Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 ... Last
[#] Wed Sep 03 2003 21:59:25 EDT from Ragnar Danneskjold @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Isn't TOSlink always optical?

I've seen converters for 60 - 100 bucks.

I would think that over a short run, the advantage of going TOSlink is limited.

[#] Wed Sep 03 2003 22:57:46 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Converters may run from 60 to 100 dollars, but a resistor and a LED will run from 60 to 100 *cents*.

And there really isn't any advantage. I'm planning to build a converter because I'm adding a source with a coaxial output, and the only free input on my amplifier is optical.

[#] Thu Sep 04 2003 10:18:49 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Update: this morning I came to my senses and realized that digital cable is still cable, so I cancelled the order.

Anyone got a spare DirecTV receiver with digital outputs lying around? :)

[#] Mon Sep 08 2003 06:22:58 EDT from girthta @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Um, actually we do! Dan's Dish Network dish is still at his old house,and we have his receiver in the closet here.

I was really shocked when I went from "digital" cable to a dish at the difference in quality. The dish is so much better quality than cable, even on my crappy TV it looked miles better than the cable.

Of course, I sitll have a cable modem... but that's because of the fight with the phone company... a whole 'nother story altogether.

[#] Mon Sep 08 2003 09:00:49 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Hmm ... I don't think Dish Network equipment is compatible with DirecTV.

Anyway, there is definitely an inherent coolness factor associated with having an actual downlink station at your house. Cable can never deliver that. (Of course, if the cable company were willing to run fiber optic cable all the way into my house, that would have some coolness factor as well ... but they'd still have to do something about their weekly rate hikes.)

[#] Mon Sep 08 2003 12:04:13 EDT from Mr.T @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

How does the sat do in weird weather?

Digital cable is compressed and has very visible artifacts. The degree of
compression seems to vary by channel. Seems like a trade-off.

[#] Mon Sep 08 2003 12:15:51 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

The cable company wants people to believe that satellite service falls apart every time it rains. This is a bit of an exaggeration. We do experience "rain fade" as it's called, but only during periods of extremely dense weather.
This happens perhaps two or three times a year, and it never lasts more than an hour or so.

Satellite is compressed too, but I generally don't notice artifacts unless I'm looking really hard for them.

[#] Mon Sep 08 2003 12:29:09 EDT from Mr.T @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Nice. The old-skool giant dishes did crap out ffrequently in bad weather -
I'm glad to hear that's changed.

I've had Time Warner digital cable for about 4 years, and the compression
is quite noticable on certain channels and horrible on almost all channels
whenever a fade-out happens (or any image with a dark and limited color
palette).

[#] Mon Sep 08 2003 13:33:50 EDT from Peter Pulse @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Unless someone comes up witha brilliant breakthrough in bidirectional satellite links for the masses, cable is ultimately going to win. The cable co's have less downstream bandwidth to work with at the moment, but they have a lot of options moving forward.

[#] Mon Sep 08 2003 14:15:42 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

The assertion that anyone is going to "win" assumes that it's a zero-sum game.
There's likely enough room for both technologies to continue to exist for quite some time.

By the way, cable may not feel it's in the bag either: the Cablevision guy told me last week that they've launched a satellite of their own and will begin offering service next year.

On the other hand, digital cable's ability to provide movies on demand might turn out to be their ace. Satellite will probably not be able to offer that.
But who knows, someday we may do our pay-per-view over the Internet anyway.

[#] Mon Sep 08 2003 15:07:32 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


satellite internet is always going to be limited by speed-of-light latency to geosynchronous orbit... more latency than you might think.

[#] Mon Sep 08 2003 17:11:50 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Satellite internet is always going to be unusable. I was thinking more in terms of buying pay-per-view over the Internet *instead of* from your cable or satellite provider.

[#] Mon Sep 08 2003 22:14:12 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Hmmm... maybe someday you can use cable for up and satellite for massive down. naaaaaaaah.
What's interesting about all this digital technology is that the mass consumer market is starting to catch up with the computer industry, what I've recently started to call the "websphere effect."
No joke, think about it, analog cable worked. It worked well, and there were no artifacts and it was cheap.
Now there's digital, more channels, the signal to noise ratio is probably the same, but you pay more, and the quality actually got worse.
And this is progress.
Normally that kind of shitty progress is saved for the high tech industry but now it's starting to spill over into consumer land.
I was surprised DVD's took off as well as they did considering the very first thing I heard about them was how in really high action sequences the machine just couldn't keep up.

[#] Wed Oct 08 2003 13:13:49 EDT from Mr.T @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Adiv just released a free DV editor called Avid FreeDV for WinXP and OS X:

http://avid.com/freedv/

[#] Sun Oct 12 2003 21:32:35 EDT from Ragnar Danneskjold @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Bought a DV camcorder finally. Burned my first DVD too. iMovie and iDVD on the Mac made this incredibly easy. iMovie apparently has tons of add-ins which I have to find now.

I was most impressed that every time you start the recorder again it marks it as a scene, so you can find transitions easy if you record over the course of a day or two.

[#] Sun Oct 12 2003 22:55:36 EDT from UWAnimal @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

indeed. MiniDV is badass. I'm rather happy with the sony my parents bought.
Spent about as much on it as tehy did on my computer...

[#] Mon Oct 13 2003 12:22:07 EDT from Mr.T @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Congrats Ragnar!

These might have been folded into the new iMovie, but there are some free
ones from Apple at

http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/apple/imoviepluginpack.html

Also check out http://www.stupendous-software.com/Products.html - there are
a bunch of plugin bundles, each of which contains both free and demo payware
plugins.

I'll ask my bro for more poop.

[#] Mon Oct 13 2003 21:10:53 EDT from Ragnar Danneskjold @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Kick ass! Thanks!

iMovie is pretty good for quick editing.... I was impressed with how it controls the camcorder.

[#] Mon Oct 13 2003 22:05:45 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Ok folks ... SACD or DVDA? Which sux and which r00lz? :)

Oh, and does DVDA play in a regular DVD player, or do you need a special player for it?

[#] Mon Oct 13 2003 22:31:56 EDT from UWAnimal @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

DVDA plays fine in regular DVD players

Go to page: First ... 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 ... Last