xlii
Mar 22, 03:03 PM
Wife said Yes
But will Apple say No? (mac mini update)
But will Apple say No? (mac mini update)
Lightivity
Oct 5, 03:16 AM
Being 16x9 encoded is not the same thing as being anaporphically encoded.
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
I know exactly what 'anamorphic' means, and it was precisely what I meant when saying "16x9-encoded", with the exception that 'anamorphic' is a totally confusing and natively incorrect term.
Why? Because nothing is ever stretched or squashed in digital video. The anamorphic concept has unfortunately been transfered from the celluloid world where light truly is pressed together on a 35-mm film frame only to be expanded in the theater. Now, maybe I should have added the word "enhanced for widescreen" after "16x9-encoded" but it doesn't matter: All 16x9-videomaterial is encoded so that all 720x480 pixels carry the approximate dimension of 16x9 with the aim of fitting a television that holds a display with 1.78:1 proportions. That is the very definition of 16x9. It is not anamorphical. It is not sqeezed. It is just 16x9 pixels spread across a compatible display.
Ehurtley, what I think you thought I meant, was aspect ratio. But that is something completely else. The aspect ratio is the proportions of the frame the director intended the action to be shown in, and there are several. One is 2.35:1, but the most common is 1.85:1, which most closely resembles the 1.78:1 frame that 16x9-encoded video fits right into. The only ones using the 1:78:1 aspect ratio is tv-productions. Film productions rarely use it (they stick to conventional 2.35:1 and 1.85:1).
Don't confuse the 1.78:1 aspect ratio which -- together with 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 -- is the artistic concept of framing action, with 16x9-encoding which is the technical solution of using a standard pixel resolution in a widescreen setup.
So, my question remains: is there any 16x9-encoded film content on iTunes Store?
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
I know exactly what 'anamorphic' means, and it was precisely what I meant when saying "16x9-encoded", with the exception that 'anamorphic' is a totally confusing and natively incorrect term.
Why? Because nothing is ever stretched or squashed in digital video. The anamorphic concept has unfortunately been transfered from the celluloid world where light truly is pressed together on a 35-mm film frame only to be expanded in the theater. Now, maybe I should have added the word "enhanced for widescreen" after "16x9-encoded" but it doesn't matter: All 16x9-videomaterial is encoded so that all 720x480 pixels carry the approximate dimension of 16x9 with the aim of fitting a television that holds a display with 1.78:1 proportions. That is the very definition of 16x9. It is not anamorphical. It is not sqeezed. It is just 16x9 pixels spread across a compatible display.
Ehurtley, what I think you thought I meant, was aspect ratio. But that is something completely else. The aspect ratio is the proportions of the frame the director intended the action to be shown in, and there are several. One is 2.35:1, but the most common is 1.85:1, which most closely resembles the 1.78:1 frame that 16x9-encoded video fits right into. The only ones using the 1:78:1 aspect ratio is tv-productions. Film productions rarely use it (they stick to conventional 2.35:1 and 1.85:1).
Don't confuse the 1.78:1 aspect ratio which -- together with 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 -- is the artistic concept of framing action, with 16x9-encoding which is the technical solution of using a standard pixel resolution in a widescreen setup.
So, my question remains: is there any 16x9-encoded film content on iTunes Store?
cube
May 3, 11:13 AM
Ivy Bridge will bring it up to 3 displays. AMD has 6 displays for embedded systems now.
These iMacs have discrete chips supporting 6 displays, too. But they are crippled by Thunderbolt, like the MBPs.
These iMacs have discrete chips supporting 6 displays, too. But they are crippled by Thunderbolt, like the MBPs.
blahblah100
Mar 30, 01:25 PM
In the Windows world, it would be a Program Store. Look at any Windows computer and there's nothing called an application or an app. MS claims to have, like 95% of the desktop market. How would the gazillion Windows users out there even know what an "app" was? They've had zero exposure to it, it's a totally foreign term. Wait a minute, it's an Apple term that is coming into common usage and now MS might have to change their language to get rid of the goofy term "program", conceding defeat, so its usage must be stopped or curtailed. That's what this is really about.
As others have pointed out (repeatedly), Windows does actually refer to what you call 'Programs' as applications. For example, right click on a 'program' shortcut. On the short-cut, what does it say for the "target type?"
Since you seem to have trouble reading so-far, I'll give you a hint: it says "Application."
It's been this way since <at least> Windows XP.
Edit: Actually, I just looked at some really old KB articles from Microsoft, MS-Dos 'programs' were also referred to as "applications."
As others have pointed out (repeatedly), Windows does actually refer to what you call 'Programs' as applications. For example, right click on a 'program' shortcut. On the short-cut, what does it say for the "target type?"
Since you seem to have trouble reading so-far, I'll give you a hint: it says "Application."
It's been this way since <at least> Windows XP.
Edit: Actually, I just looked at some really old KB articles from Microsoft, MS-Dos 'programs' were also referred to as "applications."
fastlane1588
Aug 29, 08:36 AM
great, nothing....
RKpro
Apr 28, 03:52 PM
Wow, Apple is pretty much unstoppable now. And if anyone tries to get in their way, they've got a $60b war chest.
asphalt-proof
Sep 15, 08:25 PM
Ok I think Steve is just playing with the rumor sites. First is was "G5 Powerbooks next Tuesday" Now its "iPhone next Tuesday, quarter, macworld, whatever." I think its just his way of palying a practical joke on us plebes. Probably sits back, snorts derisively whenever he sees this and throws a towel at his personal servant (whose name is Steve Ballmer).
Meandmunch
Apr 25, 07:08 PM
Other than shaving a few millimeters of the case, a few grams of weight what amount of change isn't incremental at this point?
Eidorian
Jul 14, 02:15 PM
Whoa!! I feel a lot better that MBP is not getting CPU upgrade anytime soon. I don't want my month-old MBP getting obsolete in another month.I will be obsolete. Merom is next month.
Glideslope
Apr 30, 04:17 PM
Get ready. It's going to be "Magical". :apple:
geerlingguy
May 3, 12:46 PM
We were discussing this a few threads down the front page.
Doubt the MacPro will be dead, but the market for it will shrivel up very badly unless some universal need for extreme processing is manufactured. With current processing speeds and ThunderBolt accessories, an iMac can become a full pro machine for all sorts of jobs that don't need to work titanic piles of data.
This Pro I purchased in early 2007 is still excellent. It will last until 2014 or beyond, and by that point I will probably go with an iMac. Today's iMacs are already faster than this tower in most ways.
Heck, my new 2.2 i7 quad MacBook Pro beats every one of the last Mac Pro revisions. The Mac Pro line is more and more for a very specialized audience�those who need the utmost performance and expansion (2-3 video cards, an extra I/O card, 4x SSD drives for speed + space for high end production work...
But for me, this is the fastest Mac I have ever touched. Way faster than the old 27" i5 I was using.
It's very much *not* about the speed nowadays. I worked from an 11" MacBook Air for a few weeks (to see if I could work on a 1.8 Ghz Core 2 Duo), and if it weren't for my work in Aperture, I would've gotten a 13" MacBook Air and been done with everything!
(Instead, I'm staying with a 15" MBP for the foreseeable future).
Doubt the MacPro will be dead, but the market for it will shrivel up very badly unless some universal need for extreme processing is manufactured. With current processing speeds and ThunderBolt accessories, an iMac can become a full pro machine for all sorts of jobs that don't need to work titanic piles of data.
This Pro I purchased in early 2007 is still excellent. It will last until 2014 or beyond, and by that point I will probably go with an iMac. Today's iMacs are already faster than this tower in most ways.
Heck, my new 2.2 i7 quad MacBook Pro beats every one of the last Mac Pro revisions. The Mac Pro line is more and more for a very specialized audience�those who need the utmost performance and expansion (2-3 video cards, an extra I/O card, 4x SSD drives for speed + space for high end production work...
But for me, this is the fastest Mac I have ever touched. Way faster than the old 27" i5 I was using.
It's very much *not* about the speed nowadays. I worked from an 11" MacBook Air for a few weeks (to see if I could work on a 1.8 Ghz Core 2 Duo), and if it weren't for my work in Aperture, I would've gotten a 13" MacBook Air and been done with everything!
(Instead, I'm staying with a 15" MBP for the foreseeable future).
xPismo
Sep 9, 10:31 PM
...work in the new MBPs/MBs as part of the whole glorious iLife spiel, or something.
That would be great but honestly, after all the updates this week, i don't think its gonna happen.
So a few more months before Apple makes *my* MBP 15". Sadly.
That would be great but honestly, after all the updates this week, i don't think its gonna happen.
So a few more months before Apple makes *my* MBP 15". Sadly.
callme
Mar 29, 01:15 PM
They had 2.9% of the worldwide mobile phone market for 2010.
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1543014
Thanks for that, I wondered what the latest figures were.
I'm sure Apple are thrilled with those numbers (I mean it).
At the profit margin they make on iPhones they will be happy with that sort of figure for years to come.
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1543014
Thanks for that, I wondered what the latest figures were.
I'm sure Apple are thrilled with those numbers (I mean it).
At the profit margin they make on iPhones they will be happy with that sort of figure for years to come.
DJMastaWes
Sep 9, 10:34 PM
Two Questions...
1) If Merom MacBook Pros ship on the 12th, and I order mine that day, around how long would it take for me to get?
2) I hear there is going to be TONS of problems seeing as how it's going to be the first of Rev B. Models. Any truth to that?
1) If Merom MacBook Pros ship on the 12th, and I order mine that day, around how long would it take for me to get?
2) I hear there is going to be TONS of problems seeing as how it's going to be the first of Rev B. Models. Any truth to that?
settledown
Sep 26, 11:05 AM
Apple and Cingular go way back.
Who says that Apple WONT be a Mobile Virtual Network Operator like Virgin Mobile, Helio, Amp'd, mobile ESPN
ESPN is Sprint
Helio is Sprint
Amp'd is Verizon
Virgin is Sprint in the US, but T Mobile in the UK
I say Apple iPhone IS MVNO
Who says that Apple WONT be a Mobile Virtual Network Operator like Virgin Mobile, Helio, Amp'd, mobile ESPN
ESPN is Sprint
Helio is Sprint
Amp'd is Verizon
Virgin is Sprint in the US, but T Mobile in the UK
I say Apple iPhone IS MVNO
HecubusPro
Sep 15, 08:32 PM
Cram 1GB? Have you seen the 8GB iPod Nano? What are you talking about? Isn't flash memory capable of being used for running processes, or is it too slow?
It may raise the price of the phone, but putting 8GB flash memory into an iPhone would be awesome. I just held one of the new nano's at my local Apple Store today and it's size is perfect as is the weight. The storage portion of the phone is not going to be a problem from that perspective.
It may raise the price of the phone, but putting 8GB flash memory into an iPhone would be awesome. I just held one of the new nano's at my local Apple Store today and it's size is perfect as is the weight. The storage portion of the phone is not going to be a problem from that perspective.
mazola
Sep 14, 10:05 AM
It could be no other thing.
/Moke
Mar 29, 02:29 PM
No. Looser and looser = extra extra baggy! :D
LOL, I guess next time I try to insult people I should show my stupidity as mooch as that looser.
LOL, I guess next time I try to insult people I should show my stupidity as mooch as that looser.
aurichie
Apr 19, 07:44 AM
Google actually doesn't, being an industry newcomer and all (they only appeared at the end of the 90s in the industry). That is one of their Achilles' heels.
They have plenty of patents. It wasn't until the 90s that the patent madness really started with software. Google is also leading the bidding for a large portfolio of mobile patents to protect them against Apple and Microsoft.
They have plenty of patents. It wasn't until the 90s that the patent madness really started with software. Google is also leading the bidding for a large portfolio of mobile patents to protect them against Apple and Microsoft.
NebulaClash
Mar 29, 11:30 AM
IDC, in their typically throw-a-dart clueless approach, seems to be shifting all the Symbian market share over to Microsoft. Yeah, right, like that'll happen!
And remember that in the Android bucket are all the Chinese knockoffs that don't run the Android store and are Android in name only, but hey, IDC will throw them into the bucket. As for iOS, well, if you are an iPod touch you don't count, and neither do the iPads. Phones only, please, even if you are just an Asian knockoff. So remember that the iOS market share is quite a bit larger than shown here.
Finally, I see market share, but where is the chart of revenue share? Oh right, that wouldn't please their corporate sponsors, so IDC focuses on market share only.
And remember that in the Android bucket are all the Chinese knockoffs that don't run the Android store and are Android in name only, but hey, IDC will throw them into the bucket. As for iOS, well, if you are an iPod touch you don't count, and neither do the iPads. Phones only, please, even if you are just an Asian knockoff. So remember that the iOS market share is quite a bit larger than shown here.
Finally, I see market share, but where is the chart of revenue share? Oh right, that wouldn't please their corporate sponsors, so IDC focuses on market share only.
Tones2
Apr 22, 02:30 PM
Look at netflix and hulu plus. if you can get access to TONS of content through a subscription what is the point of owning an actual physical copy if you can watch it from your queue online on your device?
Have you ever actually watched Netflix or Hulu on a iPhone or iPad over 3G? It totally sucks - not even close to what it looks like when stored locally, especially on the iPad.
Tony
Have you ever actually watched Netflix or Hulu on a iPhone or iPad over 3G? It totally sucks - not even close to what it looks like when stored locally, especially on the iPad.
Tony
roland.g
Aug 28, 02:40 PM
Unfortunately, cats are known liars.
MacPhreak
Oct 12, 03:45 PM
Ha ha, You are nuts. Let me tell you how it works.
Nobody gets rich by curing a disease. That is why diabetes, AIDS, HIV etc are all treated with "Keep you alive but not cure you drugs" that you have to buy for the rest of your life. The government and drug companies are in it together and are pure evil. Ain't nobody going to cure anything unless they can keep making money doing it. Get it? Good.
So how's your Polio treating you?
Nobody gets rich by curing a disease. That is why diabetes, AIDS, HIV etc are all treated with "Keep you alive but not cure you drugs" that you have to buy for the rest of your life. The government and drug companies are in it together and are pure evil. Ain't nobody going to cure anything unless they can keep making money doing it. Get it? Good.
So how's your Polio treating you?
chuckles:)
Oct 12, 10:27 PM
i think it looks cool.
No comments:
Post a Comment