USB2 HDTV

[Badger]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

You do realize I don't care about how Usenet delivers articles don't
you? You know that it makes more sense to post the way all other
conventions are don't you? You validated my point. They may have to
scroll to see what I'm responding to, but don't they have to do this
every time someone posts at the bottom? If you do it the right way,
they only have to scroll if they want to. Your way they have to
always.

Do you think I put any REAL level of importance to anything on Usenet?
I prefer to do it the way I consider most convenient and the way I
consider best for everyone who is following a thread. There are enough
people on my side for me to continue as I do.
AS to whether or not I get any recognition to my post, or not does not
bother me one way or another. If you feel the need to ignore me go
ahead. Usenet has no real value except for enjoyment, if you believe
otherwise your fooling yourself.

Clay

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:114bu95tnv5v038@corp.supernews.com...
> Badger wrote:
> > You are correct. Every "single" post in a thread is written upper
left
> > and top down. I've never seen a post that doesn't flow that way,
> > however...
>
> You do know that usenet delivers articles asynchronously, don't you?
You
> also know that usenet does not guarantee the complete propagation of
any
> article, don't you?
>
> You might consider that just because top posting is easier for you,
most
> of your readers end up having to scroll down to see what it is that
you
> are responding to.
>
> I guess you feel that you convenience and time are more valuable
than
> the convenience and time of your readers. That will generally limit
the
> number of people who read your posts. Many people killfile top
posters
> who would rather top post than communicate effectively.
>
> Matthew
>
> --
> Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
> You can't win
> You can't break even
> You can't get out of the
game

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Badger wrote:
> You do realize I don't care about how Usenet delivers articles don't
> you? You know that it makes more sense to post the way all other
> conventions are don't you?

All?

> You validated my point.

Hardly.

> They may have to
> scroll to see what I'm responding to, but don't they have to do this
> every time someone posts at the bottom?

Not if the poster snips out that to which he is not responding.

> If you do it the right way,

"Right way"?

> they only have to scroll if they want to. Your way they have to
> always.

Then they have to guess because your comments are no where near what
they refer to.

> Do you think I put any REAL level of importance to anything on Usenet?

Exactly. If you did, you might try to communicate effectively.

> I prefer to do it the way I consider most convenient and the way I
> consider best for everyone who is following a thread.

That's what I said. You think your convenience and time are more
important than your reader's.

> There are enough
> people on my side for me to continue as I do.

Go ahead. You will find that many will just kill file you.

> AS to whether or not I get any recognition to my post, or not does not
> bother me one way or another. If you feel the need to ignore me go
> ahead. Usenet has no real value except for enjoyment, if you believe
> otherwise your fooling yourself.
>

Considering the hours I have saved myself, both personally and
professionally, using google to research newsgroups, I respectfully
disagree.

IMHO, the trend towards entertainment value only on usenet, insofar as
it exists, is due to people who don't care to communicate in a way that
is easy and natural because it is too much work for them.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

 

[Badger]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

And, since this is all a matter of opinion....do what you feel is
necessary, and I will post as I see appropriate for any particular
thread.
Snipping in my opinion is wrong as it removes valid context. That way
you can spin the reply as you see fit.
Threads should always be left intact. IMO

Done with this thread. I did have fun with this.Thanks for your input.

I do apologize that I was cross posting. I didn't realize that.

Clay

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:114db5gjsallnfe@corp.supernews.com...
> Badger wrote:
> > You do realize I don't care about how Usenet delivers articles
don't
> > you? You know that it makes more sense to post the way all other
> > conventions are don't you?
>
> All?
>
> > You validated my point.
>
> Hardly.
>
> > They may have to
> > scroll to see what I'm responding to, but don't they have to do
this
> > every time someone posts at the bottom?
>
> Not if the poster snips out that to which he is not responding.
>
> > If you do it the right way,
>
> "Right way"?
>
> > they only have to scroll if they want to. Your way they have to
> > always.
>
> Then they have to guess because your comments are no where near what
> they refer to.
>
> > Do you think I put any REAL level of importance to anything on
Usenet?
>
> Exactly. If you did, you might try to communicate effectively.
>
> > I prefer to do it the way I consider most convenient and the way I
> > consider best for everyone who is following a thread.
>
> That's what I said. You think your convenience and time are more
> important than your reader's.
>
> > There are enough
> > people on my side for me to continue as I do.
>
> Go ahead. You will find that many will just kill file you.
>
> > AS to whether or not I get any recognition to my post, or not does
not
> > bother me one way or another. If you feel the need to ignore me go
> > ahead. Usenet has no real value except for enjoyment, if you
believe
> > otherwise your fooling yourself.
> >
>
> Considering the hours I have saved myself, both personally and
> professionally, using google to research newsgroups, I respectfully
> disagree.
>
> IMHO, the trend towards entertainment value only on usenet, insofar
as
> it exists, is due to people who don't care to communicate in a way
that
> is easy and natural because it is too much work for them.
>
> Matthew
>
> --
> Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
> You can't win
> You can't break even
> You can't get out of the
game

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Badger wrote:
> And, since this is all a matter of opinion....do what you feel is
> necessary, and I will post as I see appropriate for any particular
> thread.
> Snipping in my opinion is wrong as it removes valid context. That way
> you can spin the reply as you see fit.
You can just as easily spin the reply by top-posting, because we must
continually cross-reference what you're saying with what the person to
whom you're replying said previously.

> Threads should always be left intact. IMO

Learn how to use periods, while you're at it. I've noticed a pattern in
the last half-dozen postings from you (or as you would say, "Learn how
to use periods. While you're at it.")

>
> Done with this thread. I did have fun with this.Thanks for your input.

>
> I do apologize that I was cross posting. I didn't realize that.

This only serves to reinforce your cluebieness. You're not even
bothering to take the half-second which is required to check who your
messages go to before you blindly mash "send". That sort of thing can
get one fired at your workplace, if one's not vigilant.

>
> Clay
>
> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:114db5gjsallnfe@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Badger wrote:
>>
>>>You do realize I don't care about how Usenet delivers articles
>
> don't
>
>>>you? You know that it makes more sense to post the way all other
>>>conventions are don't you?
>>
>>All?
>>
>>
>>>You validated my point.
>>
>>Hardly.
>>
>>
>>>They may have to
>>>scroll to see what I'm responding to, but don't they have to do
>
> this
>
>>>every time someone posts at the bottom?
>>
>>Not if the poster snips out that to which he is not responding.
>>
>>
>>>If you do it the right way,
>>
>>"Right way"?
>>
>>
>>>they only have to scroll if they want to. Your way they have to
>>>always.
>>
>>Then they have to guess because your comments are no where near what
>>they refer to.
>>
>>
>>>Do you think I put any REAL level of importance to anything on
>
> Usenet?
>
>>Exactly. If you did, you might try to communicate effectively.
>>
>>
>>>I prefer to do it the way I consider most convenient and the way I
>>>consider best for everyone who is following a thread.
>>
>>That's what I said. You think your convenience and time are more
>>important than your reader's.
>>
>>
>>>There are enough
>>>people on my side for me to continue as I do.
>>
>>Go ahead. You will find that many will just kill file you.
>>
>>
>>>AS to whether or not I get any recognition to my post, or not does
>
> not
>
>>>bother me one way or another. If you feel the need to ignore me go
>>>ahead. Usenet has no real value except for enjoyment, if you
>
> believe
>
>>>otherwise your fooling yourself.
>>>
>>
>>Considering the hours I have saved myself, both personally and
>>professionally, using google to research newsgroups, I respectfully
>>disagree.
>>
>>IMHO, the trend towards entertainment value only on usenet, insofar
>
> as
>
>>it exists, is due to people who don't care to communicate in a way
>
> that
>
>>is easy and natural because it is too much work for them.
>>
>>Matthew
>>
>>--
>>Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
>> You can't win
>> You can't break even
>> You can't get out of the
>
> game
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Alex Perez (aperez@gmailDAWT.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Extremely good. Nvidia and ATI have invested large amounts of money into
> hardware-level HDTV support in their video chipsets.

Neither ATI nor Nvidia have hardware MP@HL decoding support in their
chipsets. They do have some of the MPEG-2 basic functions in hardware
(iDCT, etc.), but you still have to move a *lot* of bits around quickly
and need a pretty fast CPU and low bus contention.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/ShatnerHair.gif

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in
news:MPG.1cb4efc626950b5d989c41@news.nabs.net:

> Alex Perez (aperez@gmailDAWT.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> Extremely good. Nvidia and ATI have invested large amounts of money
>> into
>> hardware-level HDTV support in their video chipsets.
>
> Neither ATI nor Nvidia have hardware MP@HL decoding support in their
> chipsets. They do have some of the MPEG-2 basic functions in hardware
> (iDCT, etc.), but you still have to move a *lot* of bits around
> quickly and need a pretty fast CPU and low bus contention.

I dunno...I used to get pretty good handling of SDTV composite signals
with a PIII-550. But you're right about not multitasking during viewing.
The machine I have now is 2.4ghz and the video card can produce 1080i on
demand at the component adapter I have plugged into its DVI interface (my
TV doesn't have one of those).

As far as I can see, it looks like any other 1080i when I play the odd
hi-res AVI file that I have.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Dave Oldridge (doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> But you're right about not multitasking during viewing.
> The machine I have now is 2.4ghz and the video card can produce 1080i on
> demand at the component adapter I have plugged into its DVI interface (my
> TV doesn't have one of those).

With true hardware decoding of HD, I use about 4% CPU on a P4 2.6GHz while
watching HD. Multitasking doesn't affect the viewing at all.

--
Jeff Rife | "Eternity with nerds. It's the Pasadena Star
| Trek convention all over again."
|
| -- Nichelle Nichols, "Futurama"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in
news:MPG.1cb5acd59f68732b989c4d@news.nabs.net:

> Dave Oldridge (doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca) wrote in
> alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> But you're right about not multitasking during
>> viewing.
>> The machine I have now is 2.4ghz and the video card can produce 1080i
>> on demand at the component adapter I have plugged into its DVI
>> interface (my TV doesn't have one of those).
>
> With true hardware decoding of HD, I use about 4% CPU on a P4 2.6GHz
> while watching HD. Multitasking doesn't affect the viewing at all.

I rather suspect it doesn't. But it would have, I think on my old machine.
It's not viewing that eats you up really so much as recording.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Dave Oldridge (doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > With true hardware decoding of HD, I use about 4% CPU on a P4 2.6GHz
> > while watching HD. Multitasking doesn't affect the viewing at all.
>
> I rather suspect it doesn't. But it would have, I think on my old machine.
> It's not viewing that eats you up really so much as recording.

Not at all.

Recording HD requires only that the transport stream pass from the HDTV
card through the PCI bus to the hard drive. At only 19Mbps (which is less
than 3 megabytes/second), even an ATA/33 hard drive has no problem
keeping up.

But, for software playback, the recording has to pass from the hard drive
over the PCI bus into memory, where some (or all, if the video card has
no hardware assist) of the decoding is done, then what is left passes over
the PCI or AGP bus to the video card for final decoding (if hardware
assist is available) and display.

This second step is the big one, because it is no longer the 19Mbps stream,
but rather either the fully decoded frame or a partially decoded frame.
Either way, it's a lot bigger, and there is the CPU time to do the
decoding, which wasn't required for recording.

With full hardware support for MPEG-2 decoding, playback is *exactly* like
recording, as the data just moves from the hard drive straight to the
hardware decoder and is decoded and displayed.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/CoWorker.gif

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in
news:MPG.1cb73a0024b918c989c5b@news.nabs.net:

> Dave Oldridge (doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca) wrote in
> alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> > With true hardware decoding of HD, I use about 4% CPU on a P4
>> > 2.6GHz while watching HD. Multitasking doesn't affect the viewing
>> > at all.
>>
>> I rather suspect it doesn't. But it would have, I think on my old
>> machine. It's not viewing that eats you up really so much as
>> recording.
>
> Not at all.
>
> Recording HD requires only that the transport stream pass from the
> HDTV card through the PCI bus to the hard drive. At only 19Mbps
> (which is less than 3 megabytes/second), even an ATA/33 hard drive has
> no problem keeping up.
>
> But, for software playback, the recording has to pass from the hard
> drive over the PCI bus into memory, where some (or all, if the video
> card has no hardware assist) of the decoding is done, then what is
> left passes over the PCI or AGP bus to the video card for final
> decoding (if hardware assist is available) and display.
>
> This second step is the big one, because it is no longer the 19Mbps
> stream, but rather either the fully decoded frame or a partially
> decoded frame. Either way, it's a lot bigger, and there is the CPU
> time to do the decoding, which wasn't required for recording.
>
> With full hardware support for MPEG-2 decoding, playback is *exactly*
> like recording, as the data just moves from the hard drive straight to
> the hardware decoder and is decoded and displayed.

Just this morning, I got exercised about waking up to my computer being
hung tight because a certain program I run has a memory leak. So I
killed my swap file. With 2gb of fast RAM, I don't really need one
anyway. What an improvement! The system is simply not writing
everything to disk. I think this may be the real slowdown when recording
video, not the recording itself....


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.