1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Dolby buys BrightSide Technologies

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Tim S, 27 Feb 2007.

  1. JADS

    JADS Et arma et verba vulnerant

    Joined:
    27 Mar 2001
    Posts:
    2,918
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'm quite willing to pay for it :)

    This is a good thing.

    Interestingly enough for the XBox 360... You'd go for component, I'd plump for VGA or ideally HDMI if they only offered a damn HDMI cable ;) Twin HDMI and no VGA if you can get the XBox 360 with HDMI.

    WQUXGA should scale most widescreen resolutions using integer scaling, which means you should be able to run a game at 1280x800 and it'd be sharp. I'm more interested in the desktop space offered by a 9MP display tbh rather than gaming on it. The old IBM T221 used four DVI connectors to generate it's WQUXGA image, but that really was designed for editing still images.

    I see no reason why a graphics card with gen-lock on its Displayports should not be able to drive a WQUXGA screen at a reasonable refresh rate and colour depth :)
     
  2. Aankhen

    Aankhen New Member

    Joined:
    15 Oct 2005
    Posts:
    406
    Likes Received:
    0
    Solved. ;) Are you sure your calculations are accurate, BTW? I'd done some approximations a while back, and I worked out that DisplayPort could handle 3,840×2,400 at 24bpp and 70 FPS. Of course, I'm not quite sure I did it correctly. :worried:
     
  3. JADS

    JADS Et arma et verba vulnerant

    Joined:
    27 Mar 2001
    Posts:
    2,918
    Likes Received:
    1
    Unfortunately UDI is not widely supported, but DisplayPort is. I think DisplayPort is obsolete before it ever hits the market, but it does look like we will all have DisplayPorts on our gfx cards rather than UDI ports.

    Hmm...

    3840 (H) x 2400 (V) x 60 (R) x 24 (C) = 13,694,720,000 (13 GBit/s)

    This is beyond the max specification of DisplayPort of 10.8GBit/s, but within the UDI specification of 16GBit/s.

    Ideally you'd want

    3840 (H) x 2400 (V) x 120 (R) x 36 (C) = 39,813,120,000 (39 GBit/s)

    Yet there is nothing remotely capable of supporting that much bandwidth!
     
  4. Da_Rude_Baboon

    Da_Rude_Baboon What the?

    Joined:
    28 Mar 2002
    Posts:
    4,082
    Likes Received:
    135
    :duh: I wish people would get over this 1080p marketing BS band wagon. Unless you are using a display 50 inches or above then 1080p is pretty much useless as you can not tell the difference.
     
  5. DougEdey

    DougEdey I pwn all your storage

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2005
    Posts:
    13,933
    Likes Received:
    33
    I would like to know if someone running a 2407FPW notices the difference between 1080p and 768p
     
  6. mclean007

    mclean007 Officious Bystander

    Joined:
    22 May 2003
    Posts:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    15
    Depends how close you sit mate. From a comfortable viewing distance you should easily be able to discern the additional resolution of 1080 lines over 720. To say it is useless for anything less than 50 inches is daft - otherwise, why do people spend a fortune on 1920x1200 and even 2560x1600 res monitors with diagonals of 'only' 24" or 30"?

    A 40" screen viewed from 6ft has exactly the same perceived aspect as a 50" screen viewed from 7.5ft, so why do you say the latter benefit from 1080p while the former would not?

    Also, a 1080p screen can play 720p content with nice 1.5x scaling, rather than crazy number scaling as required on a 1366x768 screen, and can play 1080i and 1080p content at its native res.
     
  7. Da_Rude_Baboon

    Da_Rude_Baboon What the?

    Joined:
    28 Mar 2002
    Posts:
    4,082
    Likes Received:
    135
    Monitor usage for computer applications is different to television viewing so monitor comaprisons are a moot point tbh.

    Who watches a 42" display at 6ft? By most standards the recommended viewing distance of a 42" screen would be 10 feet so anyone who would purchase a 50" screen to watch from 7.5 feet is an idiot imo.
     
  8. mclean007

    mclean007 Officious Bystander

    Joined:
    22 May 2003
    Posts:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    15
    Actually, The Society of Motion Pictures and Television Engineers (SMPTE) recommends that your TV screen should subtend an angle of 30 degrees in the horizontal plane, which translates to a viewing distance of 1.87xscreen width. The width of a 40" diagonal 16:9 screen is, by my calculations, a little under 34.9", so this gives an ideal viewing distance of 65.2", or 5'5". For a 50" screen, the figure is 81.5", or 6'9.5". Of course, it is a matter of personal preference. I like to sit reasonably close (in the 6ft range), so the screen fills more of my field of view, and from that sort of distance I can definitely distinguish 1080 lines of resolution from 720 - I guess if you are the kind of person to watch your TV from a very great distance, you won't be able to resolve the difference between 1080p and 720p, but then taken to its logical conclusion, you may as well watch SD rather than HD of any variety, because from a great enough distance it looks the same.

    (Link - http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/Tv-viewing-distance.html)

    In any event, it was just a comparison. Substitute 8ft and 10ft, or 10 and 12.5, it doesn't really matter. Point is, with 1080p content, a 1080p 40" screen will look superior to a 720p, a 1080i or a 1366x768 so-called 720p screen of the same size. If you disagree, that is your prerogative, and you are welcome to the savings you will make by buying a cheaper, lower spec screen. Personally, I have seen 1080p footage on a 1080p screen side by side with a 720p screen of similar size, and I know which I prefer. For me, the small extra outlay will be worthwhile.

    EDIT: Your figures may be based on the guidelines for old-school analogue TVs, which (because of their lower resolution) would appear pixellated when viewed from closer than 3x the screen width. The article linked states that the human eye can resolve detail down to 1 minute of arc, so within your 30 degree viewing field from 1.87x screen width, you can resolve 1800 subdivisions. This correllates closely with the 1920 columns of a 1080p display (of course, the pixels closer to the view axis subtend a slightly smaller arc, while those on the screen edges subtend a slightly larger arc, but this effect is relatively small). As such, I would suggest that 1080p is the IDEAL resolution for viewing a screen of any size from the viewing distance of 1.87x width.
     
    Last edited: 1 Mar 2007
  9. Vash-HT

    Vash-HT New Member

    Joined:
    7 Jun 2006
    Posts:
    197
    Likes Received:
    1
    I have a 37" 1080p LCD display, but I havent tried doing anything in 720 vs 1080p on it. My 360 is hooked up to it with a VGA cable at 1920x1080, and so is my PC. I don't watch any TV on it, it's purely a gaming screen right now. I may try hooking up the component cables on my 360 and see if theres really much difference, but for me I wanted 1080p for the 1920x1080 res vs. the lower res of 720p TVs.
     
  10. Da_Rude_Baboon

    Da_Rude_Baboon What the?

    Joined:
    28 Mar 2002
    Posts:
    4,082
    Likes Received:
    135
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page