• Announcements

    • Scorchie™

      Upgrade   07/22/2016

      Welcome to Version 4.  You will need to log back in with your Display Name and/or Email Address.  If you don't know this, please issue a password or account reset to obtain the details you need. Some posts will appear "broken" (links, quote text, et al).  The forum is rebuilding all content which will take some time to complete.  Once this is done, the "missing" posts should also hopefully reappear. Should you encounter problems and wish to discuss, please post here:  

evil_josh

Member
  • Content count

    623
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About evil_josh

  • Rank
    AV Forum Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0
  1. eyetv + toast Gives you one-click conversion to DVD with auto-scaling and compression to fit on a DVD, or you can do as much as you want to manipulate the recording, such as adding menus etc. Only downside is that you are supposed to pay for it. Josh
  2. That's not true - copyright is purely about ownership of that building - nothing else. If I write a song about cars copyright does not give me the right to ban anyone else from writing a song about cars, it just gives me the right to stop others from singing my song. I think we will agree to disagree here. I think that they do. Again let's try to separate ideas from works. I agree that no-one can own an idea. This is why we ahve patent law - so that someone with an idea can gain some protection to allow them to invest in that idea before everyone else gets to use it. Here we are balancing the needs of the individual with the nees of a community. However anyone can create and own a work - whether that work is a coffee cup or a song. If I make a coffee cup it is mine literally forever - it will belong to me, my estate my heirs, and their heirs for as long as they want. Why are the owners of a song forced to give it away after they die? Yes there is a different perception, but it is wrong to think that making a copy is different to stealing - it is not. Yes I agree - and if people go bust because the distribution paradigm has changed then so be it - that's business baby. But how does this make stealing OK? Yes we are. How I hope it will end is that rights owners will get the recognition that their products are entitled to the same protection as physical property owners. People need to understand that DRM is akin to the locks on a shop front door, and in principal I don't disagree with it. Unfortunately the industry is manipulating DRM and using it to protect it's markets and restrict trade, thereby violating the rights of consumers. Despite all opposition DRM will make it's way into our lives in one form or another and at the end of the transition period I hope that DRM becomes just that - A rights management system and not a market protection system. NB Please don't think that I am a law-abiding wowser. I probably have as much copied stuff lying around as the next man but as you suggested before now that I am no longer a broke teenager I am generally comfortable to pay for things that I use. I believe that in general the recording, software and motion picture industies are a bunch of bottom-feeding slimebags who will use any means necessary to get money from consumers whilst at the same time delivering as little as possible to artists. I rebel against this behaviour by not buying their product wherever possible. Nice talking with you. Josh.
  3. And here my point is illustrated - once again we have group of people trying to tell me that "it's OK to steal music because the distributors are ripping off artists and making too much money" No it's not. Please don't justify stealing because "they can afford it". After all that's all you're really saying. Bank robbers use the this argument too. If this is the case why don't you just steal the CD from the shop? It's the same thing after all and it would be much quicker and cheaper than copying it at home. Also pgdownload is confusing copyright law with patent law. Patent law exists to foster innovation by giving inventors protection against others duplicating their inventions, thereby allowing the inventor the certainty to establish a business case to fund the invention. Copyright has nothing to do with innovation - it seeks to protect original works by giving them the same ownership rights as physical property. Let's say that I invent and patent a new compression algorithm, then release it is a software application called "joshZip". When the patent expires others will be free to implement the algorithm in their software apps, but no-one will ever have the right to copy and sell joshZip without my permission. Think about it - they are two very different concepts. Patent law protects the IP and has an expiry date, Copyright protects the works derived from that IP and has none (at least not until long after you die). Austen gives a fantastic analogy of what copyright law does and I agree with his conclusion - whilever the owner of a work can be established I believe that copyright over that work should never be extinguished. Josh.
  4. It's quite amusing to me to see all the people in these types of discussions attempting to justify stealing music / videos from people who deserve to be paid for them. Whilst there will always be nuances and intricacies, in 99% of cases the copyright laws of this country with regards to music and video can be illustrated in plain english in the following examples: 1. If you obtain a recording (music or video) for free that people generally pay for, then you are probably stealing it. 2. If you pay for a recording and change the format so that you can use at your convenience, then you are probably breaching copyright laws but there is little chance that you will get busted. 3. If you obtain a recording for free that people generally get for free (ie from radio or television) and store it for later use, then you are probably breaching copyright laws but again there is pretty-much no way you will get busted. 4. If you borrow a recording from someone, use it, then return it then you are not breaking the law. 5. If you pay for a recording and use it in the format that is was supplied then you are not breaking the law. 6. If you do any of 1 to 5 above for profit you are comitting a criminal offence. Yes, these laws are currently under review, and there is a very good chance that 2 and 3 above will become legal. However 1 and 6 will always be illegal. Note that in the comments above I make no distinction between physical of virtual forms of media. Stealing a song from the internet is the same as stealing a CD from a record store. Copying a file is tha same as stamping a CD. IMHO copyright laws should reflect the fact that the owner of a recording owns a license to use that recording. That person should be free to alter the format of that recording to suit their playing device, and to store that recording safely to prevent loss. I hate DRM as much as the next person, as it impacts my rights under the trade practises act and prevents me from performing 2 and 3. By all means lobby your politicians to change the laws and protect the rights of consumers to purchase and play a legitimate recording (which DRM seeks to prevent), but don't use copyright stupidities and DRM to justify stealing recordings. Remember that 1 and 6 will never be legal, unless of course you move to China. If you want a TV show from overseas, get your friend to buy it and ship it to you - this is legal. So invent any justification you like, but stealing is stealing, wether you are robbing a bank or copying a DVD.
  5. You cannot repair a dead pixel in a panel - the screen would need to be replaced. The reason for dead pixel policies is commercial rather than technical. It's quite easy to guarantee a error-free panel from the factory, all you need to do is set the deadpixelometer on the automated tester at the panel factory to "zero" instead of the number it is currently set at. At this point the number of dead-pixel panels leaving the factory is equal to the reliability of the QA system. However if panel manufacturers discarded every panel with a dead pixel then the panel price at the store would necessarily increase to cover the lost production. For example allowing no dead pixels may only give a factory a yield of 50%, wheeras allowing 9 dead pixles may give a yield of 99.9% To be able to offer a panel at a particular price the manufacturer needs a certain panel yield, and to achieve this yield they need to tolerate a certain number of dead pixels, as reflected in their dead pixel policies. Having said all this I don't think you are being at all unreasonable either , and I think you were wise to ask to see the panel in the store. As nobby suggests I'd try another store too (or go back to the same store and ask to see a different panel). Explain to them that a condition of you buying a panel is that you get to verify that it has no dead pixels, and ask then to power up the panel. If they say no ask to see the manager, if he says no go up to Dick Smith at Macquarie centre and look at their 81cm model for $1799. From what I can see it compares quite favourably with the AWA. Josh.
  6. Ok No worries - definitely a misunderstanding on my part. You must be getting a nice suntan from watching the AWA up close
  7. I agree with all the comments above and I would agree the AWA is a great choice for HTPC applications, which is my mid-term plan. My original query was why would you choose to use it as a PC monitor, and was posed in response an earlier post of yours (and oither similar posts) earlier in this thread: I may have misunderstood you but I assumed you were using it as a PC monitor. Purely as a PC monitor, it is a very expensive low-res solution when compared to other LCD monitors. Josh.
  8. You are actually getting about 83% more screen area (screen area is proportional to the square of the diagonal) which I agree is HUGE. However you only have 2/5 the number of pixels as the AWA has (assuming the $2k5 samsung is 852x480 it has 408960 pixels vs 1049088 pixels in the AWA) Josh.
  9. That's what all the girls say...
  10. Hi all, I am surprised that so many people are using these screens as PC monitors. I might be missing something, but to me the value for money in terms of $$$ per pixel is shocking even for the AWA compared to an LCD panel. Nowadays I can spend less than $300 and get an LCD capable of 1280X1024 resolution, which is 25% more pixels for 1/7th of the price. For around $900 I could buy a pair of 19" DVI LCDs and be getting 2560 X 1024 (ok with a plastic bar down the centre). Even if I go to apple and buy a 23" LCD with 1920 X 1200 for $2300-ish I am getting 220% more pixels for $300. It gives a massive screen area in a compact size, the granularity is exeptionally fine (I know because I have one), and the dollar per pixel price is almost half! I'd be interested to hear why people are using these screens as monitors and why they have chosem them over a conventional LCD. Josh
  11. Didn't your mother tell you not to sit too close to the tv? If you really think a 32' screen is "WAY too small" @3m then you are not going to be happy with a 42' plasma either. Personally I think you're mad to buy a cheap plasma over the AWA LCD! Correct me if I'm wrong but any $2k5 42' plasma will only have 480 lines vertical resolution which is actually less resolution that the CRT you aree currently watching! The AWA has 768 vertical lines (and inidentally 1360 columns compared to 800 on your plasma). It also has DVI, VGA, component, S-Video and 2 AV ports. So if you buy the plasma you will get a physically bigger screen but the picture quality will actually be worse that an old CRT. IMHO If you want to go Plasma buy a HD variant. If you can't afford one buy the AWA. Trust me, it is not WAY too small.
  12. I also have the Teac DVB800 and am quite pleased with it. Also if you install the latest upgrade it will play mp3s from a usb stick which is quite a cool feature. Josh.
  13. Bearing in mind they have just knocked $100 off the price of the 81cm, it's now only $400 (or 25%) to go from 66 to 81cm and get a 50% increase in screen area. Just some food for throught
  14. Yep, saw it with my own two eyes at BigW Macquarie Centre (Sydney) on Sat 30th July. Boo hoo! (Not really, an happy to have had three months of Big screen pleasure for $100).
  15. The Diagram is great - thanks! I wondered how those big bolts fitted into the equation. It's a really neat solution. I assume you welded up the square base plate? I think I will gove it a go, but I will probably make a horizontal "H" shaped base plate and extend the arms to meet the wall studs. Thanks again for the info. Josh.