"Keith G" wrote in message
...


Watched the 'Burn-E' short for a 1080 comparison and wuz *blown away* -
vast improvement on the 720 PJ (no downscaling)* but not possible to
photograph the screen and get a decent picture yet as stills don't freeze
razor sharp on the Samsing player we're using

Stills aren't "razor sharp" regardless of which player you are using. Don't
forget that even "full" 1080p HD is only equivalent to a 2megapixel still
image (and would you blow one of them up to 6' wide?)



* These digiclowns that think signals aren't bashed about by processing
should have a look at the damage that can be done by upscaling and
downscaling *video*....

Depends what you mean by "processing", there are processes and processes.
It's not that many years ago the TV standards conversion (which is what up
and downscaling is) could only be done by bits of pro-video kit that cost
megabucks, it still amazes me that you can get a standards converter for
"free" inside a cheap domestic BD player at all, you can't expect it to be
done well at the price. Audio sample rate conversion is a doddle by
comparison.

But if you are basing your comments by comparing one projector with another
may I suggest that that might have just a little to do with the difference?

David.

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...


Watched the 'Burn-E' short for a 1080 comparison and wuz *blown away* -
vast improvement on the 720 PJ (no downscaling)* but not possible to
photograph the screen and get a decent picture yet as stills don't freeze
razor sharp on the Samsing player we're using

Stills aren't "razor sharp" regardless of which player you are using.
Don't forget that even "full" 1080p HD is only equivalent to a 2megapixel
still image (and would you blow one of them up to 6' wide?)


What are your terms of reference - a 'perfect' 120 neg from a
Zeiss/Hasselblad rig? Of course the phrase 'razor sharp' on a 6' wide screen
from a projected digital source is *relative* but your comparison is to a 2
Megapixel what?...





* These digiclowns that think signals aren't bashed about by processing
should have a look at the damage that can be done by upscaling and
downscaling *video*....

Depends what you mean by "processing", there are processes and processes.
It's not that many years ago the TV standards conversion (which is what up
and downscaling is) could only be done by bits of pro-video kit that cost
megabucks, it still amazes me that you can get a standards converter for
"free" inside a cheap domestic BD player at all, you can't expect it to be
done well at the price. Audio sample rate conversion is a doddle by
comparison.

But if you are basing your comments by comparing one projector with
another may I suggest that that might have just a little to do with the
difference?


Huh ???

Of course it bloody does - this guy puts it a little better than I ever
could:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p

;-)

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...

Stills aren't "razor sharp" regardless of which player you are using.
Don't forget that even "full" 1080p HD is only equivalent to a 2megapixel
still image (and would you blow one of them up to 6' wide?)


What are your terms of reference - a 'perfect' 120 neg from a
Zeiss/Hasselblad rig? Of course the phrase 'razor sharp' on a 6' wide
screen from a projected digital source is *relative* but your comparison
is to a 2 Megapixel what?...

An image, any image, composed of 2 million pixels.

My point (which you seem to have missed) is that moving images can get away
with far less sharpness than static ones. The 35mm film frame is less than
half the size of a 35mm negative or slide, yet is commonly projected onto
huge screens. Blow up a 35mm slide to the same size and it looks fuzzy.


But if you are basing your comments by comparing one projector with
another may I suggest that that might have just a little to do with the
difference?


Huh ???

Of course it bloody does - this guy puts it a little better than I ever
could:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p

That "guy" is just repeating the very-well known. My point (which again
seems to have gone over your head) is that you can't make judgements about
signal processing, if you are using different projectors.

David.

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...

Stills aren't "razor sharp" regardless of which player you are using.
Don't forget that even "full" 1080p HD is only equivalent to a
2megapixel still image (and would you blow one of them up to 6' wide?)


What are your terms of reference - a 'perfect' 120 neg from a
Zeiss/Hasselblad rig? Of course the phrase 'razor sharp' on a 6' wide
screen from a projected digital source is *relative* but your comparison
is to a 2 Megapixel what?...

An image, any image, composed of 2 million pixels.


Er, OK then....

??

My point (which you seem to have missed) is that moving images can get
away with far less sharpness than static ones.


Geddaway (1)....


The 35mm film frame is less than
half the size of a 35mm negative or slide, yet is commonly projected onto
huge screens. Blow up a 35mm slide to the same size and it looks fuzzy.


Geddaway (2)....




But if you are basing your comments by comparing one projector with
another may I suggest that that might have just a little to do with the
difference?


Huh ???

Of course it bloody does - this guy puts it a little better than I ever
could:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p

That "guy" is just repeating the very-well known. My point (which again
seems to have gone over your head) is that you can't make judgements about
signal processing, if you are using different projectors.



No, lost on me I'm afraid....

You're right, your points are going straight over my head - they seem to be
no more than statements of the obvious. (?) Perhaps if you tried a kittle
less hard to be a clever ****, you would have more success?

Actually, don't bother.....

"Keith G" wrote in message
...


You're right, your points are going straight over my head - they seem to
be no more than statements of the obvious.

If they were that "obvious" why did you write a post that indicated that you
didn't understand them?


Just to reiterate:

You cannot get "razor-sharp" stills on a 6' screen from Blueray, Blueray
ain't that good.

and

You cannot possibly make any judgements about signal processing by comparing
one projector with another.

David.

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...


You're right, your points are going straight over my head - they seem to
be no more than statements of the obvious.

If they were that "obvious" why did you write a post that indicated that
you didn't understand them?


Feck! Posting here on a Saturday night? How you be such a 'looser' that
you've got nothing better to do on a Saturday night than hang around your
computer? No friends round? Not gone out anywhere nice? Oh, that is *so*
sad!

Er, OK, hang on a minute....

(Good job there's no-one else here to see these posts! :-)

Anyway, I didn't write to say didn't understand them, I simply expressed an
incredulity as I couldn't see what your points were other than the obvious.




Just to reiterate:

You cannot get "razor-sharp" stills on a 6' screen from Blueray, Blueray
ain't that good.


It's Bluray and I fekkin' *know* that, I have taken dozens of 'screenshots'
at different times - this image is not a 'freeze frame', it's footage of a
*still* that I photographed with a DSLR:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/Piracy.JPG

It's about as good as it gets for a digital photo (APS-C format) of a
'projected digital image' (full 1080p); Bluray is as good as it gets for
digital TV/movies atm - it'll will be a long time before the standards are
advanced, if in fact ever they are for use in a domestic environment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UHDV.svg


OK? Or do you have any further obvious remarks to cover?



and

You cannot possibly make any judgements about signal processing by
comparing one projector with another.


Not directly as there may be significant differences in stuff like the lens
performance (unlikely these days), but an image that is perceptably better
than another is an indication. One point you have not covered is that image
size and viewing distance bears on perceived sharpness as much as resolution
does - as it's just you on yer own, have a look in our living room:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/Room1.jpg

The new 1080 PJ (pictured) throws a larger and sharper image from where you
see it to the same spot as the 720 PJ (not pictured) did from the trolley
where it is positioned in the pic. Given the identical maker, I would guess
lens performance to be very similar (hard to make a **** lens these days and
who is going to risk his reputation on dodgy optics anyway?) and I am
therefore quite prepared to say that with the player and software being the
same in both cases, the lack of a need to *digitally downscale* the image
results in a far superior image quality. Audio, as you may expect, seems
largely unaffected or, if it is, it is beyond the scope of the Soney amp,
Ruark and Tannoy speakers.

Here, have a good nose-round whydon'tcha?:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/Room2.jpg

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/Room3.jpg


The astute here will spot my 'music' setup in the distance (behind the loft
ladder) and how that relates to my computer position where I do a lot of my
listening and Tony can see the Tannoys (one of them is under the globe) and
Poochie can see my Ruarks behind the *temporary* screen to shut his silly
racket up about 'horns' - like they're all I got!

OK then? :-)

Now **** off - I've got to measure my *beams* for an imminent
screen-building project and then it'll be a movie! (What else?)

Actually, you can ponder why the pix are so 'soft' if you want summat to
occupy your mind! (I know, I wonder if you do?)