 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 26.04.2010 21:33, schrieb Warp:
> Le_Forgeron<jgr### [at] freefr> 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).
Stick to CRTs if you like - I do prefer to have room enough on my desk
for /two/ displays with 24" @16:9 and 19" @4:3 size (effective image
diagonal, not nominal tube size), both presenting their image perfectly
flat and undistorted, with perfectly sharp pixels, no analog signal
distortion or beam focus problems, no "pumping" effect with brightness
changes, no moiree effects with the X11 login screen, less dust
accumulating on the display, less eye strain from flicker - and no risk
of my desk collapsing under the displays' sheer weight.
It's all a question of priorities. Yours may vary.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> 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.
Apparently I'm just weird. I can't really tell the difference between
the old 300dpi LaserJet 6P, the 600dpi LaserJet 4100, and the 1200dpi
Xerox Phaser.
Oh, unless you mean in greyscale or something. There it makes a
difference...
> 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.
Now, see, to my eyes the Computer Modern fonts look much, much better
than anything any other system ever produces. (Certainly TeX beats the
**** out of anything Word produces!)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> 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.
Go to any arcade. Observe how every CRT in the place has "Insert £1
Now!" faintly displayed in the center of the screen, regardless of the
image from the video card...
The idea of a screen saver is that it displays different images so that
no one particular area of the screen gets unduely stimulated. But lots
of modern screen savers display static or nearly static images...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
