Re: xkcd: CrowdStrike

On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 09:10:00 +1200, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:

On 2024-08-08 17:56:57 +0000, Paul S Person said:

<snippo mucho>

There are small companies still working on 3D devices, including the
Proto "holographic" box, but the big TV companies gave up on 3D a few
years ago. You might still get the occasional 3D DVD / Blu-ray being
released and many player boxes can play them on any regular high
resolution TV set or computer screen.

That's interesting.

It occurred to me eventually that, while doing that with a 1920x1080
signal would produce a vertical resolution of 540 [1], doing it with 4K
(3840 × 2160) would produce a vertical resolution of 1080, which might
be more acceptable.
 
4K appears to be the new fad

>
4K is ancient tech.

Oh, well.

8K is now the main fad for manufacturers with 16K TV sets now
appearing, and 32K ones are in the prototyping stage. But such super
high resolutions are mostly just another gimmick trying to con people
into buying yet another new TV set they do not need since few networks
broadcast / stream in even 4K and nobody does higher. Plus 4K
resolution is more than enough unless you've got a massive TV or
projector screen.

I'll tell you a secret ... I don't think it much matters when
streaming.

My primary streaming device, a Fire HD 6 (you say there aren't any?
there used to be), has an HD screen. I tested a movie by watching it
in each of HD and SD. This was done by capitalizing on the difference
between downloading it and streaming it on the internet/WiFi I had
then, which restricted me to SD. I didn't notice any difference.
Nothing looked any sharper. I saw no additional colors.

With Prime, I currently download/stream at the rate my former
connection worked with (0.98 GB/hr vs 2.35 GB/hr). But I did this
after using the higher rate for a while. The only difference is that
now the streaming is much smoother. The image is perfectly fine.

I am being forced by Netflix to move to a new plan that is HD. How
that works remains to be seen. I may be back to the "download every
film" stage.

Maybe it's my eyes, maybe its the size of the screen, maybe it's just
that HD isn't as much an improvement on SD as the streaming services
would like us to believe. I did find out one interesting factoid about
SD/HD trailers on Apple: while each dimension had 1.5 more pixels for
HD than SD, the overall file size was also only 1.5 times larger for
HD compared with SD. Perhaps HD was using a more efficient compression
standard, because the normal expectation would be that the file size
would be 2.25 (1.5 * 1.5) larger for HD.

OTOH, I can think of several films with scenes that might be clearer
in HD -- or rather, on a BD. These are mostly faces halfway in the
background that are close enough to be expected to be sharp but which
look fuzzy. It would not surprise me if that additional resolution
would help. It might even be possible to see the tears on Wormtongue's
face in PJ's /TT/. Or that might be an example of something that you
really /do/ need to be in a theater to see.

After all, moving to DVD and my current TV allowed me to see the
Wormsign in /Dune/ (the original) again.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"