On 2016-02-01 14:34:07 -0900, PeggLeg <reply@here.net> said:
> That's true...as long as the only factor that you take into
> consideration is screen size and how it looks on it. I really have no
> idea how much hassle SNS has doing these things, but I love the ones
> that have been posted so far. If I want an increase in definition or
> some other change, I'll buy the vids in Blu-Ray, if available. Whatever
> SNS feels comfortable doing is fine with me. It is, as people are fond
> of saying, the posters choice, as it should be.
> GeoffE not too many people have 50" TVs in their kitchens. Who'd want
> one? I can watch these on a small screen and get just as hungry as I
> get watching them on a large screen. And the instructional value seems
> the same as well.
> But it is, in the end, SNS who will decide. I think they are doing a
> great job now.
>
> PeggLeg
>
> In article <u1evab9hboi3f1iinqrr9bluq1fg2pf04r@4ax.com>, GeoffE
> <GeoffEdwards@starcadetv.tv> wrote:
>
>> Never stated had a 50" TV in my kitchen. In fact i have no TV in my
>> kicthen. I watch all these shows on my only TV set which is 50".
>> BTW the higher bitrate and 1080p it also looks noticeable better on
>> my 10.1 tablet [Samsung Galaxy Note 2014] but I digress...
>>
>> It's 2016 bitrates should be geard for HiDef, and in 2015 the median
>> TV size sold in the united states was 50". Low bit rate and 720 will
>> ensure these shows will only look worse are tech advances. An extra
>> 300-400MB to make sure they look ats good as possible given the point
>> in history we now live is less than peanuts.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 19:09:40 -0800, PeggLeg <reply@here.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
Here in the interior Alaska taiga, the U.S. relatively low bandwidth is
even narrower ... so, the choice is downloading smaller files or just
skip the show completely. Regardless of how impressive the image is,
it pales when it takes hours, hours, and more hours (or days) to
download a single show.
But, I shouldn't complain because I'm grateful for the people who take
the time and effort to capture, process, and upload these shows.
Especially considering I don't get broadcast TV, cable hasn't reach
this far into the woods, and satellite subscriptions are beyond my
price range.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
|