pinter@sol.bucknell.edu (pinter) (11/15/90)
I am looking for a newsgroup which is appropriate for the
discussion of DVI technology, mostly from a developer's
standpoint. Please let me know which group that would be.
Thank you.
Marco Pinter
pinter@sol.bucknell.eduandrew@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick) (11/16/90)
In article <162@sol.bucknell.edu> pinter@sol.bucknell.edu () writes: >I am looking for a newsgroup which is appropriate for the >discussion of DVI technology, mostly from a developer's >standpoint. Please let me know which group that would be. I am also interesting in starting a discussion about Intel's DVI technology. I would suggest that comp.ivideodisc would probably be the most appropriate (how about "comp.ivideo"?), and it could stand the load. To begin with, my understanding is that a DVI development kit includes either the older 3-board DVI hardware, or the newer 2-board hardware. Does anyone know the differences between the board sets, other than the obvious reduction in the number? -- Andrew Patrick, Ph.D. Department of Communications, Ottawa, CANADA andrew@calvin.doc.CA andrew@doccrc.BITNET HDTV: higher resolution, improved colour, wider screen, "sit-com" reruns. What's wrong with this picture?
marquet@bohra.cpg.oz (John Marquet) (11/20/90)
In article <1990Nov16.151337.6001@rick.doc.ca>, andrew@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick) writes: > In article <162@sol.bucknell.edu> pinter@sol.bucknell.edu () writes: > >I am looking for a newsgroup which is appropriate for the > >discussion of DVI technology, mostly from a developer's > >standpoint. Please let me know which group that would be. > > I am also interesting in starting a discussion about Intel's DVI > technology. I would suggest that comp.ivideodisc would probably be the > most appropriate (how about "comp.ivideo"?), and it could stand the > load. > In a recent article in Australian Professional Computing, it was pointed out that television sets will become more and more like personal computers, and personal computers will become more and more video-oriented. The author used the words `telecomputing' and `compuvision'. The IBM's, Apples and Commodores are introducing video capabilites at a fast pace, but Sony and Pioneer are making their video systems smarter at a similar rate. The current frame compression standards stem from the communications world. There's already a race condition over control of games and CBT systems. The lexical token `multimedia' is pretty much debased. I agree comp.ivideodisc is a bit limited, so I'd vote for comp.video as a working title for the group. The main theme here should be the control/generation/manipulation/storage and replay of video frames with computers. D
ittai@shemesh.GBA.NYU.EDU (Ittai Hershman) (11/20/90)
> To begin with, my understanding is that a DVI development kit includes > either the older 3-board DVI hardware, or the newer 2-board hardware. Two weeks ago Intel announced a 2 chip set, dubbed the i750, which is a complete DVI implementation. Q1,000 cost is $105; Q10,000 cost is $85! I expect that we will start seeing lots of DVI products in late 1991... -Ittai
ittai@shemesh.GBA.NYU.EDU (Ittai Hershman) (11/21/90)
> The lexical token `multimedia' is pretty much debased. I agree > comp.ivideodisc is a bit limited, so I'd vote for comp.video as a > working title for the group. The point I was trying to make is that we ought to have a newsgroup with a broad scope, which can spawn off more specific newsgroups as needed. Multimedia is the term used by most people, in the same way as "groupware" (another neologism of dubious value). There already is a rec.video -- I think comp.video will end up getting a lot of misdirected posts about video in general. Besides, what about other multimedia technologies besides full-motion video? If no one else takes action on this, I will try to find some time to work on a "call for discussion" message to start the process (sigh). -Ittai
andrew@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick) (11/22/90)
In article <7324@shemesh.GBA.NYU.EDU> ittai@shemesh.GBA.NYU.EDU (Ittai Hershman) writes: >> The lexical token `multimedia' is pretty much debased. I agree >> comp.ivideodisc is a bit limited, so I'd vote for comp.video as a >> working title for the group. > >The point I was trying to make is that we ought to have a newsgroup >with a broad scope, which can spawn off more specific newsgroups as >needed. Multimedia is the term used by most people, in the same way >as "groupware" (another neologism of dubious value). > >There already is a rec.video -- I think comp.video will end up getting >a lot of misdirected posts about video in general. Besides, what >about other multimedia technologies besides full-motion video? We have been struggling with this same problem here as an area of research is emerging, and management wants to know what to call it. One of the terms we have been using is "new media", which has its problems but seems to do the job. "New media" literally is media that is new. In practice it can be multi-media where a single media has been dominant in the past (e.g., graphics, sound, video in the computer field), or it can be interactivity where one-way communication was the past mode of operation (e.g., interactive video in the television field). What we are describing here is seen differently depending on what perspective you are coming from (e.g., computers or television). Thus, finding a label for it will be difficult. What about "comp.new-media"? -- Andrew Patrick, Ph.D. Department of Communications, Ottawa, CANADA andrew@calvin.doc.CA andrew@doccrc.BITNET HDTV: higher resolution, improved colour, wider screen, "sit-com" reruns. What's wrong with this picture?
mickey@ncst.ernet.in (R Chandrasekar) (11/22/90)
In article <7324@shemesh.GBA.NYU.EDU> ittai@shemesh.GBA.NYU.EDU (Ittai Hershman) writes: >The point I was trying to make is that we ought to have a newsgroup >with a broad scope, which can spawn off more specific newsgroups as >needed. Multimedia is the term used by most people, in the same way >as "groupware" (another neologism of dubious value). Some of my colleagues are interested in using multimedia for instructional purposes. I have some work going on in Intelligent Information Retrieval on large (free text) archives. I am interested in CD-ROM and erasable optical disc technology for mass storage of text. There are significant overlaps (as I understand it) in videodisc technology and CD-ROM technology. As a novice in the area, I am looking for groups which I can learn from (for example about mastering and publishing) and perhaps contribute to. There does not seem to be any other newsgroup addressing some of these issues. As things stand, comp.ivideodisc is probably addressing more than interactive video. For example, Kathy Strong's inputs are very useful from my perspective (so *Thanks*, and don't go silent even if you are feel you're the only one on, Kathy ! :-) ). I have some questions: 1. From what I told you of my interests, are there any other news groups related to the technologies I am interested in, to which I should subscribe to? 2. Is my asssumption of commonality between technologies ill-founded? I do agree that there is a technology aspect and an application aspect to, for example, ivideodisc; technology overlaps may be meaningless when the application domains are far separated. But can't we discuss common issues in this group? 3. The next issue is that of the name. Perhaps .video and .multimedia come with connotations which might increase "noise" in the group. But is the issue that of a change in the name, or a change in the perception of what the group is all about? To me a broadening of the scope of this group with an acceptable name would be a nice and useful thing. -- Chandrasekar ______________________________________________________________________ R Chandrasekar, National Centre for Software Technology, Gulmohar Cross Rd No. 9, Juhu, Bombay 400 049,INDIA Phone : +91(22) 620 1606, Telex : +81(011) 78260 NCST IN E-mail : mickey@ncst.ernet.in OR mickey@ncst.in ______________________________________________________________________
marquet@bohra.cpg.oz (John Marquet) (11/23/90)
> > The lexical token `multimedia' is pretty much debased. I agree > > comp.ivideodisc is a bit limited, so I'd vote for comp.video as a > > working title for the group. > > The point I was trying to make is that we ought to have a newsgroup > with a broad scope, which can spawn off more specific newsgroups as > needed. Multimedia is the term used by most people, in the same way > as "groupware" (another neologism of dubious value). > > There already is a rec.video -- I think comp.video will end up getting > a lot of misdirected posts about video in general. Besides, what > about other multimedia technologies besides full-motion video? > IMHO there is enough action in video-computing to merit its own user group without the added freight from the whole hyper/multi media train. There are a number of video environments now for PCs and workstations, and ongoing developments in video consumer durables like frame-grabbers, WORM video disc players, and high definition video imaging generally. I'd be inclined to include developments in video codecs for image transmission with these topics. It takes a degree of bloody mindedness to equate video.video with comp.video. I don't think there's much likelihood of an overflow from rec.arts.tv (for example) into this group. I'm interested in`desktop.video', but I don't think it's useful to categorise the technology by the location of the hardware in this instance. D
longc@cs.fau.edu (Courtney Long) (11/24/90)
In article <1990Nov21.160838.890@rick.doc.ca> andrew@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick) writes: >In article <7324@shemesh.GBA.NYU.EDU> ittai@shemesh.GBA.NYU.EDU >(Ittai Hershman) writes: > >>> The lexical token `multimedia' is pretty much debased. I agree >>> comp.ivideodisc is a bit limited, so I'd vote for comp.video as a >>> working title for the group. >> >>The point I was trying to make is that we ought to have a newsgroup >>with a broad scope, which can spawn off more specific newsgroups as >>needed. Multimedia is the term used by most people, in the same way >>as "groupware" (another neologism of dubious value). >> >>There already is a rec.video -- I think comp.video will end up getting >>a lot of misdirected posts about video in general. Besides, what >>about other multimedia technologies besides full-motion video? > >We have been struggling with this same problem here as an area of >research is emerging, and management wants to know what to call it. > >One of the terms we have been using is "new media", which has its >problems but seems to do the job. "New media" literally is media that >is new. In practice it can be multi-media where a single media has >been dominant in the past (e.g., graphics, sound, video in the computer >field), or it can be interactivity where one-way communication was the >past mode of operation (e.g., interactive video in the television >field). > >What we are describing here is seen differently depending on what >perspective you are coming from (e.g., computers or television). Thus, >finding a label for it will be difficult. What about "comp.new-media"? > > I think what is most often omitted in the definition of multimedia is its fundamental objective which is to COMMUNICATE and to INFLUENCE. Tra- ditional multimedia audiences are "owned" by the author of the presentaion as the auditorium is darkened and all stimulus to the viewer is controlled completely (except for a talking neighbor). Referring to computer hardware and software in terms of multimedia is like referring to a symphony conductor as the music itself. Perhaps a category such as "comp.multimedia.technology" or a setup such as: multimedia.technology multimedia.styles multimedia.interactive would be more descriptive, as well as allowing a wider range of contributors. > > >-- >Andrew Patrick, Ph.D. Department of Communications, Ottawa, CANADA > andrew@calvin.doc.CA andrew@doccrc.BITNET > HDTV: higher resolution, improved colour, wider screen, > "sit-com" reruns. What's wrong with this picture?