 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/20/2011 2:08 PM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcable com> wrote:
>> 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).
>
> Wouldn't that cause an annoying flicker effect, when each other frame
> is slightly blurrier (being the average of the previous and next frames),
> especially when there's very fast motion?
>
> Unless the TV searches for the shapes in the image (as an MPEG-4 codec
> would) and then interpolates those shapes. I would be surprised if it was
> that advanced.
>
Actually, I think that is exactly what it does do. The inputs for most
of those is digital, and the digital data is some sort of streaming
codec, not an analog pattern. **But**, if you do watch analog on the
same thing, you get precisely what you describe, as I understand, which
is blurring and other problems, since it can't interpolate frame
information it doesn't have, so has to guess.
--
void main () {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Um... in what way do you suppose copyright was supposed to "maximize
> artistic endeavours" other than "people making a livelihood via the arts"??
Check out "moral rights" in copyright law. I'm not saying it's sufficient,
but it's part of the whole parcel.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> On 20/01/2011 04:04 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> not sure that's a good assumption.
>>
>> It has been a very successful business model.
>
> Digital content is another matter...
I'm talking about with digital media. Downloads, even.
> Apparently some people think I'm weird because I still buy all my music
> on CD.
I do too. I wind up ripping them every 2 or 3 years as I get new media players.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/21/2011 2:19 AM, scott wrote:
>> You can, they are call "3D ready".
>
> Oh, do they really take 120 Hz data and give 60 Hz to each eye? I
> assumed they took 60 Hz and gave 30 Hz to each eye - will need to look
> into that...
From a quick google:
"3D TV size and refresh rate
While there seems to be no restrictions in terms of TV size, a 3D TV
needs a minimum refresh rate of 120Hz (a basic 60Hz displayed for each
eye). The higher the refresh rate, the smoother the 3D effect. So a
240Hz set will be capable of outputting 120Hz to each eye.
HDMI 1.4 will also be required for full HD per eye viewing."
The forum post I found explaining why I couldn't just use a TV that
claims 120hz, but isn't, I don't remember the link to. But, basically,
while, in theory, you only need 25 frames a second to "see" an image,
this isn't practical for various reasons, especially motion issues,
which is why games *attempt* to always produce at least 50 frames a
second, if not 60. The difference "is" visible, since even though the
eye only needs 25, those 25 don't necessarily match the "frame rate" the
eye is looking at the screen with (i.e., your meat system isn't
"synchronized" with the refresh rate on the display). So, trying to use
30 frames a second, by splitting 60hz (i.e. 60 frames) flat out won't
work properly. The closer you can get to 60 frames a second per eye, the
less likely you are to notice any sort of flicker, blurring, etc., from
desynching.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/20/2011 2:10 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> you could, for legit use, photocopy pages out of a book, for a
>> classroom, or to show someone, etc., as long as you don't *sell* the
>> book, or its pages, to someone else.
>
> That's not actually the case, and never has been.
>
Fair use. You mention it yourself soon after.
>> You simply can't *at all* ***EVER***, even if the use would otherwise
>> be considered legitimate.
>
> I don't believe that's true. See, for example, this:
>
> http://futureofmusic.org/article/summary-dmca
>
> "The exception to this rule is when people want to make a copy of a work
> for “fair use.” "
>
All well and good, but, in a practical sense, this is meaningless for
"digital" content.
> If you have legal access to the work, you're allowed to bypass the DRM
> in order to do anything legal, including "fair use" (which includes
> selling your original).
>
>> secondary laws, dealing with recorded content, and sue you for, "using
>> the content in a performance.", as happened to a few people that made
>> the mistake of playing their music in a restaurant in at least one
>> case I know of.
>
> Yes. That's called "public performance", and it's not one of the legal
> rights you get when you purchase the content.
>
Oddly, reading a book isn't "public performance". Even if you put it
under a projector it probably wouldn't be. On the other hand.. plug your
iPad into a big display on a wall... Would it?
>> They could, in principle, even deny you the right to what you already
>> have, if they put in a clause for it, rent it to you (I mean WTF),
>> and, more to the point, stop supporting the device, in effect, denying
>> your right to ***everything*** you bought that is on it.
>
> This isn't true, as I understand it. I'm sure there are loopholes and
> such, and that it's more complex than either of us are giving credit
> for, but the intention isn't to keep you from playing stuff you legally
> own.
>
The biggest "loophole" is, if the software stops working, or the server
goes down, even if they promised to let you replace a copy, if you lost
the local one, you lose the thing you bought. So, no, I am quite correct
in this.
Same with "giving/selling the original". Try that with an eBook...
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:10:39 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> On 19/01/2011 06:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 18:16:42 -0800, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I'd think having access to a studio really helps when you're
>>> recording a song...
>>
>> Depends on the quality you're looking for, but yes, having the right
>> tools helps (in both cases).
>
> I'd suggest having the right technicians helps more. Mix engineering is
> non-trivial, whether you have the right equipment or not.
I consider the personnel part of the toolset in this case. Just like if
you're publishing a technical book, having a good technical reviewer and
editor is essential to ending with a good product.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:11:11 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>> I think I'll pass - I like my forehead too much. ;-)
>>
> Understandable :-)
:)
>>> Did you read my reply to Andrew?
>>
>> Probably, but you know how it is with memory. ;-)
>>
> Something to do with toerags IIRC
What were we talking about? ;-)
>> 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'm not sure. :)
>> Interesting.
>>
> Politeness is everything.
That's certainly true. :-)
>>> 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
Nice of you to say - who knows, maybe the rules will change while it's
still feasible for us. I blame Cameron (though that's largely "just
because").
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:25:38 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> The way I see it, there's two sides to this DRM stuff.
That's a reasonable view.
I actually had an opportunity to listen to a talk given by the head of
legal at the RIAA last year. He talked about their strategy (this was in
the context of "intellectual property protection" to a group of exam
creators/publishers), and the underlying part of the strategy that
they've taken is to actually cut off the supply lines for those who
counterfeit products and sell them in the streets, particularly in places
like China and New York.
From that point of view, the strategy makes a lot of sense (I've always
said that they need to go after those who are actually selling
counterfeit products for profit, never considered that the source of the
material for those counterfeit products was largely file sharing, for
example).
That said, there's a difference between preventing illegal distribution
and making it inconvenient to use a product for legal purposes (such as
fair use provisions in US Copyright law - mostly not codified but enabled
through legal precedent).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:00:42 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> On 20/01/2011 08:55 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Yet, even in that case, you could, for legit use, photocopy pages out
>> of a book, for a classroom, or to show someone, etc., as long as you
>> don't *sell* the book, or its pages, to someone else. Not so with DRMed
>> stuff.
>
> I'm not sure about the USA, but in the UK you can't photocopy stuff for
> use in the classroom without the copyright holder's permission. (Wanna
> guess why school materials cost so much?)
That's the way it is in the US as well.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:30:30 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> On 18/01/2011 7:02 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:42:52 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's no infinitive in either version.
>>>
>>> True, I did misname it - but I found the sentence structure awkward as
>>> originally written. Just misidentified why it was awkward. :-)
>>>
>>>
>> Cause it sounds wrong.
>> How do non-native speakers identify wrong grammer, I wonder?
>
> "It will be John and I coming tomorrow" sounds fine to me in answer to
> "Who will be coming tomorrow?"
OK, I now know (after talking with my boss, who studied linguistics and
language in college) what the problem is with that response.
"It will be John and I coming tomorrow" is passive voice, and to get to a
passive voice, it goes through some significant grammatical gymnastics to
get there.
The rule of thumb Dave (my boss) says he was taught was this:
Make the subject of discourse the subject of the sentence.
"It" in that particular sentence refers to something other than "John and
I", who are the subject of the discourse. By mixing the subject of
discourse and the subject of the sentence different, the sentence becomes
awkward.
Then adding a passive verb in the mix makes it a softer sentence. A lot
of times, people mix "passive" with "formal", but that isn't necessarily
the case. Formality does not need to be passive, and more often than not
isn't.
That's why it would be more correct/proper to answer "John and I will be
attending" (still passive voice, but the subject is unified between
discourse and sentence).
There's also no grammatical gymnastics necessary to get there, even
though it is still passive.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
