 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 09:46:28 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> Well, they just get their 4 year olds to do it. As we all know "My 4 year old
>> can work the VCR better than I can" ;-)
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LLTsSnGWMI#t=5m0s
Nice one Darren :)
My last contract was a support one working in SAP Plant Maintenance. The most
demanding thing I had to do was to show someone how to sort a list in Excel,
face to face without crying.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>>> Mmm, OK. I didn't think anybody had filmed much in HD yet.
>>
>> I think almost every film has been recorded in HD for many years, if
>> not decades. Judging by the number of HD discs available.
>
> I think it's more like almost every film has been recorded in *film* for
> many years. Rescanning the film into HD isn't more difficult than
> scanning it into SD, once you have the equipment.
Yeah, but presumably all that will do is show up the graininess of the
film in greater detail. It's not like they shoot it in 3500mm film, is it?
PS. The "G" key on my keyboard is dying, and it's *really* starting to
annoy me...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> Yeah, but presumably all that will do is show up the graininess of the
> film in greater detail. It's not like they shoot it in 3500mm film, is it?
>
Akin to seeing a movie on a huge projection screen. Some film has
exceptionally fine grain.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Yeah, but presumably all that will do is show up the graininess of the
> film in greater detail. It's not like they shoot it in 3500mm film, is it?
Movie theatre film is pretty fine resolution. I think you could easily get
1920 pixels across the screen. Even the digitally-recorded Star Wars movies
were something like 1280 or 1024 or so. (Of course, they were tri-color
pixels, so it's more than a normal megapixel camera would take.)
> PS. The "G" key on my keyboard is dying, and it's *really* starting to
> annoy me...
Pop the cap and fish out the grunge. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Movie theatre film is pretty fine resolution. I think you could easily
> get 1920 pixels across the screen. Even the digitally-recorded Star Wars
> movies were something like 1280 or 1024 or so. (Of course, they were
> tri-color pixels, so it's more than a normal megapixel camera would take.)
Seriously? I thought it was all recorded in 15mm film...
>> PS. The "G" key on my keyboard is dying, and it's *really* starting to
>> annoy me...
>
> Pop the cap and fish out the grunge. :-)
Grunge? Are you kidding me? I've probably worn the metal on the contact
surface down. ;-)
(I have a laptop that isn't silver any more where my hands rest. And I
don't even *use* my laptop that much!!)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 12:33:01 +0100, scott wrote:
>> Yep, we just added the full HD lineup to our cable subscription (which
>> actually *dropped* our monthly charges by $20, go figure).
>
> Geez how much are you guys paying for TV?!?!
$75/month, no premium channels either. It was $95/month.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> scott wrote:
>
>> FWIW at our local airport they decided to put a plasma screen above each
>> gate which shows the airline logo, departure time, status etc. And I
>> guess nobody knew about burn-in, because now you can see "Lufthansa"
>> permanently burnt into the screen no matter what it is displaying. I
>> see now they show some animated clips or just turn off the displays when
>> they are not in use.
>
> Ever been to an arcade hall? I swear, every CRT I see has "Insert £1"
> burned into it! ;-)
Ever heard about that guy whose daughter installed a The Little Mermaid
screensaver, and weeks later he finds a "Copyright (c) Disney" burn-in
while working on a spreadsheet? So much for "screen-saving"!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> In the old days, you'd connect the RF arial to the VCR, and another RF
> lead from the VCR to the TV, and tune the TV to a special channel when
> you want to see the signal from the VCR. (I hope it doesn't clash with
> one of your local channels!)
What the hell, my VCR has that, and it's not "old" o_O
I've never seen a SCART connector in my life. It's an european thing as far
as I know.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I still remember how shocked I was when I found out that normal VGA
> actually allows communication in the reverse direction. ;-)
Yeah well, I remember a just-installed Windows XP showing the "new hardware
found" dialog box again and again on its first boot... One of the devices
was the CRT screen, it actually said brand and model... How the HELL does
it know that, and WHY would it want to know that?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Actually on BBC channels there are no adverts at all, apart from trailers
> for other BBC programs and services. These usually come in the form of
> 1-3 short trailers *between* each program, never during a program.
Whoa, I wish TV was like that here.
The History Channel breaks every 10 minutes in the middle of the programs,
sometimes advertising products but mostly advertising other programs in the
same channel. And that's cable TV, paying for it. What the hell?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Geez how much are you guys paying for TV?!?!
>
> $75/month, no premium channels either. It was $95/month.
Oh wow that is a lot, in the UK you pay the standard TV license which is
about 10 pounds a month, which gives you about 30 channels IIRC, 5-10 of
them are pretty good the rest pants. You can subscribe to SkyTV via
satellite which costs 15 pounds a month, but that's just for the basic
channels. If you want all the premium channels and HD it's about 50 pounds
a month.
I just have a big satellite dish that receives all the free SkyTV channels,
so no monthly subscription at all, and I get the 5-10 pretty good channels,
plus 990 crap ones :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Ever heard about that guy whose daughter installed a The Little Mermaid
> screensaver, and weeks later he finds a "Copyright (c) Disney" burn-in
> while working on a spreadsheet? So much for "screen-saving"!
Yeah. Most modern "screen savers" don't. (Save your screen, that is.)
Quite the opposite in some cases...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> I still remember how shocked I was when I found out that normal VGA
>> actually allows communication in the reverse direction. ;-)
>
> Yeah well, I remember a just-installed Windows XP showing the "new hardware
> found" dialog box again and again on its first boot... One of the devices
> was the CRT screen, it actually said brand and model... How the HELL does
> it know that, and WHY would it want to know that?
It might want to know what screenmodes the monitor supports. (And what
the "optimal" one is in the case of an LCD.) But make and model? Who cares??
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:19:11 -0000, Nicolas Alvarez
<nic### [at] gmailcom> did spake thusly:
> scott wrote:
>> Actually on BBC channels there are no adverts at all, apart from
>> trailers
>> for other BBC programs and services. These usually come in the form of
>> 1-3 short trailers *between* each program, never during a program.
>
> Whoa, I wish TV was like that here.
>
> The History Channel breaks every 10 minutes in the middle of the
> programs,
> sometimes advertising products but mostly advertising other programs in
> the
> same channel. And that's cable TV, paying for it. What the hell?
'Ah but if there were no adverts the amount you'd be paying would have to
increase' Actually come to think about it go and buy a newspaper and count
how many adverts it contains.
Just for comparision's sake on digital Freeview we get BBC1, 2 all say 3,
& 4 plus CBBC and CBeebies from 7-7 (alternating slots) as well as BBC
News 24, BBC Parliament, and a couple of extra slots for special stuff
like news headlines or sport; not to mention the radio broadcasts.
Commercial channels are ITV1, 2, 3, 4; Channel 4, Film4, More4; Five,
FiveUS; Sky3, Sky News; UKTV History; plus a whole heap of others I don't
bother with and this costs £139.50 per year per household.
Watching imported American shows on the BBC it is interesting to see all
the scene shifts and dramatic moments where a broadcaster can stuff in a
set of adverts. More fun on Channel 4 (a commercial channel) who are
currently showing The Simpsons (in some bizzare loop that can't break past
15) who can't even do this correctly - 'But that means; d...' ad break
'...oh', black, scene change.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Just for comparision's sake on digital Freeview we get BBC1, 2 all say 3,
> & 4 plus CBBC and CBeebies from 7-7 (alternating slots) as well as BBC
> News 24, BBC Parliament, and a couple of extra slots for special stuff
> like news headlines or sport; not to mention the radio broadcasts.
> Commercial channels are ITV1, 2, 3, 4; Channel 4, Film4, More4; Five,
> FiveUS; Sky3, Sky News; UKTV History; plus a whole heap of others I don't
> bother with and this costs £139.50 per year per household.
Just for further information for non-UK people, all those channels come over
the air and you just need to stick up an aerial on your roof to receive
them. All modern TVs have a digital tuner inside to directly decode the
signals, older ones may need an additional box. There is no encryption, if
you don't pay the 140 quid and get caught you get a big fine.
CableTV is really not very popular in the UK compared to other countries
like USA and Germany, people who want more channels and premium content
usually bought SkyTV which is a satellite based service. From them you can
get all the channels Phil mentioned for free unencrytped, but the satellite
also transmits many more channels that you need to pay a monthly
subscription to receive. Currently you need to pay about an extra 50 pounds
a month to receive all the premium content (sports, movies, HD etc).
> Watching imported American shows on the BBC it is interesting to see all
> the scene shifts and dramatic moments where a broadcaster can stuff in a
> set of adverts.
Also fun to see hour-long shows only taking up 40 minutes :-)
> More fun on Channel 4 (a commercial channel) who are currently showing
> The Simpsons (in some bizzare loop that can't break past 15) who can't
> even do this correctly - 'But that means; d...' ad break '...oh', black,
> scene change.
On Five US reruns you can usually tell that the original had way more
adverts, because like you say the weird scene changes where I guess they cut
out the "welcome back" intro...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> Seriously? I thought it was all recorded in 15mm film...
>
Actually 35mm film, I think ... At least for those movies still recorded
to film. Everything's going digital these days.
>
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Yeah. Most modern "screen savers" don't. (Save your screen, that is.)
> Quite the opposite in some cases...
The best screen saver you can use is the "Blank Screen with power
management" option.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> It might want to know what screenmodes the monitor supports. (And what
> the "optimal" one is in the case of an LCD.) But make and model? Who
> cares??
I think because it's part of the VESA standard.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> How the HELL does it know that,
I'm told the VGA cable also serves as a serial cable.
> and WHY would it want to know that?
Plug and play.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:17:32 +0100, scott wrote:
>>> Geez how much are you guys paying for TV?!?!
>>
>> $75/month, no premium channels either. It was $95/month.
>
> Oh wow that is a lot, in the UK you pay the standard TV license which is
> about 10 pounds a month, which gives you about 30 channels IIRC, 5-10 of
> them are pretty good the rest pants. You can subscribe to SkyTV via
> satellite which costs 15 pounds a month, but that's just for the basic
> channels. If you want all the premium channels and HD it's about 50
> pounds a month.
>
> I just have a big satellite dish that receives all the free SkyTV
> channels, so no monthly subscription at all, and I get the 5-10 pretty
> good channels, plus 990 crap ones :-)
Yeah, we get something like 150 channels currently, but we only watch
about 6-8 of them consistently. I would really like it if Comcast would
give us a "build your own package" option, where you pay per channel and
select only what you want. Or maybe the reverse of that, they bill you
only for the channels you watch programs on. Kinda like the idea hotels
have where you can start a movie for 10 minutes or so, and after that
they bill you for it.
Heck, they could charge per program and get rid of the advertisers. Now
that's something I'd back.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:19:11 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> Actually on BBC channels there are no adverts at all, apart from
>> trailers for other BBC programs and services. These usually come in
>> the form of 1-3 short trailers *between* each program, never during a
>> program.
>
> Whoa, I wish TV was like that here.
>
> The History Channel breaks every 10 minutes in the middle of the
> programs, sometimes advertising products but mostly advertising other
> programs in the same channel. And that's cable TV, paying for it. What
> the hell?
That's why we use our DVR and have programmed a button on it to skip 30
seconds. We hardly ever see commercials any more.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> That's why we use our DVR and have programmed a button on it to skip 30
> seconds. We hardly ever see commercials any more.
There's a program for Windows Media Center called "Lifextender" (note, one
"e") that automatically chops the commercials out of a program after it's
recorded. Very nice.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:36:26 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That's why we use our DVR and have programmed a button on it to skip 30
>> seconds. We hardly ever see commercials any more.
>
> There's a program for Windows Media Center called "Lifextender" (note,
> one "e") that automatically chops the commercials out of a program after
> it's recorded. Very nice.
Sounds cool, I've played around with a few tools on Linux that let you
clip segments out, but not for chopping commercials completely.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Heck, they could charge per program and get rid of the advertisers. Now
> that's something I'd back.
Nowadays I think the "flat rate" model makes more money, most people seem to
be happy to pay a premium to have the knowledge that they *could*
watch/surf/talk as much as they wanted.
I suspect the TV companies are doing what they feel will make most money, if
they switch to no adverts and charge the customers more then I suspect a lot
of people would be unwilling to pay and would prefer the adverts. What they
need is a two-tier system, where you can pay extra to have channels with no
adverts, but not sure how that might work. Those sort of systems can make
more money than having just one product.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:36:26 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That's why we use our DVR and have programmed a button on it to skip 30
>> seconds. We hardly ever see commercials any more.
>
>There's a program for Windows Media Center called "Lifextender" (note, one
>"e") that automatically chops the commercials out of a program after it's
>recorded. Very nice.
I read recently that because of that there is a scheme being trailed (in the UK)
to place adverts in clear areas of the screen. Even more obtrusive to my mind.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:09:34 +0100, scott wrote:
>> Heck, they could charge per program and get rid of the advertisers.
>> Now that's something I'd back.
>
> Nowadays I think the "flat rate" model makes more money, most people
> seem to be happy to pay a premium to have the knowledge that they
> *could* watch/surf/talk as much as they wanted.
>
> I suspect the TV companies are doing what they feel will make most
> money, if they switch to no adverts and charge the customers more then I
> suspect a lot of people would be unwilling to pay and would prefer the
> adverts. What they need is a two-tier system, where you can pay extra
> to have channels with no adverts, but not sure how that might work.
> Those sort of systems can make more money than having just one product.
Well, it's important to know that at least in the US, television isn't
really about entertainment, it's about being an advertising vehicle. The
entertainment tends to be a loss leader; the channels make their money
from advertising, generally speaking.
That model is breaking down now with the advent of DVRs. The industry
hasn't really known what to do about it, either - there have been some
attempts to do Truman Show-style product placement (ineffective = Eureka;
effective-ish = Damages), but there have been efforts as well to prevent
people from skipping commercials (which is why I had to program my remote
for a 30-second skip forward rather than Comcast providing a remote that
could do that already). The problem is that until they make it
impossible for people to leave the room their TV is in, people will skip
commercials, one way or the other.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:32:22 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:36:26 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
>>Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> That's why we use our DVR and have programmed a button on it to skip
>>> 30 seconds. We hardly ever see commercials any more.
>>
>>There's a program for Windows Media Center called "Lifextender" (note,
>>one "e") that automatically chops the commercials out of a program after
>>it's recorded. Very nice.
>
> I read recently that because of that there is a scheme being trailed (in
> the UK) to place adverts in clear areas of the screen. Even more
> obtrusive to my mind.
Interesting....I had read a paper online about technology to
realistically embed images in pre-recorded video (or in still photos) -
the demo was quite impressive, replacing a picture with a video, for
example. It tracked camera movement as well, which was really impressive.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:25:34 -0000, Jim Henderson
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:09:34 +0100, scott wrote:
>
>>> Heck, they could charge per program and get rid of the advertisers.
>>> Now that's something I'd back.
>>
>> Nowadays I think the "flat rate" model makes more money, most people
>> seem to be happy to pay a premium to have the knowledge that they
>> *could* watch/surf/talk as much as they wanted.
>>
>> I suspect the TV companies are doing what they feel will make most
>> money, if they switch to no adverts and charge the customers more then I
>> suspect a lot of people would be unwilling to pay and would prefer the
>> adverts. What they need is a two-tier system, where you can pay extra
>> to have channels with no adverts, but not sure how that might work.
>> Those sort of systems can make more money than having just one product.
Unless the costs for starting and running it are too high; you'd need two
concurrent signals because the scheduled would be completely different and
you'd need extra shows to fill the gaps - take an hour show, remove the
ads which makes it 45 minutes and afer 24 hours you'd need 8 more
programmes to fill the slots. If you commision only hour-long programmes
they won't be shown on the ad-channel or they will be but the two channels
will drift out of sync. In a couple of months time the ad-free will be
watching season 4 while the ad-channel will still be on season 2.
> Well, it's important to know that at least in the US, television isn't
> really about entertainment, it's about being an advertising vehicle. The
> entertainment tends to be a loss leader; the channels make their money
> from advertising, generally speaking.
>
> That model is breaking down now with the advent of DVRs.
The model starting breaking down with VCRs. Although the loudest noise was
about people taping and rewatching shows, i.e. not buying the released
videos, some noise was made about people being able to fast-forward
through the adverts
> The industry
> hasn't really known what to do about it, either - there have been some
> attempts to do Truman Show-style product placement (ineffective = Eureka;
> effective-ish = Damages), but there have been efforts as well to prevent
> people from skipping commercials (which is why I had to program my remote
> for a 30-second skip forward rather than Comcast providing a remote that
> could do that already).
I'm surprised the broadcasters haven't tried to sue the DVR manufacturers
for loss of earnings by including a skip function.
> The problem is that until they make it
> impossible for people to leave the room their TV is in, people will skip
> commercials, one way or the other.
They could try broadcasting in our dreams, or fitting us with in-retina
screens. Damn combine that with the smart editing programme and you can
have one channel edit out your competitors brand completely (or replace it
with something horrible) "Welcome to the Coca Cola channel" "[screams]
what's that? It's hideous!" "That's a bottle of Pepsi sir" "Take it away!
Take it away... oo is that Summer Glau holding that bottle of Coke?"
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> I read recently that because of that there is a scheme being trailed (in the UK)
> to place adverts in clear areas of the screen. Even more obtrusive to my mind.
That and "product placement."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> I'm surprised the broadcasters haven't tried to sue the DVR
> manufacturers for loss of earnings by including a skip function.
I think TiVo got in trouble for having a button that was "skip to the end of
this set of commercials" or some such functionality.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:00:42 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> And lo On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:25:34 -0000, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:09:34 +0100, scott wrote:
>>
>>>> Heck, they could charge per program and get rid of the advertisers.
>>>> Now that's something I'd back.
>>>
>>> Nowadays I think the "flat rate" model makes more money, most people
>>> seem to be happy to pay a premium to have the knowledge that they
>>> *could* watch/surf/talk as much as they wanted.
>>>
>>> I suspect the TV companies are doing what they feel will make most
>>> money, if they switch to no adverts and charge the customers more then
>>> I suspect a lot of people would be unwilling to pay and would prefer
>>> the adverts. What they need is a two-tier system, where you can pay
>>> extra to have channels with no adverts, but not sure how that might
>>> work. Those sort of systems can make more money than having just one
>>> product.
>
> Unless the costs for starting and running it are too high; you'd need
> two concurrent signals because the scheduled would be completely
> different and you'd need extra shows to fill the gaps - take an hour
> show, remove the ads which makes it 45 minutes and afer 24 hours you'd
> need 8 more programmes to fill the slots. If you commision only
> hour-long programmes they won't be shown on the ad-channel or they will
> be but the two channels will drift out of sync. In a couple of months
> time the ad-free will be watching season 4 while the ad-channel will
> still be on season 2.
No, what is done is that the hour-long programmes get cut down to air on
the channel with commercials. I see that already with programs from the
BBC that air on BBC America. We typically lose 15-20 minutes of the show
(which is why I seek out the BBC versions of the show rather than record
them on BBCA on my DVR).
>> Well, it's important to know that at least in the US, television isn't
>> really about entertainment, it's about being an advertising vehicle.
>> The entertainment tends to be a loss leader; the channels make their
>> money from advertising, generally speaking.
>>
>> That model is breaking down now with the advent of DVRs.
