On 11/1/07, Peter Bindels wrote: > I've heard quotes that your eyes are about 6 megapixels in quality > (for a good-sighted person that is). Your eyes are hierarchic though - > you have fairly low quality on the sides and high-quality on the small > area you're looking at directly. Since the screen(s) can't predict > where you're looking at, you have to have a pretty high overall > quality to show all details. An, interesting to know! I can't distinguish between 720p and 1080p if I don't go to the TV up > close and look at the details. > > If, however, you use the quality to make extracts, you need a much > higher quality. Assuming you want to view the entire screen > continually (as in, cinema or normal TV) you need only 2MP to notice > it when not paying explicit attention to detail and some 6MP to notice > when you are paying explicit attention. > > Most people with HD tv's don't notice the difference between upscaled > PAL and real HDTV - they just have a bigger image and a new monitor > which makes the image much crisper anyway. Rescaled images aren't a > problem for them either, they don't notice it. Exactly my feelings on the matter. I must admit that people's craze to get bigger and so called 'better' (Higher Resolution) LCD/Plasma televisions, has fuelled the development of some extreme DSP/graphic processors. Philips (who's research center is doing all the main, if not all the research in the image processing field for all the LCD/Plasma manufacturers), has dished out some real wicked graphic processors that do some magnificent things on-the-fly. I just think it's shameful that those 'wicked' DSP's are only available to an exclusive market. C'est la vie! -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist