Posts tagged ‘future’

2009-08-19

Samsung says: Ditch School!

Samsung wants you to fail your class. Samsung instead wants you to go to the beach and place your brand new laptop on your surfing board.

In an ad on the Internet, Samsung poses a scenario to you: “You just got invited to the beach, but you have to write your English paper.” You are then presented with two buttons — one which is boldly blue and flashing and has the word “GO” on it, and another which is gray and boring-looking and has the word “STAY” on it.

When I saw the ad, I obviously clicked STAY. If I have an English paper I need to write, I’m going to stay and finish it, of course! Especially if it’s due soon. There’s no time to go to the beach! But what Samsung told be was, literally: “You get an A+ in boring.

… Okay? I clicked the STAY button again, and Smugnas, err, Samsung told me: “How annoyingly responsible of you.

Are you kidding me? I clicked again to see if they wouldn’t tell me I should light up a spliff and drive through some school zones. Samsung says: “You really live on the edge, huh?

Nice role models, Samguns. Oops, I mean Samsung. Well, you might as well be handing out guns. Who thought up the idea for this ad campaign? This is ridiculous! These people at Samsung must obviously have gone to college and have lived to see that it is a very important part of your education, and of your life. Why would they tell you to go to the beach instead of writing your English paper due soon?

Obviously they want to make money and have you buy and use a computer they sell, so they tell you to do that, but don’t they realize the kind of impression it makes on people? I guess maybe they only care about one demographic: People who like going to the beach, who are in college, and who are dumb enough not to realize they need to do what they’re told in school or else they fail!

2009-08-3

The 64-bit Difference

I was just reading about the limitations of the WAV audio format.

The WAV format is limited to files that are less than 4 GB in size, because of its use of a 32-bit unsigned integer to record the file size header (some programs limit the file size to 2–4 GB). Although this is equivalent to about 6.8 hours of CD-quality audio (44.1 KHz, 16-bit stereo), it is sometimes necessary to exceed this limit, especially when greater sampling rates or bit resolutions are required. […] Its 64-bit header allows for much longer recording times.

I got to thinking about computer memory and the difference in capacity between N-bit systems. A computer uses an address to access different parts of the memory. The address consists of numbers (internally, ones and zeros), which for a 32-bit system (where the addresses always have a length of 32 bits) would look something like “af34c97b” written using a radix of 16. A 32-bit uses these addresses to look up places in the memory. Each address stands for a certain byte in the memory, so obviously if we only have addresses with 32 bits, we can’t look beyond the address with 32 ones in a row since that is the maximum value 32 bits hold.

Think of when you’re mailing a letter: you can mail the letter to anyone you want using only two numbers for the house or apartment number. You would be able to send it to (0)1-99 Blah Blah St., but not to the guy living at the end of the street at no. 100. Memory addresses work in the same way.

Let’s do some math now. Say your system is working with 32-bit memory addresses. That means the largest value we could have (the farthest down the street we would be able to send the letter) would be 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111, or FFFF FFFF in hexadecimal numbers. Let’s write this figure out in a format that we’re more familiar with, such as Gibibytes (GiB) or as it is more incorrectly known as: Gigabytes (GB). 1 GiB = 1024^3 bytes; 1 GB = 1000^3 bytes.

FFFF FFFF in GiB is 2^32 / 1024^3 = 2^32 / (2^10)^3 = 2^32 / 2^30 = 2^(32-30) = 2^2 = 4 GiB.

You might have heard already that 32-bit systems only can handle 4 GiB of memory, and now you hopefully know why if you didn’t already. Now then, what happens if we double that number, and make it a 64-bit system?

FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF in GiB would be 2^64 / 2^30 = 2^34 = 17179869184 GiB, or 16 Exbibyte (EiB). A MASSIVE amount of memory. As you can see, with a double increase in address size, we do not get a doubling of the memory space, but rather a number that is the number of bytes in 4 GiB to the power of 2. 4 GiB = 4294967296 Bytes, and 16 EiB = 18446744073709551616 bytes. These numbers are obviously incomprehensible. So I thought it would be easier to demonstrate them with an example, regarding the Wikipedia article quoted at the top of the article.

As the quote says, a 4 GB (actually GiB) WAV file (with file size header of 32 bits) would give us 6.8 hours of music with a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz, a bit depth of 16 bits and 2 channels (stereo).

If we assume the file size is proportional to the playing time of the audio file if the quality specifications remain the same, then we can calculate the playing time of a WAV file with file size header of 64 bits:

17179869184 [GiB] * (6.8 [hours] / 4 [GiB]) [hour-to-filesize ratio] = 29205777612.8 hours of music.

This number is still incomprehensible so let’s walk up the ladder of time units, shall we? Note that when calculating the amount of years, we will use a year length of 365.2425 days, which is the arithmetic mean of amount of days in a year in the Gregorian Calendar, which has a 400-year cycle and 146 097 days: 146097 / 400 = 365.2425 days. This is to take leap years into account. One could also use a day length of 24 hours and 58.3594503 seconds, but that doesn’t feel as nice, somehow.

29205777612.8 hours
= 1216907400.533333333 days
= 173843914.361904762 weeks
= 39981351.585316605 months (average of 30.436875 days/month in one 365.2425-day year)
= 3331779.298776384 years

So we see that just by doubling the address space, we go from 6.8 hours of music — which I guess you could plough through on a really dull and long bus ride — to more than 3.33 million years of music.

That, my friend, is the 64-bit difference.

… hmm? What was that about 128 bits? Shut up. 😦

No but really, to fill a 128-bit hard drive, it would more energy than it would to boil the oceans of the earth. Theoretical breakdown. Enjoy.

2009-05-15

The Future of visual and auditive media

Some terminology

High-Definition Television, or HDTV, is a broadcasting system with higher definition than standard-definition television, or SDTV.

What used to be

As I understand it, the North Americas use the NTSC standard of television screens with progressive screens of 525 scan lines (lines of pixels) and a frame rate of 29.97 frames per second. Progressive in this context means that the entire raster, or image, is updated in one scan (progressively?).

Here in Europe, however, the PAL standard is more common, with 625 lines, but with an interlaced signal, which means that half of the raster — every other line, starting with the even numbers first and from the top – is updated in one pass, then the other lines in a second pass, with a frame rate of 50 Hz, or 50 passes per second, resulting in a full raster update every 25th second and ultimately a frame rate of 25 FPS.

HDTV

A couple of new standard formats are here, the most common of which are called 720p and 1080p, standing for 720 and 1080 vertical lines respectively. The standard aspect ratio is 16:9, so the digital resolutions would be 1280×720 for 720p and 1920×1080 for 1080p. As a side note, 720p is perfect for my current computer screen as it has a resolution of 1280×1024, perfectly matching the pixel width of 720p to the pixel. But most new computer screens nowadays are 1920 pixels wide.

Typically, 1080p is referred to as Full HD, and you will most likely see more “Full HD” stickers on screens that support it rather than “1080p” ones, probably because people don’t know what 720p and 1080p means. Everybody hates numbers, right?! Screens that support 720p and other, more non-standard, resolutions are referred to as “HD-Ready” (personally, I think this is ridiculous), which is pretty much just a sugar coating to mask the real message, which is “Less than 1080p.” Or worse yet, “Less than Full.”

Always make sure you find out the real resolution of a television or computer screen before you make the purchase, and do weigh in the factor of pixel density. If you go and buy a 40-inch screen, but it only has about 20 by 10 pixels, the picture is obviously going to look like crap, because the pixels will be more like regular light bulbs than little dots. So if you go for a really large television, you would probably prefer a 1080p television, whereas a smaller one would do fine with 720p (and indeed the smaller ones are mostly 720p).

The Future

I stumbled upon a Wikipedia.org article called Super Hi-Vision, and was blown away. Apparently it is an experimental format and proposed standard of High-Definition audiovisual media with a video resolution of not double, not quadruple (as in 2160p, referred to as Quad High Definition), not eight times, but sixteen times the resolution of Full HD: 4320p, with a resolution of 7680×4320 — four times the height and four times the width of 1080p.

Ultra High-Definition Video

Ultra High-Definition Video

A nice comparison, stolen from the Wikipedia article, is shown above (click for true resolution). Notice the light-blue surface as HTDV/Full HD/1080p, and compare that to Super Hi-Vision in darker blue. Astonishing.

Some Numbers

My screen resolution is 1280×1024 on a 17-inch screen. This translates to about 96 Dots-Per-Inch (DPI).

If you would take a Super Hi-Vision resolution of 7680×4320 at a DPI of 96, as with my screen, you would have to make the screen almost 92 inches across the diagonal, or over seven and a half (7.65) feet. Or 2 and one third (2.33) of a meter, I should say.

My screen resolution makes for 1280×1024 = 1 310 720 pixels, or a little over 1.3 megapixels. 1080p makes for 1920×1080 = 2 073 600 pixels, or about 2 megapixels. 4320p gives you 33 megapixels (33 177 600).

Enough said, I think, about Super Hi-Vision. Let’s talk about the sound system that is being developed to go with this super-high-resolution video — the 22.2 surround sound system. 24 speakers total, 2 of which are subwoofers: one left and one right. 9 speakers will be on a top layer, above the heads of the listeners, another middle layer with more speakers, and a bottom layer with a few more speakers along with the left and right subwoofers. I think I need say no more.

I guess the next obvious step in video would be a resolution with the same amount of pixels as the amount of light receptors that are in the average human retina, and in sound would be the walls, ceiling and floor of the room being one single speaker — with some type of dynamically targeting membrane — including the surface behind the huge screen.

Enjoy the future!

2009-01-8

Zeitgeist – Critical Knowledge for the Masses

I thought I would set up an account on WordPress.com. I feel like it’s much nicer here than at blogger.com. Feels less like “hey let’s keep it extremely simple” and more like “let’s use standards and throw tons of features at our users but order them neatly so it’s not cluttered too much – the users will have to explore them by themselves.” Kind of. Also WordPress is OpenSource I believe (wordpress.org).

Anyway as my first post, I’d like to just copy over my latest post from blogger because I feel like it’s an extremely important post. Here it is:

I recently watched Zeitgeist: Addendum. It is a film that is as astonishing as it is enlightening, frustrating, and appalling – a film that makes you believe there is hope for the future of humanity, but at the same time makes you feel there is just something inherent about the human race and the leaders of the world such that we will never reach world peace.

From the official “statement” page of the Zeitgeist movies’ homepage (link on the bottom).

‘Zeitgeist, The Movie’ and ‘Zeitgeist: Addendum’ were created as Not-for-Profit expressions to communicate what the author felt were highly important social understandings which most humans are generally not aware of. The first film focuses on suppressed historical & modern information about currently dominant social institutions, while also exploring what could be in store for humanity if the power structures at large continue their patterns of self-interest, corruption, and consolidation.

The second film, Zeitgeist: Addendum, attempts to locate the root causes of this pervasive social corruption, while offering a solution. This solution is not based on politics, morality, laws, or any other “establishment” notions of human affairs, but rather on a modern, non-superstitious based understanding of what we are and how we align with nature, to which we are a part. The work advocates a new social system which is updated to present day knowledge, highly influenced by the life long work of Jacque Fresco and The Venus Project.

These two films, or at least the second film, are probably the most significant pieces of expression in history, because they have the potential to introduce radical, and positive(!), changes to the societies of the world and thus the state of the world today.

In short (extremely short), Zeitgeist: Addendum talks about how money is the root of all evil. This may sound like the biggest cliché you’ve ever heard, but you most likely have no idea of how much there is to know about the evil that money brings. You will be blown away.

The knowledge you will gain from these movies are part of essential and important, common knowledge about the state of the world! And even if you don’t have about 4 hours to watch them both, try to take at least 2 hours to watch Zeitgeist: Addendum. If you don’t have 2 hours, try to take 1 hour, 30 minutes or 15 minutes of your day, and finish the movie(s) in parts. It is important. For all of us.

The Zeitgeist movies can be viewed directly via Google Video or downloaded using BitTorrent technology. You can download the BitTorrent files from the link provided below. The files point to high-quality “DVDRips” (almost DVD quality) so that might be the way you want to go.

Links:

Nice BitTorrent clients: