My present equipment consist of the camera body and some lenses compatible for APS-C sensor cameras.
I am considering to invest in a new mirror less Canon camera body than can use my present set of lenses. For initial selection I kindly ask for guidance in which body, or bodies, to "investigate".
On 13/10/2021 10:31, Incubus wrote:
Canon's sensors are seriously lacking in dynamic range. I'd ditch the
whole lot and go with a full frame Nikon.
All that full-frame kit is too big and too heavy.
When I "ditched the whole
lot" I went micro-four-thirds which has proved very good, with some excellent quality lenses available from multiple manufacturers.
Of course, now 90% of my photography is with the phone - the camera I always have with me!
Canon's sensors are seriously lacking in dynamic range. I'd ditch the
whole lot and go with a full frame Nikon.
Are you a pygmy?
When I "ditched the wholeI suppose, if you only ever want to shoot in bright sunlight.
lot" I went micro-four-thirds which has proved very good, with some excellent
quality lenses available from multiple manufacturers.
Of course, now 90% of my photography is with the phone - the camera I always >> have with me!I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
video.
I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
video.
On 13/10/2021 13:55, Incubus wrote:
Are you a pygmy?
When I "ditched the wholeI suppose, if you only ever want to shoot in bright sunlight.
lot" I went micro-four-thirds which has proved very good, with some excellent
quality lenses available from multiple manufacturers.
Of course, now 90% of my photography is with the phone - the camera I alwaysI wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
have with me!
video.
Probably compared to many people I am rather small, but I don't have a car so anywhere I go (these days?) I have to carry my kit with me. Weight matters!
You would be surprised how low a light level modern phones can shoot, certainly
below naked eye visibility. Automatically takes and stacks exposures up to a minute.
In article <slrnsmdlpr.r82.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
video.
there's no requirement that it be used.
In article <slrnsmdtci.eg.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
video.
there's no requirement that it be used.
It does add extra cost and weight, though.
video capabilities in an slr adds *zero* weight or cost. it's entirely
in firmware and nothing more than an extension of live view that saves
to a file.
for phones, there is a non-zero cost to adding a camera when there
would otherwise not be one, but a phone without a camera would not
sell, so it's a must-have feature. the added weight is negligible. the
issue with recent phones is thickness.
I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
video.
there's no requirement that it be used.
It does add extra cost and weight, though.
I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do >> >> video.
there's no requirement that it be used.
It does add extra cost and weight, though.
video capabilities in an slr adds *zero* weight or cost. it's entirely
in firmware and nothing more than an extension of live view that saves
to a file.
It's a feature that requires additional testing, which has an overhead.
The research and design also increases overheads, particularly if a
camera manufacturer decides to use a more expensive sensor so that more resolution is available with video. Additionally, it requires a fast
enough buffer for writing.
for phones, there is a non-zero cost to adding a camera when there
would otherwise not be one, but a phone without a camera would not
sell, so it's a must-have feature. the added weight is negligible. the issue with recent phones is thickness.
A gimmick that Nokia introduced with the 7650 is now a must-have
feature. People really are strange.
A gimmick that Nokia introduced with the 7650 is now a must-have
feature. People really are strange.
On 13 Oct 2021 at 14:23:28 BST, "David Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
On 13/10/2021 13:55, Incubus wrote:
Are you a pygmy?
When I "ditched the whole
lot" I went micro-four-thirds which has proved very good, with some excellent
quality lenses available from multiple manufacturers.
I suppose, if you only ever want to shoot in bright sunlight.
Of course, now 90% of my photography is with the phone - the camera
I always have with me!
I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
video.
Probably compared to many people I am rather small, but I don't have a car so
anywhere I go (these days?) I have to carry my kit with me. Weight matters!
Absolutely - a DSLR and a few lenses can easily top 5kg. I'd be surprised if my micro 4/3 and 2 basic lenses are more than 1kg. Whatever, it's a big reason
why I don't use my DSLR any more . . .
You would be surprised how low a light level modern phones can shoot, certainly
below naked eye visibility. Automatically takes and stacks exposures up to a
minute.
The iphone 12 takes some astonishing night time photos - picking out detail I
can't see.
On 2021-10-13, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article<slrnsmdlpr.r82.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do video.
there's no requirement that it be used.
It does add extra cost and weight, though.
On Oct 13, 2021, Incubus wrote
(in article<slrnsmdtci....@localhost.localdomain>):
On 2021-10-13, nospam<nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article<slrnsmdlpr....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus <u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do video.
there's no requirement that it be used.
It does add extra cost and weight, though.Video adds extra “weight”!??
Your understanding of added functions in modern digital cameras seems to be either distorted, or lacking. Explain yourself sir!
Am 13.10.2021 um 17:57 schrieb Incubus:
A gimmick that Nokia introduced with the 7650 is now a must-have
feature. People really are strange.
It's convenient to have a camera in a phone.
My wife has stopped a while ago using her camera and nowadays
exclusively user her phone to take pictures.
On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 4:32:54 AM UTC-4, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-10-13, Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Am 13.10.2021 um 17:57 schrieb Incubus:
A gimmick that Nokia introduced with the 7650 is now a must-have
feature. People really are strange.
It's convenient to have a camera in a phone.
My wife has stopped a while ago using her camera and nowadays
exclusively user her phone to take pictures.
There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera
on a telephone.
Everything has trade-offs; "Film at 11".
The question here is merely if the downsides you're gloomily alluding to, are a worthwhile trade vs the upside of the "[always] have it with you" paradigm.
On 2021-10-13, Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Am 13.10.2021 um 17:57 schrieb Incubus:
A gimmick that Nokia introduced with the 7650 is now a must-have
feature. People really are strange.
It's convenient to have a camera in a phone.
My wife has stopped a while ago using her camera and nowadays
exclusively user her phone to take pictures.
There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera
on a telephone.
There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a telephone.
In article <slrnsmfqpq....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus <u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a telephone.such as?
On 2021-10-14, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 4:32:54 AM UTC-4, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-10-13, Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Am 13.10.2021 um 17:57 schrieb Incubus:
A gimmick that Nokia introduced with the 7650 is now a must-have
feature. People really are strange.
It's convenient to have a camera in a phone.
My wife has stopped a while ago using her camera and nowadays
exclusively user her phone to take pictures.
There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera
on a telephone.
Everything has trade-offs; "Film at 11".
The question here is merely if the downsides you're gloomily alluding to, are
a worthwhile trade vs the upside of the "[always] have it with you" paradigm.
It depends on one's perspective. Personal convenience comes at a
broader cost but most people are sheep who know nothing about
technology.
My present equipment consist of the camera body and some lenses compatible for APS-C sensor cameras.
I am considering to invest in a new mirror less Canon camera body than can use my present set of lenses. For initial selection I kindly ask for guidance in which body, or bodies, to "investigate".
On 2021-10-14, -hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 4:32:54 AM UTC-4, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-10-13, Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Am 13.10.2021 um 17:57 schrieb Incubus:
A gimmick that Nokia introduced with the 7650 is now a must-have
feature. People really are strange.
It's convenient to have a camera in a phone.
My wife has stopped a while ago using her camera and nowadays
exclusively user her phone to take pictures.
There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera
on a telephone.
Everything has trade-offs; "Film at 11".
The question here is merely if the downsides you're gloomily alluding to, areIt depends on one's perspective. Personal convenience comes at a
a worthwhile trade vs the upside of the "[always] have it with you" paradigm.
broader cost but most people are sheep who know nothing about
technology.
In article <slrnsmfqpq.3r1.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a
telephone.
such as?
On 2021-10-14, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <slrnsmfqpq....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a >> telephone.
such as?
The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
consumer.
There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a >> telephone.
such as?
The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
consumer.
On Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 12:46:30 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
In article<slrnsmfqpq....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus <u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a telephone.such as?
if you're stupid or clumse you keep taking pictures of your ear while talking on the phone. ;-)
On 2021-10-14, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article<slrnsmfqpq.3r1.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a telephone.
such as?
The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
consumer.
On Oct 14, 2021, Whisky-dave wrote
(in article<326e928a-3060-4c7d...@googlegroups.com>):
On Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 12:46:30 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
In article<slrnsmfqpq....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus <u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on asuch as?
telephone.
if you're stupid or clumse you keep taking pictures of your ear while talking on the phone. ;-)Worse! Shooting video in portrait orientation.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
In article <slrnsmgcgj.hno.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a >> >> telephone.
such as?
The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
consumer.
what negative impact? people are taking far more photos than ever
before.
On Oct 14, 2021, Incubus wrote
(in article<slrnsmgcgj.hno.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>):
On 2021-10-14, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article<slrnsmfqpq.3r1.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a >> > > telephone.
such as?
The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
consumer.
Yep. Can’t have people buying what they actually want.
On 2021-10-14, Bill W<nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Oct 14, 2021, Incubus wrote
(in article<slrnsmgcgj.hno.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>):
On 2021-10-14, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article<slrnsmfqpq.3r1.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a
telephone.
such as?
The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the consumer.
Yep. Can’t have people buying what they actually want.
People don't know what they want. They love being sold to. Some people actually looked forward to digital television despite it being vastly inferior to PAL (even HD is a joke). People buy DAB radios where the
quality is like an MP3 from the '90s and most of the stations broadcast
in mono. They want to share photos of their food on Facebook and
Instagram rather than learning photography. You respect their "choices"
far more than I.
On Oct 14, 2021, Incubus wrote
(in article<slrnsmgm1k.q22.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>):
On 2021-10-14, Bill W<nothing@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Oct 14, 2021, Incubus wrote
(in article<slrnsmgcgj.hno.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>):
On 2021-10-14, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article<slrnsmfqpq.3r1.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a
telephone.
such as?
The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
consumer.
Yep. Can’t have people buying what they actually want.
People don't know what they want. They love being sold to. Some people
actually looked forward to digital television despite it being vastly
inferior to PAL (even HD is a joke). People buy DAB radios where the
quality is like an MP3 from the '90s and most of the stations broadcast
in mono. They want to share photos of their food on Facebook and
Instagram rather than learning photography. You respect their "choices"
far more than I.
I guess I come up short in the arrogance department. We should all strive to be more like you, and to know what others really need and want better than they do.
On 2021-10-14, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <slrnsmgcgj.hno.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a >>>>> telephone.
such as?
The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
consumer.
what negative impact? people are taking far more photos than ever
before.
Lack of competition from camera brands as they go bust. Emphasis on bad photos from camera 'phones.
There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a
telephone.
such as?
The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
consumer.
what negative impact? people are taking far more photos than ever
before.
Lack of competition from camera brands as they go bust. Emphasis on bad photos from camera 'phones.
The development of the camera market is similar to the rise and decline
of high end audio ("high fidelity").
Nowadays all music comes from smartphones and wireless earbuds / earphones.
My present equipment consist of the camera body and some lenses compatible for APS-C sensor cameras.
On 10/12/21 3:08 PM, Bengt_T wrote:
My present equipment consist of the camera body and some lenses compatible for APS-C sensor cameras.Which lenses do you have?
Are they all EF-s?
Or any EF's (non-s)?
In article <slrnsmgnp1.r2c.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image
quality.
top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.
On Oct 14, 2021, Alfred Molon wrote
(in article <yrZ9J.678165$QHsf.311057@fx12.ams1>):
Nowadays all music comes from smartphones and wireless earbuds / earphones.
All?
We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image >> quality.
top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.
It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.
In article <slrnsmif5h.3bg.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image >> >> quality.
top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.
It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.
broadcast tv isn't the only source.
On 2021-10-15, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <slrnsmif5h....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image
quality.
top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.
It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.
broadcast tv isn't the only source.It's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
and soon 8K but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
the appalling standard of broadcast television.
We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and
image
quality.
top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.
It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.
broadcast tv isn't the only source.
It's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
and soon 8K
but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
the appalling standard of broadcast television.
In article <slrnsmihu7.4sm.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and
image
quality.
top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.
It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.
broadcast tv isn't the only source.
It's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
and soon 8K
bluray is obsolete.
buy/rent movies or create your own 4k/8k hdr content, including via a
phone.
but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
the appalling standard of broadcast television.
again, broadcast tv is not the only source, and it will change to
support higher quality anyway.
On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 10:20:06 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-10-15, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <slrnsmif5h....@localhost.localdomain>, IncubusIt's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
<u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image
quality.
top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.
It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.
broadcast tv isn't the only source.
and soon 8K but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
the appalling standard of broadcast television.
And high speed broadband doesn't stop you posting rubbish, but that isn't why people
pay for it.
We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and >> >> >> image
quality.
top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.
It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.
broadcast tv isn't the only source.
It's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
and soon 8K
bluray is obsolete.
Really?
There are shelves full of BluRay films in HMV.
buy/rent movies or create your own 4k/8k hdr content, including via a phone.
but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
the appalling standard of broadcast television.
again, broadcast tv is not the only source, and it will change to
support higher quality anyway.
It's ironic that moving to digital has put us years behind in terms of broadcast quality. It didn't have to be that way.
My lenses are all EF-S lenses.
On 2021-10-15, Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 10:20:06 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-10-15, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <slrnsmif5h....@localhost.localdomain>, IncubusIt's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
<u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image
quality.
top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.
It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.
broadcast tv isn't the only source.
and soon 8K but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
the appalling standard of broadcast television.
And high speed broadband doesn't stop you posting rubbish, but that isn't why peopleWe're talking about the standard of digital broadcast, not the quality
pay for it.
of the content you fucking div.
On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 15:22:11 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-10-15, Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 10:20:06 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:We're talking about the standard of digital broadcast, not the quality
On 2021-10-15, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <slrnsmif5h....@localhost.localdomain>, IncubusIt's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
<u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image
quality.
top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.
It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.
broadcast tv isn't the only source.
and soon 8K but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
the appalling standard of broadcast television.
And high speed broadband doesn't stop you posting rubbish, but that isn't why people
pay for it.
of the content you fucking div.
And you're a fine example buying or using a shit product is a choice you made.
If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.
On 2021-10-18, Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 15:22:11 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-10-15, Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 10:20:06 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:We're talking about the standard of digital broadcast, not the quality
On 2021-10-15, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <slrnsmif5h....@localhost.localdomain>, IncubusIt's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K >> >> and soon 8K but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
<u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image
quality.
top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve. >> >> >>
broadcast tv isn't the only source.
the appalling standard of broadcast television.
And high speed broadband doesn't stop you posting rubbish, but that isn't why people
pay for it.
of the content you fucking div.
And you're a fine example buying or using a shit product is a choice you made.We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.
If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.
On Monday, 18 October 2021 at 13:46:39 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-10-18, Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 15:22:11 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard
On 2021-10-15, Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 10:20:06 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:We're talking about the standard of digital broadcast, not the quality
On 2021-10-15, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <slrnsmif5h....@localhost.localdomain>, IncubusIt's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K >> >> >> and soon 8K but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
<u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image
quality.
top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve. >> >> >> >>
broadcast tv isn't the only source.
the appalling standard of broadcast television.
And high speed broadband doesn't stop you posting rubbish, but that isn't why people
pay for it.
of the content you fucking div.
And you're a fine example buying or using a shit product is a choice you made.
If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.
implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.
So you want to go back to 405 lines why.
I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and everything worked.
If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard
implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.
So you want to go back to 405 lines why.
I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and everything worked.
405 lines? PAL had 576 lines and the digital equivalent of 576p looks terrible due to the horrible compression. Even HD doesn't compare.
In article <slrnsmtf7j.p2f.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard
implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.
So you want to go back to 405 lines why.
I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and
everything worked.
405 lines? PAL had 576 lines and the digital equivalent of 576p looks
terrible due to the horrible compression. Even HD doesn't compare.
nonsense. even 720p is better than ntsc/pal. 1080p is quite a bit
better, with 4k much more so. hdr is *dramatically* better, at any resolution.
If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard
implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.
So you want to go back to 405 lines why.
I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and
everything worked.
405 lines? PAL had 576 lines and the digital equivalent of 576p looks
terrible due to the horrible compression. Even HD doesn't compare.
nonsense. even 720p is better than ntsc/pal. 1080p is quite a bit
better, with 4k much more so. hdr is *dramatically* better, at any resolution.
Did you see much broadcast in PAL? NTSC was quite inferior.
In article <slrnsmtga3.1qh.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard
implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.
So you want to go back to 405 lines why.
I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and
everything worked.
405 lines? PAL had 576 lines and the digital equivalent of 576p looks
terrible due to the horrible compression. Even HD doesn't compare.
nonsense. even 720p is better than ntsc/pal. 1080p is quite a bit
better, with 4k much more so. hdr is *dramatically* better, at any
resolution.
Did you see much broadcast in PAL? NTSC was quite inferior.
did you see anything at 1080p or 4k? especially at 60 fps and hdr?
pal/ntsc is significantly inferior. it's not even close.
Did you see much broadcast in PAL? NTSC was quite inferior.
did you see anything at 1080p or 4k? especially at 60 fps and hdr?
Yes, I have seen 1080p. Broadcast DTV is inferior to PAL.
you have that backwards. pal is inferior to digital broadcast tv.
Digital broadcast is riddled with artefacts from lossy compression.
BluRay looks
nice but it along with 4k and HDR are outside of the scope of this
discussion as I am talking about broadcast TV.
broadcast tv is not how to measure the quality of a display.
I'm not measuring the quality of a display. I'm measuring the quality
of broadcast.
If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard
implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.
So you want to go back to 405 lines why.
I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and
everything worked.
405 lines? PAL had 576 lines and the digital equivalent of 576p looks >> >> terrible due to the horrible compression. Even HD doesn't compare.
nonsense. even 720p is better than ntsc/pal. 1080p is quite a bit
better, with 4k much more so. hdr is *dramatically* better, at any
resolution.
Did you see much broadcast in PAL? NTSC was quite inferior.
did you see anything at 1080p or 4k? especially at 60 fps and hdr?
Yes, I have seen 1080p. Broadcast DTV is inferior to PAL.
BluRay looks
nice but it along with 4k and HDR are outside of the scope of this
discussion as I am talking about broadcast TV.
On 2021-10-19, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <slrnsmtgs6....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
nonsense. even 720p is better than ntsc/pal. 1080p is quite a bitIf you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker. >> >> >> >> We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard >> >> >> >> implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.
So you want to go back to 405 lines why.
I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and >> >> >> > everything worked.
405 lines? PAL had 576 lines and the digital equivalent of 576p looks
terrible due to the horrible compression. Even HD doesn't compare. >> >> >
better, with 4k much more so. hdr is *dramatically* better, at any
resolution.
Did you see much broadcast in PAL? NTSC was quite inferior.
did you see anything at 1080p or 4k? especially at 60 fps and hdr?
Yes, I have seen 1080p. Broadcast DTV is inferior to PAL.
you have that backwards. pal is inferior to digital broadcast tv.Digital broadcast is riddled with artefacts from lossy compression.
BluRay looks
nice but it along with 4k and HDR are outside of the scope of this
discussion as I am talking about broadcast TV.
broadcast tv is not how to measure the quality of a display.I'm not measuring the quality of a display. I'm measuring the quality
of broadcast.
In article <slrnsmtgs6.33h.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard >> >> >> >> implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.
So you want to go back to 405 lines why.
I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and
everything worked.
405 lines? PAL had 576 lines and the digital equivalent of 576p looks >> >> >> terrible due to the horrible compression. Even HD doesn't compare.
nonsense. even 720p is better than ntsc/pal. 1080p is quite a bit
better, with 4k much more so. hdr is *dramatically* better, at any
resolution.
Did you see much broadcast in PAL? NTSC was quite inferior.
did you see anything at 1080p or 4k? especially at 60 fps and hdr?
Yes, I have seen 1080p. Broadcast DTV is inferior to PAL.
you have that backwards. pal is inferior to digital broadcast tv.
BluRay looks
nice but it along with 4k and HDR are outside of the scope of this
discussion as I am talking about broadcast TV.
broadcast tv is not how to measure the quality of a display.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 285 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 61:52:16 |
Calls: | 6,488 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,096 |
Messages: | 5,274,515 |