On 2014-05-01 10:15, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2014-05-01 04:01 (GMT-0400) Basil Chupin composed:
Blu-ray is equivalent to watching something when you had CGA graphics to what you now see using VGA.
Or, a better example, is what you had when using daguerreotype camera systems for photography to what you now have using digital photography cameras at 20+MB pixels.
That can be appreciated only if your eyes are of the type that do not find most web sites specify mousetype instead of legible text. For those with visual acuity half or less than they had as teenagers, any quality beyond about 480 tends to be undiscernable unless the TV is twice recommended size for seating distance, or bigger. IOW, for many, DVD quality is as good as can be fully appreciated.
The best TV in my house does at most 1920x1080 pixels, and all are smaller than 30 inches in diagonal. The 1080 resolution is what they call "Full HD" definition here (heck, I still have old CRTs doing double that resolution at smaller screen size). The term "Full HD" implies that they don't make them any better (!). Some people have huge displays on the sitting room larger than a meter or two wide (sorry, I don't know how many inches the diagonal may have). Even if I could afford one, I have no place to put it, I would have to redo the entire sitting room. And I would have to put the books somewhere else. You know, those musty paper things that some people can still read :-p Thus I get no advantage at all with the increased quality of Bluray disks. I would only get headaches trying to play them, with this DRM madness. Maybe if I could use them for data backup... but a write unit is expensive, I have unclear mind about Linux support, and even less about long term durability of the data (archival quality). And at the price of burner and media... no thanks, plain HDs are cheaper. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)