I've recently switched to Media Player Classic for watchign movies. I tried not to, because VLC works on Linux, but MPC's video quality is simply superior, when you put the two side-by-side you can see a difference...
so when I'm watching a movie, I will switch to Windows and play it on MPC. For everything else VLC is fine. Annoying, I've tried filters and other fixes, but nothing worked.
This post is actually devoid of factual content as it stands. Please don't take it as an insult, read on:
Media Player Classic uses codec decoders you have installed on your PC, VLC ships with everything it needs to play your videos. In other words, you should not be comparing VLC to MPC, but rather VLC's underlying codec library (from ffmpeg, I believe) to the active codec decoder being used on your Windows machine.
For example, I too use MPC on Windows to get better video - but that's because I have CoreAVC installed and MPC uses it to play h264 content. CoreAVC blows everything else out of the water in terms of performance and quality.
Media Player Classic does have it's own video renderers, however, which are responsible for scaling and colour conversion. It also has FFmpeg built in to decode some more popular formats without relying on system codecs.
The washed out colour in that screenshot can probably be fixed by changing the video output method (to OpenGL/Direct2D/Direct3D) or changing the default luma range in the graphics card settings from 16-235 to 0-255.
I'm not sure, but as an end-user, I'm comparing the two players on the out-of-the-box results I get when playing video. If VLC's codec library is inferior to the one on my Windows computer, then I won't use VLC unless I could easily import my proprietary codecs.
H264 (the decompression standard implemented by VLC/ffmpeg and CoreAVC/MPC) has well defined output in YUV space, and up to +/-1 pixel values in RGB space.
The differences you have captured here indicate that at least one of them is applying non-standard filters of some sort. Perhaps it's just a matter of the right settings (though I cannot offer help in determining what they are)
And yet again you jump to conclusions involving race. Somebody says Oakland is dangerous, `oh you're putting African Americans down'. Another person states you shouldn't glorify a `criminal', you think it's because he's racist. Would you have posted that if Rick Ross had been White. Of course you wouldn't have. People like you, the hyper pc that will find racist connotations in every negative comment, like Al Sharpton, make everybody seem like a bad person for not being anti-white.
The original commenter stated that these two people would be fun to watch fight to the death.
Said about two white people or two blacks or two people in general you know it's a superfluous comment that does not add anything to the discussion.
Your parent poster is entirely right. Comments such as these drag the quality of the comments section here at hacker news down.
If you don't believe you should glorify a criminal or a rapper than you should say that and leave it at that. If you think that it is wrong to try to understand the mind set of a man who learned to read behind bars and read so many law books he found a hole in the law which allowed him to become a free man again you should tell us why there is nothing inspirational, interesting, or glorifying about this mans life.
Saying that two people would be fun to watch fight to the death, no matter how sarcastic, adds nothing and is superfluous.
I think you read my comment and responded w/o re-reading it, and not to mince words I chose the word 'might' carefully. Might and would are on the opposite side of logic. Therefore, I reject the premise of your comment on basic levels. I do concur with your conclusion that it is a sarcastic comment, however you likely don't need to point that out here.
Thanks for coming to my defence. Obviously, this person thinks race is an important factor in this discussion, which it is most certainly not. It is a shame when someone throws the race card out there. Neither drug dealers, nor poseur rappers that pretend to be deserve to be glorified. If I were a betting man, I would place a bet that either Rick Ross would bitch slap that troll and take his figurative lunch money if SHTF.
For the record, sorry, accidentally downvoted you (meant to upvote).
Unfortunately, such people start with the assumption that race is the motivation for dislike, and you can do pretty much nothing to change their mind. It's mind-boggling, but they're really, really convinced of it.
We are the medical industry and have codified the diagnosis of aspergers to be far encompassing and include people who have absolutely no real impact on their lives, but we've convinced them it is a problem and now we're going to provide them with a pharmaceutical and psychiatric therapy to help them "cope" with it -- GIVE US MONEY.
Aspies are not systematically medicated. Few are ever medicated. Sometimes, medications not specifically indicated for Asperger's, such as antipsychotics and antidepressants, are used to treat extreme symptoms. These would be given whether the symptom came with a diagnosis of Asperger's or not, and usually are not consistently maintained at a high dosage long-term.
There is no "Asperger's pill". I only wish someone could come up with one.
Because 90% of geeks have /self-diagnosed/ themselves as having aspergers and they take any criticism of it as a personal attack on them and their "illness".
Don't worry, something else will come along that is way more trendy in a few years and these same people will move on to claiming they have that, instead.
(Obviously not claiming autism itself is not real and not a legitimate and difficult problem to deal with. I shouldn't have to disclaim this, but I'm obviously talking about the Slashdot type crowd that has convinced themselves that because they are detail oriented and are sometimes awkward in crowds, they have aspergers and constantly talk about it.)
Or you could just chalk it up to the fact that the post was a "shoot from the hip" post that was channelling a bunch of rage against Big Pharma and psychiatry while containing very little in the way of facts. Not only that, but Big Pharma has no horse in the race as there is no drug to sell here.
I have been professionally diagnosed as having Asperger's, and I downvoted it because it was a shitty, uninformed, insulting comment. Exactly the same reason I've downvoted your comments.
The remaining 10% of geeks who have more sense than that, have been diagnosed by their friends and or families. It can be used as a stick to control them, so I can see why it provokes a reaction.
Because people assume it's an insubstantial conspiracy. I have plenty of friends and family who work in medicine and they'll readily admit that there are fad disorders closely preceded or followed by a pharmaceutical to treat them.
I dunno, or care, but it's funny, there was an article posted here recently that was titled almost exactly `psychiatry is bullshit' and that got to the front page. It's not a conspiracy, it's incompetent doctors readily prescribing dangerous drugs to children for make believe illnesses. This has happened since the birth of medicine and will continue to do so.
The GP says in another comment that trying to treat autism is bullshit.
> I think there is good reason to be skeptical of psychiatry.
I think there is good reason to be skeptical when not presented with proof. I'm sorry, but the GP is asserting things purely based on his uninformed opinion.
The fact that it's considered an illness and needs a cure or special treatment is, though. I was actually diagnosed with Aspergers as a child (whether it was accurately done so or not, I don't care), and the thing that has had the most negative impact on my life wasn't the Autism, but the diagnosis itself. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, getting told something is wrong with you. And with things like ADD the `treatment' was almost always much worse than the condition itself.
Your personal experience is meaningless. Autism and Aspergers are not the same for everyone. The fact that you are typing this is proof enough. But when you suggest that autistics who stim by slamming their head into a wall don't need special treatment, it's clear you don't understand the full ramifications of what you are suggesting.
Autism is a spectrum. It's not one thing.
> And with things like ADD the `treatment' was almost always much worse than the condition itself.
As someone who was recently diagnosed with ADHD, and is currently taking medication, I can assure you, that's not the case.
While I completely disagree with the (what I hope are troll) comments such as the one you're replying to, one nit-pick: you call him out for judging everything on a single case, then do the same with ADD/ADHD medication. The fact that it works for you doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't "almost always much worse than the condition itself", just as the fact that he thinks he was misdiagnosed doesn't necessarily mean all diagnoses are incorrect / not worth doing.
I've worked as a neuro tech for several years and have encountered a lot of autistic, ADHD, and epileptic children. The common age of the autistic patients for us was around 2 years old, but we dealt with them up to adult age.
I'm here to tell you that you are spouting harmful nonsense, and that there are definitely children that have a qualitative difference from their peers as described by 'autism'.
Overdiagnosis may be an issue, but that doesn't make it bullshit. Deal with the overdiagnosis on its own merits - but don't just start inventing stuff to simply make yourself feel better, because your misinformation can prevent others from getting appropriate assistance.
Who paid for this? I frequently fly from Heathrow and it's a horrible airport, run into service problems almost every time. Yet they can do all this for one person.
Actually Heathrow is a terrible airport. I had a connecting flight through there and swore I'll get on a scrappy prop plane via Djibouti first before doing that again.
The security "might" be impressive, but often there's no real coordination so I've felt this is largely theater. I was wandering around while looking for the security office and not once was I stopped and asked where I was going.
No one knew where the security office was. One of my travel companions got lost and wound up there and I had to ask 6 different people (I don't know if they were security, but had uniforms and radios) and all of them gave me the "try over there" treatment.
Gate announcements are invariably late so you either make it barely on time or not at all. I know this is something we have to keep an eye on, but tired people tend to fall asleep.
It also doesn't help that it's one of the most confusing airports I've ever been through. Probably only second to Charles De Gaulle. The language used on most sign posts is English, allegedly, but of no dialect I'm familiar with and with no obviousness at a distance.
I don't know if they've changed these things since the last time (it's been a couple of years), but it was really quite terrible.
Always understaffed, bad organization (e.g. gates announced late), too small for the number of people it serves, particularly rude staff a lot of whom are on a power trip... I've seriously never had a bad experience that comes close to the average day in Heathrow.
What do you intend to get from the "particularly rude staff"? It's likely there is nothing they can help you with: you get a seat on the flight you paid for, and a voucher for future travel if they can't provide that seat. They have no other obligations and I'm not really sure what people demand.
I'll agree on the gate thing, though. They really want you to sit around in that god damned shopping mall for as long as possible. Get elite status and sit in the lounge. Much better.
Honestly, i prefer they announce the gate let, if only so they don't do what they used to o, and swap it around t the last minute. This is much more consistent, been if it does make ams a little anxious.
One example... many airlines have a one bag policy, in most airports if you have an extra camera bag or small handbag, the staff will politely ask you to put it inside the bigger one or most of the time let you off, in London you can guarantee somebody will shout at you for it. It's not one particular thing, it's the general feel of the airport.
Yes, this is something I notice a lot on frequent flyer forums: people being mad because today they didn't get an exception they usually get. Once you let the rules slide once, people are outraged that you don't let it happen every time.
Well, i believe they are currently building new terminal to replace terminals 1 and 2 its meant to be a very nice building, and from what little o've seen of it i'd agree.
Most likely covered under the disability laws in the UK. It doesn't seem to make anyone go that far out of their way if there's enough warning in advance.
I'm always surprised this show is popular among the user base here. From what I've seen it's aimed at 14 year old girls who think they are ``nerdy'' because they wear glasses and have a Nintendo t-shirt. Bazinga!
http://i.imgur.com/oLHiQgR.jpg
so when I'm watching a movie, I will switch to Windows and play it on MPC. For everything else VLC is fine. Annoying, I've tried filters and other fixes, but nothing worked.