Dan's Data letters #93
Publication date: 28 February 2004.Last modified 03-Dec-2011.
Plug and (no) go
I'm thinking about buying an HDTV monitor. I'd like it to have a DVI-D connection so I can connect my homebuilt PVR (built around an ATI Radeon 8500DV with DVI-I output) directly into it.
From what I've read, a DVI-D connection is compatible with a DVI-I connection; the difference is that a DVD-I connection has both digital and analog capabilities, while the DVD-D only has digital. However, it appears that manufacturers of HDTV monitors do not want us plugging computers into their monitors. I.e., doing so voids the warranty.
My question is why the manufacturers have this fear. Will plugging a computer into a HDTV monitor via DVI kill the monitor? Or are the manufacturers playing it too safe?
If it can be done, what resolution should I use? I'm assuming that with a widescreen HDTV monitor I should be able to set my computer's resolution to 1280x768 @ 60Hz and be all set.
I should point out that I live in the US. Also, I realize that ATI sells a component video output adapter, but I'd rather do a direct connection to get the best quality possible.
Steve
Answer:
Yes, DVI-D is perfectly electrically compatible with DVI-I. The DVI interface
on HDTV sets, however, is inventively known as "DVI-HDTV". It's regular
DVI, except it only supports a few
scan rates. This is fair enough; the HDTV manufacturers don't want to
spend extra money making "multi-scan" HDTV sets that can sync to all sorts
of signals, when all 99% of them are ever going to be asked to display is
480p, 720p or 1080i. Your 1280 by 768 60Hz signal would not be displayable;
it's close to 60Hz 720p, but you need exactly 1280 by 720 @ 60Hz
to meet the spec.
When I first put this page up, I didn't know what to do to tweak a regular non-Media Center Windows box into outputting proper HDTV resolutions, but readers came to my rescue, as usual. If you've got an Nvidia card, the current drivers may let you do it natively. And if not, there are utilities like PowerStrip.
If your HDTV is a CRT model (not an LCD or plasma screen), then it's theoretically possible to damage it by feeding it a signal it's not expecting. The same thing can happen with old fixed-sync computer monitors, though in the real world it wasn't often seen. When a monitor can't sync to a signal and isn't smart enough to go black and display an "out of range" error, its display will just be hopelessly scrambled. 'Orrible problems involving flyback transformer overheating and such are unlikely to happen unless you keep feeding the monitor the out of range signal for some time.
I don't know how many, if any, CRT HDTVs can be damaged by out-of-range input; frankly, I'd be surprised if it's actually possible, especially with only a brief exposure to the out-of-range signal. If the screen goes black when fed a bad signal, the chance of damage closely approaches zero (if it goes "pop", then black, all bets are off).
Non-CRT HDTV monitors should be completely immune to damage, though not necessarily any better at displaying non-standard resolutions.
Clip show
Will you be putting 352x288 and 640x480(very important) videos from the Mustek DV3000 camera online, like you did for the photos?
Joćo
Answer:
Absolutely not, because the DV3000 cannot shoot video in either of those
resolutions :-).
I didn't bother posting video from the OEM DV3000 I reviewed, because I could see no difference between its output and that from the similar, earlier cameras I've reviewed here and here.
They all do 10 frame per second, 320 by 240 Motion JPEG compressed video, and it looks exactly the same, minor lens flare oddities aside. The tank video from the Pocket DV2 review is entirely representative, and the most fun of the lot; I omit a link to it here so that only those who're truly dedicated will bother to punish my server by downloading the 1Mb (DivX recompressed) file.
You were probably thinking of the DV4000, which I haven't reviewed. That camera can do 640 by 480 video, though only at ten frames per second; it can do 30fps at 352 by 288 and 320 by 240, and its MPEG4 compression probably looks rather better than motion JPEG. If it uses interframe compression, though, you won't be able to edit the video it produces without losing some quality.
Screen stats
I know you aren't likely to start some silly name calling battle with other websites, but it seems like the folks over at Tom's have been publishing an increasing number of "guides" that by my best estimation are a load of nothing.
Their latest guide seems to be no exception. If I am reading it correctly the author is stating that contrast ratios are a worthless measure for LCD quality based on his assertion/assumption that the main factor in the equation is the brightness of the screen.
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought one of the main reasons that LCD quality sucks gopher toes compared to CRTs is they can't produce a very "black" black, not their ability to produce bright, brilliant whites.
Am I way off base here, or is the publishers use of "marketing graphics" just confusing me more than I should be?
AJ
Answer:
It's true that the black-level issue is indeed important, but it's not really
what Tom's is talking about in that
guide.
