Well shave my head and use me as a surf board... the BT Vision box 
*does* have an HDMI socket! o_O

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Well shave my head and use me as a surf board... the BT Vision box 
> *does* have an HDMI socket! o_O

And, unlike the SCART socket, by using HDMI I don't get those annoying 
scrolly watermark patterns on my TV picture. Yay!

I must say, I've been watching digital TV for well over a year now, and 
I never really noticed any difference in picture quality other than the 
absence of snow and so forth. Other than that, it just looked like a 
normal TV picture.

But now I'm watching TV on a big LCD TV, suddenly there seems to be MPEG 
artifacts all over the place! o_O

Heh, I guess the old CRT was just too blury for it to show up! ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> But now I'm watching TV on a big LCD TV, suddenly there seems to be MPEG 
> artifacts all over the place! o_O

My projection TV is like that. Less obvious on the HD channels, the 
cable system here generally compresses the "less glamorous" channels to 
death. It's pretty obvious. The HD channels are usually very sharp and 
crisp, only showing MPEG blocking during sections where the picture 
changes rapidly.

> Heh, I guess the old CRT was just too blury for it to show up! ;-)

Maybe.. I'll hold out of the new OLED sets to become mainstream before I 
trade in my TV, though, it is a CRT projector, but HD...

I like the idea that OLED has such an incredible viewing angle, superior 
contrast ...

what I don't like is that like plasma, it will likely suffer burn-in.
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> And, unlike the SCART socket, by using HDMI I don't get those annoying 
> scrolly watermark patterns on my TV picture. Yay!

And BTW, what is SCART, and how similar is that to HDMI?

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:

> And BTW, what is SCART

The consumer-level unmodulated signal interconnect that existed before HDMI.

> and how similar is that to HDMI?

It isn't.

(Or at least, it's a cable that carries picture and sound from place to 
place, without RF modulation. There the similarity ends.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scart

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
> 
>> But now I'm watching TV on a big LCD TV, suddenly there seems to be 
>> MPEG artifacts all over the place! o_O
> 
> My projection TV is like that. Less obvious on the HD channels, the 
> cable system here generally compresses the "less glamorous" channels to 
> death. It's pretty obvious. The HD channels are usually very sharp and 
> crisp, only showing MPEG blocking during sections where the picture 
> changes rapidly.

I noticed several adverts with stuff happening underwater had seriously 
blocky bubble clouds...

I also watched Ice Age II. Several of the "blue wash" backgrounds were 
noticably blocky. (By which I mean there were 8x8 blocks of solid colour 
instead of a gradient.) For some reason all codecs known to man destroy 
the blue channel...

I hadn't realised that this could very by channel. I assumed there was 
just a standard that says "Digital TV = MPEG2 at X Mbit/sec". I'll have 
to investigate. Hmm, I wonder what a DVD looks like?

By the way... Watching the snooker, I could actually see the pattern of 
the felt on the table (and the depth of field of the camera)!

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> I hadn't realised that this could very by channel. I assumed there was 
> just a standard that says "Digital TV = MPEG2 at X Mbit/sec". I'll have 
> to investigate. Hmm, I wonder what a DVD looks like?

Essentially that is what DTV is. OTA (Over the air) here in the U.S. has 
a set amount of bandwidth. Enough for an HD signal, and several 
sub-channels. Most of the local network stations have their main 
channel, a weather channel, and a 24hour local news channel.

*Most* DVDs look quite nice. You'll still notice compression in fast 
action scenes, though, especially if the encoding was managed poorly.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scart

Wow, looks like some strange modification of a VGA connector. 
Convenient, though. So you connect your VCR with one cable, then?

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
> 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scart
> 
> Wow, looks like some strange modification of a VGA connector. 

Except it's about 4x the size of a VGA connector, and the pinout is 
utterly unrelated.

> Convenient, though. So you connect your VCR with one cable, then?

Indeed.

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!)

That's because in the old days, a TV would have an RF input, and that's 
it. But then people figured out that, actually, RF-modulated signals 
look *rubbish*, so various other connections were invented. SCART is the 
most popular, since one big connector delivers picture and stereo sound 
(though obviously only one video channel, and no telitext).

I have no idea what HDMI delivers. Seems to work nicely though... Only 
trouble is, PC World want to charge you £80 for a lead! o_O

(My dad bought his lead from ebuyer for £3.)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scart
>>
>> Wow, looks like some strange modification of a VGA connector. 
> 
> Except it's about 4x the size of a VGA connector, and the pinout is 
> utterly unrelated.

So, the cable ends are about the size of your average parallel 
connector? Yeesh.

>> Convenient, though. So you connect your VCR with one cable, then?
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> 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!)
> 
> That's because in the old days, a TV would have an RF input, and that's 
> it. But then people figured out that, actually, RF-modulated signals 
> look *rubbish*, so various other connections were invented. SCART is the 
> most popular, since one big connector delivers picture and stereo sound 
> (though obviously only one video channel, and no telitext).

Hmm, oddly the U.S. went with the "maze of wires" approach. 3 connectors 
out, 3 connectors in. (or 2 if SVideo) or 5 if YPrPb. Though CC is done 
in the blanking area, so it doesn't matter how its connected.

> I have no idea what HDMI delivers. Seems to work nicely though... Only 
> trouble is, PC World want to charge you £80 for a lead! o_O
> 
> (My dad bought his lead from ebuyer for £3.)

HDMI is all digital. Delivers audio and video, As well as signals for 
encryption, and the ability for the device to communicate its 
capabilities, etc.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

>>> Wow, looks like some strange modification of a VGA connector. 
>>
>> Except it's about 4x the size of a VGA connector, and the pinout is 
>> utterly unrelated.
> 
> So, the cable ends are about the size of your average parallel 
> connector? Yeesh.

Slightly bigger than that even. And if you buy a quality lead, it's 
quite thick cable. (It's 32-core or something, and you need to prevent 
cross-talk.)

>> That's because in the old days, a TV would have an RF input, and 
>> that's it. But then people figured out that, actually, RF-modulated 
>> signals look *rubbish*, so various other connections were invented. 
>> SCART is the most popular, since one big connector delivers picture 
>> and stereo sound (though obviously only one video channel, and no 
>> telitext).
> 
> Hmm, oddly the U.S. went with the "maze of wires" approach. 3 connectors 
> out, 3 connectors in. (or 2 if SVideo) or 5 if YPrPb. Though CC is done 
> in the blanking area, so it doesn't matter how its connected.

Yeah, some people in the UK did that too. Most TVs and almost all VCRs 
will have component video or composite and seperate audio ins/outs... 
SCART is simpler though.

>> I have no idea what HDMI delivers. Seems to work nicely though...
> 
> HDMI is all digital. Delivers audio and video, As well as signals for 
> encryption, and the ability for the device to communicate its 
> capabilities, etc.

Yeah. Apparently it's encrypted DVI. (But I don't know how DVI works 
either...)

I still remember how shocked I was when I found out that normal VGA 
actually allows communication in the reverse direction. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

> I hadn't realised that this could very by channel. I assumed there was 
> just a standard that says "Digital TV = MPEG2 at X Mbit/sec". I'll have to 
> investigate. Hmm, I wonder what a DVD looks like?

No, there is certainly scope for different bit-rates on different channels.

> By the way... Watching the snooker, I could actually see the pattern of 
> the felt on the table (and the depth of field of the camera)!

Unfortunately I just got too tired to stay up last night and watch the final 
few frames.

Just waiting until more stuff goes on free HD (mainly sports like snooker 
and F1) and then I'll get an HD box, should be able to see more felt pattern 
then :-)

Post a reply to this message

> I like the idea that OLED has such an incredible viewing angle, superior 
> contrast ...

Most fairly new LCD TVs will offer up to 176 degrees or something ridiculous 
of viewing angle, there really isn't much difference anymore between LCD and 
OLED on viewing angle.

Contrast I'll agree there is still a gap in performance, but LCD is rapidly 
closing the gap.

> what I don't like is that like plasma, it will likely suffer burn-in.

There's plenty of clever ways around that, but of course they add cost.

The deciding question will be, can LCD close the contrast gap enough before 
OLED can compete on price?  It's certainly going to be interesting.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> I hadn't realised that this could very by channel. I assumed there was 
>> just a standard that says "Digital TV = MPEG2 at X Mbit/sec". I'll 
>> have to investigate. Hmm, I wonder what a DVD looks like?
> 
> No, there is certainly scope for different bit-rates on different channels.

Eeeps! So it's completely possible for the fancy new "digital channels" 
to have far lower quality than the old analogue ones? o_O

By the way, I remember when Sky first starting doing digital TV. Some 
people went on Watchdog complaining about the picture "pixellating" 
while they're trying to watch it. Having played with various codecs, now 
I understand what's happening. Every now and when I do see weird stuff 
happen to my picture... Annoying, but not too bad.

Digital works better than analogue right up to the point where the 
signal gets completely drowned in noise. After that it fails pretty 
spectacularly.

Hmm, I wonder... My gandparents live in an area where the analogue 
reception is little more than coloured snow. You can kind of tell when 
you see a person's head, because there's a large area of pinky snow. But 
it's very hard to watch. And every time a bus goes past on the main 
road, the picture vanishes for a second or two. I wonder if digital 
would work any better? ;-)

>> By the way... Watching the snooker, I could actually see the pattern 
>> of the felt on the table (and the depth of field of the camera)!
> 
> Unfortunately I just got too tired to stay up last night and watch the 
> final few frames.

Yeah, I still don't know who won.

> Just waiting until more stuff goes on free HD (mainly sports like 
> snooker and F1) and then I'll get an HD box, should be able to see more 
> felt pattern then :-)

I wasn't aware that anybody actually broadcasts in HD at all yet. I was 
under the impression that you need to buy a £2,000 BluRay player to get 
any millage out of an HD TV. (Yet. I'm sure it'll change over time...)

Post a reply to this message

> Eeeps! So it's completely possible for the fancy new "digital channels" to 
> have far lower quality than the old analogue ones? o_O

Yup, if you work for budgetcrappyshoppingtvchannels.tv and you've just 
bought a chunk of bandwidth, do you broadcast 5 top quality channels, or 10 
pixellated ones? :-)

> By the way, I remember when Sky first starting doing digital TV. Some 
> people went on Watchdog complaining about the picture "pixellating" while 
> they're trying to watch it. Having played with various codecs, now I 
> understand what's happening. Every now and when I do see weird stuff 
> happen to my picture... Annoying, but not too bad.

Usually happens to me when it gets windy, the dish wobbles a bit and the 
picture "chops up", mind you I'm receiving the signal quite far away from 
where it's aimed at ;-)

> Hmm, I wonder... My gandparents live in an area where the analogue 
> reception is little more than coloured snow. You can kind of tell when you 
> see a person's head, because there's a large area of pinky snow. But it's 
> very hard to watch. And every time a bus goes past on the main road, the 
> picture vanishes for a second or two. I wonder if digital would work any 
> better? ;-)

The problem in the UK is that they can't wack up the power of the digital 
transmitters until analogue is turned off.  For example my mum's local 
transmitter, Rowridge, gives out 500 kW of analogue signal, but only 2.5 kW 
of digital signal.  Yet she still receives perfect digital pictures through 
the same aerial.  Imagine if 500 kW of DIGITAL signal was transmitted - you 
wouldn't need an aerial!

In fact, here in Germany in my previous apartment, I could just stick a 
small bit of wire in the aerial input and I would receive all digital TV 
channels perfectly :-)

> I wasn't aware that anybody actually broadcasts in HD at all yet. I was 
> under the impression that you need to buy a £2,000 BluRay player to get 
> any millage out of an HD TV. (Yet. I'm sure it'll change over time...)

There are two free HD channels via satellite (BBC HD and ITV HD, with more 
surely to come), if you have Sky there are loads of HD channels for films, 
sports etc but of course you need a subscription.

You can get a bluray player for 150 pounds, or just get a play station 3 and 
you get an uber amount of computing power too.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Eeeps! So it's completely possible for the fancy new "digital 
>> channels" to have far lower quality than the old analogue ones? o_O
> 
> Yup, if you work for budgetcrappyshoppingtvchannels.tv and you've just 
> bought a chunk of bandwidth, do you broadcast 5 top quality channels, or 
> 10 pixellated ones? :-)

Also... Has anybody noticed how digital TV gives you, like, 500 
channels, but 98% of them are just showing repeated of Fawlty Towers?

> Imagine if 500 kW of DIGITAL signal 
> was transmitted - you wouldn't need an aerial!
> 
> In fact, here in Germany in my previous apartment, I could just stick a 
> small bit of wire in the aerial input and I would receive all digital TV 
> channels perfectly :-)

That's nothing. My old mobile phone had this stubby little arial that 
was nearly broken off, but my new one diesn't even need an arial at all 
and it still works. ;-)

(OTOH, the transmitter isn't that far away...)

> There are two free HD channels via satellite (BBC HD and ITV HD, with 
> more surely to come), if you have Sky there are loads of HD channels for 
> films, sports etc but of course you need a subscription.

Mmm, OK. I didn't think anybody had filmed much in HD yet.

> You can get a bluray player for 150 pounds

Ah, but would you want to?

> or just get a play station 3 
> and you get an uber amount of computing power too.

And the ability to not run any programs that might take advantage of 
that power. :-}

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> Mmm, OK. I didn't think anybody had filmed much in HD yet.
> 

HD has been around for years. Lots have been filmed in HD, but not 
necessarily broadcast in HD.

>> You can get a bluray player for 150 pounds
> 
> Ah, but would you want to?
> 

I have a blu-ray player... Quite nice :)

>> or just get a play station 3 and you get an uber amount of computing 
>> power too.
> 
> And the ability to not run any programs that might take advantage of 
> that power. :-}

well, with a little modification ...

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:35:04 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake thusly:

> scott wrote:
>>> I hadn't realised that this could very by channel. I assumed there was  
>>> just a standard that says "Digital TV = MPEG2 at X Mbit/sec". I'll  
>>> have to investigate. Hmm, I wonder what a DVD looks like?
>>  No, there is certainly scope for different bit-rates on different  
>> channels.
>
> Eeeps! So it's completely possible for the fancy new "digital channels"  
> to have far lower quality than the old analogue ones? o_O

Yup the big five seem to have a decent quality then it slides down the  
scale as you change muxes.

> Digital works better than analogue right up to the point where the  
> signal gets completely drowned in noise. After that it fails pretty  
> spectacularly.

Do you remember when they were first pushing it "You either get a signal  
or you don't"; heh. As Scott said though things will get better once they  
ditch analogue and turn the power up

> Hmm, I wonder... My gandparents live in an area where the analogue  
> reception is little more than coloured snow. You can kind of tell when  
> you see a person's head, because there's a large area of pinky snow. But  
> it's very hard to watch. And every time a bus goes past on the main  
> road, the picture vanishes for a second or two. I wonder if digital  
> would work any better? ;-)

Should look at Freesat I know Panasonic have a couple TVs with built-in  
Freesat tuners out now and Humax have a Freesat twin-tuner PVR if  
you've/they've already got an HDMI input TV.

> I wasn't aware that anybody actually broadcasts in HD at all yet. I was  
> under the impression that you need to buy a £2,000 BluRay player to get  
> any millage out of an HD TV. (Yet. I'm sure it'll change over time...)

As already mentioned a lot's been filmed just not necessarily broadcast.

-- 
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

Invisible wrote:
> But now I'm watching TV on a big LCD TV, suddenly there seems to be MPEG 
> artifacts all over the place! o_O

That's what put me off of buying a DTV for several years. But then you 
compare it to an analog channel and the difference is so dramatic you decide 
to put up with occasional artifacts. Kind of like programming on an LCD, 
then plugging the computer into a regular TV.

I think some providers recompress the signal to fit more 
shows/movies/whatever over the same cable, so you get different levels of 
artifacts.

Plus, Blu-Ray seems to be more grainy than blocky - I think they spread the 
error out with diffusion, which isn't really a problem when you're six feet 
away.

Video games, for some reason, seem much more blocky.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 
> That's what put me off of buying a DTV for several years. But then you
> compare it to an analog channel and the difference is so dramatic you
> decide to put up with occasional artifacts. Kind of like programming on
> an LCD, then plugging the computer into a regular TV.
> 
> I think some providers recompress the signal to fit more
> shows/movies/whatever over the same cable, so you get different levels
> of artifacts.

In Finland most of the "normal" channels are provided with too low
bitrate, while there's easily noticeable MPEG artefacts all the time.
Add the fact that most TV's scaler is unqualified to do it's job and
you'll see MPEG artefacts and sawlines.

I can watch DVD on 93" image from 4 meters - or NES with the same-sized
image from 3 meters*, but 32" LCD-TV (mostly with stupid 1336x768
-panels) and the broadcast here from 3m is out of tolerance for me.

*) I guess the expectation makes some part of this - seeing huge NES
pixels is somewhat nostalgic. Seeing hyped, supposed-to-be-best-ever
technology failing is... mostly pathetic.

> Video games, for some reason, seem much more blocky.

MPEG -style? On what console?

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
>> Video games, for some reason, seem much more blocky.
> MPEG -style? On what console?

Yes. Not sure which console. Come to think of it, it might have been a 
recording of a console (with too much compression applied) as an 
advertisement in the store. I'll have to look at my actual console to see if 
I'm just misremembering.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 
> Yes. Not sure which console. Come to think of it, it might have been a
> recording of a console (with too much compression applied) as an
> advertisement in the store. I'll have to look at my actual console to
> see if I'm just misremembering.
> 

Compressing and decompressing video on-the-fly would just seem an
unnecessary (and honestly stupid) resource hog IMO :). Other kind of
blockiness (huge NES pixels;) are more reasonable.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Compressing and decompressing video on-the-fly would just seem an
> unnecessary (and honestly stupid) resource hog IMO :)

Yeah. I thought maybe the textures were over-compressed in memory or 
something. It seemed weird to me, but come to think of it, I only ever 
noticed it while shopping for the TV, and they probably weren't hooked up 
directly to the games, but to a DVD playing gameplay video in a loop.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> I like the idea that OLED has such an incredible viewing angle, 
>> superior contrast ...
> 
> Most fairly new LCD TVs will offer up to 176 degrees or something 
> ridiculous of viewing angle, there really isn't much difference anymore 
> between LCD and OLED on viewing angle.
> 
> Contrast I'll agree there is still a gap in performance, but LCD is 
> rapidly closing the gap.
> 
>> what I don't like is that like plasma, it will likely suffer burn-in.
> 
> There's plenty of clever ways around that, but of course they add cost.
> 
> The deciding question will be, can LCD close the contrast gap enough 
> before OLED can compete on price?  It's certainly going to be interesting.

http://www.bash.org/?860040

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> But now I'm watching TV on a big LCD TV, suddenly there seems to be MPEG
> artifacts all over the place! o_O

That's what digital TV is about. Exchange white noise (which the brain
easily filters) with MPEG artifacts, at double the price.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:29:13 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> But now I'm watching TV on a big LCD TV, suddenly there seems to be MPEG
> artifacts all over the place! o_O

Yep, we just added the full HD lineup to our cable subscription (which 
actually *dropped* our monthly charges by $20, go figure).  The standard 
definition channels looked OK on our 45" TV, but now we're up to 106" 
with the projector, and you definitely can see the artifacts on SD 
channels.

The HD channels are stunning.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> (OTOH, the transmitter isn't that far away...)

They never are ;-)

>> There are two free HD channels via satellite (BBC HD and ITV HD, with 
>> more surely to come), if you have Sky there are loads of HD channels for 
>> films, sports etc but of course you need a subscription.
>
> 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.

>> or just get a play station 3 and you get an uber amount of computing 
>> power too.
>
> And the ability to not run any programs that might take advantage of that 
> power. :-}

Why not?  You can install Linux on there very easily (Sony even put a menu 
option for "Install other OS" in the menu).  I think to take advantage of 
the cell processor and its 8 cores you need to use a special compiler, but 
you can certainly make your own code for it.  Just need someone to port POV 
;-)

Post a reply to this message

>> 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.

Yeah - because nobody would take SD content and put it onto an HD disk 
and attempt to sell it as HD. No sir! ;-)

>>> or just get a play station 3 and you get an uber amount of computing 
>>> power too.
>>
>> And the ability to not run any programs that might take advantage of 
>> that power. :-}
> 
> Why not?  You can install Linux on there very easily (Sony even put a 
> menu option for "Install other OS" in the menu).  I think to take 
> advantage of the cell processor and its 8 cores you need to use a 
> special compiler, but you can certainly make your own code for it.  Just 
> need someone to port POV ;-)

Hmm, interesting...

Post a reply to this message

> http://www.bash.org/?860040

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.

Post a reply to this message

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! ;-)

Post a reply to this message

> Yeah - because nobody would take SD content and put it onto an HD disk and 
> attempt to sell it as HD. No sir! ;-)

I don't think that is allowed, at least not without some warning on the 
packaging.  I have the BBC Planet Earth series on blu-ray, and it says on 
the cover that small parts of the content may only be in SD resolution due 
to the camera technologies used blah blah blah.

> Hmm, interesting...

I did this on mine:

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/PlayStation_3

and of course you can then use gcc but you won't be able to make any use of 
the cell processor unless you use the special SDK/compiler from IBM:

http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/cell/

And then you can make stuff like this:

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=rOg9lsAf7u4&fmt=8

Post a reply to this message

> Ever been to an arcade hall? I swear, every CRT I see has "Insert £1" 
> burned into it! ;-)

Or the old cash machines with CRTs, with "INSERT CARD" burnt in :-)

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:09:39 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake thusly:

> 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!)

Indeed one of the problems was that the VCR signal was very close to the  
brand-new Channel 5's frequency causing many complaints.

-- 
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

And lo On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:04:01 -0000, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did  
spake thusly:

>> Hmm, interesting...

Also nice that you can swap out and replace the existing hard-drive for  
something larger without having to pay Sony.

> I did this on mine:
>
> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/PlayStation_3
>
> and of course you can then use gcc but you won't be able to make any use  
> of the cell processor unless you use the special SDK/compiler from IBM:

Though last I heard you still couldn't access the GPU directly.

-- 
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

>> and of course you can then use gcc but you won't be able to make any use 
>> of the cell processor unless you use the special SDK/compiler from IBM:
>
> Though last I heard you still couldn't access the GPU directly.

Yeh, I found all sorts of hackery to get the GPU working, but it all looked 
way too scary and complicated for a Linux noob like me to get working.  I 
will wait until they release a nice user-friendly working version...

Post a reply to this message

> 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?!?!

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:28:48 -0000, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did  
spake thusly:

>>> and of course you can then use gcc but you won't be able to make any  
>>> use of the cell processor unless you use the special SDK/compiler from  
>>> IBM:
>>
>> Though last I heard you still couldn't access the GPU directly.
>
> Yeh, I found all sorts of hackery to get the GPU working, but it all  
> looked way too scary and complicated for a Linux noob like me to get  
> working.  I will wait until they release a nice user-friendly working  
> version...

Isn't that what Valve said? :-P

ot-ot Do you play much online with your PS3; which games if any?

-- 
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

> ot-ot Do you play much online with your PS3; which games if any?

To be honest I have never really done any proper online play, still having 
plenty of fun offline when I get the time.  I'm mainly into driving games so 
have spent most time on Colin McRae: Dirt and GT5 Prologue.  Recently I've 
been doing a lot on Burnout Paradise City, plus I have GTA IV in the 
cupboard still waiting to be played.

What games do you recommend for fun online play? (ie ones that I'm not going 
to instantly finish last at everything or get totally blown to pieces in one 
second)

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:59:55 -0000, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did  
spake thusly:

>> ot-ot Do you play much online with your PS3; which games if any?
>
> To be honest I have never really done any proper online play, still  
> having plenty of fun offline when I get the time.  I'm mainly into  
> driving games so have spent most time on Colin McRae: Dirt and GT5  
> Prologue.  Recently I've been doing a lot on Burnout Paradise City, plus  
> I have GTA IV in the cupboard still waiting to be played.
>
> What games do you recommend for fun online play? (ie ones that I'm not  
> going to instantly finish last at everything or get totally blown to  
> pieces in one second)

Sadly I've only just entered that realm myself. Burnout's fun and the only  
racing game I enjoy, my cousin plays CoD5 and gets whipped every time.  
Drop me your usertag or send me an invite to mine you should be able to  
guess what it is (hint look at the last line of this post) and I'll see if  
we can have a race in BP I'm betting you'll beat me.

I'm *still* playing Fallout3, just going through it for the second time  
for the trophies and because it's just so damn brilliant. If you've got  
Half-Life we can have a look at Team Fortress as a run-through?

-- 
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

> Sadly I've only just entered that realm myself. Burnout's fun and the only 
> racing game I enjoy, my cousin plays CoD5 and gets whipped every time. 
> Drop me your usertag or send me an invite to mine you should be able to 
> guess what it is (hint look at the last line of this post) and I'll see if 
> we can have a race in BP I'm betting you'll beat me.
>
> I'm *still* playing Fallout3, just going through it for the second time 
> for the trophies and because it's just so damn brilliant. If you've got 
> Half-Life we can have a look at Team Fortress as a run-through?

You see I have no idea what a usertag is, let alone what mine might be :-) 
I'll try and have a play about next time I'm on there to see how all this 
online malarky works.  Might be a few days though, I have a couple of DIY 
projects to finish first, and I'll get in trouble if I'm seen on the PS3 
while there are supposedly more important things unfinished - who cares if 
one socket in the kitchen doesn't work because I drilled through the cable 
:-)

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 12:27:38 -0000, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did  
spake thusly:

> You see I have no idea what a usertag is, let alone what mine might be  
> :-)

Under the Network icon you'll see Sign In/Up (changes to Account  
Management when signed in), Playstation Store, and possibly Playstation  
Home. If you've already signed up then you can find your usertag  
(OnlineID) in Account Management or the top right of the Store.

> I'll try and have a play about next time I'm on there to see how all  
> this online malarky works.  Might be a few days though, I have a couple  
> of DIY projects to finish first, and I'll get in trouble if I'm seen on  
> the PS3 while there are supposedly more important things unfinished

Ah yes my cousin has the same trouble, there are some benfits to being  
single :-)

> - who cares if one socket in the kitchen doesn't work because I drilled  
> through the cable :-)

'But that's the socket I use the most'

-- 
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

scott wrote:

> What games do you recommend for fun online play? (ie ones that I'm not 
> going to instantly finish last at everything or get totally blown to 
> pieces in one second)

Try CounterStrike: Source.

</sarcasm>

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Ever been to an arcade hall? I swear, every CRT I see has "Insert £1" 
>> burned into it! ;-)
> 
> Or the old cash machines with CRTs, with "INSERT CARD" burnt in :-)

I've only ever seen that on the (very) old green-screen ones. Curiosly, 
I haven't seen it on any remotely modern terminal. No idea why...

Post a reply to this message

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?!?!

All I know is that I'm still miffed that when I finally get a place of 
my own, I'm going to have to pay for a TV license even though I don't 
own a TV and have no intension of watching TV.

(Apparently it's technically possible to watch TV using a computer, and 
I do own one of those, so...)

It's a license to print money! o_O

Post a reply to this message

> All I know is that I'm still miffed that when I finally get a place of my 
> own, I'm going to have to pay for a TV license even though I don't own a 
> TV and have no intension of watching TV.

If you never watch TV you don't need a license...

> (Apparently it's technically possible to watch TV using a computer, and I 
> do own one of those, so...)

...but, it's a good idea to then remove all hardware capable of receiving TV 
signals, so that it is beyond reasonable doubt that you never watch TV. 
This means taking out the TV tuner card and packing it away somewhere.  They 
can't fine you unless they have proof you are watching TV, so I wouldn't 
worry.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> 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?!?!
> 
> All I know is that I'm still miffed that when I finally get a place of 
> my own, I'm going to have to pay for a TV license even though I don't 
> own a TV and have no intension of watching TV.
> 
> (Apparently it's technically possible to watch TV using a computer, and 
> I do own one of those, so...)
> 
> It's a license to print money! o_O

I assume then if they charge every household a fee for the privilege to 
watch TV, they don't have any advertisements?

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:12:19 -0000, "Phil Cook v2"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>Indeed one of the problems was that the VCR signal was very close to the  
>brand-new Channel 5's frequency causing many complaints.

Normally, with the help of a small screwdriver the output frequency of a VCR can
be changed :O
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:31:22 -0000, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did  
spake thusly:

> ...but, it's a good idea to then remove all hardware capable of  
> receiving TV signals, so that it is beyond reasonable doubt that you  
> never watch TV. This means taking out the TV tuner card and packing it  
> away somewhere.

Not even then, they changed the rules - if you watch programmes via  
something like the BBC's iPlayer which doesn't require a tuner of any  
description you'll need a licence.

>  They can't fine you unless they have proof you are watching TV, so I  
> wouldn't worry.

Except you'll get threatening letters and/or visits every month because  
the assumption is that if you own any form of receiving equipment then you  
are watching broadcast television in one form or other.

-- 
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

Mike Raiford wrote:

> I assume then if they charge every household a fee for the privilege to 
> watch TV, they don't have any advertisements?

No - just not as *many* adverts. ;-)

(E.g., Formula 1 is coming back to the BBC, so now you can watch the 
entire race without an advert break every 20 minutes. There will still 
be a whole heap of adverts before it starts, and after it ends, just not 
while the actual race is happening.)

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:39:13 -0000, Mike Raiford  
<"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> did spake thusly:

> Invisible wrote:
>> 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?!?!
>>  All I know is that I'm still miffed that when I finally get a place of  
>> my own, I'm going to have to pay for a TV license even though I don't  
>> own a TV and have no intension of watching TV.
>>  (Apparently it's technically possible to watch TV using a computer,  
>> and I do own one of those, so...)
>>  It's a license to print money! o_O
>
> I assume then if they charge every household a fee for the privilege to  
> watch TV, they don't have any advertisements?

None of the BBC channels feature adverts, except for themselves. The big  
benefit those who moan about this 'tax' is that there exists two  
children's channels (young-uns and not so young-uns) that have no  
advertising.

-- 
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