|Autoblog Archive||2 Comments|
|Autoblog Green||4 Comments|
Feb 26th 2011 4:09PM Snow Leopard is not required for iPhone 4. Regular Leopard will do fine.
Sep 21st 2010 9:26PM huth, uh, yeah, Apple is Doomed (TM). Do you have any proof that the "fatty" hurt iPod sales?
I'd suggest not assuming everyone has the same preferences and opinions that you do. People have been screaming about how "no one" wants whatever Apple chose to make, and yet Apple still makes considerable bank despite the detractors. So that makes me think that, for the most part, Apple detractors are speaking out of their hindquarters.
Aug 5th 2010 8:03AM @dtakias Either it's going to be a huge display and very, very expensive, or a higher density display, and probably still very expensive. I haven't heard about an operating system having usable resolution independence yet, is there one?
Aug 4th 2010 8:58AM The given price might be the list price. Street price might be lower. I have a previous generation Samsung monitor/TV. The only difference is that it's a 16:10 screen so it either cuts the ends or shows letterboxing bars. This one looks nicer for other reasons.
Aug 1st 2010 8:19PM Is there anyway Engadget would stop reporting obviously BS contrast ratios? You don't get figures into tens or hundreds of thousands to one in real contrast ratios, it has to be done with "dynamic" method and it won't represent the picture quality you will actually get, it just represents various stunts that are either unrealistic or result in wildly changing screen brightness that's very obvious.
Aug 1st 2010 8:05PM @Dank Dillweed I had the same concerns, but Samsung plasmas have an anti-glare diffractive surface that cuts reflections by maybe 80%. Maybe something to look at.
With this stuff, I don't see $60 more being a problem, if that's really the price increase at retail. If that's the increase in parts cost, then the cost might be a lot more than that because cost of parts is only a small part of the final purchase price.
Jul 28th 2010 5:57AM The projectors in the movie theater likely cost a lot more than that, and those still require glasses too. I don't see that problem being solved any time soon, if 3D glasses are a deal killer, then your options are going to be very slim for a while, there's no magic bullet yet to solve this one, there's going to be some kind of trade-off.
Jul 27th 2010 11:03PM @CRA1G You're comparing a specific implementation of an idea for audio with the whole idea of stereoscopic video? There is now something that's more than quadraphonic sound, we now have pentaphonic (and higher!) sound for home theaters. You might see it referred to as 5.1, 6.1, etc.
Jul 27th 2010 10:54PM To simulate stereo vision in adults, I would think you need maybe 6-8cm of center-to-center separation, I don't see that here, that looks like maybe 2cm at most, very small given the size of that attachment.
I also didn't see a line in the press release where they give the iris/aperture value is of this camcorder with the 3D attachment. I don't expect much with such a small lens.
Jul 16th 2010 7:26PM @iamdeadfish I think they're looking for novelty, I really don't want that. I don't buy a video device to look at at the device, but to watch on a display.