or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by v5v

  I completely understand your concern about arm fatigue, but the way I imagine using it I honestly don't think it would be a serious issue. It wouldn't be eight solid hours of touching. It would be typical mousing (or trackpadding) and keyboarding with an added element of touching when it makes sense.   The photo is me sitting in front of a co-worker's Air. I set it up in front of me in a position that was comfortable for both "conventional" input and touching the...
        You guys are so literal. Look at what I wrote: ...it's not THAT much extra effort -- roughly equivalent to playing the piano." It's not "exactly the same as playing a piano" but I happen to think it's a lot closer than you guys feel it is. Maybe we're envisioning it differently. Here's what I see:     It's not head height, it's not outstretched and it's not hands straight up vertically. It's not all that different than typing.   Right now Apple's computers accept...
  But see, it's NOT all day. It's not the ONLY form of input, it's ANOTHER form of input.   Here's an example: in Pro Tools there's no way for me to move more than one fader at a time with a mouse. If I want to turn up one channel while turning down another I have to do two passes. If I could just reach up and grab those two faders on screen for a few seconds it would save me time, and produce better results because I could hear what I'm doing in context rather than...
  I know what you're saying, and I fully realize that it would be more tiring than "conventional" input methods, but I want it anyway. I've considered the trade-offs, and to me it's worth slightly more arm strain for the ease in collaboration, editing, mixing, scaling and probably a pile of other things I haven't even thought of yet. Besides, it's not THAT much extra effort -- roughly equivalent to playing the piano.
  Yup! In addition to being familiar, this would allow people using headphones with no remote the same luxury. Maybe not QUITE as convenient as having the control on the cord, but pretty close.
  Or, even more ideally, just a monitor -- period, full stop. Who here actually uses their TV's built-in tuner? How many of us use an external cable box or equivalent? The only thing I need a "TV" to be is a display with an HDMI input.       AIRPLAY. Yes. That is an excellent point. You're right, I really would want a higher res display for that.
  Some of us Do understand the consequences and do it anyway because, for us, the benefits of encompassing more of our field of view outweighs the (to us) comparatively small compromise in image sharpness. Like I said, I find watching a hockey game on a 103" display at 8 feet from the screen immersive even at 1080 -- I haven't noticed the pixels.       I think you may be getting comments from others mixed up with mine. I agree with you. I don't think matching source...
  Probably true. It's a shame that the nature of the market and the forces that drive it will draw attention in that direction instead of one that would be just as mathematically elegant while yielding MUCH more viewer benefit: instead of increasing resolution, increase the frame rate.   The BIGGEST problem with current viewing systems isn't detail, it's blurring. Motion blur. The frame rate of film was chosen based on the acceptable minimum with a small safety margin....
  Are you sure these sets are actually generating tweens? The processing required to generate HD tweens in real-time would be quite daunting, and doing the necessary comparison against subsequent frames would introduce a fair amount of delay. I admit I haven't really looked into the feature in detail, but my impression is that high refresh rate *IS* just showing the same image two or four times.
  I was responding to a comment referring specifically to Netflix.
New Posts  All Forums: