Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I've only seen HD stuff in shops, but from what I can tell, there's no 
> visible difference between HD and SD.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. There's really a tremendous 
difference, but you have to notice it by switching back and forth between HD 
and SD.

It's like playing a game with all the graphics turned up, vs playing in 256 
colors at 640x480.

> If I ever get time to set up my 
> mum's new BluRay player, maybe I can test for myself. 

I do like bluray better than hddvd. I'm glad they won. I prefer the 
speckly-dithering to the blocky compression, especially at more than a foot 
from the screen.

> everybody's going on like it fundamentally transforms your viewing 
> experience. But it's only 4x the resolution.

And digital, meaning no blur or color smear.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

>> HDMI is a raw, unmodulated digital signal.
> 
> There is no such thing. Digital is your imagination.

There's a big difference between recognising a DC signal, and 
recognising a sine tone with a specific frequency.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> I've only seen HD stuff in shops, but from what I can tell, there's no 
>> visible difference between HD and SD.
> 
> That's exactly what I'm talking about. There's really a tremendous 
> difference, but you have to notice it by switching back and forth 
> between HD and SD.
> 
> It's like playing a game with all the graphics turned up, vs playing in 
> 256 colors at 640x480.

Well, the shops have all this split-screen stuff, with one side in SD 
and the other side in HD. The only difference I can see is that the HD 
is very slightly less blurry. But it's a tiny difference - certainly not 
worth paying £20,000 for.

> I do like bluray better than hddvd. I'm glad they won.

...there's a difference between them?

>> everybody's going on like it fundamentally transforms your viewing 
>> experience. But it's only 4x the resolution.
> 
> And digital, meaning no blur or color smear.

Meaning no blur *if* the signal is uncompressed - which it never ever 
will be.

In reality, we just swapped analogue distortion for compression 
artifacts. (And - if you're talking about transmission - a different 
failure mode in case of interference. Although admittedly it takes more 
interference now to make it fail.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > HDMI is a raw, unmodulated digital signal.

> There is no such thing. Digital is your imagination.

  Of course there is.

  Modulation means encoding the information into the higher frequencies of
a base carrier signal. For instance radio transmissions work that way: You
have a carrier signal at a certain base frequency, and then the sound is
encoded into it by slightly modifying its amplitude (AM) or frequency (FM).

  Modems work that way too: The bits are encoded in a similar way as
variations of a carrier signal.

  Sending a raw digital signal over a cable doesn't require modulation.
It can be as simple as "no current = 0", "current = 1". (Of course the
actual process is a bit more complicated due to synchronization problems
and such, but basically it's just that.) There's no carrier signal, hence
no modulation.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 
> Well, the shops have all this split-screen stuff, with one side in SD
> and the other side in HD. The only difference I can see is that the HD
> is very slightly less blurry. But it's a tiny difference - certainly not
> worth paying £20,000 for.

20k£? Where do you shop? :O

> In reality, we just swapped analogue distortion for compression
> artifacts. (And - if you're talking about transmission - a different
> failure mode in case of interference. Although admittedly it takes more
> interference now to make it fail.)

Yes. OTOH the digital signal fails fully when it fails, with analog
signal you're still able to get the information from the news with even
very bad signal (while you don't want to see a movie with such signal).

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

On 03/06/10 08:57, Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> HDMI is a raw, unmodulated digital signal.
> 
> There is no such thing. Digital is your imagination.

	Max Planck begs to differ.<G>

-- 
I'm not afraid of heights... I'm afraid of depths.

Post a reply to this message

On 03/06/10 02:24, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Now my mum has this shiny new LCD TV. And suddenly digital looks
> *awful*! As soon as anything moves faster than 2 MPH, it's blocky and
> unrecognisible. Although... it seems to vary by channel somewhat.

	Get a plasma TV next time (or a better LCD TV).

> I've only seen HD stuff in shops, but from what I can tell, there's no
> visible difference between HD and SD. If I ever get time to set up my
> mum's new BluRay player, maybe I can test for myself. But seriously,
> everybody's going on like it fundamentally transforms your viewing
> experience. But it's only 4x the resolution. Not 40x or 400x, just 4x.
> And, from what I've seen, this equals to a slight increase in constrast,
> and not much else.

