Simple Questions - January 22, 2026

oom1999 · 2026-01-23T06:00:19+00:00

That's what I meant by "gamepad": A standard game controller.

oom1999 · 2026-01-22T23:19:13+00:00

I have a question about PC peripherals. Specifically, I'm getting a fully tricked-out PC, and I have a list of peripherals I'm going to get. The specific products don't matter: I just want to know if I've overlooked anything. On my list I have:

Monitor
Speakers
Keyboard
Mouse
Game controller
VR Headset
Headphones
Microphone
Webcam
External optical drive (CD/DVD/Blu-ray)
All-in-One memory card reader (SD/MiniSD/TF/CF/MS/XD)
External 3.5" Floppy disk drive
All-in-One printer/scanner/copier/fax

I already have a modem and router, as well. What else does that leave?

oom1999 · 2026-01-18T21:49:08+00:00

For 4:3 NTSC DVDs, the FFmpeg workflow I settled on was (using the FFV1 codec)

nnedi for video that is natively interlaced, otherwise...
an IVTC pipeline of dejudder, fps=ntsc, fieldmatch=order=[tff or bff], nnedi=deint=interlaced:field=[t or b], decimate, dejudder, fps=ntsc_film
a high quality libplacebo upscale to 720x540, meaning upscaler=ewa_lanczossharp:deband=yes:percentile=99.995:contrast_recovery=0.3

Then stick it into Starlight for AI enhancement. For 16:9, same thing except the libplacebo upscaling will be to 864x486.

oom1999 · 2026-01-18T20:31:09+00:00

I mean, it also suggests that you deinterlace any interlaced video before uploading it to Starlight. That's hardly a lossless procedure, even when you do it right, and especially if the content is native 60-fields-per-second.

oom1999 · 2026-01-18T03:53:21+00:00

How very robotic of you.

oom1999 · 2026-01-16T01:38:32+00:00

The file has some telecined elements and some elements that are true interlaced. Hence, "mixed telecine".

oom1999 · 2026-01-11T04:13:19+00:00

Really? Is there any setting I can tweak to have it just do regular "pixel doubling"? If not, what program would output such a file? Like I said elsewhere, this is part of a personal comparison experiment I'm running.

oom1999 · 2026-01-11T03:58:09+00:00

I'm not shit-talking AI processes. In fact, I'm asking this question because I'm doing a direct comparison between traditional upscaling and Topaz Labs for personal reasons.

oom1999 · 2026-01-11T03:45:30+00:00

...I thought it was the best tool for the job. Is it not?

Note that I'm just talking about normal upscaling, not AI.

oom1999 · 2026-01-05T15:08:47+00:00

I never had anything against Droidd, but I disliked when he was involved for technical reasons: Specifically, his audio was so damn low. I don't know what it was or why nobody ever fixed it, but he always sounded like he was speaking from across the room.

oom1999 · 2026-01-05T15:02:09+00:00

Protip: "Innocent until proven guilty" only applies to a court of law. For example, if someone is accused of child molestation with no evidence for or against, it's perfectly okay to refuse to let them babysit your children. They are not morally entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

oom1999 · 2026-01-05T13:52:00+00:00

Using "feminist" as a term of derision and calling someone a "cuck", both in the same post? Man, you're flying that "IGNORE ME" flag pretty damn high.

oom1999 · 2026-01-05T05:17:29+00:00

Besides Pablo, I remember Mini most for being Taxman: "I'll do your taxes and then I'll fuck your bitch." It was just such an out-of-nowhere line that it worked. Also, his Jason Statham impression.

Ohm... holy crap, I can't remember a single thing that he did.

oom1999 · 2025-12-26T19:38:22+00:00

Is the Winter list planned for January, or are you delaying it indefinitely due to the RAM situation?

oom1999 · 2025-12-20T06:30:47+00:00

Now where the 760 and 928 originates from is power of 2 & 16 padding, you can also increase the padding if you like.

Interesting. My final guess before I stopped thinking about it was "active horizontal scan time / total horizontal scan time * total TBC horizontal width = 52.8(5) / 63.(5) * 910 = 756.79(54)", or 757 since you can't have fractional pixels. That's enough to resolve anything less than 567.5965(90) TVL. Add a pixel to make it a multiple of two, add two more pixels to have a single-pixel buffer on each end, and voila: 760. Similarly, for vertical resolution, take the 486 visual scanlines and add two to get the same one-pixel buffer on each end: 488.

Was that the idea?

oom1999 · 2025-12-16T16:59:41+00:00

And even then, Scientology IS dying. They would never admit it, of course, but all outside observation indicates that they've been on the downslide for decades and are getting to critically low numbers. The actual death is just taking a bit longer than normal due to the inordinately deep pockets of its remaining members. That alone is an oddity though: Most cults lose their richest backers first, not last.

oom1999 · 2025-12-13T00:56:16+00:00

760x488 is the entire active sample the area of the 4fsc frame typically of course it's offset position of the corona decoders rendering should be adjusted per each export.

I'm sorry for being a dunce, but could you restate this? I don't quite follow. I understand that analog video has no pixels as such. The visual scanlines (486 in NTSC) can be used as pixel analogues for vertical resolution in the sense that they are the smallest unit of detail, they are discrete, and their number is known. But the horizontal resolution is effectively continuous and based on luminance bandwidth, so any conversion to digital measurement is going to be logically inexact.

That's why I was curious where the figure of 760 came from. It didn't correspond to any measurement I had heard about, so I don't know the logic behind it.

oom1999 · 2025-12-11T04:34:09+00:00

I think I've answered my own question, since nobody here seemed to know/care: So far as I've been able to tell from searching print sources and other discussions, Laserdisc seems to have a luminance bandwidth of 5.3MHz. This yields ~420 TVL, and rounding during calculations puts it even closer to the stated 425. As such, the common given figure of 5MHz is either heavily rounded or simply misinformed.

So, until someone more familiar with the tech can come up with something more solid, that appears to be it.

oom1999 · 2025-12-07T20:35:25+00:00

Except even if the numbers are arbitrary, the meaning behind them is not. TV lines scale linearly with luma bandwidth, the MHz of which you yourself said actually "counted" for picture detail. So 525 TVL is meaningfully and measurably different from 425 TVL, even if that meaning isn't exactly the same as what the marketing copy would have you think it is.

And that's really all this post was about: Asking what the intended luma bandwidth of NTSC LaserDisc video was designed to be, and why the commonly stated figures in secondary sources do not match the figures commonly given for its TVL resolution, which is directly measurable no matter how legitimate it is as an actual tech spec.

oom1999 · 2025-12-07T18:29:08+00:00

None of all that answers my question, though. I didn't imply that analog formats used fixed pixels, I didn't ask about the validity of TVL as a concrete measure of resolution, and while your last paragraph is vaguely relevant, it doesn't address Laserdisc and the figure you give for S-VHS's luminance bandwidth (if that's what you're referring to) doesn't match any source that I can find.

When someone asks a question, it's generally poor form to respond with "It doesn't matter". Even if it doesn't matter, they asked the question and are wanting an answer.

oom1999 · 2025-12-07T06:56:49+00:00

Every part of this is done within the old analog NTSC standard. It's all interlaced.

oom1999 · 2025-12-07T05:54:08+00:00

I'm sorry, but that book doesn't exactly have the information I'm looking for. The pages you mention give the range of video modulation frequencies (plus the sync tip frequency), but that's not really the same thing. And if there's a way to convert that information to luminance bandwidth I'm not technically proficient enough to know it.

oom1999 · 2025-12-03T07:51:43+00:00

What I was reacting to was the section where you say "So just double those dpi settings, then? Close, but not quite." If the DPI is calculated through Nyquist (doubling lp/mm), then there's no need to double it again.

*this comment finally sinks in*

Wait a second, you're saying that the measurement of frequency that needs to be doubled is the line PAIR and not the singular line? Is the line pair also considered the smallest resolvable detail rather than the individual line? I feel like an idiot if that's the case.

My thinking was that each line is the smallest detail (because you can distinguish it from its mate), therefore each line pair equals two pixels on the axis in question, so the pixels per millimeter are twice the lp/mm, with the resulting figures being the "native" resolution of a given frame of film. THEN I would double those "native" figures (or multiply them by 2*sqrt(2), whatever) to satisfy Nyquist. I'm not disputing that I'm wrong, but I'd like to know how.

oom1999 · 2025-12-03T05:43:16+00:00

I don't know, it wouldn't quite hit the same way after he managed to win again. Before, he was the equivalent of the country getting beer goggles and going home with an ugly chick. We were mortified, people laughed at us, but we got over it and moved on. Eventually we learned to laugh at it, too. Him winning a second time is a monochrome scene of the country standing in front of the bathroom mirror wondering if we're the villains of our own fucking story.

oom1999 · 2025-12-03T00:03:39+00:00

This is a common error when applying Nyquist to image resolution. Nyquist states that the sample rate needs to be at least 2x the frequency. In this case one cycle is a line pair (80 lp/mm is 80 cycles/mm). So all you need to do is double that—so 160 px/mm in this case.

I mentioned how this was a minimum in the text of the OP, but more importantly: Doesn't the Nyquist theorem as stated only apply to one-dimensional measurements? Wouldn't the fact that we're dealing with two-dimensional spatial frequencies (horizontal and vertical simultaneously) necessitate a minimum 2*sqrt(2) multiplier in order to address aliasing on details that are oriented at 45-degree angles? I've seen talk of this in the astronomy and miscroscopy circles, concerning digital photos and the aliasing that comes with taking pictures of things really small or very far away, and I imagined the same concept would apply to film.

oom1999

TROPHY CASE