2 ms·
Even 1080p isn't really working yet. All systems I've seen out of high-end post production gear (yes, that includes broadcasting gear) have visual timing proble
by wazoox 16y ago
Even 1080p isn't really working yet. All systems I've seen out of high-end post production gear (yes, that includes broadcasting gear) have visual timing problems. Maybe I'm biased because I've worked in professional video and TV for too long, but I'm tired of seeing gradually worse quality becoming the norm (compression artifacts, poor color, bad timing, poor sound sync are more and more common) because apparently quantity trumps quality.
So what's the last trend in "quantity trumps quality"? Adding a 3d dimension of course! I've looked at some 3D streams during the World Cup, just to check, on my 2D set. How does this work? Simple, halved horizontal resolution. Oh, BTW it's 720p, so that means actual resolution is 640x720. 5% more pixels than good ol' PAL, that's basically a step back to low def. Hu.
Did I mentioned that the first time the industry tried to impose 3D on an unwilling public was in 1958, with Hitchcock's "Dial M for Murder"? Wow, now that's a new technology!
- cma 16y ago640x720 PER EYE; you still get a 720p amount of pixels, your brain just has to combine them; which it does in spades.
- wazoox 16y agoWhen I look at 2D 720p, I see 1280x720 per eye too... When you encode a new information with the same bandwidth, there must be a trade-off.
- cma 16y agoTake a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_problem . The reduction in fidelity to provide depth perception isn't nearly 1/2 the pixels.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]