«

On Aug 10, 2:09*am, David Taylor <david-
tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> On 09/08/2012 20:56, Alan Browne wrote:
> []
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Actually I'm wrong about that. *I just (for unrelated reasons) stumbled
> > on this:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22.2_surround_sound
>
> > Which shows 22.2 as a blown up 5.1/7.2 scheme.
>
> > Assuming the content is recorded for that output format it would
> > certainly sound much richer. *I'd guess that it could be processed upto
> > that format from about half the number of inputs, however.
>
> > It is related to the resolution you cite (8K) here:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_H...ion_Television
>
> > Other than theatre presentation, however, ...
>
> That's my thought as well, but it seems that the system is being
> progressed for a domestic environment. *Can't visualise that myself, but
> who knows for ten or twenty years ahead? *It's not that long ago when
> 50-inch screens with 1920 x 1080 pixel images broadcast over the air
> would have been thought impossible....
> --
> Cheers,
> David
> Web:http://www.satsignal.eu

Oh, they're possible, as long as you LOVE horrible compression of the
image and sound.

On 10/08/2012 08:38, RichA wrote:
[]
> Oh, they're possible, as long as you LOVE horrible compression of the
> image and sound.

[1920 x 1080 HD]

It sounds as if the broadcasters in your part of the world are using too
much compression - more channels of poorer quality. The BBC broadcasts
over the air here (Freeview) are of excellent quality on both sound and
vision (although they use the 1440 horizontal pixels to save a little
bandwidth), and I have no complaints about the one HD satellite channel
I watch via Sky (subscription satellite service).
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

Alan Browne <> wrote:
> On 2012-08-08 01:47 , David Taylor wrote:
>> I saw a demonstration of Super Hi-Vision yesterday.

>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/researcha...hi-visio.shtml

>> (Hope the URL doesn't wrap; first URL posted through Thunderbird)

>> With 33 MPix video and 22.2 channel audio it's very impressive,

> The .2 would be about useless. It doesn't matter where you put the
> sub-woofer in a room, you can't really determine where the sound is
> coming from.

Put a subwoofer close to your right side (e.g. on your desk) and
turn your head. Have fun.

-Wolfgang

Alan Browne <> wrote:

> But considering that 5.1 is for those sources of sound where this 22
> speaker rig is a 360° sound setup I maintain that 6 speakers, properly
> processed, would be indistinguishable from it for most listeners

.... in the centre of the setup. Get closer to one side (or
front or rear) and you can soon tell.

> The human eye only sees high res where it is looking. Immediately to
> the sides the resolution rolls off dramatically.

But where you look and where the camera focusses is not
necessarily the same.

> To see detail in a 33 Mpix image one would have to be very close - and
> when close you can only see fine detail in a small part of the scene
> presented. That would normally be where the 'action' is.

Well, we *do* have D800E's and even higher resolution larger
cameras ... and we have gigapixel panoramas.

-Wolfgang

Me <> wrote:
> On 9/08/2012 5:41 a.m., David Taylor wrote:

>> It did sound better than 5.1 audio (which was demonstrated for
>> comparison). Your ears and brain can sense more than two channels can
>> convey.

> If you move your head.

The sound reflexions from your concha do have slightly different
pathlengths to ear hole depending on the height of the source.
Which means differences in phase ...

The only way 2 channels will convey everything correctly is
recording them from inside the ear, either an artifical head
(with average concha) or with your own ears.

-Wolfgang