Newsmeldung von slashCAM: Essays: Who needs FullHD? Of rudi - 13 Aug 2007 11:46:00
> By request, we were on an issue closely, so far of many users was totally hidden. How sharp need an HD monitor actually be useful?
Antwort von Marco:
This is an issue which of the EBU already some years ago has been intensively investigated and the result was that normal petrol-consumer from 1080er, or 1920 format in comparison to 720er format did not benefit. Among other things, it is the recommendation for the European HD broadcast format is not synonymous 720p/50 and 1080i/25.
To view the full shot of HD development actually on the target, because synonymous 720p cameras would be for the best benefit fully sufficient detail. Only the production may be a larger buffer of an 1080er or 1920 format will benefit, but consistently synonymous only if it is not interlaced.
But the industry is looking forward ...
Marco
Antwort von Pianist:
This is really a breakthrough insight ... :-)
We can still continue the game drive: If the industry according to good 16:9-tube monitors building would be no abuses HD. But everything's no use crying: The market is the way he is. The people have no idea want as many pixels, so we must be a film producer that many pixels deliver. Whether this is useful or not.
Matthias
Antwort von HeikoS:
Who do you say `s. ...
My 72er Siemens of 1996 has a better picture than the last peak tubes (2005). And, of course, but they will hardly be exhausted when you think about what it all übern transmitter runs. and then when the data ....
Antwort von wolfgang:
So this is a nice, little article - whose formula works naturally to the times thinking. As such, I find the success.
Nevertheless, I enjoy my full-HD Sony40W2000 very, I s.HD cut but use the new space, absolutely. Seats approximately 1 m away, and the preview is really good. Because we recognize synonymous fewer errors, which an otherwise remain hidden.
I was only synonymous with skepticism ...
Antwort von sleepy:
Hello!
The accounts seem consistent. The average TV viewer (at normal living room viewing distance) probably really do not need Full HD.
But there are not more and more people, the special movies times synonymous vision-filling want? A normal television is always one step away from the viewer. It looks so right and the left nor the living room furniture and above a great flower vase.
The enthusiastic film viewers, in a movie but really "dip" would like, therefore, must be closer s.sein device / screen, so that the Picture a large part of his Gescihtsfeldes taking the flower vase and he no longer sees.
And then HD makes sense and fun!
I have here with me a 24''Full HD screen. Then I look at the Windows Media HD Demo Videos angeguckt. For normal / normal viewing distance, the pictures are nice, but they cut up a stool by.
Interestingly, it is when you know times about 40-50 cm before the screen is 24''(which by the lack Hz flicker and lack of X-rays so synonymous is possible):
Since you feel truly in action. And then you see the incredible quality synonymous, which offers full-HD. Demo material of a JVC camera with 720p or synonymous of the HVX 200 since then looks again blurred out.
We must stop distinguishing between TV for everyday use and one other film as an experience. I am thrilled that "in a movie" to be. And because 1080p is now minimum (4K cameras or projectors to be so nice to be synonymous) :-)
PS: It is important of course to look at close intervals so synonymous that the film of his pictures synonymous is suitable for HD. Many men tend to camera, with HD cameras as well as with SD cameras incorporated. That is, the picture wobbles is blurred, etc. And there is simply advancing one course and moving bad, because if too close dransitzt. So: Will someone films for large screens make the camera rather calm and keep totals you. The classic detail or close-up of SD Times is simply not in HD.
As far as my 2 cents!
Aja, and s.HeikoS: The TV should you actually avoid s.besten - no preference, whether SD or HD! We believe it not, but is still a primitive area.
(Maybe the Admin can be my first contribution incomplete delete?)
Antwort von Valentino:
Many men tend to camera, with HD cameras as well as with SD cameras incorporated. That is, the picture wobbles is blurred, etc. And there is simply advancing one course and moving bad, because if too close dransitzt. So: Will someone films for large screens make the camera rather calm and keep totals you. The classic detail or close-up of SD Times is simply not in HD.
So I think that's just with shoulder cameras is a very difficult picture to get quiet, but this is at a SRII and it looks just as synonymous with 16mm very garauenhaft, if the cameraman / woman has no steady hand. It is always synonymous but the question of what the material needs. In one scene, a restless hand-held camera a lot, because you wobbling on a normal TV anyway mitbekommt not. If it is a movie for the big screen will be, then it may be in the audience restless handheld camera quickly schelcht be.
Antwort von Bruno Peter:
Who needs FullHD? Similarly, one would have to ask: Who needs cigarettes?
Antwort von Bruno Peter:
Nevertheless, I enjoy my full-HD Sony40W2000 very, I s.HD cut but use the new space, absolutely. Seats approximately 1 m away, and the preview is really good. Would perhaps better a beamer for the preview will take ...
Because we recognize synonymous fewer errors, which an otherwise remain hidden. What are the errors?
Antwort von Axel:
Those who are so close s.sein TV Set squats, FullHD that he needs to no more pixels can be seen that, as mentioned, and filming of Tripod s.besten only landscape shots / shots. Very unfilmisch. A large aquarium would be cheaper, and can be synonymous, the nose wheel s.die pressen, without to be seasick.
As I said, as a preview monitor or projector as useful as Enver Television Consumer Ass.
Antwort von wolfgang:
Well you'll probably see that many people in the enormously priced decaying HD-Ready vision devices remain. And people who
Blu Ray movies to watch, but rather to the full-HD viewing screens go - because very often synonymous less synonymous distance vision in the living room will accept. Whether it's the long term because all HD-ready and will not - is a fascinating question.
Consumerverarsche? Hmm, we had TVs synonymous with 720x576, and no TVs with SVCD Resolutionin 480x576. The distance would s.einem so synonymous enough ...
Antwort von Kenshin:
So I think that's just with shoulder cameras is very difficult to picture a quiet get ... So that you have now but let me explain ... sorry ...
Especially with shoulder cameras, it is easier to have peaceful Picture. Without Teleport, for example in an interview, you can picture so keep quiet, as if it were * almost * of a tripod. Surely, a certain movement is always there, but certainly much less than if the same attitude with a handle would be rotated camera! Already alone because of the inertia ...
Antwort von robbie:
Sorry, that was me ...
Antwort von Axel:
Well you'll probably see that many people in the enormously priced decaying HD-Ready vision devices remain. And people who
Blu Ray movies to watch, but rather to the full-HD viewing screens go - because very often synonymous less synonymous distance vision in the living room will accept. Whether it's the long term because all HD-ready and will not - is a fascinating question.
Consumerverarsche? Hmm, we had TVs synonymous with 720x576, and no TVs with SVCD Resolutionin 480x576. The distance would s.einem so synonymous enough ... No question. The long run, prevail. We speak here not of years but of at least a decade, but until normal SD considered unacceptable for most, synonymous only minimal quality-conscious consumers applies. Even HD ready is in my view, so rather slowly, because 16:9 tube equipment from the
design of no longer living in a modern landscape fit, and because even the news now is 16:9.
A Full HD TV for the room
must be relatively
much bigger than an ordinary television,'s nothing else brings, and this concept must be first in the minds of ordinary consumers.
If it happened is that FullHD coverage exists - obviously with better equipment than today to be acquired, and to a lesser price -
must be fair for new movies (Movies) responded, with at least 4k. Probably the movie but the race completely. As the media landscape looks like in ten years, can really say None. This is perhaps more in the thread "How ..."; future - but what's the need, in the presence of products with full HD sources, so I maintain, regular wage earners discouraged.
Antwort von Axel:
Well you'll probably see that many people in the enormously priced decaying HD-Ready vision devices remain. And people who
Blu Ray movies to watch, but rather to the full-HD viewing screens go - because very often synonymous less synonymous distance vision in the living room will accept. Whether it's the long term because all HD-ready and will not - is a fascinating question.
Consumerverarsche? Hmm, we had TVs synonymous with 720x576, and no TVs with SVCD Resolutionin 480x576. The distance would s.einem so synonymous enough ... No question. The long run, prevail. We speak here not of years but of at least a decade, but until normal SD considered unacceptable for most, synonymous only minimal quality-conscious consumers applies. Even HD ready is in my view, so rather slowly, because 16:9 tube equipment from the design of no longer living in a modern landscape fit, and because even the news now is 16:9.
A Full HD TV for the room must be relatively much bigger than an ordinary television,'s nothing else brings, and this concept must be first in the minds of ordinary consumers.
If it happened is that FullHD coverage exists - obviously with better equipment than today to be acquired, and to a lesser price - must be fair for new movies (Movies) responded, with at least 4k. Probably the movie but the race completely. As the media landscape looks like in ten years, can really say None. This is perhaps more in the thread "How ..."; future - but what's the need, in the presence of products with full HD sources, so I maintain, regular wage earners discouraged.
 |
Antwort von DWUA:
As I said, as a preview monitor or projector as useful as Enver Television Consumer Ass. And why?
Because the
advertising promises "BIG CINEMA"
experience at home
them.
(What course will never take place ...
even at 5 m diagonal on canvas using beamer)
;)
Antwort von Axel:
Because the advertising promises "BIG CINEMA" experience at home
them.
(What course will never take place ...
even at 5 m diagonal on canvas using beamer) Very likeable. Hopefully not make cinema that soon everything
looks like it was just a great Television.
Another argument against too much Television: The current TV program. With the large pictures which FullHD assumes absolutely inedible.
Antwort von zwiebel_sondermann:
I always ask me why this stuff TFT with square pixels of course.
When PC's yet, I can reasonably understand, real-time computer graphics since then but still miles away from the real model and is blithely through grad's "uncanny valley" rages.
Most of the things we are not filming square and you need a lot more square pixel to a rounded impression to simulate.
The Roehrenglotzen pixels are (at least to me) much more appealing and create a 'credible' and more natural picture with far fewer pixels. If one now on the "HD" resolution would inflate (not necessarily the entire tube technology, rather the form of pixels) ...
Antwort von Flaxx:
Hmm ... And what is my HD ready tube TVs?
Antwort von der Jo:
... that's all well and good.
So I need to FullHD cut synonymous when the last pixel of what I produce to be able to control. Whether a normal living room television, the synonymous everyone needs to know itself. Given that only helps with his own eyes, even a picture to make.
Furthermore, I believe in developing a new technology it is easy to reserve. Otherwise, tomorrow is already outdated!
Have 2 years ago on a really good Full HD beamer just seen this, I smooth out the slippers hewn. Since I am infected.
Yes,
I need FullHD!
Antwort von Axel:
Have 2 years ago on a really good Full HD beamer just seen this, I smooth out the slippers hewn. Since I am infected.
Yes, I need FullHD! 28 weeks later: Something has survived ...
Antwort von kundesbanzler:
This calculation is really good and nice, however there is a small problem: it is simply not true.
I myself, a 24-inch WUXGA with (pronounced FlullHD) around here and have just the self-made. According to the figures presented here, should I as a "perfect-seeing" at 96cm resolution limit my s.der his eye. However, I have just found out that I am at about 1.30 m viewing distance without any major problems a single black pixels on a white surface can be found. If I know where the pixel is located and the distance increases, I can even go over 2m, before I totally can no longer perform. Since, however, can still play s.Einbildung, gift.
At a double or larger HD Television extrapolated this means that I personally benefit from such a device and a normal distance of 3m clear of the resolution. And I guess that even sharper sighted people.
And I think it would be synonymous legitimate Television to produce the usual distance at a little over the sight of the eye lie. So that the sight distance may vary slightly, without visibility of the image s.der own Resolutionscheitert.
Antwort von Pianist:
And I think it would be synonymous legitimate Television to produce the usual distance at a little over the sight of the eye lie. So that the sight distance may vary slightly, without visibility of the image s.der own Resolutionscheitert. The matter is quite simple: When a tube TV, the people never came up with the idea of tight ranzugehen. For a flat-screen HD, they will always make it because of their computer monitor used to. So it's good if synonymous close as many details are visible.
Matthias
Antwort von ThomasSV:
Hat jmd already noticed that it is synonymous 65zoll plasma? * duck * ;-)
Whether you look at all the calculation but 1.6-2m in black diagonal wall s.die want ...?
(to DAS-compliant living room than go through ..., ->)
Antwort von ThomasSV:
Actually I think the question asked synonymous unfähr! The point is, the Pal and 1080i so blatantly different that it really is nonsense, according to both _einem_ Television format to search.
Thus the question should rather read "What do I need for HD."
And the answer is simply: "guck 'you look at diagonals to the 75 inches around at ...".
And the other way around, it is for PAL-gazers with Std-living (or at least of the Resolutionher) completely nonsensical, a device side 28 (best 32) inches to buy ...
And it fits remarkably well with Grandmas 77cm tube ....
Gruss
Thomas
Antwort von wolfgang:
Only someone who is both into the living room? Hence, a HD-Ready or Full HD synonymous SD signals halfway reasonable support.
Antwort von PeterM:
First of a reserve can not be so bad.
The question is always whether one "who needs" on the production side of or reproduction of the page.
And since one should not forget that there are people that the normal program on his TV and watch movies on the beamer.
Sogesehen it is not wrong but the recording technique s.der largest herausfordrung to measure precisely, or close to ma beamer HDTV display.
The news for synonymous or allerwelts the TV from the normal living room) and because it has so often more than 3 meters, it is clear enough.
Antwort von DocSommer:
Basically, I find it not bad, the general hype anything under control. But there are certainly situations in which FullHD makes sense (home theater projectors).
Antwort von Ben2:
Just FYI, quote:
"For Comparison: The human eye has a Resolutionvon about 60" and can thus theoretically two vertical angular objects that are 1 meter apart, yet in 3-4 n.Entfernung apart. De facto, reduces the form of objects or faint contrast this value . The closest double star (µ in the constellation Lyra), the very sharp eyes separately perceive, has 208 "angular distance.
Other hand, our eyes have the ability to synonymous much finer details yet to see if they are linear and more vision cells stimulate. How can such a mast s.Horizont even mind if it is covered by 20-30 "appears."
(Source: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogensekunde)
You can figure out at what distance the pixels can be distinguished:
http://www.elmar-baumann.de/fotografie/schaerfentiefe/node7.html
Antwort von der bär:
ben2, good contribution!
one can argue about much, or discuss ...
Ultimately it is for the individual, coupled with a little scientific, technical execution and imagination.
I've already seen fullHD-apparat, the duly a picture of blue ray eingflößt was and looked like the gekotzt out. I was happy at home again before the old tube to sit.
much is synonymous with the manufacturer, s.der quality of LCD panels, etc.
and by s.gerät preferences in terms of sharpness, contrast and color changes so much synonymous, at least in perception, arguably the greatest human error in harbors. yes it will give people synonymous with the train until the second note in which he caught it.
s.schnittplatz is fullHD meaningful if the appropriate material, but synonymous only if it remains in this format. still useful in case of later closing date in 2 or 4k if you like color makes. because it will be bad so quickly, the image.
for a normal living room would HDready rich, but it will in a few years of his market.
fullHD equipment should, however, 1080p and 720p support because of HDTV in Europe and the movie enjoyment of blueray ....
Antwort von der bär:
oh and:
KINO gibts eh ONLY IN CINEMA and NEVER in the living room!
Antwort von buffalo:
if the author expects it next, he eventually concluded that the man did not see - we can finally expect everything small. The best example http://www.harrywood.de/arbeit.html
or?
I believe with my full-HD projector with HD broadcasts or Bluerays indeed a beautiful picture to have, as in "normal" resolutory contributions ... Maybe I should time my eyes examined, gradually, I will myself immensely ...
;-)
Antwort von PowerMac:
(...) Or? (...) No!
Antwort von WoWu:
Each, no matter how high-resolution picture is always sharp someday ... it's just a matter of viewing distance.
At 720p and a 42 "TV (106 cm diagonal) is the resolution limit of 2.40 m.
In 1080 and 42 "are still just 1.68 m
Who, therefore, not necessarily with the nose s.seinem TV stick and still would like the advantage of resolution 1080 will enjoy, it is necessary to create a larger television purchase.
Will his usual 2.40 m from the TV retained, it will be for 1080 already has a roughly 75 "(!) Need large device.
(Or just a pair of spectacles, which he somewhat "Overview" presents.)
Antwort von DWUA:
Back to
Slashcam ask.
W ho needs
w as
w hen?
H ow,
w hy,
w o?
Depending on the desired switch.
The trend is increasingly evident on the question omit
W? Unfortunately!
;))
Antwort von Pianist:
The trend is increasingly evident on the question omit W? Then I found 1.5 years ago a very good answer. There are now quite a number of my films at trade fairs and other events in full HD quality and I have gone really say that this investment is very worthwhile. The people are of the impression Picture totally excited. Even if you are very close in front of a huge television stands, we see a perfect picture. And exactly that was me, yes.
Matthias
Antwort von Axel:
We speak here not of years but of at least a decade, but until normal SD considered unacceptable for most, synonymous only minimal quality-conscious consumers applies. Meanwhile, it is clear that my prediction is wrong. Even a year ago None wanted a trade fair in HD video. Suddenly, says: We have a large canvas that we want to see HD. Almost all of my friends have their tubes and hulls already scrapped the nose on HDready. Goes pretty fast ...
Antwort von DWUA:
@ Pianist
True, we like to remind us s.die "Ikegami" discussions.
@ Axel
W e are not synonymous
w eltfremd.
But a few
w s may have already come to a standstill.
;)
Antwort von WoWu:
@ Pianist
Even if you are very close in front of a huge television stands, we see a perfect picture. Actually, it should not: "even if .." hot, but "just because" .. because s.einem certain distance (see calculation of Ben2) we see no difference ...
Antwort von wolfgang:
We speak here not of years but of at least a decade, but until normal SD considered unacceptable for most, synonymous only minimal quality-conscious consumers applies.
Meanwhile, it is clear that my prediction is wrong. Even a year ago None wanted a trade fair in HD video. Suddenly, says: We have a large canvas that we want to see HD. Almost all of my friends have their tubes and hulls already scrapped the nose on HDready. Goes pretty fast ... Sigmoide substitution curves in the central part have a higher rise, where they begin their older technology to substitute markedly. The only question is whether we really are already there - offer HDTV probably yes, for Blu Ray is certainly not yet.
Antwort von Axel:
Sigmoide substitution curves in the central part have a higher rise, where they begin their older technology to substitute markedly. Wow! Sounds like a casual dialogue from
Dr. House ...
Antwort von Pianist:
The only question is whether we really are already there - offer HDTV probably yes, for Blu Ray is certainly not yet. I see the same. Particularly, one for playing high definition movies on the blue disc depends. Especially when it comes to specific places goes.
There is just a monitor with an appropriate playback device made out, no preference whether Playstation, Calculator with Windows Media Player, Calculator with VLC Media Player and so next. And then get the people to monitor their matching Mpeg-2-File. From my perspective, MPEG-2 is still the best option for such purposes.
Matthias
Antwort von Martin Dienert:
Hello,
I have a TV in the living room with about 60 cm diagonal (4:3). The distance to my TV chair is by setting up in the living room and fixed for this TV perfectly. Let s.ich come up with the idea of me a FullHD TV to buy for HD-DVDs' to look. This new TV have to be bigger yes, perhaps 1.3 m, so that I ever did something like this. But the normal television broadcasts are SD and times are on the brave new TV extrapolated. In the store you can see the result.
1. Question: Would it not make sense, the SD picture on the middle 768x576 pixels of the TV display (or 1024x576 in 16:9)?
2. Question: StandardTV is still interlaced. Is the LCD on a TV show ever tidy? So in the odd field pixel "sign" and then the second field into the straight draw pixels and odd pixels while the delete (or dim).
Martin
Antwort von Pianist:
1. Question: Would it not make sense, the SD picture on the middle 768x576 pixels of the TV display (or 1024x576 in 16:9)? That is, I believe synonymous for an acceptable way to PAL material in an acceptable quality on a Full HD device to look, but that this function does not offer the devices at. Thus, the people so stupid that sounds synonymous, two devices side-by-side stand. The old tube TV for PAL broadcasts, and then the Full-HD to be the only things to watch.
Matthias
Antwort von TheBubble:
1. Question: Would it not make sense, the SD picture on the middle 768x576 pixels of the TV display (or 1024x576 in 16:9)?
The representation would then be small, as if you s.PC a DVD to view in window mode, in which only the width because of the aspect ratio erforferlichen was adapted, replacing the full mode.
2. Question: StandardTV is still interlaced. Is the LCD on a TV show ever tidy?
If necessary deinterlace the devices before the presentation.
Antwort von WoWu:
@ Martin
Your 4:3 TV today at 60 cm diagonal image height of 36 cm and thus at 540 rows a row height of rd.0, 66 mm.
The human vision solves approximately 1 mm at a distance of 3.5 m on.
Is your TV now optimized distance, you'll take an HD television, an identical "pixel level" has.
In your case this would be at around 720p. 98 cm (height 48cm) and in 1080 it would be a diagonal of 150 cm (height 73 cm)
2. Question: StandardTV is still interlaced. Is the LCD on a TV show ever tidy? So in the odd field pixel "sign" and then the second field into the straight draw pixels and odd pixels while the delete (or dim). Not really, because aside from the De-Interlasing is a dot-matrix display is the local picture of a picture line approximately rectangular, with a cathode ray tube, it is Gaussian.
Both Aperturfunktionen can vary in width, but it can only CRT at the local overlap of two lines come. Where there is overlap and thus contribute to the crosstalk between two lines, which manifests itself as a blur in the picture. (which is like a soft, analog picture is designated.)
A line structure is formed because of this crosstalk between the lines is not enough.
For an LCD, the sharp lines locally separated. The brightness curve between two adjacent lines is, however, due to the rectangular shape of an image line is not smooth but tiers.
Also can the pixels are not really "hide", similar to the slew rate of a cathode-ray, so the results are clearly different.
Antwort von Martin Dienert:
404ERR
Antwort von WoWu:
Hello Martin.
I am actually synonymous assumed.
Your approach is quite understandable, but can of course a few unanswered questions ... such as why something should be emulated, that only a mistake by an even more glaring errors and compromise in the face transmission ....
One might think about what the evil is small, the really poor performance of the tube or (actually even worse) performance of the matrix displays.
If the Interpolationsfrage the only problem, then yes it would be. Looking at once exactly what is happening in such a (modern) monitor with the signal is made, then one can only conclude that only very limited with little to do, which is actually with (often) much effort has been produced by the cameraman.
But you've been absolutely right to say that when TV and then only in native resolution. Any, but any truly synonymous interpolation is lossy, synonymous if it is "only" a couple of pixels is still not a "stone on the other" ... tragic only if the chain 3, 4 and more Interpolationsstufen aufweist.
But as long as the vast majority of consumers do not even perceive differences and Full HD delude themselves, of course, synonymous for the industry is not needed.
What remains is just the TV-monitor solution over a graphics card ... then works out the backs synonymous with the "welfare".
The tube, however, I find no real alternative and am really glad that the phosphorus glow "is over.
In addition, you get not nearly Resolutionhin, as on a matrix display and get a (analog) television picture actually only 3.5 MHz and to see so come on (3.5 MHz x 2 x 52 microseconds) = 364 points resolution.
Whereas you with a 7.3 MHz matrix display and so at least you like the full SD Resolutiondurchgereicht will.
So now watch the lesser of two evils to choose.
