Editing 732: HDTV
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Explanation== | ==Explanation== | ||
− | This comic pokes fun at the differing standard between image quality for television sets and other electronic devices, even though both are based on essentially the same standards. When rating television sets, a {{w|1080p}} screen, that is, a screen 1,920 pixels wide and 1,080 pixels tall with progressive scan, is considered impressive. | + | This comic pokes fun at the differing standard between image quality for television sets and other electronic devices, even though both are based on essentially the same standards. When rating television sets, a {{w|1080p}} screen, that is, a screen 1,920 pixels wide and 1,080 pixels tall with progressive scan, is considered impressive. In contrast, the same resolution with a computer device is considered standard fare, given that, at the time of writing, a 4:3 ratio computer screen 1,024 pixels wide would have been expected. Widescreen monitors have already surpassed 1,920 pixels wide, and double widescreen monitors have become more common. As of the end of the 2010s, even most smartphones had a horizontal resolution nearing or at 1,080 pixels. |
− | In | ||
− | |||
− | + | The title texts explains another disagreement involving images and popular opinion. The feeling that a viewer gets from watching a film in a theatre is different from the feeling from a home film, or again, between a serialized programme from an international television channel and a locally-broadcast programme. The disparity is that the small-time productions actually implement better-quality equipment than the big-time productions, in terms of higher frame rate (although not in image fidelity or other respects). However the small productions really are cheaper in other respects, and this feeling is transferred to the look of high frame rates, thanks to videotapes often being used instead of film stock. Low frame rates on more big budget films (and all old, nostalgic productions before high frame rates were commercially possible) mean low frame rates are associated with quality, despite not being as able to capture as much motion as better-quality high frame rates. Blur, judder, and slow pans are mostly absent in high-frame rate productions. This is changing, however, since the major films {{w|The Hobbit}} and {{w|Avatar 2}} are/will be shot with better framerates. | |
− | |||
− | The title texts explains another disagreement | ||
==Transcript== | ==Transcript== | ||
Line 21: | Line 17: | ||
:Friend: Wow, that's over ''TWICE'' the horizontal resolution of my cell phone. | :Friend: Wow, that's over ''TWICE'' the horizontal resolution of my cell phone. | ||
:Friend: In fact, it almost beats the LCD monitor I got in 2004. | :Friend: In fact, it almost beats the LCD monitor I got in 2004. | ||
− | : | + | :It baffles me that people find HDTV impressive. |
{{comic discussion}} | {{comic discussion}} | ||
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]] | [[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]] | ||
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]] | [[Category:Multiple Cueballs]] |