Okay Mark,
Then I will repeat my major question which no one has answered to date. What is the maximum resolution we want to send to the home? I just want a real target.
Is it the maximum the human eye can resolve?
Is it the maximum we can ever record from a camera?
Is it the maximum resolution of the entire universe?
Just give a me a number. I for one believe we are there already for the typical home viewer, but I reserve the right to be wrong. But without a target, we are just feeding into the manufacturers equipment cycle model.
---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <cutandcover@...> wrote:
In any of my arguments, did I ever say I wasn't wishing for better dynamic range, color gamut, bit depth, or compression technology? No, I did not. It is definitely not "all about resolution", another thing which I never said. I don't think anyone in this (or any of the other innumerable) threads has ever said that.
I want better quality, and it means all of those things. To eliminate one of those improvements out of hand simply because the consumer (in a home, on a TV) might not benefit is, in my view, absurd.On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:27 PM, David Ross <speckydave@...> wrote:There are quite a few people on this list (myself included) who would like to see quality improvements in every aspect of their post workflow. Speaking for myself, (and I suspect I'm not alone) resolution is not at the top of the priority list.If you want better quality, then shouldn't you be wishing for things like better dynamic range, colour gamut, bit depth and compression technology?If it's all about resolution, then a cheap 18 megapixel camera would give you better picture quality than an old 10 megapixel SLR with Nikon glass, right?
D.On 6 November 2013 17:56, Mark Spano <cutandcover@...> wrote:
Arguing against that, to me, is arguing against quality, and I prefer quality.
__._,_.___
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (19) |
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment