Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:A better model beats higher bitrate every time (Score 1) 412

Slightly different case here. The receiver (decoder) cannot be arbitrarily upgraded to utilize the new codec. The BBC must deal with whatever codecs are available on the receiver. Maybe the BBC's new encoders are using a longer GOP or other techniques to better-utilize the available bit-rate. But, ultimately, they screwed the viewer. Even AVC will look crappy at 9.6 with high-motion/high-complexity content. AVC is nice, but not a panacea. The consumer shells out big-bucks for a high fidelity reproduction system, and then the content suppliers and distributors cheap-out and send us crappy low-bit-rate content.

Comment None too good on this side of the pond either (Score 1) 412

The pay HD movie channels have terrible encoding, for the most part. HBO HD, SHO HD and so on exhibit significant coding artifacts during high motion scenes. A notable exception appears to be HDnet Movies: they can faithfully reproduce all manner of complex and fast changing content; would be nice if the well-funded big-boys followed suit. Speculation is that the big-name networks utilize bandwidth-constrained HD feeds intentionally. The majority of their last-mile distribution partners (DBS satellite and terrestrial) are capacity limited. Not much use in sending 16Mbps MPEG2 HD signal to Comcast, if they recompress and statmux multiple channels together into an over-committed modulator. The FiOS guys have stated that they will not recompress any feeds they receive; they promise to deliver the full bandwidth that they get from their suppliers. HDnet Movies looks very clean. Wish the big movie guys would provide FiOS with higher-fidelity HD feeds to deliver.

Comment Powered from the Jeep's Alternator? (Score 1) 627

So, what is powering the jeep-mounted laser? It is electrically excited? It seems unlikely that they're using the alternator in the jeep engine? (Or maybe they've got a huge bank of super-caps and they can only fire every few hours, after the caps charge-up?) Note to maintenance: check fan belts before going into battle.

Comment Re:Let me be the first to say (Score 1) 684

Apple isn't any different than AT&T. They just want to make money. Customer satisfaction is only an issue as it impacts macroscopic sales/customer-attrition. Apple figures it can sell more units by partnering with a big provider. The AT&T thinks it can clobber the competition by offering the cutesy Apple mobile terminal. NEITHER gives a rat's ass about the customer. It's only about the money. Even after the big wall street melt down and the huge down-turn in the world economy, business leaders still operate by the same rules: money in their personal pockets. Nothing else matters. Don't expect much relief from regulators; they're running a competition to see how far they can take Laissez Faire. Can they get paid by the tax payer for actually buggering the tax payer. Sure they can.

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Working...