[mythtv-users] Graphics card recomendation
adeffs.mythtv at gmail.com
Thu Aug 31 15:56:37 UTC 2006
On 8/31/06, Brad DerManouelian <myth at dermanouelian.com> wrote:
> On Aug 30, 2006, at 9:00 PM, Dylan Semler wrote:
> On 8/30/06, Michael T. Dean <mtdean at thirdcontact.com> wrote:
> > On 08/30/06 21:40, Brad DerManouelian wrote:
> > >On Aug 30, 2006, at 5:59 PM, Michael T. Dean wrote:
> > >
> > >>somewhere around 3840x2160 would be an appropriate output
> > >>resolution for a 1080i/p input resolution...
> > >>
> > >I challenge anyone to tell me the difference between 1080p resolution
> > >displayed at 1920x1080 and 3840x2160 resolution without literally
> > >putting them side-by-side and deliberating. Further, I challenge
> > >anyone to be able to afford a 3840x2160 display and video card to
> > >drive it. :)
> > >
> > That I definitely can't (yet) do. But, as hardware capabilities
> > increase and prices decrease...
> Couldn't one just crop a 1080p feed so it only displays a quarter of the
> pixels (960x540) and then upscale it/"recreate the image funcion" to fit the
> whole display on a regular HDTV screen? Then you can compare that to the
> original feed on a second identical display. Capisce?
> My point is that unless you're closely analyzing each pixel on the display,
> I can't imagine you will even notice a difference in the original scenario.
> Are there any printers on the list? A long time ago it was decided that your
> image resolution should be twice your line screen. Any more than that and
> you're simply wasting resources since you can't tell the different between a
> 300 dpi image and a 600 dpi image at 150 line screen. *I* could tell the
> difference because I was looking at it under a loop and was used to
> examining litho negatives all day. Many other people in my position couldn't
> tell the difference.
> In a time where the general public views 128k AAC audio files as an
> acceptable replacement for CD-quality audio, I find it funny that this is
> even being considered. :)
sighted humans have become infactuated with their visual sense
forgetting that our auditory sense is as sensitive if not more so.
I agree, to a large extent the talk of resolution and displays is
theoretical, but without the talk we won't have physical models built
from which we can test to see if the improvements are worth it. Worth
it requires enough change at a low enough cost to impress the general
public. HDTV is such an improvement over SDTV and now that those of us
who insisted on the improvement being worth it at a higher cost, it is
at a cost where the general public feels the same way. For what used
to get you a 50" RP-SDTV you can now have a 71" 1080p HDTV. Thats
I just wish the same was true for audio. The problem is the audio
industry shot itself in the foot with all the audiophile snobbery.
People just did not think it was worth spending thousands of dollars
on what they considered "background noise". People were not and are
still not as divested in their audio experience as they are in their
visual experience. Of course, now things are changing as people are
building "theatres" in their homes based around these new HDTVs. This
combined with the dropping price of higher quality speakers and
receivers we are seeing more equipment enter the common persons home
that is capable of outperforming what is found on most CD's (which is
really perhaps 1/2 the quality the old CD format can produce, I've
heard some truely amazingly mastered CD's that sound better than some
of the truely piss-poor mastered SACD/DVDA).
Granted, this is still not quite what I would consider quality enough
to show what SACD/DVDA have to offer, its a step in the right
direction, and the flood of money into the market means we should see
audio equipment that is worthy of SACD/DVDA hit the common consumer
market in the next 10 years.
I spent around $10K on my audio system during college, I consider it
as good as one can hope for as a "starving" college student (I
basically spent all my free cash in college on beer and audio, having
two good engineering co-ops helps!). To think that if I were doing the
same research for equipment now that I did then I could get what I
have at 1/2 that price, or something even greater for how much I spent
amazes (and occasionaly saddens) me.
As for compressed audio, you have to realize that this is again, all
about convenience. Most people don't truely listen to music. They hear
music, and they enjoy hearing music, but the concept of listening to
music is lost on many. For them the quality must only meet a certain
level of performance after which comfort and convenience rule. This
means lossy compressed audio and the portable music player. What I
personally find amazing is that the iPod is the only player capable of
playing AAC, which I find to be the best of the lossy compressed audio
formats right now, and the only reason I haven't even bothered looking
at other players. Of course, I also encode at the "Audiophile"
setting, so I only let convenience slightly win out over audio
quality... I also keep a FLAC encoded version of my CD's on my Music
drive for listening at home. I just wish I could do similar with my
SACD/DVDA discs so I didn't have to worry about scratching them...
Which is really the problem with music mediums, the good ones can all
Before you ask, read the FAQ!
then search the Wiki, and this list,
Mailinglist etiquette -
More information about the mythtv-users