[mythtv-users] OT: 4K TV. But why (yet)?

[marcus hall]

On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 02:46:40PM -0500, Tom Bongiorno wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Michael T. Dean <mtdean at thirdcontact.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > FWIW, there's more information in a 1920x1080 pixel image than can be
> > displayed with a 1920x1080 pixel display--it actually takes an output
> > display of almost 2x the sample width and 2x the sample height to render
> > all the information provided by an image.  So to display all of the
> > information about a scene that's contained in a 1920x1080 image, you would
> > require a display of nearly 4k.
> 
> 
> A 1920x1080 image has exactly the same amount of information as can be
> displayed by a 1920x1080 pixel display. No more, no less. Unless you are
> talking about interlaced video. 1080i video has exactly half of the
> information per frame as can be displayed by a 1920x1080 pixel display.

Well, ... "half of the information per" *field* "as can be displayed on a
1920x1080 pixel display." Two interlaced fields give you a frame of 1920x1080
data, but at 30 frames/second (or 25 frames/second), so half the frame rate
as 60p(50p).

But, the point is taken nonetheless...

marcus hall
marcus at tuells.org