User talk:ErrantX/Archive/Pre 2010

Slam Nation

Slam Nation article was in trouble for copyright. I did not delete it there was nothing there to begin with. I was the one how started it.

Video Scaler Definition

Hello, 

    I was just shown the definition of Video Scaler on Wiki, and noted that there are some fundamental short-comings in the definition.


As background, I'm the Senior Test Engineer at Anchor Bay Technologies, Inc. (the makers of the DVDO branded line of video processors for Home Theater, and the ABTxxxx “VRS” line of Scaler ASICs).


To start - it may not be wise to break into the topic of resolutions right off the bat unless there is an alternate link to a resolution "backgrounder" to explain why this “video scaling” even takes place (I used to do Tech Support here and I know there is a great mass of people out there - let alone consumers, who don't even know why they should care about this topic). The definition we present for “Scaling” on our website (www.dvdo.com/faq/glossary.php?searchletter=S) is:


"Scaling: The reformatting of video or digital pictures to occupy a different number of scan lines or a different horizontal or vertical pixel count. Also referred to as "resampling". This is done to zoom an image on the screen without spreading out the existing scan lines, or to change the video from one format to another, for example HDTV to NTSC or NTSC to SECAM."


Again there are a lot of words in there that don't really lend themselves to "ease of understanding" unless one happens to be thoroughly going through our web-glossary. Also, it’s more correct to call the scaler the actual chip which does the scaling. While many products are available with analog or digital inputs and outputs, the device that ultimately does the scaling is in fact digital – and it may not only do scaling, thus it is referred to as an “external/stand-alone video processor”.


“Arbitrary resolutions” is not an accurate way to describe the source and output signals that are involved with scaling. Scaling is a more general concept than just video – even a normal copy of Adobe Photoshop or Jasc Paint Shop Pro will do scaling on static images. To put it simply:


The intention behind Video Scaling is to preserve as much of the original signal information/quality while migrating the information conveyed in one signal format/resolution to another different signal format/resolution. It works either in “upscaling” or “downscaling”.


With digital video on the rise – accurate scaling is more important than it was when the majority of displays on the market were CRTs. With CRTs – there would be scan-lines that represent a signal that was received by the display. The simplest way to scale an image to fit a larger display was to de-focus the electron beam so that it would light more phosphors so that it would occupy more surface area on the display. The problem with this method though is that, as the electron beam sweeps across the phosphors on the screen, the video signal is still changing - thus it will blur the detail for a given line in the image. Inexpensive digital video “up-scalers” do basically the same thing with simple multiplier scaling (i.e. in 2:1 scaling ratio, 1 pixel-in becomes a 2x2 pixel-output [four copies of the original] to increase the size of the final signal).


The results of this scaling method are unfortunately about the same as defocusing the electron beam in a CRT (somewhat blurry – and at a rather substantial loss of visible detail for the same amount of area). The detail in a video signal is a high-frequency (or fast changing) band of the signal (in order to get from white to black from one pixel to the next, the signal needs to change in value a very large amount in a very short time). By simply multiplying the size of a pixel - one is (theoretically) dividing the output detail level by the same multiplier for a given signal. The most difficult conditions for scaling occur when there are values below the decimal point (i.e. 1.7778:1 for horizontal 480p to 720p upscaling). In this case there is no simple answer for what the new pixel should look like – and in many low-cost scaling chips like are found in <$60 DVD players, the new pixel will become literally a mix of the pixels on two adjacent lines of image data and in others it will skip adding lines every so often so that the numerical count is correct (again at the cost of accurate geometry and fine detail). This lends to a further reduction in output resolution, due to the mixing of the high frequency components (everything just blends together – which gives a “soft” look to fine detail). With a digital display like an LCD or plasma – there is a fixed number of available pixels to display video information. This means that the signal received by the display must be fitted to the screen so that there are no blank/black spots around the screen (this is not directly related to displaying a 2.35:1 “cinemascope” movie on a 16:9/1.78:1 Plasma or LCD). Since a digital display has specific “addresses” for pixels and they can’t be moved by changing where an electron beam lands on a phosphor mesh – the image must be corrected before it is given to the display’s glass.


Today’s higher-quality video scalers use some form of interpolation that does not expand the higher-frequency component down to a lower (softer) component, but rather preserves the original detail by ensuring that the original detail is a portion of the final output. There are generally three accepted stand-alone scaler chip manufacturers in the market today: Silicon Optix (www.siliconoptix.com) with the “HQV” line of chips, Gennum (www.gennum.com) with the “VXP” line of chips, and Anchor Bay (www.anchorbaytech.com) with the “VRS” line of chips. Other device manufacturers like Sony, Pioneer, Lumagen, Gefen, and Key Digital have there own proprietary scaling methods – but they do not currently produce chips for other manufacturers. Then there are other manufacturers who use less expensive/complicated scaling methods which can degrade the final video output of a given device – and are integrated with other technologies like MPEG decoding, audio decoding (Dolby Digital, DTS), servo controllers, and HDMI transmitters/receivers which reduce the cost for main-stream devices like inexpensive DVD players (these are at the heart of “upconverting DVD players”), Cable and Satellite boxes, and low cost digital video displays (LCDs). Manufacturers include LSI Logic (www.lsilogic.com), MediaTek (www.mtk.com.tw), Sigma Designs (www.sigmadesigns.com), and Zoran (www.zoran.com).


I would also recommend (as a personal note/opinion) that you should remove the commentary about “highly overpriced upconverters” – this is an opinion by the author, and is not being presented as such. It’s also indicative of ignorance of the reasons behind the purpose of these devices (and in the UK could expose the author to a slander lawsuit). As an example, the Startech DVI Upconverter listed at the bottom of the page is fairly limited in its uses and capabilities (only a few input resolutions over DVI, and a few output resolutions over DVI). The devices that are listed for the DVDO and Lumagen are in fact quite a bit more than just simple scalers – they perform true de-interlacing (not just BOB or Weave – and a completely separate process from scaling) and several other functions like video input and output level calibration, switching from different sources (not just one input type and one output type), color-space transcoding, audio routing, etc.


I would also suggest that the link to: “What is an HD Upconverter?”, be removed as they have seriously missed the mark on the purpose and use of scaling (it’s again “uninformed” and contains a lot of “fluff” with no real technical data backing up the opinion expressed by its author - basically it's a buy recomendation for new DVD players over old ones).


Deinterlacing (listed on this page as “interlacing”) should not be listed on this page. Period. It’s already presented in fairly accurate detail on Wikipedia under “deinterlacing”. The interlacing information is very wrong (it’s not used to increase the resolution – it’s intended to reduce the bandwidth required to convey a frequently refreshed image over a transmission medium). Deinterlacing should only be a link to the deinterlacing definition as it is but a side-note as an unrelated yet often paired-with technology of scaling (and is just about always included in a stand-alone scaler).


Please let me know if I can provide you with any further information relating to this topic.

Cheers!

Tim Strommen mailto:tim@dvdo.com


Photo

Hey man you probly dont even remember me but you said I could come to you if I needed help well I do. I made this article on one of my fav new(well new ot me anyway) mangas Diabolo(See Diabolo (manga)) and I would like a photo on it perfuribly this one http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/5549/1sdiabolo2tp9.jpg I was wondering if you could teach me how to put a photo on thier or perhaps do it for me. Thanks.

Video Scaler: The Difference Between Scaling in TVs and DVD Players

I think a stub should be created as a marker for someone to answer this question.

Basically, if I feed an SDTV/EDTV/HDTV (720p or 1080p) an SDTV or EDTV signal, it will display on all these TVs. So there is some sort of video scaling going on in the TV itself.

That being the case, what is the difference in the scaling done by the TV and that done by an upconverting DVD player?

Happy Birthday

  • FROM YOUR FRIEND:

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday from the Birthday Committee

Wishing ErrantX/Archive/Pre 2010 a very happy birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!

Don't forget to save us all a piece of cake!

--  Idontknow610  (WANNA SIGN??) 14:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pcformat issue191.png

Thank you for uploading Image:Pcformat issue191.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Netmagazine issue152.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 05:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikified template

Hi there. What is the template which says that an article has been Wikified (see Talk:Helianthos, for instance)? I can only assume that it's a template that's often substed into article talk pages; but I'm looking to edit it and replace the PNGs in it with SVGs. Thanks in advance. It Is Me Here (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday, ErrantX/Archive/Pre 2010, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Willking1979 (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Inter-Tribal Environmental Council

An editor has nominated Inter-Tribal Environmental Council, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter-Tribal Environmental Council and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy declined

Hi! Just so you know, I declined the deletion of Destiny Christian School, as CSD#A7 cannot be used for schools. As PROD was removed, I suggest AFD. Stephen! Coming... 11:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]