between you and murch i have found this thread very interesting and a rather good read i am a fence sitter, although im siding more towards BR because it seems to have a LOT of weight behind it... but im gonna wait and see.
the PS3 was gonna be my way into HDTV movies, and had it cam out in march i would likely have got one by now... stance taken mind entrenched etc. haha..
but it didnt, so then the price was way more than i want to really spend, i already have a nintendo DS and the Wii conectivity seems to make IT the choice for a gaming console.... which considering i have never been a nintendo console owner, feels... odd.
but time will let the HD-DVD v Blu-ray argument settle, and allow for a price drop on the PS3, assuming it becomes apparent that blu-ray will be THE HD format medium, then it simply adds to the reasons to get a PS3... that and MGS and Gran Turismo... and possibly GTA ... so a PS3 to play 3 games...mmm see why id like to be SURE blu-ray is the winning format (and i dont like to use the term WINNING)
but thats just my consumer view point, im not an early adopter.... but im not jonny come lately either.
----
anyway, calm down guys you know ... blood pressure n all
Last time a battle like this took place was between VHS and Beta. If memory serves correctly, Beta had more backing from the movie industry, was smaller / better, and was made by sony. Yet Beta lost. That true?
Last time a battle like this took place was between VHS and Beta. If memory serves correctly, Beta had more backing from the movie industry, was smaller / better, and was made by sony. Yet Beta lost. That true?
Beta also had less storage space.. quite a big factor
Last time a battle like this took place was between VHS and Beta. If memory serves correctly, Beta had more backing from the movie industry, was smaller / better, and was made by sony. Yet Beta lost. That true?
No, it was JVC (VHS) who had the movie industry backing in the form of burgeoning video rentals.
you have ZERO business sense and your scope only rests on numbers.
Do you have "business sense?"
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Video, on the other hand, seems less subjective. Once you get to a certain point, you can't tell a difference
It's more that our vision is much more highly developed than other senses, so discrepancies that are "OK" for audio (such as distortion and noise inherent to vacuum tubes), are much more objectionable in video. I liken audio to some areas of art photography, where some artists intentionally use older lenses, sepia-tones, etc, in order to achieve a desired affect that is other than pure, pristine image quality. But with audio, at least for me, it's damn near impossible to figure out which is the truer signal. This is why people like tube amps and analog systems: they subconsciously come to recognize non-pristine signals as reference signals. While I think this is fine, as I also have no problem with art photography, I think it's important to realize that a well-constructed digital system will provide the most flawless signal reconstruction. Preferences are personal and I'm not going to stop anyone from buying a tube amp. My frequent razzing of audiophiles about this more out of camaraderie than anything else.
If memory serves correctly, Beta had more backing from the movie industry, was smaller / better, and was made by sony. Yet Beta lost. That true?
Actually an entire movie could be recorded on one VHS tape, while it had to be recorded over two Betamax tapes. VHS was also cheaper and less complex than Betamax.
Betamax was considered technically better. Betacam was the pro version which became the standard professional videotape format.
Ya, there is a theater out in San Jose (Century 21) that is huge. Not sure on the size, but it is one huge dome, with only one screen. The seating capacity is nuts as well. I saw all of the Matrix, LOTR, and Star Wars (1, 2, and 3) movies there on opening night and it is an experience (being with thousands, watching a huge ass screen, with a booming sounds system).
Also, not sure where I read it, but I am pretty sure that film is higher resolution than todays HD. So if theaters start going digital (which some of them are, like Century 22 here in San Jose has a digital projector, and played Star Wars in digital), and they want to keep the resolution of film, I think higher resolution digital would be welcome on screens of this size. 1080p is not the end all be all of resolution.
//1080p is not the end all be all of resolution.//
i dont think anyone is saying that... what they are saying is that it is pretty much all you need for home use... unless you have 60 foot screens at home.... then to be honest, i think you could afford to hire or buy the reels and run them thru your film projector
dont digital film theaters use 2 and 4 k resolution??
Yeah digital projectors are reaching for 4K projection to equal film projection.
I was replying to the statement that 1080P is the maximum the human eye can resolve. The answer flatly no its not.
1080P is a limitation of technology more than the limits of the human eye. Even within that there is no way to economically deliver uncompressed 1080P.
Until you've seen uncompressed HD you haven't really seen what HD can truly deliver.
It's more that our vision is much more highly developed than other senses, so discrepancies that are "OK" for audio (such as distortion and noise inherent to vacuum tubes), are much more objectionable in video. I liken audio to some areas of art photography, where some artists intentionally use older lenses, sepia-tones, etc, in order to achieve a desired affect that is other than pure, pristine image quality. But with audio, at least for me, it's damn near impossible to figure out which is the truer signal. This is why people like tube amps and analog systems: they subconsciously come to recognize non-pristine signals as reference signals. While I think this is fine, as I also have no problem with art photography, I think it's important to realize that a well-constructed digital system will provide the most flawless signal reconstruction. Preferences are personal and I'm not going to stop anyone from buying a tube amp. My frequent razzing of audiophiles about this more out of camaraderie than anything else.
