Topic: The Future of Television (Read 9026 times)

stoneyface · « **Reply #20 on:** September 03, 2010, 06:09:48 pm »

3d tvs are not the future, they are a flash in the pan. they will not last.

as far as crt's thanks but i will skip the radiation shot into my brain thanks.

Bonk · « **Reply #21 on:** September 04, 2010, 06:16:08 am »

Ya, I agree with the common assessment that 3d is generally dozy (cept some of those old video game arcade trick boxes).

The point of my posts in this thread is the constantly widening aspect ratio. I'm sure DieHard would have an appropriate analogy.

It is friggin ridiculous.

21:9 !!! They sold us on 16:9 as the be-all-end-all for ages... now it is not good enough? (not to mention that is never fits the screen anyway...)

I mentioned CRTs only as a historical note. The point there was xy coordinate systems versus different approaches to a 2d display array such as polar coorodnates... confocal ellispoidal coordinate systems or just different x-y tessellations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessellation

I'm not so sure the usual squares are necessarily the best approach. Let alone using a constant size for all of them.... could not some at the periphery be larger? etc...

I'm thinking about displays designed with video compression in mind - much as psychoacoustics plays a role in audio compression, but with video the final hardware for display could possibly play a role in data management. Though perhaps it is a bad idea to tie a data format to a display design? (perfect vendor lock-in model though - Apple would love it)

How about that guy that can see with his tongue?

(of course all this has equivalents in CCD design - I loved how these guys modeled the retina back in the nineties...) Bio-mimetics - why re-invent the wheel - let's just take nature's best designs and utilise them.

Like something like the inverse of this circular tessellation might make the most sense for CCD and display design: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Escher_Circle_Limit_III.jpg

Something mandala-ish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala). In the retina the structures are layered an all interconnected. I don't know about the 2-d layout though.

Ah, the hell with it, I should just buy a nice mandala, hang it on the wall and forget about ever buying a TV. (which I already have really) I like that idea.

stoneyface · « **Reply #22 on:** September 05, 2010, 04:24:35 pm »

the crt comment was more for the pro crt argument presented. i own widescreen monitors and have loved widescreen for a long time now. i hated pan and scan movies as that is not what i saw in the theater. i am a movie snob, admittedly, i watch LOTS of movies and hope to someday get on the voting staff for the oscars (just to have a level-headed voter and not some retard vote for the most popular) movies are shot in widescreen and that is how i want to see it. for me the black bars have never been an issue. back when a 19 inch tv was pretty standard for lower income people it might have been a problem, but now i have a 28 inch lcd and i love my widescreen. if you use vlc player you can fit the picture to the screen and change the aspect ratio to whatever you want. some people may not like the bars but i don't mind.

marstone · « **Reply #23 on:** September 05, 2010, 06:30:48 pm »

I find it kind of retarted, I have a widescreen tv, but have the blackbars. isn't it the reason for the widescreen tv's so you can have a full picture? Why isn't widescreen, actually in the right aspect for movies? I have a nice widescreen sony, but unless I set it to stretch the movie out to fill it up I get black bars. Not really what I was shooting for.

stoneyface · « **Reply #24 on:** September 06, 2010, 04:14:07 pm »

no the widescreen assures that you have the full picture side to side at 16:9
if you want the whole screen to be filled you can switch the resolution to 16:10

the 16:9 format is supposed to have the black bars on it

Bonk · « **Reply #25 on:** October 10, 2010, 06:07:41 pm »

Quote from: stoneyface_XC on September 06, 2010, 04:14:07 pm

the 16:9 format is supposed to have the black bars on it

FoaS_XC · « **Reply #26 on:** October 10, 2010, 07:00:29 pm »

Sirgod · « **Reply #27 on:** October 10, 2010, 07:29:41 pm »

Heh, I canceled the HD part on my Directv today, as I could see no visible difference at all in the shows.

saved ten bucks, then spent another 30 to watch Blizzcon. :facepalm:

Stephen

Bonk · « **Reply #28 on:** November 09, 2010, 08:07:44 am »

After having read several more 21:9

set reviews I have come to a realisation.

The ultimate display aspect ratio = 131480184:9

How did I arrive at that? 131480184 is the circumference of the earth in feet.

Two tricks to this idea, the aspect ratio at the top of the screen will be larger than that at the bottom. (bonus? projection calcs are gonna need mongo supercomputers - or we could lay it down flat to avoid this). The other trick is what content could fill a screen that circumscribes the earth? Four thousand different movies at once? No, no the directors will want this... you'll have to make an international phone call to a friend on the other side of the earth to find out what is happening on that area of the screen... the story... it could get complicated. And the areas in the mid-pacific... we'll have to send boats out to get that part of the story.

Just watch. It will happen. Distributed storytelling? Lost 2.0?

This is the tamest of my ideas this morning... what about sound? Ranged FM transmitters? I wonder if either AM or FM transmitters on the same frequency with the right processing could be used so that a travelling receiver would reproduce the sounds as if ambient? (effectively summing the sources according to distance - all on the same frequency) What about stereoscopic receivers? The drive-in/thru of the future...

Actually, I think you could do some pretty wild stuff with that radio idea... modern participatory performance art kind of stuff... make it work on smartphones...

News: