Intel graphics driver not so open source after all

[jack]

: On a sunny day (Mon, 21 Aug 2006 10:19:38 -0500) it happened
: <[email protected]>:
:
:: Jan Panteltje wrote:
::
:::: Why don't they move the 4:3 image around on the 16:9 screen
:::: so at least it isn't a sharp transition? Hmm, maybe that
:::: would be admitting that burn-in is a problem.
:::
::: That is actually a _very_ good idea,
::
:: Well, there are simpler solutions. On my Toshiba 16:9 CRT
:: rear-projector, they put grey bars on the sides instead of
:: black.
:
: But what if you do not like grey bars, but only want mars bars?

Been visting the hashish bars today, Jan? Har har har!!

j.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

: On a sunny day (Mon, 21 Aug 2006 10:19:38 -0500) it happened
: <[email protected]>:
:
:: Jan Panteltje wrote:
::
:::: Why don't they move the 4:3 image around on the 16:9 screen
:::: so at least it isn't a sharp transition? Hmm, maybe that
:::: would be admitting that burn-in is a problem.
:::
::: That is actually a _very_ good idea,
::
:: Well, there are simpler solutions. On my Toshiba 16:9 CRT
:: rear-projector, they put grey bars on the sides instead of
:: black.
:
: But what if you do not like grey bars, but only want mars bars?

Been visting the hashish bars today, Jan? Har har har!!

j.

I do not use drugs, I use Linux.

 

[George Macdonald]

I do not use drugs, I use Linux.

I thought you just had to breath the air in NL to get high.

 

[krw]

I thought you just had to breath the air in NL to get high.

Apparently Linux is enough.

 

[nobody]

Apparently Linux is enough.

Should Linux be added to the list of controlled substances? Hey Bill,
take a note!

NNN

 

[Jan Panteltje]

Should Linux be added to the list of controlled substances? Hey Bill,
take a note!

Oh, now I have to jump in with feedback, I am high because of meditation.
And I use Linux.

No need to control anything, even if you could.

 

[chrisv]

(e-mail address removed) says...

"golden eyes" ~= "audiophools", yes.

But you don't need to be a "golden eye" to see that HDTV has clearly
superior picture quality. Quite different from, for example,
MonsterCable, where only a "phool" would claim superior sound quality.

Yawn. For other than movies, who cares?

Sporting events are greatly enhanced, and, really, everything is
"improved" by the superior picture quality (and, by extension, larger
size).

Of course, there's always going to be a large segment of the
population who thinks "who cares" or "it's good enough for me" about
stuff like this. That doesn't make fools of those who do care and are
willing to pay for improved performance.

(snip)

If your signal is down in the mud, no amplifier is going to get it
back.

Can't argue with that, but the other guy's claim that " HDTV
off-the-air doesn't work, even in urban areas" is just wrong.

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

But you don't need to be a "golden eye" to see that HDTV
has clearly superior picture quality. Quite different from,
for example, MonsterCable, where only a "phool" would claim
superior sound quality.

Both strictly true. A bigger question is how much subjective
difference it makes. Do you enjoy the content twice as much?
At some point this becomes like the difference between 60 and 90
fps on a video card.

Or look at it another way: are portable DVD players unusable
because most of them downshift to ~300 lines? The specs
are horrible. But is the total experience? Personally,
for a decent movie, I get immersed and don't notice.

Sporting events are greatly enhanced,

Yes, they are, but only because HDTV brute-forces the dual-focus
content problem: Spectators to all field sporting events (soccer,
football, baseball, basketball, hockey, etc) are interested both
in the overall (wide angle) disposition of the players, and the
actions of the focus players (closeup).

Other solutions are picture-in-picture and timely camera cuts
by the director (traditional craft making a big difference).

and, really, everything is "improved" by the superior
picture quality (and, by extension, larger size).

Yes, it is at least somewhat. But I believe content that
is noticibly different is not compelling enough to be worth
the enhancement!

Of course, there's always going to be a large segment of the
population who thinks "who cares" or "it's good enough for
me" about stuff like this. That doesn't make fools of those
who do care and are willing to pay for improved performance.

Of course you are not fools of the same degree as audiophools.
But what makes them fools is not their odd equipment but their
insistance [or condescention] for those who are perfectly
happy with simpler equipment.

Can't argue with that, but the other guy's claim that " HDTV
off-the-air doesn't work, even in urban areas" is just wrong.

That was me and I appreciate the correction. My information
was indicated second-hand. Is your antenna indoors or out?
What RatShack part number?

-- Robert

 

[chrisv]

Both strictly true. A bigger question is how much subjective
difference it makes. Do you enjoy the content twice as much?

Sorry, but that's not a good question. Not only is it pretty much
impossible to quantify levels of enjoyment like that, but there would
be no reason to expect any kind of linear relationship between dollars
spent and performance/enjoyment.

If it's important to someone to have a certain level of performance,
it can be a quite-reasonable decision to spend 10x the money to get
only a small increase in performance.

At some point this becomes like the difference between 60 and 90
fps on a video card.

I don't know if that analogy really adds anything to the discussion.

Or look at it another way: are portable DVD players unusable
because most of them downshift to ~300 lines? The specs
are horrible. But is the total experience? Personally,
for a decent movie, I get immersed and don't notice.

Portable DVD players small screens. You only need so many pixels per
angle of vision to make an image appear "sharp". HDTV exists so that
we can make our screens bigger without them getting all fuzzy. Or,
more precisely, the screen can fill a larger angle of our vision
without getting all fuzzy.

(snip)

Of course, there's always going to be a large segment of the
population who thinks "who cares" or "it's good enough for
me" about stuff like this. That doesn't make fools of those
who do care and are willing to pay for improved performance.

Of course you are not fools of the same degree as audiophools.
But what makes them fools is not their odd equipment but their
insistance [or condescention] for those who are perfectly
happy with simpler equipment.

I agree that the behavior you describe here is "not nice", but I don't
think "golden eye" is a good descriptor of someone who behaves like
that.

That was me and I appreciate the correction. My information
was indicated second-hand. Is your antenna indoors or out?
What RatShack part number?

It's a good-sized outdoor, but not properly mounted (read: it's
thrown-up in the rafters of my garage). I'm in a valley (definatly
NOT line-of sight), and on the opposite side of a large metro area
from the towers, so I can excuse the need for a larger antenna...