>
> The model starting breaking down with VCRs. Although the loudest noise
> was about people taping and rewatching shows, i.e. not buying the
> released videos, some noise was made about people being able to
> fast-forward through the adverts
True, but with DVRs that becomes the whole purpose of FF/skip
functionality.
>> The industry
>> hasn't really known what to do about it, either - there have been some
>> attempts to do Truman Show-style product placement (ineffective =
>> Eureka; effective-ish = Damages), but there have been efforts as well
>> to prevent people from skipping commercials (which is why I had to
>> program my remote for a 30-second skip forward rather than Comcast
>> providing a remote that could do that already).
>
> I'm surprised the broadcasters haven't tried to sue the DVR
> manufacturers for loss of earnings by including a skip function.
That may be part of the reason why my Comcast DVR's remote doesn't
include the functionality by default.
>> The problem is that until they make it
>> impossible for people to leave the room their TV is in, people will
>> skip commercials, one way or the other.
>
> They could try broadcasting in our dreams, or fitting us with in-retina
> screens. Damn combine that with the smart editing programme and you can
> have one channel edit out your competitors brand completely (or replace
> it with something horrible) "Welcome to the Coca Cola channel"
> "[screams] what's that? It's hideous!" "That's a bottle of Pepsi sir"
> "Take it away! Take it away... oo is that Summer Glau holding that
> bottle of Coke?"
LOL....arguably, if Summer was holding a bottle of coke, she'd no doubt
be hitting someone with it.
(Cue reference to xkcd cartoon with the poster "River Tam Beats Up
Everybody")
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:06:56 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> I read recently that because of that there is a scheme being trailed
>> (in the UK) to place adverts in clear areas of the screen. Even more
>> obtrusive to my mind.
>
> That and "product placement."
Especially the really obvious product placements like were in the last
season of Eureka. That was just awful.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22 Jan 2009 11:27:08 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>Interesting....I had read a paper online about technology to
>realistically embed images in pre-recorded video (or in still photos) -
>the demo was quite impressive, replacing a picture with a video, for
>example. It tracked camera movement as well, which was really impressive.
>
Any examples?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:06:56 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> I read recently that because of that there is a scheme being trailed (in the UK)
>> to place adverts in clear areas of the screen. Even more obtrusive to my mind.
>
>That and "product placement."
That doesn't bother me too much but then I don't watch a lot of TV or film.
One exception recently has been Boston Legal. I've been getting the DVDs out
from Lovefilm. I wonder what the reactions of Americans are to it. It seems
slightly critical at times.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:09:14 -0000, Jim Henderson
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:00:42 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>
>> And lo On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:25:34 -0000, Jim Henderson
>> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:
>>
> No, what is done is that the hour-long programmes get cut down to air on
> the channel with commercials. I see that already with programs from the
> BBC that air on BBC America. We typically lose 15-20 minutes of the show
> (which is why I seek out the BBC versions of the show rather than record
> them on BBCA on my DVR).
You're right - silly me yet another reason to tempt people into paying
more.
>> They could try broadcasting in our dreams, or fitting us with in-retina
>> screens. Damn combine that with the smart editing programme and you can
>> have one channel edit out your competitors brand completely (or replace
>> it with something horrible) "Welcome to the Coca Cola channel"
>> "[screams] what's that? It's hideous!" "That's a bottle of Pepsi sir"
>> "Take it away! Take it away... oo is that Summer Glau holding that
>> bottle of Coke?"
>
> LOL....arguably, if Summer was holding a bottle of coke, she'd no doubt
> be hitting someone with it.
Well if the editing programme's clever enough that would be the Pepsi
buyer she'd be hitting ;-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:54:41 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> And lo On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:09:14 -0000, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:00:42 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>>
>>> And lo On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:25:34 -0000, Jim Henderson
>>> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:
>>>
>> No, what is done is that the hour-long programmes get cut down to air
>> on the channel with commercials. I see that already with programs from
>> the BBC that air on BBC America. We typically lose 15-20 minutes of
>> the show (which is why I seek out the BBC versions of the show rather
>> than record them on BBCA on my DVR).
>
> You're right - silly me yet another reason to tempt people into paying
> more.
Yep. It would be more convenient for me if I didn't have to search for
the "full" version of the programme and acquire it, and that convenience
is worth something to me.
But I also think about the $75/month we pay for cable and the number of
subscribers that Comcast has - the revenue stream is pretty impressive.
It would be interesting to see how the subscription fees are used.
Similarly, when you pay for a technician to come out to do something that
could be done remotely (or left to the consumer - for example, if we get
a Tivo, we need two cable cards for it. The cards are essentially PCMCIA
cards that plug into the Tivo. They send a technician out to do install
these. Why? I can put two PCMCIA cards into the slots on the
machine.... - hell, I think my mother could even handle that).
>>> bottle of Pepsi sir" "Take it away! Take it away... oo is that Summer
>>> Glau holding that bottle of Coke?"
>>
>> LOL....arguably, if Summer was holding a bottle of coke, she'd no doubt
>> be hitting someone with it.
>
> Well if the editing programme's clever enough that would be the Pepsi
> buyer she'd be hitting ;-)
True. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:51:23 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 22 Jan 2009 11:27:08 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>Interesting....I had read a paper online about technology to
>>realistically embed images in pre-recorded video (or in still photos) -
>>the demo was quite impressive, replacing a picture with a video, for
>>example. It tracked camera movement as well, which was really
>>impressive.
>>
>>
> Any examples?
Let me see if I can track it down again....
Here's the Slashdot article I started from http://tech.slashdot.org/
article.pl?sid=08/11/14/1653221
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23 Jan 2009 13:44:15 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Any examples?
>
>Let me see if I can track it down again....
>
>Here's the Slashdot article I started from http://tech.slashdot.org/
>article.pl?sid=08/11/14/1653221
>
>
Thanks
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:23:41 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2009 13:44:15 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>> Any examples?
>>
>>Let me see if I can track it down again....
>>
>>Here's the Slashdot article I started from http://tech.slashdot.org/
>>article.pl?sid=08/11/14/1653221
>>
>>
>>
> Thanks
Handy that it was still in my RSS reader. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23 Jan 2009 19:25:02 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:23:41 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 23 Jan 2009 13:44:15 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>
>>>> Any examples?
>>>
>>>Let me see if I can track it down again....
>>>
>>>Here's the Slashdot article I started from http://tech.slashdot.org/
>>>article.pl?sid=08/11/14/1653221
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks
>
>Handy that it was still in my RSS reader. :-)
>
Rune did that years ago :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 00:28:17 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2009 19:25:02 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:23:41 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 23 Jan 2009 13:44:15 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Any examples?
>>>>
>>>>Let me see if I can track it down again....
>>>>
>>>>Here's the Slashdot article I started from http://tech.slashdot.org/
>>>>article.pl?sid=08/11/14/1653221
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Thanks
>>
>>Handy that it was still in my RSS reader. :-)
>>
>>
> Rune did that years ago :)
Well, yeah - and I loved the hologram projector video he did, too. This
particular software doesn't need camera tracking, though, which Rune
used. In the demo app, you can plug in a video and define a region in
one frame, and the program tracks it and replaces it. It even deals with
occluding objects passing between the camera and the target frame in the
video.
That's pretty cool.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24 Jan 2009 00:59:06 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>That's pretty cool.
True.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, yeah - and I loved the hologram projector video he did, too. This
> particular software doesn't need camera tracking, though, which Rune
> used. In the demo app, you can plug in a video and define a region in
> one frame, and the program tracks it and replaces it. It even deals with
> occluding objects passing between the camera and the target frame in the
> video.
Not sure what you mean with "camera tracking". As far as I know, Rune didn't
use any hardware that recorded the camera movement. He used software that
analyzed the video and figured out how the camera had moved.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Invisible [mailto:voi### [at] devnull]
> Yeah - because nobody would take SD content and put it onto an HD disk
> and attempt to sell it as HD. No sir! ;-)
Up until a few years ago, everything was done on film. Film doesn't
have resolution.
IIRC, Ep II was the first movie filmed entirely with digital cameras,
and they were HD cameras.
Now, everything filmed digital is HD.
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Up until a few years ago, everything was done on film. Film doesn't
> have resolution.
Yes, it does. It's called "grain". Look at really old film (or see the
opening scenes in the newer Casino Royale James Bond film for a
post-processing effect).
What movie film *does* have is grain that's far higher resolution than your
display.
> IIRC, Ep II was the first movie filmed entirely with digital cameras,
> and they were HD cameras.
But they were only 1280x1024 tricolor-pixel cameras, so it's not even what
you get on a HDTV, if I recall correctly.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Darren New [mailto:dne### [at] sanrrcom]
> Chambers wrote:
> > Up until a few years ago, everything was done on film. Film doesn't
> > have resolution.
>
> Yes, it does. It's called "grain". Look at really old film (or see the
> opening scenes in the newer Casino Royale James Bond film for a
> post-processing effect).
True, and it's one of those differences between the ideal and reality. In
reality, film grain limits the effective resolution of the image.
> > IIRC, Ep II was the first movie filmed entirely with digital cameras,
> > and they were HD cameras.
>
> But they were only 1280x1024 tricolor-pixel cameras, so it's not even
> what
> you get on a HDTV, if I recall correctly.
Cool, I didn't remember the exact resolution. I do remember that they
couldn't carry the storage on the camera; they had to use multiple
cables[1] from each camera to a separate storage server, where the images
were stored uncompressed[2] for processing.
[1] Due to high bandwidth needs, I'm pretty sure they used multiple cables
per camera.
[2] Film / audio used in a studio is usually stored uncompressed for
processing. But everyone here probably already knows that...
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen [mailto:mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom]
> I read recently that because of that there is a scheme being trailed
> (in the UK)
> to place adverts in clear areas of the screen. Even more obtrusive to
> my mind.
In the US they already do that. Placing adverts at the bottom of the
screen, or on the side, while the show is on.
Extremely annoying, especially when some goofball on one of the comedies
dances around the screen in the middle of a movie.
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
A render isn't slow unless it won't finish until after your next
birthday.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: scott [mailto:sco### [at] scottcom]
> What they need is a two-tier system, where you can pay extra to
> have channels with no adverts, but not sure how that might work.
> Those sort of systems can make more money than having just one product.
Maybe the two-tier system should be:
1) A la carte pay-per-view, with no commercials. Whether it's a show, or
a movie, or the news, you pay for what you watch (pro-rating the ones you
cut short, so you can watch eg the first half hour of a movie and decide
you don't like it).
2) Internet style, one segment of the screen is the show, and the rest of
it (bottom and side 25%, maybe) is adverts. The show is uninterrupted,
and so are the adverts, but it's free for everyone to watch.
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:24:43 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, yeah - and I loved the hologram projector video he did, too.
>> This particular software doesn't need camera tracking, though, which
>> Rune used. In the demo app, you can plug in a video and define a
>> region in one frame, and the program tracks it and replaces it. It
>> even deals with occluding objects passing between the camera and the
>> target frame in the video.
>
> Not sure what you mean with "camera tracking". As far as I know, Rune
> didn't use any hardware that recorded the camera movement. He used
> software that analyzed the video and figured out how the camera had
> moved.
From what I remember, he used a piece of software that used to be free
that isn't any more. But I don't remember the details now....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 1) A la carte pay-per-view, with no commercials. Whether it's a show, or
> a movie, or the news, you pay for what you watch (pro-rating the ones you
> cut short, so you can watch eg the first half hour of a movie and decide
> you don't like it).
>
> 2) Internet style, one segment of the screen is the show, and the rest of
> it (bottom and side 25%, maybe) is adverts. The show is uninterrupted,
> and so are the adverts, but it's free for everyone to watch.
You'd have to make sure that cost of 2) + bigger TV + piece of black
cardboard was greater than cost of 1) :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
