 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> BTW, any ideas about *good* DVD authoring software? My drive came with
> some freebie that works, but it doesn't work fantastically well...
When I looked around for DVD authoring software for turning camcorder
stuff into DVDs, I found ULead to be the only version that actually
didn't compress everything so poorly it was unwatchable. ULead "fair"
quality was better than anyone else's "best" quality. I suspect ULead is
the only one that actually implemented b-frames at the time.
If that's what you're doing, I'd suggest getting a clip with lots of
motion and another with lots of flat area, then trying out all the free
trial versions of stuff to see what the quality is like. I used a video
of sun sparkling off an open tank of water, and then looking into the
tank of water to see the turtles and such swimming. Gave a good pair of
images, with lots of random motion and lots of subtle contrast
differences, both of which are hard for mpeg to compress.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Wouldn't scrolling the file take more than the linetime of the universe?
Errr, no? If you turn off the syntax highlighting, it takes about 90
seconds to load and maybe 2 minutes to save. Much less time then trying
to get the head/tail arguments correct, even assuming they support the
kind of trimming you're trying to do. (I forget which, but there's one
combination out of the obvious four that isn't supported.)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:31:13 -0400, SharkD wrote:
> On the subject of licensed software and the tight grip the license
> holders have on them, I wish ATRAC were an open standard and prevalent
> instead of MP3. It's a much better algortihm, but Sony wants to keep it
> all to itself.
MP3 isn't actually an open standard either. It's a de facto standard,
but Frauenhoffer (sp?) expect software developers writing encoders (and
possibly decoders, don't recall the specifics offhand) to pay license
fees.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:52:22 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> 2. Last time I checked, 1 GB is about £180. That's not my idea of
> "cheap".
Depends on the memory technology used. I upgraded a machine here from 1
GB to 2 GB for about US$55 - about 25 GBP IIRC.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:03:29 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Other than audio and video data (which is inherantly large), I can't
> think of anything you can do with a computer that actually uses much
> memory. Playing games involves audio and video data, but I'm
> hard-pressed to think of anything else...
Virtualization of multiple OSes. Lots of people use VMware for testbeds
and such, that takes a good amount of memory.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> MP3 isn't actually an open standard either. It's a de facto standard,
> but Frauenhoffer (sp?) expect software developers writing encoders (and
> possibly decoders, don't recall the specifics offhand) to pay license
> fees.
That's the reason why many small software houses prefer using the ogg
format, as it's completely free.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <48737522$1@news.povray.org>, voi### [at] devnull says...
> >> Other than audio and video data (which is inherantly large), I can't t
hink
> >> of anything you can do with a computer that actually uses much memory.
> >
> > At least, having a lot of memory lets you open many RAM-hungry apps at
the
> > same time. I can have FinalRender gobbling memory to render a huge scen
e and
> > still be able to edit images with Photoshop while having Firefox opened
with
> > lots of tabs etc. Also, there are many professional applications where
more
> > RAM = bigger whatever is the goal of the application. I'm working wit
h
> > linear programming for instance, and more RAM = larger models.
>
> OK, but all of what you've described is pretty unusual for home use.
>
> Sure, I run flam3, which eats RAM like candy. But that's because I'm a
> nerd. Normal humans don't do things like that.
>
> At any rate, none of this explains why *Vista*, by itself, requires
> multiple gigabytes of RAM. (And therefore, presumably, if you want to
> run *real applications* that require gigs of RAM, you have to add even
> more RAM to your system to accomodate them!)
>
Well. How about something slightly normal, like having Firefox open with
tabs for information sites, while also running the game engine, and
running a program that tracks you combat kills, to tell you how much
damage you are doing, while storing that data for later use in a MySQL
file. Or are 99.9% of the people playing EQ2 "not normal" by your
standard?
And that doesn't even go into people running something like Second Life,
where the only people not trying to design things (i.e. having graphics
editors, Photo Shop, etc., open are either a) using free acounts and
can't afford the software, or b) bots designed to up the traffic stats
on sims.
I could go one, but the point is, if you play games, your probably going
to need that 1GB to "run the game", and the second to do anything else
at the same time. If you play games for something that *supports* over
1GB per application, how long do you "really" think its going to be
before you need it to run at all? Since, you know, that drives hardware
requirements "way" more than MS making bloatware.
You might be surprised what "normal" people need on their system. lol
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:22:38 -0400, Warp wrote:
>> MP3 isn't actually an open standard either. It's a de facto standard,
>> but Frauenhoffer (sp?) expect software developers writing encoders (and
>> possibly decoders, don't recall the specifics offhand) to pay license
>> fees.
>
> That's the reason why many small software houses prefer using the ogg
> format, as it's completely free.
Yep.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> I could go one, but the point is, if you play games, your probably going
> to need that 1GB to "run the game", and the second to do anything else
> at the same time.
Sure. If you're running an intensive game, you're going to need the
hardware to handle it. (Not sure why you'd be running something else at
the same time as a game, but hey...)
Still doesn't explain why Vista should waste 2 GB of your RAM rather
than let your intensive game use it for itself...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Other than audio and video data (which is inherantly large), I can't
>> think of anything you can do with a computer that actually uses much
>> memory. Playing games involves audio and video data, but I'm
>> hard-pressed to think of anything else...
>
> Virtualization of multiple OSes. Lots of people use VMware for testbeds
> and such, that takes a good amount of memory.
Surely you'd only *attempt* such a thing on an extremely high-end server
though? (Recall that Vista is a desktop OS.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
