dhi00@walt.testeng.amdahl.com (310 x8074) (03/17/90)
maybe i'm white trash, but i cant imagine paying anything extra just to see
Al Bundy insult Peg in high resolution. Am i the only one who feels this way?
My 1957 Admiral black and white tv does more than enough.
:\
--
Dario Impini
Amdahl Corporation, 1250 E. Arques Ave., M/S 140, Sunnyvale, CA 94088
+1 408 746-8074
Usenet : {sun,uunet,decwrl,attunix,hplabs}!amdahl!walt!dhi00
Internet: dhi00@walt.testeng.amdahl.comsorka@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Alan Waterman) (03/17/90)
In article <416@walt.testeng.amdahl.com> dhi00@walt.UUCP (Dario Impini O6-310 x8074) writes: >maybe i'm white trash, but i cant imagine paying anything extra just to see >Al Bundy insult Peg in high resolution. Am i the only one who feels this way? >My 1957 Admiral black and white tv does more than enough. Oh yea, well can you imagine not watching Star Trek, return of the Jedi, or any number of other high action films or shows that require high resolution? Just because Married with Children happends to be your favorite show does not mean we should not have a 2 mega pixal standard. The typical resolution of 35mm is about 10000X8000 with about 7 bits per primary. I can see the improvement that 70mm brings and I don't even have 20/20 vision. I would like to see the day where I can own a wall sized flat LCD television with 10000X10000 resolution. The Japanes already have picture frame LCD sets that have 1100 lines of horizontal resolution. Its a damn shame we have to live with such an old outdated standard.
phil@pepsi.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/20/90)
In article <7067@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> sorka@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Alan Waterman) writes: |The typical resolution |of 35mm is about 10000X8000 with about 7 bits per primary. I can see the |improvement that 70mm brings and I don't even have 20/20 vision. As I understand it, the resolution delivered by 35mm motion pictures is nowhere near that of a still image. The registration of the projector limits the quality. If the projector jitters the same amount for 35 and 70, then 70 will look sharper because the relative amount of jitter will be less. HDTV was supposed to be close to the delivered resolution of 35mm motion pictures, I believe. Perhaps dave@imax or poynton@sun would like to comment. -- Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil Boycott the census! With the history of abuse census data has, can you afford to trust the government?
sorgatz@ttidca.TTI.COM ( Avatar) (03/21/90)
In article <416@walt.testeng.amdahl.com> dhi00@walt.UUCP (Dario Impini O6-310 x8074) writes:
+maybe i'm white trash, but i cant imagine paying anything extra just to see
+Al Bundy insult Peg in high resolution. Am i the only one who feels this way?
+My 1957 Admiral black and white tv does more than enough.
+:\
+--
Dario is right! Why is our government/industry/fellows spending these
valuable resources of time & talent on such foolishness? Besides, even given
a really hi-res format standard; WHAT WOULD YOU WATCH? What would the source
be? Most of the "video-taped-for-Television" CRAP-Sitcoms are done on
lo-res gear! Movies, you say? At some point, even 105mm Panavision
formats would be of lower-res than the HDTV screen, so who cares?!
--
-Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY +-------------------------+
Citicorp(+)TTI *----------> panic trap; type = N+1 *
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 +-------------------------+
{csun,philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix}!ttidca!sorgatz **