That's what most people thought about standard definition.
There is a point at which the only people who will notice the difference are videophiles who are willing to pay a shitload for a small improvement in quality.
Couscous on
0
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
I wonder if there is any way to figure that out... what the equivalent resolution to human eyesight would be.
IMAX... which has been around since, what, the 60s? Has a resolution of 10000 x 7000 pixels at 24 full frames per second... that is probably the closest thing we have.
AbsoluteZero on
0
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
That's what most people thought about standard definition.
There is point at which the only people who will notice the difference are videophiles who are willing to pay a shitload for a small improvement in quality.
I think the direction to go next is stereoscopic viewing, or some other way to create life-like 3D teevee without silly glasses and crap.
I wonder if there is any way to figure that out... what the equivalent resolution to human eyesight would be.
well couldn't get a higher theoretical resolution than the number of cones in your eye so that's probably a place to start
Good idea...
Looking around it seems there are 75,000 cones and 140 million rods. Estimated eyesight "resolution" for the average person supposedly comes to about 5000^2... though the site I am looking at doesn't list a reference.
AbsoluteZero on
0
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
edited January 2007
The resolution needed is a contrast to the size of the screen, and your distance from it.
at 50" and an 8' viewing angle, 1080p is all you will ever need.
If you had a setup like SixKiller does, you would benefit from 2160p (even though there is no content for it), and would notice severe and distracting pixelation at 480i/p
There is no "one size fits all, will fool the eyes" resolution out there, because each viewing environment is different from the next.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The resolution needed is a contrast to the size of the screen, and your distance from it.
at 50" and an 8' viewing angle, 1080p is all you will ever need.
If you had a setup like SixKiller does, you would benefit from 2160p (even though there is no content for it), and would notice severe and distracting pixelation at 480i/p
There is no "one size fits all, will fool the eyes" resolution out there, because each viewing environment is different from the next.
No, there's not a one size fits all resolution.
But unless you're using a 200" screen from 2 feet away, eventually we'll come pretty damn close.
Why am I never trying to set the timer on my DVD player to record "What Not To Wear" while I'm at work?
Because "What Not to Wear" is a horrible, horrible, utterly repetative show?
Heh. Opinions.
After looking, recordable DVD players not that expensive here in the US, although they're a fair bit more than the $50 players you can buy at WalMart. Seems weird. It wasn't that long ago people were declaring they'd never switch to DVD because it didn't record. Most people I know haven't switched over to DVRs yet, but no one seems to care about recording anymore. Kinda similar to what happened with tapes and CD's for awhile I guess.
The resolution needed is a contrast to the size of the screen, and your distance from it.
at 50" and an 8' viewing angle, 1080p is all you will ever need.
If you had a setup like SixKiller does, you would benefit from 2160p (even though there is no content for it), and would notice severe and distracting pixelation at 480i/p
There is no "one size fits all, will fool the eyes" resolution out there, because each viewing environment is different from the next.
No, there's not a one size fits all resolution.
But unless you're using a 200" screen from 2 feet away, eventually we'll come pretty damn close.
and then everyone will start throwing up
fireside on
0
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
The resolution needed is a contrast to the size of the screen, and your distance from it.
at 50" and an 8' viewing angle, 1080p is all you will ever need.
If you had a setup like SixKiller does, you would benefit from 2160p (even though there is no content for it), and would notice severe and distracting pixelation at 480i/p
There is no "one size fits all, will fool the eyes" resolution out there, because each viewing environment is different from the next.
Digital cinema media is 2160p... though I haven't a clue how you'd get your hands on it, in a legal sense. It is probably what George Lucas watches in his house.
The resolution needed is a contrast to the size of the screen, and your distance from it.
at 50" and an 8' viewing angle, 1080p is all you will ever need.
If you had a setup like SixKiller does, you would benefit from 2160p (even though there is no content for it), and would notice severe and distracting pixelation at 480i/p
There is no "one size fits all, will fool the eyes" resolution out there, because each viewing environment is different from the next.
Digital cinema media is 2160p... though I haven't a clue how you'd get your hands on it, in a legal sense. It is probably what George Lucas watches in his house.
Because he's:
1) Rich, and has access to his own digital archives.
2) He's a bastard that doesn't want to share. :P
victor_c26 on
It's been so long since I've posted here, I've removed my signature since most of what I had here were broken links. Shows over, you can carry on to the next post.
It is probably what George Lucas watches in his house.
Because he's:
1) Rich, and has access to his own digital archives.
2) He's a bastard that likes to rape his own franchise, artistic vision, and consumers/fans from the safety and comfort of his own digital cinema and/or beanbag chair, the fucking fat-ass piece of shit.
It is probably what George Lucas watches in his house.
Because he's:
1) Rich, and has access to his own digital archives.
2) He's a bastard that likes to rape his own franchise, artistic vision, and consumers/fans from the safety and comfort of his own digital cinema and/or beanbag chair, the fucking fat-ass piece of shit.
Fixed+limed
victor_c26 on
It's been so long since I've posted here, I've removed my signature since most of what I had here were broken links. Shows over, you can carry on to the next post.
It is probably what George Lucas watches in his house.
Because he's:
1) Rich, and has access to his own digital archives.
2) He's a bastard that likes to rape his own franchise, artistic vision, and consumers/fans from the safety and comfort of his own digital cinema and/or beanbag chair, the fucking fat-ass piece of shit.
3)
Fixed+limed+Binksed
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
edited January 2007
Damn, I don't remember JarJar looking that shitty.
Thought this was interesting (from the NY Times website):
The pornographers’ progress with HD may also be somewhat slowed by Sony, one of the main backers of the Blu-ray high-definition disc format. Sony said last week that, in keeping with a longstanding policy, it would not mass-produce pornographic videos on behalf of the movie makers.
The decision has forced pornographers to use the competing HD-DVD format or, in some cases, to find companies other than Sony that can manufacture copies of Blu-ray movies
Umm, no porn on Blu-Ray? Don't think I'll be buying a PS3 anytime soon!
Thought this was interesting (from the NY Times website):
The pornographers’ progress with HD may also be somewhat slowed by Sony, one of the main backers of the Blu-ray high-definition disc format. Sony said last week that, in keeping with a longstanding policy, it would not mass-produce pornographic videos on behalf of the movie makers.
The decision has forced pornographers to use the competing HD-DVD format or, in some cases, to find companies other than Sony that can manufacture copies of Blu-ray movies
Umm, no porn on Blu-Ray? Don't think I'll be buying a PS3 anytime soon!
Thought this was interesting (from the NY Times website):
The pornographers’ progress with HD may also be somewhat slowed by Sony, one of the main backers of the Blu-ray high-definition disc format. Sony said last week that, in keeping with a longstanding policy, it would not mass-produce pornographic videos on behalf of the movie makers.
The decision has forced pornographers to use the competing HD-DVD format or, in some cases, to find companies other than Sony that can manufacture copies of Blu-ray movies
Umm, no porn on Blu-Ray? Don't think I'll be buying a PS3 anytime soon!
Thought this was interesting (from the NY Times website):
The pornographers’ progress with HD may also be somewhat slowed by Sony, one of the main backers of the Blu-ray high-definition disc format. Sony said last week that, in keeping with a longstanding policy, it would not mass-produce pornographic videos on behalf of the movie makers.
The decision has forced pornographers to use the competing HD-DVD format or, in some cases, to find companies other than Sony that can manufacture copies of Blu-ray movies
Umm, no porn on Blu-Ray? Don't think I'll be buying a PS3 anytime soon!
Thought this was interesting (from the NY Times website):
The pornographers’ progress with HD may also be somewhat slowed by Sony, one of the main backers of the Blu-ray high-definition disc format. Sony said last week that, in keeping with a longstanding policy, it would not mass-produce pornographic videos on behalf of the movie makers.
The decision has forced pornographers to use the competing HD-DVD format or, in some cases, to find companies other than Sony that can manufacture copies of Blu-ray movies
Umm, no porn on Blu-Ray? Don't think I'll be buying a PS3 anytime soon!
Thought this was interesting (from the NY Times website):
The pornographers’ progress with HD may also be somewhat slowed by Sony, one of the main backers of the Blu-ray high-definition disc format. Sony said last week that, in keeping with a longstanding policy, it would not mass-produce pornographic videos on behalf of the movie makers.
The decision has forced pornographers to use the competing HD-DVD format or, in some cases, to find companies other than Sony that can manufacture copies of Blu-ray movies
Umm, no porn on Blu-Ray? Don't think I'll be buying a PS3 anytime soon!
$40 for a porno? Jeez. Was porn on DVD this expensive when it first came out?
I've seen DVD porn as high as $80 at my local porn store. $40 is actually your normal starting price for high quality porn.
Apparently porn's production values have been going up a lot. I wonder how long before porn starts to have a CG budget.
Dude. They are getting huge production values. Hell one porn had an R-rated release with all the sex cut out just to try and cover some of the extra cost. It was some Pirates movie. You can probably find it at the local video store.
AbsoluteZero on
0
ViscountalphaThe pen is mightier than the swordhttp://youtu.be/G_sBOsh-vyIRegistered Userregular
Thought this was interesting (from the NY Times website):
The pornographers’ progress with HD may also be somewhat slowed by Sony, one of the main backers of the Blu-ray high-definition disc format. Sony said last week that, in keeping with a longstanding policy, it would not mass-produce pornographic videos on behalf of the movie makers.
The decision has forced pornographers to use the competing HD-DVD format or, in some cases, to find companies other than Sony that can manufacture copies of Blu-ray movies
Umm, no porn on Blu-Ray? Don't think I'll be buying a PS3 anytime soon!
There will be less porn on blu-ray then HD-DVD though. One studio said its really expensive to make a blu-ray disc compared to HD-DVD.
Yes there will be blu-ray media but cost might will kill blu-ray, But then Froogle HD-DVD player and then Blu-ray player. Nearly fucking double the cost for the player. On top of 1 cheapo Oppo HD-DVD thats already 200$.
Posts
I can't imagine anything beyond 1080p giving much of a quality improvement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UHDV.svg
There is 4320 planned.
That's what most people thought about standard definition.
I wonder if there is any way to figure that out... what the equivalent resolution to human eyesight would be.
IMAX... which has been around since, what, the 60s? Has a resolution of 10000 x 7000 pixels at 24 full frames per second... that is probably the closest thing we have.
I think the direction to go next is stereoscopic viewing, or some other way to create life-like 3D teevee without silly glasses and crap.
Good idea...
Looking around it seems there are 75,000 cones and 140 million rods. Estimated eyesight "resolution" for the average person supposedly comes to about 5000^2... though the site I am looking at doesn't list a reference.
at 50" and an 8' viewing angle, 1080p is all you will ever need.
If you had a setup like SixKiller does, you would benefit from 2160p (even though there is no content for it), and would notice severe and distracting pixelation at 480i/p
There is no "one size fits all, will fool the eyes" resolution out there, because each viewing environment is different from the next.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
But unless you're using a 200" screen from 2 feet away, eventually we'll come pretty damn close.
After looking, recordable DVD players not that expensive here in the US, although they're a fair bit more than the $50 players you can buy at WalMart. Seems weird. It wasn't that long ago people were declaring they'd never switch to DVD because it didn't record. Most people I know haven't switched over to DVRs yet, but no one seems to care about recording anymore. Kinda similar to what happened with tapes and CD's for awhile I guess.
Digital cinema media is 2160p... though I haven't a clue how you'd get your hands on it, in a legal sense. It is probably what George Lucas watches in his house.
Because he's:
1) Rich, and has access to his own digital archives.
2) He's a bastard that doesn't want to share. :P
Fixed.
That's because that's a BLU RAY picture omgdramatico.
Just kidding. He was pretty retarded, though.
Umm, no porn on Blu-Ray? Don't think I'll be buying a PS3 anytime soon!
Reports of porn's death on Blu Ray seem to have been exaggerated . .
Yeah, I rewatched Ep1 the other day and these days Jar Jar looks bloody awful.
$40 for a porno? Jeez. Was porn on DVD this expensive when it first came out?
I've seen DVD porn as high as $80 at my local porn store. $40 is actually your normal starting price for high quality porn.
Dude. They are getting huge production values. Hell one porn had an R-rated release with all the sex cut out just to try and cover some of the extra cost. It was some Pirates movie. You can probably find it at the local video store.
There will be less porn on blu-ray then HD-DVD though. One studio said its really expensive to make a blu-ray disc compared to HD-DVD.
Yes there will be blu-ray media but cost might will kill blu-ray, But then Froogle HD-DVD player and then Blu-ray player. Nearly fucking double the cost for the player. On top of 1 cheapo Oppo HD-DVD thats already 200$.
If you're buying in bulk, there's at least one company where you can get Blu-ray discs replicated for the same price as HD-DVD replication.
"I just want people to see my action heart."