080i60 back to 1080p24 can be done well by the display, because the 3:2 cadence from the player will be consistent.
Implies the cadence is consistent for long periods and only occasionally interrupted, and then the IVTC (operating in film mode) might get out of synch for a while and combine the wrong frames.
"If the 3-2 sequence is interrupted, sometimes the cadence-reading players will stay in film mode for a handful of frames, and the result on screen is combing, which is very distracting."
So. IVTC as required to convert 1080i back to 1080p might have errors, and so you would be right that transmitting from player to TV in 1080i would damage the end result. But how common are these errors?
You should really pay attention to usernames, and look into comment histories to see who knows what they are talking about.
Sir, there are hundreds of thousands of people on slashdot. Unless you're posting great comments on every article that I read, I'm not going to remember you. Also reviewing user histories is something I DO sometimes do, but most people post a lot of casual comments as well as their "knowledgeable" posts (if any) so it is very difficult to tell.
The problem is that it's very difficult to convert that interlaced signal back into progressive form, without any mistakes
I think this is the point where you differ with other sources. They seem to think that near-perfect IVTC is now pretty common. Yes, there might be occasional mistakes due to edit points (or whatever) but on the whole, they assume this is no longer a problem.
And why should it be? All they have to do is examine several fields and check if they are the same, to see where in the 3:2 sequence the frames are. With a digitally identical source for each 24fps frame (unlike say VHS or Laserdisc) the frames are obviously easy to detect as the same.
Or another way of putting this argument is: you say it's not perfect, but everyone else thinks it's close enough that it doesn't matter. Your standards appear to be too high:)
I know about 3:2 pulldown and that makes sense. But ProjectorCentral and others seem to think the problems with that don't apply to HD-DVD or Blu-ray. Why do they think this? These guys are not stupid.
Well, of course you might be right, but you're one person on Slashdot claiming that numerous articles on well-established home-theatre sites out there are wrong.
"Both HD-DVD and Blu-ray have all of the progressively scanned 1080-lines per frame of information on the disc, and this information is not lost or compromised in 1080i transmission." etc...
I don't believe that diplays have to do inverse telecine, as there is no motion between the interlaced frames to compensate for. But please explain more.
Maybe trespass is a bad analog, BUT it can be much worse than a minor inconvenience. Companies have had to shut down email addresses (like sales@wherever) because they are overwhelmed with spam. Like 1000 or more spams per day. Having to close and redirect one of your major customer contact methods isn't minor inconvenience.
Anyone with such an address that has to be listed for public contact suffers from spam, and they can't use aggressive filters because they can't afford to lose customer email.
Human brain is capable of coping with it, OCR software usually is not.
The human brain is NOT capable of coping with an arbitrary level of distortion. Many people have remarked that recent captchas are sometimes difficult to read due to the very heavy distortion.
This is true at least for letters and numbers. "Pictures of things" might do better, but they require an enormous amount of work compared to a little program spitting out JPGs of text.
That's also an interesting option - you're talking about something like "laser launch". The difference is because you don't have a physical structure to apply wheels too, you need to carry propellant as well. Since the laser contributes a lot of the energy you don't need as much propellant as a rocket.
OTOH, if you want to put something in orbit around the Earth, then you should give it orbital velocity [snip]
Yes, thats angular momentum there, the craft would probably need some kind of power to adjust for that.
Some kind of power, indeed... like 90% of the shuttle's power.
Far, far less than a standard earth based launch however,
Why?
This is the key to your argument. The difficult part of getting to earth orbit is accelerating to orbital speed, not getting high enough. So why do you think that it's easier to achieve orbital speed from 11km up than from the ground?
Of course, there is a certain small benefit in getting above most of the atmosphere. If you can do it without great cost, it would be worthwhile. But for the most part, it's easier just to build a bigger [expendable] rocket.
I don't think you meant it that way, but you should be aware that some very famous hard-code spammers rant on about "frea speech" when arguing against spam filtering.
They might disagree, until they saw what happens when their ISP REALLY turns all the filtering off. How about 100 spam emails per day? 1000 ? Had enough yet?
Slashdot Mirror
Why isn't Star Wars on either of the next-gen formats? .... and find it ludicrous that they think a movie three decades old is going to really benefit from high def.
Like Star Wars (1977) ?
Citizen Kane on Blu Ray
Let's hope so. 35mm film has more resolution than 1080p HD. So it would be a big improvement (given a good restoration).
New and shiny digital HD has still not caught up to the quality of 35mm film, let alone exceeded it, and 70mm quality is decades away.
I think you're thinking of Windows 9x, which (not having a "real" kernel) didn't use the HALT instruction. IIRC.
Windows 2000 might have had slightly simpler power management than XP, but more likely it just wasn't configured right or didn't have the right drivers.
Is your username some tricksy play on Rubles and Realtime Black Lists? Just curious :)
Yes, and lets not forget these kinds of crap sites are also responsible for a lot of spam, so the FBI has done us all a small favour here.
Whether or not it is illegal or ethical, some of those guys are going to want to damage him any way they can. If he's lucky, none of them will lose their jobs or marriages.
Secondly, it's alarming to see the division in the responders: a HUGE percentage who think that it's OK or even cool, for various reasons. These people are themselves somewhat sociopathic. Some of them are obviously kids, but others are not, and those are scary.
"They were married" - well, a few of them were. What about the other 150?
"These guys are cruising for sex" - not a crime. Not even morally wrong for many people.
"They used work addresses" - only a few of them.
"They responded to a public posting" - but by private email.
"Email is not private" - but you still can't post other people's private information in public without their permission. Yes, there really are laws about that. No, the "internet" doesn't make it different. Yes, there are ethical and social reasons as well.
One thing that has made the situation trickier is lead-free solder for the EU. It also requires different flux. And can't be mixed well with leaded solder. I wonder if that was an issue for him here.
Thanks a lot, very nice. ... incomparable
Love those rockets starting
LEDs are the most important part of all electronics, especially blue ones :)
Seems to using 4MB whilst doing nothing on my machine.
I did a search, and the most of the first page of results was talking about television. That's clearly a different case from HD-DVD where the source is 1080p24.
If you don't feel like answering the specific points I raised/asked about, perhaps you shouldn't post in a discussion about it. Most of your posts have been dismissive of everyone else as beneath you.
Personally, I'm happy that I can see why 1080p24->1080i60->1080p24 can be done very accurately for HD-DVD, so I believe those who say it doesn't matter.
How about free rights to enter your house and inspect your DVD collection and equipment? Rights to check your bank records for purchases from non-approved outlets?
And the answer for HD-DVD would seem to be: hardly ever for film, because the source [from film] is 1080p24 in the digital domain, and the DVD player just has to mechanically convert that by 3:2 pulldown to 1080i60. There is no reason for it to break cadence in any continuous sequence. Unless of course the source material broke from correct 1080p24 sequence ...
So, summarising: source 1080p24 -> 1080i60 is done trivially by the player. Converting 1080i60 back to 1080p24 can be done well by the display, because the 3:2 cadence from the player will be consistent.
According to the discussion here:
c hmark-part-5-progressive-10-2000.html
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_4/dvd-ben
Implies the cadence is consistent for long periods and only occasionally interrupted, and then the IVTC (operating in film mode) might get out of synch for a while and combine the wrong frames.
"If the 3-2 sequence is interrupted, sometimes the cadence-reading players will stay in film mode for a handful of frames, and the result on screen is combing, which is very distracting."
So. IVTC as required to convert 1080i back to 1080p might have errors, and so you would be right that transmitting from player to TV in 1080i would damage the end result. But how common are these errors?
Telecine has never been a strict pattern? Why not? What else would it do? It seems extravagantly unlikely that it would be constantly varying.
A fuller answer.
:)
You should really pay attention to usernames, and look into comment histories to see who knows what they are talking about.
Sir, there are hundreds of thousands of people on slashdot. Unless you're posting great comments on every article that I read, I'm not going to remember you. Also reviewing user histories is something I DO sometimes do, but most people post a lot of casual comments as well as their "knowledgeable" posts (if any) so it is very difficult to tell.
The problem is that it's very difficult to convert that interlaced signal back into progressive form, without any mistakes
I think this is the point where you differ with other sources. They seem to think that near-perfect IVTC is now pretty common. Yes, there might be occasional mistakes due to edit points (or whatever) but on the whole, they assume this is no longer a problem.
And why should it be? All they have to do is examine several fields and check if they are the same, to see where in the 3:2 sequence the frames are. With a digitally identical source for each 24fps frame (unlike say VHS or Laserdisc) the frames are obviously easy to detect as the same.
Or another way of putting this argument is: you say it's not perfect, but everyone else thinks it's close enough that it doesn't matter. Your standards appear to be too high
I know about 3:2 pulldown and that makes sense.
But ProjectorCentral and others seem to think the problems with that don't apply to HD-DVD or Blu-ray.
Why do they think this? These guys are not stupid.
Well, of course you might be right, but you're one person on Slashdot claiming that numerous articles on well-established home-theatre sites out there are wrong.
B lu-ray.htm
Here's another:
http://www.projectorcentral.com/retailing_HD-DVD_
"Both HD-DVD and Blu-ray have all of the progressively scanned 1080-lines per frame of information on the disc, and this information is not lost or compromised in 1080i transmission." etc...
I don't believe that diplays have to do inverse telecine, as there is no motion between the interlaced frames to compensate for. But please explain more.
I don' think anyone's tried to use an upsampled SD source for an HD movie yet
That's right, George Lucas is usually quite slow to pick up on new technology
Complexity.
Hazardous environment (vacuum, extreme cold, extreme heat, vibration).
Very little of regular hardware would survive well in such situations.
Maybe trespass is a bad analog, BUT it can be much worse than a minor inconvenience. Companies have had to shut down email addresses (like sales@wherever) because they are overwhelmed with spam. Like 1000 or more spams per day. Having to close and redirect one of your major customer contact methods isn't minor inconvenience.
Anyone with such an address that has to be listed for public contact suffers from spam, and they can't use aggressive filters because they can't afford to lose customer email.
Human brain is capable of coping with it, OCR software usually is not.
The human brain is NOT capable of coping with an arbitrary level of distortion. Many people have remarked that recent captchas are sometimes difficult to read due to the very heavy distortion.
This is true at least for letters and numbers. "Pictures of things" might do better, but they require an enormous amount of work compared to a little program spitting out JPGs of text.
That's also an interesting option - you're talking about something like "laser launch". The difference is because you don't have a physical structure to apply wheels too, you need to carry propellant as well. Since the laser contributes a lot of the energy you don't need as much propellant as a rocket.
OTOH, if you want to put something in orbit around the Earth, then you should give it orbital velocity [snip]
Yes, thats angular momentum there, the craft would probably need some kind of power to adjust for that.
Some kind of power, indeed... like 90% of the shuttle's power.
Far, far less than a standard earth based launch however,
Why?
This is the key to your argument. The difficult part of getting to earth orbit is accelerating to orbital speed, not getting high enough. So why do you think that it's easier to achieve orbital speed from 11km up than from the ground?
Of course, there is a certain small benefit in getting above most of the atmosphere. If you can do it without great cost, it would be worthwhile. But for the most part, it's easier just to build a bigger [expendable] rocket.
I don't think you meant it that way, but you should be aware that some very famous hard-code spammers rant on about "frea speech" when arguing against spam filtering.
They might disagree, until they saw what happens when their ISP REALLY turns all the filtering off.
How about 100 spam emails per day? 1000 ? Had enough yet?