Older Film Technology Allows HD Remastering of Old Reruns

The growing demand for High Definition Television sets creates some problems when it comes to finding programming to view on them. Some television providers have taken the initiative to produce new programming in High Definition. This is evident in a number of newly offered High Definition channels like HDNet which provides access to special events, concerts, documentaries, news, and travel programs all in High Def. Equator HD and Discovery HD Theater both produce original content in High Definition as do Gallery HD, Ultra HD, and Rush HD. A number of other channels like Monsters HD and Kung Fu HD feature remastered older movies for their content. Although most of these movies probably were not significantly filmed in the High Definition format, the fact that they have the wide screen 16: 9 aspect ratio required for high definition and were filmed in a high resolution so that the images would be maintained on a large screen, makes them ideal for High Definition programming.

We see a potential problem though when people start to talk about remastering old television shows, like Gilligan's Island and Star Trek, to meet High Definition requirements. The fact that they have a lower resolution than High Def requires is not much of a problem- presumably it would be possible to go in and digitally add more detail to the picture on the pixel by pixel level. The problem comes from the fact that all of those old shows had a 4: 3 aspect ratio designed to fit normal standard definition televisions.

It's easy enough to turn a 16: 9 aspect ratio into a 4: 3 aspect ratio. It's done all the time and that's what's meant by the statement you often see when you watch a video cassette of a movie: "This film has been modified from it's original version. When a 16: 9 movie is reformatted, that means that the 16: 9 picture has been compressed so that everything and everyone in the picture appears unnaturally tall and skinny, or the left and right side of the picture have been chopped off so that it will fit on the screen. The latter is more common, although some DVD players will do the former automatically. The other solution is to display the entire 16: 9 picture on the 4: 3 screen and black out the top and the bottom so that it keeps it original format and all the images keep their proper proportions.

The idea that someone might attempt to make a 4: 3 image to fill up a 16: 9 screen is even more troubling. Conceivably it would be possible to digitally stretch the picture horizontally to take up the whole screen, but that would make everything look even more ridiculous than the equivalent process described above. It would also be possible to display the image with 4: 3 proportions on a 16: 9 screen and black out the unused left and right of the screen, but that would defeat the point of High Definition. …

The Difference Between PHP Echo and Print

Few other web development languages ​​have done as much for web developers as PHP has. And in learning all the complexities of the language, web developers will be able to better become higher paid, more satisfied, and better prepared to make the next best web application. But taking baby steps in getting there is important: and the finer things such as knowing the difference between Echo and Print become clear.

Two commands are used to output text to the screen: Print and Echo. But since both do the same thing, why would there be two different commands? The answer, interestingly enough, eludes even some PHP experts.

Print is actually something more of a function, as it can be enclosed in brackets. Echo lacks this ability, but then again, there is almost never a need to do so. In reality, having this ability is something that even those who have seen it all in PHP probably will not need to make use of. This just adds more confusion to the topic than what was previously apprehensive.

While performance may be a big issue for PHP developers and their clients, the debate between Print and Echo is actually fairly meaningless. It is true that Print will take more system resources to use, but it is such a minimalistic amount that developers are recommended to choose the construct of their choice, regardless of speed issues.

So far the industry standard has been to use Echo, but it should be stressed that either command may be used at will. Echo seems to be the favorite as it is easier to type, not to mention it's a fun word to say! Those who favor the Print command are usually older programmers, who are accredited to using the command Print from other programming languages ​​that are now considered archaic.

As a last note of worthiness, it should be made clear that if speed is an issue, more emphasis should be put on how the two commands are used. Repeatedly using either command where a programmer could simply concatenate a string or value together will waste system performance- and on a much more noticeable scale that the difference between returning a value or not. Thus, this subject should be addressed if anything in regards to speed.

In Conclusion

PHP development just would not be the same without fun debts such as the one just mentioned. But in reality, it really does not matter which route is taken- so long as either language construct is used in a performance-based manner. Although Print may still have some of a following today, as books and publishers start using Echo more often, it's likely we'll see a death to the Print command soon enough. …