![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> And besides, I didn't say there was *no* difference. I just said the
>> difference was rather small. Certainly not worth paying tens of
>> thousands of pounds for.
>
> They're now the standard TV sets and you don't pay much more than what you used
> to pay for.
Yeah, sure. Buy a new TV. Buy a new signal decoder. By a new disk
player. All for what? A noticeable but small increase in picture
sharpness. Big deal.
>> Increasing the framerate does sound like one hell of a good idea. On the
>> other hand, they'll probably just increase it from 50 Hz to 55 Hz and
>> call it "extreme motion" or something. :-P
>
> Nope, it's 120hz and very visible a difference.
Not having watched any video at 120 Hz, I couldn't say. (And are you
saying there are actual plans to implement this? Or just that you've
seen it somewhere?)
By the way, normal TV (in my country) is 50 Hz, but that's interlaced,
so it's actually 50 *half frames* per second. It's a piffling 25 *full
frames* per second. How does progressive scan change this? Is it still
only 25 full frames per second? Or does it actually allow 50 full frames
per second?
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> >> And besides, I didn't say there was *no* difference. I just said the
> >> difference was rather small. Certainly not worth paying tens of
> >> thousands of pounds for.
> >
> > They're now the standard TV sets and you don't pay much more than what you used
> > to pay for.
>
> Yeah, sure. Buy a new TV. Buy a new signal decoder. By a new disk
> player. All for what? A noticeable but small increase in picture
> sharpness. Big deal.
If I was you, I'd first buy new glasses and then actually stare at the TV rather
than at a specs sheet..
>
> >> Increasing the framerate does sound like one hell of a good idea. On the
> >> other hand, they'll probably just increase it from 50 Hz to 55 Hz and
> >> call it "extreme motion" or something. :-P
> >
> > Nope, it's 120hz and very visible a difference.
>
> Not having watched any video at 120 Hz, I couldn't say. (And are you
> saying there are actual plans to implement this? Or just that you've
> seen it somewhere?)
Like I said, I've seen. It's easy, you go outside and enter some store...
>
> By the way, normal TV (in my country) is 50 Hz, but that's interlaced,
> so it's actually 50 *half frames* per second. It's a piffling 25 *full
> frames* per second. How does progressive scan change this? Is it still
> only 25 full frames per second? Or does it actually allow 50 full frames
> per second?
beats me. Just looks terrific. Then again, I don't use glasses
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> Yeah, sure. Buy a new TV. Buy a new signal decoder. By a new disk
>> player. All for what? A noticeable but small increase in picture
>> sharpness. Big deal.
>
> If I was you, I'd first buy new glasses and then actually stare at the TV rather
> than at a specs sheet..
Yeah, right. Because I haven't done that already. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
scott wrote:
> If the license says otherwise that's incorrect.
In the USA, copyright supersedes license agreements. According to some old
court cases, if it's copyrighted, and your license agreement conflicts with
what copyright allows, and you bought the stuff *before* you agreed to the
license, then copyright wins.
I don't know if DMCA changed that, tho.
> But understand in many cases when you buy DRM protected content
> you are not buying the right to unlimited personal use.
It depends. I certainly am when I buy a kindle document.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Invisible wrote:
> not sure that's a good assumption.
It has been a very successful business model. It's not obvious it always is
or will continue to be so, but so far, lots of people have made it work, and
lots of people haven't.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> But understand in many cases when you buy DRM protected content you
>> are not buying the right to unlimited personal use.
>
> It depends. I certainly am when I buy a kindle document.
Really? Do they let you copy it to all your other devices (even those
that do not support the Kindle DRM system)? How about printing it out?
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
scott wrote:
>>> But understand in many cases when you buy DRM protected content you
>>> are not buying the right to unlimited personal use.
>>
>> It depends. I certainly am when I buy a kindle document.
>
> Really? Do they let you copy it to all your other devices (even those
> that do not support the Kindle DRM system)? How about printing it out?
Making it easy is not the same as it being legal. And again, I don't know
how the DMCA changed this, given this is exactly the field which DMCA was
supposed to be improving.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 20/01/2011 1:39 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 00:05:52 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> LOL
>>>
>> There, there. I'll give you a Glasgow kiss. :-P
>
> I think I'll pass - I like my forehead too much. ;-)
>
Understandable :-)
>>> Well, you quoted me saying it. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> Did you read my reply to Andrew?
>
> Probably, but you know how it is with memory. ;-)
>
Something to do with toerags IIRC
>>> LOL, I thought I remembered you saying something about having worked in
>>> Wales at one point, so I knew it would get your attention. ;-)
>>>
>> Two points. About 40 years ago I worked in a holiday camp in Pwllheli.
>> And of course St lived in Colwyn Bay. :-(
>
> I keep forgetting that you've got 20 years on me. Shame on me, must be
> that old memory thing. :-)
>
What did you say?
>>>> I behaved similarly in Jamaica. Speaking like "Teach" in workshops
>>>> but like me in the office.
>>>
>>> I'm sure that confused people at first. :-)
>>>
>> No, it was expected. o_O
>
> Interesting.
>
Politeness is everything.
>>>> Again, they do that in Jamaica. Probably picked it up from the Irish
>>>> "Indentured servants" who were transported there (and to Barbados) by
>>>> Cromwell's son.
>>>
>>> Quite possibly.
>>>
>> We've got a lot of history.
>
> So I've noticed. Sadly, the immigration policies don't look to be
> conducive to us moving over in the near future, so we're actually
> contemplating a move to Oregon (since we have friends out there who have
> said they want us to be near them, at least for a while<g>).
>
Shame, but our loss is Oregon's gain.
Head 'em up, move 'em out.
http://tinyurl.com/67bqthx
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 20/01/2011 7:11 PM, Stephen wrote:
> Shame, but our loss is Oregon's gain.
> Head 'em up, move 'em out.
> http://tinyurl.com/67bqthx
Maybe this one would be more appropriate - McRawhide ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWMDuRZBnnw
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 1/20/2011 1:55 AM, scott wrote:
> Well the infrastructure is surely still in the software and hardware (at
> least with analogue VGA) for higher framerates as it is commonly used by
> CRTs. Also reading the wikipedia page on DVI it seems there is no limit
> for the framerate, only the overall bandwidth in single-link (it gives
> 1920x1200x120Hz as a valid mode for dual-link).
>
> Just need someone to build a monitor that accepts something other than
> 60 Hz!
You can, they are call "3D ready". Not to be confused with 120hz
displays/TVs, which actually take in native 60hz, then "upsample" to
120hz, when handling TV data (by interpolating frames).
They also cost 2-3 times what the 60hz one does, *and* if its a TV, you
won't find one smaller than 40" that supports it. I know, I just got a
bluray 3D, and went looking to see what was needed to actually use it...
Yikes!!
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |