logo Sign In

_Shorty

User Group
Members
Join date
19-Dec-2015
Last activity
12-Dec-2021
Posts
54

Post History

Post
#1039207
Topic
Harmy's STAR WARS Despecialized Edition HD - V2.7 - MKV (Released)
Time

slumberdore said:
I’m not saying computer units should not use base 2 multiples. I’m saying they should never have used SI prefixes to describe them since to just about anyone, not just marketing people, a “kilo” anything is 1000 not 1024.

But it always meant 1024 to us computer people when talking about computers. That’s the most important part. We’re talking about computers. Not negotiating a coke deal with Scarface.

Post
#1038993
Topic
Harmy's STAR WARS Despecialized Edition HD - V2.7 - MKV (Released)
Time

It’s a computer. It should always involve base 2 multiples. That’s how computers work. And that’s why until a certain point in time when marketing guys stuck their noses where they didn’t belong, all we had were base 2 multiples. All storage devices were specified in base 2. Why don’t you see anyone trying to say a byte should be 10 bits instead of 8? Who the hell wants to count in eights? The fact remains that people in the computer world, you know, the ones who designed/built/programmed them, all used the prefixes with base 2 multiples until non-computer people decided sometime in the last 1990s that they wanted to use base 10 instead, for no other reason than the make their storage devices seem bigger than they were. If you buy 16 GB of memory today it is a base 2 multiple, not base 10. Why is that? Oh, that’s right. Because it’s a freakin’ computer. 😄

Post
#1037802
Topic
Harmy's STAR WARS Despecialized Edition HD - V2.7 - MKV (Released)
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

Not a nice thing to say, and not very insightful either.

😦

Heh, it’s not an insult to anyone except the people that wrote that code in OSX. And they deserve to be insulted for it. AFAIK, every single OS before it on any platform used/uses power-of-2 for their memory and storage counts. Which makes perfect sense, because they are all digital machines, inherently using power-of-2 math for absolutely everything. Changing to power-of-10 for your storage counts “just to be different” is very dumb, and they should be chastised for it. Unless you’re responsible for writing that code the remark shouldn’t affect you at all. If you are responsible for writing that code, well, you deserve a slap.

Post
#997775
Topic
Harmy's RETURN OF THE JEDI - Grindhouse 35mm LPP (Released)
Time

Now that’s handy! Shows you where you begin to get some benefit and where you’d need to go to get 100% of your money’s worth. When I say 4K is next to useless I guess what I should be saying is you’ll have a very hard time getting 100% of your money’s worth. This appears to have been made with the same math I was referring to as well, with a 60" 1080p screen pretty much lining up with 8 feet.

Post
#997697
Topic
Harmy's RETURN OF THE JEDI - Grindhouse 35mm LPP (Released)
Time

The math for your 1080p projector setup doesn’t sound as bad as your guess for the 4K screen. A 135" (342.9 cm) 1080p screen has a pixel density of 16.32 PPI (6.425 PPcm). That gives a pixel threshold of 211" (535.94 cm), and going with your 10’ (304.8 cm) figure that would put you at about 57% of the average eye’s resolution. Though now I see you’re saying that it is only the distance at which it doesn’t bother you with a natural image, but subtitles or other things you can still make pixels out. So that may not be very accurate either. I was going to say that if that 10’ (304.8 cm) distance was the threshold for you then you wouldn’t even be bothered by 720p at that screen size, because ~57% of 16.32 PPI (6.425 PPcm) is around 9.28 PPI (3.654 PPcm) and that would work out to a threshold resolution for you of only 1092x614 for a 135" (342.9 cm) screen at 10’ (304.8 cm)! But since you clarified what you can see at 10’ (304.8 cm) we can ignore that now. 😉

Post
#997692
Topic
Harmy's RETURN OF THE JEDI - Grindhouse 35mm LPP (Released)
Time

From 12" (30.48 cm) away the average eye is supposed to be able to just barely see individual pixels on a ~300 pixels-per-inch display (118.1 pixels per cm). That should be the threshold around which they begin to disappear as individual pixels and begin blending together. Your 58" (147.33 cm) 4K (3840x2160) display has a pixel density of just 75.96 PPI (29.91 PPcm). If the pixels start blending together for you at around 12" (30.48 cm) then you are only seeing roughly 25% as well as the average eye. The 3’9" (114.3 cm) distance I mentioned earlier is indeed accurate pixel blending distance for someone with average vision for a set that size with that resolution.

Post
#997690
Topic
Harmy's RETURN OF THE JEDI - Grindhouse 35mm LPP (Released)
Time

There is a reason my 60" (152.4 cm) 1080p TV is 8’ (243.84 cm) away from my couch. That’s 96" (243.84 cm), and the pixel threshold for a 60" (152.4 cm) 1080p set is 94" (238.76 cm) for the average eye. I can indeed see individual pixels if I get much closer than that. Maybe you should go get your eyes checked if you are in disbelief. Maybe you do need glasses now. The reason that thought enters my mind is you say 10’ (304.8 cm) is enough to not see pixels from your projector, when 10’ (304.8 cm) should be well inside the threshold. Pixels should be very noticeable at that distance with a 1080p screen that size.

Post
#997667
Topic
Harmy's RETURN OF THE JEDI - Grindhouse 35mm LPP (Released)
Time

The average eye should be able to see pixels on a 135" (342.9 cm) screen up to around 17’7" (535.94 cm) away at 1080p. Moving to a 4K projector should allow you to move that pixel threshold distance to about 8’10" (269.24 cm) away instead. If you find that comfortable that would work for you, but I don’t like whipping my head around like I’m in the front row of a tennis match while I’m watching TV. Hehe 😉

In case you’re curious, 3’9" (114.3 cm) is the pixel threshold for the 58" (147.32 cm) 4K TV.

Post
#997615
Topic
Harmy's RETURN OF THE JEDI - Grindhouse 35mm LPP (Released)
Time

Monitors you’re sitting 2 feet (60.96 cm) from are about the only place 4k makes any sense. The fact that it barely makes any sense in a movie theatre is exactly why most theatres are still using 2k projectors. In the home it makes absolutely no sense. You can’t practically buy a TV big enough to make the resolution worthwhile. Take a 60" (152.4 cm) 1080p set and sit 8 feet (243.84 cm) from it. You’re at the resolution threshold for the average eye. In other words, a 60" (152.4 cm) 4k TV would look EXACTLY the same as the 1080p set at that distance. You’d need a 120" (304.8 cm) 4k TV at 8 feet (243.84 cm) to get the most from the extra resolution. But do you want to sit only 8 feet (243.84 cm) from a 120" (304.8 cm) TV? I wouldn’t want to, but that’s me. How much is a 120" (304.8 cm) 4k set? That’s right. heh. 😉