Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : C-Cube -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Rieman who wrote (48713)	2/29/2000 11:06:00 AM
From: Cameron Lang	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50808

CUBE being propelled again by Harmonic. Divi deal doesn't look too shabby now, does it? Would like to see CUBE make more of a move on its own, but may not see that until the spin. Looks like PR machinery has shut down, intentionally, to hold down the semi stub.

To: John Rieman who wrote (48713)	2/29/2000 11:28:00 AM
From: William T. Katz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50808

Here is a question for those that might know how encoding gets done by hardware chips (C-Cube, SigmaDesigns, Sony, etc): If you get a software encoder that allows you to trade off time for quality, then theoretically I would assume the software solution to produce better results than hardware given enough time. So if I am willing to let Ligos LSX encoder (http://www.ligos.com) chew on my data for overnight, won't it produce better results than a real-time hardware encode. I'm assuming that for each hardware chip, there are bounds on how much image information it looks at, since it has a finite time slice to do all its calculations. But the other possibility is: hardware encoders do as much as possible relative to what we can visualize, or no software encoder lets you tradeoff that much time for quality. Any thoughts on this?