[mythtv-users] Graphics card recomendation

[Brad DerManouelian]

On Aug 31, 2006, at 8:56 AM, Steven Adeff wrote:

> 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?
>>
>> Dylan
>>
>>
>> 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.

Definitely more. I've read that sense of smell retains the most  
memory. When do we get smellovision?

> 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
> progress.

Agreed. I waited until I could get a 1080p display for under $2k then  
jumped on it.

> 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.

Funny. I never would have considered a 1080p display if I didn't have  
a great receiver and surround-sound to back it up.

> 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.

Without guessing your age, I bet it's still a great sounding system.  
Oh.. and I don't consider having $10k to spend on ANYTHING  
"starving". :)

> 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
> be damaged.

I've resigned myself to the fact that the masses are easy to accept  
severely impaired quality if it means fast and cheap. I just hate to  
see a project that has taken years in a studio reduced to a 1MB mp3  
on someone's cell phone. I do have an iPod and listen to it in the  
car since you can't really tell the difference between 256k MP3 and a  
CD over the ambient noise in the car, anyway.