yes!! in australia, the other day i filled up at AUD$1.63/L
the above "highest ever OMG" equates to AUD$0.91/L
fuck you, americans. you'll start wars to keep the price so low that even the poorest of you can drive F-350s? running a car is a privilege, not a right!
2.5 screen heights was no doubt calculated for the 4 perf academy format, not the 2.4:1 (or 2.35:1 academy) of yesteryear.
not that i care to prove my credentials to the late DentArthurDent, but i can assure you i do know what i'm talking about. if you've ever seen _uncompressed_ SD, you'd be shocked at how much more apparent sharpness there is to see, with normal film content. the difference is mainly high frequencies (of course), and less visually important, especially if there's any out-of-focus areas, which there almost always are.
the problem is that HD is still more than is needed, and a fair amount of programming is still made for SD (and most still broadcast in SD).
broadcast facilities dragged their feet with HD adoption - the single factor that made all facilities HD capable was the move away from hardware to software and masters-on-HDD.
so no... the market didn't adapt in 2005, it didn't adapt in 2010, it hasn't adapted now and it will be a long time before anything other than big budget movies or events like the olympics will get the 4k treatment.
also consider the optimum viewing distance of 2.5 screen heights. if Jobs were still here, he'd stop at 2k and call it "retina television". unless you're doing it well wrong, you're not going to get much benefit. even the jump from SD to HD was marginal - most of the gains were in compression quality (a macroblock is harder to see when it's 1/4 the size, and in h.264 it's impossible to see as it's filtered out by design).
but i suppose 4k will be interesting for perving on individual audience members at sporting events...
i've heard olanzapine described as a "chemical lobotomy", but i doubt the severity of an actual lobotomy was truly understood by people that draw the comparison.
why is the army always used to justify civilian stupidity? why shouldn't we draw a distinction between military and civilian? i'd love to have a stinger launcher built into my car, but i absolutely should not be allowed to have one, because when it comes down to it, every driver i ever encounter will piss me off enough to want to reach for the trigger.
also, ATSC allows for exactly what you say, as do DVDs (and anything that carries ac-3 audio). the problem is it's either ignored or actively gamed to make the output EVEN FUCKING LOUDER.
there have been commercial loudness rules before - Australia has one called "OP48" (i think it's been amended and has a different number now, but i haven't mastered a TVC for ages so who cares?).
the problem in the past has been that a "commercial" can be in full compliance when it's sent to the TV station, but they could still crank the shit out of it on broadcast with impunity. any complaints were met with "but the ad is OP48 compliant! you're imagining things! it would have been rejected by the broadcaster if it didn't comply!"
the CALM act appears to apply to broadcasters themselves, and requires the loudness of the TVCs to be coupled to the average loudness of the program they're in.
now... i wonder how long till broadcasters start fucking with the programs themselves to keep the average high, but lower the loudness in the minutes before a commercial break?
Slashdot Mirror
yes!! in australia, the other day i filled up at AUD$1.63/L
the above "highest ever OMG" equates to AUD$0.91/L
fuck you, americans. you'll start wars to keep the price so low that even the poorest of you can drive F-350s? running a car is a privilege, not a right!
but does it run linux?
h.264 is vastly superior to MPEG-2.
DVDs crap out above about 8500kbps, and audio+subs get subtracted from the 10.02Mbps (10.08 peak) total max in the spec.
also, things scale very well in higher res. much more flat areas mean more skip blocks, so it's not a linear scaling
2.5 screen heights was no doubt calculated for the 4 perf academy format, not the 2.4:1 (or 2.35:1 academy) of yesteryear.
not that i care to prove my credentials to the late DentArthurDent, but i can assure you i do know what i'm talking about. if you've ever seen _uncompressed_ SD, you'd be shocked at how much more apparent sharpness there is to see, with normal film content. the difference is mainly high frequencies (of course), and less visually important, especially if there's any out-of-focus areas, which there almost always are.
don't blame the messenger - tell the people who make the shows!
if you get a crap makeup artist it'll look like a stage show.
if you get crap actors it will look like people standing around talking.
if you get a crap DoP, everyone will look boring.
maybe viewer discretion should be advised?
half the filesize of the JM reference h.264 encoder released aeons ago.
about 0.9x the size of an x264 encode with mbtree enabled.
you rip rentals? that's pretty scummy, dude.
the problem is that HD is still more than is needed, and a fair amount of programming is still made for SD (and most still broadcast in SD).
broadcast facilities dragged their feet with HD adoption - the single factor that made all facilities HD capable was the move away from hardware to software and masters-on-HDD.
so no... the market didn't adapt in 2005, it didn't adapt in 2010, it hasn't adapted now and it will be a long time before anything other than big budget movies or events like the olympics will get the 4k treatment.
also consider the optimum viewing distance of 2.5 screen heights. if Jobs were still here, he'd stop at 2k and call it "retina television". unless you're doing it well wrong, you're not going to get much benefit. even the jump from SD to HD was marginal - most of the gains were in compression quality (a macroblock is harder to see when it's 1/4 the size, and in h.264 it's impossible to see as it's filtered out by design).
but i suppose 4k will be interesting for perving on individual audience members at sporting events...
wall st apparently.
you confuse "analysis" with "speculation". i think you need to stop watching the news.
you should bold the word "invention", which this patent is not.
legal precedent: arkell v pressdram
catholic != christian
i've heard olanzapine described as a "chemical lobotomy", but i doubt the severity of an actual lobotomy was truly understood by people that draw the comparison.
also, olanzapine wears off.
you're talking shit.
care to find out how many women get the magical catch-all genetic screening on their foetus before offing it?
s/Linus/RMS/p
how long you been kernel maintaining?
well, the army can opt out of this feature.
why is the army always used to justify civilian stupidity? why shouldn't we draw a distinction between military and civilian? i'd love to have a stinger launcher built into my car, but i absolutely should not be allowed to have one, because when it comes down to it, every driver i ever encounter will piss me off enough to want to reach for the trigger.
never heard that one before? i quite like it.
me thinks you don't know what hellaciously radioactive means.
by the time this shit's loaded into a centrifuge, it's decayed into something that's trivially easy to remove.
legacy support - i'm not buying a new goddamn TV.
also, ATSC allows for exactly what you say, as do DVDs (and anything that carries ac-3 audio). the problem is it's either ignored or actively gamed to make the output EVEN FUCKING LOUDER.
there have been commercial loudness rules before - Australia has one called "OP48" (i think it's been amended and has a different number now, but i haven't mastered a TVC for ages so who cares?).
the problem in the past has been that a "commercial" can be in full compliance when it's sent to the TV station, but they could still crank the shit out of it on broadcast with impunity. any complaints were met with "but the ad is OP48 compliant! you're imagining things! it would have been rejected by the broadcaster if it didn't comply!"
the CALM act appears to apply to broadcasters themselves, and requires the loudness of the TVCs to be coupled to the average loudness of the program they're in.
now... i wonder how long till broadcasters start fucking with the programs themselves to keep the average high, but lower the loudness in the minutes before a commercial break?
barrel roll.
RTFA?
they're improving their search algos to account for relations between concepts rather than just statistical relevance applied to strings typed in.
the way the results are displayed seems a small thing to fixate on.
we'd all be screwed if it were well disciplined AND well fed.