Blu ray resolution only 480i

Incomplete data/description-of-problem.

A BluRay disk from a 480i source is no better than a DVD from a 480i source.

I tend _not_ to buy BluRay if DVD is also available _unless_ some marvy extra features are on the BluRay. I have a 55" Philips set in the family room and I can't really tell enough difference between BluRay and DVD to make it worth the extra expense of BluRay. ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    | 
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142    Skype: skypeanalog |             | 
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  | 
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     | 

             I'm looking for work... see my website.

Blu-Ray is capable of much higher resolution than that, but it's up to the manufacturer of the disc to choose the encoding resolution.

In the case of the disc you have, they chose a DVD-compatible SD resolution. I suppose it's possible that the original source material was limited to this, and they didn't see any good reason to try to upsample it to create a "higher resolution" version (which wouldn't actually have any more resolution or information).

I think I posted this before, but this is a nicely done graph. His web site goes over the particulars of human vision and what you can perceive at a particular distance. Since most people sit 6ft from the screen, they won't benefit much.

I remember an older similar article (60's) but I cant find it.

Cheers

I sit about 11'8" from the set >:-} ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    | 
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142    Skype: skypeanalog |             | 
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  | 
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     | 

             I'm looking for work... see my website.

How did you check your unspecified Blu Ray disk in your unspecified Blue Ray player running on your unspecified operating system using your unspecified video card and driver? For example, if your video card is incapable of displaying anything better than 480i, that's what you'll get no matter how the Blue Ray disk is encoded. Oh wait, you also didn't bother to specify if you're using a stand along BD player or a computah. Do you have other Blu Ray disks that play normally at

720p or 1080p, or is this the first Blu Ray disk you've tried?

Perhaps you can check your unspecified system capabilities using some kind of diagnostic tool: There are probably others, but I'm not very familiar with these.

Yep. I feel ripped off because you posted in the wrong newsgroup, asked the wrong question, didn't supply any information useful for troubleshooting, and failed to supply me with my daily dose of entertainment value.

Here's a forum that covers DVD players that might produce a more useful answer (if you're willing to disclose the details of your system and problems):

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

Our basement playroom has about 13', we can benifit from a nice 60" 4k set. Actually I was at one time looking at Hi-res projectors, but other things distracted me from getting one. Plus I wasnt too impressed with them at the time. Now a 60" IPS screen would look better.

Cheers

6'?! Maybe in the '50s, rooms were that small.

OK, '60s maybe people sat 6' from the set but I don't remember anyone sitting that close, well, except for kiddies on Saturday morning.

We have a 65" Samsung Series-9 at about the same distance. Looks great, even on digital cable. Much nicer than the 42" Panasonic that it replaced.

Perhaps their intention was to cram many more hours of historic SD material onto the disk - or it is not the genuine article you bought.

Like all these things the media merely determines the physical capacity of the disk - the encoding can be anything the maker chooses - although some variants will not play on eg Panasonic BlureRay players which seem particularly tetchy. Some sets won't do ITV satellite HD either.

Upsampling is something of a con. You can do it but the true resolution is limited by the orginal source material. The only advantage is that an offline resampling can do a better job than some set based realtime ones. I have seen some HD sets where certain dynamic coefficients are applied with the wrong sign. It only affects gently sloping lines in slow pan shots where the moving line breaks up into a saw tooth.

Regards, Martin Brown

According to the chart that you linked to, to get the full benefit of a

60" 4k set, you would have to sit no more than 3ft away!!!

At 13', you would not get the benefit of anything more than 720p. And then not even the full benefit of 720p.

People sit way too far from their sets. Well, actually, it's the other way around: people buy way too much resolution for where they are sitting.

Me, I sit 2' from a 2k 24" monitor and stream everything. The benefit is limited by the source & is frequently exceptional.

Bob

That's good. Remember we were warned not to sit too close because of X-rays.

Something is wrong. A good heuristic is that your corrected vision should be good for about 3' arc or 0.001 radians there is a bit of leeway in that a handful of people can split e-Lyra with the naked eye (which is closer to 1' arc dark adapted which is really tough).

So to see every detail in a 4k display you need to be closer than 3m if your eyesight is exceptional and only 1m if it is rather poor.

That is pessimistic. I can tell the difference of 720p vs 1080p at around the 3m mark with relative ease. Made easier by the artefacts introduced by up/down sampling from HD or SD to 720p.

Blame the marketing men. Projection TV worked unexpectedly well at 1080p.

It all depends on how good your eyesight is.

Regards, Martin Brown

You need to be very careful what we are talking about.

A binary star should be separable at 1 arc minute (Airy disk) with good eye sight.

Due to sampling theory, there must be a black pixel between the two stars, thus the pixel size is 0.5 arc minutes. In a 4k system, that would translate to a 32 degree field of view.

Sort of tongue in cheek comment. But we would sit any where from 2' to

13' away from the set. So yes we could and no we wouldn't ;) But it would be 60" or larger.

Cheers

LCD? I think you're sitting too close to your monitor. ;-)

I hope you know I was kidding. I wonder when that was really a danger with CRT's. Maybe with those made before 1955 but people never stopped worrying about it?

Some of the early colour sets were quite good Xray sources with lead sheilding around the EHT rectifier and lead glass on the front screen.

Only really a problem for service engineers though.

Regards, Martin Brown

B&W CRTs operated usually at 18-20 kV and the electrons seldom hit anything metallic. Even if the electron hit something metallic, the produced X-ray spectrum was continuous and resembled the black body spectrum.

Above 25 kV, strong but narrow discrete spectral lines also appear in the spectrum.

For shadow mask color tubes, much of the electrons hit the metallic shadow mask, producing X-rays. For this reason, it was imperative to limit the EHT to 25 kV. At least in Europe power triodes such as the PD500 was used as a shunt regulator and hence electrons hitting the triode anode at 25 kV.

The service manuals advised against removing the lead shield from the PD500. However, if the cathode emission was reduced, the power triode and CRT X-ray radiation might become dangerous.

Yes. *YOU* do.

Rubbish. e Lyra which is 3' arc and relatively easy to find is a very difficult naked eye double (trivial in binoculars). Only a tiny fraction of the population can resolve it 1-2% and mostly in the age range of teenager to mid twenties. I could when I was younger on the very best nights around dusk but it is not at all easy to do.

It is incidentally very pretty in a small 2-3" telescope and a decent test of their optics as each component is itself double. ASCII art

.. :

The working eye resolution is generally much worse in the average population even with corrected vision. A worrying proportion of my audiences cannot see the much wider but unequal brightness double of Alcor and Mizar at 12' arc separation in Ursa Major (the plough).

A tiny proportion of mostly younger children with exceptional acuity can see the Galilean satellites of Jupiter when at greatest elongation (upto

10' arc). Limited by the glare of the bright planet.

You are as ever wrong by a factor of 6 or so. There is a slightly better resolving power for linear features and the number of line pairs per millimetre resolved is higher than the figure for single dots.

The upshot of this is that for a TV anything HD wants to be at least 1m across and 4k around the 2m mark if you want the full benefit at typical room viewing distances in the UK (US rooms probably bigger).

Alternatively you could sit right on top of the screen. Apples Retina displays are reaching the limits of credulity now. If they cram any more pixels onto them you will need a magnifying glass to see the finest detail even with perfect 20/20 vision.

Regards, Martin Brown