Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'Living Room' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Living Room
Authored by: Thom on Jan 14, '05 09:45:58AM

Yeah, the one I want comes out to about $1,000 (probably because I'd get the BT kbd/mouse for another $99).

I have an EyeTV already, and it's great. I don't like the EyeHome because it can't timeshift things that the EyeTV is playing (and the interface kind of sucks.)

When you talk about the Living Room aspect and the fact that it isn't being hyped, I think of a few things:

* No component output that I've seen, only DVI / VGA, plus an add-on adapter for composite and S-Vid. (Can the DVI output be adapted to spit out component or not?)

* No surround output, that I'm aware of. This came as sort of a surprise to me, considering that the Airport Express has a mini optical out. On the accessory page, they list the M-Audio USB device for surround output. (Which would work fine, but I'm just saying.)

* There has been lots of talk about 'Is Apple going to try and negotiate a Movies on Demand service?' but I think the main thing hampering them is their namespace. After all, they're already using 'iMovie' and the name 'iFilm' is already taken. (grin) Seriously though - the iPod Photo doesn't play movies, but *could* it? The Mac Mini can certainly play back movies, for sure from a DVD but probably also from compressed files like MPEG4. Then again -- is that 9200 chip capable of full screen output? And if so, what about HD resolutions?

These are important questions to me because I'm thinking about buying a large LCD TV which has a DVI input...

These seem like unrelated points but what I'm getting at is, I don't think Apple would 'do' the Living Room angle unless they also had the Movies on Demand thing bundled with it, and possibly some kind of TiVo-killer (which would negate needing an EyeTV), etc.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Living Room
Authored by: RideMan on Jan 14, '05 05:38:32PM

The specs on the Mac Mini page indicate DVI output up to 1920x1200 pixels (what are the extra 120 lines for?), and VGA output up to 1920x1080, which is the highest HDTV standard resolution. As long as it's got the processing power to handle QuickTime files with MPEG-4 and H.264 codecs, it's just what you need for the back-end to an entertainment system.

The hard drive is a bit on the small side, even for the 80Gb version, for that purpose, so that would need a bit of hacking. Hmmm...Do you suppose we'll see Apple respond in their next product cycle (when is that, NAB in April?) with a Media Server version of the Mini, with a big hard drive built in?



[ Reply to This | # ]
Living Room
Authored by: thelamecamel on Jan 21, '05 02:25:31AM

S-Video basically is component video (right audio, left audio, yellow video), at least in Australian PAL-land. S-Video is all 2*3=6 wires in one cable, rather than three. Because of this, it's supposedly slightly better quality.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Living Room
Authored by: Thom on Jan 24, '05 12:11:50PM
I'm sorry, but I have a hard time following this line of logic.

Analog monitors are basically RGB, right? Well, if I want to carry a video signal a long way from a computer to a monitor (we have to do this in a few places at work) I'll use a distribution amplifier to boost the signal, then I'll adapt the VGA cable (all signal wires in one cable) to a five-wire, or RGBHV, cable. This separates the R, G, B signals, and carries two separate sync signals (horizontal and vertical), each in a separate cable. It is much thicker, insulated, and carries the signal a lot better over a distance.

What would lead you to believe that you'd get a higher level of quality by putting the signals together???

For example, see this thread.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Living Room
Authored by: florp on Jan 26, '05 08:48:50AM
S-Video basically is component video (right audio, left audio, yellow video), at least in Australian PAL-land. S-Video is all 2*3=6 wires in one cable, rather than three. Because of this, it's supposedly slightly better quality.

Unfortunately, every single fact here is false (except maybe that Australia uses PAL).

  • S-Video is a composite signal that has b/w (luminance, sync, blanking) on one pair and the color carrier on another pair (core).
  • This makes it better than traditional composite, in that there is no aliasing between the color carrier and the b/w signal. This allows better color bandwidth and less interference between color and fine structures in the b/w (which, in turn, allows better b/w bandwidth).
  • It is significantly worse than RGB or component (YPbPr), as the color information is still being crammed into the color carrier.
  • There is no audio involved. This is on a separate cable (set of cables).
  • Hence, S-Video is 2-core (two coax lines, one for b/w and one for the color carrier).
  • If you combine the two signals (by shorting them together, in a severe pinch, or preferable capacitor-coupling the color carrier), you get back the traditional composite signal ("yellow video", which is *not* component video).


[ Reply to This | # ]