M Database Inspector (cheetah)
|Not logged in. Login|
|Wed, May 24 2006||300||Video Processing - of thumb||
in any case you don't judge by this, but rather by the popularity of the file itself
for each particular file (movie)
so you search for a file, you see a list of different files with that same movie,
and mostly look for the following:
from this list, which is, common and has many copies on the net, meaning
download will occur from many users, and
the language it speaks is the one I want.
language is important, one of the comporomize divx and all other compression
methods make, to save space and the 14 gig special burners it requires to produce
a genuine dvd, is that movies in files (almost still) always posess just one audio language and one subtitle which can not be taken off.
since the USA is dominant in this market, just make sure its english with no subtitles at all.
On the internet this is kind of obscure because those exactly are the files that do not
have in their name something like:
rule 2: always get only files with the .avi extension, except if in breech of rule one.
that is if there is a movie you want and you can't find it in avi, do get it,
but you chance asking me for help for how to handle it later,
and I might not even be able to. and since it takes moving 700mb across the country
its not like e-mail that can resolve things quickly.
It might be comforting to know that your LG is not really a divx player.
In fact they try to compress into this box as many popular codecs as possibles and
as many formats as possible, and by the way if you re-read this text you find out that the expression
"Korre tzruvim" is total bull invented by sales people in electronic stores.
incidentally, it should be obvious to any one who knows that store DVDs don't
really shower from the skies, somebody has burnt those too, or they wouldn't be.
Every device is a "korre tzruvim" because there is nothing else, and the question is
how many different kinds, and does it matter !!!
rule 3: download about 100 movies all at once in e-mule,
this seems to be optimal, from experience of myself and many others.
the trade off is like this:
with too few movies your computer is sitting idle in line to download later most of the time
which is ineffective.
with too many movies, they compete with one another on resources and it take
long for each individual movie to arrive in whole on your computer.
this should have been no problem, because what you really want to maximize
is th amount of data streaming into your apartment from the outside,
and you could care less if it takes 2 or 4 months to arrive,
files shared have a life of their own and it is common for rare files to show up,
be shared by quite a few people and later disappear.
so if the life span of a file is 3 months, the difference between 2 and 4 month
can be fatal.
For this, Emule guys have given even more thought than the Kazaa makers
(by the way the Kazaa makers also made Skype)
and more controls are given in the program to combat this issue.
rule 4: always be watchful of the amount of data remaining to be transferred
and of the time the file has last been seen complete, but only trust
this last bit of info if you e-mule has been running for a while.
it is smart to forget and never look closely at anything if you just started e-mule.
start it, wait an hour at least before you look at anything.
Emule should be always running anyway, including overnight, and if its not, the only thing
you want to do with it right after you started it is search start new downloads.
For me, this is the only way to put a movie on my 'todo list'
it is simply the download list, but this may conflict with rule 3, which is more important.
use the information you see to play with
B. source handling.
you can gain experience with this,
read some help files or ask me on this in a separate occasion.
(his e-mail is just a shopping list so its important to list)
|Wed, May 24 2006||1100||Video Processing - Heisenberg take 2||
Turns out it takes ages of CPU time to compress and decompress the files,
as compared with the near zero amount of work done by most filters.
So it goes like this, (Tir'eh):
you can due a step, saving a new file with just the resizing stage done,
which will take about 2 hours of cpu time, and once you got this part
over with, you are safe past that stage and can continue to the next, You do the math.
You will grow old before your computer does, and die at young age of hunger so don't argue with me, please,
it can be fatal.
of course, if you have a culture of your own like I do,
you do argue of course,
and end up being convinced anyway,
after a long period of still excruciating mental pain,
when you don't have time to eat,
and later when you wake up from this nightmare
you smile and say:
"Yeah, but look how much more I know now"
|Wed, May 24 2006||900||Video Processing - Heisenberg||
So all this can be rehashed using Virtualdub , except that when it comes to non-lossless
compression, you cant really make a picture better by compressing and recompressing
it for the purpose of bettering it.
This is a general problem in architecting of complex computing systems, and is well
known in the hacking community, simply as "The Heisenberg Principle"
most obviously exemplified by a program that counts time it takes to travel in a loop
by timing it each round and adding the result to a total, there by counting the counting
program rather than what the program would actually do if you did not count!
Heisenberg Said (in plain terms)
If you try to observe the geographical location of an electron relative to its core atom(ic) force
of gravity, the mere observation will change the result, and therefore we will never
know where the electron actually is at any given point in time.
The implications of this quantum physics only fact I know, on the world
of computer programming is immense.
Ok, where was I,
|Wed, May 24 2006||700||Video Processing - Virtuosity||
there are a few things you will find useful in Virtualdub:
Most importantly, you can resize the frame (of the whole movie)
thereby also possibly changing the proportion, like they used
to do on the silver screen for westerns, and like is almost always
done in the edited-for-TV version of the movie.
But you are not the first one to do that, and not the first to err,
and not the first not notice the error, as an experienced computer programmer,
and not the first to have just finished waiting for ages for Pazollini's Canterbury Tales,
and now that it arrived, not only the picture is not quite in focus, but the proportions are
way off to a point of excruciating pain, and it doesn't quite matter because you
can hear them speak what you have read from their lip motions just a few dozens of seconds ago.