 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> I'm still not completely clear on how LAB editing helps, though...
>
> Jim
You can sharpen on the L channel only, and use the a and b channels to
balance shift and saturate colors. There are a few more tricks Lab mode
can get you, but those are the highlights.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:52:33 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>> I'm still not completely clear on how LAB editing helps, though...
>>
>> Jim
>
> You can sharpen on the L channel only, and use the a and b channels to
> balance shift and saturate colors. There are a few more tricks Lab mode
> can get you, but those are the highlights.
Cool, thanks for that - that helps a lot, actually.
Time to go find a good tutorial. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 09 Jul 2008 19:03:55 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null>
did spake, saying:
> Darren New wrote:
>
>> Retail audio CD players were $1200 when they first came out in the USA.
>> A couple months later, they were something like $800. Give BlueRay
>> about a year or two, and it'll be down to $50 for a drive.
>
> Yeah - and maybe *then* it will become common-place. Right now, it's
> only for rich people who like to have the latest flashy toys.
"Oy" said the owner of a Playstation 3.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Retail audio CD players were $1200 when they first came out in the
>>> USA. A couple months later, they were something like $800. Give
>>> BlueRay about a year or two, and it'll be down to $50 for a drive.
>>
>> Yeah - and maybe *then* it will become common-place. Right now, it's
>> only for rich people who like to have the latest flashy toys.
>
> "Oy" said the owner of a Playstation 3.
Oh yes. Clearly a PS3 is not, in any sense, a "flashy toy". ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:44:06 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
spake, saying:
>>>> Retail audio CD players were $1200 when they first came out in the
>>>> USA. A couple months later, they were something like $800. Give
>>>> BlueRay about a year or two, and it'll be down to $50 for a drive.
>>>
>>> Yeah - and maybe *then* it will become common-place. Right now, it's
>>> only for rich people who like to have the latest flashy toys.
>> "Oy" said the owner of a Playstation 3.
>
> Oh yes. Clearly a PS3 is not, in any sense, a "flashy toy". ;-)
Chides the owner of Komplete 5 currently retailing at €999 ;-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> "Oy" said the owner of a Playstation 3.
>>
>> Oh yes. Clearly a PS3 is not, in any sense, a "flashy toy". ;-)
>
> Chides the owner of Komplete 5 currently retailing at €999 ;-)
Meh. That's "art", darling.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> That's the reason why many small software houses prefer using the ogg
> format, as it's completely free.
Somebody told me that ogg technically sucks.
The Vorbis audio codec, however, is quite good.
[yes that's a nitpick on ogg vs vorbis :)]
His recommendation was to live with ogg/vorbis for audio, but if I wanted
video, use something like Matroska for the container, not ogg.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Somebody told me that ogg technically sucks.
>
> The Vorbis audio codec, however, is quite good.
Any idea what specifically "sucks" about Ogg?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Somebody told me that ogg technically sucks.
>>
>> The Vorbis audio codec, however, is quite good.
>
> Any idea what specifically "sucks" about Ogg?
>
No idea. The one who told me was a ffmpeg developer so it's probably
technicalities that I'd understand only if I had experience with media
container file formats :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Any idea what specifically "sucks" about Ogg?
>
> No idea. The one who told me was a ffmpeg developer so it's probably
> technicalities that I'd understand only if I had experience with media
> container file formats :)
Ah, OK.
I did read the spec for Ogg once. I don't remember it now, but it seems
a simple enough format without much overhead.
In particular, you're supposed to be able to take any valid Ogg file,
slice it in half at some arbitrary point, and the two halves are ment to
still be playable by any compliant player, even though you just sliced
right through the middle of some data structure.
While we're on the subject, Vorbis is ment to support "bit peeling",
where you can take a Vorbis stream and "easily" strip off parts of it to
yield a valid lower-bitrate version without having to actually transcode
anything. Sort of like progressive JPEG - the data is arranged in such a
way that it's easy to quickly discard low priority data to lower the
bitrate.
How well any of this works in practice? I have no idea! ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
