 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 26/04/2010 10:19, Invisible nous fit lire :
> http://www.xkcd.com/732/
>
> This puzzles me too.
>
> I mean, if you're going to force everybody to buy a new TV, new
> receiver, new type of disk and a new machine to play it, why it increase
> the resolution *significantly*? Why only increase it by a small amount?
> I don't understand that.
They are not increasing resolution, they are reducing it.
One step at a time, they increase the lcd... just to make you buy it
over and over. But from CRT, we lost a lot!
> 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...
In 1990, I studied on HP systems, with either VT-100 (80x24+1 line
X11, palette colours (256 entries).(the screen was flat, and weight a lot!)
PC where in 1024x768 or 1280x1024, in 16 colours or 256.
No Web then. Turbo was a 12MHz PC!
Around 2000, CRT for PC was already able to reach 1600x1200. But most
configuration was 1024x768. In 16777216 colours (256^3) or more.
Video card pushed to 10 bits per channels with gamma internal...
Then came out LCD... from laptop to desktop and TV, they killed the CRT.
The colours drop to less numbers, but this is now an hidden information.
Nowadays, all you can found in store at best is a 1920 x 1080.
1920x1200... disappearing.
2560x1600... on order only (and price is 4 digits!).
And it is LCD. No more CRT.
The fact: lcd matrix are ordered "in mass" for TV (HD ! lol), so they
only produce 1080 matrix, and computer screen have to take from that stock.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] free fr> wrote:
> Then came out LCD... from laptop to desktop and TV, they killed the CRT.
> The colours drop to less numbers, but this is now an hidden information.
Not to talk about contrast...
Also, CRTs could be looked at from about any direction and it would
always look exactly as good. Only in the last few years LCDs are
*approaching* that (many still have problems when viewed from above
or below).
Then there are the dead pixels, which plagued LCDs for many, many years
(only relatively recently LCD vendors have started guaranteeing no dead
pixels).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Then there are the dead pixels, which plagued LCDs for many, many years
> (only relatively recently LCD vendors have started guaranteeing no dead
> pixels).
Screen burn, anyone?
(Not that modern "screen savers" actually save your screen...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> You're telling me it's possible to tell the difference betwee 600dpi and
> 1200dpi?
Yeah. You have to look close. (And, honestly, this was before I hit 40 and
my eyes started to get old.) But yes, it was pretty clear. I could pick up a
paper in my brother's advertising office and tell you if it came off the
Apple laser printer or the "real" laser printer, for example, just by
looking at the jaggies on an X or something.
The same way that in the same timeframe you could look at a TeX paper and
tell by the crappy spacing between letters and the poor typography that it
was using Computer Modern fonts instead of fonts designed by a typographer.
> As I say, everybody's shouting about 2x the resolution as if it's some
> big deal or something.
1080 is a lot more than 2x the resolution of 480. It's also because it's
digital now, so the signal is better.
> Now, if it was 10x the resolution, that would seem more impressive...
Certainly. But you wouldn't pay for that, would you?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.
Heh. And my brother has his stuff all hooked up to a projector giving him a
9 foot diagonal picture. Pretty cool to play video game football when the
players are literally larger than life size.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>
>> Then there are the dead pixels, which plagued LCDs for many, many years
>> (only relatively recently LCD vendors have started guaranteeing no dead
>> pixels).
>
> Screen burn, anyone?
>
> (Not that modern "screen savers" actually save your screen...)
They prevent screen burn. :-) Either that, or you've never actually seen
screen burn.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
