It's not easy to agree with, for sure, but it is easy to understand. CD's, and books as well, wear down with time and use - doesn't matter, you still can't legally copy them and distribute them.
It may cost $15-$20 for you to replace your CDs when they wear down - through your own or your friends' use - but I'm sure it's $15-$20 the RIAA would gladly see you pay. And paying repeatedly for the same music makes it easy to understand why the greedy RIAA imposes in such a manner.
The Open for Business source also cautioned against trying to predict too much about the future Intel-based Macs from the developer kits...The source emphasized that "they [are not] indicative of the future production release of Mac OS X for Intel."
Aerogel is good for conductive heat insulation, but poor at radiative insulation - including infrared radiation. It wasn't until after carbon was added to it that infrared radation was stopped (and that still doesn't solve the problem of the remainder of dangerous radioactive spectrum that courses through space).
On OS X or Linux, I don't worry too much. If a user needs a software, usually it doesn't need much discussion.
Yeah... Software like Limewire, which reputedly wreaks havoc on important system files and resources in OS X. My roommate, who works for the Apple Store in Manhattan, even says that support folks at the store go so far as write off any computer with Limewire installed that's brought in for support as dead - discussion ended.
I think it's safe to say that all OS's have software that's worth thinking twice about. Windows just suffers from quite a larger catalog than the rest.
You beat me to it! "Lossless" is, of course, a relative term - and a CD, using the standard Redbook audio format - is lossy compared to the analog source from which it is usually generated. You could consider it lossless if it were a CD pressed or burned from a rip of another CD. But at that rate, you might as well call a CD full of MP3s lossless, too, since the files were just copied onto it with no further compression involved.
And in the end, it's all fairly indiscernable to the average listener. "Lossless" is sort of becoming like the word "digital" is now in marketing-speak.
Interesting... Though I think it's important to frame the quality in its ratio to file size. Most any modern codec nowadays can equal MPEG-2 at DVD quality (ranging anywhere from 4-10mbps) and bear most any resolution up to the high heavens - if you give it enough bitrate to work with and don't care for file size.
Its performance these days doesn't seem very encouraging, though it's early in development. It has some hefty competition, though - such as the Snow codec, which also uses wavelets for its compression algorithms.
Overall, the promise of wavelet codecs is high, but their quality to compression ratio vs. traditional MPEG-4 solutions (like XviD and H.264), and the convenience of encodes (Dirac lacks very many useful encoding tools outside of command line) at present leaves much to be desired.
It would be great for them to use existing software solutions, since as it happens I use a PC to play my movies on my TV...but not everybody has it connected that way, nor does everybody enjoy watching movies on their computers. The market seems bigger for the regular set-top folks.
They'll probably hike on an MPEG-4 AVC codec like H.264 to get the bitrate tolerably below 1mbps, and implement a hardware chip with adequate post-processing filters to improve image quality.
Playing back a 704x469 pixel x264-encoded video at 1mbps with stereo 48khz MP3, and using a few ffdshow filters looks damn fine to me on a Sony WEGA CRT - at around a GB for a 2+ hour movie. Though stereo MP3, obviously, is out of the question...(though it'd be a good idea to give an option between stereo and surround, so the stereo folks can save some on bandwidth.)
They might be able to squeeze it down some in resolution to account for people's general insensitivity to digital video and audio quality. Hell, a ton of my friends sadly can't tell the difference between analog TV and DVDs sometimes. So I think Netflix can afford some frugality with file size. Definitely 700 MB is tolerable in the mainstream if they go with MP4-AVC, lower the res and audio bitrate. But like you said, most people who would go for this would probably have 5mbps-download cable service that could easily take a couple mbps stream.
With Netflix's huge selection, an on-demand streaming service is an extremely tempting deal. Just wonder how much the set-top-box would cost...
Are you doing it for file sharing between your local machines, or for browsing the web? The 11mbps of B is way more bandwidth than any consumer level ISP I know of in this country can provide.
You're correct about AC3 - but note that I didn't say I was disagreeing with you about that. The other languages can be kept, too. There's room for them on a server with hundreds of gigabytes. Maybe someday (soon) down the road video and audio tracks can be maintained separately, and would be muxed on the client end in software during playback.
I emphasize "most DVDs" in my previous post with regards to quality vs. xvids, because the quality of a good encode is dependent on so many factors in the source. But there is no doubt in my mind that MPEG-4 (especially in its H.264 iteration) is capable of meeting and surpassing the subjective quality of DVD (MPEG-2 at a max res of 720x480) at lower bitrates and file sizes. My 2-pass VBR xvid encodes hover anywhere between 1 and 2 GB (I don't burn mine to disc, I keep them on a 160GB NAS), which is typically more generous than most things floating around p2p's (though I use stereo VBR MP3 for audio), and are only minimally distinguishable from the source DVDs on my WEGA CRT TV. Please note that I'm not arguing the quality potential of MPEG-4 vs. MPEG-2, because in both cases they can be as good, and as resolute as file size and end-user processing power will allow (sure, you could encode a 3,000x1687 pixel, 30fps video in either MPEG-2 or MPEG-4, but it might chug on a lot of machines).
But please don't forget that we're talking about the application of these codecs to the relatively limited bandwidth of the internet. So even though MPEG-4 is certainly capable of surpassing the quality of DVD video (MPEG-2 at 720x480), doing so is not practical for internet distribution...
...YET, but I reiterate that broadband speed is increasing, while at the same time the quality of low-bitrate MPEG-4 video is improving AND is assisted by post-processing filters. So I think it's safe to say that we both support MPEG-4 (which is already posed to take over digital video compression, if it weren't for how entrenched MPEG-2 is in the mainstream) over current DVD video.
You _don't_ have to sacrifice extra content, like deleted scenes or alternate endings, just to save on bandwidth because _none_ of these things are viewed at the same time. They can all still exist on the host server and viewed at your leisure - just as they are compartmentalized on a DVD (and in fact exist as separate *.VOB files on the disc). The main difference is the interface may be your browser instead of the GUI used for the DVD. Best of all, I would hope that they would change the economics of things so that we pay for each component separately. How about seven bucks for the movie, another two for the alternate ending should I choose to view it?
The issue of limited bandwidth only matters for things that are being downloaded and viewed/heard at once. I personally DO believe surround sound is important to the movie experience. I also believe xvid (my compression codec of choice) is noticeably lower quality than _most_ of their source DVDs (but not all DVDs are equal) on very good TVs - but the difference is negligible for most people. Sad to say, some of my peers have trouble differentiating between cable TV and DVD, much less my 1GB xvids and their source DVDs.
However, I also acknowledge that video and audio compression is only getting better (eg, H.264) _and_ tools such as FFDSHOW do a great job of improving video quality of low-bitrate video in realtime on the client end - while at the same time, broadband is becoming both more widespread and faster (my cable frequently breaches a healthy 3 mbps). Internet servers can hold way more than 5-inch discs can, and are more convenient and take up less shelf space for the client than bulky DVD boxes (which I end up closetting anyways in favor of CD/DVD binders).
So whether Netflix likes it or not, the internet will be a primary media delivery service sooner rather than later. I even hope that it takes over traditional broadcast TV, since I currently get most of my television via bittorrent rather than actually going to my living room and turning on my WEGA. Though I'm still keeping my Netflix subscription until then.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not easy to agree with, for sure, but it is easy to understand. CD's, and books as well, wear down with time and use - doesn't matter, you still can't legally copy them and distribute them.
It may cost $15-$20 for you to replace your CDs when they wear down - through your own or your friends' use - but I'm sure it's $15-$20 the RIAA would gladly see you pay. And paying repeatedly for the same music makes it easy to understand why the greedy RIAA imposes in such a manner.
Not everybody realizes that they are vulnerable, though, making the default unsecure settings of routers a definite problem.
Safe to assume, since the article says this:
The Open for Business source also cautioned against trying to predict too much about the future Intel-based Macs from the developer kits...The source emphasized that "they [are not] indicative of the future production release of Mac OS X for Intel."
Hehe, no...I got it. Just never gave much chance to the logic behind emotionally distressed and selfish computers.
Aerogel is good for conductive heat insulation, but poor at radiative insulation - including infrared radiation. It wasn't until after carbon was added to it that infrared radation was stopped (and that still doesn't solve the problem of the remainder of dangerous radioactive spectrum that courses through space).
Wasn't a moon base part of the plan to help acclimatize would-be human Martians to the desolate conditions?
Nah... Mission success itself means astronaut survival.
On OS X or Linux, I don't worry too much. If a user needs a software, usually it doesn't need much discussion.
Yeah... Software like Limewire, which reputedly wreaks havoc on important system files and resources in OS X. My roommate, who works for the Apple Store in Manhattan, even says that support folks at the store go so far as write off any computer with Limewire installed that's brought in for support as dead - discussion ended.
I think it's safe to say that all OS's have software that's worth thinking twice about. Windows just suffers from quite a larger catalog than the rest.
You beat me to it! "Lossless" is, of course, a relative term - and a CD, using the standard Redbook audio format - is lossy compared to the analog source from which it is usually generated. You could consider it lossless if it were a CD pressed or burned from a rip of another CD. But at that rate, you might as well call a CD full of MP3s lossless, too, since the files were just copied onto it with no further compression involved.
And in the end, it's all fairly indiscernable to the average listener. "Lossless" is sort of becoming like the word "digital" is now in marketing-speak.
Is it just my Harman/Kardon, or don't all receivers with digital inputs also have analog inputs?
No...It's "By whom do you want to be gang-raped today?"
Interesting... Though I think it's important to frame the quality in its ratio to file size. Most any modern codec nowadays can equal MPEG-2 at DVD quality (ranging anywhere from 4-10mbps) and bear most any resolution up to the high heavens - if you give it enough bitrate to work with and don't care for file size.
Its performance these days doesn't seem very encouraging, though it's early in development. It has some hefty competition, though - such as the Snow codec, which also uses wavelets for its compression algorithms.
Overall, the promise of wavelet codecs is high, but their quality to compression ratio vs. traditional MPEG-4 solutions (like XviD and H.264), and the convenience of encodes (Dirac lacks very many useful encoding tools outside of command line) at present leaves much to be desired.
It would be great for them to use existing software solutions, since as it happens I use a PC to play my movies on my TV...but not everybody has it connected that way, nor does everybody enjoy watching movies on their computers. The market seems bigger for the regular set-top folks.
They'll probably hike on an MPEG-4 AVC codec like H.264 to get the bitrate tolerably below 1mbps, and implement a hardware chip with adequate post-processing filters to improve image quality.
Playing back a 704x469 pixel x264-encoded video at 1mbps with stereo 48khz MP3, and using a few ffdshow filters looks damn fine to me on a Sony WEGA CRT - at around a GB for a 2+ hour movie. Though stereo MP3, obviously, is out of the question...(though it'd be a good idea to give an option between stereo and surround, so the stereo folks can save some on bandwidth.)
They might be able to squeeze it down some in resolution to account for people's general insensitivity to digital video and audio quality. Hell, a ton of my friends sadly can't tell the difference between analog TV and DVDs sometimes. So I think Netflix can afford some frugality with file size. Definitely 700 MB is tolerable in the mainstream if they go with MP4-AVC, lower the res and audio bitrate. But like you said, most people who would go for this would probably have 5mbps-download cable service that could easily take a couple mbps stream.
With Netflix's huge selection, an on-demand streaming service is an extremely tempting deal. Just wonder how much the set-top-box would cost...
I think they are most significantly an ipod/itunes company. I know plenty of ipod owners who do not also own Macs.
Are you doing it for file sharing between your local machines, or for browsing the web? The 11mbps of B is way more bandwidth than any consumer level ISP I know of in this country can provide.
You're correct about AC3 - but note that I didn't say I was disagreeing with you about that. The other languages can be kept, too. There's room for them on a server with hundreds of gigabytes. Maybe someday (soon) down the road video and audio tracks can be maintained separately, and would be muxed on the client end in software during playback.
I emphasize "most DVDs" in my previous post with regards to quality vs. xvids, because the quality of a good encode is dependent on so many factors in the source. But there is no doubt in my mind that MPEG-4 (especially in its H.264 iteration) is capable of meeting and surpassing the subjective quality of DVD (MPEG-2 at a max res of 720x480) at lower bitrates and file sizes. My 2-pass VBR xvid encodes hover anywhere between 1 and 2 GB (I don't burn mine to disc, I keep them on a 160GB NAS), which is typically more generous than most things floating around p2p's (though I use stereo VBR MP3 for audio), and are only minimally distinguishable from the source DVDs on my WEGA CRT TV. Please note that I'm not arguing the quality potential of MPEG-4 vs. MPEG-2, because in both cases they can be as good, and as resolute as file size and end-user processing power will allow (sure, you could encode a 3,000x1687 pixel, 30fps video in either MPEG-2 or MPEG-4, but it might chug on a lot of machines).
But please don't forget that we're talking about the application of these codecs to the relatively limited bandwidth of the internet. So even though MPEG-4 is certainly capable of surpassing the quality of DVD video (MPEG-2 at 720x480), doing so is not practical for internet distribution...
...YET, but I reiterate that broadband speed is increasing, while at the same time the quality of low-bitrate MPEG-4 video is improving AND is assisted by post-processing filters. So I think it's safe to say that we both support MPEG-4 (which is already posed to take over digital video compression, if it weren't for how entrenched MPEG-2 is in the mainstream) over current DVD video.
You _don't_ have to sacrifice extra content, like deleted scenes or alternate endings, just to save on bandwidth because _none_ of these things are viewed at the same time. They can all still exist on the host server and viewed at your leisure - just as they are compartmentalized on a DVD (and in fact exist as separate *.VOB files on the disc). The main difference is the interface may be your browser instead of the GUI used for the DVD. Best of all, I would hope that they would change the economics of things so that we pay for each component separately. How about seven bucks for the movie, another two for the alternate ending should I choose to view it? The issue of limited bandwidth only matters for things that are being downloaded and viewed/heard at once. I personally DO believe surround sound is important to the movie experience. I also believe xvid (my compression codec of choice) is noticeably lower quality than _most_ of their source DVDs (but not all DVDs are equal) on very good TVs - but the difference is negligible for most people. Sad to say, some of my peers have trouble differentiating between cable TV and DVD, much less my 1GB xvids and their source DVDs. However, I also acknowledge that video and audio compression is only getting better (eg, H.264) _and_ tools such as FFDSHOW do a great job of improving video quality of low-bitrate video in realtime on the client end - while at the same time, broadband is becoming both more widespread and faster (my cable frequently breaches a healthy 3 mbps). Internet servers can hold way more than 5-inch discs can, and are more convenient and take up less shelf space for the client than bulky DVD boxes (which I end up closetting anyways in favor of CD/DVD binders). So whether Netflix likes it or not, the internet will be a primary media delivery service sooner rather than later. I even hope that it takes over traditional broadcast TV, since I currently get most of my television via bittorrent rather than actually going to my living room and turning on my WEGA. Though I'm still keeping my Netflix subscription until then.