sot: 3d article

ushere wrote on 2/17/2015, 9:31 PM
interesting:

http://theconversation.com/third-time-unlucky-for-3d-television-so-what-went-wrong-this-time-36907?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+conversationedu+%28The+Conversation%29&utm_content=FeedBurner

however, streaming is all well and good IF you have a fast enough connection ;-(

Comments

Chienworks wrote on 2/17/2015, 10:01 PM
Hmmmm, slight mistake in that article.

"The 4K image is 3,840-lines (horizontal), more than three times the current High Definition standard of 1,080-lines (horizontal), "

Current HD is 1920 horizontal, 1080 vertical. 4K is 3840x2160, so it's 2x the resolution of HD, not more than 3x.

I like my SmartTV. I probably watch Netflix at least 20 times as much as i watch broadcasts. Yeah, there are occasional glitches and downtime, though not many. Thing is, when my internet is down i usually don't get TV either as they're both delivered on the same cable.
johnmeyer wrote on 2/17/2015, 10:15 PM
[I]Hmmmm, slight mistake in that article.

"The 4K image is 3,840-lines (horizontal), more than three times the current High Definition standard of 1,080-lines (horizontal), "

Current HD is 1920 horizontal, 1080 vertical. 4K is 3840x2160, so it's 2x the resolution of HD, not more than 3x.[/I]No, the article is correct. Resolution is defined (correctly) as the total pixel count.

1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels
3840x2160 = 8,294,400 pixels

8,294,400 / 2,073,600 = 4



Chienworks wrote on 2/17/2015, 10:29 PM
But the article compares the 4K horizontal resolution to the HD vertical resolution.

I'm still annoyed that somewhere along the way HD was called "1080", the vertical dimension, while the next step up is called 4K (which is an exaggeration) and a measurement of the horizontal dimension. Pure marketing fluff, and a source of much confusion. The author of the article apparently fell for that trick.
johnmeyer wrote on 2/17/2015, 10:36 PM
P.S. Many of us predicted five years ago exactly what this article reports. Here's that thread from 2010:

3D... does anyone care?

Here's what I said (and others said similar things):

"I don't see 3D as something that significant numbers of us will ever actually use and edit, even five years from now. I would bet a lot of money on this ..."

<sound of hand patting back... >

;)

PeterDuke wrote on 2/18/2015, 6:46 AM
No, the article is correct. Resolution is defined (correctly) as the total pixel count.

Not according to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_resolution

Resolution is a linear measure, not an area. It is not even about pixels directly, but how many lines in each axis that can be resolved, but it is now commonly used to refer to pixels.