 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
>>> (And hell, half the equipment and content that says "HD" on it isn't
>>> even full resolution anyway... Why allow half a dozen resolutions
>>> when it would have been far simpler for the designers and less
>>> misleading for the public if they allow only one resolution?)
>>
>> Because, say, games at full HD may have to cut geometry or frame rate
>> here and there to fit comfortably?
>
> What do TV resolutions have to do with computers? You connect a computer
> to a monitor, not a TV.
besides game consoles, many people for the past few years have been
connecting computers to their large screen FullHD TVs. Because, you
know, it's usually more pleasing seeing images at a large screen from
the comfort of your sofa (yeah, with a wireless keyboard) rather than
sitting a few inches away from a much smaller screen.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> Invisible wrote:
>>>>>> When do you think that day will be?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not only is it here. It's a commodity.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.netflix.com/NetflixReadyDevices
>>>>
>>>> I don't follow.
>>>
>>> Whats not to follow? They stream movies directly from the internet
>>> (albeit at SD resolutions ..)
>>
>> Presumably this only actually works if you have a suitably fast
>> Internet connection though?
>
> No, it works great over dial-up too. You should try it.
BTW, don't you guys find it funny that ADSL is "dial-up" too? Twas not
long ago that I used to dial-up at 56Kbps and looked forward to having a
"cable modem" connection, but today I "dial-up" over the phone line and
have 10Mbps connections... ^-^
technology advances at a far too ridiculous pace to try to categorize
with silly terminology... :P
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
4bd705be$1@news.povray.org...
> Hmm, interesting. Where I live, most people have between 2 Mbit/sec and 8
> Mbit/sec. (I gather that until ADSL2 is deployed, you can't exceed 8
> Mbit/sec...)
http://www.bb4mk.org/ (assuming you live there)
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> BTW, don't you guys find it funny that ADSL is "dial-up" too?
Not really. It's built into the line card, so you're not actually dialing
anything. You're just using the same wires you would be dialing on.
Indeed, the two hardest parts of making ADSL work is dealing with rings and
dealing with dialing.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> BTW, don't you guys find it funny that ADSL is "dial-up" too?
>
> Not really. It's built into the line card, so you're not actually
> dialing anything. You're just using the same wires you would be dialing on.
really? I used to connect without a line filter in my other telephone
across the room and, thus, if you happened to pick up the nearby phone
while it was connecting, you would listen to a bit of that "folkloric"
well-known old-modem dialing-up tune.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
> scott wrote:
>>> I've yet to see anything on YouTube which even approaches TV quality.
>>
>> You did find a video that supports HD resolutions, and switch YouTube
>> to use that resolution, and watch full-screen? Search "1080p demo" to
>> easily find some.
>
> The ones with an HD option look bettER, but still not particularly good.
> At least, the ones I've seen.
http://vimeo.com/9078364
youtube sucks...
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> really?
Really. I worked across the hall from the guys inventing it.
The signals from ADSL are about 1% the strength of the signals from voice.
There's no connection there other than you to the line card. That's why you
can still talk on the phone when you have ADSL.
(Now, without appropriate filters, maybe nowadays you can hear the ADSL. And
it's doing things vaguely modem-like. But only over the wire. By the time it
gets to the switch, it's on a separate path already.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Hell, when I was at uni ten years ago we had computers exceeding these
> resolutions. With Windows NT 4.0, Service Pack 4. Has technology not
> moved on since then? It's not like there's any technical challenge to
> using a higher resolution, after all...
Government regulators, for whom being safe is generally more important
than being right, had a major role in the determination of the standard.
The standard had to allow for broadcast within a strictly-defined
frequency band, and this limit was chosen based on technology that is
now ready for deployment to your local museum, because these decisions
were made years ago.
If I am remembering things correctly, there was even some insistence
that the signal be displayable by sets designed for the old broadcast
standard. If that sounds thinking-impaired, well, that's the FCC for you.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27-4-2010 14:07, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> And lo On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 22:01:41 +0200, andrel <byt### [at] gmail com>
> did spake thusly:
>
>> On 26-4-2010 14:49, Warp wrote:
>>> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> 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.
>>>
>>>> Really?
>>>
>>>> Huh, well, you learn something every day. The picture always looked
>>>> fairly square to me...
>>> I'm beginning to suspect that this is not Andrew, and instead some
>>> troll
>>> is posting using his nickname.
>>> If even TV is not square (it's 4:3), how in the world could you ever
>>> think that movies are square? I don't get it.
>>> The narrowest aspect ratio used in movies for the past 20+ years has
>>> usually been 1.85:1. The most common aspect ratios for big movies today
>>> is 2.25:1 and even 2.35:1 (that's well over twice as wide as tall).
>>>
>> a few days ago I heard a talk that might provide an explanation.
>> Someone set up an experiment with 180 degrees view and figured out how
>> wide they perceived it. You get a camel distribution with one hump at
>> 180 and another, larger! one at 90. Experiment was reproducable per
>> person.
>>
>> Hard to believe but apparently true. Something fishy in our brain. Jan
>> Koenderink, who was giving the talk, is trying to figure out why.
>
> Perhaps something similar to line perception where we overestimate acute
> angles and underestimate obtuse ones.
>
Is that also wildly variable between people? (I wouldn't know, because I
am only one person)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/27/10 07:57, Mike Raiford wrote:
> Whats not to follow? They stream movies directly from the internet
> (albeit at SD resolutions ..)
Depends on how you define SD - I've seen movies through it that are
definitely beyond DVD quality.
--
I considered atheism but there weren't enough holidays.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
