Re: Spot the missing tip.
- From: "Graham." <me@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 00:35:42 -0000
Can you develop your argument that a square inch of a rectangular
display uses more energy than a square inch of a square one?
Yes I can :O)
As a TV image is essentially random, the most efficient shape to cover an
image is round as this caters for all types of image tall or wide.
And a 4:3 is much closer to round the the riduculous 16:9 ( or worse)
That's why our eyes are round too..
Has the penny dropped yet????????????
You quote an (admittedly crap) piece about energy efficiency and point
out that they fail to mention what you see is as an inefficient way
of presenting an image to the human eye?
That's logical(?)
The macula lutea which is responsible for our perception of detail
occupies only a minute proportion of the retina so even with your
"efficient" square or round display our eyes are constantly scanning
the scene in all directions to make sense of it.
Landscape artists for hundreds of years have known that it is more
"pleasing" to the eye to use a canvas that is wider than it is high.
I suppose you would say it was a waste of money and effort
for the motion picture industry to develop anamorphic lenses, and cinemas
with wide screens?
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Spot the missing tip.
- From: Bazzer Smith
- Re: Spot the missing tip.
- References:
- Spot the missing tip.
- From: Bazzer Smith
- Re: Spot the missing tip.
- From: Graham.
- Re: Spot the missing tip.
- From: Bazzer Smith
- Spot the missing tip.
- Prev by Date: Re: how to protect a board game
- Next by Date: Re: Electric supply court order
- Previous by thread: Re: Spot the missing tip.
- Next by thread: Re: Spot the missing tip.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading