 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > and that's a very old movie, with blurry images by default!
>
> Yeah, it really doesn't help to watch something recorded when color film was
> new and amazing on blu-ray.
>
> Do the same comparison with something like Batman.
I don't have Batman at hand, but I did provide a link to a reasonably modern
Pixar movie:
http://www.pixartalk.com/2009/06/17/the-blu-ray-difference-with-pixar/
like, DVD:
http://www.pixartalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/dvdcar.jpg
and bluray:
http://www.pixartalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/bdcar.jpg
> And remember that DVD is significantly better than VHS and (most) broadcast,
> while HDTV has only compression artifaacts to worry about.
artifacts may be the bane of digital broadcast transmission, but from local
media, like DVD or BD, there's not much to worry about.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> (And that of course is the other undesirable thing about digital TV.
> There used to be, like, 5 channels, 4 of them containing high quality
> programming. Now there's 500 channels and they're *all* showing utter
> crap that nobody would ever want to watch...)
That has nothing to do with digital TV. It's just the drop of quality
programming happened at the same time. Correlation != causation.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> 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...
Around here if you to to the store and ask "does that DVD player cope well
with DVD-Rs?", they'll tell you "sure, this demo is playing a pirated movie"
:)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > 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...
>
> Around here if you to to the store and ask "does that DVD player cope well
> with DVD-Rs?", they'll tell you "sure, this demo is playing a pirated movie"
> :)
I heard a woman next to me once arguing that the reason why the image was blurry
was precisely because it was a pirated movie. You know, those kinds where they
cram highly compressed 4 movies into a single disc. :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> cram highly compressed 4 movies into a single disc. :P
Yep. You can actually get disks with an entire 10-hour miniseries on one
DVD. Looks like it, too.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> artifacts may be the bane of digital broadcast transmission, but from local
> media, like DVD or BD, there's not much to worry about.
Agreed. Especially since, really, people *do* notice it and complain. For
about six months stuff was over-compressed. Now people have complained and
the signal has been cleaned up a bunch, at least around here.
It's usually just the fast motion where you notice, like the background
while the camera follows the sports player. If you're not looking for it,
you almost never notice it. Altho I do remember one or two explosions on DVD
where you could see the blockiness.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> and that's a very old movie, with blurry images by default!
>
> Yeah, it really doesn't help to watch something recorded when color film
> was new and amazing on blu-ray.
Depends on whether the blu-ray was a new digital copy of the old film,
or just the ancient VHS copy converted to a new format. That old
Kodachrome ASA 40 Super 8 film has a lot more information than even a
1080 TV can display, most of it in contrast.
That all assumes that one can find the film stock for old movies, anymore.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/07/10 13:52, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> OK, so I set up the BluRay player today and took it for a spin.
> 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
What movie? If it's more than 5 years old, don't expect too much of a
difference.
> 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.
That should show it.
--
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> In the digital realm, anything capable of handling the signal should be as
> good as any other,
Unless it is *only just* capable of handling the signal, in which case any
additional interference (eg you put a new device or another cable next to
the HDMI cable or receiver, a car drives past, someone turns on a motor,
etc) and then it will stop working. I have never seen anything like this
though, even my $10 5 meter DVI->HDMI cable has worked flawlessy at 1080p
while being tangled up behind 100 other cables behind my computer and TV.
> the higher bandwidth might be necesary. But for now, what good is it?
It's always good to have a little in reserve, as explained above, but really
I suspect the ultra cheap ones have plenty enough in reserve. The shops
that you go to of course are going to stock the expensive ones, as they
would prefer to make $20 profit on an $80 cable than $2 on an $8 one.
Magazine reviews are also biased because the makers of the $100 cables send
them loads for free, if the magazine writes bad reviews about them being a
waste of money they likely will not get any more.
> In fact, I'm still not convinced that 120Hz LCD makes any sense
> whatsoever. With CRT's, it made a LOT of difference, because it
> substantially reduced flicker. LCD doesn't have flicker. It has response
> times, and lowering the response times does make a difference. I'm not
> convinced that a 5ms 60Hz screen would be any different from a 5ms 120Hz
> screen, or even a 5ms 240Hz screen.
When your eye tracks a moving object on an LCD you see blur for two reasons.
One is the response time of the pixel, the other is the fact that the LCD is
finite resolution and the frames are displayed continuously (and not as
impulses like a CRT). Even with a response time of 0ms you will still see
image blur.
Recently the LC technology has improved giving faster switching times. This
has two impacts, it means the 2nd type of blur I mentioned above becomes
more apparent, and that it's possible to refresh at higher than 60 Hz.
Given the very fast response time, the easiest easiest way to reduce blur is
to simply show a totally black frame between each real frame. In theory you
could make an LCD perform like a CRT by only showing the frame for the first
5-10% of the frame, then showing black for the rest of it. Recently with
LED backlights it is becoming very easy to do this sort of thing (LEDs don't
care if they are at 100% brightness 100% of the time, or 1000% brightness
for 10% of the time).
As already mentioned, it makes an even better effect if the TV can
intelligently calculate some "inbetween" frames to display. This has the
disadvantage of being costly to implement and obviously not being able to
predict everything perfectly. But mostly the result is visually superior to
simple black frame insertion.
BTW I would suggest comparing fast scrolling text (eg end credits of a TV
show) on a normal TV and a 120 / 240 Hz version - the difference is obvious.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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).
I wonder if you transmitted analogue at the power where digital starts to
fail, what the analogue picture would look like? Where my mum lives they
still transmit both, the analogue TV is transmitted at 500 kW and the
digital at 20 kW...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
