Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 599

My first thought is: Good luck syncing audio to that!

Second: Good luck doing meaningful digital compression!

In professional broadcasting - _unlike_ the camcorder a mortal can afford - rolling-shutter is under control, as is a lot of other Bad and Wrong stuff that consumer cameras do. (Here's one you can easily check at home: Point a TV remote at it, and press buttons. Do you see the remote LED lighting up? That means it doesn't filter IR, and that wreaks havoc on colour fidelity!)

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 599

In Norway, the public broadcaster broadcasts 720p50 simply because people watch TV on flat panels, which means that if we sent 1080i50 the TV would deinterlace internally - and deinterlacing is nearly impossible to get right. 720p50 from a hefty box full of ASICs gives much, much higher effective quality than a home user would get from 1080i50, which is the normal HD format until 1080p50 infrastructure becomes adequate.

1080p25 is not something you want. It's really only useful for film material shot at 25fps (as most made-for-TV film stuff is). Frame rates that low incur several restrictions that you cannot process your way out of, like the "safe panning speed".

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 599

Some errata:

In cinema, exposure time is a function of frame rate and "shutter angle". The shutter rotates over the film, and by varying the angle you can get higher shutter speeds. IIRC, my Arriflex (made for TV, thus geared for 25fps) maxes out at 180 degrees, meaning 1/52s.

Digital cinema cameras do not have high-speed shutters (unless you set them that way, just like with film). Indeed, since there is no mechanical requirement to blank away the film while the claw advances, you can actually have smaller shutter angles/greater speed.

Comment Re:DLP (Score 1) 95

Yeah, as long as you can sit directly in front, they do work pretty great. Had one for years. Too big to haul away, so I sold it with the house when I moved.

But its nice to actually be able to see what you are eating and drinking in a Sports Pub these days without them having to dim the lights just so that people can see the rear projections screens mounted like a sword of Damocles over the bar. The modern bright LED screens do so much better in such places.

You're likely comparing these to CRT rear-projection TVs, which were indeed dark - but that's apples and oranges. A DLP rear-projection TV is very bright even in normal lighting. It's essentially a high-quality DLP video projector with a built-in reflector and projection target.

Comment Re:Yeah! (Score 1) 530

In fact, the greatest damage moderates and left-wing could do to the right wing extremists is to invite them to freely speak their minds. The resulting spew of homophobic, sexist, and racist non-sequiturs would likely shift most people just a bit to the left.

In my experience that's a fallacy. If you say that spewing hate-filled bullshit is "okay" and "harmless", it will catch on.

Dismissing dangerous political ideas as somehow "inherently self-destructing" flies in the face of all experience with human history, which includes a lot of dangerous political ideologies - like Communism and Nazism.

The reason preposterous or dangerous ideologies tend not to catch on in developed societies is because people react to them. If people stop reacting to them, they catch on.

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 102

Another approach would be to add an abstraction layer between the hardware and software very much like what is done with virtualization, Java, ZFS, LVM, DirectX, Crossbow et al. That would make the software more independent of the underlying hardware...

Isn't that basically how CISC works nowadays?

Comment Re:Of course it was! (Score 1) 555

The problem is that both parties given the change will do the same to the extreme.

Nope. Sorry. There's no comparison. And trying to say that both parties are equally bad isn't merely incorrect, it represents a cowardly cop-out which is far too common, built on the illusion that saying that both parties to a conflict are "just as bad" serves to "raise you from the fray". It does not. It serves to remove you from any useful discourse, and to remove the disincentive to the Republicans for any disingenuous behaviour (thus stimulating it, since the incentives are many).

Comment Re:Of course it was! (Score 1) 555

I'm sorry to be an annoying outsider here as a non-American, but my pet peeve about political discussions in the United States is this absurd belief that all correlation implies total causation - "Say what you want about the Yugo, but when I drove a Yugo the economy went really well". It's a great way to remove all meaning from a discussion.

Discuss the facts of the matter - the concrete decisions made, the changes in culture - and the direct and indirect outcomes of those. That's how you get closer to a good answer. And the clear and obvious reality is that the Republican party has - to a far greater extent than the Democratic party - made the strategic choice to put the popularity of the party above the general welfare of the nation, by eagerly jumping at a chance to obstruct the political system to hinder its work in a manner which - to the casual observer - seem to make the Democrats look bad by impeding their agenda.

This is possible because the press will not criticise the Republicans for fear of being branded partisan. Commercial censorship at its best. This is not a partisan statement even if it is primarily a criticism of a single political party. Objectivity is not the belief that both parties are always equally poor.

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek