Posted by M.I.5� on 01/05/07 08:30

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:f39rp2dnjboor281remduiubeso7n5bjfv@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 13:34:23 -0000, "M.I.5�"
> <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> Gave us:
>
>>The actual resolution of projected 35mm film is way ahead of the
>>resolution
>>recoverable from a DVD even on the ideal display device (of which none
>>exist
>>in the domestic market).
>
> 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).
Compression causes this to vary somewhat depending on what is being coded,
but a static image is perfectly capable of being coded at full resolution.
The deployment of HD means that we never will.

> Had you remarked that being the case with any 4:3 NTSC TVs I would
> agree, but my HD display device is far better than the original DVD
> spec.
>

I very much doubt that it is better. As I said no 1440x1152 displays are
available in the domestic market. The usual resolution is 1366x768 which is
lower than the required resolution for DVD and isn't even an integral factor
(and differs by different factors in the two planes requiring rejection of
much data to make it fit). It doesn't match any of the recognised HD
formats either. You should see a 1080i (or p - doesn't matter) HD signal
displayed on a 3840x2160 panel. But this ain't gonna appear in the domestic
market for a few years yet.

[Back to original message]