Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 10:29:38 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> To: "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org>, "Konstantinos Konstantinidis" <kkonstan@duth.gr>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>, "Brad Knowles" <brad.knowles@skynet.be> Subject: Re: A breath of fresh air.. Message-ID: <023f01c17fca$dcd59230$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <0112071641320B.01380@stinky.akitanet.co.uk><000b01c17f42$c23ab140$0a0 0000a@atkielski.com><3C110351.4748B559@duth.gr><005001c17f6c$e60c0ef0$ 0a00000a@atkielski.com> <15377.17350.796336.801464@guru.mired.org> <006901c17f70$19a2f820$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <a05101004b8373f5230e8@[10.0.1.16]> <00d901c17fa0$9d81f800$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <a0510100bb8375314d283@[10.0.1.16]> <013e01c17fad$059cb3b0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <a05101018b837656c1f03@[10.0.1.16]> <01b801c17fb8$70c36c50$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <a05101026b83779f8efda@[10.0.1.16]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brad writes: > They were arbitrary choices. Any arbitrary > choice is going to be a compromise. No. "Arbitrary" means "determined through individual choice or discretion" and thus has nothing to do with compromise. A choice made as a compromise, without any such subjective influence, is not arbitrary. Arbitration excludes objective bases for a decision, by definition. > If you don't know the details of the arbitrary > choices that were made and why, then you > should just admit your ignorance. If they are arbitrary, there were no details. If there were details, and you know them, perhaps you could summarize them here, as I asked. > When there's only one type of hammer available, > it doesn't take a lot of work to sell it to > the people who need to nail two boards > together. There were already several media available, including VHS tapes and high-quality laser discs. But DVDs overtook them both anyway. > Both CDs and DVDs offered features that were > inherent in the new physical form, and not > available with the earlier forms of media. So? That hardly argues for marketing as the agent of their success. > Nope. Although they may have the resolution > necessary, even the best prosumer cameras are > still 4:2:2, whereas broadcast standards require > 4:4:4. It's not that most people can actually > see the difference, but it's there. It's not there at all, outside the studio. The image received by the consumer, even with the best TV he can buy, is vastly inferior to what he can produce with his video camera. As for "broadcast" standards _within_ the studio, all that ever really means is "the most expensive equipment available." U-Matic (aka BVU, IIRC, which proves my point) met this criterion at one time. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?023f01c17fca$dcd59230$0a00000a>