 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> They probably use MPEG2, it gives you about twice the compression of
>
> I believe they do. At least for standard def DVD.
The bluray standard allows MPEG2, h264 or VC-1 to be used.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> They probably use MPEG2, it gives you about twice the compression of
>>
>> I believe they do. At least for standard def DVD.
>
> The bluray standard allows MPEG2, h264 or VC-1 to be used.
Had to look them up. Cool.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> The bluray standard allows MPEG2, h264 or VC-1 to be used.
h264 is pretty impressive, even if it does require a Cray to run at
realtime speeds. my own attempt to rip a VHS tape to an AVI resulted in
an initially 22-GB file (6.25 hours @ 640x480x24fps), and I was able to
use h264 to compress it to ~3 GB with almost no noticeable reduction in
quality (not that the quality was terribly great to begin with...)
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain wrote:
> Invisible nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/22 04:15:
>> I mean, let's face it, HD is only 4x the imagine resolution. If you
>> compare the two side by side you'd probably notice. But if you just
>> look at an HD TV, there really isn't much to notice. The picture is
>> very slightly more crisp, but that's about it.
> Do you mean 4x the total numbet of pixels, or 4x the number of LINES?
> 4x the pixels == double the pixels per lines and double the lines.
> 4x the lines is more like 16x the resolution!
I mean 4x the number of pixels (2x lines + 2x columns).
>> Certainly it hardly seems worth paying £7,000 just for a very slightly
>> more crisp picture. I could buy a *car* for that amount of money!
>> Hell, I could almost buy a copy of *Oracle* for that!
> You are slightly outdated! HD prices have come down a LOT in just 2 years.
Yeah, but the shop isn't going to draw you eye to the *cheap* models,
are they? ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I mean 4x the number of pixels (2x lines + 2x columns).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Common_Video_Resolutions.svg
I was looking for that before but couldn't find it...
Also I found a few screen-caps:
This is from normal digital terrestial TV:
http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/images/0604DoraCreds2b-x.jpg
This is from some US HD channel:
http://www.bur.st/~anthony/dba/160206/stateoftheunion_1.jpg
Now, if you can't tell the difference...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> I mean 4x the number of pixels (2x lines + 2x columns).
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Common_Video_Resolutions.svg
>
> I was looking for that before but couldn't find it...
Ah yes, it's coming back to me now... Some "HD" TVs only actually
support the lowest HD resolution, and some support higher ones. (I
wonder if the same goes for "HD" transmissions and "HD" disks?)
> Also I found a few screen-caps:
>
> http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/images/0604DoraCreds2b-x.jpg
> http://www.bur.st/~anthony/dba/160206/stateoftheunion_1.jpg
>
> Now, if you can't tell the difference...
These images look different to me. (I notice one is photographic and the
other isn't...)
All I said was I was in a shop looking at one of their fantastic HD TVs
and there was little if any apparent difference. Yeah, the picture was a
little bit sharper, but nothing to get excited about.
I see three possibilities:
1. The TV they were proudly displaying was actually rubbish.
2. The signal they were feeding it with was naff.
3. There's little actual difference between HD and SD.
These possibilities do not appear to be muturally exclusive.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:32:10 -0000, scott <sco### [at] laptop com> did
spake, saying:
>> I mean 4x the number of pixels (2x lines + 2x columns).
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Common_Video_Resolutions.svg
>
> I was looking for that before but couldn't find it...
>
> Also I found a few screen-caps:
>
> This is from normal digital terrestial TV:
>
> http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/images/0604DoraCreds2b-x.jpg
>
> This is from some US HD channel:
>
> http://www.bur.st/~anthony/dba/160206/stateoftheunion_1.jpg
>
> Now, if you can't tell the difference...
Dora looks more alert? Bush looks less blue in HD?
[Waits for Warp to criticise ;-)]
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> Dora looks more alert? Bush looks less blue in HD?
http://www.bash.org/?475920
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:47:53 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
spake, saying:
> scott wrote:
>>> I mean 4x the number of pixels (2x lines + 2x columns).
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Common_Video_Resolutions.svg
>> I was looking for that before but couldn't find it...
>
> Ah yes, it's coming back to me now... Some "HD" TVs only actually
> support the lowest HD resolution,
720i/p
> and some support higher ones.
1080i/p
> (I wonder if the same goes for "HD" transmissions and "HD" disks?)
Good question. I don't think there's anything stopping transmission in 720
instead of 1080. I believe Sky's own channels are 1080i but some of the
non-Sky HD stuff is 720p. As for discs If they're going to the bother I
don't see why they'd only use 720 over 1080. For games, I note some for
the PS3 only go as high as 720. A decent decoder will up/down scale
according to the TVs abilities, but obviously the more data the better.
>> Also I found a few screen-caps:
>> http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/images/0604DoraCreds2b-x.jpg
>> http://www.bur.st/~anthony/dba/160206/stateoftheunion_1.jpg
>> Now, if you can't tell the difference...
>
> These images look different to me. (I notice one is photographic and the
> other isn't...)
Well one is live the other cartoon (feel free to guess which is which),
you should also rezoom them so they have the same apparent height (if the
browser hasn't), and I believe Dora is NTSC which uses less lines then PAL.
> All I said was I was in a shop looking at one of their fantastic HD TVs
> and there was little if any apparent difference. Yeah, the picture was a
> little bit sharper, but nothing to get excited about.
>
> I see three possibilities:
>
> 1. The TV they were proudly displaying was actually rubbish.
Possibly
> 2. The signal they were feeding it with was naff.
Probably
> 3. There's little actual difference between HD and SD.
Nope.
> These possibilities do not appear to be muturally exclusive.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> That's interesting. I was in some shop the other day, and they had a
> huge LCD with "HD Ready" splashed all over it, and huge cardboard signs
> saying "WOW! LOOK AT THE DIFFERENCE!" And I remember thinking "...I
> can't see any difference."
There's a big difference - the folks in the shop probably had not set
it up correctly, or something.
What I've disliked about big HDTV's is that regular channels, DVDs, etc
can tend to look quite poor on them. This is _not_ in comparison to
looking at HDTV feeds. Probably just because the TV's I saw were quite
big (in inches), so you could easily see all the flaws of regular TV
shows...
--
"Honey, answer the phone." "Okay. BaRRING! BRRNG! BaRR"
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
