While my input was neither asked for nor is it wanted (I'm sure!), I
will have to agree with KtchnBtch on this. I've been in more than a few
kitchens and not a single one has a 50" TV in them. My Neice, for
example, has one of those that you mount under the shelves and it has
about a 10" screen on it ( that folds away up inside it for
compactness.) To help her cook something, I.m sure that it's great.
1080X1920 would be silly for her. We should also take into
consideration StutorNSs part in this. This person is taking their time
to encode and post these vids and this is going to eat up their
bandwidth and megs/gigs as well. If 720X1280 is better for them, I'm
fine with it.
Yes, 1605 IS actually 1603 but in a larger format.
And StutorNS: Thank You for all of the work you do. I hope you enjoy
doing it as well.
Later...
PeggLeg
In article <30asab5lhmnffr44fpao2nk1rgrdqrn0d4@4ax.com>, GeoffE
<GeoffEdwards@starcadetv.tv> wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 00:01:47 -0600, KtchnBtch <1@2.com> wrote:
>
> >Doesn't work for me. It's a cooking show, not a blockbuster movie.
> >
> >LOVE your big ass screen. Can't seem to fit it in my kitchen though.
> >
> >I just gotta do with the tablet. Ahhh, well.
>
>
> 50" is not large in today's world. They cost less than a 32 inch did 4
> years go. I just tested on my 10.1 table and the higher bit rate
> looks more natural with deep color depth. The food simpley looks more
> real. It's 2016 another 300-400MB is peanuts almost nothing in tech
> cost less than storage.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
|