Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:43, 8 June 2010

Having seen your rename request, you're not doing anything wrong. Technical limitations in MediaWiki software means that the first letters of all usernames are by default capitalized. However, you may put {{lowercase}} on your userpages and alter your signature to suit your preferences. —Jeremy 21:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Having changed your signature in Special:Preferences from the default you need to include a like to your user page or/and this, your talk page. ] will create ὁ οἶστρος, with a link to this page. It doesn't link when placed on this page but will when you sign anywhere else. Or you could have ] (]) which will give you the style of the default signature, but with lower case: ὁ οἶστρος (talk). Or you could create something more fancy such as my signature; i am trying out using characters that look similar to "delirious & lost" just for some simple fun this week. The one taboo is to exactly copy the style of someone else's signature.

I hope this is of help for you. δεʟɪʀɪοuς & ʟoςτ ☯ 18:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:5544_Meier1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:5544_Meier1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Melesse. I'm still working on the article for which the image is meant for; that's why the link provided currently doesn't go anywhere YET. So, as soon as the corresponding article is online, I can add it back, correct? Thanks. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, done, the article is now live. I hope I went about it the right way. If not, please let me know. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Blu-ray Disc

Almost every European Blu-ray Disc packaging states 1080p plus the rest of the article also claims this.

It's written in English. If you can't understand it, that's not my problem. I assume from your name that you are also European, so have a look at the back of some of your Blu-ray Discs. 86.182.66.217 (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. At the end of this conversation, you might find your condescending tone inappropriate and yourself considerably embarrassed. European feature film BDs are (by free choice) indeed mostly in 1080p, but 1080p24 (!).

No they are not. Films released in 24p would be unplayable on most European TV sets as they are not required to support the format. Indeed no European TV set supported the format until comparatively recently (and then only for compatibility with US discs privately imported - or more likely due to commonality of internal circuitry). 86.182.66.217 (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Most documentary features and concerts, on the other hand, are predominantly 1080i, either 1080i50 or 1080i60. That's actually the case the world over, with 60Hz on non-feature film discs used mainly in Japan and the US. But there is no such thing as 1080p50 in the official BD specs, and I've yet to encounter a disc where that would've been tried (I presume they wouldn't be readable by the BD players on the market).

As I said nearly all Blu-ray discs sold in Europe are stated on the back as being in 1080p format and play perfectly on European Blu-ray players and TV sets that DO NOT support 24p mode (as indeed my TV does not). My TV set supports 1080/50i and 1080/60i (not 'p' as it is too old). It does not support 24p. The Blu-ray player doubless converts the 1080p material into 1080i so that it can be shown. The info button reveals that the input is 1080x540 at 50 frames (the 540 comes about because one field of interlaced video contains 540 actual lines of video). That some material is actually released in 1080i format is totally irrelevant to this point. 86.182.66.217 (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

See here (the relevant information is on page 18). You might have been confused by thinking of the PAL (Europe, 50Hz, resulting in the WRONG playback speed of feature films –> see PAL speed-up) and NTSC (Japan and USA, 60Hz – or 60 Hz/1.001, to be precise) standards used up to the DVD format. Well, these days are OVER, BDs are neither NTSC nor PAL, not ANYwhere. So would you please have the kindness as to enlighten me and show me how I was inaccurate in describing your claims as not making any sense? And you do realize that in writing "plus the rest of the article also claims this" your aren't referencing ANY article, do you? WHAT article? I'm sorry, but I not only have limited command of the English language,

So you are not in a position to critisize others use of English. If you fail to understand what I write that's not anything to do with what I write. The Blu-ray spec does support NTSC video (but not PAL as, unlike NTSC, that refers purely to an analogue colour encoding system - NTSC also covers the format of 480/60i or 480/59.94i video). 86.182.66.217 (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I also cannot read people's minds... Thanks, I'm very much looking forward to your answer. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I am referencing the rest of the Blu-ray article. It is mentioned in there several times (and specifically 1080/50p). Try the info box at the top of the article for instance. 86.182.66.217 (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, it is riddled with mistakes and you confuse many terms and concepts. But since you don't seem ready to actually try and understand what I have written, I doubt that continuing this conversation would lead anywhere. Everything I've stated is verifiable, all you'd have to do is researching it yourself – but for that it would be necessary that you and your current notions don't stand in your own way (don't believe something because I wrote it, but also DON'T believe yourself without making sure you got it right). I tried to help you, but you chose to refuse it. Your decision. So, if you really want to grow and learn, help yourself: Take your claims, one by one, read up on them and then check them against the facts. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to give you the chance to correct your mistake yourself, but you didn't take it.

OK, I'll give it one last shot: NOBODY is suggesting European feature film BDs wouldn't be produced in 1080p – as they ARE –, but, BUT, BUT they're produced in 1080p24, NOT 1080p50. What we're talking about here is the ENCODING, the way film images are stored on a disc – in the case of a BD that's the original 24 film frames per second (24fps).

That has got NOTHING to do with your TV being able to handle 24p or not. If it can't, the 50Hz playback in Europe is the result of a CONVERSION (called 2:2 pulldown).

Think of 25 empty holes in the ground, next to each other, all put together representing one video second. Each hole you fill in with one frame from any old motion picture you have (virtually every movie up to this day – no matter, whether shot "traditionally" or digitally – was made using 24fps cameras). What you'll realize is that after having spent all 24 frames of the first film second that there is still one empty hole staring at you. So what did the geniuses in Europe do? They just took the first frame from the next film second and squeezed it into the last last "hole" of the first video second. This results in an odious speed-up of the source by 4%. Had you actually read and tried to understand my last post, you'd already know all of this, as there, I had posted a link to this "phenomenon", called PAL speed-up (it's the same idiotic method used in the god-awful PAL days).

From there, 25 images are interlaced and sometimes additionally de-interlaced (please, look up those processes yourself) to achieve a 50i or an artificial and DEFICIENT 50p output, respectively, BOTH of which still exhibiting the wrong speed (and therefore also pitch).

1080p50 on the other hand would mean that a FILM was shot with 50fps (meaning the ORIGINAL SOURCE would contain 50 DIFFERENT images per second). That has NOT been done anywhere in the world, although there are VIDEO cameras used for TV that DO record 50 individual pictures per second.

That's just how things are NOW, that doesn't mean specs (whether for BD, HDMI or even the cameras used in the film industry – by going 48fps, for example) couldn't be changed or freshly designed from the ground up in the future.

If all of the above is too complicated to understand for you, just take one of the film BDs you claim are present in the format 1080p50 and read its raw data out on a PC (maybe a friend can help you install the necessary software – and you will need a BD drive, a DVD drive won't work). Then you'll at least actually SEE that the film is there in 24p, even though the why will continue to escape you. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just followed from your edit exchange on the article Blu-Ray Disc to find the exchange above. Sadly, you appear to know little about the subject, and to be fair, it has become confusing because much of the terminology has become abused.

First, European Blu-Ray discs are not produced in 24p format. That is almost exclusively the preserve of the American regions. Secondly, the Blu-Ray format does not support the proper 1080 progressive high definition formats (1080/50p and 1080/60p (and I include the 59.95p in that). This is because the data rate is not fast enough for these formats. The European sourced discs that state 1080p on the packaging are discs produced from film originated material and is one of the abuses of the term progressive. The term progressive strictly defines a video format where the lines of video information are recorded in strict numerical order,

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 ... 1078 - 1079 -1080.

Alternatively, there is the interlaced format which displays the odd lines ony first (odd field) and then follows them by the even lines (even field). (You probably know this already).

1 - 3 - 5 - 7 ... 1077 - 1079 - 2 - 4 - 6 ... 1078 - 1080

They are actually stored in the digital video frame the other way around due to the digital video format's origins in the NTSC world. In true video source material, the even field displays a time slice that is 20 milliseconds later than the odd field and the two together give a comlete video frame. This is also largely true in the Americas, except the even field precedes the odd field by ~16.6 miliiseconds.

There is a largish group of enthusiasts (if that's the right word) who have become somewhat anally retentive over the progressive video formats and who have convinced themselves that progressive is the only way to go. The reality is that any improvement in the visual perception of the video is marginal at best and certainly not worth the doubling of the required digital data to support it. But for them, everything has to be progressive. I shall coin the word 'progressivists' for this discussion.

When film originated material is transferred to video in Europe, the film is run slightly fast by 4% which allows one film frame to occupy both the the odd and even fields of the video frame (known as 2:2 pulldown). Thus the even field displays a time slice that is 0 milliseconds later than the odd field. In order to satisfy the progressivists, the Blu-Ray producers state that such material is in 1080p format, but using something called a 'Progressive Segmented Frame' technique (though they don't mention that last bit on the box). That is: that it is progressive video, but the odd lines have been recorded together and then they are followed by the even lines. It is really interlaced video, but by the time the display device or the Blu-ray player has de-interlaced the video (it doesn't matter one jot where it actually happens), the result is perceptually indistinguishable from true 1080/25p video (assuming the deinterlacing algorithm works properly). If watched on a CRT display then, of course, the video will be interlaced as there is no deinterlacing prior to display, but with that number of lines, no one is likely to notice (unless they sit inches away from the screen). The description 1080p on the box is, technically at least, wrong but percetually the same as 1080/25p video. The 4% speed up goes completely un-noticed especially these days when the sound is adjusted back to the original pitch - and obviously you hadn't noticed it yourself if you had convinced yourself that you were watching films at the original speed.

Once we cross to the Americas, different problems occur. Obviously, running the film at 30 frames per second is not an option, so instead, film is converted to video by storing the same film frame on 3 half video frames, followed by storing the next frame on 2 half video frames and then repeating 3 - 2 - 3 - 2. Thus 4 film frames occupy 5 video frames (the technique is 3:2 pulldown - often wrongly called 2:3 pulldown). Properly deinterlaced, such material is perfectly watchable and the viewer unlikely to feel anything is wrong. But the progressivists have decided that it is not the way to watch film material and have even invented faults to justify a move to a progressive format. I have even seen claims (obviously failing to understand the technique) that movement in the resultant video is uneven in that it jumps 50% further every other jump due to the 3 half fields.

The result was the 24p format. The only problem with the 24p format is that if you try to watch it on a CRT display (and A CRT is still unbeatable for contrast and colour reproduction), the result will be unviewable to bad flicker - something that was known as long ago as 1936 when television was broadcast in the 240 line 25 field progressive format (known in those days by the more correct term of 'sequential') leading to its very rapid demise (it survived just a few months!) and the resultant success of the interlaced 405 line system.

Because of its American origins, European players and TV sets have not officially supported the format until relatively recently. Early equipment either didn't support it at all, but if they did it was only because the internal circuitry was common to its American counterpart. Although 24p has become a selling point in the last year or so (it's usually prominent on the box), it is of little value to Europeans because if they do import 24p Blu-Rays from America, practically all current output (if not all current ouptut) is region locked to Region A machines. Selling 24p discs in Europe would be risky because many are likely to be returned as unplayable (on older equipment). I B Wright (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"First, European Blu-Ray discs are not produced in 24p format" (I B Wright, 2010-05-31)

Any official sources for that claim? As I wrote above, read them out on a PC.

Problem is: that the discs can be authored to report any format the author cares to ascribe them. What matters is the format of the output video. If I grab a random film Blu-ray off of the shelf and check the format reported in the file headers, I find it reports (interstingly) as 23 fps (?) progressive. The video stream is according to the info from the monitor 1920x540@50Hz (which is the reported format for 1080/50i video and for 1080/25p using PSF. I could easily author up a BD disc that reports its video as 128 fps progressive, but that would be obviously absurd. It would still play correctly because fortunately, BD video players do not rely on the reported format but output whatever is avaiable. This contrasts with DVD where some DVD video players did rely on the reported format and complained if the video wasn't actually in that format (usually with a stuttering output, but sometimes not outputting anything or giving an error message). One of the more popular video editing packages marks 'PAL' format DVDs as being in NTSC format and they don't play correctly on a few DVD video players (including nearly all Panasonic players). I B Wright (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Secondly, the Blu-Ray format does not support the proper 1080 progressive high definition formats (1080/50p and 1080/60p (and I include the 59.95p in that)." (I B Wright, 2010-05-31)

You are kidding, right? I NEVER claimed otherwise. THE 1080P50 CLAIM WAS ACTUALLY WHAT I REMOVED FROM THE ARTICLE –> click here to see the edit yourself. How about reading what I really wrote first?

As for the other comments, I didn't have time to dissect all your technical claims properly, but I'm sorry to inform you that those concerning European BD encoding, PAL speed-up being the only option to play back European BDs and playability of US BDs in Europe are rubbish (you are right about the – as opposed to the DVD days irregularly used – region locks, but they can be circumvented; and if you took the time to go through the pertinent lists, you'd be surprised to LEARN how many US BDs are actually released region-free): I own dozens of US AND European BDs (from the UK, from Germany, from Switzerland – not always identical with the German ones – and other regions), and they ALL play fine and ARE in 24p. Again, check it yourself on a PC.

Hardly any Blu-ray discs were region locked while HD DVD was still a viable format (HD DVD doesn't support region locking). However following the demise of HD DVD virtually all subsequently released Blu-ray discs are now region locked with the occasional example that is not. In spite of what the disc publishers claim, region locking serves solely to enforce price differentials across the globe. The publishers have every interest in preventing European consumers from importing discs from the US, where they are (typically around) 33% cheaper. Personally, it doesn't stop me because I can play them. I B Wright (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop Press: Just checked my catalogue of Blu-ray discs (I put all DVDs and BDs in database so that I don't buy the same one again - rather easy when you have over 1500 discs). All (Yes; That meansd 'All') the movie originated Blu-rays that I have bought that were produced from around the summer of 2008 onwards are all Region Locked to Region A or B (depending on which side of the pond they were sourced). Not all the video sourced discs are however. I B Wright (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with some of the other remarks about progressivists and such, but that could be the topic of an interesting discussion.

Bottom line, I fail to see what you attacked me for – and I'm very open to be corrected on things I'm wrong or ignorant about (as, especially of the latter, there's a multitude, and I'm always eager to learn), but as long as you don't make a cogent case against my position I wouldn't know why I should abandon it. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall atacking you as such, merely pointing out the facts (that you clearly know less about the subject than you claim). I actually author Blu-ray discs so know quite a bit about the subject. I can but lead the horse to water, but I cannot force him to drink. I B Wright (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Before we get to the 24p part, first things first: So, you do agree with me on the falsehood of the whole 1080p50 business and realize you accused me of something I never asserted (on the contrary, as is obvious to anyone who reads what I wrote and linked to), right?

I never accused you of anything. (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Now to your other main claim:

"European Blu-Ray discs are not produced in 24p format. That is almost exclusively the preserve of the American regions." (I B Wright, 2010-05-31)

As you'll see farther below, you're doubly wrong.

" I find it reports (interstingly) as 23 fps (?) progressive." (I B Wright, 2010-06-02)

I can only presume, by that you mean "23.976", correct? (If not, then I'm at a loss just what you could've done, but I'd doubt that you used a commerically available BD that contains the representation of a feature film and read it out on the proper hard- and with proper software)

I didn't do anything. I assume that whoever put the 23 into the disc files either made an error and put 23 by mistake or maybe did it deliberately knowing that players don't read that information anyway. Either way, we'll never know. I B Wright (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If so, then we're there: that's it! In everyday speech, that is 24p, although, technically, it isn't. Confusing? You bet! And that's exactly why I didn't want to open that can of worms. As it would've been (and is now) very cumbersome to go into even more detail in this setting here (writing to and fro), and since I was (and still am) under the impression that the person who first came along with those weird 1080p25 and 1080p50 claims with regards to motion pictures ported onto the BD format was already out of his depths enough, I decided to simplify matters and did so on numerous occasions (not just in this relation) – and will do in the elaborations to follow, as well.

The only person confused around here seems to be you as you are apparently so convinced that you a right, you just can't accept it when someone tells you that you are not. I apologise: TWO people have told you that you are wrong. That should tell you something. I B Wright (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, had you read my very first post before responding, you'd have already encountered the mysterious number "23.976", as it is contained in the official BDA (= Blu-ray Disc Association) white paper to which I explicitly pointed – I even spoon-fed the exact page with the pertinent spec sheet, no less!

Now you're trying to teach grandma to suck eggs. I B Wright (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If you go there now, at least, you'll see that there is mandatory playback support for both, 1080p23.976 and 1080p24, and in practice, both formats are employed, although it seems 23.976p is much more common. Why? Well, probably mostly for infrastructural reasons, and because that's the most hassle-free way to get to the 2:3 pulldown required for playback on hardware that's not capable of rendering native 23.976p and 24p, respectively.

In Europe, sometimes (not very often, if I'm not mistaken), they go for "real" 24p. And that's why I wrote you were doubly wrong in stating "European Blu-Ray discs are not produced in 24p format. That is almost exclusively the preserve of the American regions.", when it's actually the other way around – only that, of course, in neither region BDs are present in 1080p25. And that misguided conviction of yours is the real problem, as when "facts" such as this are worked into Misplaced Pages articles, disinformation gets spread even further and more rapidly; the other observation is just funny.

European discs may report and claim that they are 24p, but they are not. 24p was not a mandatory format in the original specs (it probably is now). The specs were originally put together to be compatible with the most common type of display at that time which were CRT displays. 24p would not play well on a CRT as it would flicker like hell. As a result, early players and displays don't necessarily support it. I B Wright (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Now, would it have been preferable if exact 24p was the norm, the single standard? Yeah, sure, but the difference between it and 23.976p is so super-minimal that it really is imperceptible (no comparison to the atrocious 4% PAL speed up) – just don't mix the two while editing, otherwise audio will get out of sync (lips won't match with what is spoken anymore).

You keep putting down the 4% speedup for PAL. Yet you haven't noticed it in those discs that you wrongly believe are formatted in 24p. The reality is that nobody is really aware that the film has been speeded up at all. I B Wright (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, when "pure" 24p is used, it's not done out of respect for the source material but simply because, that way, the abhorrent 2:2 pulldown is easier realized for 50Hz-only TVs. But since those are virtually non-existent in Europe today, anyway (I dare you to show me one that still can't handle 60Hz), that's just silly. But, hey, I won't complain: I get 24p, and the those fond of altered speed and pitch can still watch the movie in that mode (tragically, many continue to do that, even if they own 24p-enabled equipment).

And what's so wrong with 2:2 pulldown? That is the way the film was intended to be shown in the cinema in the first place. Again most people are perceptually unaware of it, just as they are equally unaware of films encoded in the NTSC system using 2:3 pulldown. I B Wright (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're curious which BDs are in "true" 24p and which ones are in 23.976p, here is a partial list ("default" is 1080p23.976, meaning, in 24p are only those discs specifically designated as such).

By the way, even within the industry, especially on the marketing end (it's another story with the tech people: see remark about editing above), 24p often is the only term used, no matter whether the discs refered to are actually produced in 24p or rather in 23.976p.

Or that they are really 50i. I B Wright (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As for the region coding thing (and I still fail to see why you brought that into the arena, as the simple fact that many studios still haven't wised up and continue to try and boss around paying customers who believe in a free market was never in contention), here's a small, random sample of 2009 releases that are region free (the number in brackets behind the title denotes the year of its theatrical release, NOT of its BD release – which, again, in each case is 2009):

• An American Crime (2007) (DE BD)
• Bad Boy Bubby (1993) (UK BD)
• Body of Lies (2008) (DE BD)
• The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) (UK BD)
• Drag Me to Hell (2009) (DE BD)
• Due occhi diabolici (1990) (US BD)
• Gran Torino (2008) (DE BD)
• The Hangover (2009) (DE BD)
• A History of Violence (2005) (US BD)
• The Last House on the Left (2009) (UK BD)
• Pineapple Express (2008) (UK BD)
• Role Models (2008) (US BD)
• Step Brothers (2008) (UK BD)
• The Wizard of Oz (1939) (US BD)
• Zodiac (2007) (US BD)

For more, turn here or here (Region A) and here (Region B).

Not got any of those. As I said, ALL the films that I have bought are region protected. I B Wright (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

How could you possibly know whether this is true (which it is) or not? I B Wright (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, I wouldn't know why that topic should matter so much to you, especially since you state you already own an unlocked playback device. In case it's not working properly and you'd like to replace it, just let me know, I can give you a few URLs for both Europe and the US.

It works perfectly. I B Wright (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And yes, all the titles I've listed are in 24p (again, simplified), not in in 25p, not in 50i, not in 50p.

You mean the European ones claim to be in 24p. They are not otherwise they wouldn't play on older equipment. I B Wright (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And yes, I know, 1080i50 IS part of the BD specs (as is 1080i60, for that matter), but that format is mainly used for documentary and concert / music features, where there is NO PAL speed-up involved, since that material was ORIGINALLY SHOT in 50Hz (or 60Hz). I've mentioned all of this before, but so I have most of what's written here...

Recommended reading:

24/P HDTV: The Fall of Film Production (by Steve Wiedemann) – a bit old, but insightful none the less.

And this might serve to revise your notions of what you call progressivism:

• High Definition 1080p TV: Why You Should Be Concerned – Part I
• High Definition 1080p TV: Why You Should Be Concerned – Part II
• High Definition 1080p TV: Why You Should Be Concerned – Part III
• High Definition 1080p TV: Why You Should Be Concerned – Part IV
• High Definition 1080p TV: Why You Should Be Concerned – Part V

(feature article by Brian Florian and Collin Miller, March of 2007)

It is clear that those articles are written by progressivists. It starts out by attributing interlaced video with artifacts that are not real - in that although the effects are theoretically there, they don't actually manifest themselves on screen in reality. Combing should never appear if the deinterlacing is done properly. Interline twitter, does sometimes appear for computer generated graphics, but even then it is not perceptible unless you are sitting too close to the screen. It is not problem for real video. It is also clear that the case they are making is for 24p material, which according to you is unnecessary as it is universal. The real progressivists are after 1080/50p and/or 1080/60p (or thereabouts).

They have also made a classic mistake which demostrates that they haven't actually tried what they are talking about. They denigrate 1366x768 pixel displays (claiming that a third of the information is wasted and that you should really use a 1920x1080 display). If they had actually tried this they would discover that the image on the 1920x1080 display is vastly inferior to the apparently lower resolution display. This is because of 'overscan', another relic of the HD origins when CRTs were still the de facto display. Only the central 1877x1000 pixels (by specification) are actually presented to the viewer. Rescaling that to fit a 1920x1080 display produces a blurring of the image because of the nearness of the two resolutions. AFAIAA, no one actually makes a 1877x1000 pixel display. I B Wright (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I never claimed to be an expert, and I certainly don't feel like one, but neither do I have to be to point out some very basic facts. And now I gotta get a drink, I'm thirsty as a horse.

Good job as you clearly know less than you claim. I B Wright (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Regards – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That's it, I give up. EVERYTHING contained within your latest message has already been disproved in my earlier replies either directly or indirectly through links provided (you're good at ignoring, I'll give you that), so there's no need for any further replies. I did, however, take the liberty to highlight some of the more ludicrous remarks for my own enjoyment (not a single character was changed, I just set a new color for those passages). I hope you don't mind.

Then I suggest you read up on overscan. Try viewing 1080 HD video for yourself on a 1920x1080 display in 'video' mode (usually the default for the HDMI connector as most displays ignore the video/computer flag in the data stream). Read about it here (last paragraph). It is clear that you have got a very wrong view of the HD world from somewhere and you just won't be told otherwise. You have provided a few links that appear to support your view but are either self published sources (i,e, not credible), or are cherry picked to support your wrong ideas. I B Wright (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile I'm not even sure anymore if you really believe what you've written. It would almost seem unimaginable that you do. So, actually, I think you're performing some kind of comedy routine here. Well, don't quit your day job.

Here's a parting idea: Since, contrary to what you've managed to convince yourself of, there are still quite a few ignorant chaps like me out there who are in dire need of your guiding light to lead them out of their pitiful intellectual darkness (like one or two fellow Wikipedians or the designers of the standards and the developers of the technologies in question here), why don't you help advancing the cause by sharing your expertise with them, too? – just don't tell me who specifically you intend to approach, as I'd feel obligated to warn them...

More for the poor souls who had the misfortune to follow our exchange, here's one last interesting tidbit for them to take into consideration (I B Wright, you might now proceed to go into your usual eyes closed, ears shut mode and pretend the following is actually once more confirming your dearly held and desperately defended tenets; oh, and please forgive me for again using verifiable sources instead of pulling some claptrap out of my behind):

• excerpt from Question about BD frame rates:
  

  "Both, 24fps and 23,976fps are part of the Blu-ray specification and mandatory player support is given. Therefore we always use the native framerate from the HDCAM or HDCAM SR tape and encode that way. Otherwise we'd have to conform the audio and as there is no reason for not using either of both that's our standard procedure."
  

  (statement from the German offices of Optimum Releasing, a European BD producer)

You obviously have not read what I wrote. I answered this point. I would part by pointing out that the 23.976 frame rate is a totally pointless frame rate and should have been strangled at birth. I know that it came from the need to alter the frame rate slightly for NTSC coded analogue video to avoid an artifact, but HD video owes nothing whatsoever to NTSC analogue color encoding so was a completely unnecessary frame rate. I B Wright (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, enough already. I'll let it all stand for a little longer and then delete it. If somebody else wants to give it a try, go ahead (hint: DON'T, you'll never get back the time). – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I B Wright

Now, thinking about it, those 86.x.x.x guys (two addresses, same guy) and I B Wright are indeed seem to be the same person. By the way, Ὁ οἶστρος, notice that he replies to you from his registered and unregistered accounts. He does not know much, he modifies his attack by using the opponents words so it is hard to see what he is claiming and what you are fighting with.

Now, why he is doing this? For fun? Or maybe this is a larger network of individuals with a goal to discourage real people from editing Misplaced Pages and as such to acquire control over the resource that is supposed to be unbiased? I can venture a conspiracy theory here, but maybe he DOES do this just for his own perverted fun. We got to reopen the sock puppet case.

And yes, European HD ready TVs must support 60/59.94 Hz scan rates. Mikus (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There's evidence of sockpuppetry and it's a repeat offense; go ahead and report it. Ginbot₈₆ 03:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone else made a similar allegation around 2 years ago (different IP address though). It was rejected by Misplaced Pages as there was no link.

I would ignore Mikus because he's just pissed off that he is a persistent vandal (6 counts) and has been reported for the offence. He is also a persistent abuser of other users and persitent edit warmonger. Speaking of which... 86.180.173.157 (talk) 07:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism Warning

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Misplaced Pages, as you did to Overscan, you will be blocked from editing.

The fact that you logged out to do it does not hide the fact that it was you. It is amazing that a fact has stood in the article for years and then is suddenly deleted as soon as your attention is edrawn to it. Now that is Sockpupetry and maybe I should report it.

Just because you (and only you) disbelieve something, does not give you the right to remove something from a Misplaced Pages article. AFAICT, the presence of HD overscan has been in the overscan article for some time unchallenged. Given that it has been unchallenged (not even a tag) it has been accepted by concensus (which is acceptable under Misplaced Pages policy). Also have a look here where there is no shortage of discussion on the subject groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.tech.digital 86.180.173.157 (talk) 07:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)