![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp wrote:
> I have no idea what that has to do with modulation.
I'm not talking about modulation. I'm pointing out that there's no such
thing as a digital signal, unless you start getting into quantum
cryptography or something. It doesn't matter if it's modulated or not.
There's no such thing as a digital signal. There's only a signal that you
choose to interpret in a digital way. But that's a feature of
interpretation, not a feature of the signal.
For example, digital CDMA cell phones do not operate if the actual
over-the-air signal is digital. They rely on looking at the analog
properties of the radio waves to sort out the digital signals. Beyond just
the tuning bit.
--
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
"Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftware cmo> wrote:
> claim that the $100 Monster cable gives them such a better picture than the
> other (mon-Monster) HDMI cables. Unless I'm missing something, that's like
> saying your Internet looks a lot better since you switched from a cat 5
> ethernet connection to cat 6. In the analog realm, high quality cables
> meant a lot. In the digital realm, anything capable of handling the signal
> should be as good as any other, although I've seen my share of really crappy
> quality ethernet cable, as well. But they either work, or they don't.
Perfect analysis. You know how software makers are able to get a lot of money
from consumers blissfully ignorant at how software works? Audio-video industry
is just about as horrendous.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
> In reality, we just swapped analogue distortion for compression artifacts.
Yep. In some cases, it's more pronounced than in others. Initially,
satellite HDTV was horrible in comparison to what's available now. They
simply didn't have the bandwidth to support it. Even now, I can notice it a
little bit, but for the most part, I don't see the artifacts. Artifacts are
most noticeable in dark images.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
> It's kind of hard to know when you're being crazy and when you're just
> being dense. :-) I can get an excellent 46" LCD screen for like $1500.
> What the heck are you paying £20,000 for?
$780 USD for my Sony 46" 1080p. Other brands are cheaper.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote in message
news:4b9297f6$1@news.povray.org...
> On 03/06/10 02:24, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> 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.
>
Agreed. The stores suck. And the difference in quality is huge. Anyone
who doesn’t see the difference should switch back to a 640x480 interlaced
analog monitor. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote in message
news:web.4b9311a1977651427220e2710@news.povray.org...
> "Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftware cmo> wrote:
>> claim that the $100 Monster cable gives them such a better picture than
>> the
>> other (mon-Monster) HDMI cables. Unless I'm missing something, that's
>> like
>> saying your Internet looks a lot better since you switched from a cat 5
>> ethernet connection to cat 6. In the analog realm, high quality cables
>> meant a lot. In the digital realm, anything capable of handling the
>> signal
>> should be as good as any other, although I've seen my share of really
>> crappy
>> quality ethernet cable, as well. But they either work, or they don't.
>
> Perfect analysis. You know how software makers are able to get a lot of
> money
> from consumers blissfully ignorant at how software works? Audio-video
> industry
> is just about as horrendous.
>
I suppose that if I spent $100 for a 3-foot cable, I'd delude myself too,
though. Admitting that I just paid 20 times more than a reasonable price
would just be too difficult for me. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
"UncleHoot" <jer### [at] mutualdata com> wrote:
> "Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote in message
> news:4b9297f6$1@news.povray.org...
> > On 03/06/10 02:24, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
>
> Agreed. The stores suck. And the difference in quality is huge. Anyone
> who doesn’t see the difference should switch back to a 640x480 interlaced
> analog monitor. ;-)
I seriously think Andrew's glasses are wearing out, but the stores may be guilty
indeed: many of them just play regular blurry DVDs on HDTVs. Talk about truly
awful marketing skills...
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
UncleHoot wrote:
>> It's kind of hard to know when you're being crazy and when you're just
>> being dense. :-) I can get an excellent 46" LCD screen for like $1500.
>> What the heck are you paying £20,000 for?
>
> $780 USD for my Sony 46" 1080p. Other brands are cheaper.
Or if he wants a big picture but without a TV:
http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/2018129/art/sanyo/plv-z700-video-projector.html
I'm pretty sure Andrew could get The Best dvb-tuner in the world for the
19k£ that's left...
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
OK, so I set up the BluRay player today and took it for a spin.
The player is hooked up to the LCD TV via an HDMI cable. Apparently the
TV is in 1080p mode. (Presumably that means 1080 scanlines with
progressive scan?) I've played some DVDs and some BluRay disks.
There *is* a difference. But it still seems quite small. The main place
you see it is actually in the setup menues, weirdly enough. The
texturing seems sharper. Once the film itself is playing, you don't
really see a whole lot of difference. Except sometimes in shots that are
very still, or have lots of close-up detail.
I can only guess that most of the time, large parts of the frame are out
of focus anyway, so there's no extra detail to capture except on the
foreground objects which are in sharp focus. And also, if the objects
are moving around a lot, there's so much motion blur that you don't see
any extra detail.
So in summary, apart from the occasional shot where you go "oh, that
looks a little sharper than usual", there's not much to see. (And most
especially, when you first start watching it seems a little sharper, but
after 20 minutes you've forgotten all about it.) It's certainly not the
"OMG, your eyeballs will drop out of your skull in sheer amazement"
effect that everybody keeps promising.
Now I've got Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. The box contains
the exact same film on BD and DVD, so I can actually compare like for
like. But I haven't done so yet.
The main thing is, I can now throw away the *useless* DVD player we've
been using! :-D
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
hey, how about paying a visit to your ophthalmologist? :D
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |