 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/01/2011 04:39 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 18/01/2011 4:24 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> I'm guessing at least half are made-up words (since I'm reading sci-fi).
>
> That is a proble with SF.
Irony.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/01/2011 4:00 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> writes:
>
>>> I love my Sony. The interface is really good.
>>
>> Me too!
>> The Sony software is Crap, IMO. I use Calibre exclusively.
>
> I use the Sony software only to buy stuff from their store.
>
I’ve never bought anything from the Sony store, I use Waterstones as I
get points. So I never use the Sony software at all.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/01/2011 4:43 PM, Invisible wrote:
> On 18/01/2011 04:39 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 18/01/2011 4:24 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> I'm guessing at least half are made-up words (since I'm reading sci-fi).
>>
>> That is a proble with SF.
>
> Irony.
No thick fingers. I've been all thumbs today.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 08:41:52 +0000, scott wrote:
>> Not for the Nook, as I can associate any Nook with my account and
>> access my content.
>
> Why remove the DRM then?
If I want to read using Calibre, I have to. Or for convenience, in the
event that (for example) the credit card expires (which they do). Since
the CC# is part of the hash used in the DRM scheme, if I have a lot of
books that I've purchased (which I do have, actually, though most of them
are free downloads from the B&N site), when I update the CC information,
I have to re-download all the books again.
So there's a convenience factor.
>> Making customers have to re-buy material because they lost access would
>> be very poor customer service indeed.
>
> Obviously they're not doing this on purpose, just that if there is some
> tiny chance that people would rebuy, whereas without DRM they wouldn't,
> then this would get factored in to the finances.
I can't help it if they make bad or faulty assumptions in their pricing
model.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 11:04:01 +0000, scott wrote:
> eg "Me and John will be
> coming tomorrow" or "It will be John and I coming tomorrow"
"John and I will be coming tomorrow" - no split infinitive. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 11:04:01 +0000, scott wrote:
>
>> eg "Me and John will be
>> coming tomorrow" or "It will be John and I coming tomorrow"
>
> "John and I will be coming tomorrow" - no split infinitive. :-)
There's no infinitive in either version. It's perfectly acceptable to split
up words that are part of the verb, and indeed it's how you express a
question. We even have a word we use when splitting up a one-word verb so
that we can stick something in the middle.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> the CC# is part of the hash used in the DRM scheme,
That was one of the clever tricks I thought *I* invented 30 years ago. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:42:52 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> There's no infinitive in either version.
True, I did misname it - but I found the sentence structure awkward as
originally written. Just misidentified why it was awkward. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:44:46 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> the CC# is part of the hash used in the DRM scheme,
>
> That was one of the clever tricks I thought *I* invented 30 years ago.
> :-)
:-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> writes:
> I'm not sure I agree with that.
>
> It's pretty easy to write a document and put it online somewhere. It's
> pretty easy to make some music and put it online somewhere. Either way,
> you don't really need a publisher.
>
> If you want to earn money, and if you want publicity, you probably need
> a publisher.
I suspect marketing is a lot more effective with music than with
books. And music is different: Not many people buy random albums from
nobodies while in a music store. With books, they do.
> I don't really see how ebooks are different from music, video, or
> anything else.
Try to see if you can dig up the profit margins publishers operate
on. It's often quite low. At times, a bestselling author makes more
money than his publisher does (after you take out expenses).
Or so I've heard.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> writes:
>> Because with ebooks, it's easier to self publish than it is for
>> musicians to do so.
>
> It is easier to write a book than to record a demo or album, but the
> publishing is just as easy.
True - I meant the whole process.
>> Most of the reason we needed publishers was as a means to get our books
>> into stores.
>
> Just as you need the record company to get your record played on a
> radiostation. If it isn't played in general it won't reach the
> shops. Perhaps with the exception of established bands, but there won't
> be a chance to get established.
Yes, but while lots of people buy ebooks after looking at a sample, I'm
not sure many people buy digital music after listening to samples. It's
more a case of hearing it on the radio/TV first.
>> According to a lot of people, all the marketing they do
>> rarely helps sales.
>
> That might be different indeed for a five minute multiple play and a 2
> days attention span (mostly) single play item.
I meant marketing rarely helps with selling books. I think it helps a
*lot* with music.
> Yes, as it is changing the access to the public for startup bands.
The reason I think music is different is that I don't think many people
buy music they've not heard before - so you still need the leverage to
get on the radio/TV.
>> The other benefit of publishers is editing, etc.
>
> In short I see hardly a difference. Besides my remark was on the
> financial side. Those that own rights do their best to sell their IP as
I've heard the profit margin with (successful) book publishers is much
lower than in the music business - so I suspect there is a
difference. Don't have actual figures, though.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:01:09 -0800, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>> Because with ebooks, it's easier to self publish than it is for
>>> musicians to do so.
>>
>> It is easier to write a book than to record a demo or album, but the
>> publishing is just as easy.
>
> True - I meant the whole process.
Anybody can write a crap book (or song). Writing a good one? I'd argue
that writing a book and writing a song are about equally the same. I did
music theory and composition once upon a time, and I've published at
least a couple books (not self-published, but through a publisher), and I
can tell you that the process of writing a book is not any harder or
easier than writing a song.
To do so well, you have to know the proper syntaxes and structures to
use. Write a book using incomprehensible language or grammar, and it'll
be crap. Write a song that doesn't at least in some fundamental way
follow basic musical structure, and it'll be nothing more than noise.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 12:57:26 -0800, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Try to see if you can dig up the profit margins publishers operate on.
> It's often quite low. At times, a bestselling author makes more money
> than his publisher does (after you take out expenses).
In my experience (as an author, but not a bestselling author), royalty
rates for authors are typically sub-10% of wholesale (which is half of
the cover price). That's in non-fiction; fiction tends to sell for less
(esp. in paperback) so the royalty structure may be somewhat different,
but for most authors it's not enough that they can give up their jobs and
live off the royalties.
Authors like Stephen King are the exception rather than the rule.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I suspect marketing is a lot more effective with music than with
> books. And music is different: Not many people buy random albums from
> nobodies while in a music store. With books, they do.
Do they?
At least for me, I always try to check for reviews of books and authors...
I'd also imagine it'd be easier to check for good music than for good books: you
just gotta listen for a sample for a while rather than read a few pages...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/01/2011 5:26 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 11:04:01 +0000, scott wrote:
>
>> eg "Me and John will be
>> coming tomorrow" or "It will be John and I coming tomorrow"
>
> "John and I will be coming tomorrow" - no split infinitive. :-)
>
One thing at a time. Also one singer one song! So keep your neb out of
it ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/01/2011 7:02 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:42:52 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>
>> There's no infinitive in either version.
>
> True, I did misname it - but I found the sentence structure awkward as
> originally written. Just misidentified why it was awkward. :-)
>
Cause it sounds wrong.
How do non-native speakers identify wrong grammer, I wonder?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-1-2011 22:51, Stephen wrote:
> On 18/01/2011 7:02 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:42:52 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> There's no infinitive in either version.
>>
>> True, I did misname it - but I found the sentence structure awkward as
>> originally written. Just misidentified why it was awkward. :-)
>>
>
> Cause it sounds wrong.
> How do non-native speakers identify wrong grammer, I wonder?
Reading and listening a lot until you get a feeling for the language.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-1-2011 22:01, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom> writes:
>
>>> According to a lot of people, all the marketing they do
>>> rarely helps sales.
>>
>> That might be different indeed for a five minute multiple play and a 2
>> days attention span (mostly) single play item.
>
> I meant marketing rarely helps with selling books. I think it helps a
> *lot* with music.
My suggestion was that that is a.o. related to the time is takes to
consume one offering.
Note also that most starting bands don't have access to the marketing
channels. (Thank god, the noise would be overwhelming)
>> Yes, as it is changing the access to the public for startup bands.
>
> The reason I think music is different is that I don't think many people
> buy music they've not heard before - so you still need the leverage to
> get on the radio/TV.
But that is what the internet could solve. Last FM and similar sites
that group music by people's taste might be a step (as long as there are
not so many of those that none gets a decent listeners base).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 21:51:12 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> How do non-native speakers identify wrong grammer, I wonder?
English is an incredibly difficult language from a grammar (and spelling)
standpoint. There are SO many exceptions to every rule, it's a wonder
anyone can get it right more often than not. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
> > He didn't say, but it's not hard to believe. Consider Arthur C. Clarke:
> > Isaac Asimov's is similar (15 books).
> > Precious little of Ray Bradbury.
>
> Sure. None of which I'd guess were favorites of anyone's grandparents. :-)
>
> --
> Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
> Serving Suggestion:
> "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
I'm a grandparent, 10 times in fact, and they're on my list of favorite authors.
Isaac.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On 18/01/2011 7:02 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:42:52 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> There's no infinitive in either version.
>>
>> True, I did misname it - but I found the sentence structure awkward as
>> originally written. Just misidentified why it was awkward. :-)
>>
>
> Cause it sounds wrong.
> How do non-native speakers identify wrong grammer, I wonder?
"It will be John and I coming tomorrow" sounds fine to me in answer to "Who
will be coming tomorrow?"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Authors like Stephen King are the exception rather than the rule.
I heard even he only gets 15%.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:31:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Authors like Stephen King are the exception rather than the rule.
>
> I heard even he only gets 15%.
That's quite a good rate (by my own experience), but of course, 15% of
the numbers of books that he collects royalties on is significantly more
than the 6% (or in one case, 1/4 of 6%) that I've collected on the sale
of about 2,000 books over the last 15 years.
I joke that every 3 months when I get the $25 cheque for the one that's
currently in print, I can afford to buy dinner for two at our local
diner. It takes 3 months to make enough royalties in order for it to be
worth it to the publisher to cut a cheque (they won't do it for < $25).
I think I'm due to eat again in another 2 months. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:30:30 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> On 18/01/2011 7:02 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:42:52 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's no infinitive in either version.
>>>
>>> True, I did misname it - but I found the sentence structure awkward as
>>> originally written. Just misidentified why it was awkward. :-)
>>>
>>>
>> Cause it sounds wrong.
>> How do non-native speakers identify wrong grammer, I wonder?
>
> "It will be John and I coming tomorrow" sounds fine to me in answer to
> "Who will be coming tomorrow?"
It's a bit formal, and still doesn't sound right to me. In answer to
that question, most people would say "John and I" or some variation
thereof - "Me and John" would be grammatically incorrect, but what a lot
of Americans would actually say, or "John and me" for that matter.)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> writes:
>> Try to see if you can dig up the profit margins publishers operate on.
>> It's often quite low. At times, a bestselling author makes more money
>> than his publisher does (after you take out expenses).
>
> In my experience (as an author, but not a bestselling author), royalty
> rates for authors are typically sub-10% of wholesale (which is half of
> the cover price). That's in non-fiction; fiction tends to sell for less
> (esp. in paperback) so the royalty structure may be somewhat different,
> but for most authors it's not enough that they can give up their jobs and
> live off the royalties.
>
> Authors like Stephen King are the exception rather than the rule.
Agreed - that's why I said best selling authors. Even that's a
stretch. I really meant people like King, Grisham, Grafton, etc.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> writes:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Authors like Stephen King are the exception rather than the rule.
>
> I heard even he only gets 15%.
Yes, but he has few expenses. The publisher may get most of the money,
but they often lose a lot of that in shipping, salaries, etc. I don't
have a source, but an insider once claimed that at times, people like
Stephen King get more money than the publisher does on a given book -
after you take into account all expenses.
That's why authors are trying to demand a bigger cut for ebooks. A big
chunk of publishing costs disappear.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> writes:
>> I suspect marketing is a lot more effective with music than with
>> books. And music is different: Not many people buy random albums from
>> nobodies while in a music store. With books, they do.
>
> Do they?
Apparently. I've often bought an interesting looking book at the
store. I think lots of people go to bookstores just to browse and buy a
random book. That random book they buy is often one that's placed in a
convenient location in the store.
What percentage of (fiction) books are bought this way, though, I don't
know.
> I'd also imagine it'd be easier to check for good music than for good
> books: you just gotta listen for a sample for a while rather than read
> a few pages...
I'm not sure I know any one who merely listened to a sample of a song
and bought it. Most people hear the whole thing somewhere, and then buy
it. But then again, my friends aren't crazy about music.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> writes:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:01:09 -0800, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>
>>>> Because with ebooks, it's easier to self publish than it is for
>>>> musicians to do so.
>>>
>>> It is easier to write a book than to record a demo or album, but the
>>> publishing is just as easy.
>>
>> True - I meant the whole process.
>
> Anybody can write a crap book (or song). Writing a good one? I'd argue
> that writing a book and writing a song are about equally the same. I did
> music theory and composition once upon a time, and I've published at
> least a couple books (not self-published, but through a publisher), and I
> can tell you that the process of writing a book is not any harder or
> easier than writing a song.
Well, I'd think having access to a studio really helps when you're
recording a song...
> To do so well, you have to know the proper syntaxes and structures to
> use. Write a book using incomprehensible language or grammar, and it'll
> be crap. Write a song that doesn't at least in some fundamental way
> follow basic musical structure, and it'll be nothing more than noise.
I was thinking more about stuff like recording equipment, etc.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/17/2011 8:54 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> nemesis<nam### [at] gmailcom> writes:
>
>> yes, but not the screen size. Which means you can read in big letters
>> and scroll all the time to see more text... :p
>
> Most ereaders have screens comparable to or bigger than paperback
> books. If reading on an ereader is a problem, then reading a book will
> be a bigger problem.
But, in general, books tend to have very sharp text, no blurring, and
very little glare, or light induced strain. So, no, it is possible to
have no problem with a book, yet have problems with an ereader, the most
common issue being the "blurriness" of the text on some models.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> But, in general, books tend to have very sharp text, no blurring, and
> very little glare, or light induced strain.
I can't say anything about any other e-readers (I don't even know of the
existence of any), but the Kindle's display really is quite nice. It's
arguably clearer than the actual paper book I'm currently reading, since
it doesn't have paper grain. You'd have to stare very hard indeed to see
the pixels.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/01/2011 05:26 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> no split infinitive. :-)
Oh Christ no... >_<
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/01/2011 09:08 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Write a song that doesn't at least in some fundamental way
> follow basic musical structure, and it'll be nothing more than noise.
Ah - so you're familiar with Pink Floyd then? :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Obviously they're not doing this on purpose, just that if there is some
>> tiny chance that people would rebuy, whereas without DRM they wouldn't,
>> then this would get factored in to the finances.
>
> I can't help it if they make bad or faulty assumptions in their pricing
> model.
Assuming people would follow the terms in the license agreement doesn't
seem bad or faulty to me. Anyway in this case it seems like there is
little or no financial loss to them, but in other cases the DRM is key
to being able to offer the content at a lower price (or even free, eg
BBC iPlayer). The problem is how to draw the line between what is right
and wrong from a legal point of view?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/2011 1:35 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> "It will be John and I coming tomorrow" sounds fine to me in answer to
>> > "Who will be coming tomorrow?"
> It's a bit formal, and still doesn't sound right to me. In answer to
> that question, most people would say "John and I" or some variation
> thereof - "Me and John" would be grammatically incorrect, but what a lot
> of Americans would actually say, or "John and me" for that matter.)
>
Try "John and I are coming tomorrow" or "will be"
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/2011 2:32 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> But, in general, books tend to have very sharp text, no blurring,
You are showing yor age Patrick ;-)
Books printed on pulp paper with hot metal were not only blurry the
lines of text were not straight.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/01/2011 10:35 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 18-1-2011 22:51, Stephen wrote:
>> On 18/01/2011 7:02 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:42:52 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's no infinitive in either version.
>>>
>>> True, I did misname it - but I found the sentence structure awkward as
>>> originally written. Just misidentified why it was awkward. :-)
>>>
>>
>> Cause it sounds wrong.
>> How do non-native speakers identify wrong grammer, I wonder?
>
> Reading and listening a lot until you get a feeling for the language.
Oh! Just like native speakers :-)
Thanks Andrel.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/2011 9:17 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 18/01/2011 09:08 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Write a song that doesn't at least in some fundamental way
>> follow basic musical structure, and it'll be nothing more than noise.
>
> Ah - so you're familiar with Pink Floyd then? :-)
Heathen!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Write a song that doesn't at least in some fundamental way
>>> follow basic musical structure, and it'll be nothing more than noise.
>>
>> Ah - so you're familiar with Pink Floyd then? :-)
>
> Heathen!
Que Pink Floyd puns here...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> On 1/17/2011 8:54 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> > nemesis<nam### [at] gmailcom> writes:
> >
> >> yes, but not the screen size. Which means you can read in big letters
> >> and scroll all the time to see more text... :p
> >
> > Most ereaders have screens comparable to or bigger than paperback
> > books. If reading on an ereader is a problem, then reading a book will
> > be a bigger problem.
> But, in general, books tend to have very sharp text, no blurring, and
> very little glare, or light induced strain. So, no, it is possible to
> have no problem with a book, yet have problems with an ereader, the most
> common issue being the "blurriness" of the text on some models.
a non-issue for quite some time already ever since high resolution LCD displays
with their sharp pixels became the rule. And certainly even less of an issue
with the reflective nature of e-paper displays of e-readers like Kindle...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> But, in general, books tend to have very sharp text, no blurring, and
>> very little glare, or light induced strain. So, no, it is possible to
>> have no problem with a book, yet have problems with an ereader, the most
>> common issue being the "blurriness" of the text on some models.
>
> a non-issue for quite some time already ever since high resolution LCD displays
> with their sharp pixels became the rule.
I've yet to see any LCD that comes even close to the resolution of a
paper printout.
> And certainly even less of an issue
> with the reflective nature of e-paper displays of e-readers like Kindle...
That's more like it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I've yet to see any LCD that comes even close to the resolution of a
> paper printout.
You haven't seen an iPhone with its 326 ppi LCD then? ;-) Also don't
forget LCD can display one of 16m colours on every dot, whereas print
needs to use dithering techniques.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/2011 11:28 AM, scott wrote:
>> I've yet to see any LCD that comes even close to the resolution of a
>> paper printout.
>
> You haven't seen an iPhone with its 326 ppi LCD then? ;-)
No. But then, I haven't seen *most* of the phones on the market, so...
Basically, my question is this: If the technology exists to make a high
resolution LCD, then why is the iPhone the only device on the market to
do this?
> Also don't
> forget LCD can display one of 16m colours on every dot, whereas print
> needs to use dithering techniques.
My computer monitor at home is LCD, and it uses dithering to display the
full 2^24 colours. (Quite irritating, actually...) But sure, the
expensive ones can do it properly. (And even my monitor can manage more
than just black and white without any dithering.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> You haven't seen an iPhone with its 326 ppi LCD then? ;-)
>
> No. But then, I haven't seen *most* of the phones on the market, so...
>
> Basically, my question is this: If the technology exists to make a high
> resolution LCD, then why is the iPhone the only device on the market to
> do this?
Cost, and maybe power consumption/battery life too. A lot of smart
phones with touch screens are up around 250 ppi, but I think the iPhone
is the only one at the moment over 300. As usual with almost every
product though, the technology will work its way down to the cheaper
handsets over the next few years. Do you remember when only the
high-end phones had cameras in them?
> My computer monitor at home is LCD, and it uses dithering to display the
> full 2^24 colours. (Quite irritating, actually...) But sure, the
> expensive ones can do it properly. (And even my monitor can manage more
> than just black and white without any dithering.)
It's unusual to find even cheap monitors now that don't do proper 24bit.
It used to be just because it was cheaper to only put a few thousand
6-bit DACs on the panel rather than 8-bit ones, but I guess the
difference has become negligible now.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 19/01/2011 2:32 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > But, in general, books tend to have very sharp text, no blurring,
>
> You are showing yor age Patrick ;-)
> Books printed on pulp paper with hot metal were not only blurry the
> lines of text were not straight.
>
haha, PWNED
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 19/01/2011 11:28 AM, scott wrote:
> >> I've yet to see any LCD that comes even close to the resolution of a
> >> paper printout.
> >
> > You haven't seen an iPhone with its 326 ppi LCD then? ;-)
>
> No. But then, I haven't seen *most* of the phones on the market, so...
>
> Basically, my question is this: If the technology exists to make a high
> resolution LCD, then why is the iPhone the only device on the market to
> do this?
not quite the only device. My motorola milestone 2 has a 240 dpi and I suspect
it's cheaper for small screens to provide it...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Basically, my question is this: If the technology exists to make a high
>> resolution LCD, then why is the iPhone the only device on the market to
>> do this?
>
> As usual with almost every
> product though, the technology will work its way down to the cheaper
> handsets over the next few years.
So the answer is "because it's new"?
> Do you remember when only the high-end phones had cameras in them?
Remember? I *own* one of those phones! A little Nokia 3310. (I don't
*use* it any more, of course...)
>> My computer monitor at home is LCD, and it uses dithering to display the
>> full 2^24 colours. (Quite irritating, actually...)
>
> It's unusual to find even cheap monitors now that don't do proper 24bit.
Um... is that the way round you meant to say it?
> It used to be just because it was cheaper to only put a few thousand
> 6-bit DACs on the panel rather than 8-bit ones, but I guess the
> difference has become negligible now.
And here I was thinking it's because a liquid crystal's voltage response
is highly non-linear and it's hard to get the really small colour
graduations required...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> As usual with almost every
>> product though, the technology will work its way down to the cheaper
>> handsets over the next few years.
>
> So the answer is "because it's new"?
There's nothing fundamentally new about it, nor is it any particular
step increase, Apple just made a big song and dance about it
(particularly as they claim OLED was not capable of such high ppi) and
it happens to be the highest ppi phone display on the market IIRC. I'm
sure you can find almost all values of ppi from 100 up to 300 on the
market if you look.
> Remember? I *own* one of those phones! A little Nokia 3310. (I don't
> *use* it any more, of course...)
I have a 3330 at home too (I did have a 3310 but it had an accident with
a river and then with a screwdriver and a soldering iron).
>> It's unusual to find even cheap monitors now that don't do proper 24bit.
>
> Um... is that the way round you meant to say it?
I think so :-) I just got one of the cheapest off Amazon for my mother
and it claims to do full 24-bit colour (16.7m colours, no dithering) - I
didn't check though.
> And here I was thinking it's because a liquid crystal's voltage response
> is highly non-linear and it's hard to get the really small colour
> graduations required...
It's not hard, you just need more bits for the DAC, and that takes up
valuable space on the glass (don't forget each DAC needs to be the width
of 1 sub-pixel!). Most "24-bit" panels will have a 10-bit DAC for each
sub-pixel, the 8-bit input is used to look up a 10-bit value in a LUT,
then the 10-bit value is used to generate the correct voltage. The LUT
factors in gamma and the non-linear LC response curve.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/2011 01:54 PM, scott wrote:
>>> As usual with almost every
>>> product though, the technology will work its way down to the cheaper
>>> handsets over the next few years.
>>
>> So the answer is "because it's new"?
>
> There's nothing fundamentally new about it, nor is it any particular
> step increase, Apple just made a big song and dance about it
I'm just wondering why nobody makes regular monitors at high resolution
yet, if the technology exists.
> I have a 3330 at home too (I did have a 3310 but it had an accident with
> a river and then with a screwdriver and a soldering iron).
That's one hell of an accident! o_O
>>> It's unusual to find even cheap monitors now that don't do proper 24bit.
>>
>> Um... is that the way round you meant to say it?
>
> I think so :-) I just got one of the cheapest off Amazon for my mother
> and it claims to do full 24-bit colour (16.7m colours, no dithering) - I
> didn't check though.
So that's a cheap display that *does* do proper 24bit? (You said "doesn't".)
>> And here I was thinking it's because a liquid crystal's voltage response
>> is highly non-linear and it's hard to get the really small colour
>> graduations required...
>
> It's not hard, you just need more bits for the DAC, and that takes up
> valuable space on the glass (don't forget each DAC needs to be the width
> of 1 sub-pixel!).
And here I was thinking that the electronics is round the edges of the
display...
> Most "24-bit" panels will have a 10-bit DAC for each
> sub-pixel, the 8-bit input is used to look up a 10-bit value in a LUT,
> then the 10-bit value is used to generate the correct voltage. The LUT
> factors in gamma and the non-linear LC response curve.
Hmm, I see...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I'm just wondering why nobody makes regular monitors at high resolution
> yet, if the technology exists.
326 dpi on a 20" display is 5500 x 3500 pixels. Can you get a regular
graphics card to do that, imagine the fill-rate needed! I don't think
DVI can go that high either, you'd need something special. Plus on the
display itself you'd need a monster backlight probably with fans,
yield/reliability would be very low due to the sheer number of
rows/columns (chances are relatively high that one would be broken
somehow and render the panel useless). Maybe in 10 years time or so,
but today it would be an astronomical waste of money to try and
manufacture such a device.
> That's one hell of an accident! o_O
At least I learned first-hand that Nokia can tell if the phone's ever
got wet :-)
> So that's a cheap display that *does* do proper 24bit? (You said
> "doesn't".)
I said it was *unusual* to find one that doesn't do proper 24bit.
>> It's not hard, you just need more bits for the DAC, and that takes up
>> valuable space on the glass (don't forget each DAC needs to be the width
>> of 1 sub-pixel!).
>
> And here I was thinking that the electronics is round the edges of the
> display...
It is, but you need a separate DAC for every column on the display, so
there's no other practical solution than making them the same width as a
sub-pixel and putting them along the bottom (or top) edge.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 19/01/2011 15:43, scott a écrit :
> 326 dpi on a 20" display is 5500 x 3500 pixels. Can you get a regular
> graphics card to do that, imagine the fill-rate needed! I don't think
> DVI can go that high either, you'd need something special.
DVI single link is limited to 165 MHz and 24 bits per pixels.
DVI dual link is not limited, excepted by the copper and both ends.
But the reality of a 20" display at 326 dpi, for 2D, is not useful.
For hand held, 326 dpi is fine (very fine).
For a 20" display, that would make the pixel unreadable.
(usual pixel size is between 0.2 and 0.3 mm, which is about the
classical 72 & 100 dpi of fonts)
Pushing to 200 dpi in 20" would still be a frivolous move.
--
A good Manager will take you
through the forest, no mater what.
A Leader will take time to climb on a
Tree and say 'This is the wrong forest'.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
