Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!phobos.cis.ksu.edu!epa From: epa@phobos.cis.ksu.edu (Eric P. Armstrong) Newsgroups: comp.graphics Subject: HDTV Standards Message-ID: <2603C5AB.1A38@deimos.cis.ksu.edu> Date: 18 Mar 90 17:30:18 GMT Sender: nntpd@deimos.cis.ksu.edu (USENET NNTP Server) Reply-To: epa@phobos.cis.ksu.edu (Eric P. Armstrong) Organization: Kansas State University, Dept of Computing & Information Sciences Lines: 29 In article bas+@andrew.cmu.edu (Bruce Sherwood) writes: >At the risk of stating the obvious: > >Some of this discussion of HDTV implies that there will always be a need >for another generation of standards with even higher resolution. That >isn't necessarily the case. The human eye has limited resolution, and >higher resolution than that in the picture is literally useless, if you >are talking in terms of a "typical" screen size viewed from a "typical" >viewing distance. > >The analogy with audio is that a CD with frequency response out to 10 >MHz would not sound better than one with frequency response out to 20 >KHz, because the human ear can't hear the higher frequencies. Actually a CD with 10 MHz frequency response should sound better than one with 20 KHz frequency response because you are dealing with more than one waveform. you have a mixed waveform of many frequencies that are not all in phase with the 20KHz maximum. Increased resolution is desired because some of us would like to have a larger screen without having to get farther away from the screen. Backing off from a larger screen so it is clearer (and smaller in perception) sorta defeats the purpose of having it in the first place. -- Eric P. Armstrong | If at first you don't succeed Bitnet: ericpaul@ksuvm.bitnet | destroy all evidence that you Internet: epa@phobos.cis.ksu.edu | ever tried....