|
|
Posted by chrisv on 01/08/07 16:10
M.I.5¾ wrote:
>"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:5umsp2pk6asreh740v0el95lr06024eotj@4ax.com...
>> M.I.5¾ wrote:
>>
>>>> There are most certainly common display devices in the HD display
>>>> realm that are fully capable of surpassing the best abilities of the
>>>> standard DVD. Full 4:2:2 from DVD is still lower res than many of
>>>> today's displays.
>>>
>>>I know of no 1440x1152 pixel display available in the domestic market.
>>>The
>>>resolution that is required to best display the 720x576 pixel information
>>>off the DVD (which as what 4:2:2 gives - though the colour is 360x576).
>>
>> ??? Are you claiming that a 1440x1152 display is required to fully
>> display the information from a DVD? If so, why?
>>
>
>Because it is fact. If you record a signal containing 720 dots across the
>width of the DVD, a 720 pixel wide diplay will not resolve it, displaying
>only a continuous line.
"720 dots" IS a continuous line. Hopefully you really mean 360 dots,
each seperated by one pixel.
>It requires a 1440 pixel wide display to resolve
>the information as dots. Although this may not seem to square with most
>peoples intuitive take on the issue, it is a matter of proven fact that a
>digital picture will appear sharper when viewed on a display that has twice
>the number of pixels in each plane.
I think you're on drugs, and that you pulled the 2X multiplier out of
your rear-end.
I do concede that that many consumer-quality displays will smear the
image more than what their specs may indicate (the 360 dots in my
example not being as well-defined as one would hope). However, your
claim that you need a 1440x1152 display to resolve DVD is just wrong.
>Anyone who knows anything about digital
>representation will know that the highest resolution in the digital domain
>is half the number of digital samples (the Nyquist frequency) in this case
>represented by the display samples.
Bullshit.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|