|
Best Porn Sites | Live Sex | Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar |
Celebrity, Film & Television Discussion For all of your chat, opinion and thoughts on mainstream celebrities, film and television programmes. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
November 18th, 2015, 12:25 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 102
Thanks: 27
Thanked 3,032 Times in 100 Posts
|
HD? I thought HD meant High Definition
|
|
November 18th, 2015, 05:17 PM | #2 | |
Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 23
Thanks: 7
Thanked 104 Times in 23 Posts
|
Quote:
Yours is a collage. The previous post is referring to the quality of the video [which I have not downloaded so can't comment on] not the caps collage. Because the caps are low res doesn't mean anything except whomever made them compressed the hell out of them. As to the difference in size between medium and high definition, I wish people would finally get it through their skulls that BIG has nothing to do with QUALITY. Definition is not a matter of size but of RESOLUTION of the ORIGINAL MATERIAL. I can take a low res image and blow it up so it's the size of my plasma and weighs in at 12mb. That doesn't make it "HD". It just makes it bloated and badly processed. |
|
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to black Wolfe For This Useful Post: |
November 18th, 2015, 09:37 PM | #3 | |
Vintage Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,658
Thanks: 80,521
Thanked 32,790 Times in 3,536 Posts
|
Quote:
__________________
<-- That's Emer Kenny and I want to be stuck in her front bottom. Quote from electrofreak : I'd rather have questions that can't be answered, than answers that can't be questioned. |
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to seany65 For This Useful Post: |
November 19th, 2015, 02:13 AM | #4 | |
Lean Mean Screencap Machine
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Better you don't know.
Posts: 23,886
Thanks: 10,484
Thanked 207,752 Times in 23,796 Posts
|
From the link in my sig:
Quote:
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I rage and weep for my country. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I can reup screencaps, other material might have been lost. |
|
November 19th, 2015, 06:40 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 489
Thanks: 22
Thanked 3,916 Times in 467 Posts
|
When first introduced, HD meant High Density, referring exclusively to the fact that the HD discs could hold approximately 40 times the information as the standard DVD discs. Once movies started getting released in the format, someone decided to adapt the HD reference to what they were advertising as the nature of the content of the disc, to wit; Higher resolution audio/video.
It actually hasn't been until recently that that's been true, though. File sizes on the DVDs and equivalent Blu-rays, for instance, have been identical for most of the last decade or so, and now that the file sizes are starting to reflect the promised higher resolution content, Blu-ray is going to start having the same problems DVD has as far as being able to put everything on one disc: if the files are too big, you can't. |
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Lurk_D For This Useful Post: |
November 21st, 2015, 04:46 AM | #6 |
Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 23
Thanks: 7
Thanked 104 Times in 23 Posts
|
The last two messages are largely right [though the dimensions given are a little missleading]. Standard DVD size in 16:9 is 720 x 480 pixels (NTSC) or 720 x 576 pixels (PAL) HD video has a dizzying array of dimensions but it always comes in at 16:9 aspect ratio whereas SD [standard] video comes in at either 16:9 OR 4:3. This has NOTHING to do with the number of pixels but refers to the SHAPE of the pixels, which is how DVD of older TV shows can be 720 x 576 and still 4:3 [old TVs were square not rectangular]
What we now call "Widescreen" in old cinema terms was called Cinemascope® and didn't come into use until 1953 when a man called Spyros P. Skouras, the president of 20th Century-Fox at the time, presided over the creation of the new lens system. This was later advanced by PanaVision® but this system changed everything in terms of how we make and process images and the term "Scope" is still used by film makers today. A surprising number of classic films were shot in 4:3. The Wizard of Oz is one such, and the first time you see it on the big screen and the curtains come in to frame a square projection is quite jarring. This fact was used in the making of the 2011 Oscar winner The Artist which was shot in 4:3. These old movies are put on DVD and Blu-Ray discs as HD because the original 35mm film is rescanned at massively improved resolutions then processsed to clean up and improve the quality of each frame image. Some films originally shown in 4:3 [because TVs were all 4:3 until recently] were actually shot in anamorphic aspect [16:9] so the remaster comes out in widescreen and the cropping reveals surprising directorial framing. People have written books on this subject and there are piles of info on aspect ratios and resolution on the web, especially on sites that tutor digital video editing, so rather than read some half digested info on this thread you'd be better served looking out some of these. Start with Wikipedia and use Google. One note on digital stills. Pixel count is bullshit. Pixel numbers are relatively easy and very cheap to bloat and many companies marketing consumer and prosumer cameras have concentrated on that. However this doesn't matter a toss if the lens is inferior and the sensor chips are undersized. Standard chips in consumer and prosumer cameras today are 1/6". This is very small so even though the pixel count is 15MP the image pales by comparison to older pro cameras which use the much larger 1/3" sensor chip. The bigger the surface of the light sensor, the more information is captured and the better the quality of the image. The best example of this is the Konica Minolta Dynax 7D, a 6MP camera that takes a full array of Alpha Mount lenses and is widely accepted by photographers to take superior images to many modern cameras. It's in huge demand and has held its price amazingly for old tech. This is beginning to change again as CCD is replaced by CMOS though [IMO] we're another year or two away from CMOS being truly superior to CCD/3CCD.However that supercession is inevitable as tech improves. The bottom line however, esp if you are shopping for a new camera, ignore the pixel count and find out EVERYTHING about the image sensor and the lens. You can have a 20MP camera but if the sensor is inferior and the lens poor then you may as well shoot on an iPhone. |
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to black Wolfe For This Useful Post: |
|
|