We haven't really added to the fund of human knowledge in this thread
have we?

The real issue the OP was addressing was are HD DVDs available.

The proper answer is no not yet. As one poster said there are some naff
M$ titles available for download more or less as "proof of concept". No
movies apart from Oklahoma (was it?) & standing in the Shadows of Motown
are yet available. Once Blu-ray becomes available more titles are likely
to be issued but not yet.

We seem to have totally lost the plot when it comes to resolution. There
are several different schemes proposed though none are either in use or
set in stone (yet).

No one (I think) really addressed the 3rd question regarding colour
resolution. Perhaps, like me, people did not really understand the
question.

I guess, the true answer is that it is far too soon to be asking
detailed questions like this when the technology is still evolving &
there is no real software (DVDs - or are they firmware?) yet available.


In article , Aztech
writes
"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
Aztec wrote:
"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...

Agamemnon wrote:


2) Does the system use Anamophic Windscreen or true Windscreen ?


Can you please explain what you think the difference is ?


Square pixels dear boy, when the world is HD the broadcasters can
stick their
dastardly elongated SD pels somewhere North of their VBI ;)

Ah, I see, that's what Mr Armageddon was getting at, well all HD resolutions
are native 16:9 are they not ?

Yes, the main one's are. However you see stuff like 1080x1440, as used in
Australia due to bandwidth constraints, also seen in the US when some
affiliates
are wielding their shoehorn.


Az.



--
Keith Bailey

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:44:15 +0000, Mark Carver
wrote:

Agamemnon wrote:

2) Does the system use Anamophic Windscreen or true Windscreen ?

Can you please explain what you think the difference is ?

The wipers are a different shape.

Keith Bailey wrote:
We haven't really added to the fund of human knowledge in this thread
have we?

The real issue the OP was addressing was are HD DVDs available.

The proper answer is no not yet. As one poster said there are some naff
M$ titles available for download more or less as "proof of concept". No
movies apart from Oklahoma (was it?) & standing in the Shadows of Motown
are yet available. Once Blu-ray becomes available more titles are likely
to be issued but not yet.

There is Terminator 2 of course, but the DRM is server based and you
have to have a US IP address (not a known proxy).

We seem to have totally lost the plot when it comes to resolution. There
are several different schemes proposed though none are either in use or
set in stone (yet).

The standard for HD DVDs will virtually have to be the same as that for
HDTV, i.e. 1280x720 60/50p or 1920x1080 30/25i. Its possible that
1920x1080 60/50p might be included in the standard for future proofing,
and it would be great if they mandated 1920x1080 24p, but I bet they don't.

No one (I think) really addressed the 3rd question regarding colour
resolution. Perhaps, like me, people did not really understand the
question.

I think the OP was referring to the fact that in PAL the vertical
chrominance resolution is only half that of the luminance resolution.
Digital doesn't do that sort of thing.

I guess, the true answer is that it is far too soon to be asking
detailed questions like this when the technology is still evolving &
there is no real software (DVDs - or are they firmware?) yet available.

As far as I know, the only thing thats actually been decided on is the
compression standards that are going to be mandated, which is basically
all of them ;-)

"Keith Bailey" wrote in message
...
We haven't really added to the fund of human knowledge in this thread have we?

He asked whether they will be anamorphic or not, we've nicely explained HD
formats are generally square pixels. If this went over your head I can only
apologise.



The real issue the OP was addressing was are HD DVDs available.

The proper answer is no not yet. As one poster said there are some naff M$
titles available for download more or less as "proof of concept". No movies
apart from Oklahoma (was it?) & standing in the Shadows of Motown are yet
available. Once Blu-ray becomes available more titles are likely to be issued
but not yet.

People can import D-VHS right now, there's various D-Theater titles out. There
are also various HD stuff about on plain old DVD-9 discs with full length movies
encoded in WM9. Terminator 2 is released as dual disc WMVHD.



We seem to have totally lost the plot when it comes to resolution. There are
several different schemes proposed though none are either in use or set in
stone (yet).

1080i or 720p, or with provision for both, it doesn't seem too contentious,
certainly not off the plot.

The choice of codec is a different matter, the official HD-DVD spec includes
provision for a multitude of codecs including AVC. The BD-ROM group seem quite
fond of MPEG2.



No one (I think) really addressed the 3rd question regarding colour
resolution. Perhaps, like me, people did not really understand the question.

He's refering to colour subsampling, as far as I'm aware it will remain 4:2:0,
there was some talk of 4:2:2 but this has to be weighed against what people are
most critical about, resolution and artefacts are higher up the list.



Az.

In article , Ben
wrote:
No one (I think) really addressed the 3rd question regarding colour
resolution. Perhaps, like me, people did not really understand the
question.

I think the OP was referring to the fact that in PAL the vertical
chrominance resolution is only half that of the luminance resolution.
Digital doesn't do that sort of thing.

People who think this is important don't understand the question. All
the analogue colour encoding systems have less than half the horizontal
chrominance resolution anyway, because that's all that's required, so
reducing the vertical resolution to match will do no harm at all. All
these systems are designed to take account of the way the human visual
system works and not waste bandwidth by transmitting information that
nobody will see.

Rod.

I would like the best pictures that could be got out the present digital
systems NOW.
But the broadcasters do not appear to want to do that.
So why bother with new systems, new TV sets, new DVD players etc that would
be required for us to purchase.
I could not trust the broadcasters to use a new sysyem to its best on what
they do today.

--
Regards,
David

Please reply to News Group.

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
om...
In article , Ben
wrote:
No one (I think) really addressed the 3rd question regarding colour
resolution. Perhaps, like me, people did not really understand the
question.

I think the OP was referring to the fact that in PAL the vertical
chrominance resolution is only half that of the luminance resolution.
Digital doesn't do that sort of thing.

People who think this is important don't understand the question. All
the analogue colour encoding systems have less than half the horizontal
chrominance resolution anyway, because that's all that's required, so
reducing the vertical resolution to match will do no harm at all. All
these systems are designed to take account of the way the human visual
system works and not waste bandwidth by transmitting information that
nobody will see.

The human visual system does not work like that at all either at close range
or in bright light. The centre of your field of view is more densely packed
with colour receptors than B/W and because of this it provides the highest
resolution image and that's what gives you the ability to read. If what you
are saying was done on a computer display it would be completely
intolerable. Its bad enough trying to read coloured text on a dark
background as it is. If a system were not designed with 1:1 colour to pixel
mapping I would not accept it to be Hi-Dfeinition. In fact I would prefer as
625 line with 1:1 mapping to any 1050 or 720 line system without it. If you
compare a 768x576 DVD screen capture with a scanned image from a magazine or
digital camera the difference in quality is astonishing.



Rod.

In article , Agamemnon
wrote:
People who think this is important don't understand the question. All
the analogue colour encoding systems have less than half the horizontal
chrominance resolution anyway, because that's all that's required, so
reducing the vertical resolution to match will do no harm at all. All
these systems are designed to take account of the way the human visual
system works and not waste bandwidth by transmitting information that
nobody will see.

The human visual system does not work like that at all either at close range
or in bright light. The centre of your field of view is more densely packed
with colour receptors than B/W and because of this it provides the highest
resolution image and that's what gives you the ability to read.

Concentration of receptor cells is irrelevant. I was talking about what the eye
perceives. Choice of chrominance bandwidth for NTSC, PAL and SECAM colour
systems, i.e all the main broadcast systems, was based on research that showed
that visual acuity is less for changes in colour than for changes in
brightness. All these TV systems use this presumption and only transmit chroma
with about one third of the bandwidth used for luminance and they all work. At
the intended viewing distance you can't see that the colour iunformation is
less sharp.

Rod.

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
om...
In article , Agamemnon
wrote:
People who think this is important don't understand the question. All
the analogue colour encoding systems have less than half the horizontal
chrominance resolution anyway, because that's all that's required, so
reducing the vertical resolution to match will do no harm at all. All
these systems are designed to take account of the way the human visual
system works and not waste bandwidth by transmitting information that
nobody will see.

The human visual system does not work like that at all either at close
range
or in bright light. The centre of your field of view is more densely
packed
with colour receptors than B/W and because of this it provides the
highest
resolution image and that's what gives you the ability to read.

Concentration of receptor cells is irrelevant. I was talking about what
the eye
perceives. Choice of chrominance bandwidth for NTSC, PAL and SECAM colour

What the eye perceives is down to the concentration of receptor cells.

systems, i.e all the main broadcast systems, was based on research that
showed
that visual acuity is less for changes in colour than for changes in
brightness. All these TV systems use this presumption and only transmit
chroma

In bright light the eye is more sensitive to colour information and in dim
light it can't see colour at all and relies on peripheral black and white
vision. That's why you are more likely to see dim stars by not looking at
them directly but to the side. On top of that if two colours are placed next
to each other the brain will merge them into another colour if you are
looking from far away.

with about one third of the bandwidth used for luminance and they all
work. At
the intended viewing distance you can't see that the colour iunformation
is
less sharp.

If you wish to invoke intended viewing distance then going by what you have
just said at this distance you cant see the difference between normal
definition TV and high definition TV either so why bother with high
defintion TV, since if as you claim you can only perceive 293 pixels of
colour on a 768 column display then doubling that to 768 pixels on a 1572
column display will have no noticeable effect on effect the colour or even
the intensity definition either.

Obviously the fact that people are developing high definition TV shows that
the difference is noticeable which more or less proves that the so-called
research into colour perception you are referring to is a load of baloney
even at the intended viewing distance.

As far as I am concerned the intended viewing distance is me sitting right
in front of my monitor and I can read colour text at 1600x1200 resolution
well enough and I can see the individual colours and I can see the blurring
caused by halving the colour resolution perfectly well and I can't stand it.
I'd prefer a lower screen resolution without any compromise to the colour
bandwidth than a higher screen resolution with the colour bandwidth halved.


Rod.

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
...

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
om...
In article , Agamemnon
wrote:
People who think this is important don't understand the question. All
the analogue colour encoding systems have less than half the
horizontal
chrominance resolution anyway, because that's all that's required, so
reducing the vertical resolution to match will do no harm at all. All
these systems are designed to take account of the way the human visual
system works and not waste bandwidth by transmitting information that
nobody will see.

The human visual system does not work like that at all either at close
range
or in bright light. The centre of your field of view is more densely
packed
with colour receptors than B/W and because of this it provides the
highest
resolution image and that's what gives you the ability to read.

Concentration of receptor cells is irrelevant. I was talking about what
the eye
perceives. Choice of chrominance bandwidth for NTSC, PAL and SECAM colour

What the eye perceives is down to the concentration of receptor cells.

systems, i.e all the main broadcast systems, was based on research that
showed
that visual acuity is less for changes in colour than for changes in
brightness. All these TV systems use this presumption and only transmit
chroma

In bright light the eye is more sensitive to colour information and in dim
light it can't see colour at all and relies on peripheral black and white
vision. That's why you are more likely to see dim stars by not looking at
them directly but to the side. On top of that if two colours are placed
next to each other the brain will merge them into another colour if you
are looking from far away.

with about one third of the bandwidth used for luminance and they all
work. At
the intended viewing distance you can't see that the colour iunformation
is
less sharp.

If you wish to invoke intended viewing distance then going by what you
have just said at this distance you cant see the difference between normal
definition TV and high definition TV either so why bother with high
defintion TV, since if as you claim you can only perceive 293 pixels of

calculator malefaction or bad top row typing, 384 pixels

colour on a 768 column display then doubling that to 768 pixels on a 1572

where on earth did I get 1572 from, is 1536.

Is Microsoft's calculator bugged ?

column display will have no noticeable effect on effect the colour or even
the intensity definition either.

Obviously the fact that people are developing high definition TV shows
that the difference is noticeable which more or less proves that the
so-called research into colour perception you are referring to is a load
of baloney even at the intended viewing distance.

As far as I am concerned the intended viewing distance is me sitting right
in front of my monitor and I can read colour text at 1600x1200 resolution
well enough and I can see the individual colours and I can see the
blurring caused by halving the colour resolution perfectly well and I
can't stand it. I'd prefer a lower screen resolution without any
compromise to the colour bandwidth than a higher screen resolution with
the colour bandwidth halved.


Rod.