Gary Tooze
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2000
- Messages
- 3,055
Hi Rich,
I won't comment on the colors - as I don't know what they looked like originally.
I won't comment on the colors - as I don't know what they looked like originally.
Blu-Ray images larger than the other images? It seems biased to a bigger image is a better image mentalityBiased in favor of the SD-DVD really.
They are not the same size natively Rich. Let's do some math...
The SD-DVD native capture sizes for 16X9 widescreen NTSC are 960 X 540.
For Blu-ray they are 1920 X 1080.
We reduce the SD-DVD to 800 pixels wide (a 16.6% decrease). This was done as originally over 50% of our following had their screen monitor resolution set to 800 wide. Today I find it is, 1st spot, 42.19% have at 1024x768 and 28.49% at 1280x1024. I am one of the 1.64% that have their monitors at 1600x1200.
Reducing images tends to lessen there ability to define deficiencies and can make them look better than they are in native size.
If we reduce the HD images to 800 wide we would be reducing them by a whopping 58.3% (technically this could be considered an unfair advantage). In trying to even this playing field to some degree we've decreased this number to 50% (960 wide) but realizing this is still far too much we've added links to their original resolution. I've debated cropping off segments of the image (as Leonard did for Fearless.) I don't want to increase beyond in native segments as I find this lends itself to an unfair representation (for SD) and my software cannot to as good a job as most people's HT systems. The larger you blow up an image from its native capacity - the worse it looks. If you don't believe me try it on your own computer (save a small image from the Net and increase its size).
Best,
Gary
