 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> "only". What resolution do run your desktop in? Now imagine dividing
>> that by 4. It wouldn't be pretty...
>
> 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.
The shorts I watched last night were 1920x1080 resolution...
> (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...)
If you buy a 1080p TV though, that means that it is 1920x1080 resolution.
If you plug your PC into it (either by DVI->HDMI or analog VGA) and set your
PC to a 1920x1080 screen mode it will look perfect.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> "only". What resolution do run your desktop in? Now imagine
>>> dividing that by 4. It wouldn't be pretty...
>>
>> 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.
>
> The shorts I watched last night were 1920x1080 resolution...
Interesting. My PC monitor doesn't go that high. (!)
Must take some serious MPEG compression to fit that onto a disk - even a
bluray disk has only finite storage capacity.
>> (I remember I once plugged my laptop into the TV because we didn't own
>> a DVD player. The Windows desktop was... unreadable.)
>
> If you buy a 1080p TV though, that means that it is 1920x1080
> resolution. If you plug your PC into it (either by DVI->HDMI or analog
> VGA) and set your PC to a 1920x1080 screen mode it will look perfect.
My laptop doesn't go that high. ;-)
(Also, it has only VGA and S-Video output. I managed to find an S-Video
to SCART converter, which allows me to connect to the TV.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> I mean, let's face it, HD is only 4x the imagine resolution.
>>
>> "only". What resolution do run your desktop in? Now imagine dividing
>> that by 4. It wouldn't be pretty...
>
> 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.
I think the PAL standard is 576 lines. The digital SDTV standard is
640x480, the same vertical resolution as the NTSC standard (wikipedia is
telling me all this). The 1080p image is therefore 3 times wider, but
only 2.5 times taller because of the different aspect ratio. I guess
that's 7.5 times the area.
If the images you saw were mountains and lakes and so forth then they
probably weren't showing off the picture properly. You often see CG
movies like Ice Age used as demos in shops because the picture is much
sharper than a corresponding live-action movie (one of the many reasons
CG stands out so much).
I think the difference is a bit like upgrading to power-assisted
steering from an older car to a newer car. At first you think "well,
yes, it's a bit easier, but non-power steering is hardly that
difficult", and then if you ever go back to driving an older car you
think "bloody hell this is hard work".
:)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Interesting. My PC monitor doesn't go that high. (!)
>
> Must take some serious MPEG compression to fit that onto a disk - even a
> bluray disk has only finite storage capacity.
50 GB max IIRC.
>>> (I remember I once plugged my laptop into the TV because we didn't own a
>>> DVD player. The Windows desktop was... unreadable.)
>>
>> If you buy a 1080p TV though, that means that it is 1920x1080 resolution.
>> If you plug your PC into it (either by DVI->HDMI or analog VGA) and set
>> your PC to a 1920x1080 screen mode it will look perfect.
>
> My laptop doesn't go that high. ;-)
You mean the VGA output or the LCD? If you connected the external output to
a LCD that was capable of 1920x1080 then it might work.
> (Also, it has only VGA and S-Video output. I managed to find an S-Video to
> SCART converter, which allows me to connect to the TV.)
Yuk :-) you need VGA, component or DVI/HDMI for HD resolutions...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Must take some serious MPEG compression to fit that onto a disk - even
>> a bluray disk has only finite storage capacity.
>
> 50 GB max IIRC.
Well, let me see...
1,920 pixels x 1,080 pixels = 2,073,600 pixels / frame
3 bytes / pixel x 2,073,600 pixels / frame = 6,220,800 bytes / frame
25 frames / second x 6,220,800 bytes / frame = 155,520,000 bytes / second
Approx 148.31 MB / second. (Woah, that's some transfer rate!)
8.69 GB / minute.
512.40 GB / hour. So only 10x bigger than the disk. ;-)
>> My laptop doesn't go that high. ;-)
>
> You mean the VGA output or the LCD?
Both. They don't bother putting a video card in a laptop that can do
1600x1200 if the LCD itself is only 1024x768. (In fact, it seems my
laptop has only 3 resolutions, 3 colours depths and 1 scan rate.)
>> (Also, it has only VGA and S-Video output. I managed to find an
>> S-Video to SCART converter, which allows me to connect to the TV.)
>
> Yuk :-) you need VGA, component or DVI/HDMI for HD resolutions...
That's the other thing - HD seems to involve a whole zoo of different
connectors. For normal analogue video signals it's much simpler.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 512.40 GB / hour. So only 10x bigger than the disk. ;-)
So even if each frame was compressed using normal JPEG compression (with no
knowledge of previous frames) the result would probably look pretty good...
Given that the video codecs make use of huge amounts of info from the
previous frames, it seems that the video quality will be pretty good.
Actually I didn't notice any form of compression artifact while watching,
and I was looking pretty closely. Mind you, as these were "shorts", they
might have compressed them less than they would a feature-film, I don't know
if that is technically possible or not...
> Both. They don't bother putting a video card in a laptop that can do
> 1600x1200 if the LCD itself is only 1024x768. (In fact, it seems my laptop
> has only 3 resolutions, 3 colours depths and 1 scan rate.)
Oh ok, most laptops I've seen allow you to choose a higher resolution than
the screen itself, and then you can scroll about the laptop screen, or plug
in an external monitor. I know a lot of people here have those tiny Dells
with 1024x768 screens, but use a 1280x1024 or 1600x1200 monitor on their
desk.
> That's the other thing - HD seems to involve a whole zoo of different
> connectors. For normal analogue video signals it's much simpler.
Hmmm, digital HD you have the HDMI plug (looks a bit like a USB plug) or if
you want to include computers you have DVI too (both are electrically
compatible, so converters are cheap).
For analogue you have: component, composite, s-video and SCART, and if you
want to include computers, VGA too. VGA is not compatible with any of the
previous ones, so if you want to connect a computer to a TV you need
something more expensive.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> 512.40 GB / hour. So only 10x bigger than the disk. ;-)
>
> So even if each frame was compressed using normal JPEG compression (with
> no knowledge of previous frames) the result would probably look pretty
> good... Given that the video codecs make use of huge amounts of info
> from the previous frames, it seems that the video quality will be pretty
> good. Actually I didn't notice any form of compression artifact while
> watching, and I was looking pretty closely. Mind you, as these were
> "shorts", they might have compressed them less than they would a
> feature-film, I don't know if that is technically possible or not...
The disk will have a maximum transfer rate. As long as the codec doesn't
exceed that it should be fine. (I have no idea what codec they actually
use and whether it places additional restrictions on the parameters.)
My point is just that you'll need some fairly serious compression to
make the data fit, that's all. I didn't say it's impossible. ;-)
> Oh ok, most laptops I've seen allow you to choose a higher resolution
> than the screen itself, and then you can scroll about the laptop screen,
> or plug in an external monitor. I know a lot of people here have those
> tiny Dells with 1024x768 screens, but use a 1280x1024 or 1600x1200
> monitor on their desk.
It's a cheap laptop.
>> That's the other thing - HD seems to involve a whole zoo of different
>> connectors. For normal analogue video signals it's much simpler.
>
> Hmmm, digital HD you have the HDMI plug (looks a bit like a USB plug) or
> if you want to include computers you have DVI too (both are electrically
> compatible, so converters are cheap).
And then there's the other thing. How can you fit 148 GB/sec down a 3
meter cable? Heck, they haven't worked out how to fit 148 GB/sec between
the CPU and the RAM yet, never mind between a player and a TV...!
> For analogue you have: component, composite, s-video and SCART, and if
> you want to include computers, VGA too. VGA is not compatible with any
> of the previous ones, so if you want to connect a computer to a TV you
> need something more expensive.
On the other hand, all analogue equipment known to man only provides
RF-modulated and possibly SCART. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> As far as I know, a normal TV operates at something like 300x200 or so.
Not true. PAL has 625 vertical scanlines (which, assuming square pixels
on a 4:3 TV means 833x625 pixels). HDTV doubles that, which means something
like 1670x1250.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> 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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> And then there's the other thing. How can you fit 148 GB/sec down a 3
> meter cable?
You mean MB per second?
> Heck, they haven't worked out how to fit 148 GB/sec between the CPU and
> the RAM yet, never mind between a player and a TV...!
Even single-channel DVI (an old standard) can handle 1920x1080x60fps,
anything higher and you need dual-channel DVI. The specs for HDMI supports
10 Gbit/s, which is enough for something stupid like 3840x2160x50fps, or
slightly lower and a stupid number of digital audio channels.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
