HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sss@castle.ed.ac.uk (S S Sturrock)
Newsgroups: rec.video,alt.3d
Subject: Re: 3D proposal for the under-construction HDTV standard
Date: 29 Sep 92 08:53:37 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Sep29.035159.20028@wam.umd.edu> dododge@wam.umd.edu (David O. Dodge) writes:
>In article <92Sep28.155738edt.47958@neat.cs.toronto.edu> tlai@cs.toronto.edu (Tony Wen Hsun Lai) writes:
>>In article <26303@castle.ed.ac.uk> sss@castle.ed.ac.uk (S S Sturrock) writes:

>>>could object to a TV that invents detail but may just get branded as a
>>>digiphobe because of it :-)
>>
>>What about artifacts?  What is the quality of conversions from 60 Hz to
>>50 Hz and vice versa?  Does the system assume linear motion, or can it
>>handle rotational motion and zooming?

It is not aimed at reducing the number of frames, it is for increasing the
number, there is work being done by a company I forget the name of which is
aimed at producing a box of tricks to bring 24/25 fps up to 30 fps via this
technique.  Going from say 25 frames to 50 frames is not difficult because
it only needs to make 1 extra frame per true frame.  The system works real
time and was used during this years transmission of Wimbledon for the slow
motion shots where it was expected to take 10 frames up to 25.  The effect
is very good and looks just like true slow motion rather than the old style
jumpy effect.  Comparison of two real frames with an interpolated one show
that resolution is identical and there are none of the bluring artifacts
you might expect.  The system really does work, if I remember correctly it
does this by tracking up to 700 objects per scan line analysing their
motion and creating all the necessary moves to go from one position to the
next.
>
>If it's anything like what was used for the PAL->NTSC conversion of
>the Summer Olypics, then it's got PLENTY of artifacts.

I suspect someone messed up there, nothing to do with the above
interpolation, just poor digital standards conversion.
>
>There was a raging discussion here during the games about just this
>issue.

I know.  Looked fine this side of the pond (obviously).


-- 
Shane Sturrock, Biocomputing Research Unit, Darwin Building, Mayfield Road,
University of Edinburgh, Scotland, Commonwealth of Independant Kingdoms.  :-)

Civilisation is a Haggis Supper with salt and sauce and a bottle of Irn Bru.
Newsgroups: rec.video
From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Joining Columbia House Laser Club
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 21:26:31 GMT
Keywords: Laser Disk, CHC

In article <28455@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> you@ems.cdc.com writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.162122.15174@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>, kho@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (kelvin.ho) writes:

>|> I am considering joining the CHC Laser Club. The current "application
>|> form/offer" is that I get 3 LDs ($1/each) initially, and I have to buy
>|> 2 more in a year.
>|> I remember awhile back they have better offer (like 4 LDs initially).
>|> Does anyone have the "application form" for better offer?
>|> If you do, can I have that form?


>You will save money by not joining the club. Buy direct via mail order
>from Ken Cranes in California. All disks are 10% off minimum, shipping
>is free till December then $1.50. Columbia House Shipping is $5 to $7
>and that at full list price.

I think you must have screwed your figures up somewhere, in addition,
multiplication or division.  I have been a CH memmber for about 1.7
years.

I have saved on everything I bought from CH.  I also buy from Ken
Crane's and Sight 'n' Sound.

You have too look to make sure you take the best buys.  Sometimes the
second disk for $19.95 is good.  The red tags sale was decent.

But buying a disk at $29.95 and the 2nd for $19.95 is not good.  Buy
the first at $49.96 and a 2nd $49.95 for $19.95 is better than their
dollar dividends.

Shipping is NOT $5 to $7 each, though I got one package that was about
$10 for S&H.  They base it on  a per-disk NOT per-package and it can
add up.

You will also pay local state tax on CH shipments.  

But to say you will save money by NOT joining is wrong.  Sure you pay
list for the 1st disk, but the 2nd is half price.

If you don't watch what you are doing you can pay more, but it's your
money and your decision.  I have had no problems with them.   With a bad
disk they pay shipping back which is more than I can say about others.
And the shipping back is a 4th class mailing label - so you don't have
to make UPS arangements as you do with other returns.  (I've only
returned about 4 disks ever).  And I have had to return disks to Ken
Crane's. SnS, and CH.

-- 
Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.oau.org  bill.vermillion@oau.org
                - bill@bilver.uucp 
                - ..!{peora|ge-dab|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill

Newsgroups: rec.video
From: umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson)
Subject: Re: HiFi vs Dolby Stereo
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:13:12 GMT

In <1686DA936.M02449@mwvm.mitre.org> M02449@mwvm.mitre.org (Joe Gems) writes:

>Stereo (non HiFi) VCRs lay down two very skinny linear audio tracks at one end
>of the tape width (using the same width of tape as mono VCRs use for their one
>audio track). 

[...]

>Hi-Fi VCRs use an entirely different recording technique, whereby the audio
>information uses the full tape width (i.e., the audio and video information
>are both recorded in the same tape space, but are multiplexed so as to be
>separately decodable). HiFi VCRs have audio specs comparable to DAT, which is
>a far cry from standard audio tape.

This doesn't make any sense to me.  

If the stereo VCR uses two skinny audio tracks in the same place as a
mono VCR uses its one, then how does a stereo VCR reproduce the sound
a mono VCR makes and vice versa?

Also, if the Hi-Fi VCRs use the tape for audio as you described above, then
how does my old RCA Dolby stereo VCR pick up the stereo effects of Hi-Fi
tapes? (Unless commercial tapes are recorded in both Hi-Fi and stereo?)
I know I have heard stereo effects on my RCA such as in a movie when a 
car goes past, it will fade in one side, and out the other.

I also have a Sony SLV-595HF Hi-Fi VHS.  I was hoping to do some dubbing
of Hi-Fi tapes such as playing them on the RCA and recording them on the
Sony.  I realize I will loose quite a lot of sound quality, but I was
hoping I would atleast maintain the stereo effects, but from my interpretation
of your above explanation, it doesn't look like I'm going to be able to.

Charles


-- 
/ Charles Carlson  umcarls9@ccu.Umanitoba.CA  
\ This .sig now available on a limited edition 2 record set, for 4 easy 
/ installments of $19.95 each. To order, please have your Visa or Mastercard
\ ready and phone: 1-800-555-1212, or send check or MO to 200-155 Carlton St.
Newsgroups: rec.video
From: dododge@wam.umd.edu (David O. Dodge)
Subject: Re: 3D proposal for the under-construction HDTV standard
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 03:51:59 GMT

In article <92Sep28.155738edt.47958@neat.cs.toronto.edu> tlai@cs.toronto.edu (Tony Wen Hsun Lai) writes:
>In article <26303@castle.ed.ac.uk> sss@castle.ed.ac.uk (S S Sturrock) writes:
>>Technology developed by the BBC makes the frame rate moot since a TV could
>>be fitted with their frame interpolation hardware which creates new frames
>>by tracking motion between two frames.  The interpolated frames have the
>>same resolution as the real frames.  Thus, a TV could have a very high
>>frame rate even when fed with low frame rate material.  Of course, you
>>could object to a TV that invents detail but may just get branded as a
>>digiphobe because of it :-)
>
>What about artifacts?  What is the quality of conversions from 60 Hz to
>50 Hz and vice versa?  Does the system assume linear motion, or can it
>handle rotational motion and zooming?

If it's anything like what was used for the PAL->NTSC conversion of
the Summer Olypics, then it's got PLENTY of artifacts.

There was a raging discussion here during the games about just this
issue.

                                            -Dave Dodge/dododge@wam.umd.edu
Newsgroups: rec.video
From: jongsma@esseye.si.com (Ken Jongsma)
Subject: Re: Cable "silver bullets"
Reply-To: gps-request@esseye.si.com
Organization: Smiths Industries
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:51:14 GMT

In <91059@netnews.upenn.edu> george@mech.seas.upenn.edu writes:

>: I agree, though, that in the long run having
>:you own satellite dish will save you money.
>:However, how much extra money would 
>:I need to spend to get a descrambler, etc?
>:

>in my brief look into going sattelite, it became apparent that to
>_legally_ watch just 'basic' programs ( like CNN ) monthly charges
>would quickly surpass a basic cable bill.


But do you know why?

Because a few years back, the major cable companies (TCI, Time Warner, etc)
realized that dish owners were a major threat. So, they bought controlling
interests in most of the cable channels, signed "exclusive" agreements
with the major movie studios, and threatened channels like CBN (now the
Family Channel) that if they didn't scramble and charge for reception
they would drop them from their systems. (This even though they were
advertiser supported and didn't want to spend the money on scrambling.)

Can you say cartel?

The largest reason for supporting the cable bill in congress is not rate
regulation, but rather that it will allow equal access to the various
channels to alternative delivery systems (like the phone company and
dish agents.)



-- 
Ken Jongsma                                          
Smiths Industries                               jongsma@esseye.si.com
Grand Rapids, Michigan                      73115.1041@compuserve.com
Newsgroups: rec.video
From: david@agora.rain.com (David Robinson)
Subject: Re: LD and stuff
Keywords: Pioneer Elite LD-S2
Organization: Open Communications Forum
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:15:15 GMT


In article <5215@daily-planet.concordia.ca> d_luk@pavo.concordia.ca (LUK, DEREK) writes:
>Message-ID: <5OCT199215311299@pavo.concordia.ca>
>Organization: Concordia University
>News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
>
>I was wondering if anyone could tell me more about the Sony MDP999 and the 
>Panasonic LX1000, and ultimately, which I can find absolutely nothing about,
>the Pioneer LS2. Apparntly, at the moment, the D701 is the choice for me as 
>
...

[squeeze them bytes!]

...

>How's the Sony MDP999 compared with the D701? And why did Video magazine choose
>the Panasonic LX1000 compared with the other LDs? Does anyone actually have
>a Pioneer LS2?

"Yep!" to the last....

%-)
>
>I B out...

Hmmm.  That was simple enough.

david


-- 
My opinions belong to me...and vice versa.  They're not copyrighted;
third party thinkers should feel free to clone them at will.              
david@agora.rain.com                        
david@3cpu.rain.com (just in case!) 
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate,alt.censorship
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:50:01 GMT

In article <c3vd03lH96mh00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:

>The point still is:  Who decides on the ratings?  You yourself say that
>you like watching a "certain amount" of violence.  So do these ratings
>use your definition of a "certain amount" or do they use my definition
>of a "certain amount"?  Or do we just average the two?

There happens to be a solution that should satisfy everybody, except
those who want to censor what *I* can watch.

1. Buy a box that will blank out certain channels; the box can be
programmed when a key is inserted, but not without the key.  The box
physically locks onto the cable, so it can't be bypassed.  This will
let you block MTV without affecting me.

2. For "ratings", read "reviews".  The answer is that anybody who
wants to can review anything.  If there's somebody out there whose
reviews you trust, you can subscribe to his review service (say, by
phoning a 900 number).

3. Have a way to automatically tie in review services (possibly via
modem) with the box in (1) so that certain channels are blocked only
at certain times.

If there's enough demand for this stuff, the market will supply it
(there isn't anything I've described that can't easily be built with
today's technology).  Those who don't want censorship can ignore it,
those who want to censor their own households can get as much
censorship as they can afford, and those who want to censor me can go
jump in a lake.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
id <m0mZaQC-0000ooC@crash.cts.com>; Mon, 28 Sep 92 22: 46 PDT
	id <is80779@pro-amber.cts.com>; Mon, 28 Sep 92 22: 26 PDT
From: rsopicki@pro-amber.cts.com (Randy Sopicki)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Max number of channels on cable?
Date: 29 Sep 92 05:19:55 GMT
Organization: ProLine [pro-amber] -- Spring Valley, Ca

Just to throw my two cents in. Cox Cable in San Diego, Ca is in the final
year of a full system upgrade. Once finished all subscribers will have 60
or so channels with the ability to add many more.
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1633 misc.consumers:17252 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:436
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:47:02 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

leavens@mizar.usc.edu (Justin Leavens) writes:

}In article <a8C903nq8e7c00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:

}>_I_ happen to like watching nudity, a certain amount of violence, etc.  The
}>whole purpose of this hypothetical "ratings" encoding was to avoid censorship
}> . . .

Please let's try to be careful when editing.  I did NOT write the above, I
was responding to it.  

--James Preston
From: jhansen@convex.com (James Hansen)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: sci-fi channel
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:36:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: convex.jhansen.717780989
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

Tony D. Lowe writes:

>So, is this with commercials, or uncut and in its entirety?  Is this going
>to be a commercial channel or something like AMC with no commercials during
>programs?  I haven't been keeping up with the discussion, so if this has
>already been covered, sorry.

Commercials are included at no extra charge :-)

Among the programming is Battlestar Galactica, Lost in Space, Dark Shadows,
some really bad horror movies, and some programming from Fox, such as
Alien Nation and War of the Worlds.  There will be some original programming
in the future.

--
James B. Hansen                                  {sun,uunet}!convex!jhansen
CONVEX Computer Corporation                              jhansen@convex.com
3000 Waterview Parkway, P. O. Box 833851
Richardson, TX 75083-3851                              Phone: (214)497-4802
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: labelle@intelhf.hf.intel.com (George La Belle)
Subject: Re: Max number of channels on cable?
Organization: Development Tools Operation, Intel Corp., Hillsboro  OR
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 23:04:03 GMT

Matt Garretson writes:

>This seems like a FAQ-type question, but I haven't seen a FAQ list here
>lately.  So, here goes:  I called up my cable co. to ask if they were going
>to be getting the Sci Fi channel. They said "no", because their channel
>capacity was used up.  Now, they offer channels 0-35, plus a few extra
>premium and PPV channels. My TV can tune up to channel 73. What happened
>to the 40's 50's and 60's?

	The cable channels go past 60 for sure. Your company simply hasn't
	got enough transmitter channels to accomodate sending it. All they
	need to do is add one.
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: fireman@wam.umd.edu (Aaron Joseph Peterson)
Subject: Re: Wireless cable
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 20:52:28 GMT



Wireless cable?  Isn't that a contradiction.

Like Dry water?
From: brouillette@zayius.enet.dec.com (Mike Brouillette)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Wireless cable
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:22:09 GMT
Reply-To: brouillette@zayius.enet.dec.com (Mike Brouillette)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Merrimack NH



	I caught one of those informercials the other night on Wireless 
Cable.  Does anyone know about this stuff?  Is the govt. going to award 
areas like they did Cellular?  Is it too late to get in on this?  Is it 
going to succeed?  Who are the primary players in this arena?

			Mike B
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1653 misc.consumers:17301 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:441
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
From: jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 16:19:20 GMT
Organization: Northern Bytes BBS - Sault Ste. Marie, MI U.S.A.

In article <BCR.92Sep25100024@hpl3sn03.cern.ch> dated Fri, 25 Sep 1992 09:00:24
GMT, bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers) wrote:

 >> All the participants. I am sure that allmost all the participants in a
 >> gang rape are willing. It only takes one unwilling to make it rape.

 > Key word: participant

 > In the case of TV the unwilling persons are witnesses.  Why can't they
 > look elsewhere?

Simple answer:  You never know when it is coming on these days.  Even if you
keep the remote control close at hand, you never know when they are going to
cut to an objectionable scene.  Also, if you have invested some amount of time
in watching a show, you hate to have to turn it off just because the producer
decides to put a steamy scene in the middle of the program (one that often adds
nothing to the story line).

The one other point, which I know some of you disagree with but which is only
common sense (sorry if some of you don't have any), is that if a person
predisposed to criminal sexual activity and/or violence watches sexually
explicit or violent material, it can give them ideas and heighten their urge to
go commit criminal activity.  Thus, in the case of TV, there may be unwilling
victims... not necessarily folks who actually saw the program, but people who
just happen to be in the wrong place when some guy decides he's had enough of
just watching and wants to go out and emulate what he's seen.

