Hello all,
     Video resolution is like the resolution of sound in many ways. The=20
average human can perceive sound frequencies between about 20Hz and=20
18KHz. There are people that can hear as low as 5 Hz and others that can=20
hear as high as 22KHz. These are usually women. Ever wonder way most=20
horizontal circuits run at 25 KHz. It is because almost no one can hear=20
a frequency that high. The standard frequency 75 years ago used to be=20
only 20 KHz. The designers couldn't hear this noise because they were=20
all men at the time. But they started receiving complaints from=20
customers that their wives were developing headaches when the first TVs=20
were operating. It was traced to the horizontal osc but it took a women=20
to figure it out.
     There is reason for me going into this amount of detail because it=20
begs the question, if most people can only hear from 20 Hz to 18 KHz why=20
are high end stereos designed to recreate sound from as low as 1 or 2 Hz=20
up to 25 KHz. It is because of perception. If those frequencies are=20
missing the sound just doesn't feel as good. It lacks content. Worst is=20
a system that is able to recreate these frequencies but in the process=20
it distorts the lower and higher frequencies. This will drive even the=20
average listener nuts.
     Well it is the same with video. The average person can only discern=20
about 200,000 colors and a resolution of about 480x480. Any more than=20
that would seem to be a waste of money. But wait, remember I said video=20
is similar to sound. The extra colors and higher resolution allows the=20
viewer to perceive a fuller and more dynamic picture even though if you=20
ran the proper tests you would find that the viewer can't perceive the=20
extra colors. I am blessed in that I can perceive about 300K colors. It=20
is kind of cool to see hues of colors that others don't see any=20
difference in.
     So I can understand someone being able to tell the difference=20
between and HD display and a 4096x4096 EHD display. But most people=20
can't but it does look better. This is especially true as the display=20
gets larger and larger. If you double the display size you either have=20
to quadruple the number of pixels or you have to quadruple the size of=20
the pixels which makes the display grainier, especially up close.
Thanks,
rich!

On 5/17/2014 5:52 AM, Nicola Perotto wrote:
> On 17/05/2014 05:23, RussellMc wrote:
>> Many of the photos that I take with a DSLR are blurred and/or exposed ba=
dly
>> and/or framed badly and/or ... .
> Here some interesting thoughts:
> https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/55047/kw/move=
ment
>
> Eg one problem I had:
>
>      As pixel counts have increased, the size of a single pixel has decre=
ased.
>      For example, if two DX-format cameras; the D40 (image size: 3008 x 2=
000) and
>      the D3200 (image size: 6016 x 4000) are compared, the pixel size of =
the
>      D3200 is approximately a quarter of that of the D40. When images are
>      displayed on a computer monitor at 100%, D3200 images are actually d=
isplayed
>      approximately 4 times larger than D40 images (area ratio). Even if i=
mages
>      are captured under the same conditions and with the same level of ha=
nd or
>      camera movement, blur in the D3200 images could effectively be quadr=
upled
>      when displayed and become more noticeable. For this reason, it can b=
e said
>      that high pixel count cameras are more susceptible to slight movemen=
t.
>
>

--=20
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.