 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/27/10 16:36, nemesis wrote:
> BTW, only now I noticed the TV comes with a small set of sample pictures of
> landscapes. Look bright and amazing and here's the catch: their resolution is
> 1920x1080. They fit the whole screen in normal mode. They also display the
> same in "wide" or "face zoom". I wonder why would they fill a TV with images
> this size if they wouldn't fit except downscaled.
This stuff can be confusing. My TV has Full, Wide, another one similar
to Wide, 4:3, Zoom, and perhaps one more. I usually set it at Full.
It's a pain to get the "proper" resolution (at least for video -
haven't tried photos). Mine is 1080p. But something broadcast at 720p
(wide screen) will still show up and fill the screen because the aspect
ratio is the same. Something with a different aspect ratio will not -
even if it's bigger than my TV's resolution - because it's trying to
maintain the aspect ratio.
But then again, when I get stuff broadcast in 4:3 aspect ratio, the
Full mode sometimes shows it at the proper aspect ratio (so black bars
on the side). But sometimes it is stretched.
I'd say go and figure out *precisely* what those modes mean.
I have a PS3, and over there you can set it to show it at the *exact*
resolution. So if it's 320x200, it will show up quite small on the screen.
--
Inoculatte: To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote:
> On 05/27/10 16:36, nemesis wrote:
> > BTW, only now I noticed the TV comes with a small set of sample pictures of
> > landscapes. Look bright and amazing and here's the catch: their resolution is
> > 1920x1080. They fit the whole screen in normal mode. They also display the
> > same in "wide" or "face zoom". I wonder why would they fill a TV with images
> > this size if they wouldn't fit except downscaled.
>
> This stuff can be confusing. My TV has Full, Wide, another one similar
> to Wide, 4:3, Zoom, and perhaps one more. I usually set it at Full.
>
> It's a pain to get the "proper" resolution (at least for video -
> haven't tried photos). Mine is 1080p. But something broadcast at 720p
> (wide screen) will still show up and fill the screen because the aspect
> ratio is the same. Something with a different aspect ratio will not -
> even if it's bigger than my TV's resolution - because it's trying to
> maintain the aspect ratio.
what about pictures? Have you tried that one? Do pictures larger than the
screen appear smaller by default?
yeah, it's a pain.
> I have a PS3, and over there you can set it to show it at the *exact*
> resolution. So if it's 320x200, it will show up quite small on the screen.
oh, I got this TV both because my old CRT was dying a slow death and to
eventually finally grab a PS3 (mainly for God of War 3 and bluray movies). :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/29/10 11:20, nemesis wrote:
> what about pictures? Have you tried that one? Do pictures larger than the
> screen appear smaller by default?
My TV only takes in SD cards, not USB. Since I don't have such a card,
I can't check. I can view photos via the PS3, but then that's not
dependent on the TV modes.
Try a smaller image than what the TV specs are, but of the same aspect
ratio. It wouldn't surprise me if it shows up full screen on some mode.
> oh, I got this TV both because my old CRT was dying a slow death and to
> eventually finally grab a PS3 (mainly for God of War 3 and bluray movies). :)
I got the PS3 because it had 3 things:
1. Ability to play Blu-Ray.
2. Ability to stream videos from the computer.
3. Ability to stream from NetFlix.
I originally had thought of getting 3 separate devices. A friend
convinced me to buy a PS3 instead. I wish I hadn't listened to him.
Still, it was about $100 cheaper than buying all 3...
--
If it's easy it's a trick. If it's hard it's a technique.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Mon, 31 May 2010 00:12:15 +0100, Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg>
did spake thusly:
> I got the PS3 because it had 3 things:
>
> 1. Ability to play Blu-Ray.
>
> 2. Ability to stream videos from the computer.
>
> 3. Ability to stream from NetFlix.
>
> I originally had thought of getting 3 separate devices. A friend
> convinced me to buy a PS3 instead. I wish I hadn't listened to him.
OOC why?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> I originally had thought of getting 3 separate devices. A friend
> convinced me to buy a PS3 instead. I wish I hadn't listened to him.
> Still, it was about $100 cheaper than buying all 3...
Most blu-ray players around here will also show youtube and netflix videos,
and I'm pretty sure there are a few that'll show files off your computer.
Prices run around $170 or so.
There are also lots of devices that'll play whatever you throw at them,
either via hard drive or over the net, for $100 or so. Get on amazon and
search for "HDMI torrent."
(And no, I was looking for hardware to replace our custom hardware at work,
not for myself. ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/03/10 01:20, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> And lo On Mon, 31 May 2010 00:12:15 +0100, Neeum Zawan
> <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> did spake thusly:
>
>> I got the PS3 because it had 3 things:
>>
>> 1. Ability to play Blu-Ray.
>>
>> 2. Ability to stream videos from the computer.
>>
>> 3. Ability to stream from NetFlix.
>>
>> I originally had thought of getting 3 separate devices. A friend
>> convinced me to buy a PS3 instead. I wish I hadn't listened to him.
>
> OOC why?
When you want to fast forward, you get a choice of 1.5x. The next
bigger option is 10x. That's retarded. Even worse, when you want to seek
backwards, the first choice is 10x.
Technically, you can go into a menu and pick stuff like 4x, but you're
not really going to want to go navigate menus just to get that.
Can't remember more things now, but there were a whole bunch of related
usability issues for watching videos, that any decent player can take
care of. Fact is that the PS3 just wasn't meant for this.
As for the streaming from computers, I use the PS3 media server
software. I had considered a Western Digital device just for this
purpose. From what I'd read, the WD had better support for more formats.
With the PS3 media server, it could handle a lot of things, but if not,
your computer would start transcoding live (using mplayer on Linux).
Sometimes it just wouldn't work (although mplayer plays it fine), or if
it transcoded, my computer sometimes couldn't handle the load (these
weren't HD videos) - P4 2.53 GHz. I now have a newer computer so that
problem is taken care of.
From everything I've read, the WD device just supports more formats. It
puts us at the mercy of their firmware updates, but they seemed to have
frequent updates. Furthermore, the actual "frontend"/OS of the device is
based on GPL libraries, so lots of people add all kinds of goodies - you
can't do that with the PS3 media server.
--
Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/03/10 08:52, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> I originally had thought of getting 3 separate devices. A friend
>> convinced me to buy a PS3 instead. I wish I hadn't listened to him.
>> Still, it was about $100 cheaper than buying all 3...
>
> Most blu-ray players around here will also show youtube and netflix
> videos, and I'm pretty sure there are a few that'll show files off your
> computer. Prices run around $170 or so.
A lot do, but I think most only recently added support. I did this
research 6 months ago. Since then, quite a few well known brands have
added support - they didn't have it then. You have to realize that even
stuff like the PS3 got support only shortly before that time. It's
possible that some other players had it back then, but I just didn't
know about it (certainly not listed on the Netflix page at the time).
I'm sure I did a generic Google search for Netflix capable devices, but
probably got too many unrelated pages.
As for streaming, I'd suspect that may be new for them as well (at
least the cheaper ones). Furthermore, when it comes to file streaming, I
wanted a known "reliable" device. One where it's either open source (as
the PS3 media server is), or if not open, one with a history of good
support. The Western Digital had a good history, but I doubt the Blu-Ray
players that support it are old enough.
I did a *lot* more extensive search for file streaming back then than I
did for NetFlix streaming, and trust me: None was primarily a Blu-Ray
player, and all the non-PS3, non-WD options were more expensive.
Also, I don't really care about watching Youtube on my TV.
> There are also lots of devices that'll play whatever you throw at them,
> either via hard drive or over the net, for $100 or so. Get on amazon and
> search for "HDMI torrent."
Well, the WD device was also about $100. I was figuring about another
$100 or so for a Blu-Ray player, and $80-100 for the Roku NetFlix
player. That's how I got $300. With my current setup (just PS3), it was
$200.
Nevertheless, thanks for the tip. I didn't know what to search for
before. I'll keep it in mind because I may get sick of using the PS3 as
the media server.
Not really interested in torrent capability or external HD. That's what
my computer is for.
--
Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 07:04:11 +0100, Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg>
did spake thusly:
> On 06/03/10 01:20, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>> And lo On Mon, 31 May 2010 00:12:15 +0100, Neeum Zawan
>> <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> did spake thusly:
>>
>>> I got the PS3 because it had 3 things:
>>>
>>> 1. Ability to play Blu-Ray.
>>>
>>> 2. Ability to stream videos from the computer.
>>>
>>> 3. Ability to stream from NetFlix.
>>>
>>> I originally had thought of getting 3 separate devices. A friend
>>> convinced me to buy a PS3 instead. I wish I hadn't listened to him.
>>
>> OOC why?
>
> When you want to fast forward, you get a choice of 1.5x. The next
> bigger option is 10x. That's retarded. Even worse, when you want to seek
> backwards, the first choice is 10x.
At least it does actually fast-forward/rewind rather than turn the film
into a slide-show as my Sony BDP-363 (and the latest more expensive model)
does; I also like the way the 1.5x keeps the sound.
> Technically, you can go into a menu and pick stuff like 4x, but you're
> not really going to want to go navigate menus just to get that.
>
> Can't remember more things now, but there were a whole bunch of related
> usability issues for watching videos, that any decent player can take
> care of. Fact is that the PS3 just wasn't meant for this.
>
<snip>
> - you
> can't do that with the PS3 media server.
That's fair enough if you're doing that, for most though I suspect it'll
just work.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> A lot do, but I think most only recently added support.
Sure. It's only the latest version of the Blu-Ray spec that requires
internet connectivity anyway. (Can you guess why? Of *course* you can.)
> Nevertheless, thanks for the tip.
Yeah, it wasn't any sort of accusation. Just an update about a more recent
search for such capabilities.
> Not really interested in torrent capability or external HD. That's what
> my computer is for.
Me neither, but it was keywords I knew would find what I had stumbled across
before. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/04/10 01:24, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>> When you want to fast forward, you get a choice of 1.5x. The next
>> bigger option is 10x. That's retarded. Even worse, when you want to seek
>> backwards, the first choice is 10x.
>
> At least it does actually fast-forward/rewind rather than turn the film
> into a slide-show as my Sony BDP-363 (and the latest more expensive
> model) does; I also like the way the 1.5x keeps the sound.
Yeah, but 1.5x is too slow, and 10x is too fast. Most players go by
powers of 2 (2x, 4x, 8x).
> <snip>
>> - you
>> can't do that with the PS3 media server.
>
> That's fair enough if you're doing that, for most though I suspect it'll
> just work.
Well, I'm sure stuff like speed controls could be hacked in the WD.
Perhaps also stuff like playlists - you can't do proper playlists with
the PS3 Media Server.
--
Guitar for sale. Very cheap. No strings attached.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
