Search Amazon.com:
Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
  • Post
  • Reply
bull3964
Nov 18, 2000

DO YOU HEAR THAT? THAT'S THE SOUND OF ME PATTING MYSELF ON THE BACK.

Outside of a few niche projector people who spend tons of money on home theater, 1080p is probably going to be just about it for home viewing for most of our lifetimes aside from additions like 3d. It's not a matter of technological limitations, it's a matter of biological limitations. Most of use aren't even using a screen size/viewing distance ratio that takes full advantage of 1080p as it is. There's simply no point to going to a higher resolution.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

bull3964
Nov 18, 2000

DO YOU HEAR THAT? THAT'S THE SOUND OF ME PATTING MYSELF ON THE BACK.

TheScott2K posted:

As long as it's a separate unit from the cable box GoogleTV will absolutely fail. The mainstream audience has failed to embrace IR blasters basically since the invention of digital cable, and Google does not appear to have any brilliant plan for how to bring DVR recordings into their little boxworld.

It's not going to be long until Google TV just because another piece of software that's incorporated on CE devices like netflix integration. When most blu-ray players and TVs have Google TV built in (and I give it less than two years before that happens), most people will then have the ability to play any sort of content they would want without adding another box.

DVR is a thornier issue as all 3rd party DVRs are an abject failure at this point and it's not software that's to blame, it's the way they are incorporated (or rather, not) into the MSO networks. We need to move beyond cablecard to pump innovation into the DVR space and I think by the time that's adopted, we may be on a completely different programming model altogether.

bull3964
Nov 18, 2000

DO YOU HEAR THAT? THAT'S THE SOUND OF ME PATTING MYSELF ON THE BACK.

Everyone has probably already moved on by now but...

Tegra 2 is out, Intel Atom CE4100 is in

That will also make it cost about $30 more for a price of $229. They stated their gripe with Tegra 2 was that it couldn't do high profile h264.

bull3964
Nov 18, 2000

DO YOU HEAR THAT? THAT'S THE SOUND OF ME PATTING MYSELF ON THE BACK.

TheScott2K posted:

I'm gonna laugh my rear end off when this thing finally comes out and all the network sites plus Hulu block it too.

It seems pretty likely at this point.

I'm about ready to write off the whole "media streamer as appliance" setup for now because the only consistent way you are going to access online TV streaming will be through a PC running a regular OS. Everything else is going to be a cat and mouse game of blocking access until some sort of licensing agreement is in place.

Fortunately, nettops are powerful enough now to stream full screen flash and they are rather inexpensive while being nearly the same size as these appliance boxes. The only thing they lack is the UI polish.

bull3964
Nov 18, 2000

DO YOU HEAR THAT? THAT'S THE SOUND OF ME PATTING MYSELF ON THE BACK.

XboxPants posted:

Ah, good point, I hadn't thought of it from that perspective. I thought you seemed confident enough that there was something I wasn't thinking of. Now I understand what you were saying with the "you'll never be able to buy a box in a store that does this" sentiment (or whoever said that).

Here's just another example of the same thing.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/29/...legal-exposure/

Basically, Roku is spooked the networks will come after them if they allow the PlayOn channel even though their box wouldn't be accessing the content directly.

bull3964
Nov 18, 2000

DO YOU HEAR THAT? THAT'S THE SOUND OF ME PATTING MYSELF ON THE BACK.

The issue is simply that Roku has a smaller legal dept than any of the other places were it co-exists and don't want the potential expense of defending a lawsuit.

bull3964
Nov 18, 2000

DO YOU HEAR THAT? THAT'S THE SOUND OF ME PATTING MYSELF ON THE BACK.

alecm posted:

Why isn't there more hype?

They used up all their hype when they missed their launch window by 6 months.

bull3964
Nov 18, 2000

DO YOU HEAR THAT? THAT'S THE SOUND OF ME PATTING MYSELF ON THE BACK.

LittleCat posted:

Broswers identify themselves through certain things I know nothing about, a Hulu blocks them based on those things.

It's not even just the browser. Flash itself reports on the platform it is running on.

bull3964
Nov 18, 2000

DO YOU HEAR THAT? THAT'S THE SOUND OF ME PATTING MYSELF ON THE BACK.

As Citycop above mentioned, I wouldn't count on Hulu Plus support being a panacea for watching content on your TV from any device.

It seems they are special licensing provisions for shows being viewable on a TV with Hulu plus and not everything supports it.

Lets face it, the media companies (aside from Netflix) are very much against any of their streaming content being viewed on anything other than a computer or mobile phone. In the long run, the only way you are going to be able to sidestep their restrictions is by doing a full blown HTPC build.

bull3964 fucked around with this message at Dec 20, 2010 around 16:44

bull3964
Nov 18, 2000

DO YOU HEAR THAT? THAT'S THE SOUND OF ME PATTING MYSELF ON THE BACK.

Looks like the update was yanked due to "major issues."

http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/10/...no-netflix-and/

bull3964
Nov 18, 2000

DO YOU HEAR THAT? THAT'S THE SOUND OF ME PATTING MYSELF ON THE BACK.

jonathan posted:

Why on earth would they use a 1920x1040 resolution... Anyways, that clears it up. I just assumed they would be using one of the two letterboxes, or fullscreen.

1920x1040 is a common aspect ratio though. That's 1.85:1 which is one of the two most common movie aspect ratios (along with 2.39:1). It's close enough to 16:9 though that many times studios crop it down to 16:9 for the home video release. Also, if you have any overscan at all on your TV, the image will be zoomed enough to appear 16:9.

16:9 really is only used for TV, it's not that common in movies.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

bull3964
Nov 18, 2000

DO YOU HEAR THAT? THAT'S THE SOUND OF ME PATTING MYSELF ON THE BACK.

jonathan posted:

Yeah I'm aware of different resolutions, aspect ratios, overscan etc etc. Basically my confusion is, if they're going to toss a movie onto bluray at 1920x1040, why not just crop a few pixels and turn it into a 16:9 release. It was more of a rhetorical question.

They do, frequently. Or, rather, many times they open up the 35mm print a bit more on the top and bottom to make a 16:9 frame. Warner is notorious for this.

Personally, I'm fine with leaving the movies alone. They don't need to fill the whole screen.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply