 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Anyway, there are also compression algorithms that are a lot more
> efficient than the one used on DVDs. So in theory you could get DVD
> quality with a lot less than 9 MBit/s if you use a better compression
> algorithm.
Indeed. A 10:1 improvement in compression is easily attainable without
noticable loss compared to DVD compression anyway.
The problem with 1080p videos on youtube is that youtube overcompresses them
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
You're telling me it's possible to tell the difference betwee 600dpi and
1200dpi?
> 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?
As I say, everybody's shouting about 2x the resolution as if it's some
big deal or something.
Now, if it was 10x the resolution, that would seem more impressive...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
Yeah. Or you manually flip the controls on the TV, as I constantly do.
(Or rather, did. With the new BD player, it seems to happen
automatically. God only knows why this didn't happen before...)
The fun part is when you watch "widescreen" stuff, and there's *still*
black bars at the top and bottom. (I.e., the picture is even wider than
your TV.) Oh that was *so* worth it...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 19:20:26 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> As I say, everybody's shouting about 2x the resolution as if it's some
> big deal or something.
>
> Now, if it was 10x the resolution, that would seem more impressive...
It is actually a big deal when you have a big screen. Our 16:9
projection screen measures 106" diagonally, and there is a *huge*
improvement between SD and HD on it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
