Film-out is the process in the computer graphics, video production and filmmaking disciplines of transferring images or animation from videotape or digital files to a traditional film print. Film-out is a broad term that encompasses the conversion of frame rates, color correction, as well as the actual printing, also called scannior recording. The film-out process is different depending on the regional standard of the master videotape in question – NTSC, PAL, or SECAM – or likewise on the several emerging region-independent formats of high definition video (HD video); thus each type is covered separately, taking into account regional film-out industries, methods and technical considerations. == Live action video == Many modern documentaries and low-budget films are shot on videotape or other digital video media, instead of film stock, and completed as digital video. Video production means substantially lower costs than 16 mm or 35 mm film production on all levels. Until recently, the relatively low cost of video ended when the issue of a theatrical presentation was raised, which required a print for film projection. With the growing presence of digital projection, this is becoming less of a factor. === Standard definition (SD) video === Film-out of standard-definition video – or any source that has an incompatible frame rate – is the up-conversion of video media to film for theatrical viewing. The video-to-film conversion process consists of two major steps: first, the conversion of video into digital film frames which are then stored on a computer or on HD videotape; and secondly, the printing of these digital film frames onto actual film. To understand these two steps, it is important to understand how video and film differ. Film (sound film, at least) has remained unchanged for almost a century and creates the illusion of moving images through the rapid projection of still images, frames, upon a screen, typically 24 per second. Traditional interlaced SD video has no real frame rate, (though the term frame is applied to video, it has a different meaning). Instead, video consists of a very fast succession of horizontal lines that continually cascade down the television screen – streaming top to bottom, before jumping back to the top and then streaming down to the bottom again, repeatedly, almost 60 alternating screen-fulls every second for NTSC, or exactly 50 such screen-fulls per second for PAL and SECAM. Since visual movement in video is infused in this continuous cascade of scan lines, there is no discrete image or real frame that can be identified at any one time. Therefore, when transferring video to film, it is necessary to invent individual film frames, 24 for every second of elapsed time. The bulk of the work done by a film-out company is this first step, creating film frames out of the stream of interlaced video. Each company employs its own (often proprietary) technology for turning interlaced video into high-resolution digital video files of 24 discrete images every second, called 24 progressive video or 24p. The technology must filter out all the visually unappealing artifacting that results from the inherent mismatch between video and film movement. Moreover, the conversion process usually requires human intervention at every edit point of a video program, so that each type of scene can be calibrated for maximum visual quality. The use of archival footage in video especially calls for extra attention. Step two, the scanning to film, is the rote part of the process. This is the mechanical step where lasers print each of the newly created frames of the 24p video, stored on computer files or HD videotape, onto rolls of film. Most companies that do film-out, do all the stages of the process themselves for a lump sum. The job includes converting interlaced video into 24p and often a color correction session – (calibrating the image for theatrical projection), before scanning to physical film, (possibly followed by color correction of the film print made from the digital intermediary) – is offered. At the very least, film-out can be understood as the process of converting interlaced video to 24p and then scanning it to film. ==== NTSC video ==== NTSC is the most challenging of the formats when it comes to standards conversion and, specifically, converting to film prints. NTSC runs at the approximate rate of 29.97 video frames (consisting of two interlaced screen-fulls of scan lines, called fields, per frame) per second. In this way, NTSC resolves actual live action movement at almost – but not quite – 60 alternating half-resolution images every second. Because of this 29.97 rate, no direct correlation to film frames at 24 frames per second can be achieved. NTSC is hardest to reconcile with film, thus motivating its own unique processes. ==== PAL and SECAM video ==== PAL and SECAM run at 25 interlaced video frames per second, which can be slowed down or frame-dropped, then deinterlaced, to correlate frame for frame with film running at 24 actual frames per second. PAL and SECAM are less complex and demanding than NTSC for film-out. PAL and SECAM conversions do agitate, though, with the unpleasant choice between slowing down video (and audio pitch, noticeably) by four percent, from 25 to 24 frames per second, in order to maintain a 1:1 frame match, slightly changing the rhythm and feel of the program; or maintaining original speed by periodically dropping frames, thereby creating jerkiness and possible loss of vital detail in fast-moving action or precise edits. === High definition (HD) digital video === High definition digital video can be shot at a variety of frame rates, including 29.97 interlaced (like NTSC) or progressive; or 25 interlaced (like PAL) or progressive; or even 24-progressive (just like film). HD, if shot in 24-progressive, scans nearly perfectly to film without the need for a frame or field conversion process. Other issues remain though, based on the different resolutions, color spaces, and compression schemes that exist in the high-definition video world. == Computer graphics and animation == Artists working with CGI-Computer-generated imagery animation computers create pictures frame by frame. Once the finished product is done, the frames are outputted, normally in a DPX file. These picture data files can then be put on to film using a film recorder for film out. SGI computers started the high-end CGI-Computer-generated imagery animation systems, but with faster computers and the growth of Linux-based systems, many others are on the market now. Movies fully rendered and animated in CGI such as Toy Story, and Antz utilize the film-out method to produce 35mm copies for archival and release prints. Most CGI work is done in 2K Display resolution files (about the size of QXGA) and then output to the Film-out device for creation of 35 mm elements. With 4K Display resolution digital intermediates on the rise, newer types of film-out recorders are being developed to accept 4k resolution files. A 2K movie requires a Storage Area Network storage several terabytes in size to be properly stored and played out. Computer graphics files are handled the same way but in single frames and may use DPX, TIFF or other file formats. == Digital intermediates == Film-out-recording is the last step of digital intermediate workflow. DPX files that were scanned on a motion picture film scanner are stored on a storage area network (often abbreviated as SAN). The scanned DPX footage is edited and composited-FX on workstations, then mastered back on film. Film restoration is also done this way. A "film intermediate" is an analog variation of a digital intermediate, where a project shot on digital video is printed onto film stock and transferred back to digital video to emulate film. The term was coined after it was used on the Oscar-winning 2012 short film "Curfew". The process was also used on the films Dune (2021) and The Batman (2022). == Images for graphic design and print industries == The days of newspapers and magazines shooting 35mm film are almost gone. Digital cameras can now shoot all the images needed, storing them as files (e.g. JPEG, DPX or another format) that are readily edited prior to use. Once the final copy is approved, it can be filmed out for publishing. Digital stills are not the only way to get pictures used in the graphic design and print industries. Film scanners and computer graphics programs are also common sources for graphic design and print industries. == Types of devices == The following devices are used in film-out processes: CRT recorder. Camera and a special TV display Kinescope – early type Electronic Video Recording or EVR – early type EBR Electron Beam Film Recorder 16 mm by 3M Laser film recorder, like Kodak's high-end Lightning II recorder and Arri's Arrilaser. DLP Film recorder, like Cinevation's real-time Cinevator. == History == Lately it has become possible to transfer video images, inclu
Right to explanation
In the regulation of algorithms, particularly artificial intelligence and its subfield of machine learning, a right to [an] explanation is a right to be given an explanation for an output of the algorithm. Such rights primarily refer to individual rights to be given an explanation for decisions that significantly affect an individual, particularly legally or financially. For example, a person who applies for a loan and is denied may ask for an explanation, which could be "Credit bureau X reports that you declared bankruptcy last year; this is the main factor in considering you too likely to default, and thus we will not give you the loan you applied for." Some such legal rights already exist, while the scope of a general "right to explanation" is a matter of ongoing debate. There have been arguments made that a "social right to explanation" is a crucial foundation for an information society, particularly as the institutions of that society will need to use digital technologies, artificial intelligence, machine learning. In other words, that the related automated decision making systems that use explainability would be more trustworthy and transparent. Without this right, which could be constituted both legally and through professional standards, the public will be left without much recourse to challenge the decisions of automated systems. == Examples == === Credit scoring in the United States === Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B of the Code of Federal Regulations), Title 12, Chapter X, Part 1002, §1002.9, creditors are required to notify applicants who are denied credit with specific reasons for the detail. As detailed in §1002.9(b)(2): (2) Statement of specific reasons. The statement of reasons for adverse action required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section must be specific and indicate the principal reason(s) for the adverse action. Statements that the adverse action was based on the creditor's internal standards or policies or that the applicant, joint applicant, or similar party failed to achieve a qualifying score on the creditor's credit scoring system are insufficient. The official interpretation of this section details what types of statements are acceptable. Creditors comply with this regulation by providing a list of reasons (generally at most 4, per interpretation of regulations), consisting of a numeric reason code (as identifier) and an associated explanation, identifying the main factors affecting a credit score. An example might be: 32: Balances on bankcard or revolving accounts too high compared to credit limits === European Union === The European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, enacted 2016, taking effect 2018) extends the automated decision-making rights in the 1995 Data Protection Directive to provide a legally disputed form of a right to an explanation, stated as such in Recital 71: "[the data subject should have] the right ... to obtain an explanation of the decision reached". In full: The data subject should have the right not to be subject to a decision, which may include a measure, evaluating personal aspects relating to him or her which is based solely on automated processing and which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her, such as automatic refusal of an online credit application or e-recruiting practices without any human intervention. ... In any case, such processing should be subject to suitable safeguards, which should include specific information to the data subject and the right to obtain human intervention, to express his or her point of view, to obtain an explanation of the decision reached after such assessment and to challenge the decision. However, the extent to which the regulations themselves provide a "right to explanation" is heavily debated. There are two main strands of criticism. There are significant legal issues with the right as found in Article 22 — as recitals are not binding, and the right to an explanation is not mentioned in the binding articles of the text, having been removed during the legislative process. In addition, there are significant restrictions on the types of automated decisions that are covered — which must be both "solely" based on automated processing, and have legal or similarly significant effects — which significantly limits the range of automated systems and decisions to which the right would apply. In particular, the right is unlikely to apply in many of the cases of algorithmic controversy that have been picked up in the media. The UK has also recently amended its implementation of Article 22. A second potential source of such a right has been pointed to in Article 15, the "right of access by the data subject". This restates a similar provision from the 1995 Data Protection Directive, allowing the data subject access to "meaningful information about the logic involved" in the same significant, solely automated decision-making, found in Article 22. Yet this too suffers from alleged challenges that relate to the timing of when this right can be drawn upon, as well as practical challenges that mean it may not be binding in many cases of public concern. Other EU legislative instruments contain explanation rights. The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act provides in Article 86 a "[r]ight to explanation of individual decision-making" of certain high risk systems which produce significant, adverse effects to an individual's health, safety or fundamental rights. The right provides for "clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and the main elements of the decision taken", although only applies to the extent other law does not provide such a right. The Digital Services Act in Article 27, and the Platform to Business Regulation in Article 5, both contain rights to have the main parameters of certain recommender systems to be made clear, although these provisions have been criticised as not matching the way that such systems work. The Platform Work Directive, which provides for regulation of automation in gig economy work as an extension of data protection law, further contains explanation provisions in Article 11, using the specific language of "explanation" in a binding article rather than a recital as is the case in the GDPR. Scholars note that remains uncertainty as to whether these provisions imply sufficiently tailored explanation in practice which will need to be resolved by courts. === France === In France the 2016 Loi pour une République numérique (Digital Republic Act or loi numérique) amends the country's administrative code to introduce a new provision for the explanation of decisions made by public sector bodies about individuals. It notes that where there is "a decision taken on the basis of an algorithmic treatment", the rules that define that treatment and its "principal characteristics" must be communicated to the citizen upon request, where there is not an exclusion (e.g. for national security or defence). These should include the following: the degree and the mode of contribution of the algorithmic processing to the decision- making; the data processed and its source; the treatment parameters, and where appropriate, their weighting, applied to the situation of the person concerned; the operations carried out by the treatment. Scholars have noted that this right, while limited to administrative decisions, goes beyond the GDPR right to explicitly apply to decision support rather than decisions "solely" based on automated processing, as well as provides a framework for explaining specific decisions. Indeed, the GDPR automated decision-making rights in the European Union, one of the places a "right to an explanation" has been sought within, find their origins in French law in the late 1970s. == Criticism == Some argue that a "right to explanation" is at best unnecessary, at worst harmful, and threatens to stifle innovation. Specific criticisms include: favoring human decisions over machine decisions, being redundant with existing laws, and focusing on process over outcome. Authors of study "Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'Right to an Explanation' Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For" Lilian Edwards and Michael Veale argue that a right to explanation is not the solution to harms caused to stakeholders by algorithmic decisions. They also state that the right of explanation in the GDPR is narrowly defined, and is not compatible with how modern machine learning technologies are being developed. With these limitations, defining transparency within the context of algorithmic accountability remains a problem. For example, providing the source code of algorithms may not be sufficient and may create other problems in terms of privacy disclosures and the gaming of technical systems. To mitigate this issue, Edwards and Veale argue that an auditing system could be more effective, to allow auditors to loo
Packard Bell Statesman
The Packard Bell Statesman was an economy line of notebook-sized laptops introduced in 1993 by Packard Bell. They were slower in performance and lacked features compared to most competitor products, but they were lower in price. It was created in a collaboration between Packard Bell and Zenith Data Systems. The Statesman series was essentially a rebrand of Zenith Data Systems Z-Star 433 series, with the only notable difference of the logo in the middle and text on the front bezel. == History == In June 1993 Zenith Data Systems announced an alliance with Packard Bell. Zenith acquired about 20% of Packard Bell and they would both now work together to design and build PC's. Zenith would also provide Packard Bell with private-label versions of their portable PC's. The Packard Bell Statesman was a rebrand of the Zenith Z-Star notebook computer series. While the Statesman was being advertised by Packard Bell, the Z-Star series was also still being sold by Zenith. The Statesman was first introduced on October 4, 1993. Prices started at $1,500 for a monochrome or color DSTN model with a 33 MHz Cyrix Cx486SLC, 4 MB of RAM, 200 MB hard disk drive, internal 1.44 MB floppy disk drive, and MS-DOS 6.0 with Windows 3.1 for the included software. A "J mouse" pointing device was included, similar to the TrackPoint. The Statesman was expected to begin shipping within the next few weeks. == Specifications == === Hardware === CPU The first two models, the 200M and 200C, used the Cyrix Cx486SLC. This was Cyrix's first processor, which was a 386SX pin-compatible chip with on-board L1 cache and 486 instructions, being known as a "hybrid chip". The processor was clocked at 33 MHz and had 1 KB of L1 cache. It was a 16-bit processor and was pin compatible with the Intel 80386SX. On the bottom of the unit, the motherboard had an empty socket for a Cyrix FasMath co-processor, which could improve floating-point math performance. The 200M and 200C plus models had a Cyrix Cx486SLC2 clocked at 50 MHz, which was 50% faster than the original 486SLC. The SLC2 similarly had 1 KB of on-board cache and was pin compatible with the previous model. Graphics & Display For video all models used three versions of the Chips & Technologies 655xx, the CT65520, 65525, and 65530. The 65520 was first introduced in early 1992 as the first controller with Super VGA resolution. It supported resolutions up to 1024x768 in 16 colors or shades of gray. If in 800x600 resolution, it can display up to 256 colors. All 3 chips were the same, with the CT65525 identifying as a CT65530. The CT65530 had an ability of 5V and 3.3V mixed operation and linear video memory addressing. All models used a 9.5in 800x600 resolution DSTN LCD. The 200M and 200M Plus had a monochrome display, while the 200C and 200C Plus had a color display. Audio All models had only basic audio available, with just a piezo speaker soldered onto the motherboard and no sound controller. Memory Standard RAM included was 4-8 MB of EDO RAM. The RAM was on a proprietary SIPP package that could only be upgraded to 12 MB maximum if the user had compatible modules. Storage For storage all models used a hard drive with a size of 100 or 200 MB, and all models had an internal 1.44 MB floppy disk drive located on the side of the unit. The maximum capacity hard drive compatible if the user wanted to upgrade was 500 MB.Ports & Expansion For ports all models had 1x serial, 1x parallel, 1x VGA output, and 1x PS/2 keyboard/mouse input. For expansion all models only had one PCMCIA type II slot. Keyboard & Mouse All models used a small-scale keyboard with control keys. One interesting feature of the keyboard is that the J key also acted as a mouse, working similar to IBM's ThinkPad TrackPoint. On some models additional keys such as S, D, F, G and space let you do other mouse actions such as right click, left click, double click, and middle mouse click. === Software === The series shipped with MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 as the included operating system. == Model Comparison == Statesman 200M — The first Statesman model, it came with a DSTN monochrome screen, and a Nickel-cadmium battery pack which could last up to 4 hours. It weighed 7.4 lb and was $1500. Statesman 200C — The second Statesman model, it was the same as the 200M with the only notable differences of a DSTN color display rather than monochrome and a slightly decreased battery life of about 3 hours. It cost $700 more than the 200M at $2200. Statesman 200M/200C Plus — The 200M/200C Plus were both identical to their previous base models, with the only difference of them having a Cx486SLC2 running at 50 MHz. In 1994 it cost around $2,295 for the 200C plus with 4 MB of ram, with 8 MB costing an extra $400. == Reception == The Statesman received fair reception, with most reviewers giving positivity for the low price and high battery life, but mainly criticizing the performance and screen quality of the model line. A review by PC World writer Rex Farrance and Owen Linderholm said the 200M had a good price, being only $1500, and a good battery life which lasted about 4 hours. In benchmarks however, the 200M performed "noticeably below the average". It was noted that the 200M's worst feature was its monochrome display, being "cloudy and a bit dim for our tastes". The J mouse was considered a decent choice, and was said to be "highly usable" after some practice. The 200M was listed as number 3 on PC World's top 20 budget PC list. PC World also reviewed the 200C, saying the color display is only a "marginal, although an improvement on the monochrome version". The 200C placed 9 on the PC World top 20 budget PC list. Compute! Magazine reviewed the 200C Plus in September 1994 stating it "lagged far behind the others, especially the DXs, but then speed isn't everything". It was given pros for low cost and good display, but criticized for its low performance, not having a trackball, and poor external monitor support.
History of operating systems
Computer operating systems (OSes) provide a set of functions needed and used by most application programs on a computer, and the links needed to control and synchronize computer hardware. On the first computers, with no operating system, every program needed the full hardware specification to run correctly and perform standard tasks, and its own drivers for peripheral devices like printers and punched paper card readers. The growing complexity of hardware and application programs eventually made operating systems a necessity for everyday use. == Background == Early computers lacked any form of operating system. Instead, the user (rarely also the computer operator), had sole use of the machine for a scheduled period of time. The user would deliver his program to a computer operator who would be responsible for loading the computer with the program and data needed for its 'run'. Eventually, the end of a user's program could be detected and a control program automatically loaded which would load the next user's program, relieving the operator of having to load in each user's program individually and introducing the era of 'batched' programming. That is, a number of user programs could all be loaded together in a batch. Loading of program and data was accomplished in various ways including toggle switches (only used by a user on the earliest of computers, but later used by the computer operator to control the computer, e.g., to start it up, to shut it down, to 'pause', to 'dump' its RAM contents, and/or to control its input and/or its output), punched paper cards and magnetic or paper tape. Once loaded, the machine would be set to execute each program singly until that program completed, crashed, exceeded its time limit or went into a(n infinite) loop. In those early days, there were only 'Control Program' units for providing the software necessary to control the computers and ancillary hardware, e.g., for such semi hardware functions as I/O . None of the early 'Control Programs' were sufficiently sophisticated to recognize a looping user program or initiate a recovery action. Detection and recovery from a looping program was another critical operator function and was usually detected by the sound of the looping computer, whereupon the operator would simply initiate a complete dump of the executing program (for later debugging by the programmer) and then load in (or instruct the computer to go on to) the next user's program. Programs could sometimes be debugged via a control panel using dials, toggle switches and panel lights, making it a very manual and error-prone process. But, this was quite rare, since the high cost of even the simplest of the early computers prohibited such exclusive use of a computer by an individual programmer. Almost all program debugging was done away from any computer by the original programmer perusing the program and the dump of its execution obtained, e.g., by the computer operator or automatically by some computer hardware exception detection (such as a timeout, an attempt to divide by zero, or an over or underflow). Programmers then could only very rarely have more than one computer 'run' per day! Symbolic languages, e.g., assemblers and compilers were developed for programmers to translate symbolic program code into machine code that previously would have been hand-encoded. Later machines came with libraries of support code on punched cards or magnetic tape, which would be linked to the user's program to assist in operations such as input and output. This was the genesis of the modern-day operating system; however, machines still ran a single program or job at a time. At Cambridge University in England the job queue was at one time a string from which tapes attached to corresponding job tickets were hung with stationery pegs. == Mainframes == The first operating system used for real work was GM-NAA I/O, produced in 1956 by General Motors' Research division for its IBM 704. Most other early operating systems for IBM mainframes were also produced by customers. Early operating systems were very diverse, with each vendor or customer producing one or more operating systems specific to their particular mainframe computer. Every operating system, even from the same vendor, could have radically different models of commands, operating procedures, and such facilities as debugging aids. Typically, each time the manufacturer brought out a new machine, there would be a new operating system, and most applications would have to be manually adjusted, recompiled, and retested. === Systems on IBM hardware === Building on customer experience and requirements, IBM took on a more active role in developing operating systems for the 709, 1410, 7010, 7040, 7044, 7090 and 7094. IBM also collaborated with universities. The state of affairs continued until the mid 1960s when IBM, already a leading hardware vendor, stopped work on existing systems and put all its effort into developing the System/360 series of machines, all of which used the same instruction and input/output architecture. IBM intended to develop a single operating system for the new hardware, the OS/360. The problems encountered in the development of the OS/360 are legendary, and are described by Fred Brooks in The Mythical Man-Month—a book that has become a classic of software engineering. Because of performance differences across the hardware range and delays with software development, a whole family of operating systems was introduced instead of a single OS/360. IBM wound up releasing a series of stop-gaps followed by two longer-lived operating systems: OS/360 for mid-range and large systems. This was available in three system generation options: PCP for early users and for those without the resources for multiprogramming. MFT for mid-range systems, replaced by MFT-II in OS/360 Release 15/16. This had one successor, OS/VS1, which was discontinued in the 1980s. MVT for large systems. This was similar in most ways to PCP and MFT (most programs could be ported among the three without being re-compiled), but has more sophisticated memory management and a time-sharing facility, TSO. MVT had several successors including the current z/OS. DOS/360 for small System/360 models had several successors including the current z/VSE. It was significantly different from OS/360. IBM maintained full compatibility with the past, so that programs developed in the sixties can still run under z/VSE (if developed for DOS/360) or z/OS (if developed for MFT or MVT) with no change. IBM also developed TSS/360, a time-sharing system for the System/360 Model 67. Overcompensating for their perceived importance of developing a timeshare system, they set hundreds of developers to work on the project. Early releases of TSS were slow and unreliable; by the time TSS had acceptable performance and reliability, IBM wanted its TSS users to migrate to OS/360 and OS/VS2; while IBM offered a TSS/370 PRPQ, they dropped it after 3 releases. Several operating systems for the IBM S/360 and S/370 architectures were developed by third parties, including the Michigan Terminal System (MTS) and MUSIC/SP. === Other mainframe operating systems === Control Data Corporation developed the SCOPE operating systems in the 1960s, for batch processing and later developed the MACE operating system for time sharing, which was the basis for the later Kronos. In cooperation with the University of Minnesota, the Kronos and later the NOS operating systems were developed during the 1970s, which supported simultaneous batch and time sharing use. Like many commercial time sharing systems, its interface was an extension of the DTSS time sharing system, one of the pioneering efforts in timesharing and programming languages. In the late 1970s, Control Data and the University of Illinois developed the PLATO system, which used plasma panel displays and long-distance time sharing networks. PLATO was remarkably innovative for its time; the shared memory model of PLATO's TUTOR programming language allowed applications such as real-time chat and multi-user graphical games. For the UNIVAC 1107, UNIVAC, the first commercial computer manufacturer, produced the EXEC I operating system, and Computer Sciences Corporation developed the EXEC II operating system and delivered it to UNIVAC. EXEC II was ported to the UNIVAC 1108. Later, UNIVAC developed the EXEC 8 operating system for the 1108; it was the basis for operating systems for later members of the family. Like all early mainframe systems, EXEC I and EXEC II were a batch-oriented system that managed magnetic drums, disks, card readers and line printers; EXEC 8 supported both batch processing and on-line transaction processing. In the 1970s, UNIVAC produced the Real-Time Basic (RTB) system to support large-scale time sharing, also patterned after the Dartmouth BASIC system. Burroughs Corporation introduced the B5000 in 1961 with the MCP (Master Control Program) operating system. The B5000
MADI
