See more Technology Videos at Today's Big Thing.
16 March 2009
The Onion comments on Sony--hilarious but with language alert
The Onion comments on Sony and technology in general. Be warned, there is language in this clip of the sort not usually seen or heard on eebahgum!
Sony's misleading advertising 2
Yup, there's more from our friends at Sony. It's the impossibly thin LCD TV which isn't as thin as they say it is. "Be the first to be seen," says Sony, "with the new ZX1". It's as thin as a CD case at 9.9 mm! But wait, there's an asterisk and it goes ... let's see, down to the bottom of the ad ... oh, here it is: "At its slimmest part". So it's not 9.9 mm thin then. My house is 1 brick thick* (at its thinnest part, the bricks that protrude from my window sills). My car is 10 cm high* (*at the front bumper). I don't have a pot belly* (*when lying down).
The picture below clearly show that more than 2/3 of this new TV is not 9.9 mm thick. Sure the LCD panel itself is that thin, due to the clever side rather than back illumination, but you can't just watch an LCD panel. It's got to have those, you know, TV bits and stuff to make a TV--power supply, tuner, etc. Sony have actually made all those things impressively thin, so the whole TV (minus stand or speakers) is actually only abut three times as deep as the screen. Wouldn't it be just as impressive to tell the truth and advertise the set as "an amazing 3 cm thick, and no asterisks required!" But once again, Sony's marketing department chooses to mask the very real cleverness of their R&D people with a downright, dare I say it, LIE! And the media are picking this up as if it were gospel, though most of the reports, even on tech-savvy sites such as gizmodo, uncritically omit the asterisk and accompanying phrase. Shame, shame, shame, as Australian media character Derryn Hinch used to say.
The picture below clearly show that more than 2/3 of this new TV is not 9.9 mm thick. Sure the LCD panel itself is that thin, due to the clever side rather than back illumination, but you can't just watch an LCD panel. It's got to have those, you know, TV bits and stuff to make a TV--power supply, tuner, etc. Sony have actually made all those things impressively thin, so the whole TV (minus stand or speakers) is actually only abut three times as deep as the screen. Wouldn't it be just as impressive to tell the truth and advertise the set as "an amazing 3 cm thick, and no asterisks required!" But once again, Sony's marketing department chooses to mask the very real cleverness of their R&D people with a downright, dare I say it, LIE! And the media are picking this up as if it were gospel, though most of the reports, even on tech-savvy sites such as gizmodo, uncritically omit the asterisk and accompanying phrase. Shame, shame, shame, as Australian media character Derryn Hinch used to say.
12 March 2009
Sony's misleading advertising 1
The new Sony Bravia LCD TVs boast 200Hz Motionflow technology and claim to have "the smoothest picture ever". Unfortunately, some of the explanations given for the technology are simplistic, or just downright misleading. They show pictures of a footballer with added frames, and have a little video on their website showing a flickbook with lots of frames looking smoother than one with fewer frames. All very convicing, and well, wrong.
The bottom line is the broadcast signal you are watching was only recorded at up to 50 Hz to 60 Hz or fields per second. That's all the information there is. There's nothing between those frames and no amount of post processing by the TV after the event will change that. What the Sony sets (and others) are doing is looking at two of those frames and making up other frames in between them by averaging the two actual frames. They're not real frames, so these sets aren't really giving you 200 Hz, they're just interpolating between the actual frames to smooth the transition that the eye sees.
Now if you look closely at the deepest explanation that Sony gives, you'll see them describe that interpolation process accurately enough. They say "the sharpness of each image frame is boosted by Image Blur Reduction before its contents are analysed and three 'in between' frames are added between it and the next frame. This spreads two frames worth of motion across five frames". So far so good until they conclude "so effectively 50 frames per second becomes 200". No, sorry, that's wrong. These are made up frames. It is not at all the same as a genuine 200 Hz frame rate and neither does it look it.
So even Sony's most detailed explanation has been hijacked by the marketing boys and made into an untruth. But of course, the evils of marketing don't stop there. Most explanations aren't even that detailed, and as the ideas become more and more like sound-bytes, so any attempts at accuracy become the first casualties.
This kind of deception is pretty inexcusable, not only because it's playing fast and loose with the truth but also, and perhaps worse, because it insults the consumer. It attempts to reduce the issue to a 'numbers game' at point of sale and as such it's deliberately aimed at the consumer who doesn't know better. Rather than educate, it's an attempt to befuddle with meaningless numbers, rather like the battle for megapixels in digital cameras.
But the good news is, this technology does actually improve the picture. Sony's new 200Hz-interpolated sets do have the smoothest motion I've seen on an LCD. Is it the smoothest picture ever? No, because a good plasma set still looks better by a reasonable margin to my eye, but these Sonys are the first LCD sets I might be convinced to watch sport on.
The bottom line is the broadcast signal you are watching was only recorded at up to 50 Hz to 60 Hz or fields per second. That's all the information there is. There's nothing between those frames and no amount of post processing by the TV after the event will change that. What the Sony sets (and others) are doing is looking at two of those frames and making up other frames in between them by averaging the two actual frames. They're not real frames, so these sets aren't really giving you 200 Hz, they're just interpolating between the actual frames to smooth the transition that the eye sees.
Now if you look closely at the deepest explanation that Sony gives, you'll see them describe that interpolation process accurately enough. They say "the sharpness of each image frame is boosted by Image Blur Reduction before its contents are analysed and three 'in between' frames are added between it and the next frame. This spreads two frames worth of motion across five frames". So far so good until they conclude "so effectively 50 frames per second becomes 200". No, sorry, that's wrong. These are made up frames. It is not at all the same as a genuine 200 Hz frame rate and neither does it look it.
So even Sony's most detailed explanation has been hijacked by the marketing boys and made into an untruth. But of course, the evils of marketing don't stop there. Most explanations aren't even that detailed, and as the ideas become more and more like sound-bytes, so any attempts at accuracy become the first casualties.
This kind of deception is pretty inexcusable, not only because it's playing fast and loose with the truth but also, and perhaps worse, because it insults the consumer. It attempts to reduce the issue to a 'numbers game' at point of sale and as such it's deliberately aimed at the consumer who doesn't know better. Rather than educate, it's an attempt to befuddle with meaningless numbers, rather like the battle for megapixels in digital cameras.
But the good news is, this technology does actually improve the picture. Sony's new 200Hz-interpolated sets do have the smoothest motion I've seen on an LCD. Is it the smoothest picture ever? No, because a good plasma set still looks better by a reasonable margin to my eye, but these Sonys are the first LCD sets I might be convinced to watch sport on.
3 March 2009
Stupid idea of the month—Toshiba laptop keyboards
I've ranted before about shiny screens on laptops and how unusable they are in many lighting situations. Now Toshiba has tried to go one better in the sheer stupidity stakes by equipping many of its new laptops with highly reflective keyboards.
Putting aside the fact that they look tacky, you can just about guarantee that at least one row of keys will be impossible to read at any give time because of reflections. This won't worry the experienced user who is a good touch typist, but the sort of people likely to buy a shiny bling-ridden laptop are also the users most likely to be hunt-and-peck typists who will be looking at their keyboards. Indeed, Toshiba's top-of-the-line business-oriented machines seem to have matte keys like the good old days.
And I thought laptop design stupidity had reached its limits--congratulations to Toshiba for raising the ante once againI
Putting aside the fact that they look tacky, you can just about guarantee that at least one row of keys will be impossible to read at any give time because of reflections. This won't worry the experienced user who is a good touch typist, but the sort of people likely to buy a shiny bling-ridden laptop are also the users most likely to be hunt-and-peck typists who will be looking at their keyboards. Indeed, Toshiba's top-of-the-line business-oriented machines seem to have matte keys like the good old days.
And I thought laptop design stupidity had reached its limits--congratulations to Toshiba for raising the ante once againI
26 November 2008
Google mobile voice search review. Much ado about not very much, but you'll use it anyway
Judging by the amount of noise on iPhone sites, you'd think that the voice search function in the latest version of Google's iPhone application was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Let me tell you why it isn't.
Do you have voice recognition on your computer? Of so, do you use it to browse the web? For most people the answer is probably "no". Sure the software and hardware exists and is probably even built into your operating system, but most people have come to the conclusion that it's not a good idea.
Ah, but the iPhone is a mobile device, I hear you say! Voice recognition saves all that typing, and is surely much safer in the car. And here you would be right, assuming it worked really well, but in my experience, it only works 'okay' rather than 'really well'. And you'll look an idiot in public talking into your search engine, especially after spending all that time telling everyone how easy it is type on the iPhone virtual keyboard.
As for safety in the car, you still have to unlock the iPhone (one touch), go to the home screen to find the app (two touches), launch the app (three touches), look at the screen long enough to find the small 'Voice Search' button, touch it (four touches), speak, wait, look at the search field to see whether it has recognised your voice correctly, and if not, look at the prompts to touch the screen again and try again. Then you have to read the tiny text in the google page that opens. If my phone is mounted on my car holder, I can't read the text on this screen, nor even see the Voice Search button, so I'd have to hold the phone closer to my face to execute the search and comprehend the results. And bear in mind that voice recognition will work far less well due to background noise in the car.
Bottom line is, there is no way this process could be considered safe in the car, and certainly in South Australia it would (rightly, I think) be illegal.
But how well does the voice recognition even work? I tested a few words and phrases at a distance of about 40 cm and here is a sample of my results:
I said "supermarket". It heard "chicago".
I said "supermarket" in an American accent. It heard correctly.
I said "podiatrist". It heard correctly.
I said "newsagent". It heard "mutations".
I said "newsagent" again. It heard "musicians".
I said "paper shop". It heard correctly.
I said "chemist". It heard "tennis".
I said "drugstore". It heard correctly.
I said "chiropractor". It heard correctly.
I said "pharmacist". It heard correctly.
I said "I feel like a massage" in an American accent. It heard "flexamerica".
I said "where did I put my car keys". It heard "when does my car keys".
I said "where did I put my car keys" in an American accent. It heard "where to put my car keys".
I said "the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog". It heard correctly.
I said "google voicemail". It heard "google boise idaho".
I said "shall I compare thee to a summer's day". It heard correctly.
On that evidence the voice recognition works well enough to be entertaining but only moderately useful; it responds better to Americaan accents than my Anglo-Australian, but more than that, it seems to respond better to American vocabulary; and it seems to like Shakespeare.
Is it safe for use in the car? No. Is it all that useful? Not really. Will I use it anyway? Yes, because it's fun. And like so many applications on the iPhone it's an example of clever technology only partially solving a problem no-one had in the first place. And that's kind of cool in a geeky way. Just like the Lightsaber or Zippo Lighter iPhone apps, no-one who actually 'gets' the iPhone should have to ask why.
Do you have voice recognition on your computer? Of so, do you use it to browse the web? For most people the answer is probably "no". Sure the software and hardware exists and is probably even built into your operating system, but most people have come to the conclusion that it's not a good idea.
Ah, but the iPhone is a mobile device, I hear you say! Voice recognition saves all that typing, and is surely much safer in the car. And here you would be right, assuming it worked really well, but in my experience, it only works 'okay' rather than 'really well'. And you'll look an idiot in public talking into your search engine, especially after spending all that time telling everyone how easy it is type on the iPhone virtual keyboard.
As for safety in the car, you still have to unlock the iPhone (one touch), go to the home screen to find the app (two touches), launch the app (three touches), look at the screen long enough to find the small 'Voice Search' button, touch it (four touches), speak, wait, look at the search field to see whether it has recognised your voice correctly, and if not, look at the prompts to touch the screen again and try again. Then you have to read the tiny text in the google page that opens. If my phone is mounted on my car holder, I can't read the text on this screen, nor even see the Voice Search button, so I'd have to hold the phone closer to my face to execute the search and comprehend the results. And bear in mind that voice recognition will work far less well due to background noise in the car.
Bottom line is, there is no way this process could be considered safe in the car, and certainly in South Australia it would (rightly, I think) be illegal.
But how well does the voice recognition even work? I tested a few words and phrases at a distance of about 40 cm and here is a sample of my results:
I said "supermarket". It heard "chicago".
I said "supermarket" in an American accent. It heard correctly.
I said "podiatrist". It heard correctly.
I said "newsagent". It heard "mutations".
I said "newsagent" again. It heard "musicians".
I said "paper shop". It heard correctly.
I said "chemist". It heard "tennis".
I said "drugstore". It heard correctly.
I said "chiropractor". It heard correctly.
I said "pharmacist". It heard correctly.
I said "I feel like a massage" in an American accent. It heard "flexamerica".
I said "where did I put my car keys". It heard "when does my car keys".
I said "where did I put my car keys" in an American accent. It heard "where to put my car keys".
I said "the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog". It heard correctly.
I said "google voicemail". It heard "google boise idaho".
I said "shall I compare thee to a summer's day". It heard correctly.
On that evidence the voice recognition works well enough to be entertaining but only moderately useful; it responds better to Americaan accents than my Anglo-Australian, but more than that, it seems to respond better to American vocabulary; and it seems to like Shakespeare.
Is it safe for use in the car? No. Is it all that useful? Not really. Will I use it anyway? Yes, because it's fun. And like so many applications on the iPhone it's an example of clever technology only partially solving a problem no-one had in the first place. And that's kind of cool in a geeky way. Just like the Lightsaber or Zippo Lighter iPhone apps, no-one who actually 'gets' the iPhone should have to ask why.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
