next »

[perkiset]

NO WAY in hell would I be able to afford paying for online service to store my stuff.

First it would take FOREVER.
Second, unlimited does not actually mean unlimited.
Third, I rebuild my machine more times than a hooker goes down in a car. Each time, i just go grab the backup, bring it home, plug in, and reback it.

Crashplan has an online option you can buy from them, but no need.
Plus you could get the "business" version, which has a central management system as well, though no real need.

I'm on it now... I like it. The analogy works for me as well. BTW: What do you call a hooker with a running nose? Full. But I digress.

I'm going to look at doing that exact solution, thanks man - that'd put me in much better position.

[isthisthingon]

There are people that still purchase a DVD and rip it, simply to support both the artists

Absolutely support the artist.  It is a shame, however, that what we primarily support is the few gigantic power structures that literally own these instruments of their unbelievably high concentrations of wealth.  My NetFlix dollars trickle the odd hay penny all the way down to an artist, at least every leap year I'm certain.  But although I'm completely in spirit agreement with you, and especially as it pertains to positive lessons with children, I think the inexcusably vast levels of inequity in our current commerce structure will have to endure massive and unstoppable boycotts before lasting fundamental change will take hold.

Actually iTunes has done a great job on this front in an unexpected way, though it would have been entirely impossible without the Napsters and Pirate Bays of the world: they finally got the mafia music industry leaders to come to the discount table.  So in a way, by refusing to pay full price for things that the artists hardly get fairly compensated for anyway, it's actually causing a slow but very important change IMO.

Just my tired old rant in a different subject area

[perkiset]

Not old and tired at all, quite appropriate IMO. There is often a huge inequity between the artists and the studios (as an example) but the changes that really start to work for them really began with the "corporate rock bands" of the 80s - think Foreigner, The Doobies, Chicago, EWF - they really main streamed the idea that the artist could change the way agreements were made with the studios.

And I'd argue that the single largest current component is the ability for n00bs to produce and publish from their home without the financial aid of a studio AT ALL. The thought that it'll take a couple hundred thou to produce an "album" and then promote it and stand up a concert tour is, to a large extent, over. And even where it still exists, very very few artists lean on the studios to do so - they self-underwrite or participate in the wager. The studios are losing ground every day.

But it's not quite the same yet in the movie industry, where it still costs a metric fuckton of money to produce a blockbuster. I'm not sure yet at all how that's going to change, because even with the Indie movement, you still don't see the kind of quality and draw that the big-dollar studios and efforts have. This topic confounds me.

And @ iTunes helping: I think it is also because iTunes has become a viable method for the studios to see how appropriate remuneration is possible, and artists can see how they make money more easily as well. You and I can now purchase music from unknowns via a viral marketing approach and they do well completely outside of the studio stranglehold. Clearly, Napster and the 'bay got the attention of the studios in a BIG way ... and I think you're right, it probably wouldn't have happened without them. I also think iTunes has been good for artists because it's completely destroyed the idea of producing a single song as the "hit" and then an entire album full of crap after that. Since it is estimated that Apple makes approx. 30% on sales of music, if an independent produces an album and they sell it for him I think it's a reasonable rate. If the studio gets that and the artist gets a portion of that, well, it gets worse from there.

I think we're in a surprisingly similar position on this one

[isthisthingon]

There is often a huge inequity between the artists and the studio

I'm actually referring to the big 4 and their minions (Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group).  If when you say "studio" you're referring to the ultimate controllers of the money then I'm with ya.  Furthering the global problem with capitalizing on the creativity of others, these "music groups" are primarily owned and controlled by international conglomerate holding companies.  The big 4 own and control 70% of the world's music market (as of 2005) and command 80% in the US.  Although they usually get paid, artists are not the ones who own and control the vast majority of the remaining percent; other smaller music groups, record labels, and other corporate structures do.

Here's a stinger from Wiki:

"A label typically enters into an exclusive recording contract with an artist to market the artist's recordings in return for royalties on the selling price of the recordings. Contracts may extend over short or long durations, and may or may not refer to specific recordings. Established, successful artists tend to be able to renegotiate their contracts to get terms more favorable to them, but Prince's much-publicized 1994–1996 feud with Warner Bros. provides a strong counterexample, as does Roger McGuinn's claim, made in July 2000 before a U.S. Senate committee, that The Byrds never received any of the royalties they had been promised for their biggest hits, "Mr. Tambourine Man" and "Turn, Turn, Turn".[3]"

I believe the future is already known.  The only question is how long can these unnatural control structures maintain their grip.  It's similar to big oil.  If we all had sustainable, renewable power they wouldn't be needed.  Similarly, when the majority of good talent can be found in places like this: http://quidmusic.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php as opposed to Wall Mart, they'll finally receive what we believe they're worth  

[kurdt]

I'm not against purchasing stuff but I'm against of paying for crappy shit and then not be able to return it. Like I ranted in the other thread about shitty games. Now with media it is like "pay or don't watch/listen" but if it sucks, well better luck choosing next time.

I bet kids are ready to pay but only for one reason, convenience with iPods and what not. I don't believe a second that if they could get it for free, they wouldn't get it free. It just doesn't make any sense. iTunes LP is move to right direction but it still needs something more. In my opinion the whole industry is starting to need something more than just the main product. It just doesn't hold enough value anymore. I'm talking mainly about music but same with home consumption of movies. Movies still have one ace in their sleeve and that's movie theatres and social aspect of it. Very few people can afford same kinda equipment that movie theatre has or even know how to set it up and it's just nice to go and see a movie with your friends. So good movies are always going to get their money from theatre tour. Just look what happened with District 9.

True.  1080i upconversion isn't disgustingly terrible but why have a 1080p+ TV with 480 DVD.  BTW, did you mean 480 DVD or 576 DVD PAL?  Never heard of 720 DVD anything

For some reason people are still reporting resolution with horizontal lines. So 720x576 is PAL DVD and 720x480 is NTSC. Same way that 1080 is 1920x1080 and 720 is 1280x720. Well with 1080i there isn't any upconversion or at least there isn't any reason that there should be. You just do some deinterlacing & framerate trickery and you get 1080p from 1080i. If you want to know more about that, just check http://www.hometheatermag.com/gearworks/1106gear/. Actually one of the benefits with top of the line TVs like Kuro are their processing power with inferior material. HD is easy for HDTVs but when you display inferior material like DVD or digital SD TV broadcast, that's where you actually see the difference between TVs. Here in Finland we are so out of the loop that we have no HD channels except from paid cable/satellite. Oh wait, we do have one free HD channel that's actually only their SD broadcast resized to HD so they can advertise they have HD, it looks fantastic Then the masses buy HDTV, look that channel and say "honey, can you see much of a difference? I think this looks quite the same than normal channels. Damn sales people ripped us off again!".

[isthisthingon]

For some reason people are still reporting resolution with horizontal lines. So 720x576 is PAL DVD and 720x480 is NTSC.

   Thanks for the info.  Makes sense now.

Well with 1080i there isn't any upconversion or at least there isn't any reason that there should be. You just do some deinterlacing & framerate trickery and you get 1080p from 1080i.

Yeah I've read that current upconversion technology only supports up to 1080i.  Also our current HD broadcasts are not all the way up to 1080p, at least last time I checked.  Partially because of this I settled for a 720 LCD and saved cash.  Also I've been a rather humble apartment dweller for the past three years for various reasons.  Sitting pretty close to a new LG 42" LCD is totally tolerable for me but someday I'll upgrade back to a fine HD/Bluray 7.1 surround living room utopia  

After all, my self powered 1000W cleaner than hell bass box needs a system like that to justify its existence.

[nutballs]

i gotta tell you.
I have run 1080p capable games on my 360 both at 1080i and 1080p. Yes my TV does TRUE 1080p.
Frankly, i see little to no difference. For motion there is obviously less tearing, but, frankly its a very minimal effect.

[kurdt]

Sitting pretty close to a new LG 42" LCD is totally tolerable for me but someday I'll upgrade back to a fine HD/Bluray 7.1 surround living room utopia  

Yeah, with small TVs like 42" 720p is totally cool because it's very likely that you can't see the difference between 720p and 1080p with that size. Unless you sit right next to it. I previously had 50" 720p and the difference to 50" 1080p was really big. So I would say that if going with 42" or less, 720p is just fine. Bigger than that, then you are actually missing something.

i gotta tell you.
I have run 1080p capable games on my 360 both at 1080i and 1080p. Yes my TV does TRUE 1080p.
Frankly, i see little to no difference. For motion there is obviously less tearing, but, frankly its a very minimal effect.

Yeah well that's because last time I checked, 360 games were 720p max? If you use 1080p mode, it just upconverts the image from 720p to 1080p so there's no new detail. 360 isn't probably powerful enough to produce steady 60fps with 1920x1080 resolution. And lately it's been kinda this quiet truth that PS3 isn't either even it was suppose to be capable.

[nutballs]

I have only 2 games that are 1080p, oblivion being one of them.
If they are not "actually" 1080p some nerd would have sued by now for miss-representation i would think?

It will "chip up" the lower res games when you have your settings at 1080p, but there are actually a few at native 1080p.
I think where some of the confusion comes from on both the PS3 and Xbox360 are that most TVs didnt do 1080p via external input. Mine does, but very few at the time didn't. Plus most HDMI sockets will not do 1080p, so the new XBs with HDMI built in wont actually do 1080p out. You need to use the DVI cable, which works on any 360.

Of course that could all be wrong, but thats my research.

[kurdt]

I have only 2 games that are 1080p, oblivion being one of them.
If they are not "actually" 1080p some nerd would have sued by now for miss-representation i would think?

It will "chip up" the lower res games when you have your settings at 1080p, but there are actually a few at native 1080p.
I think where some of the confusion comes from on both the PS3 and Xbox360 are that most TVs didnt do 1080p via external input. Mine does, but very few at the time didn't. Plus most HDMI sockets will not do 1080p, so the new XBs with HDMI built in wont actually do 1080p out. You need to use the DVI cable, which works on any 360.

Of course that could all be wrong, but thats my research.

Ah you are actually right. I googled around a little and found that it seems they enabled developers to do 1080p also but originally it was suppose to be max 720p. I actually remember this outcry when Project Gotham Racing 3 came out and it wasn't even 720p but actually 1024x600. But I don't wonder if you don't see any extra detail with 1080p mode because 360 isn't just powerful enough to take advantage of 1080p. I found a site that lists all real 1080p games for Xbox 360: http://www.makeyougohmm.com/xbox360-1080p-games/

[nutballs]

AH YES! thats right. I remember now.

When I bought my 360, i was and early adopter.
When I got it, and for a few months, there was no 1080i or p period. Then, there was an update that enabled 1080, but you HAD to use a DVI cable, since it would not output over component.

That whole escapade caused a shitload of confusion. But i THINK i know the reason.
MS hid the 1080 ability, in an effort to get sony to push out the PS3, eventhough it didnt have 1080 output. i dunno, maybe over thinking.

[isthisthingon]

I renounce everything I said about Frys, except for the hate end of the love-hate relationship.  First time I've EVER returned a nice Logitech keyboarg (G11).  The C key always repeats instantly.  Anyway, if you can't even get reliable peripherals and major components seem to have more returns than not, why even go?

Nice tech books