	Woah! There's a *big* difference in quality. Try playing 1080p content
if your TV can handle it. If not, even 720p should be noticeable. Many
stores I've been to just show trash.

-- 
I'm not afraid of heights... I'm afraid of depths.

Post a reply to this message

On 3/5/2010 12:52 PM, Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> "Patrick Elliott"<sel### [at] npgcablecom>  wrote in message
> news:4b91529b$1@news.povray.org...
>> Both of you are assuming this is "Blue Ray" that is the issue too.
>
> Woops.
>
>> Game systems, I think, can output in native 120Hz, and computers certainly
>> can and *must* in some cases, if you want decent video.
>
> 120Hz or 120fps?  Sometimes the two terms are interchangeble, but not
> always.  It's true that getting 120fps on a 60Hz monitor won't look as
> smooth as a 120Hz monitor.  I don't think any console systems on the market
> today output at 120Hz, but I could be wrong.
>
Actually, in the case of LCD, the general case is, if its not 120Hz, its 
not "possible" to be 120fps. The reason being that, without the higher 
Hz, you can't get a fast enough refresh to handle a doubling of the 
frame rate (at all), or.. well, not if you want it to not look like 
total crap compared to a LCD display for a computer, which are, now, 
almost 100% 120Hz (with a few cheaper exceptions). To get the same on a 
TV requires going all the way up to a 34", or something, in most cases. 
Its really kind of annoying. Guess the cost of the tuner gets traded 
from the cost of the extra refresh, so the small TVs and the small 
monitors stay close to the same price, but... I find it more than a 
little frustrating (Had my TV blow some caps a while back, so bought a 
smaller one, for a temp, intending to possibly use it as a display 
later. Never did, precisely due to that issue.)





-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 3/5/2010 8:56 PM, UncleHoot wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:4b919449$1@news.povray.org...
>> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>> the compression artifacts are so pronounced when you stand that close to
>>> these big TVs.
>>
>> You know, I used to think that. I used to work on compression
>> algorithms, so I got really good at seeing the kind of artifacts that
>> jpeg and mpeg produce. Every time I went in the store and looked at
>> the HDTV, I saw all the compression artifacts in the background and
>> thought 'wow, that sucks.'
>
> I'm not sure if it's just the Walmart in my neighborhood, or if all of
> them are like this, but they have lots and lots of TV's all running the
> same signal, and their TV's look like crap. For one thing, most (if not
> all) are using shared analog connections of some kind. Plus, the demo
> they have running has TONS of compression artifacts in it. Any time the
> on-screen text should look clear and crisp, it looks like an awful,
> lossy JPEG. It certainly doesn't impress.
>
> Ironically, that's where I bought my TV. :-)
Yeah, never got that myself. Use crappy splitters, which are expensive, 
but the cable guy, when I showed him one goes, "There isn't even an 
specs on the thing, I have no way of knowing what the variance is in the 
signal attenuation!", with some crappy splitter box, which has been 
turned on for 4 years, and is in 80% failure, then expect people to look 
at the images and go, "Wow! I will buy that one!" lol

Mind, even when they use digital, they use the some similar splitter, 
and *it* is invariably cheap, flaky, and in partial failure.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> HDMI is a raw, unmodulated digital signal.
>>
>> There is no such thing. Digital is your imagination.
> 
> There's a big difference between recognising a DC signal, and 
> recognising a sine tone with a specific frequency.

And where does "recognising" happen? In the signal, or in the signal processor?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Sending a raw digital signal over a cable doesn't require modulation.
> It can be as simple as "no current = 0", "current = 1". 

Except it's impossible to recognise the difference between "current" and 
"shouldn't be current but there's minute noise on the line."

In other words, you need some minimum amount of current before you say it's 
actually a 1, right?

And if the current you detect is right on the border between what you 
consider "zero current" and "one current", then it's not digital. And that 
happens every time the current goes between a zero and a one.

