Just found out yesterday how to save the most popular video format - H.264 - from my video editor - Sony Vegas Movie Studio. It was unexpectedly tricky.
First off, I look for H.264 codec. Of course, H.264 is just the spec. So eventually, I find x264 - it's free and open source, but alas CLI only (I just want to save from Vegas). So after an hour, I finally hit upon the VFW (Video for Windows) term, and find the "x264vfw" codec, which indeed does the trick, and saves H.264 under the AVI wrapper. However, some advise against that and instead recommend a frame buffer/server which is a little more tricky to use. At least then though, you can save as a 'proper' ".mp4" file or similar.
So to save a video in H.264, we have to know tons of jargon: x264, h264, AVI, MP4, VFW, MP3, WAV. And that x264 is just one of a number of implementations of the h.264 codec (QuickTime, Main Concept, Sony etc. do their own, thanks I'll pass). Not to mention the billion and one options the x264 spec expects the user to understand. I know some are necessary, but they should make more of an effort to simplify things (pretty sure it's laziness on their part).
I do programming, video creation, art, music composition and other things, yet I'm still bitter that (say) setting up a Belkin router (even in Win 7) is as tedious as it is, and how messy the state of (say) the video codec world is.
I shouldn't have to worry about these things, they should indeed, 'just work', leaving me to get on with the creativity. The hierarchical filesystem is a poor man's metadata/database filesystem, which we should all be using instead. Haven't even heard of HSPDA or TDM.
Yeah, it bugs me no end that they're marketed and sold as separate products. General efficiency would rocket if we could accept them as being one and the same. Especially now we have digital, there's little reason to do otherwise.
Super-super hires displays. Think 8000*6000. This would relieve of us hacks like Cleartype or even anti-aliasing.
Universal ASIO for all or better with near zero-latency sound output.
Resizeable windows that scale the contents to see at any size.
Instant file search, and no I don't mean in one second. I mean all filtered files are shown in under 0.01 seconds.
Metadata/database filesystem so all files are in one folder (can emulate folders if you want)
Zero latency for all or most widgets and clicks (including mouse down, not mouse up)
Dropping the registry, and encouraging apps to stick to their own 'folder' (yes, I know the supposed pluses for saving to User/Documents and the million other locations Windows randomly chooses).
To calculate remaining download time, just calc: fullFilesizeInBytes / bytesDownloadedSoFar, and then use that to multiply the time that has passed so far to give an estimated arrival time. Hardly rocket science or calculus - I have no idea why SO MANY programs can't get it right.
I was thinking of a smaller asteroid though. It would be better for it to be converted to dust (and thus burn up on entry), than hit us full on. At least I think so...
Also, blowing it up would create forces perpendicular to the asteroid's path to Earth, not just in the same line. Granted, merely fracturing it would be of no use. I was thinking again of a smaller asteroid though.
If they are smaller pieces though, they'll break up in the Earth's atmosphere must more easily surely? If they were really small, they'd presumably break up completely?
Also, wouldn't an explosion spray all the pieces in 360 degree directions, with many bits going back off into space.
It's not just more detail, but 'noisy' detail with little contrast and ugly colour schemes. Modern games tend to have this 'bitty' noisy look which I think not only detracts from the gameplay as Eric points out, but also makes the graphics look *worse*.
I've sometimes moaned how textures are 'planted' on polygons. It's always looked like a hack, as you get this high level shape which is flat, and this grainy mess pasted on top (yes even bump mapping is hack). In a big way, I'd rather have more polygons and no textures, or at least textures which are more subtle. This is compounded by the lack of global illumination / raytracing which makes current games feel a bit cheap.
Have you heard of metallic glass? That's one example of a material which is both very tough and hard. Perhaps I should have said "strong" instead of "hard" as that appears to be usually a more useful attribute. Here's some more info:
"Strength refers to how much force a material can take before it deforms. Toughness explains the energy required to fracture or break something; it describes an object’s ability to absorb energy. Most of the time, these qualities are mutually exclusive. “The holy grail is to get both those properties at the same time,” Ritchie said."
"The new glass has a far better combination of strength and toughness than any steel."
How 'tough' is this M-carbon in comparison to diamond? Actual diamond is very hard, but its toughness is only average, and hence quite brittle like glass.
If it's tough and hard, we could be onto a winner.
I agree with you in spirit (and am also bitter about the mess), though for practical reasons, I just copy and paste a certain 'flavour' of that DOCTYPE header on a lot of my pages to get things to appear the same in all the browsers. I don't know what the heck it means, and care even less, but here it is anyway (see the top bit, and ignore the rest, I didn't make this paste, just found it from looking using google (it is the same as mine, but Slashdot doesn't allow pasting of weird characters etc.):
Slashdot Mirror
From Microsoft or Linux's side?
Er, the real issue is that the OP wasn't modded down, and got 5 in the end, so DJR was mistaken.
You'd like to donate to me? Thanks for the offer, but just glad to help - spread the info around to help others if you like though.
Just found out yesterday how to save the most popular video format - H.264 - from my video editor - Sony Vegas Movie Studio. It was unexpectedly tricky.
First off, I look for H.264 codec. Of course, H.264 is just the spec. So eventually, I find x264 - it's free and open source, but alas CLI only (I just want to save from Vegas). So after an hour, I finally hit upon the VFW (Video for Windows) term, and find the "x264vfw" codec, which indeed does the trick, and saves H.264 under the AVI wrapper. However, some advise against that and instead recommend a frame buffer/server which is a little more tricky to use. At least then though, you can save as a 'proper' ".mp4" file or similar.
So to save a video in H.264, we have to know tons of jargon: x264, h264, AVI, MP4, VFW, MP3, WAV. And that x264 is just one of a number of implementations of the h.264 codec (QuickTime, Main Concept, Sony etc. do their own, thanks I'll pass). Not to mention the billion and one options the x264 spec expects the user to understand. I know some are necessary, but they should make more of an effort to simplify things (pretty sure it's laziness on their part).
Maybe H.265 will streamline things!
I do programming, video creation, art, music composition and other things, yet I'm still bitter that (say) setting up a Belkin router (even in Win 7) is as tedious as it is, and how messy the state of (say) the video codec world is.
I shouldn't have to worry about these things, they should indeed, 'just work', leaving me to get on with the creativity. The hierarchical filesystem is a poor man's metadata/database filesystem, which we should all be using instead. Haven't even heard of HSPDA or TDM.
So its mention of AMD CPU latencies increasing (and Intel's decreasing) is wrong is it?
Yeah, it bugs me no end that they're marketed and sold as separate products. General efficiency would rocket if we could accept them as being one and the same. Especially now we have digital, there's little reason to do otherwise.
How about for monitors? Don't you think it would be a good idea to unify TVs with monitors?
Relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShPAyOoOGPw
I don't think they're doing it out of principle (not that I would mind), but just to prevent the various sale disputes they seem to be having.
Also, people would know immediately if the spells etc.work or not, while holy water would have more of a placebo "it might have worked" effect.
Lots of innovation left:
Super-super hires displays. Think 8000*6000. This would relieve of us hacks like Cleartype or even anti-aliasing.
Universal ASIO for all or better with near zero-latency sound output.
Resizeable windows that scale the contents to see at any size.
Instant file search, and no I don't mean in one second. I mean all filtered files are shown in under 0.01 seconds.
Metadata/database filesystem so all files are in one folder (can emulate folders if you want)
Zero latency for all or most widgets and clicks (including mouse down, not mouse up)
Dropping the registry, and encouraging apps to stick to their own 'folder' (yes, I know the supposed pluses for saving to User/Documents and the million other locations Windows randomly chooses).
Those are the things I'd be pushing towards.
Also there are grey shades.
To calculate remaining download time, just calc: fullFilesizeInBytes / bytesDownloadedSoFar, and then use that to multiply the time that has passed so far to give an estimated arrival time. Hardly rocket science or calculus - I have no idea why SO MANY programs can't get it right.
Thanks for the info.
I was thinking of a smaller asteroid though. It would be better for it to be converted to dust (and thus burn up on entry), than hit us full on. At least I think so...
Also, blowing it up would create forces perpendicular to the asteroid's path to Earth, not just in the same line. Granted, merely fracturing it would be of no use. I was thinking again of a smaller asteroid though.
If they are smaller pieces though, they'll break up in the Earth's atmosphere must more easily surely? If they were really small, they'd presumably break up completely?
Also, wouldn't an explosion spray all the pieces in 360 degree directions, with many bits going back off into space.
Congrats on your first +5!
If you're right, then this should definitely be upvoted.
It's not just more detail, but 'noisy' detail with little contrast and ugly colour schemes. Modern games tend to have this 'bitty' noisy look which I think not only detracts from the gameplay as Eric points out, but also makes the graphics look *worse*.
I've sometimes moaned how textures are 'planted' on polygons. It's always looked like a hack, as you get this high level shape which is flat, and this grainy mess pasted on top (yes even bump mapping is hack). In a big way, I'd rather have more polygons and no textures, or at least textures which are more subtle. This is compounded by the lack of global illumination / raytracing which makes current games feel a bit cheap.
So after the death of the dino, how long would we have to extract complete DNA? 10 years? 1000?
I've had two hard drives that I've been able to temporarily 'resurrect' by freezing. It's definitely very real.
That was the joke. I'd barely even risk buying one myself, let alone more than one, or a kid buying them.
The solution is simple, ban the smaller ones and supply 2 inch cubed neodymium versions instead. They'll have a tough job swallowing those!
Have you heard of metallic glass? That's one example of a material which is both very tough and hard. Perhaps I should have said "strong" instead of "hard" as that appears to be usually a more useful attribute. Here's some more info:
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-01/new-metallic-glass-toughest-strongest-material-yet
http://www.livescience.com/10420-metallic-glass-hard-tough.html
Some choice quotes:
"Strength refers to how much force a material can take before it deforms. Toughness explains the energy required to fracture or break something; it describes an object’s ability to absorb energy. Most of the time, these qualities are mutually exclusive. “The holy grail is to get both those properties at the same time,” Ritchie said."
"The new glass has a far better combination of strength and toughness than any steel."
How 'tough' is this M-carbon in comparison to diamond? Actual diamond is very hard, but its toughness is only average, and hence quite brittle like glass.
If it's tough and hard, we could be onto a winner.
I agree with you in spirit (and am also bitter about the mess), though for practical reasons, I just copy and paste a certain 'flavour' of that DOCTYPE header on a lot of my pages to get things to appear the same in all the browsers. I don't know what the heck it means, and care even less, but here it is anyway (see the top bit, and ignore the rest, I didn't make this paste, just found it from looking using google (it is the same as mine, but Slashdot doesn't allow pasting of weird characters etc.):
http://pastebin.com/vkKDZPjJ