But both are still within the confines of CD audio. You would have to hear above 22KHz to be affected by the quantization from the original analog signal.
Except babies can't be vaccinated safely until a certain age. And unless they breastfeed (that's a declining number), they're not even going to get antibodies in the meantime.
Because we can't ethically ask people not to get vaccinated for a study, and basing it on people's personal decisions to not vaccinate is not scientific enough.
Right - there just wasn't a big enough, public enough backlash to anti-vaxxers. We could easily keep herd immunity if the easily swayed were being informed from *both* sides rather than just anti.
I think the big mistake is that nobody put down the money to get that number back down to 5% who don't vaccinate. It's not hard to do. 95% of people either believe in the vaccine or are easily swayed.
Windows 7 introduced "Zoom" under the advanced display settings. It works well enough. Essentially scales everything (except improperly designed programs) perfectly. And a lot of the Windows UI elements scale well - most of Windows 8's new UI is vector-based anyway (or it appears to be). Similar to how Mac OS X handles "Retina" displays but with more fine-grained controls.
For example, does your system allow fractional-pixel cursor movements?
Do any? That would be very nice. I'm just glad that it gets updated at 60Hz. For that matter, if you get your monitor to hit 120Hz, you'll see smoother movement just for the higher temporal resolution.
So what genius decided to switch us over to the horizontal resolution?
Digital theater projection has used the 2K and 4K terms for a very long time. Nevermind that going to a 2K digital theater is little better than watching a 1080p TV, 4K is the gold standard for theater because it approaches/surpasses the projection quality limit for 35mm (by the time you account for grain, film copying, and sharpness). I'm not saying 35mm can't hold more detail, but the signal to noise ratio is low beyond that.
4K is a big deal because it matches the best visual experience you can get in the theater. You may say that you don't even need higher than 1080p, but Apple started it with their "retina" display. We've hit and surpassed the Nyquist limit in digital sound a long time ago. Apple's phone display reminded people that this is now getting very possible with video.
There was no consumer media for HDTV for a long time before Blu-Ray. A long time after a lot of people already had HDTV's.
The London 2012 Olympics was shot in 8K. There were only a few public screens in Great Britain where you could actually watch it, but the cameras are there. Japan and Korea are leading the way with cameras and content broadcast tests.
Digital sound has been above the Nyquist limit for some time now. The resolution war won't end until we surpass that limit. Sort of. We'll have wall-sized 20K TV's in 10 years, but computer monitors will still only be 1080p...because stupid.
4K is UHD and 8K UHD is called Super-Hi Vision in Japan. And the 2012 Summer Olympics were shot in that 8K format and displayed at that size at a few places around Great Britain.
Not throwing them away. Last I knew, if a panel has a defective quadrant, you get 3 quarter-size panels out of it after it's cut. It doesn't get put into a TV until after QA. And this means that the 8K display is just a perfectly defect-free panel that was probably intended to be 3 or 4 4K panels. Large 4K TV's is part of the natural progression of ramping up production of smaller 1080p TV's. And 8K is coming from smaller 4K production ramping up.
Some people don't put their TV in the living room. I have my TV mounted relatively low and I do sit only a few feet away from my TV. I only have 42" but I can definitely see individual pixels on non-antialiased text or other sharp graphics. It's a dedicated home theater area, not a general purpose room. I'm not the only one. I would still like larger for immersion, but I will unfortunately be able to see more pixels edges at that point.
And if you do an A/B test, most "people" can't tell the difference between Coke or Pepsi. These are not smart people.
Automatic gain adjustment will only make the peaks of the song hit the same level. They're all mastered to somewhere between -0dB and -3dB. If that source song is Mozart, there will be high peaks, but very low valleys. Dynamic Range Compression, on the other hand, is what makes songs sound the same volume throughout. And applied algorithmically, this can sound terrible.
However, FM radio stations already do this, due to the inherent transmission problems you'd have otherwise. Compare the same song between FM radio and MP3/CD and there's a world of difference in range.
Slashdot Mirror
And posting fraudulent forms of movies may not be illegal pirated material, it would sort of be illegal as fraud.
The point is, if you play the CD today you get that extra bandwidth faithfully reproduced. Your argument is moot unless you're in the 80's today.
But both are still within the confines of CD audio. You would have to hear above 22KHz to be affected by the quantization from the original analog signal.
You're equating users being able to really *use* their own machine as bad, and that locking down the machine is similar to what a mechanic does.
But the auto mechanic lets you drive your own car.
Except babies can't be vaccinated safely until a certain age. And unless they breastfeed (that's a declining number), they're not even going to get antibodies in the meantime.
Because we can't ethically ask people not to get vaccinated for a study, and basing it on people's personal decisions to not vaccinate is not scientific enough.
Right - there just wasn't a big enough, public enough backlash to anti-vaxxers. We could easily keep herd immunity if the easily swayed were being informed from *both* sides rather than just anti.
My post was a response to megapixels being somehow "broken." I don't know what they meant, but thought it worth defining MP for them.
there isn't a huge market for 25" 4k displays at the moment either
6" phones and tablets
there isn't much of a market for 13.5" 1080P displays.
That's becoming a fairly standard laptop screen size.
I think the big mistake is that nobody put down the money to get that number back down to 5% who don't vaccinate. It's not hard to do. 95% of people either believe in the vaccine or are easily swayed.
It's NHK who named it. And it beats the FUHD that others are using. Just not a great acronym that time.
Windows 7 introduced "Zoom" under the advanced display settings. It works well enough. Essentially scales everything (except improperly designed programs) perfectly. And a lot of the Windows UI elements scale well - most of Windows 8's new UI is vector-based anyway (or it appears to be). Similar to how Mac OS X handles "Retina" displays but with more fine-grained controls.
For example, does your system allow fractional-pixel cursor movements?
Do any? That would be very nice. I'm just glad that it gets updated at 60Hz. For that matter, if you get your monitor to hit 120Hz, you'll see smoother movement just for the higher temporal resolution.
So what genius decided to switch us over to the horizontal resolution?
Digital theater projection has used the 2K and 4K terms for a very long time. Nevermind that going to a 2K digital theater is little better than watching a 1080p TV, 4K is the gold standard for theater because it approaches/surpasses the projection quality limit for 35mm (by the time you account for grain, film copying, and sharpness). I'm not saying 35mm can't hold more detail, but the signal to noise ratio is low beyond that.
4K is a big deal because it matches the best visual experience you can get in the theater. You may say that you don't even need higher than 1080p, but Apple started it with their "retina" display. We've hit and surpassed the Nyquist limit in digital sound a long time ago. Apple's phone display reminded people that this is now getting very possible with video.
Depends on what's attractive to you, but ~$500 at 28" is it for a lot of people:
http://www.monoprice.com/Produ...
They have crossed below that line several times.
There was no consumer media for HDTV for a long time before Blu-Ray. A long time after a lot of people already had HDTV's.
The London 2012 Olympics was shot in 8K. There were only a few public screens in Great Britain where you could actually watch it, but the cameras are there. Japan and Korea are leading the way with cameras and content broadcast tests.
Digital sound has been above the Nyquist limit for some time now. The resolution war won't end until we surpass that limit. Sort of. We'll have wall-sized 20K TV's in 10 years, but computer monitors will still only be 1080p...because stupid.
4K is UHD and 8K UHD is called Super-Hi Vision in Japan. And the 2012 Summer Olympics were shot in that 8K format and displayed at that size at a few places around Great Britain.
You're way too late to the naming game. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
Not throwing them away. Last I knew, if a panel has a defective quadrant, you get 3 quarter-size panels out of it after it's cut. It doesn't get put into a TV until after QA. And this means that the 8K display is just a perfectly defect-free panel that was probably intended to be 3 or 4 4K panels. Large 4K TV's is part of the natural progression of ramping up production of smaller 1080p TV's. And 8K is coming from smaller 4K production ramping up.
Some people don't put their TV in the living room. I have my TV mounted relatively low and I do sit only a few feet away from my TV. I only have 42" but I can definitely see individual pixels on non-antialiased text or other sharp graphics. It's a dedicated home theater area, not a general purpose room. I'm not the only one. I would still like larger for immersion, but I will unfortunately be able to see more pixels edges at that point.
It's easier to understand in terms of total pixels. 2K is ~ 2MP, 4K is ~ 8MP. A 4x increase in resolution does correspond to a 4x increase in MP.
Flat.
If every song is a flay line, they are all the same perceived loudness too.
Obligatory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
people
And if you do an A/B test, most "people" can't tell the difference between Coke or Pepsi. These are not smart people.
Automatic gain adjustment will only make the peaks of the song hit the same level. They're all mastered to somewhere between -0dB and -3dB. If that source song is Mozart, there will be high peaks, but very low valleys. Dynamic Range Compression, on the other hand, is what makes songs sound the same volume throughout. And applied algorithmically, this can sound terrible.
However, FM radio stations already do this, due to the inherent transmission problems you'd have otherwise. Compare the same song between FM radio and MP3/CD and there's a world of difference in range.