I have to agree about the Fuji. I have the same camera and I think it will do everything that 90% of the population needs. It's pictures look great when printed at 4x6 and 5x7, in fact I think they rival my Canon AE-1. At 8x10 they don't stand up to serious scrutiny, but if framed and put on a wall you still have to get pretty close to tell they aren't from film.
I'm actually glad all the super mega-pixel cameras are out now. I'm hoping that it will drive down the cost of the 3-4 megapixel SLR's on the used market. Althouh I love my Fuji, I do like having a SLR when I know I want to take some serious photo's.
The right way to do it would be to have two big knobs - volume and channel. But "channel" should be smart. If the channel isn't in use, it doesn't get a position on the knob. Turning the knob should instantly switch to the next channel, within 50ms or so. No wait for AGC, AFC, or DRM cryptosync. No fading out during channel switching.
Good idea in theory. Bad in practice. When you drive around seattle for instance you run into pockets where AM just dies, and the FM gets crappy. It may only be for 10 seconds, but imagine the look on the persons face when they can't switch to a channel they know is there.
There are two downsides to iTunes for me. The first is that I really like having my sound files at their original resolution. That's why I've ripped everything to FLAC. The second is that I really like having an archival copy, which apple doesn't provide. CD-R's wear out to fast for my liking, so my only option is to back up the AAC files. But with my CD's I've got an original disc, a CD-R, and a FLAC file on my hard drive.
Of course I could be swayed if iTunes was signifigantly cheaper, unfortunately 9/10 times for me I don't feel that it is.
Tell me about it. When ever the cable people come out they try to blame me for my cableling. They just don't seem to understand why I'd want all those cables. And don't get me started on what they said about my optical audio cable.
The DVD standard never said the movie had to have both pan and scan and widescreen versions, that it simply was an option. There are some movies that will never be released with a pan and scan version, and there are some that were shot in pan and scan to begin with so that there is not a wide screen version. It's completly up to the studio/director to decide how the movie is released.
I have friends that don't like watching the "broken" version with the black bars. I sometimes watch movies with these individuals
You should take the time to educate them on why widescreen is intrinsically better. There are even a few DVD's out there that have demo's as to why.
And according the the claims made when DVD was young, there should be no quality or space penalties for including the scan markers.
Are you kidding me? there is simply no way to have both versions on the disc without either a reduction in quality or a reduction in space. You only have two options for producing the pan and scan image. The first is to have a complete second copy of the movie in full resoltuion with the pan and scan done. The second option would be to have markers that tell which part of the frame to display. The first option retains the quality at the expense of space. Both versions in the movie use all 480 lines of resolution, but having two copies means you have to sacrifice some special features, or have multiple discs. The second option is going to reduce quality on the pan and scan image because if you are zooming in on the picture, you aren't using all the available resolution lines.
As it stands I have to make certain I'm getting the right version and on some titles(CHarlies angels full throttle) the version is well hidden.
Just do what I do and take it back. This seemed to be a bigger problem early in the DVD picture ('97 and '98), but since quite a number of people have begun to do this most retailers clearly mark the different versions.
Why would you even want 16x9 and pan and scan on the same disc? All that does is ruin the quality. I have a few discs that do have both, and they are much lacking in special features. I won't even buy a disc that's not anamorphic widescreen. I'm personally glad that the discs are seperate. It also gives me reason to avoid places like blockbuster that only have the pan and scan version.
You have to remember that band's are on differernt labels in different countries. In the US the white stripes are on V2 which is an RIAA member, however in the UK they are distributed via XL, which is not. Franz Ferdinand is signed to Domino records which is safe, but Sony distributes them in the US. A band like belle and sebastian might be on EMI/Virgin, Rough Trade, or Matador depeding on the country of purchase. The problem with indie labels is that only the biggest (Matador, Sub-Pop, etc) have good enough distribution to handle a band world wide, so a major lable almost always is involved in a few of the countries.
That's a farce. Ice-T was on Conan this week debunking that. An interviewer asked him if he could make anyone rap. Ice-T said, "Sure for enough money." The interviewer then asked if he could make David Hasselhoff rap. Ice-T replied, "Yeah, for about 5 million dollars I'd sign him to my label and put out his album." The interviewer then asked what his name would be and Ice-T said, "Hassel the Hoff." Somehow that got distorted from a hypothetical joke to being an acutal project.
Airlines are screwy no matter where you fly. I'm flying from Seattle to Dallas for a wedding in july. The plane ticket was around $400. If I instead flew from Seattle to Oklahoma City, it was $230. The kicker is that the Seattle to Oklahoma City flight has a connection in Dallas. And the Seattle to Dallas connection is the SAME flight as the one I wanted to take. So basically American Airlines is paying me almost $200 to continue on to Oklahoma City and ride back to Dallas with some friends.
The quality of movies in my home now is probably better than what I watched 10 years ago. However, the quality of movie theaters isn't standing still either. They are improving as well.
Not to mention there is something said for the experience as well. Almost all the Sonics and Mariners games are televised here, but I still go to games when I can. I think people like the movie experience. Not to mention that it's the only way to see a movie for the first 6 months of it's release.
In my experience RF converters are insanely popular simply because that's how Joe Sixpack knows how to hook it up. I went to my parents house, and they had cable hooked up into the VCR, the VCR hooked into a pass through on an RF converter for the DVD player, and then hooked into the coax on the TV. And this was a modern TV with 3 rear and 1 front video input 2 with S-video.
Jaws was made in the freaking 70's! What kind of extra footage would you expect them to have lying around? For newer discs compiling extra's is easier, but for the classics it can be nigh impossible. I suppose they could have added a commentary track to the movie, but Spielberg is adamantly opposed to those.
Part of the problem is with widescreen movies. You can either sacrifice part of the image (pan&scan) or you can letterbox them. If you do that, you can get as few as 300 vertical scan lines actualy playing the image, which is very poor resolution. If you have a very large TV, you'll notice the jaggies; if you have a small or mid-size TV, you simply won't see much detail.
This isn't really true anymore. Almost any recent TV (last 4 years) of any quality has support for anamorphic DVD's. It uses all the scan lines to display the letterboxed image, and the dark parts are really just off. Any HD monitor will do this, and most recent SD monitors will as well.
You expect an exisiting player to play one of these new disc's? What kind of crack are you smoking? The players will have backwards compatability for sure. You will have no problem playing CD, CD-R, CD-RW, DVD, DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD-R, and DVD+RW in them. But to even suggest that an existing player should play the new standard is asinine. Did you expect your 1990 CD player to play a DVD just because the discs look the same?
It will be just as open as mpeg. Meaning you can read how to implement it, but doing so requires a licensing fee. Neither of them is truly an open standard.
I actually still use my cd's quite frequently, though almost just in my car. I've got almost 400 CD's, and haven't yet ripped but 200 to FLAC. I'm always going to be the kind of person who loves to have the physical media though. I love the liner notes and the actual idea of having a big CD shelf. It's always a great conversation starter when someone new comes over.
Accept for those weren't the recommended specifications for longhorn. Those were Microsofts opinion of what the average new computer was going to be like when longhorn was released. I'd have to say they hit the nail on the head.
Here's something that might make a little bit more sense to everyone else. Here is how I sort my music:
~/music/Interpol/Turn on the Bright Lights/01.flac
I don't think harry likes every movie. I just think Harry has a hard time trashing a movie when they've given him lots of free stuff and let him see it early.
DVD players may be everywhere now, but you need a special DVD player to play DVD-A. While it is almost trivial to add DVD-A support to a player, it is just as easy to add SACD support. Infact there are many players which have support for both, plus DVD and CD support.
I don't believe there is anything but software issues involved in making computer DVD players and burners read DVD-A and SACD, but I could be wrong about that. If either of these formats ever gets a strong hold it will be because of software, not hardware, and I think that's where SACD has the advantage. The hybrid discs allow the record company to release one version of a CD/SACD which makes things easier on them. I also think that SACD sounds better in stereo than DVD-A does, and since most music is still listened to in situations where stereo is most important (headphones, in the car, etc) I think that is a second advantage.
Of course 95% of the people I talk to don't see a need for anything better than redbook CD's, so this may be a lost cause.
You should tell that to my stereo. My SPL meter has clearly hit 110db. I'm sure I could go louder, but it would start to get painful. I do have horn tweeters in my klipsch speakers, but I wouldn't call them boom-horns.
They do, and this led to many problems. Most of the early DVD-A players would not function without a TV. You needed it to use the menu to select which version of the disc to listen to, etc. I don't know about you, but when I put a music disc in, I don't necessairly want or need a display hooked up.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to agree about the Fuji. I have the same camera and I think it will do everything that 90% of the population needs. It's pictures look great when printed at 4x6 and 5x7, in fact I think they rival my Canon AE-1. At 8x10 they don't stand up to serious scrutiny, but if framed and put on a wall you still have to get pretty close to tell they aren't from film.
I'm actually glad all the super mega-pixel cameras are out now. I'm hoping that it will drive down the cost of the 3-4 megapixel SLR's on the used market. Althouh I love my Fuji, I do like having a SLR when I know I want to take some serious photo's.
The right way to do it would be to have two big knobs - volume and channel. But "channel" should be smart. If the channel isn't in use, it doesn't get a position on the knob. Turning the knob should instantly switch to the next channel, within 50ms or so. No wait for AGC, AFC, or DRM cryptosync. No fading out during channel switching.
Good idea in theory. Bad in practice. When you drive around seattle for instance you run into pockets where AM just dies, and the FM gets crappy. It may only be for 10 seconds, but imagine the look on the persons face when they can't switch to a channel they know is there.
There are two downsides to iTunes for me. The first is that I really like having my sound files at their original resolution. That's why I've ripped everything to FLAC. The second is that I really like having an archival copy, which apple doesn't provide. CD-R's wear out to fast for my liking, so my only option is to back up the AAC files. But with my CD's I've got an original disc, a CD-R, and a FLAC file on my hard drive.
Of course I could be swayed if iTunes was signifigantly cheaper, unfortunately 9/10 times for me I don't feel that it is.
Tell me about it. When ever the cable people come out they try to blame me for my cableling. They just don't seem to understand why I'd want all those cables. And don't get me started on what they said about my optical audio cable.
The DVD standard never said the movie had to have both pan and scan and widescreen versions, that it simply was an option. There are some movies that will never be released with a pan and scan version, and there are some that were shot in pan and scan to begin with so that there is not a wide screen version. It's completly up to the studio/director to decide how the movie is released.
I have friends that don't like watching the "broken" version with the black bars. I sometimes watch movies with these individuals
You should take the time to educate them on why widescreen is intrinsically better. There are even a few DVD's out there that have demo's as to why.
And according the the claims made when DVD was young, there should be no quality or space penalties for including the scan markers.
Are you kidding me? there is simply no way to have both versions on the disc without either a reduction in quality or a reduction in space. You only have two options for producing the pan and scan image. The first is to have a complete second copy of the movie in full resoltuion with the pan and scan done. The second option would be to have markers that tell which part of the frame to display. The first option retains the quality at the expense of space. Both versions in the movie use all 480 lines of resolution, but having two copies means you have to sacrifice some special features, or have multiple discs. The second option is going to reduce quality on the pan and scan image because if you are zooming in on the picture, you aren't using all the available resolution lines.
As it stands I have to make certain I'm getting the right version and on some titles(CHarlies angels full throttle) the version is well hidden.
Just do what I do and take it back. This seemed to be a bigger problem early in the DVD picture ('97 and '98), but since quite a number of people have begun to do this most retailers clearly mark the different versions.
Why would you even want 16x9 and pan and scan on the same disc? All that does is ruin the quality. I have a few discs that do have both, and they are much lacking in special features. I won't even buy a disc that's not anamorphic widescreen. I'm personally glad that the discs are seperate. It also gives me reason to avoid places like blockbuster that only have the pan and scan version.
You have to remember that band's are on differernt labels in different countries. In the US the white stripes are on V2 which is an RIAA member, however in the UK they are distributed via XL, which is not. Franz Ferdinand is signed to Domino records which is safe, but Sony distributes them in the US. A band like belle and sebastian might be on EMI/Virgin, Rough Trade, or Matador depeding on the country of purchase. The problem with indie labels is that only the biggest (Matador, Sub-Pop, etc) have good enough distribution to handle a band world wide, so a major lable almost always is involved in a few of the countries.
That's a farce. Ice-T was on Conan this week debunking that. An interviewer asked him if he could make anyone rap. Ice-T said, "Sure for enough money." The interviewer then asked if he could make David Hasselhoff rap. Ice-T replied, "Yeah, for about 5 million dollars I'd sign him to my label and put out his album." The interviewer then asked what his name would be and Ice-T said, "Hassel the Hoff." Somehow that got distorted from a hypothetical joke to being an acutal project.
Airlines are screwy no matter where you fly. I'm flying from Seattle to Dallas for a wedding in july. The plane ticket was around $400. If I instead flew from Seattle to Oklahoma City, it was $230. The kicker is that the Seattle to Oklahoma City flight has a connection in Dallas. And the Seattle to Dallas connection is the SAME flight as the one I wanted to take. So basically American Airlines is paying me almost $200 to continue on to Oklahoma City and ride back to Dallas with some friends.
The quality of movies in my home now is probably better than what I watched 10 years ago. However, the quality of movie theaters isn't standing still either. They are improving as well.
Not to mention there is something said for the experience as well. Almost all the Sonics and Mariners games are televised here, but I still go to games when I can. I think people like the movie experience. Not to mention that it's the only way to see a movie for the first 6 months of it's release.
In my experience RF converters are insanely popular simply because that's how Joe Sixpack knows how to hook it up. I went to my parents house, and they had cable hooked up into the VCR, the VCR hooked into a pass through on an RF converter for the DVD player, and then hooked into the coax on the TV. And this was a modern TV with 3 rear and 1 front video input 2 with S-video.
Jaws was made in the freaking 70's! What kind of extra footage would you expect them to have lying around? For newer discs compiling extra's is easier, but for the classics it can be nigh impossible. I suppose they could have added a commentary track to the movie, but Spielberg is adamantly opposed to those.
Part of the problem is with widescreen movies. You can either sacrifice part of the image (pan&scan) or you can letterbox them. If you do that, you can get as few as 300 vertical scan lines actualy playing the image, which is very poor resolution. If you have a very large TV, you'll notice the jaggies; if you have a small or mid-size TV, you simply won't see much detail.
This isn't really true anymore. Almost any recent TV (last 4 years) of any quality has support for anamorphic DVD's. It uses all the scan lines to display the letterboxed image, and the dark parts are really just off. Any HD monitor will do this, and most recent SD monitors will as well.
You expect an exisiting player to play one of these new disc's? What kind of crack are you smoking? The players will have backwards compatability for sure. You will have no problem playing CD, CD-R, CD-RW, DVD, DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD-R, and DVD+RW in them. But to even suggest that an existing player should play the new standard is asinine. Did you expect your 1990 CD player to play a DVD just because the discs look the same?
It will be just as open as mpeg. Meaning you can read how to implement it, but doing so requires a licensing fee. Neither of them is truly an open standard.
I actually still use my cd's quite frequently, though almost just in my car. I've got almost 400 CD's, and haven't yet ripped but 200 to FLAC. I'm always going to be the kind of person who loves to have the physical media though. I love the liner notes and the actual idea of having a big CD shelf. It's always a great conversation starter when someone new comes over.
Accept for those weren't the recommended specifications for longhorn. Those were Microsofts opinion of what the average new computer was going to be like when longhorn was released. I'd have to say they hit the nail on the head.
No, IBM = Hitachi. Seagate are still seagate.
Here's something that might make a little bit more sense to everyone else. Here is how I sort my music:
~/music/Interpol/Turn on the Bright Lights/01.flac
Don't forget that IBM sold it's disk business to Hitachi so you guys are talking about the same thing.
I don't think harry likes every movie. I just think Harry has a hard time trashing a movie when they've given him lots of free stuff and let him see it early.
DVD players may be everywhere now, but you need a special DVD player to play DVD-A. While it is almost trivial to add DVD-A support to a player, it is just as easy to add SACD support. Infact there are many players which have support for both, plus DVD and CD support.
I don't believe there is anything but software issues involved in making computer DVD players and burners read DVD-A and SACD, but I could be wrong about that. If either of these formats ever gets a strong hold it will be because of software, not hardware, and I think that's where SACD has the advantage. The hybrid discs allow the record company to release one version of a CD/SACD which makes things easier on them. I also think that SACD sounds better in stereo than DVD-A does, and since most music is still listened to in situations where stereo is most important (headphones, in the car, etc) I think that is a second advantage.
Of course 95% of the people I talk to don't see a need for anything better than redbook CD's, so this may be a lost cause.
You should tell that to my stereo. My SPL meter has clearly hit 110db. I'm sure I could go louder, but it would start to get painful. I do have horn tweeters in my klipsch speakers, but I wouldn't call them boom-horns.
They do, and this led to many problems. Most of the early DVD-A players would not function without a TV. You needed it to use the menu to select which version of the disc to listen to, etc. I don't know about you, but when I put a music disc in, I don't necessairly want or need a display hooked up.
I prefer SACD myself. It's also 5.1, but I like the idea of hybrid SACD where the disc will play in regular CD players.