 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott escreveu:
>> Certainly if your bandwidth is enough to transfer a full double-layer
>> DVD (ie. about 8 gigabytes) in 2 hours, then it would be enough to
>> *watch*
>> that DVD in real-time over the internet. Not many people have such huge
>> bandwidths, though.
>
> That "only" comes out at around 9 MBit/s, a lot of people nowadays have
> internet speeds getting on for that.
yeah, but DVDs are old wig. How about bluray-quality?
It's interesting because the topic started out by ranting about "low"
resolutions...
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson escreveu:
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:15:28 +0200, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>>
>> Ooo, here's a random thought: Do you think there will ever be a day
>> when the Internet becomes fast enough to watch TV-quality video in
>> realtime?
>>
>> When do you think that day will be?
>
> About five years ago.
Only today I've got a 10Mbit connection at home. I can view most HD
videos comfortably, meaning little time for buffering the video so I can
start playing them as they still keep loading. Resolution is not Full
HD at all and compression quality is worse than in bluray. And play
cursor may occasionally still reach buffer cursor before it's full.
> Are you sure you are not living in the jungle?
I live in Brazil out of the jungle, but even the jungle and slums are
wired... :P
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> why not increase the resolution *significantly*?
>>
>> Cost, both for producing the TV and for producing the content.
>
> Producing the content I can understand. It presumably costs more money
> to shunt larger volumes of data around...
Yes, inside the TV as well. How much did his laptop cost in 2004? How much
did his television cost in 2004?
Do the math on memory bandwidth for 1920x1080x60x32bits, for example.
> How is it *cheaper* to design something more complicated?
It's cheaper to manufacture something with lower resolution. Much, much
cheaper. And in the USA at least, there's only two HD resolutions, not "half
a dozen".
>> Did you have a 40" computer monitor ten years ago?
>
> No. But you would think that making a large monitor with a high
> resolution would be much cheaper than making a small monitor with a high
> resolution. (That would require a greater dot-pitch.)
*You* might.
(Actually, you're confusing terms here. A large monitor with the same
resolution as a small monitor will be *far* more expensive. A large monitor
with the same pixel count as a small monitor is what you meant.)
> Ah. So that's the true reason...
Wow. You're getting as snarky-cynical as I am! :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> 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.
Plus, 1080p on a 19" diagonal screen is overkill. You can't see the
difference anyway.
Heck, it's not obvious to notice the difference between 720p and 1080p on a
46" screen from a couple feet away. You actually have to look at it and
think about it, in contrast to SD vs HD.
--
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:
> I'm of the opinion that "full price 1080p" shouldn't be that expensive
> in the first place, and we should all be saving up for 4096p or
> something. But I guess that's next year's money draw...
What's the advantage. Your *eyes* only have a limited resolution.
--
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:
> ...in other words, the entire reason for multiple resolutions existing
> is to extract more money from people.
Alternately, to lower the cost of smaller televisions where 1080p would be
below the resolving power of your eyes anyway.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 26.04.2010 15:49, schrieb scott:
> I think mine was about 1500 GBP, although I think our IT guy has some
> scam going with the supplier, because his prices always seem to be way
> more than I find them for on other websites ;-)
Chances are your IT guy is buying the stuff complete with some service
contract. So not only the usual "if it breaks within 24 months we'll fix
it for free" guarantee, but "if it breaks we'll get a replacement to you
within 2 business days" or some such.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I don't mind paying money when I actually get something in return.
You do. You pay less money to get a smaller screen with a lower pixelcount.
> I often wonder why we don't have monitors with 300dpi or 600dpi yet.
> Then the text on screen would be nearly print-quality.
People in the printing business would laugh at you for that statement.
300dpi is barely draft quality. 1200dpi is what you show the clients in
black and white to get their approval before actually printing it.
> (Except that, to this day, changing resolution makes everything come out
> too small. How many managers have you seen turn down the resolution to
> make the text bigger?)
Now you know why 19" screens are 720p.
> (Or are you talking about the HD channels? We only receive SD.)
So you're complaining about the fact that there's a 720p and a 1080p HD
standard (at least in the USA), and you're only getting 512i signals anyway?
--
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:
> Everybody seems to hate #1, but lots of people apparently see nothing
> wrong with #2 or #3. *shudders*
You forgot #5:
An HD picture with black bars on the top and bottom to make it SD aspect
ratio, then broadcast on an HD screen with black bars left and right to make
it fit.
Altho there are actually components in a lot of TVs that will detect this
and only show you the middle anyway.
--
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:
> When do you think that day will be?
Not only is it here. It's a commodity.
http://www.netflix.com/NetflixReadyDevices
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
