 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] laptop com> wrote:
>> But Oh My God, the picture quality was amazing.
>
> Yeah, assuming the bluray player/drive doesn't decide that your 1-year-old
> TV/monitor (or if you are using a computer, almost anything in it, more
> prominently your 1-year-old top-of-the-line graphics card) is an illegal
> ripping machine and thus decides to give you a low-resolution blurred
> version of the image.
...this part worries me...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I see interlacing artifacts >_< Progressive video ftw.
Yeh, I found it pretty hard to find any 1080p screen-caps on the net, I
guess that's because most broadcasters use 1080i max at the moment.
There are some 720p and 1080p clips here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/musicandvideo/hdvideo/contentshowcase.aspx
They look pretty impressive even on a 1280x1024 monitor.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> Where the hell are you shopping?
The wrong place, clearly. ;-)
> 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)
Doesn't mean it's possible to buy it in this country for that price.
(For another example, the guy in HQ was shocked that we were being asked
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> savanas and stuff that's clearly meant to make you go "wow".
Myself, I find the compression artifacts tremendously distracting.
> As far as I know, a normal TV operates at something like 300x200 or so.
> That means that 4x would only be 600x400 - still extremely low.
640x480, actually, for NTSC disregarding overscan.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Myself, I find the compression artifacts tremendously distracting.
You know what I find amusing?
You sit and watch a DVD on your normal TV, and it looks just like normal
TV. (Except a bit clearer.) Then you go watch the same DVD on your PC,
and it looks *horrible*! There's black noise, there's big pixel blocks,
there's bits of background moving at 2 frames per second... and then you
realis just how lame your TV is.
I once put together a DVD where one animation was at half resolution.
When you watch it on TV, you can't actually tell the difference... (!)
>> As far as I know, a normal TV operates at something like 300x200 or
>> so. That means that 4x would only be 600x400 - still extremely low.
>
> 640x480, actually, for NTSC disregarding overscan.
Mmm, OK.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>
> > Myself, I find the compression artifacts tremendously distracting.
>
> You know what I find amusing?
>
> You sit and watch a DVD on your normal TV, and it looks just like normal
> TV. (Except a bit clearer.) Then you go watch the same DVD on your PC,
> and it looks *horrible*! There's black noise, there's big pixel blocks,
> there's bits of background moving at 2 frames per second... and then you
> realis just how lame your TV is.
Hmm... something that takes a crappy signal, and makes it look identical to a
good signal... I'd say that that makes yours a GOOD TV, wouldn't you? :)
Anyway, the every step in the video process has the potential to degrade picture
quality, so CG is always going to benefit most from HD, while live movies rely
much more on goo dacting than on good film quality.
....Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47469bee@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw wrote:
>
> > 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)
>
> Doesn't mean it's possible to buy it in this country for that price.
SA is notoriously expensive for any form of electonics. I bought my laptop
in the US for $1800 (around R14000 at the time)
To buy it here I'd pay R24000 at least.
While I didn't go electronics shopping in the UK last time I visited, I did
notice that electronics are cheaper there than in SA, though not by as much
as the US is.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> while live movies rely much more on goo dacting than on good film quality.
Priceless! Thanks. :-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> SA is notoriously expensive for any form of electonics.
I'm not categorically saying you *can't* buy it for that price here, I'm
just noting that it doesn't *authomatically* follow, that's all. ;-)
> While I didn't go electronics shopping in the UK last time I visited, I did
> notice that electronics are cheaper there than in SA, though not by as much
> as the US is.
I wouldn't know. I've never been to the USA.
BTW, there's an old legend that in America all CDs cost (the equivilent
another wild exaggeration?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> BTW, there's an old legend that in America all CDs cost (the equivilent
They cost online roughly what they cost in a store. Check amazon.
Nowadays they're $8-$12 USD for "normal" stuff.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
