-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Official CES 2006 Thread (AGAIN)
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
thorns said:
It strikes me that higher resolution might lead to better, truer colour sampling. Where one res might miss some colour, a higher res might not. If you consider each pixel in a DVD or Blu-ray encoding to be a colour sample from the original master, a 1080p encoding will have 6 such samples where DVD has 1.
Might be wrong, though. I'm not sure if the colour differences should be as dramatic as that pic suggests.
Vaandaviii
Member
thorns said:
In fact, both displays together in a same low res jpg pic should not show any difference...
the screens in that jpg are around ~170x97 pixels. 480p already completely saturates that resolution, when you downsample to such a small scale, much of the the original information (eg. the resolution difference between SD and HD) is lost.
if it was a ten megapixel shot and there was zero visual noise in the frame however ...
if it was a ten megapixel shot and there was zero visual noise in the frame however ...
blackadde said:
You lose the resolution, but the samples won't be the same, I don't think?
If I put a 170x97 grid over each of those screens, for each part of the grid I'll have more distinct contributions with the 1080p picture than the 480p picture ("stretched" over a 1080p display, even). The result for each part of the grid would be different.
Of course, differences can be introduced anywhere along the line (from the encoding process down), which is probably what happened here anyway.
I guess the question is, regardless of this picture - can more resolution improve the faithfulness of the colour, to the original master?
blackadde said:
In calculating that average, though, the result will be different given that you're averaging more, different values for 1080p than 480p, no?
Anyway, back to the core issue, there's an article here that compares film to digital (in terms of cameras), which might be relevant if considering how much resolution you need to match an original master. It seems from it that colour detail and balance etc does improve with greater resolution: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html. I'm not an expert, but that seems to make sense - more samples, more unique colour contributed to the picture. The article also concludes that it takes a lot more digital resolution to match the colour resolution of film, than to match just the detail apparent on film.
blindrocket
Member
Kill Bill Volume 1 on Blu Ray? Sounds sweet! But wait, 25-50 GB of storage and we can only get one of the damn movies on there?! 
Still waiting on the complete version...
Also, I'm sad that the HBO series weren't also announced for Blu Ray.
Still waiting on the complete version...Also, I'm sad that the HBO series weren't also announced for Blu Ray.
Samsung potentially kills the dilemma on which player to buy, with a Blu-ray, HD DVD combo drive.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28855
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28855
borghe said:
That's because they're both at the whim of the AACS standards for matters such as that. I think they're both in the same boat - studios can use the flag to tell a player not output full-res hi-def over components, but many studios are saying they won't do it - at least initially.
If the pirates start running rampant though I wouldn't be surprised to see them crack down and start flagging every new disc as full hi-def only over HDMI supporting HDCP.
I bet it's the studios pushing for this, b/c I can't see hardware manufacturers giving a rat's ass one way or another. If they force analog feeds to 480p, then both standards will suffer...in the short term. Whether or not they'll recover in the long-term is doubtful IMO. But in the meantime, I can see a lot of early-adopter HDTV fanbase getting seriously pissed about this.borghe said:
BTW, would this preclude someone creating a cheap DAC box that can convert HDMI to composite without sacrificing signal quality? PEACE.
GCQuinton said:
If the Xbox 360 one is this small, I'll seriously consider picking it up.
Damn, that's sweet.
I'm going to pick up the addon for the X360 either way. Now that it's a lock for me getting a PS3 this year, I might as well buy this and get the best of both worlds. :lol
Well, that or that Samsung combo drive...
sonycowboy
Member
yoopoo said:
They announced this about 6 months ago, but haven't said boo since then and even mocked Toshiba and HD-DVD at CES. Was this device even there, or is inquirer just regurgitating old news? I didn't see a single mention and no PR from Samsung regarding this.
Erwin EHV NL
Member
Borys said:
what's the estimated retail price?
ATI Radeon Xpress to support HDMI
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/01/10/ati_radeon_xpress_hdmi/
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/01/10/ati_radeon_xpress_hdmi/
Analyst: Dell likely to adopt AMD chips in 2006
http://news.com.com/Analyst+Dell+li...ps+in+2006/2100-1006_3-6025185.html?tag=st_lh
http://news.com.com/Analyst+Dell+li...ps+in+2006/2100-1006_3-6025185.html?tag=st_lh
Shogmaster
Sloppy seconds
Kleegamefan said:
I'll do you one better Klee: I went around and saw every single one of the BR and HD-DVD demos at CES, and they were all over fucking the place as far as IQ.
Just talking about BR demos, I saw everything from absolutely incredible and flawless 30~40mb/s VC1 streams that nothing has ever touched before all the way down to 15~20mb/s MPEG2 macroblocked fuzzy mess that's hardly better than upscaled 4~8mb/s MPEG2 DVD and absolutely crushed by 10mb/s 720p WM9 HD stuff that fits well under 5GB of single layer DVDs.
Conclusion: It's gonna be one hell of a mess even within just the BR space in varying qualities, even before you complicate the issue of the competing format of HD-DVDs.
YES!!! Kick Intel right in the ass. While I don't really care about brand when buying a CPU (currently Intel), I fully support AMD. They're a good set of chips, and cheaper. Allying with Dell could land them the big leg up they've been looking for. PEACE.Deg said:
EDIT: Are BD movies labeled with the supported resolutions? I would want to buy only 1080p copies...and only good ones.
Guy LeDouche
Banned
Haha. "the higher definition experience"
nice dig to HDDVD
nice dig to HDDVD
Shogmaster
Sloppy seconds
Guy LeDouche said:
Haha. Half of the BR players demoed were 1080i machines.
They are both chump specs. I want 40mb/s minimum for my real next gen DVD spec. And I want more than 2.8 hours of video stream of that quality on a single disc. They both am lose.
the 1080i machines are probably there to partner with the 1080i input TVs.
No point having 1080p output if TVs can't handle it. For some odd reason the manufacturers seem happy to leave the deinterlacing to the TVs. If good, you'll still get 1080p from both HDDVD and Bluray on a 1080p native TV with only 1080i inputs.
But I know that I'd prefer a TV taking a proper 1080p input, then I can control which player I get and make sure I get the best deinterlacing.
Any news on authoring? Will 1080i stuff still be filtered to remove flickering? I'd like for the proper 1080p resolution to be taken advantage of. If they filter, you'll end up with more like 800p. The players are capable of doing any downsampling/filtering before outputting. Keep the original as clean as possible.
No point having 1080p output if TVs can't handle it. For some odd reason the manufacturers seem happy to leave the deinterlacing to the TVs. If good, you'll still get 1080p from both HDDVD and Bluray on a 1080p native TV with only 1080i inputs.
But I know that I'd prefer a TV taking a proper 1080p input, then I can control which player I get and make sure I get the best deinterlacing.
Any news on authoring? Will 1080i stuff still be filtered to remove flickering? I'd like for the proper 1080p resolution to be taken advantage of. If they filter, you'll end up with more like 800p. The players are capable of doing any downsampling/filtering before outputting. Keep the original as clean as possible.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Yeah, but the results ofgofreak said:
Perfect source -> 1080p -> 170x97
Perfect source -> 480p -> 170x97
should be pretty indistinguishable.
Example. Let's say I've got a 128x128 image, and a 64x64 image which gets each pixel value from a 2x2 block of the larger image. If we want a 32x32 image, it shouldn't really matter whether we use the 128x128 or 64x64 image as the source. One way would be averaging a group of 4x4 pixels, while another would be averaging a group of 2x2 pixels which themselves were the result of similar downsampling. There might be a tiny difference due to rounding, but at any decent color depth we wouldn't recognize it.
It's the same with comparing tiny shots of 1080p and 480p; the way things are downsampled just isn't as perfectly aligned.