General > General Technical Chat
Just because technology can do something, doent meant its always right
<< < (17/43) > >>
tggzzz:

--- Quote from: ebastler on June 19, 2022, 06:08:48 pm ---
--- 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

--- End quote ---

Er, no.

If you work through the geometry of the homologous points, you will understand.

Alternatively, I suggest you find a still picture that is being projected, and walk towards and away from it.


--- Quote ---

--- 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.

--- End quote ---

Everybody else that I have asked has the same opinion.
Simon:

--- Quote from: bd139 on June 19, 2022, 07:51:35 pm ---

Worth pointing out here that all lenses have some inherent distortion in them and vignetting. Most of the cameras and some smartphones perform corrections on this on the device or provide lens metadata which Lightroom etc can correct later if required.

And there is a huge difference between a crap smartphone camera and a decent smartphone camera. The span of outcomes is pretty huge depending on how much you spent mostly. Spend £800+ on a smartphone and you might get a decent camera too if you're lucky  :-DD

--- End quote ---

 It was an iphone. But this is more about the physicality's. the smaller the sensor the smaller the lens and the less glass each pixel has. So any defect or distortion in the lens will be more severe. Also you will never correct the perspective. Yes software can help with the fisheye effect.

So my first camera was marketed as 35-300mm zoom, it war actually 6.2-60 something mm. You could tell the difference. I would often do panoramic montages as a way of increasing resolution and found I prefered them. But it was not because of the resolution. I would be zoomed in at 250-300 "mm" which put the lens at 50-60mm which gives correct perspective. pictures shot at 6.2mm were just crap, you could see it was not natural.
Simon:

--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on June 19, 2022, 07:55:28 pm ---While 3D TVs were mostly useless - a gadget that you would use a couple times and then would get too annoying and useless to make any sense - more DPI (up to some reasonable value) does add something. Whether you personally find it useless is subjective.

As I mentioned, it's funny to see that many people don't have a problem with a full HD display on a 6" mobile phone, or even 4K now, but would find 4K already too much on a 50" (or over) display. Granted you don't look at them at the same distance, but you can definitely tell a difference between Full HD and 4K on a 50" display at a distance of a couple meters. As to 8K, I haven't seen enough 8K displays of the average size of a TV set to be able to tell. I'd be willing to think that it would make more visible difference for static images than moving ones, though.


--- End quote ---

You will not see any better above 4k, peoples eyes are just not that good. As for phones, there is less choice and they are used at a closer distance but I do have mine set to medium resolution and can't tell the difference. Most of these things exist - because they can and because if one puts more pixels in just for marketing then the others have to as well. If people actually understood and genuinely cared about the environment all these sleezy manufacturers would be out of business.
ebastler:

--- Quote from: bd139 on June 19, 2022, 07:44:29 pm ---Resolution is different. It's a function of the size of the screen and the viewing distance.

--- End quote ---

I don't get the "depends on the screen size" argument.

Users will adjust the viewing distance from the screen roughly in proportion to the screen size, such that the screen fills a comfortable total viewing angle: Close enough to see what's going on, while not so close that you have to constantly scan your limited field of view across the large screen. Since the angular resolution of the eye remains constant in these scenarios, and the comfortable full viewing angle remains roughly constant as well, the required number of pixels across the screen should be a constant too.

(That being said, I realize that my personal preference in screen size is probably untypical. TV, including watching DVDs and streamed video, plays a small role in my daily life, and I don't want to devote an altar to it in the living room. So we have a 32" TV set, receive broadcast TV via a terrestrial DVB-T2 antenna, and are perfectly happy with a full HD screen.)
tggzzz:

--- Quote from: ebastler on June 19, 2022, 08:20:22 pm ---
--- Quote from: bd139 on June 19, 2022, 07:44:29 pm ---Resolution is different. It's a function of the size of the screen and the viewing distance.

--- End quote ---

I don't get the "depends on the screen size" argument.

Users will adjust the viewing distance from the screen roughly in proportion to the screen size, such that the screen fills a comfortable total viewing angle: Close enough to see what's going on, while not so close that you have to constantly scan your limited field of view across the large screen. Since the angular resolution of the eye remains constant in these scenarios, and the comfortable full viewing angle remains roughly constant as well, the required number of pixels across the screen should be a constant too.

(That being said, I realize that my personal preference in screen size is probably untypical. TV, including watching DVDs and streamed video, plays a small role in my daily life, and I don't want to devote an altar to it in the living room. So we have a 32" TV set, receive broadcast TV via a terrestrial DVB-T2 antenna, and are perfectly happy with a full HD screen.)

--- End quote ---

When HDTV was first being developed, it became apparent that there were two differing motivations.

We are familial with the motivations in Europe and the US. But in Asian countries typically rooms are smaller and people sit closer to the screen, so higher resolution means pixels don't look so big and blocky.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod