Blu-ray Numbers Too Low To Release

On 2008-05-07, wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:09:54 +0100, lid (Sir
Chewbury Gubbins) wrote:

wrote:
I am 48, you retarded ****, and I find it hard to believe that dopes
like you go 'round acting as if you know what is going on when you didn't
even participate.
Then perhaps you should stop acting like a five year old. I have a son
in primary/elementary school who is more mature than you appear to be.
**** you, you retarded *******.

Wow, that devastating response has certainly quashed any suggestion that
you might be acting like a child.

AnimalMagic wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:09:54 +0100, lid (Sir
Chewbury Gubbins) wrote:

AnimalMagic wrote:

It (HDTV) has been out for nearly a decade now. Hardly what one would
refer to as "early".
It hasn't been out in the UK for ten years. You know the uk? That place
you're crossposting to?


Actually, the UK had wide format TV displays before we did.

Possibly. The first one I saw was in late 1995. But we didn't get a HDTV
broadcast until May/June 2006, even though HDTVs had been available for
several years.

As far as the cross-posting goes, you stupid ****, you need to go back
to the OP and ride his ass about it, because THAT stupid ******* is
probably one of you, and he is the idiot that cross posted this horse****
across even more groups than my ISP allows.

I'm quite sure he's one of yours. Deal with him as you see fit.


--

Zo

FS: Modded Xbox with 250GB HDD, running latest XBMC with HD component cable

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:09:55 +0100, lid (Sir
Chewbury Gubbins) wrote:


wrote:
Try EVERY TV broadcast studio in the country, and in other countries.
EVERY satellite source provider, EVERY military video link...

Also EVERY intelligent person with the means to keep up with what the
world HAS ALREADY adopted.

Just because the pile of **** that hasn't adopted it yet is a HUGE
pile of ****, doesn't mean that you retarded ****s that make up the pile
of **** are right simply because there are more of you. Nor does it make
those of us that have kept up "early adopters".

We are simply several times smarter than you are.

I'm sure you are. The eloquence of your posts and your obviously deep
grasp of the finer points of the English language speak volumes about
your intellect.

Choobs

You do not know a goddamned thing about me.

We know you're in front of a pc all day and like to get angry and shout.
Ladies, form a queue.

You think I give dip****s like you my best efforts?

Sadly yes.

I speak better than the ObamaTard when I want to.

********.

What I am also sure of is the fact that your unqualified,
unprofessional, unsolicited bull**** assessments are just that... total
bull****.

Yes but he's from the UK so you lose by default.

You may begin ranting immediately.

On Wed, 07 May 2008 13:29:09 +0100, Zomoniac
wrote:

Snip


I'm quite sure he's one of yours. Deal with him as you see fit.




If he truly is one of ours, would you consider a trade? We'll take
one or two sex offenders, a child molester and a terrorist or two in
exchange for this sphincter-irritant. But all sales are final!

"
wrote in
:

On Tue, 06 May 2008 12:43:19 GMT, Dave Oldridge
wrote:

"
wrote in
m:

On Tue, 06 May 2008 04:06:30 GMT, Dave Oldridge
wrote:

1. This isn't a contest.
2. 1080p is a vertical resolution, not an array size. The 1080
stands for the number of horizontal lines in the array, the letter p
states that the information is presented in a linear progression
rather than an interlaced one.


Yes, dumb****, it stands for the horizontal line count , but IS a
LABEL
for a STANDARD HD format, and DOES refer to a 16:9 aspect ratio, you
retarded ****.

I don't need a seminar from a dip**** like you.

Go fornicate with yourself. It's probably all the sex you're going to
get.

Or to put it another way, sod off, pillock!


Being 100% WRONG really ****s with what few living, working brain
cells
you have.

I was 100% wrong in assuming that you could actually learn anything.
Enjoy your errors. Clutch them to yourself like a security blanket.
Because it's all a security you're ever going to get.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

Richard Cranium wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2008 13:29:09 +0100, Zomoniac
wrote:

Snip

I'm quite sure he's one of yours. Deal with him as you see fit.




If he truly is one of ours, would you consider a trade? We'll take
one or two sex offenders, a child molester and a terrorist or two in
exchange for this sphincter-irritant. But all sales are final!

We'll take him in exchange for Jim Davidson.

Although you will almost certainly have no idea who said **** is


--

Zo

FS: Modded Xbox with 250GB HDD, running latest XBMC with HD component cable

"
wrote in
:

On Tue, 06 May 2008 12:53:16 GMT, Dave Oldridge
wrote:

wrote in :

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Dave Oldridge
wrote:
| "
| wrote in
| :
|
| On Sun, 04 May 2008 18:21:46 GMT, Dave Oldridge
| wrote:
|
|"Bond Is Gay" wrote in
|news:[email protected]:
|
| If you thought the death of HD DVD would help Blu-ray, you'd be
| wrong. Sales of stand alone players fell 40% at the beginning of
| the year, recovered 2% of that and has remained so low that NPD
| will not release actual numbers Ouch. In fact, sales of Blu-ray
| standalone players remain so low that NPD has not yet released
| actual numbers, for fear that it would be easy to identify
| individual retailers. The research group will start to give
actual
| figures later this year, said Ross Rubin, director of industry
| analysis at NPD.
|
| http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0...he-future-has-
bee
| n- de layed/
|
|For me, there is a trigger point. When enough old film content
that
|I'm interested in becomes available, then I'll take the plunge. Now
|7 seasons of Buffy in 4:3 1080p would probably sell me!!
|
|
| There is no such thing as 4:3 1080p.
|
| Bzzzzzzt! Error! 4:3 is an aspect ratio. 1080p is a resolution.
| There is no necessary relationship between them. Granted, most
1080p
| material is 16:9. But it doesn't have to be. Now my current setup
| only extends to 1080i, and there is only one broadcasting network
| that I'm aware of that is transmitting 4:3 in that format.
|
| Many TV sets, though, and some players allow manipulation of the
| aspect ratio in any resolution.

Because the recognized formats for ATSC include ONLY 16:9 for 720 and
1080 line formats, people really _do_ associate a specific aspect
ratio as part of the format. ATSC does. So if someone says "16:9
480p" or "4:3 480p" they are indeed talking about different formats.
So it would follow that "16:9 1080p" and "4:3 1080p" are different
formats, the latter of which is not in the list.

================================================== =================
List of 36 digital video formats recognized by ATSC:

video width height frame field aspect pixel line
class pixels lines rate rate ratio ratio scheme
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
HD 1920 1080 23.976 23.976 16:9 1:1 progressive
HD 1920 1080 24.000 24.000 16:9 1:1 progressive
HD 1920 1080 29.970 29.970 16:9 1:1 progressive
HD 1920 1080 30.000 30.000 16:9 1:1 progressive

HD 1920 1080 29.970 59.940 16:9 1:1 interlaced
HD 1920 1080 30.000 60.000 16:9 1:1 interlaced

HD 1280 720 23.976 23.976 16:9 1:1 progressive
HD 1280 720 24.000 24.000 16:9 1:1 progressive
HD 1280 720 29.970 29.970 16:9 1:1 progressive
HD 1280 720 30.000 30.000 16:9 1:1 progressive
HD 1280 720 59.940 59.940 16:9 1:1 progressive
HD 1280 720 60.000 60.000 16:9 1:1 progressive

ED 704 480 23.976 23.976 16:9 40:33 progressive
ED 704 480 24.000 24.000 16:9 40:33 progressive
ED 704 480 29.970 29.970 16:9 40:33 progressive
ED 704 480 30.000 30.000 16:9 40:33 progressive
ED 704 480 59.940 59.940 16:9 40:33 progressive
ED 704 480 60.000 60.000 16:9 40:33 progressive

ED 704 480 29.970 59.940 16:9 40:33 interlaced
ED 704 480 30.000 60.000 16:9 40:33 interlaced

ED? 704 480 23.976 23.976 4:3 10:11 progressive
ED? 704 480 24.000 24.000 4:3 10:11 progressive
ED? 704 480 29.970 29.970 4:3 10:11 progressive
ED? 704 480 30.000 30.000 4:3 10:11 progressive
ED? 704 480 59.940 59.940 4:3 10:11 progressive
ED? 704 480 60.000 60.000 4:3 10:11 progressive

SD 704 480 29.970 59.940 4:3 10:11 interlaced
SD 704 480 30.000 60.000 4:3 10:11 interlaced

ED? 640 480 23.976 23.976 4:3 1:1 progressive
ED? 640 480 24.000 24.000 4:3 1:1 progressive
ED? 640 480 29.970 29.970 4:3 1:1 progressive
ED? 640 480 30.000 30.000 4:3 1:1 progressive
ED? 640 480 59.940 59.940 4:3 1:1 progressive
ED? 640 480 60.000 60.000 4:3 1:1 progressive

SD 640 480 29.970 59.940 4:3 1:1 interlaced
SD 640 480 30.000 60.000 4:3 1:1 interlaced
================================================== =================

None of which alters the fact that aspect ratio is a function of
display
capability, while resolution is a function of how the original signal
is
laid down and transmitted.

EXACTLY, you stupid ****! A statement which 100% negates your claim
that you can have a 1080 line 4:3 video source.

YOU and YOUR RETARDED ASS MIGHT be able to put it up on your display
that way, but that does NOT change what the fed signal consists of.

Yes, the ATSC specification associates, an aspect ratio with each
resolution, but equipment often exceeds or goes beyond the boundaries
of
those specifications.

You're an idiot.

Most displays that are designed for high definition television will
automatically switch to the aspect ratio associated with the
transmitted
signal.

Yes. NONE of which will EVER be 4:3 transmitted with 1080 lines of
resolution. MAYBE one day, you will get it.

But on my own television, this can be overridden.

You're an idiot. Especially if you think that actually changes
anything.

In fact, it
must be overridden in order to properly view anamorphic DVDs, as the
display defaults to 4:3 for any 480 line format (and to 16:94 1080 line
formats).

The signal you get FROM the anamorphic DVD is at a MAX of 480 lines.

EVEN IF it has been "upconverted" by the player or your ****box
display,
it is STILL a 480 line source feed.

You STILL need to get that SIMPLE FACT through your PUNY skull
cavity.

Once again you demonstrate that you cannot read. I never said the signal
from my DVD was any more than the 480 lines. But you had to misread what
I said, and then make fun of what you said. Keep it up! You're only
proving my case that you are an ignorant, illiterate klutz.

I'd tell you to go to hell, but that would be redundant, as you are
already well underway.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

"
wrote in
:

On 6 May 2008 04:26:57 GMT, wrote:

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Dave Oldridge
wrote:
| "
| wrote in
| :
|
| On Sun, 04 May 2008 18:21:46 GMT, Dave Oldridge
| wrote:
|
|"Bond Is Gay" wrote in
|news:[email protected]:
|
| If you thought the death of HD DVD would help Blu-ray, you'd be
| wrong. Sales of stand alone players fell 40% at the beginning of
| the year, recovered 2% of that and has remained so low that NPD
| will not release actual numbers Ouch. In fact, sales of Blu-ray
| standalone players remain so low that NPD has not yet released
| actual numbers, for fear that it would be easy to identify
| individual retailers. The research group will start to give
| actual figures later this year, said Ross Rubin, director of
| industry analysis at NPD.
|
| http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0...-future-has-be
| en- de layed/
|
|For me, there is a trigger point. When enough old film content
|that I'm interested in becomes available, then I'll take the
|plunge. Now 7 seasons of Buffy in 4:3 1080p would probably sell
|me!!
|
|
| There is no such thing as 4:3 1080p.
|
| Bzzzzzzt! Error! 4:3 is an aspect ratio. 1080p is a resolution.
| There is no necessary relationship between them. Granted, most
| 1080p material is 16:9. But it doesn't have to be. Now my current
| setup only extends to 1080i, and there is only one broadcasting
| network that I'm aware of that is transmitting 4:3 in that format.
|
| Many TV sets, though, and some players allow manipulation of the
| aspect ratio in any resolution.

Because the recognized formats for ATSC include ONLY 16:9 for 720 and
1080 line formats, people really _do_ associate a specific aspect
ratio as part of the format. ATSC does. So if someone says "16:9
480p" or "4:3 480p" they are indeed talking about different formats.
So it would follow that "16:9 1080p" and "4:3 1080p" are different
formats, the latter of which is not in the list.

================================================ ===================
List of 36 digital video formats recognized by ATSC:

video width height frame field aspect pixel line
class pixels lines rate rate ratio ratio scheme
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
HD 1920 1080 23.976 23.976 16:9 1:1 progressive
HD 1920 1080 24.000 24.000 16:9 1:1 progressive
HD 1920 1080 29.970 29.970 16:9 1:1 progressive
HD 1920 1080 30.000 30.000 16:9 1:1 progressive

HD 1920 1080 29.970 59.940 16:9 1:1 interlaced
HD 1920 1080 30.000 60.000 16:9 1:1 interlaced

HD 1280 720 23.976 23.976 16:9 1:1 progressive
HD 1280 720 24.000 24.000 16:9 1:1 progressive
HD 1280 720 29.970 29.970 16:9 1:1 progressive
HD 1280 720 30.000 30.000 16:9 1:1 progressive
HD 1280 720 59.940 59.940 16:9 1:1 progressive
HD 1280 720 60.000 60.000 16:9 1:1 progressive

ED 704 480 23.976 23.976 16:9 40:33 progressive
ED 704 480 24.000 24.000 16:9 40:33 progressive
ED 704 480 29.970 29.970 16:9 40:33 progressive
ED 704 480 30.000 30.000 16:9 40:33 progressive
ED 704 480 59.940 59.940 16:9 40:33 progressive
ED 704 480 60.000 60.000 16:9 40:33 progressive

ED 704 480 29.970 59.940 16:9 40:33 interlaced
ED 704 480 30.000 60.000 16:9 40:33 interlaced

ED? 704 480 23.976 23.976 4:3 10:11 progressive
ED? 704 480 24.000 24.000 4:3 10:11 progressive
ED? 704 480 29.970 29.970 4:3 10:11 progressive
ED? 704 480 30.000 30.000 4:3 10:11 progressive
ED? 704 480 59.940 59.940 4:3 10:11 progressive
ED? 704 480 60.000 60.000 4:3 10:11 progressive

SD 704 480 29.970 59.940 4:3 10:11 interlaced
SD 704 480 30.000 60.000 4:3 10:11 interlaced

ED? 640 480 23.976 23.976 4:3 1:1 progressive
ED? 640 480 24.000 24.000 4:3 1:1 progressive
ED? 640 480 29.970 29.970 4:3 1:1 progressive
ED? 640 480 30.000 30.000 4:3 1:1 progressive
ED? 640 480 59.940 59.940 4:3 1:1 progressive
ED? 640 480 60.000 60.000 4:3 1:1 progressive

SD 640 480 29.970 59.940 4:3 1:1 interlaced
SD 640 480 30.000 60.000 4:3 1:1 interlaced
================================================ ===================


Thank you.

Despite it being several years ago that I worked at General
Instrument,
during their and the Grand Alliance's design of the HDTV formats, I
knew I was looking at total horse****, made up by some dip that merely
reads numbers, then makes up place where the numbers "fit".

Hell, the idiot even got that wrong.

You're a moron with delusions of adequacy.

Whatever it is you're smoking, it's probably laced with insecticide. In
your case that could be lethal.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

In article ,
says...
"
wrote in
:

On 6 May 2008 04:26:57 GMT, wrote:

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Dave Oldridge
wrote:
| "
| wrote in
| :
|
| On Sun, 04 May 2008 18:21:46 GMT, Dave Oldridge
| wrote:
|
|"Bond Is Gay" wrote in
|news:[email protected]:
|
| If you thought the death of HD DVD would help Blu-ray, you'd be
| wrong. Sales of stand alone players fell 40% at the beginning of
| the year, recovered 2% of that and has remained so low that NPD
| will not release actual numbers Ouch. In fact, sales of Blu-ray
| standalone players remain so low that NPD has not yet released
| actual numbers, for fear that it would be easy to identify
| individual retailers. The research group will start to give
| actual figures later this year, said Ross Rubin, director of
| industry analysis at NPD.
|
| http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0...-future-has-be
| en- de layed/
|
|For me, there is a trigger point. When enough old film content
|that I'm interested in becomes available, then I'll take the
|plunge. Now 7 seasons of Buffy in 4:3 1080p would probably sell
|me!!
|
|
| There is no such thing as 4:3 1080p.
|
| Bzzzzzzt! Error! 4:3 is an aspect ratio. 1080p is a resolution.
| There is no necessary relationship between them. Granted, most
| 1080p material is 16:9. But it doesn't have to be. Now my current
| setup only extends to 1080i, and there is only one broadcasting
| network that I'm aware of that is transmitting 4:3 in that format.
|
| Many TV sets, though, and some players allow manipulation of the
| aspect ratio in any resolution.

Because the recognized formats for ATSC include ONLY 16:9 for 720 and
1080 line formats, people really _do_ associate a specific aspect
ratio as part of the format. ATSC does. So if someone says "16:9
480p" or "4:3 480p" they are indeed talking about different formats.
So it would follow that "16:9 1080p" and "4:3 1080p" are different
formats, the latter of which is not in the list.

================================================ ===================
List of 36 digital video formats recognized by ATSC:

video width height frame field aspect pixel line
class pixels lines rate rate ratio ratio scheme
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
HD 1920 1080 23.976 23.976 16:9 1:1 progressive
HD 1920 1080 24.000 24.000 16:9 1:1 progressive
HD 1920 1080 29.970 29.970 16:9 1:1 progressive
HD 1920 1080 30.000 30.000 16:9 1:1 progressive

HD 1920 1080 29.970 59.940 16:9 1:1 interlaced
HD 1920 1080 30.000 60.000 16:9 1:1 interlaced

HD 1280 720 23.976 23.976 16:9 1:1 progressive
HD 1280 720 24.000 24.000 16:9 1:1 progressive
HD 1280 720 29.970 29.970 16:9 1:1 progressive
HD 1280 720 30.000 30.000 16:9 1:1 progressive
HD 1280 720 59.940 59.940 16:9 1:1 progressive
HD 1280 720 60.000 60.000 16:9 1:1 progressive

ED 704 480 23.976 23.976 16:9 40:33 progressive
ED 704 480 24.000 24.000 16:9 40:33 progressive
ED 704 480 29.970 29.970 16:9 40:33 progressive
ED 704 480 30.000 30.000 16:9 40:33 progressive
ED 704 480 59.940 59.940 16:9 40:33 progressive
ED 704 480 60.000 60.000 16:9 40:33 progressive

ED 704 480 29.970 59.940 16:9 40:33 interlaced
ED 704 480 30.000 60.000 16:9 40:33 interlaced

ED? 704 480 23.976 23.976 4:3 10:11 progressive
ED? 704 480 24.000 24.000 4:3 10:11 progressive
ED? 704 480 29.970 29.970 4:3 10:11 progressive
ED? 704 480 30.000 30.000 4:3 10:11 progressive
ED? 704 480 59.940 59.940 4:3 10:11 progressive
ED? 704 480 60.000 60.000 4:3 10:11 progressive

SD 704 480 29.970 59.940 4:3 10:11 interlaced
SD 704 480 30.000 60.000 4:3 10:11 interlaced

ED? 640 480 23.976 23.976 4:3 1:1 progressive
ED? 640 480 24.000 24.000 4:3 1:1 progressive
ED? 640 480 29.970 29.970 4:3 1:1 progressive
ED? 640 480 30.000 30.000 4:3 1:1 progressive
ED? 640 480 59.940 59.940 4:3 1:1 progressive
ED? 640 480 60.000 60.000 4:3 1:1 progressive

SD 640 480 29.970 59.940 4:3 1:1 interlaced
SD 640 480 30.000 60.000 4:3 1:1 interlaced
================================================ ===================


Thank you.

Despite it being several years ago that I worked at General
Instrument,
during their and the Grand Alliance's design of the HDTV formats, I
knew I was looking at total horse****, made up by some dip that merely
reads numbers, then makes up place where the numbers "fit".

Hell, the idiot even got that wrong.

You're a moron with delusions of adequacy.

Whatever it is you're smoking, it's probably laced with insecticide. In
your case that could be lethal.



I believe cock chafers are immune.

On Wed, 07 May 2008 13:55:27 +0100, Zomoniac
wrote:

Richard Cranium wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2008 13:29:09 +0100, Zomoniac
wrote:

Snip

I'm quite sure he's one of yours. Deal with him as you see fit.




If he truly is one of ours, would you consider a trade? We'll take
one or two sex offenders, a child molester and a terrorist or two in
exchange for this sphincter-irritant. But all sales are final!

We'll take him in exchange for Jim Davidson.

Although you will almost certainly have no idea who said **** is


--

Zo

FS: Modded Xbox with 250GB HDD, running latest XBMC with HD component cable


Is he the comedian who's been through some turbulent marriages? If
so, I had been told that he's actually hilarious. Unfortunately, I
haven't seen any of his "work" here in the colonies. You keeping the
good stuff to yourselves?