 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I've only seen HD stuff in shops, but from what I can tell, there's no
>> visible difference between HD and SD.
>
> That's exactly what I'm talking about. There's really a tremendous
> difference, but you have to notice it by switching back and forth
> between HD and SD.
>
> It's like playing a game with all the graphics turned up, vs playing in
> 256 colors at 640x480.
Well, the shops have all this split-screen stuff, with one side in SD
and the other side in HD. The only difference I can see is that the HD
is very slightly less blurry. But it's a tiny difference - certainly not
worth paying £20,000 for.
> I do like bluray better than hddvd. I'm glad they won.
...there's a difference between them?
>> everybody's going on like it fundamentally transforms your viewing
>> experience. But it's only 4x the resolution.
>
> And digital, meaning no blur or color smear.
Meaning no blur *if* the signal is uncompressed - which it never ever
will be.
In reality, we just swapped analogue distortion for compression
artifacts. (And - if you're talking about transmission - a different
failure mode in case of interference. Although admittedly it takes more
interference now to make it fail.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > HDMI is a raw, unmodulated digital signal.
> There is no such thing. Digital is your imagination.
Of course there is.
Modulation means encoding the information into the higher frequencies of
a base carrier signal. For instance radio transmissions work that way: You
have a carrier signal at a certain base frequency, and then the sound is
encoded into it by slightly modifying its amplitude (AM) or frequency (FM).
Modems work that way too: The bits are encoded in a similar way as
variations of a carrier signal.
Sending a raw digital signal over a cable doesn't require modulation.
It can be as simple as "no current = 0", "current = 1". (Of course the
actual process is a bit more complicated due to synchronization problems
and such, but basically it's just that.) There's no carrier signal, hence
no modulation.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> Well, the shops have all this split-screen stuff, with one side in SD
> and the other side in HD. The only difference I can see is that the HD
> is very slightly less blurry. But it's a tiny difference - certainly not
> worth paying £20,000 for.
20k£? Where do you shop? :O
> In reality, we just swapped analogue distortion for compression
> artifacts. (And - if you're talking about transmission - a different
> failure mode in case of interference. Although admittedly it takes more
> interference now to make it fail.)
Yes. OTOH the digital signal fails fully when it fails, with analog
signal you're still able to get the information from the news with even
very bad signal (while you don't want to see a movie with such signal).
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/06/10 08:57, Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> HDMI is a raw, unmodulated digital signal.
>
> There is no such thing. Digital is your imagination.
Max Planck begs to differ.<G>
--
I'm not afraid of heights... I'm afraid of depths.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/06/10 02:24, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Now my mum has this shiny new LCD TV. And suddenly digital looks
> *awful*! As soon as anything moves faster than 2 MPH, it's blocky and
> unrecognisible. Although... it seems to vary by channel somewhat.
Get a plasma TV next time (or a better LCD TV).
> I've only seen HD stuff in shops, but from what I can tell, there's no
> visible difference between HD and SD. If I ever get time to set up my
> mum's new BluRay player, maybe I can test for myself. But seriously,
> everybody's going on like it fundamentally transforms your viewing
> experience. But it's only 4x the resolution. Not 40x or 400x, just 4x.
> And, from what I've seen, this equals to a slight increase in constrast,
> and not much else.
Woah! There's a *big* difference in quality. Try playing 1080p content
if your TV can handle it. If not, even 720p should be noticeable. Many
stores I've been to just show trash.
--
I'm not afraid of heights... I'm afraid of depths.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/5/2010 12:52 PM, Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> "Patrick Elliott"<sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote in message
> news:4b91529b$1@news.povray.org...
>> Both of you are assuming this is "Blue Ray" that is the issue too.
>
> Woops.
>
>> Game systems, I think, can output in native 120Hz, and computers certainly
>> can and *must* in some cases, if you want decent video.
>
> 120Hz or 120fps? Sometimes the two terms are interchangeble, but not
> always. It's true that getting 120fps on a 60Hz monitor won't look as
> smooth as a 120Hz monitor. I don't think any console systems on the market
> today output at 120Hz, but I could be wrong.
>
Actually, in the case of LCD, the general case is, if its not 120Hz, its
not "possible" to be 120fps. The reason being that, without the higher
Hz, you can't get a fast enough refresh to handle a doubling of the
frame rate (at all), or.. well, not if you want it to not look like
total crap compared to a LCD display for a computer, which are, now,
almost 100% 120Hz (with a few cheaper exceptions). To get the same on a
TV requires going all the way up to a 34", or something, in most cases.
Its really kind of annoying. Guess the cost of the tuner gets traded
from the cost of the extra refresh, so the small TVs and the small
monitors stay close to the same price, but... I find it more than a
little frustrating (Had my TV blow some caps a while back, so bought a
smaller one, for a temp, intending to possibly use it as a display
later. Never did, precisely due to that issue.)
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/5/2010 8:56 PM, UncleHoot wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:4b919449$1@news.povray.org...
>> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>> the compression artifacts are so pronounced when you stand that close to
>>> these big TVs.
>>
>> You know, I used to think that. I used to work on compression
>> algorithms, so I got really good at seeing the kind of artifacts that
>> jpeg and mpeg produce. Every time I went in the store and looked at
>> the HDTV, I saw all the compression artifacts in the background and
>> thought 'wow, that sucks.'
>
> I'm not sure if it's just the Walmart in my neighborhood, or if all of
> them are like this, but they have lots and lots of TV's all running the
> same signal, and their TV's look like crap. For one thing, most (if not
> all) are using shared analog connections of some kind. Plus, the demo
> they have running has TONS of compression artifacts in it. Any time the
> on-screen text should look clear and crisp, it looks like an awful,
> lossy JPEG. It certainly doesn't impress.
>
> Ironically, that's where I bought my TV. :-)
Yeah, never got that myself. Use crappy splitters, which are expensive,
but the cable guy, when I showed him one goes, "There isn't even an
specs on the thing, I have no way of knowing what the variance is in the
signal attenuation!", with some crappy splitter box, which has been
turned on for 4 years, and is in 80% failure, then expect people to look
at the images and go, "Wow! I will buy that one!" lol
Mind, even when they use digital, they use the some similar splitter,
and *it* is invariably cheap, flaky, and in partial failure.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> HDMI is a raw, unmodulated digital signal.
>>
>> There is no such thing. Digital is your imagination.
>
> There's a big difference between recognising a DC signal, and
> recognising a sine tone with a specific frequency.
And where does "recognising" happen? In the signal, or in the signal processor?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Sending a raw digital signal over a cable doesn't require modulation.
> It can be as simple as "no current = 0", "current = 1".
Except it's impossible to recognise the difference between "current" and
"shouldn't be current but there's minute noise on the line."
In other words, you need some minimum amount of current before you say it's
actually a 1, right?
And if the current you detect is right on the border between what you
consider "zero current" and "one current", then it's not digital. And that
happens every time the current goes between a zero and a one.
Indeed, the whole *reason* for using digital is to make broader swaths of
analog come out to the same value. If you actually *could* transmit digital
signals, you wouldn't *need* to.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Well, the shops have all this split-screen stuff, with one side in SD
> and the other side in HD. The only difference I can see is that the HD
> is very slightly less blurry. But it's a tiny difference - certainly no
t
> worth paying £20,000 for.
It's kind of hard to know when you're being crazy and when you're just be
ing
dense. :-) I can get an excellent 46" LCD screen for like $1500. What the
heck are you paying £20,000 for?
>> I do like bluray better than hddvd. I'm glad they won.
> ...there's a difference between them?
Stick with analog.
> In reality, we just swapped analogue distortion for compression
> artifacts.
True, but missing the point of what I was sayign.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
