 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Question: Why aren't there any widescreen cinemas yet?
At risk of entirely misunderstanding the question, all cinemas have shown all
films in 16:9 or wider for almost a hundred years.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Question: Why aren't there any widescreen cinemas yet?
>
> At risk of entirely misunderstanding the question, all cinemas have shown all
> films in 16:9 or wider for almost a hundred years.
Really?
Huh, well, you learn something every day. The picture always looked
fairly square to me...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:25:12 +0200, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
> How about if it supported only SD (which is one resolution) or only HD
> (in one resolution)?
Then you would ignore the market segment that consists of people that want
something better than SD but cannot (or do not want to) pay the full price
of 1080p.
> I thought it's a high dot-pitch which is expensive? (The "resolution" of
> the finished item being the area of the panel multiplied by the
> dot-pitch.) By that reconing, a large 1080p display would be cheaper
> than a small 1080p display, because the dot-pitch is lower.
I am by no means an expert on LCD panel production, but I do not think
there are significant cost savings associated with an excessively large
dot-pitch; certainly not enough to offset the cost of a larger panel.
Making pixels really tiny is difficult/expensive, but making them really
large becomes a matter of diminishing returns.
> Well, I'm only talking about the UK. I don't know what's happening in
> other parts of the world, but in the UK everybody's acting like HD is
> this Really Big Deal that everybody should be excited about. As far as I
> can tell, there isn't really much of a difference.
The issue of whether there is an appreciable difference has been discussed
before, at great length, in this very forum.
> (What the hell is the advantage of a widescreen *laptop* for goodness'
> sake?!)
1. Watching movies on the go.
2. A better match for the aspect ratio of the keyboard.
3. Cost (remember that thing about the diagonal and the surface area).
> Question: Why aren't there any widescreen cinemas yet?
Are you smoking something, or have you simply never been to a cinema?
Practically all cinemas are widescreen. Heck, they can even adjust the
aspect ratio on the fly.
I have to ask: Is Milton Keynes like one of those little tribal villages
sometimes found deep in some jungle, where technology has not improved for
centuries?
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 26.04.2010 11:38, schrieb scott:
> For the same size TV, increased resolution (smaller pixels) is more
> expensive for many reasons:
...
> - Panel yield reduced due to roughly constant probability of pixel failure
... which, to make things worse, does not just have a /linear/ effect on
panel yield, but an /exponential/ one.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 26.04.2010 11:49, schrieb Invisible:
> ...in other words, the entire reason for multiple resolutions existing
> is to extract more money from people.
The entire reason for HDTV /per se/ is to extract more money from people.
They call it capitalism: The desire to extract more money from people as
the primary driving force for innovation.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> ...in other words, the entire reason for multiple resolutions existing
>> is to extract more money from people.
>
> The entire reason for HDTV /per se/ is to extract more money from people.
Damn. And here I was thinking it was supposed to improve picture quality...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 26.04.2010 12:04, schrieb Invisible:
>>> ...in other words, the entire reason for multiple resolutions existing
>>> is to extract more money from people.
>>
>> The entire reason for HDTV /per se/ is to extract more money from people.
>
> Damn. And here I was thinking it was supposed to improve picture quality...
No; that's just a semi-rare collateral effect...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> ...in other words, the entire reason for multiple resolutions existing is
> to extract more money from people.
Of course, why else would any company do anything?
>> No, the cost of panel area outweighs all the things I mentioned above.
>
> Oh, OK. I assumed the difficulty of manufacturing a higher dot-pitch was
> the main problem...
No, that's technically easy. Besides pixels can be made orders of
magnitudes smaller than what is needed for TV (computer monitors, cell phone
screens, LCDs for projectors, etc.).
>> Funny how radiotimes.com indicates almost every TV program is broadcast
>> in widescreen :-) You need to fix your TV if you are not seeing a
>> widescreen picture from normal TV.
>
> I especially love how I have a widescreen TV, but you have to manually
> flip between 4:3 and 16:9 aspect. Even though it's connected by a digital
> link, so you'd think it could *detect* which kind of signal it's
> receiving...
Don't know about that, I have a widescreen TV and all the TV programs I
watch come in widescreen format, so I never need to adjust anything and it
always looks fine. Where are you getting 4:3 content from?
> That being the case, it's not entirely easy to tell whether you're
> watching a widescreen broadcast, or a normal one with the top cut off.
> (Unless of course you configure the TV to show black bars at the side -
> but it's my mum's TV, and she always complains when I configure it that
> way.)
With 99% certainty anything you are watching from UK TV will be widescreen.
It is very rare anything is broadcast in 4:3, I certainly haven't seen
anything and looking through radiotimes.com I can't find anything either.
Quite often you will see the text and captions on the TV will be formatted
within some "safe" area for 4:3 (so won't use the left/right edges), but the
main feed will be 16:9 format. Like this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v467/jonchoo/954963b2.jpg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:19:45 +0200, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
spake thusly:
> PS. I am similarly baffled by the current fashion for "widescreen" TVs.
> Given that 99.998% of all video content ever created is in 4:3 aspect,
> what the hell is the advantage of buying a TV with a 16:9 aspect?? I
> don't understand.
To all those giving an answer of "movies" to this question may I point out
that most aren't 16:9 but are in 21:9 cinema proportions. 16:9 was the
compromise yet now we have the option of purchasing yet another television
at this proportion from Philips.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:53:08 +0200, Fredrik Eriksson
<fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> did spake thusly:
> I have to ask: Is Milton Keynes like one of those little tribal villages
> sometimes found deep in some jungle, where technology has not improved
> for centuries?
No that'd be Scotland... ooooo channeling Frankie Boyle there.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