Indeed, the whole *reason* for using digital is to make broader swaths of 
analog come out to the same value. If you actually *could* transmit digital 
signals, you wouldn't *need* to.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Well, the shops have all this split-screen stuff, with one side in SD 
> and the other side in HD. The only difference I can see is that the HD 

> is very slightly less blurry. But it's a tiny difference - certainly no
t 
> worth paying £20,000 for.

It's kind of hard to know when you're being crazy and when you're just be
ing 
dense. :-) I can get an excellent 46" LCD screen for like $1500. What the
 
heck are you paying £20,000 for?

>> I do like bluray better than hddvd. I'm glad they won.
> ...there's a difference between them?

Stick with analog.

> In reality, we just swapped analogue distortion for compression 
> artifacts. 

True, but missing the point of what I was sayign.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

On 3/6/2010 10:45 AM, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>> Well, the shops have all this split-screen stuff, with one side in SD
>> and the other side in HD. The only difference I can see is that the HD
>> is very slightly less blurry. But it's a tiny difference - certainly not
>> worth paying £20,000 for.
>
> 20k£? Where do you shop? :O
>
Given what he describes happening with movement.. Some place where the 
TV people are being robbed blind by companies selling them bad 
compression, and the people delivering it the same. Or.. He has 
satellite. lol That is the thing they "don't" tell you with the whole, 
"satellites have more bandwidth" BS. First, its basically a lie. I get 
the same number of channels + high speed digital internet over my cable, 
so.. the idea there isn't bandwidth is just silly. So.. How do they get 
that extra "bandwidth" they claim? Simple... they compress the hell out 
of the signal, so much so that your HD signals look as bad as my 
**better** standard signals look "good". In other words - make up the 
space lost by sending you the signal, by sending you 10% less data in 
the signal, or what ever it is.

Mind, this is likely no the case with the re-broadcasts, since such 
signals still need to be used to transmit to the cable people, but those 
are **not** what you get from Direct TV, or the like. You are getting 
their version of DSL, while the signal to the cable company is more 
like.. T1. The only way to end up with "less" bandwidth is if the cable 
company decides to screw you too, with crappy compression, to give 
themselves more bandwidth than they need (which I don't doubt happens).

So, yeah.. What your picture looks like is going to vary, even if there 
isn't anything wrong with the TV at all. Its all dependent on if the 
people sending you the signal figure they can get by with it, or not.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> There's a big difference between recognising a DC signal, and 
> recognising a sine tone with a specific frequency.

Oh, and yes, recognising the sine tone is far, far easier, if you use analog 
components.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> There's a big difference between recognising a DC signal, and 
>> recognising a sine tone with a specific frequency.
> 
> Oh, and yes, recognising the sine tone is far, far easier, if you use 
> analog components.

Yep. That's why all digital electronics uses this method internally.

Oh, wait a sec...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> What the heck are you paying £20,000 for?

Nothing. My point is, anything that says "HD" on it - whether it's a TV 
or a coffee mat - instantly becomes drastically more expensive than the 
"non-HD" version. Which seems silly, given the minimal difference in 
quality.

It just puzzles me that if they were going to make everything 
incompatible so they could up the resolution, why didn't they up it to 
something really high? You know, so you can *see* a difference?

Then again, I suppose you usually sit sort of 12 feet away or something...

>>> I do like bluray better than hddvd. I'm glad they won.
>> ...there's a difference between them?
> 
> Stick with analog.

Not an opion, sadly.

>> In reality, we just swapped analogue distortion for compression 
>> artifacts. 
> 
> True, but missing the point of what I was sayign.

...OK...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> There's a big difference between recognising a DC signal, and 
>>> recognising a sine tone with a specific frequency.
>>
>> Oh, and yes, recognising the sine tone is far, far easier, if you use 
>> analog components.
> 
> Yep. That's why all digital electronics uses this method internally.

What part of "if you use analog components" did you miss?  Have you ever 
tuned a guitar?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> In reality, we just swapped analogue distortion for compression 
>>> artifacts. 
>>
>> True, but missing the point of what I was sayign.
> 
> ...OK...

... which was that no, I thought the same as *you* do when *I* only saw them 
in stores, but in an actual home environment, the difference is stunning.

And the resolution is already pushing the limits of technology.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> I thought the same as *you* do when *I* only saw 
> them in stores, but in an actual home environment, the difference is 
> stunning.

Oh, right. OK. Well if I can GET to the side of the room where the TV 
is, maybe I'll try it. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   Sending a raw digital signal over a cable doesn't require modulation.
> > It can be as simple as "no current = 0", "current = 1". 

> Except it's impossible to recognise the difference between "current" and 
> "shouldn't be current but there's minute noise on the line."

> In other words, you need some minimum amount of current before you say it's 
> actually a 1, right?

> And if the current you detect is right on the border between what you 
> consider "zero current" and "one current", then it's not digital. And that 
> happens every time the current goes between a zero and a one.

> Indeed, the whole *reason* for using digital is to make broader swaths of 
> analog come out to the same value. If you actually *could* transmit digital 
> signals, you wouldn't *need* to.

  I have no idea what that has to do with modulation.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I have no idea what that has to do with modulation.

I'm not talking about modulation. I'm pointing out that there's no such 
thing as a digital signal, unless you start getting into quantum 
cryptography or something.  It doesn't matter if it's modulated or not.

There's no such thing as a digital signal. There's only a signal that you 
choose to interpret in a digital way. But that's a feature of 
interpretation, not a feature of the signal.

For example, digital CDMA cell phones do not operate if the actual 
over-the-air signal is digital. They rely on looking at the analog 
properties of the radio waves to sort out the digital signals. Beyond just 
the tuning bit.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

"Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> wrote:
> claim that the $100 Monster cable gives them such a better picture than the
> other (mon-Monster) HDMI cables.  Unless I'm missing something, that's like
> saying your Internet looks a lot better since you switched from a cat 5
> ethernet connection to cat 6.  In the analog realm, high quality cables
> meant a lot.  In the digital realm, anything capable of handling the signal
> should be as good as any other, although I've seen my share of really crappy
> quality ethernet cable, as well.  But they either work, or they don't.

Perfect analysis.  You know how software makers are able to get a lot of money
from consumers blissfully ignorant at how software works?  Audio-video industry
is just about as horrendous.

Post a reply to this message

> In reality, we just swapped analogue distortion for compression artifacts.

Yep.  In some cases, it's more pronounced than in others.  Initially, 
satellite HDTV was horrible in comparison to what's available now.  They 
simply didn't have the bandwidth to support it.  Even now, I can notice it a 
little bit, but for the most part, I don't see the artifacts.  Artifacts are 
most noticeable in dark images.

Post a reply to this message

> It's kind of hard to know when you're being crazy and when you're just 
> being dense. :-) I can get an excellent 46" LCD screen for like $1500. 
> What the heck are you paying £20,000 for?

$780 USD for my Sony 46" 1080p.  Other brands are cheaper.

Post a reply to this message

"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message 
news:4b9297f6$1@news.povray.org...
> On 03/06/10 02:24, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> I've only seen HD stuff in shops, but from what I can tell, there's no
>> visible difference between HD and SD. If I ever get time to set up my
>> mum's new BluRay player, maybe I can test for myself. But seriously,
>> everybody's going on like it fundamentally transforms your viewing
>> experience. But it's only 4x the resolution. Not 40x or 400x, just 4x.
>> And, from what I've seen, this equals to a slight increase in constrast,
>> and not much else.
>
> Woah! There's a *big* difference in quality. Try playing 1080p content
> if your TV can handle it. If not, even 720p should be noticeable. Many
> stores I've been to just show trash.
>

Agreed.  The stores suck.    And the difference in quality is huge.  Anyone 
who doesn’t see the difference should switch back to a 640x480 interlaced 
analog monitor.  ;-)

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
news:web.4b9311a1977651427220e2710@news.povray.org...
> "Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> wrote:
>> claim that the $100 Monster cable gives them such a better picture than 
>> the
>> other (mon-Monster) HDMI cables.  Unless I'm missing something, that's 
>> like
>> saying your Internet looks a lot better since you switched from a cat 5
>> ethernet connection to cat 6.  In the analog realm, high quality cables
>> meant a lot.  In the digital realm, anything capable of handling the 
>> signal
>> should be as good as any other, although I've seen my share of really 
>> crappy
>> quality ethernet cable, as well.  But they either work, or they don't.
>
> Perfect analysis.  You know how software makers are able to get a lot of 
> money
> from consumers blissfully ignorant at how software works?  Audio-video 
> industry
> is just about as horrendous.
>

I suppose that if I spent $100 for a 3-foot cable, I'd delude myself too, 
though.  Admitting that I just paid 20 times more than a reasonable price 
would just be too difficult for me.  ;-)

Post a reply to this message

"UncleHoot" <jer### [at] mutualdatacom> wrote:
> "Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
> news:4b9297f6$1@news.povray.org...
> > On 03/06/10 02:24, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> >> I've only seen HD stuff in shops, but from what I can tell, there's no
> >> visible difference between HD and SD. If I ever get time to set up my
> >> mum's new BluRay player, maybe I can test for myself. But seriously,
> >> everybody's going on like it fundamentally transforms your viewing
> >> experience. But it's only 4x the resolution. Not 40x or 400x, just 4x.
> >> And, from what I've seen, this equals to a slight increase in constrast,
> >> and not much else.
> >
> > Woah! There's a *big* difference in quality. Try playing 1080p content
> > if your TV can handle it. If not, even 720p should be noticeable. Many
> > stores I've been to just show trash.
> >
>
> Agreed.  The stores suck.    And the difference in quality is huge.  Anyone
> who doesn’t see the difference should switch back to a 640x480 interlaced
> analog monitor.  ;-)

I seriously think Andrew's glasses are wearing out, but the stores may be guilty
indeed:  many of them just play regular blurry DVDs on HDTVs.  Talk about truly
awful marketing skills...

Post a reply to this message

UncleHoot wrote:
>> It's kind of hard to know when you're being crazy and when you're just
>> being dense. :-) I can get an excellent 46" LCD screen for like $1500.
>> What the heck are you paying £20,000 for?
> 
> $780 USD for my Sony 46" 1080p.  Other brands are cheaper.

Or if he wants a big picture but without a TV:
http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/2018129/art/sanyo/plv-z700-video-projector.html
I'm pretty sure Andrew could get The Best dvb-tuner in the world for the
19k£ that's left...

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

OK, so I set up the BluRay player today and took it for a spin.

The player is hooked up to the LCD TV via an HDMI cable. Apparently the 
TV is in 1080p mode. (Presumably that means 1080 scanlines with 
progressive scan?) I've played some DVDs and some BluRay disks.

There *is* a difference. But it still seems quite small. The main place 
you see it is actually in the setup menues, weirdly enough. The 
texturing seems sharper. Once the film itself is playing, you don't 
really see a whole lot of difference. Except sometimes in shots that are 
very still, or have lots of close-up detail.

I can only guess that most of the time, large parts of the frame are out 
of focus anyway, so there's no extra detail to capture except on the 
foreground objects which are in sharp focus. And also, if the objects 
are moving around a lot, there's so much motion blur that you don't see 
any extra detail.

So in summary, apart from the occasional shot where you go "oh, that 
looks a little sharper than usual", there's not much to see. (And most 
especially, when you first start watching it seems a little sharper, but 
after 20 minutes you've forgotten all about it.) It's certainly not the 
"OMG, your eyeballs will drop out of your skull in sheer amazement" 
effect that everybody keeps promising.

Now I've got Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. The box contains 
the exact same film on BD and DVD, so I can actually compare like for 
like. But I haven't done so yet.

The main thing is, I can now throw away the *useless* DVD player we've 
been using! :-D

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

hey, how about paying a visit to your ophthalmologist? :D

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> hey, how about paying a visit to your ophthalmologist? :D

BTW, here's a spot on comparison I caught from another forum.

DVD shot, upscaled to 1080p:
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Gone%20With%20The%20Wind/4ac8c10f.png

Bluray:
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Gone%20With%20The%20Wind/03a3bde1.png

guess for someone calling Mozart bland it's all equally blurry, but I can see
details of the dress, faces and background foliage in bluray HD glory. :)

and that's a very old movie, with blurry images by default!  The difference is
much more pronounced in the crisp images of modern movies like, say, Pixar
movies:

http://www.pixartalk.com/2009/06/17/the-blu-ray-difference-with-pixar/

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> and that's a very old movie, with blurry images by default!

Yeah, it really doesn't help to watch something recorded when color film was 
new and amazing on blu-ray.

Do the same comparison with something like Batman.

And remember that DVD is significantly better than VHS and (most) broadcast, 
while HDTV has only compression artifaacts to worry about.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > and that's a very old movie, with blurry images by default!
>
> Yeah, it really doesn't help to watch something recorded when color film was
> new and amazing on blu-ray.
>
> Do the same comparison with something like Batman.

I don't have Batman at hand, but I did provide a link to a reasonably modern
Pixar movie:

http://www.pixartalk.com/2009/06/17/the-blu-ray-difference-with-pixar/

like, DVD:
http://www.pixartalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/dvdcar.jpg
and bluray:
http://www.pixartalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/bdcar.jpg

> And remember that DVD is significantly better than VHS and (most) broadcast,
> while HDTV has only compression artifaacts to worry about.

artifacts may be the bane of digital broadcast transmission, but from local
media, like DVD or BD, there's not much to worry about.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> (And that of course is the other undesirable thing about digital TV.
> There used to be, like, 5 channels, 4 of them containing high quality
> programming. Now there's 500 channels and they're *all* showing utter
> crap that nobody would ever want to watch...)

That has nothing to do with digital TV. It's just the drop of quality 
programming happened at the same time. Correlation != causation.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> I seriously think Andrew's glasses are wearing out, but the stores may be
> guilty
> indeed:  many of them just play regular blurry DVDs on HDTVs.  Talk about
> truly awful marketing skills...

Around here if you to to the store and ask "does that DVD player cope well 
with DVD-Rs?", they'll tell you "sure, this demo is playing a pirated movie" 
:)

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > I seriously think Andrew's glasses are wearing out, but the stores may be
> > guilty
> > indeed:  many of them just play regular blurry DVDs on HDTVs.  Talk about
> > truly awful marketing skills...
>
> Around here if you to to the store and ask "does that DVD player cope well
> with DVD-Rs?", they'll tell you "sure, this demo is playing a pirated movie"
> :)

I heard a woman next to me once arguing that the reason why the image was blurry
was precisely because it was a pirated movie.  You know, those kinds where they
cram highly compressed 4 movies into a single disc. :P

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> cram highly compressed 4 movies into a single disc. :P

Yep. You can actually get disks with an entire 10-hour miniseries on one 
DVD.  Looks like it, too.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> artifacts may be the bane of digital broadcast transmission, but from local
> media, like DVD or BD, there's not much to worry about.

Agreed. Especially since, really, people *do* notice it and complain. For 
about six months stuff was over-compressed. Now people have complained and 
the signal has been cleaned up a bunch, at least around here.

It's usually just the fast motion where you notice, like the background 
while the camera follows the sports player. If you're not looking for it, 
you almost never notice it. Altho I do remember one or two explosions on DVD 
where you could see the blockiness.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> and that's a very old movie, with blurry images by default!
> 
> Yeah, it really doesn't help to watch something recorded when color film
> was new and amazing on blu-ray.

Depends on whether the blu-ray was a new digital copy of the old film,
or just the ancient VHS copy converted to a new format. That old
Kodachrome ASA 40 Super 8 film has a lot more information than even a
1080 TV can display, most of it in contrast.

That all assumes that one can find the film stock for old movies, anymore.

Post a reply to this message

On 03/07/10 13:52, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> OK, so I set up the BluRay player today and took it for a spin.

> So in summary, apart from the occasional shot where you go "oh, that
> looks a little sharper than usual", there's not much to see. (And most

	What movie? If it's more than 5 years old, don't expect too much of a
difference.

> Now I've got Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. The box contains
> the exact same film on BD and DVD, so I can actually compare like for
> like. But I haven't done so yet.

	That should show it.

-- 
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?

Post a reply to this message

> In the digital realm, anything capable of handling the signal should be as 
> good as any other,

Unless it is *only just* capable of handling the signal, in which case any 
additional interference (eg you put a new device or another cable next to 
the HDMI cable or receiver, a car drives past, someone turns on a motor, 
etc) and then it will stop working.  I have never seen anything like this 
though, even my $10 5 meter DVI->HDMI cable has worked flawlessy at 1080p 
while being tangled up behind 100 other cables behind my computer and TV.

> the higher bandwidth might be necesary.  But for now, what good is it?

It's always good to have a little in reserve, as explained above, but really 
I suspect the ultra cheap ones have plenty enough in reserve.  The shops 
that you go to of course are going to stock the expensive ones, as they 
would prefer to make $20 profit on an $80 cable than $2 on an $8 one. 
Magazine reviews are also biased because the makers of the $100 cables send 
them loads for free, if the magazine writes bad reviews about them being a 
waste of money they likely will not get any more.

> In fact, I'm still not convinced that 120Hz LCD makes any sense 
> whatsoever.  With CRT's, it made a LOT of difference, because it 
> substantially reduced flicker.  LCD doesn't have flicker.  It has response 
> times, and lowering the response times does make a difference.  I'm not 
> convinced that a 5ms 60Hz screen would be any different from a 5ms 120Hz 
> screen, or even a 5ms 240Hz screen.

When your eye tracks a moving object on an LCD you see blur for two reasons. 
One is the response time of the pixel, the other is the fact that the LCD is 
finite resolution and the frames are displayed continuously (and not as 
impulses like a CRT).  Even with a response time of 0ms you will still see 
image blur.

Recently the LC technology has improved giving faster switching times.  This 
has two impacts, it means the 2nd type of blur I mentioned above becomes 
more apparent, and that it's possible to refresh at higher than 60 Hz.

Given the very fast response time, the easiest easiest way to reduce blur is 
to simply show a totally black frame between each real frame.  In theory you 
could make an LCD perform like a CRT by only showing the frame for the first 
5-10% of the frame, then showing black for the rest of it.  Recently with 
LED backlights it is becoming very easy to do this sort of thing (LEDs don't 
care if they are at 100% brightness 100% of the time, or 1000% brightness 
for 10% of the time).

As already mentioned, it makes an even better effect if the TV can 
intelligently calculate some "inbetween" frames to display.  This has the 
disadvantage of being costly to implement and obviously not being able to 
predict everything perfectly.  But mostly the result is visually superior to 
simple black frame insertion.

BTW I would suggest comparing fast scrolling text (eg end credits of a TV 
show) on a normal TV and a 120 / 240 Hz version - the difference is obvious.

Post a reply to this message

> Yes. OTOH the digital signal fails fully when it fails, with analog
> signal you're still able to get the information from the news with even
> very bad signal (while you don't want to see a movie with such signal).

I wonder if you transmitted analogue at the power where digital starts to 
fail, what the analogue picture would look like?  Where my mum lives they 
still transmit both, the analogue TV is transmitted at 500 kW and the 
digital at 20 kW...

Post a reply to this message

> It just puzzles me that if they were going to make everything incompatible 
> so they could up the resolution, why didn't they up it to something really 
> high? You know, so you can *see* a difference?

If you can't tell the difference between SD and HD (because your TV is too 
small and/or you're too far away from it) then you *certainly* are not going 
to notice any difference with an even higher resolution.

Currently I doubt many people would want a large enough TV, or sit close 
enough to it, to warrant much higher than 1920x1080.

What would be an improvement is to start recording at a higher frame rate, 
120 Hz would do nicely (I have very fond memories of playing some games at 
120 Hz on my old CRT, the smoothness was awesome).

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:

> 	What movie? If it's more than 5 years old, don't expect too much of a
> difference.

Demons & Angels. Came in the box with the player.

I also started watching the last Harry Potter film.

>> Now I've got Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. The box contains
>> the exact same film on BD and DVD, so I can actually compare like for
>> like. But I haven't done so yet.
> 
> 	That should show it.

I've watched at least half the film in HD. Haven't tried it in SD yet.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> What would be an improvement is to start recording at a higher frame 
> rate.

Yeah, that too. Wasn't 24 FPS chosen because it's the *minimum* frame 
rate that yields a believable illusion of motion?

Post a reply to this message

>> What would be an improvement is to start recording at a higher frame 
>> rate.
>
> Yeah, that too. Wasn't 24 FPS chosen because it's the *minimum* frame rate 
> that yields a believable illusion of motion?

Yup, IIRC the maximum (ie above that you don't really notice any difference) 
is somewhere around 100 Hz.

I wonder how long before LCD makers start marketing their high framerate TV 
technology in computer monitors?  The hard core gamers should like it.

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 03:31:50 -0000, UncleHoot
<jer### [at] mutualdatacom> did spake thusly:

> "Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message  
> news:4b9297f6$1@news.povray.org...
>> On 03/06/10 02:24, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> I've only seen HD stuff in shops, but from what I can tell, there's no
>>> visible difference between HD and SD. If I ever get time to set up my
>>> mum's new BluRay player, maybe I can test for myself. But seriously,
>>> everybody's going on like it fundamentally transforms your viewing
>>> experience. But it's only 4x the resolution. Not 40x or 400x, just 4x.
>>> And, from what I've seen, this equals to a slight increase in  
>>> constrast,
>>> and not much else.
>>
>> Woah! There's a *big* difference in quality. Try playing 1080p content
>> if your TV can handle it. If not, even 720p should be noticeable. Many
>> stores I've been to just show trash.
>
> Agreed.  The stores suck.    And the difference in quality is huge.   
> Anyone who doesn’t see the difference should switch back to a 640x480  
> interlaced analog monitor.  ;-)

Unless it's a dedicated stand I've yet to see an HD television receive an
HD signal in-store. They're either using a splitter through the standard
aerial port or composite cables, or they're broadcasting the over-the-air
Freeview channels which are all SD.

Just to go off-topic here-in lies another joyous thing in the UK - 'We're
switching off the analogue broadcasts you'll need a digital receiver'. So
off everyone goes to buy either a new television or set-top box. Now it's
- 'We're cutting some of the Freeview channels down to be able to
broadcast HD' Fair enough - 'We'll be using mpeg4 rather than mpeg2 so
pretty much none of the set-top boxes/digital televisions you've bought
will work with it; go and buy a new one'.

Okay back on-topic, the settings on the television also make a difference.
On mine I had to turn the sharpening off with SD broadcasts; terrible  
fringing.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook v2 wrote:

> Just to go off-topic here-in lies another joyous thing in the UK - 'We're
> switching off the analogue broadcasts you'll need a digital receiver'. So
> off everyone goes to buy either a new television or set-top box. Now it's
> - 'We're cutting some of the Freeview channels down to be able to
> broadcast HD' Fair enough - 'We'll be using mpeg4 rather than mpeg2 so
> pretty much none of the set-top boxes/digital televisions you've bought
> will work with it; go and buy a new one'.

Wait... what? That's news! o_O

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:05:13 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake thusly:

> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>
>> 	What movie? If it's more than 5 years old, don't expect too much of a
>> difference.
>
> Demons & Angels. Came in the box with the player.
>
> I also started watching the last Harry Potter film.
>
>>> Now I've got Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. The box contains
>>> the exact same film on BD and DVD, so I can actually compare like for
>>> like. But I haven't done so yet.
>>  	That should show it.
>
> I've watched at least half the film in HD. Haven't tried it in SD yet.

I've watched both the Harry Potter and Batman Begins in both DVD and HD.  
In fact I slotted in BB DVD into my PS3 while running BB Blu-ray on my  
dedicated player. Skipped through to Bruce Wayne picking the flower,  
paused it and jumped between inputs. You could tell easily which was  
which. Likewise in some of the darker sections, much less noise on the  
Blu-ray version.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> (And that of course is the other undesirable thing about digital TV.
>> There used to be, like, 5 channels, 4 of them containing high quality
>> programming. Now there's 500 channels and they're *all* showing utter
>> crap that nobody would ever want to watch...)
> 
> That has nothing to do with digital TV. It's just the drop of quality 
> programming happened at the same time. Correlation != causation.

The increase in available channels isn't related to the decrease in 
signal bandwidth per channel due to being digital?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message