Now, which of you bleeding heart liberals is going to step up and defend the
right of a rapist or sadistic murderer to watch porno or graphic violence?

Jack

Jack Decker                               | No, I don't own an Amiga; I just
Internet address: jack@myamiga.mixcom.com | get Internet mail via a gateway
Fidonet address:  1:154/8                 | system that runs on an Amiga.
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1711 misc.consumers:17467 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:473
From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:59:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BvpDIr.A4M
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


In article <1992Oct5.051931.15568@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.30329@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org> jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes:
>>Anyway, I've said enough on the subject for now...
>
>	More than enough, I'd say. Jack, I've read enough of what you've
>written on this subject to draw the inevitable conclusion: the only
>solution to your problem is to throw out your TV set. Your objections to
>what is broadcast are too wideband to only apply to certain stations.
>Get a tunerless monitor and VCR (they're made) and buy or rent only what
>you like. You'll be happy, we'll be happy, and you won't have to
>complain so much.

Jack will NEVER be happy.

Usenetters are only now discovering what FIDOnetters have known for
years: there's just no way to carry on a discussion with Mr. Decker.
He's been raving about how pornography causes violent sex crimes in
FIDOnet for years. Now he's got Usenet access and a vast virgin
territory to explore. As you've seen, there's no way he's going to
listen to anything you "bleeding heart liberals" (his affectionate term
for anyone who disagrees with his radically right-wing position) have to
say. He's heard ALL the reasonable explanations before, and he's become
quite good at ignoring them. You'd have better luck squelching the Craig
Shergold posts.

Fortunately, Usenetters have one distinct advantage over FIDOnetters:
here we typically have KILL files in our news readers.
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: 30 Sep 92 22:29:51 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

curt@vtucs.cc.vt.edu (Curt Tilmes) writes:

}Now Person A, who doesn't want to see sex is switching channels and
}sees sex, or his kids are changing channels from the Family channel to
}Nick and see sex.  Since you have allowed sex on TV, you have made it
}more difficult for Person A to watch TV while attaining his goal of
}not watching sex.

Sounds like Person A should get rid of his TV set.  Or get a TV with
the capability to lock out channels so that the only channels available
are Nick and the Family channel.

}Isn't there some way *both* of you can attain your goals easily?  Some
}sort of TV kill-file that will allow someone to filter out things.

Right, I said it above:  Lock out the channels that you don't want to
watch.  The only difference between what you seem to want and what I am 
suggesting is that you seem to want SOMEONE ELSE to make the determination
for you of what you want to watch.  I say you should take the responsibility
yourself to decide what is right for you and your family to watch.  This
argument you seem to be putting forward that you don't want to risk
exposure sufficient even to determine that the programming is undesirable
just doesn't wash with me.  If you are really and truly that afraid of
exposure to undesirable programming, then I believe you should just get 
rid of the TV.  Then there is no danger of exposure at all.

}Someone said you don't like your kids to watch movies with graphic
}violence, just preview the movie, and don't let them watch the 'bad'
}ones.  But what if Person A doesn't want to see the graphic violence
}himself?  

Then don't watch it and don't let your kids watch it either.  Get rid
of the TV and never go to the movies.  Why is that so difficult?  I
don't ask this as a rhetorical question; I seriously don't understand
why, if you are so afraid of exposure to "undesirable" programming, that
you can't just take the option that reduces your chances of such exposure
to zero.  Who is it that is forcing you to own a TV?

}Even if you just want to be able to watch anything, this rating
}system, with adequate end user filtering would take away a lot of the
}pro-censor arguments.

Again I ask the question that no one has yet addressed:  WHO decides
the rating and on what basis?  What do you do when your definition of
"too much sex" is at a much lower level than the censor's definition,
and so despite the ratings your children are exposed to "too much sex"?

--James Preston

Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv