General > General Technical Chat

Just because technology can do something, doent meant its always right

<< < (15/43) > >>

Simon:

--- Quote from: Psi on June 10, 2022, 12:31:10 am ---It's less about the resolution and more about the DPI.

As TVs get bigger and bigger you need to up the resolution to keep them looking sharp.

There's zero point having a 32" TV that's 8k IMHO.

But if you have a projector making a 3 meter image then 8K is going to look much better than 1080p and probably noticeably better than 4k. (Though i cant say i have seen one yet).


It seems probably we will get to the point where an entire wall of your house is a display. And you can do conference calls that simulate your wall joined to other peoples walls. So its like you are both standing in the same room because the DPI & HDR are so high

--- End quote ---

Depends on how close you want to stand to it. I have 27" and 42" monitors both 4k, they both look just the same to me, but then I don't sit as close to a 42" screen as I would a 27" one. It's actually about angular resolution, and our eyes are not as good as we like to think. 8k is an immoral waste of resources, the same as most 4k videos that if you told most people it was 4k whilst showing them 2k they would not question it. Every time we "double" the resolution we quadrupal the data to fill a screen. It's a bit like a website I visited for a company that plants trees on behalf of other companies selling people stuff, the irony was that their entire website was animated resulting in more data to transfer and more power to put it on the screen, and of course 90% of it would go unappreciated....

Sure if you want the equivalent of a billboard that people will walk right up to have 100k, but we topped out at what the human eye can resolve in one full frame at 4k. This monitor I am typing on right now looks as good as a magazine print, I cannot see any pixels, if it is meant to be round - it is. why would I want 8k? I would not be able to tell the difference but refuse to use 2k as that is shit!

tggzzz:

--- Quote from: voltsandjolts on June 19, 2022, 05:19:45 pm ---
--- Quote from: james_s on June 09, 2022, 06:44:54 pm ---The TV manufactures should have realized that once everyone already has a thin flat TV there is absolutely NOTHING that can be offered on a new set that will replicate that kind of sales volume.

--- End quote ---

Well, there is the prospect of tv 'goggles', 3D ones, which has yet to really take off. The room sizes of new housing in the UK is pitiful, because land owners and developers need to make themselves rich. At least with goggles, I can lie back against the wall, put my feet on the opposing wall and still get a big cinema screen experience  :o

--- End quote ---

I started taking stereoscopic photos in 1984; clearly I like the technology.

There is no way that stereo TV will take off. Even if you could magically avoid having polarising/LCD/etc glasses, there are two killer disadvantages:

* there is a "sweet spot" for viewing. Sit too close and the Z-dimension is magnified, or too far away and it is compressed
* given a choice between stereoscopic or 60fps + more pixels, I'd opt for fps+pixels

Simon:

--- Quote from: bd139 on June 19, 2022, 11:03:22 am ---Ah yes that’s one reason I bought a mirrorless recently. The processing on the smartphones is quite destructive. Some of that is actually the finish of the metalwork though and some of it is the low quality jpeg I exported but the phone is doing some weird stuff.

But quite frankly the image is a pretty good approximation of reality and that’s what matters to most people.

I mean if you consider bokeh and grain doesn’t really exist it puts things into perspective. Compromises everywhere and that’s part of the art.

--- End quote ---

The only reason I still keep a DSLR is because - lenses. All phones have tiny sensors and short lenses and distort all of the perspective. All these kids that think they are fat and that are having nose jobs have not looked at themselves in the mirror properly. I once compared a photo of a group of friends taken on a smartphone with one taken on my camera with a 50mm prime lens. It was then obvious but only on comparison that the further to the edge of the picture you go on the smart phone, the more the faces are seriously distorted.

ebastler:

--- Quote from: tggzzz on June 19, 2022, 05:49:51 pm ---There is no way that stereo TV will take off. Even if you could magically avoid having polarising/LCD/etc glasses, there are two killer disadvantages:

* there is a "sweet spot" for viewing. Sit too close and the Z-dimension is magnified, or too far away and it is compressed
--- End quote ---
The same applies to the X and Y dimensions, and that has not hurt the success of TV too much.  :P


--- Quote ---
* given a choice between stereoscopic or 60fps + more pixels, I'd opt for fps+pixels
--- End quote ---
The fact that you prefer something else can hardly be called a killer argument why a technology will never take off.  ;)

Having said that, I have used the stereoscopiv feature (which our TV came with, whether we wanted it or not...) twice in the 6+ years since we got the TV. But I would say it's the glasses and the reduced picture brightness which are distracting me. If it weren't for those drawbacks, I might actually use the stereo mode when watching a movie every now and then.

Simon:
i went to the cinema and saw starwars in 3D, it was clear that they messed up in some shots and it just looked wrong, unsurprisingly it was the CGI shots that were bad for having some sort of wrong perspective as they had to totally make it up rather than have a real frame of reference.

I don't overly see the point of 3D, I'd watch it if it's done right but I can live without it.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod