discrepancies that are "OK" for audio (such as distortion and noise inherent to vacuum tubes), are much more objectionable in video.
This actually reminds me of a story I once heard where they had to roughen up the vocals on a singer because she sang too well. They thought nobody would believe it was really a person singing naturally so they added distortion and noise to make it less clean.
The human eye is looking at reality which has far more resolution than television is able to show.
But your eyes are digital - you only have a finite number of rods and cones.
Thinking about it more, I think that I underestimated by half, though - if a person with 20/20 vision can discern 1800 hairs spanning 30 degrees, then the maximum viewable resolution is 3600 pixels (since there has to be a pixel for the hair, and a seperate pixel for the space between the hairs).
However, that resolution is only available 25 cm from the eye, and the fidelity of vision drops off as you go further away. I have the feeling that 1080p is close to the limit @ 30 degrees and 20', but maybe you could discern twice that if you have really good vision.
valve reproduction is what we are used to, digitals sterile tag only comes about because its TOO good at sound reproduction.
the proof of this would be if we had all grown accustomed to digital sound for the last hundred odd years.... and some one plonked you down in front of a valve amp.. you would hear and HATE the distortions that valves introduce.
its only because we are all so used to the smearing that goes on in valve amplification and the subjectively "pleaseing" distortion thats introduced that we prefare it.
im taking here about stereo amplification not guitar amps of mic pre amps, which can benifit from a little smearing
{runs an ducks for cover from the valve amp crowd}
30 degrees of vision x 60 = 1800 pixels. 1080p is 1080x1920, which is greater than the maximum decernable resolution of 1800.
Even using your numbers (which ignores all the people who have better then 20/20 vision), wouldn't you need 1800x1800 pixels? The 1080 part is far below your stated maximum discernible resolution for average eyes.
Sorry to kind of change the tide of the recent discussion, but I just had a thought/question.
HD-DVD has the backing of the DVD forum, correct? So if it were to flop, and go under, the DVD forum would basically do the same (as Blu-Ray took off, and it outpaced sales of DVDs over time). Would the DVD forum allow this? Wouldn't they want to keep there group together, and have the winning next gen format? Aren't there over 200 members in the group, with many getting royalties off the name?
I don't know, just something I started thinking about.
Even using your numbers (which ignores all the people who have better then 20/20 vision), wouldn't you need 1800x1800 pixels? The 1080 part is far below your stated maximum discernible resolution for average eyes.
Widescreen TV is set at 2.35:1 or 16:9, that part has already been decided for us. Nobody wants 1:1.
Also, even with one eyeball - the human visual field is not circular, but an oval. Once you factor in both eyes, it is an oval that is much wider than tall.
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.
PS - based on my experience with imax movies, when you sit so close to the screen, you notice the frame rate a lot more. There is an imax movie with a girl doing scottish dancing, and her whole head turns into a blur.
I don't know how many frames get shown per second on an imax movie (24?), but it is clearly not enough. I don't know why this is - maybe our peripherial vision is more sensitive to frame rate than our central vision.
Just another reason not to sit so close, besides the cricked neck you get 8)
bourne supremacy hd-dvd: list $34.98, amazon price $24.99
Anyway, movies and movie prices will have ZERO effect on this format war. Only the PS3 release matters, only videophiles (less than 1% of the market) will buy now, but blu-ray players will dominate a few years from now when regular folks start buying high-def movies.
Without the PS3, the HD-DVD/Blu-ray battle is a tempest in a teapot, just like SACD vs DVD-A was. The PS3 will play SACD also, btw, so maybe that battle will work out after all anyway.
There is an imax movie with a girl doing scottish dancing, and her whole head turns into a blur.
That can depend on a few factors. Her head could have simply been out of focus, the cameras shutter angle, how fast was the action moving, or the speed of camera panning. All of these effect motion blur.
Quote:
I don't know how many frames get shown per second on an imax movie (24?), but it is clearly not enough. I don't know why this is - maybe our peripherial vision is more sensitive to frame rate than our central vision.
Actually in a movie theater you are not watching 24 fps. There is a double leaf shutter in the projector that spins and cuts the light so the screen is being flashed with 48 frames per second.
True 24 frames per second is actually below the threshold of persistent vision where the brain is no longer tricked into seeing motion and can see a flicker of still images.
Yes temporal resolution is improved with a higher frame rate, which can lower motion blur.
Widescreen TV is set at 2.35:1 or 16:9, that part has already been decided for us. Nobody wants 1:1.
Also, even with one eyeball - the human visual field is not circular, but an oval. Once you factor in both eyes, it is an oval that is much wider than tall.
Very true -- so using your 30 degree field of view (ignoring the 50% of the people who like to sit closer for a wider viewing angle, and 30% of the population that has better then 20/20 vision), you would need about 1800x4230 (2.35:1) or 1800x3200 (16:9) pixels to keep the correct ratio and meet your stated maximum discernible resolution for average human eyes in both the horizontal and vertical. 1080P is a step up from what we are using now, but it is not the end all format, and I doubt that it will last very long (maybe a decade).
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.
the movie industry doesn't understand why there has been a drop in movie attendances over the years.... they are idiots.
the prices have gone up like crazy and yet a majority of theatres around the country are crap holes. the picture in some of them are so crappy, whats the point?
major theatres need to go to digital projection. seriously, before everyone decides to rent instead of opting for the threatre.
I am not a fan of the 20 theater multi-screen theater, where there are two semi-decent movie screens, and then 18 small/crap screens. That is why I love going home, and seeing big movies on the Century 21 screen. It is an experience. I gladly pay my $9/ticket to go there. Hell, I would still pay $9/ticket to go over to Century 22, and see it in digital (yes, its a small screen, because one dome is split in half, but it is still better than most). But paying $9/ticket to see a movie on a small/crap screen, in a 3/4 empty theater is not worth it. I'd rather invite over some friends, and pop in a DVD and watch it on my 56" HDTV.
Very true -- so using your 30 degree field of view (ignoring the 50% of the people who like to sit closer for a wider viewing angle, and 30% of the population that has better then 20/20 vision), you would need about 1800x4230 (2.35:1) or 1800x3200 (16:9) pixels to keep the correct ratio and meet your stated maximum discernible resolution for average human eyes in both the horizontal and vertical. 1080P is a step up from what we are using now, but it is not the end all format, and I doubt that it will last very long (maybe a decade).
You are using 30 degree vertical, not horizontal, in your calculations. That is a damn huge screen.
30 degree horizontal (and 15 degree vertical) is what I was talking about (for which 1080p is fine).
You are using 30 degree vertical, not horizontal, in your calculations. That is a damn huge screen.
30 degree horizontal (and 15 degree vertical) is what I was talking about (for which 1080p is fine).
Its not fine as that's the worst seat in a theater. More than 50% of the folks prefer to sit closer than the last row of the theater (just by observing where folks sit in a theater). 30 degrees horizontal viewing angle is the minimum found to produce immersion...hence the spec for HDTV.
Also your assumptions are incorrect. Humans can see objects far smaller than 1 arc minute in darkfield situations (ie the night sky). Otherwise we wouldn't be able to see stars. Detection acuity is far higher than the ability to resolve.
Also when you have lines (horizontal or vertical) humans can see (detect) much smaller objects than 1 arc minute as in the aformentioned power lines (yes, they do sag but they aren't diagonal which appears to be harder to see).
While you cannot resolve stars (or planets) or power lines not seeing them will reduce immersion. Seeing these objects, even if you can't resolve them, increases immersion. This perhaps one reason why gigapixel murals appear more life like than lower resolution murals (http://www.gigapxl.org/).
This is ignoring that the range for normal human acuity ranges from .7 to 1 arc minutes. 1080p is barely acceptable for home theater.
Sit further away (required by lower resolution or just better eyesight) and you do not get immersion effects. Sit closer and you start to see pixel structure.
Sony Pictures Home Entertainment to Deliver First Blu-Ray Titles to Retail in One Week; Countdown to Eagerly Awaited New Era in Home Entertainment Begins
CULVER CITY, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 13, 2006--Sony Pictures Home Entertainment (SPHE) will launch the first slate of Blu-ray Disc (BD) titles in just one week, on June 20, 2006. The delivery of the first seven BD titles, timed to coincide with the first commercially available BD player from Samsung Electronics and BD-compatible VAIO PC from Sony, marks the beginning of a new era in home entertainment that will forever change the way consumers look at, listen to and play movies, music and games.
Titles available at retail June 20 from SPHE include: "50 First Dates," starring Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore; Luc Besson's visually stunning "The Fifth Element;" the hit blockbuster comedy starring Will Smith, "Hitch;" "House of Flying Daggers" from director Zhang Yimou; "XXX," starring Vin Diesel; "The Terminator," featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger; and the follow-up to the hit action-thriller "Underworld," from director Len Wiseman and starring Kate Beckinsale, "Underworld Evolution."
"Ultraviolet," the first day-and-date BD title from SPHE will debut one week later on June 27, along with "The Last Waltz" (MGM) and "A Knight's Tale."
"Ultraviolet," an adrenaline-charged sci-fi thriller starring Milla Jovovich ("Resident Evil Apocalypse," "Fifth Element"), was filmed entirely in high definition. "Ultraviolet's" stunning visuals, including high-flying action stunt sequences, and audio are dramatically enhanced by the Blu-ray format, making it an ideal way for consumers to experience Blu-ray Disc for the first time.
On July 11th, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment will release "Basic Instinct 2: Risk Addition" on Blu-ray. "Kung Fu Hustle," "Legends of the Fall," "Stealth," "Species," "SWAT" and "Resident Evil Apocalypse" will debut on Blu-ray Disc July 25th.
Please contact the SPHE press office for Blu-ray spokesperson availability and artwork.
Sony Pictures Home Entertainment to Deliver First Blu-Ray Titles to Retail in One Week; Countdown to Eagerly Awaited New Era in Home Entertainment Begins
Yep countdown begins alright. Lets see, T-Minus 56 days and counting until I can play these movies. Is that the countdown Sony was talking about? And this assumes there are no more delays (this is what, like the third one now?)
Comments
Originally posted by Splinemodel
discrepancies that are "OK" for audio (such as distortion and noise inherent to vacuum tubes), are much more objectionable in video.
This actually reminds me of a story I once heard where they had to roughen up the vocals on a singer because she sang too well. They thought nobody would believe it was really a person singing naturally so they added distortion and noise to make it less clean.
Originally posted by TenoBell
The human eye is looking at reality which has far more resolution than television is able to show.
But your eyes are digital - you only have a finite number of rods and cones.
Thinking about it more, I think that I underestimated by half, though - if a person with 20/20 vision can discern 1800 hairs spanning 30 degrees, then the maximum viewable resolution is 3600 pixels (since there has to be a pixel for the hair, and a seperate pixel for the space between the hairs).
However, that resolution is only available 25 cm from the eye, and the fidelity of vision drops off as you go further away. I have the feeling that 1080p is close to the limit @ 30 degrees and 20', but maybe you could discern twice that if you have really good vision.
valve reproduction is what we are used to, digitals sterile tag only comes about because its TOO good at sound reproduction.
the proof of this would be if we had all grown accustomed to digital sound for the last hundred odd years.... and some one plonked you down in front of a valve amp.. you would hear and HATE the distortions that valves introduce.
its only because we are all so used to the smearing that goes on in valve amplification and the subjectively "pleaseing" distortion thats introduced that we prefare it.
im taking here about stereo amplification not guitar amps of mic pre amps, which can benifit from a little smearing
{runs an ducks for cover from the valve amp crowd}
Rod
Originally posted by e1618978
-snip-
30 degrees of vision x 60 = 1800 pixels. 1080p is 1080x1920, which is greater than the maximum decernable resolution of 1800.
Even using your numbers (which ignores all the people who have better then 20/20 vision), wouldn't you need 1800x1800 pixels? The 1080 part is far below your stated maximum discernible resolution for average eyes.
HD-DVD has the backing of the DVD forum, correct? So if it were to flop, and go under, the DVD forum would basically do the same (as Blu-Ray took off, and it outpaced sales of DVDs over time). Would the DVD forum allow this? Wouldn't they want to keep there group together, and have the winning next gen format? Aren't there over 200 members in the group, with many getting royalties off the name?
I don't know, just something I started thinking about.
Originally posted by Res
Even using your numbers (which ignores all the people who have better then 20/20 vision), wouldn't you need 1800x1800 pixels? The 1080 part is far below your stated maximum discernible resolution for average eyes.
Widescreen TV is set at 2.35:1 or 16:9, that part has already been decided for us. Nobody wants 1:1.
Also, even with one eyeball - the human visual field is not circular, but an oval. Once you factor in both eyes, it is an oval that is much wider than tall.
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.
PS - based on my experience with imax movies, when you sit so close to the screen, you notice the frame rate a lot more. There is an imax movie with a girl doing scottish dancing, and her whole head turns into a blur.
I don't know how many frames get shown per second on an imax movie (24?), but it is clearly not enough. I don't know why this is - maybe our peripherial vision is more sensitive to frame rate than our central vision.
Just another reason not to sit so close, besides the cricked neck you get 8)
The Underworld on Blu-Ray is going to be $40!!!
Damned DL discs!!!
Originally posted by hmurchison
Holy shat
The Underworld on Blu-Ray is going to be $40!!!
Damned DL discs!!!
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...v=glance&n=130
underworld blu-ray: list $38.95, amazon price $27.29
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...v=glance&n=130
house of flying daggers blu-ray: list $28.95, amazon price $19.99
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...v=glance&n=130
bourne supremacy hd-dvd: list $34.98, amazon price $24.99
Anyway, movies and movie prices will have ZERO effect on this format war. Only the PS3 release matters, only videophiles (less than 1% of the market) will buy now, but blu-ray players will dominate a few years from now when regular folks start buying high-def movies.
Without the PS3, the HD-DVD/Blu-ray battle is a tempest in a teapot, just like SACD vs DVD-A was. The PS3 will play SACD also, btw, so maybe that battle will work out after all anyway.
There is an imax movie with a girl doing scottish dancing, and her whole head turns into a blur.
That can depend on a few factors. Her head could have simply been out of focus, the cameras shutter angle, how fast was the action moving, or the speed of camera panning. All of these effect motion blur.
I don't know how many frames get shown per second on an imax movie (24?), but it is clearly not enough. I don't know why this is - maybe our peripherial vision is more sensitive to frame rate than our central vision.
Actually in a movie theater you are not watching 24 fps. There is a double leaf shutter in the projector that spins and cuts the light so the screen is being flashed with 48 frames per second.
True 24 frames per second is actually below the threshold of persistent vision where the brain is no longer tricked into seeing motion and can see a flicker of still images.
Yes temporal resolution is improved with a higher frame rate, which can lower motion blur.
Originally posted by e1618978
Widescreen TV is set at 2.35:1 or 16:9, that part has already been decided for us. Nobody wants 1:1.
Also, even with one eyeball - the human visual field is not circular, but an oval. Once you factor in both eyes, it is an oval that is much wider than tall.
Very true -- so using your 30 degree field of view (ignoring the 50% of the people who like to sit closer for a wider viewing angle, and 30% of the population that has better then 20/20 vision), you would need about 1800x4230 (2.35:1) or 1800x3200 (16:9) pixels to keep the correct ratio and meet your stated maximum discernible resolution for average human eyes in both the horizontal and vertical. 1080P is a step up from what we are using now, but it is not the end all format, and I doubt that it will last very long (maybe a decade).
Originally posted by kupan787
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.
the movie industry doesn't understand why there has been a drop in movie attendances over the years.... they are idiots.
the prices have gone up like crazy and yet a majority of theatres around the country are crap holes. the picture in some of them are so crappy, whats the point?
major theatres need to go to digital projection. seriously, before everyone decides to rent instead of opting for the threatre.
Digital projection is more expensive and requires more technical skill than 35mm projection.
Problems with digital projection can keep a movie from playing at all.
Originally posted by Res
Very true -- so using your 30 degree field of view (ignoring the 50% of the people who like to sit closer for a wider viewing angle, and 30% of the population that has better then 20/20 vision), you would need about 1800x4230 (2.35:1) or 1800x3200 (16:9) pixels to keep the correct ratio and meet your stated maximum discernible resolution for average human eyes in both the horizontal and vertical. 1080P is a step up from what we are using now, but it is not the end all format, and I doubt that it will last very long (maybe a decade).
You are using 30 degree vertical, not horizontal, in your calculations. That is a damn huge screen.
30 degree horizontal (and 15 degree vertical) is what I was talking about (for which 1080p is fine).
Originally posted by e1618978
You are using 30 degree vertical, not horizontal, in your calculations. That is a damn huge screen.
30 degree horizontal (and 15 degree vertical) is what I was talking about (for which 1080p is fine).
Its not fine as that's the worst seat in a theater. More than 50% of the folks prefer to sit closer than the last row of the theater (just by observing where folks sit in a theater). 30 degrees horizontal viewing angle is the minimum found to produce immersion...hence the spec for HDTV.
Also your assumptions are incorrect. Humans can see objects far smaller than 1 arc minute in darkfield situations (ie the night sky). Otherwise we wouldn't be able to see stars. Detection acuity is far higher than the ability to resolve.
Also when you have lines (horizontal or vertical) humans can see (detect) much smaller objects than 1 arc minute as in the aformentioned power lines (yes, they do sag but they aren't diagonal which appears to be harder to see).
While you cannot resolve stars (or planets) or power lines not seeing them will reduce immersion. Seeing these objects, even if you can't resolve them, increases immersion. This perhaps one reason why gigapixel murals appear more life like than lower resolution murals (http://www.gigapxl.org/).
This is ignoring that the range for normal human acuity ranges from .7 to 1 arc minutes. 1080p is barely acceptable for home theater.
Sit further away (required by lower resolution or just better eyesight) and you do not get immersion effects. Sit closer and you start to see pixel structure.
Vinea
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/...77&newsLang=en
CULVER CITY, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 13, 2006--Sony Pictures Home Entertainment (SPHE) will launch the first slate of Blu-ray Disc (BD) titles in just one week, on June 20, 2006. The delivery of the first seven BD titles, timed to coincide with the first commercially available BD player from Samsung Electronics and BD-compatible VAIO PC from Sony, marks the beginning of a new era in home entertainment that will forever change the way consumers look at, listen to and play movies, music and games.
Titles available at retail June 20 from SPHE include: "50 First Dates," starring Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore; Luc Besson's visually stunning "The Fifth Element;" the hit blockbuster comedy starring Will Smith, "Hitch;" "House of Flying Daggers" from director Zhang Yimou; "XXX," starring Vin Diesel; "The Terminator," featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger; and the follow-up to the hit action-thriller "Underworld," from director Len Wiseman and starring Kate Beckinsale, "Underworld Evolution."
"Ultraviolet," the first day-and-date BD title from SPHE will debut one week later on June 27, along with "The Last Waltz" (MGM) and "A Knight's Tale."
"Ultraviolet," an adrenaline-charged sci-fi thriller starring Milla Jovovich ("Resident Evil Apocalypse," "Fifth Element"), was filmed entirely in high definition. "Ultraviolet's" stunning visuals, including high-flying action stunt sequences, and audio are dramatically enhanced by the Blu-ray format, making it an ideal way for consumers to experience Blu-ray Disc for the first time.
On July 11th, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment will release "Basic Instinct 2: Risk Addition" on Blu-ray. "Kung Fu Hustle," "Legends of the Fall," "Stealth," "Species," "SWAT" and "Resident Evil Apocalypse" will debut on Blu-ray Disc July 25th.
Please contact the SPHE press office for Blu-ray spokesperson availability and artwork.
Originally posted by marzetta7
Sony Pictures Home Entertainment to Deliver First Blu-Ray Titles to Retail in One Week; Countdown to Eagerly Awaited New Era in Home Entertainment Begins
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/...77&newsLang=en
Yep countdown begins alright. Lets see, T-Minus 56 days and counting until I can play these movies. Is that the countdown Sony was talking about? And this assumes there are no more delays (this is what, like the third one now?)
Sony Delaying Blu-Ray player until Late August (and in case you want it from the horses mouth)
Looks like Pioneer is as well
...and Samsung
(Edit: to add additional links)