<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
><channel><title>Gizmo Lovers Blog &#187; Popular Mechanics</title> <atom:link href="http://www.gizmolovers.com/tag/popular-mechanics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.gizmolovers.com</link> <description>TiVo, Slingbox, Android, Blu-ray Disc, and whatever other tech I feel like blogging about...</description> <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:16:12 +0000</lastBuildDate> <language>en</language> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4</generator> <item><title>Popular Mechanics Explains HDTV Compression And Picture Quality</title><link>http://www.gizmolovers.com/2008/07/30/popular-mechanics-explains-hdtv-compression-and-picture-quality/</link> <comments>http://www.gizmolovers.com/2008/07/30/popular-mechanics-explains-hdtv-compression-and-picture-quality/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:18:13 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>MegaZone</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[HDTV]]></category> <category><![CDATA[EngadgetHD]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Popular Mechanics]]></category><guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmolovers.com/?p=2741</guid> <description><![CDATA[They explain, in simple terms, why all HDTV is not the same. While the only qualification necessary to be considered &#8216;high-definition&#8217; is a resolution of 720p, 1080i, or 1080p, the standards don&#8217;t say anything about the level of compression. So &#8230; <a
href="http://www.gizmolovers.com/2008/07/30/popular-mechanics-explains-hdtv-compression-and-picture-quality/">Continue reading <span
class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>They explain, in simple terms, <a
href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4275063.html">why all HDTV is not the same</a>.  While the only qualification necessary to be considered &#8216;high-definition&#8217; is a resolution of 720p, 1080i, or 1080p, the standards don&#8217;t say anything about the level of compression.  So while a 54Mbps 1080p Blu-ray data stream and a 4Mbps 1080p VUDU data stream are both technically high-definition, there is quite a bit more data building the Blu-ray image &#8211; and hence the viewer sees a better picture.  And the same goes for HDTV channels, compression varies channel to channel, and even program to program on the same channel.  The <a
href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4275063.html">article is worth checking out</a> if you&#8217;ve wondered why some HD programs look better than others.</p><p>Picked up from <a
href="http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/07/27/popular-mechanics-gets-wise-to-hd-compression/" class="broken_link">EngadgetHD</a>.</p> ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmolovers.com/2008/07/30/popular-mechanics-explains-hdtv-compression-and-picture-quality/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>A Brief History Of Failed Video Media Formats</title><link>http://www.gizmolovers.com/2008/03/23/a-brief-history-of-failed-video-media-formats/</link> <comments>http://www.gizmolovers.com/2008/03/23/a-brief-history-of-failed-video-media-formats/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Sun, 23 Mar 2008 07:20:00 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>MegaZone</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Blu-ray/HD DVD]]></category> <category><![CDATA[General Tech]]></category> <category><![CDATA[format war]]></category> <category><![CDATA[HD DVD]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Popular Mechanics]]></category><guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmolovers.com/2008/03/23/a-brief-history-of-failed-video-media-formats/</guid> <description><![CDATA[HD DVD is only the latest video media format to land on the junk heap of history. Most of you reading probably know about Betamax, since it has entered the popular lexicon as a synonym for &#8216;failed format&#8217;. But Betamax &#8230; <a
href="http://www.gizmolovers.com/2008/03/23/a-brief-history-of-failed-video-media-formats/">Continue reading <span
class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>HD DVD is only the latest video media format to land on the junk heap of history.  Most of you reading probably know about Betamax, since it has entered the popular lexicon as a synonym for &#8216;failed format&#8217;.  But Betamax and HD DVD are hardly alone, and <a
href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4255160.html">Popular Mechanics has a fun article</a> which covers ten failed video media formats.  Read <a
href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4255160.html">the article</a> and see how many of the formats you were already familiar with.  And how many of them did you own?</p><p>My answers below.<br
/> <span
id="more-2319"></span><br
/> I thought I was pretty savvy, but I don&#8217;t think I&#8217;d ever heard of format&#8217;s 1-6.  I did know about Betamax, LaserDisc, CED, and DIVX.  And I still own a couple of LaserDisc players and several LaserDiscs.  It was a decent format for its day, but flipping &#038; swapping discs mid-movie was a huge down-side.  Even with an auto-flip player, which I have, you&#8217;d still often have to swap discs mid-movie.  And they&#8217;re big, of course.  I was not reluctant to switch to DVD, that&#8217;s for sure.</p><p>As for the switch to DVD, I was always vehemently opposed to DIVX &#8211; as many of my then co-workers could attest to, given my lunchtime rants on the subject.  Such a stupid idea.  I can&#8217;t decide which DVD-related idea is worse &#8211; DIVX or the &#8216;disposable&#8217; DVDs that were supposed to self-destruct after a couple of days via a dye layer that would turn opaque once exposed to the air.  Surprise &#8211; they bombed in test marketing.</p><p>Makes me wonder how many failed audio media formats I&#8217;ve never heard of.  Jokes about 8-track aside, there&#8217;s DAT, DCC (Digital Compact Cassette), and, arguably, MiniDisc.  MD is iffy as it found a niche as a recordable format, and it was fairly successful in Japan with pre-recorded music.  Hmm, I suppose SACD and DVD Audio have pretty much been failures too.  Reel-to-reel, LP (vinyl of all stripes really), compact cassette, and CD have all been successful.  Hmm, were wax cylinders a big success in their day? <img
src="http://www.gizmolovers.com/wordpress/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif?9d7bd4" alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /></p> ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmolovers.com/2008/03/23/a-brief-history-of-failed-video-media-formats/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>3</slash:comments> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Served from: www.gizmolovers.com @ 2026-04-15 09:21:03 by W3 Total Cache -->