 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
4745a4aa$1@news.povray.org...
> 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.
4. You need to see an ophtalmologist?
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott escribió:
> http://www.bur.st/~anthony/dba/160206/stateoftheunion_1.jpg
>
> Now, if you can't tell the difference...
>
I see interlacing artifacts >_< Progressive video ftw.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well one is live the other cartoon (feel free to guess which is which)
lol :D The HD one?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> They were running National Geographic HD. (Doesn't mean they had an HD
> decoder of course...) Lots of long short of mountains, jungles, big
> savanas and stuff that's clearly meant to make you go "wow". It honestly
> didn't look much different to what I get on my 7 year old TV at home.
It was either National Geographic HD or Discovery HD which I saw at the
store here in Finland (Verkkokauppa.com is the store) from multiple
HD-screens at once. I couldn't figure out if the resolutions seemd to be
good or bad, 'cause I almost got a headache from the infernally bad
MPEG-encoding! Seriously, I'd take old-fashion analog-RF rather than
such crap, while the analog problems are easier for brains to filter.
> (I remember I once plugged my laptop into the TV because we didn't own a
> DVD player. The Windows desktop was... unreadable. Literally, you just
> couldn't read *any* of the writing! But then, I guess usually you sit 12
> feet from your TV screen, so they're not going to bother making it able
> to display tiny writing like that...)
That's a sign of bad TV or bad TV-out. I had 25" Finlux (some
basic-model, but good picture quality) and Matrox G550 connected via
S-video: Windows desktop was usable (no, not clear, but useable) even
with 1280x960. It was unbelievably clear with 800x600 (didn't outperfom
a monitor, but I was really surprised that a TV could do that).
> I think we've established that the shop was overpriced. ;-)
Certainly ;).
And yes, SD-picture seems soft when watched with 93" picture from 5
meters away. I think that (really a big picture with home theatre
enthustians) is a real winner-goal for HD. 768x576 vs. 1920x1080 makes
pretty big difference, once you can see the pixels of the first one.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:474548a9$1@news.povray.org...
> more crisp picture. I could buy a *car* for that amount of money! Hell,
> I could almost buy a copy of *Oracle* for that!
Where the hell are you shopping? I priced LCD HD TVs last weekend, and I
could get a good one for R7000. (that's somewhere around 450 pounds, if you
convert)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47456cf5@news.povray.org...
> (I remember I once plugged my laptop into the TV because we didn't own a
> DVD player. The Windows desktop was... unreadable. Literally, you just
> couldn't read *any* of the writing! But then, I guess usually you sit 12
> feet from your TV screen, so they're not going to bother making it able
> to display tiny writing like that...)
Odd. I often plug my laptop into my 6 year old TV, since I also don't have a
DVD player. At 800*600, the desktop is easily visible and the text readable.
It's not as clear as on the laptop screen, but then I wouldn't expect it to
be.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