I think the guide is pretty good at giving a rundown of the LCD specs that
people often don't think about - although response time (which I
go into in more detail in my old SyncMaster 172T review
here) is now commonly known to be important, especially
to gamers. Contrast ratios certainly can be skewed by unrealistically high
brightness, and indeed aren't a very important specification unless, as
Tom's suggests, the ratio's measured with brightness set so that white is
a particular, modest, sensible value, not some retina-scalding tanning-bed
setting.
Something I think could be added to the Tom's guide, though, is that as in so many things, this isn't an "all things being equal" situation. To take the example from the guide, pumping up the power of an LCD's backlight so that its full-white brightness is now 400.5 Lux instead of 200.5 will also pump up the brightness of the darkest black it can display. In fact, if you only change the backlight brightness, the contrast ratio may not change at all. The reason why the darkest black for an LCD will never be zero Lux (as it will be for a decent, properly set up CRT) is because LCDs can't block all of the light coming through from the backlight. The brighter the backlight is, the more light will leak through.
A better panel that can block light more effectively could indeed score better peak brightness without having brighter black as well; that's what's been happening gradually over the years as LCD panels have transitioned from overpriced techno-toys to mainstream products. But the Tom's piece doesn't make this clear.
If you want to use a screen in a brightly lit area, or if you're doing demanding colour calibrated graphics work (which you probably won't be doing with an LCD anyway, though many quality LCDs are now definitely good enough for this sort of thing, for all but the pickiest users), then high brightness is useful.
For most computing, super brightness is indeed just an express ticket to severe eyestrain.
Report from the Canadian copyright coalface
In no way can or should Canada's media levies, as mentioned in your file sharing piece, be construed as a positive example of alternatives to suing children and universal oppressive DRM, and I don't care what The Register says.
It is not legal in Canada to "give your original CD to a friend, and let them make the copy, and then give your CD back" and neither is it legal to download from P2P, unless you're the one who uploaded it. The Copyright Board said in the recent decision on which this widespread misunderstanding has been based that whether or not source copies are legally obtained is irrelevant for the purpose of determining levy rates - which is no change from previous decisions - and that P2P distribution is outside the bounds of those very narrowly defined proceedings. Nothing has been de facto or otherwise legalized, at least not in the view of the Board. How do I know this, aside from that's what is said on pages 19-20 of the decision? I participated in those narrowly defined proceedings.
The arguments about the legality of downloading or lending a CD to a friend to make a copy are based on the Copyright Act not saying things and hairsplitting over copying procedures, loopholes that would at this time anyhow simply be closed if challenged.
Canada's Private Copying levies are a payment for making copies of music you own for your own private use, as in making a mix tape for your car or backups. They are not some general compensation for "piracy", they are payment for what Americans would call "fair use." We have no such concept, and bringing it up in front of the Board will get you informed that isn't the USA and don't you forget it, Mister. Prior to the introduction of this levy scheme, copying for any purpose was technically illegal. The levies were a compromise - between whom, I have no idea.
Later this year, and every two years for theoretically ever, I'm going to have to spend weeks going through hearings, opposed by people for whom the proceedings are a full-time job, to fight to pay something resembling market prices for digital storage, to minimize the subsidy I have to give one industry with political influence far out of proportion to its contribution to GDP or "culture." If I want to avoid the levies on CD-Rs for the little products I sell, they want me to pay to register with the CPCC, and buy from only "approved" sources, and give this private organization the right to audit me (the Board has ruled this attempt to seize control of the distribution of media illegal, we'll see how it plays out.) How that is infinitely preferable to DRM, how it does anything to break the power of the copyright cartel, I don't quite get.
There's no reason to think that we can appease the oligarchs with some sort of a tax. We have had these media levies for years but that's done nothing to prevent attempts at DRM, mass lawsuits, and demanding royalties from providers of Internet access, hosting, backbone, and caching. Schemes like media levies are seen as interim measures until DRM catches on, a means of dealing with the unprotected content that is already out there, and a way to hedge DRM bets. It would be a huge strategic blunder to advocate such schemes at this time. That will get us the worst of all worlds.
Jim
Answer:
I never thought copying-levy schemes were actually a particularly good idea,
nor did I think the big media companies would like them at all. They just
seem to be the best of a bad lot at the moment; a copying levy feeding a
government department that doles out (no doubt meagre) payouts to "unsigned"
producers of recorded music probably wouldn't work very well at all, but
at least the artists might end up keeping their copyrights and getting
some remuneration, a state of affairs which many current bands would
consider an enormous step forward.
Regarding your no doubt accurate reportage of what the Copyright Board of Canada's told you, all I can say is that the actual Copyright Act, as amended in 1998, would appear to clearly say that it is legal. Under "Copying for Private Use", it says "the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of [...a musical work...] onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording."
That seems pretty straightforward to me. It's the stuff that was, famously, added in '98.
Since there's nothing illegal about giving a CD you own to a friend, and this section clearly states that there's nothing illegal about you, or him, copying it for personal use, then I can only presume that if the Copyright Board's interpretation of the Act they're supposed to be governed by is as you say it is, then it's open to challenge.
The part of the Act right after this, where "distributing" and "communicating to the public" are listed as cases where the private-copying rule doesn't apply, would indeed appear to definitely rule out sharing files over P2P, but say nothing clear about downloading. Which is pretty much what everyone says is the case.
Even if the abstrusities of legal interpretation do qualify the copying exemption as a "loophole", I don't think it necessarily follows that it'll be closed, if it makes it to court. Courts, unlike politicians, often aren't particularly easy for big corporations to influence (the US Supreme Court notwithstanding...), and in any case closing of a loophole then does not make illegal what people are doing now.
I have no trouble whatsoever believing that the letter of the law and the law-as-it-is-practised differ markedly, as they often do. And I Am Not A Lawyer and so may have got completely the wrong end of the stick. The Act does seem pretty clear to me, though.
Inches in a can
My friend found this little gem as a banner ad on a site he frequents.
It claims to be "...the safest height-enhancing supplement on the market." And even goes so far as to claim that short people
A) Earn less money
B) Are less successful and
C) Have no funWhat do you think of their "MOST EFFECTIVE HEIGHT ENHANCING SUPPLEMENT"?
Could there be any truth in it?
I don't think so.
Peter
Answer:
I think that this "supplement" is a complete and utter fraud, and that the
people selling it are a bunch of thieves. Since their "formula" doesn't
claim to do anything of an embarrassing sexual nature, they seem slightly
more likely to be challenged about it by
dissatisfied
customers, though I doubt they'll actually get nailed. The supplement
industry in general is a hive of scum and villainy, thanks to the lack of
adequate legal regulation of it in large markets like the
USA.
(UPDATE: A couple of years after this page went up, the FTC actually did get around to smacking HeightMax down, and heightmax.com is now no more. Unfortunately, they have yet to stop growthflexv.com, growthenhancer.com, increaseheight.com...)
Height-enhancement techniques have achieved some popularity in some Asian countries, for people whose lousy self-image can't be cured by mere nose jobs and erased epicanthic folds. (This includes height-enhancements that actually work, from simple elevator shoes to extension via surgical implantation of external threaded racks in the femurs, breaking of the bone and gradual extension of the racks while the bone tries to heal. This is about as painful and debilitating as it sounds, but it can work well for genuinely congenitally very short people who only expect an extra few inches, at most.)
Since reputable doctors generally won't touch people who want growth hormones or major surgery for what amount to purely psychological reasons, though, these people end up with the quacks.
At least a "height enhancing supplement" probably won't leave anyone in a wheelchair or coffin - it's likely (though not certain) to be harmless.
And now - Filth!
Anybody surprised? I just noticed that someone has already pointed out the existence of Sexy Beach 2, with regards to the availability of V-Porn.
Just thought I'd add that here in Japan there is a rather immense range of anime porn (infamously known in the other countries for the "tentacle porn" genre), and in recent years there has been a fair number of 3D CGI releases, both interactive games and movies.
So yes, 3D V-porn is alive and gradually making its way into the market, at least here in Japan. I could point you to some websites which would be in Japanese, but not right now.
Not that I would know anything about this stuff first hand, of course {cough}.
Graham
Answer:Inside information
You basically guessed it in your article, but the reason why there aren't any real porno-FPS games is production costs.
It's simply much cheaper to hire some talent and knock out a film in a day (or three if it's "high budget").
Technically, it's possible but very hard. You touched on the clipping issues. It's not just that. Most current games use a simple skeleton structure to move around and a bloated skeleton made out of cylinders for collision. For our uber pr0n, we'd need to do actual muscle simulation, and more importantly, you would have to have an accurate model transmission of force through the body. Gotta get that rippling skin ya know.
Nope. I've never thought of this before. Never. Not even once.
So I think pr0n will be the last place good 3D will show up, simply due to production cost. Note that illegal activities and things you aren't actually allowed to do might show up first, but you'd still need someone willing to sell it, and there are questionable laws in the US about videos depicting "pretend" illegal activity.
Someone Who Works For A Big Graphics Hardware Company And Sure As Hell Doesn't Want Even His Or Her First Name Published At The End Of A Letter Like This
This isn't really an answer, as such, but on the subject of virtual-illegal-sexual-activities, allow me to strongly recommend Richard Morgan's "Altered Carbon".