The reference is not distorted sound, it is live acoustic (i.e. non-amplified) music, such as an orchestra. Tubes and analog gear seems to replicate the experience of live music much better than digital and solid state gear.
This is not universal, of course, but the very best analog and tube gear is much better than the best solid state and digital gear. People who say differently are usually people who have not listened to the differences.
Quote:
Originally posted by TenoBell
Yeah digital projectors are reaching for 4K projection to equal film projection.
I was replying to the statement that 1080P is the maximum the human eye can resolve. The answer flatly no its not.
1080P is a limitation of technology more than the limits of the human eye. Even within that there is no way to economically deliver uncompressed 1080P.
Until you've seen uncompressed HD you haven't really seen what HD can truly deliver.
1080p is the limit of 20/20 vision when the screen occupies 30 degrees. Your 20'/60' scenerio is greater than 30 degrees, and it is uncomfortable for most people to be that close to the screen.
As a small object is moved closer to a human eye it appears larger with more detail because it is filling more of the light sensors in the eyes retina. The human eye has maximum resolution when an object is viewed as close to the eye as possible before it goes out of focus. This point is called the NEAR POINT or the POINT OF MOST DISTINCT VISION. This point is about 25 centimeters (10inches) from the typical unaided human eye and the angular resolution of the eye at this point is about 1/60 degree (.0167 degree). This is equivalent to being able to resolve two fine human hairs spaced one hair width apart when placed at the point of most distinct vision."
30 degrees of vision x 60 = 1800 pixels. 1080p is 1080x1920, which is greater than the maximum decernable resolution of 1800.
In your light table example, I am sure that the high resolution is so that you can poke your face right up to the screen and still not breach the limits of your eye.
I honestly don't see this paper saying television can resolve more detail than the human eye can perceive. They base their measurements by the eyes ability to resolve hair not pixels. I don't think you can replace one for the other.
The human eye is looking at reality which has far more resolution than television is able to show.
HD has trouble resolving fine detail such as hair without extreme image sharpening. I've seen magnified HD images and they cannot resolve fine detail anywhere near the point that the eye sees in real life. As you enlarge the image you see larger pixels.
Comments
Originally posted by Elixir
good luck. time will hit you in the face hard.
somebody send us up the bomb!
between you and murch i have found this thread very interesting and a rather good read
the PS3 was gonna be my way into HDTV movies, and had it cam out in march i would likely have got one by now... stance taken mind entrenched etc. haha..
but it didnt, so then the price was way more than i want to really spend, i already have a nintendo DS and the Wii conectivity seems to make IT the choice for a gaming console.... which considering i have never been a nintendo console owner, feels... odd.
but time will let the HD-DVD v Blu-ray argument settle, and allow for a price drop on the PS3, assuming it becomes apparent that blu-ray will be THE HD format medium, then it simply adds to the reasons to get a PS3... that and MGS and Gran Turismo... and possibly GTA ... so a PS3 to play 3 games...mmm see why id like to be SURE blu-ray is the winning format (and i dont like to use the term WINNING)
but thats just my consumer view point, im not an early adopter.... but im not jonny come lately either.
----
anyway, calm down guys
Rod
Originally posted by emig647
Last time a battle like this took place was between VHS and Beta. If memory serves correctly, Beta had more backing from the movie industry, was smaller / better, and was made by sony. Yet Beta lost. That true?
Beta also had less storage space.. quite a big factor
Originally posted by emig647
Last time a battle like this took place was between VHS and Beta. If memory serves correctly, Beta had more backing from the movie industry, was smaller / better, and was made by sony. Yet Beta lost. That true?
No, it was JVC (VHS) who had the movie industry backing in the form of burgeoning video rentals.
Originally posted by Elixir
you have ZERO business sense and your scope only rests on numbers.
Do you have "business sense?"
Originally posted by e1618978
Video, on the other hand, seems less subjective. Once you get to a certain point, you can't tell a difference
It's more that our vision is much more highly developed than other senses, so discrepancies that are "OK" for audio (such as distortion and noise inherent to vacuum tubes), are much more objectionable in video. I liken audio to some areas of art photography, where some artists intentionally use older lenses, sepia-tones, etc, in order to achieve a desired affect that is other than pure, pristine image quality. But with audio, at least for me, it's damn near impossible to figure out which is the truer signal. This is why people like tube amps and analog systems: they subconsciously come to recognize non-pristine signals as reference signals. While I think this is fine, as I also have no problem with art photography, I think it's important to realize that a well-constructed digital system will provide the most flawless signal reconstruction. Preferences are personal and I'm not going to stop anyone from buying a tube amp. My frequent razzing of audiophiles about this more out of camaraderie than anything else.
If memory serves correctly, Beta had more backing from the movie industry, was smaller / better, and was made by sony. Yet Beta lost. That true?
Actually an entire movie could be recorded on one VHS tape, while it had to be recorded over two Betamax tapes. VHS was also cheaper and less complex than Betamax.
Betamax was considered technically better. Betacam was the pro version which became the standard professional videotape format.
100gb is enough for an 8 hour movie at 1080p (which is about equal to the maximum that your eye can discern).
What is the point of having TVs with higher resolution than your eye?
This isn't true across all circumstances. You have to take into account screen size and viewing distance.
Anything above 1080P is likely over kill on screens smaller than 27 inches.
If you are sitting 20 feet away from a 60 foot movie screen you would see the deficiencies of 1080P.
Originally posted by TenoBell
This isn't true across all circumstances. You have to take into account screen size and viewing distance.
Anything above 1080P is likely over kill on screens smaller than 27 inches.
If you are sitting 20 feet away from a 60 foot movie screen you would see the deficiencies of 1080P.
60 foot????? Did you mean 60 inches?
Originally posted by TenoBell
I said a 60 foot movie screen, not television screen.
Didn't know they made such a beast
Originally posted by TenoBell
A couple of theaters in New York and LA have them at that size.
Namely The Ziegfeld and Grauman's Chinese Theatre.
Also, not sure where I read it, but I am pretty sure that film is higher resolution than todays HD. So if theaters start going digital (which some of them are, like Century 22 here in San Jose has a digital projector, and played Star Wars in digital), and they want to keep the resolution of film, I think higher resolution digital would be welcome on screens of this size. 1080p is not the end all be all of resolution.
i dont think anyone is saying that... what they are saying is that it is pretty much all you need for home use... unless you have 60 foot screens at home.... then to be honest, i think you could afford to hire or buy the reels and run them thru your film projector
dont digital film theaters use 2 and 4 k resolution??
I was replying to the statement that 1080P is the maximum the human eye can resolve. The answer flatly no its not.
1080P is a limitation of technology more than the limits of the human eye. Even within that there is no way to economically deliver uncompressed 1080P.
Until you've seen uncompressed HD you haven't really seen what HD can truly deliver.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
It's more that our vision is much more highly developed than other senses, so discrepancies that are "OK" for audio (such as distortion and noise inherent to vacuum tubes), are much more objectionable in video. I liken audio to some areas of art photography, where some artists intentionally use older lenses, sepia-tones, etc, in order to achieve a desired affect that is other than pure, pristine image quality. But with audio, at least for me, it's damn near impossible to figure out which is the truer signal. This is why people like tube amps and analog systems: they subconsciously come to recognize non-pristine signals as reference signals. While I think this is fine, as I also have no problem with art photography, I think it's important to realize that a well-constructed digital system will provide the most flawless signal reconstruction. Preferences are personal and I'm not going to stop anyone from buying a tube amp. My frequent razzing of audiophiles about this more out of camaraderie than anything else.
The reference is not distorted sound, it is live acoustic (i.e. non-amplified) music, such as an orchestra. Tubes and analog gear seems to replicate the experience of live music much better than digital and solid state gear.
This is not universal, of course, but the very best analog and tube gear is much better than the best solid state and digital gear. People who say differently are usually people who have not listened to the differences.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Yeah digital projectors are reaching for 4K projection to equal film projection.
I was replying to the statement that 1080P is the maximum the human eye can resolve. The answer flatly no its not.
1080P is a limitation of technology more than the limits of the human eye. Even within that there is no way to economically deliver uncompressed 1080P.
Until you've seen uncompressed HD you haven't really seen what HD can truly deliver.
1080p is the limit of 20/20 vision when the screen occupies 30 degrees. Your 20'/60' scenerio is greater than 30 degrees, and it is uncomfortable for most people to be that close to the screen.
1080p is the limit of 20/20 vision when the screen occupies 30 degrees.
I've never heard that. What study does that come from?
Especially in light that there is work on ultra high definition television which has 4320 pixels.
Originally posted by TenoBell
I've never heard that. What study does that come from?
Especially in light that there is work on ultra high definition television which has 4320 pixels.
I'm sure that I have posted this before - I think that this thread has become so long that we are going in circles.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...6241.Ph.r.html
"HUMAN EYE RESOLUTION
As a small object is moved closer to a human eye it appears larger with more detail because it is filling more of the light sensors in the eyes retina. The human eye has maximum resolution when an object is viewed as close to the eye as possible before it goes out of focus. This point is called the NEAR POINT or the POINT OF MOST DISTINCT VISION. This point is about 25 centimeters (10inches) from the typical unaided human eye and the angular resolution of the eye at this point is about 1/60 degree (.0167 degree). This is equivalent to being able to resolve two fine human hairs spaced one hair width apart when placed at the point of most distinct vision."
30 degrees of vision x 60 = 1800 pixels. 1080p is 1080x1920, which is greater than the maximum decernable resolution of 1800.
In your light table example, I am sure that the high resolution is so that you can poke your face right up to the screen and still not breach the limits of your eye.
30 degrees of vision x 60 = 1800 pixels.
I honestly don't see this paper saying television can resolve more detail than the human eye can perceive. They base their measurements by the eyes ability to resolve hair not pixels. I don't think you can replace one for the other.
The human eye is looking at reality which has far more resolution than television is able to show.
HD has trouble resolving fine detail such as hair without extreme image sharpening. I've seen magnified HD images and they cannot resolve fine detail anywhere near the point that the eye sees in real life. As you enlarge the image you see larger pixels.