Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.strips,rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: xkcd: CrowdStrike
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2024 09:10:00 +1200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <v93c77$8hms$1@dont-email.me>
References: <rr4qajposobmsk6mhqmepl5i9rj3t8lov9@4ax.com> <2n1abj1p9v556ti78c3k2pam90eue1j0v8@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2024 23:10:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a666a4bc788e99c4eade94d90302804a";
	logging-data="280284"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+HBWh9DHkWChoE93Q4Yr5Il+5NMt8hIqY="
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:B3Lb8wdtLhgfsEuIxjCuKq9YbyI=
Bytes: 5902

On 2024-08-08 17:56:57 +0000, Paul S Person said:
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 11:44:43 +1200, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
> wrote:
>> On 2024-08-07 15:46:58 +0000, Paul S Person said:
>>> 
<snip>
>>> An early review in /Consumer Reports/ when "3D" TVs first came out
>>> talked about a system where the two images were interlaced on the same
>>> screen. Which, of course, halves the vertical resolution. I don't
>>> recall them mentioning glasses, and, since this reads a lot like
>>> interlacing, perhaps not.
>>> 
>>> The review had something to say about the glasses that came with most
>>> of those sets -- the ones costing $150 or so 24 years or so ago,
>>> exactly one of which came with each set. In addition to the cost and
>>> the need to buy more if you wanted to share the experience, they noted
>>> that the little flaps that moved up and down to control which eye
>>> could see the screen sometimes froze, producing imperfections.
>>> 
>>> This was /not/, apparently, what was used in theaters; there,
>>> polarized glasses were used. But those cost a lot less than the
>>> "flicker glasses" (my name, I don't recall what the official name was)
>>> and would work with any "3D" TV, not just the one it came with. So
>>> those were clearly out as far as home use was concerned.
>>> 
>>> Add to those the red/green glasses DVD version, and we have no less
>>> than /3/ ways to see "3D" movies -- and the only one that is the same
>>> in the home as it is in the theater is the red/green version from the
>>> 50s [2]. This is progress?
>>> 
>>> [1] Or not. My current TV (a digital Toshiba from 20+ years ago with
>>> one tube: the picture tube) has a "DTV" option and the manual defines
>>> it as "Digital TV" but says nothing else about it, so I have no idea
>>> at all what it is supposed to connect to despite reading the manual.
>>> 
>>> [2] Unless, of course, current "3D" TVs are using polarized glasses.
>>> Or other changes have occurred that I am happily ignorant of.
>> 
>> There were TVs that had a no-glasses 3D feature, but like all 3D, it's 
>> become a fad that has pretty much disappeared for watching and has now 
>> shifted to 3D audio instead.
> 
> Well, they tried anyway.

There are small companies still working on 3D devices, including the 
Proto "holographic" box, but the big TV companies gave up on 3D a few 
years ago. You might still get the occasional 3D DVD / Blu-ray being 
released and many player boxes can play them on any regular high 
resolution TV set or computer screen.



> It occurred to me eventually that, while doing that with a 1920x1080 
> signal would produce a vertical resolution of 540 [1], doing it with 4K 
> (3840 × 2160) would produce a vertical resolution of 1080, which might 
> be more acceptable.
> 
> 4K appears to be the new fad

4K is ancient tech.

8K is now the main fad for manufacturers with 16K TV sets now 
appearing, and 32K ones are in the prototyping stage. But such super 
high resolutions are mostly just another gimmick trying to con people 
into buying yet another new TV set they do not need since few networks 
broadcast / stream in even 4K and nobody does higher. Plus 4K 
resolution is more than enough unless you've got a massive TV or 
projector screen.



> -- historically speaking, of course. I couple of nights ago I watched a 
> "trailer" at the start of a DVD (probably a good 10 years old now) that 
> compared a normal BD image with a 4K image to show how much better (the 
> number of colors available was particularly stressed) the latter was. 
> Of course, since this was on a /DVD/ the alleged 4K image was, at best, 
> at maximal DVD
> resolution/number of colors, and the so-called "normal BD" image was
> simply the same image degraded. Why they would expect anyone to be
> impressed by this I have no idea.
> 
> Of course, when the the same thing was done to show the superiority of
> digital scanning, /that/ could well have been real (that is, had two
> different images, one scanned one way, one another) because the
> difference was in how the source was scanned, not what was displaying
> it. OTOH, the VHS trailers touting the superiority of DVD were just as
> unimpressive as the BD/4K one referred to above.
> 
> I do not see anything intrinsically wrong with a player being able to
> handle "3D" discs (either as "3D" or as flat or either at the user's
> option) or a TV being able to process "3D" input as a change in how
> things are made over time. Progress is one thing; nonsense is another.
> 
> [1] As usual, I can find info in the format desired by the author but
> not by me. I am taking it for granted that, since 16:9, like 4:3,
> specifies the width first and height second, that the smaller figure
> is vertical (so that 1920x1080 has 1080 vertical lines).