Show Posts
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Why not higher resolution video?
« on: May 05, 2013, 05:41:48 PM »
This thread is hilarious, watching everyone make mountains out of anthills (not even big enough to be a molehill).
Consider this. In South Australia, we just switched off our analogue TV signals for good. No more. Digital only. New TV or a Set-top box only. So I went with my mum to a shop to buy a new TV for the kitchen, that she listens to while she cooks. The old one was so old it didn't even have a Composite Video input, Aerial only, so it was set-top box plus VCR or something else to modulate the video to rf, or a new tv, and a new tv was cheaper.
Anyway, we get to the shop. We start looking at the cheapest in a decent size. We see a nice Teac, 32" half price for only $300. So I read the specs. "Full HD 1080i" it claims. I ask the salesman how it can be both "Full HD" and "1080i" at the same time. He explains that's how people market it, "full hd" just means 1080 lines, p or i.
Anyway, further down the spec list I read "1344 x 768 Pixel Screen". Again, I ask the salesman, how it can be "Full HD 1080, i or p" and only have "1344x768 pixels". He did look a bit sheepish for a minute, but came back with "well, the digital receiver can tune in to 1080i signals, but downscales it to 768 to put onto the screen. If you wanted to you could use an HDMI out to another screen for true 1080i display".
You know what? We bought it anyway. It was cheaper than anything else, beat her old tv by miles, and she wouldn't notice the difference anyway.
So who cares if Canon's $15k camera can do 4k video, but their $500 one can't, or even their $3k one? Can you play it anyway? If you could, do you have the editing power to edit it into something watchable? And then, can you distribute it on anything other than huge USB sticks or portable HDDs? And I'm not sure what's meant by "canon dslrs cannot even shoot true 1080p", is that because they use 442242 compression instead of 442444 or 444224? People can hardly tell the difference between 768 and 1080i and 1080p. If you ask them, they'll say that 1080p is better than 1080i, the ads have conditioned them to know that. Ask them to explain why or what it means, even pick between the two side-by-side, they won't know. I couldn't pick the 1344x768 screen from a 'real' 1080p screen next to it.
Here's a tip: Joe Public can't tell the difference either. Joe Public doesn't care. Joe Public just wants some pretty pictures to flash on a shiny box to distract him while he shovels nachos into his face. And the company that can deliver that to him easiest is the company that wins. Canon is that company, and Canon is winning, 10 years in a row it has been winning. If you're already winning a race, why stop and change your shoes?
Consider this. In South Australia, we just switched off our analogue TV signals for good. No more. Digital only. New TV or a Set-top box only. So I went with my mum to a shop to buy a new TV for the kitchen, that she listens to while she cooks. The old one was so old it didn't even have a Composite Video input, Aerial only, so it was set-top box plus VCR or something else to modulate the video to rf, or a new tv, and a new tv was cheaper.
Anyway, we get to the shop. We start looking at the cheapest in a decent size. We see a nice Teac, 32" half price for only $300. So I read the specs. "Full HD 1080i" it claims. I ask the salesman how it can be both "Full HD" and "1080i" at the same time. He explains that's how people market it, "full hd" just means 1080 lines, p or i.
Anyway, further down the spec list I read "1344 x 768 Pixel Screen". Again, I ask the salesman, how it can be "Full HD 1080, i or p" and only have "1344x768 pixels". He did look a bit sheepish for a minute, but came back with "well, the digital receiver can tune in to 1080i signals, but downscales it to 768 to put onto the screen. If you wanted to you could use an HDMI out to another screen for true 1080i display".
You know what? We bought it anyway. It was cheaper than anything else, beat her old tv by miles, and she wouldn't notice the difference anyway.
So who cares if Canon's $15k camera can do 4k video, but their $500 one can't, or even their $3k one? Can you play it anyway? If you could, do you have the editing power to edit it into something watchable? And then, can you distribute it on anything other than huge USB sticks or portable HDDs? And I'm not sure what's meant by "canon dslrs cannot even shoot true 1080p", is that because they use 442242 compression instead of 442444 or 444224? People can hardly tell the difference between 768 and 1080i and 1080p. If you ask them, they'll say that 1080p is better than 1080i, the ads have conditioned them to know that. Ask them to explain why or what it means, even pick between the two side-by-side, they won't know. I couldn't pick the 1344x768 screen from a 'real' 1080p screen next to it.
Here's a tip: Joe Public can't tell the difference either. Joe Public doesn't care. Joe Public just wants some pretty pictures to flash on a shiny box to distract him while he shovels nachos into his face. And the company that can deliver that to him easiest is the company that wins. Canon is that company, and Canon is winning, 10 years in a row it has been winning. If you're already winning a race, why stop and change your shoes?