Multichannel Audio Digital Interface (MADI) standardized as AES10 by the Audio Engineering Society (AES) defines the data format and electrical characteristics of an interface that carries multiple channels of digital audio. The AES first documented the MADI standard in AES10-1991 and updated it in AES10-2003 and AES10-2008. The MADI standard includes a bit-level description and has features in common with the two-channel AES3 interface. MADI supports serial digital transmission over coaxial cable or fibre-optic lines of 28, 56, 32, or 64 channels; and sampling rates to 96 kHz and beyond with an audio bit depth of up to 24 bits per channel. Like AES3 and ADAT Lightpipe, it is a unidirectional interface from one sender to one receiver. == Development and applications == MADI was developed by AMS Neve, Solid State Logic, Sony and Mitsubishi and is widely used in the audio industry, especially in the professional audio sector. It provides advantages over other audio digital interface protocols and standards such as AES3, ADAT Lightpipe, TDIF (Tascam Digital Interface), and S/PDIF (Sony/Philips Digital Interface). These advantages include: Support for a greater number of channels per line Use of coaxial and optical fiber media that support transmission of audio signals over 100 meters, up to 3000 meters over multi-mode and 40,000 meters over single-mode optical fiber The original specification (AES10-1991) defined the MADI link as a 56-channel transport for linking large-format mixing consoles to digital multitrack recording devices. Large broadcast studios also adopted it for routing multi-channel audio throughout their facilities. The 2003 revision (AES10-2003) adds a 64-channel capability by removing varispeed operation and supports 96 kHz sampling frequency with reduced channel capacity. The latest AES10-2008 standard includes minor clarifications and updates to correspond to the current AES3 standard. Audio over Ethernet of various types is the primary alternative to MADI for transport of many channels of professional digital audio. == Transmission format == MADI links use a transmission format similar to Fiber Distributed Data Interface (FDDI) networking. Since MADI is most often transmitted on copper links via 75-ohm coaxial cables, it more closely compares to the FDDI specification for copper-based links, called CDDI. AES10-2003 recommends using BNC connectors with coaxial cables and SC connectors with optic fibers. MADI over fibre can support a range of up to 2 km. The basic data rate is 100 Mbit/s of data using 4B5B encoding to produce a 125 MHz physical baud rate. Unlike AES3, this clock is not synchronized to the audio sample rate, and the audio data payload is padded using JK sync symbols. Sync symbols may be inserted at any subframe boundary, and must occur at least once per frame. Though the standard disassociates the transmission clock from the audio sample rate, and thus requires a separate word clock connection to maintain synchronization, some vendors do give the option of locking to parts of the transmission timing information for purposes of deriving a word clock. The audio data is almost identical to the AES3 payload, though with more channels. Rather than letters, MADI assigns channel numbers from 0–63. Frame synchronization is provided by sync symbols outside the data itself, rather than an embedded preamble sequence, and the first four time slots of each sub-channel are encoded as normal data, used for sub-channel identification: Bit 0: Set to 1 to mark channel 0, the first channel in each frame Bit 1: Set to 1 to indicate that this channel is active (contains interesting data) Bit 2: notA/B channel marker, used to mark left (0) and right (1) channels. Generally, even channels are A and odd channels are B. Bit 3: Set to 1 to mark the beginning of a 192-sample data block == Sampling frequency == The original AES10-1991 specification allowed 56 channels at sample rates from 32 to 48 kHz with an additional vari-speed range of ± 12.5%. This leads to a total range of 28 to 54 kHz. At the highest frequency, this produces a total of 56 × 32 × 54 = 96768 kbit/s, leaving 3.232% of the channel for synchronization marks and transmit clock error. The 2003 revision specifies different relations between sampling frequency and number of channels. 32 kHz to 48 kHz ± 12.5%, 56 channels; 32 kHz to 48 kHz nominal, 64 channels; 64 kHz to 96 kHz ± 12.5%, 28 channels. With a 48 kHz sampling frequency, 64 channels take 64 × 32 × 48000 = 98.304 Mbit/s. Adding the minimum 8 × 58 kbit/s of framing produces 98688 bit/s, leaving 1.312% free for timing variation and other overhead. Both versions of the standard accommodate higher sampling frequencies (for example, 96 kHz or 192 kHz) by using two or more channels per audio sample on the link.
Object Data Management Group
The Object Data Management Group (ODMG) was conceived in the summer of 1991 at a breakfast with object database vendors that was organized by Rick Cattell of Sun Microsystems. In 1998, the ODMG changed its name from the Object Database Management Group to reflect the expansion of its efforts to include specifications for both object database and object–relational mapping products. The primary goal of the ODMG was to put forward a set of specifications that allowed a developer to write portable applications for object database and object–relational mapping products. In order to do that, the data schema, programming language bindings, and data manipulation and query languages needed to be portable. Between 1993 and 2001, the ODMG published five revisions to its specification. The last revision was ODMG version 3.0, after which the group disbanded. == Major components of the ODMG 3.0 specification == Object Model. This was based on the Object Management Group's Object Model. The OMG core model was designed to be a common denominator for object request brokers, object database systems, object programming languages, etc. The ODMG designed a profile by adding components to the OMG core object model. Object Specification Languages. The ODMG Object Definition Language (ODL) was used to define the object types that conform to the ODMG Object Model. The ODMG Object Interchange Format (OIF) was used to dump and load the current state to or from a file or set of files. Object Query Language (OQL). The ODMG OQL was a declarative (nonprocedural) language for query and updating. It used SQL as a basis, where possible, though OQL supports more powerful object-oriented capabilities. C++ Language Binding. This defined a C++ binding of the ODMG ODL and a C++ Object Manipulation Language (OML). The C++ ODL was expressed as a library that provides classes and functions to implement the concepts defined in the ODMG Object Model. The C++ OML syntax and semantics are those of standard C++ in the context of the standard class library. The C++ binding also provided a mechanism to invoke OQL. Smalltalk Language Binding. This defined the mapping between the ODMG ODL and Smalltalk, which was based on the OMG Smalltalk binding for the OMG Interface Definition Language (IDL). The Smalltalk binding also provided a mechanism to invoke OQL. Java Language Binding. This defined the binding between the ODMG ODL and the Java programming language as defined by the Java 2 Platform. The Java binding also provided a mechanism to invoke OQL. == Status == ODMG 3.0 was published in book form in 2000.[1] By 2001, most of the major object database and object-relational mapping vendors claimed conformance to the ODMG Java Language Binding. Compliance to the other components of the specification was mixed.[2] In 2001, the ODMG Java Language Binding was submitted to the Java Community Process as a basis for the Java Data Objects specification. The ODMG member companies then decided to concentrate their efforts on the Java Data Objects specification. As a result, the ODMG disbanded in 2001. In 2004, the Object Management Group (OMG) was granted the right to revise the ODMG 3.0 specification as an OMG specification by the copyright holder, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. In February 2006, the OMG announced the formation of the Object Database Technology Working Group (ODBT WG) and plans to work on the 4th generation of an object database standard. == ODMG Compliant DBMS == Orient ODBMS: http://www.OrienTechnologies.com Objectivity/DB C++, Java and Smalltalk interfaces.
Groundswell (book)
Groundswell is a book by Forrester Research executives Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff that focuses on how companies can take advantage of emerging social technologies. It was published in 2008 by Harvard Business Press. A revised edition was published in 2011. The book attempts to explain a shift in the relationship between customers and companies, in which companies are no longer able to control customers' attitudes through market research, customer service, and advertising. Instead, customers are controlling the conversation by using new media to communicate about products and companies. == Synopsis == The groundswell is characterized by several tactics that guide companies into using social technologies strategically and effectively. Listening: Businesses should listen to their customers to understand what the market is looking for in their products. In order to do this, a company needs to find out if their customers are using social technologies and how they are using them. Talking: Instead of advertising to customers, marketing departments should find creative ways to connect with users about their experience with a product and their feelings about the brand. One common method is participation in social networks. Energizing: Enthusiastic customers are part of the groundswell, and companies can recognize and appreciate these customers by creating online communities and social platforms where they can connect with the brand and provide reviews. Supporting: Businesses can harness the support of their own employees by creating internal social applications for them to connect with the brand, also known as enterprise social software. == Groundswell in action == === Examples === Some companies distinguish their product through the use of social technologies. Tom Dickson successfully marketed his Blendtec line of blenders through the viral marketing campaign Will It Blend? The groundswell spread marketing messages through Digg and YouTube with a small budget and little marketing experience. Other companies have been able to listen to and talk with the groundswell by building their own online communities. Procter & Gamble created beinggirl.com Archived 2016-04-10 at the Wayback Machine to introduce girls to P&G feminine care products. The community approach worked because the company could reach girls with information that might seem embarrassing or sensitive in a traditional marketing campaign. === Risks === Features of particular industries or companies can make direct customer engagement more difficult. For instance, some companies must work within industry regulations, national or multinational corporations must balance corporate and local engagement, and other companies must find ways to engage with customers on time-sensitive issues. == Reception == Kevin Allison of the Financial Times praised the book for its focus on Web analytics: "[Groundswell] is not so much a manifesto or a dissection of online culture as it is a how-to manual for executives and mid-level managers trying to navigate this fast-changing and often confusing environment." The book won the American Marketing Association Foundation’s Berry-AMA Book Prize for best marketing book of 2009. It was also listed by: Amazon, as one of the Top 10 Business & Investing Books of 2008 CIO Insight, as one of the Top 10 Business-Tech Books of 2008 and one of 10 Insightful Web 2.0 Books Fortune as Magazine as one of the 3 best Web books of 2008 Advertising Age as number 3 of 10 Books You Should Have Read BusinessWeek as one of the Best Innovation & Design Books of 2008 "strategy+business" as one of the Best Business Books 2008 and “Top Shelf” in Marketing