User talk:Andreas -horn- Hornig

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome 2 Image request 3 Bilder 4 RE: SVG Help! 5 3D

[edit] Welcome

Hello Andreas -horn- Hornig, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Don't forget to use the Show preview button before you save. Again, welcome! – ABCD 02:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image request

I've uploaded the pot of chili image to the commons. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 17:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bilder

Alles klar, ich werde dort mal reinschauen. Ich kann allerdings auch nicht besonders gut freihandzeichnen, meistens orientiere ich mich für die komplizierten Teile an Fotos. Das Promptermännchen kannst du natürlich gerne verwenden (auch wenn ich auf de:Betrachtungsabstand eine isometrische Ansicht einer Profilansicht vorziehen würde). Wenn du etwas bestimmtes brauchst, kannst du dich gerne nochmal bei mir melden. Gruss, grm_wnr Esc 19:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE: SVG Help!

Hi. Yes I created Image:Standard video res.svg. I created it with the open source vector program Inkscape. No need to edit the SVG directly. However, I did hand edit some of the svg directly, but in your case that may not happen. So, try it out and see if you can achieve the affect you are going for. Good luck! Also, I noticed that you have very cool video resolution diagrams. If you want to replace my image with yours that is fine. It would be nice to convert them or redo them in SVG though. Take care. --Alister 03:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andreas, I created the original Image:Resolution chart.svg picture. The reason that the 1080i box is smaller is that the box represents visible detail, not pixel count. These references: [1], [2], [3], [4]show that interlaced scan lines display less detail then an equal number of progressive scan lines. The last one also explains why broadcast 1080i never has the resolution one would expect from 1920 horizontal pixels:

Gaggioni then demonstrated what happens when uncompressed 1920 x 1035 source is encoded for emission at 19.3 Mbps in a split screen with filtered HDCam source encoded for emission at 1440 x 1035 resolution. The difference was highly visible, as the uncompressed full resolution source caused the encoder to produce high levels of noise and occasional blocking artifacts. The "lower resolution" HDCam source delivered a significantly higher quality picture!

So all broadcasts, while technically including 1920 pixels, have been softened to the detail one would expect from 1440 pixels. Since the graph is meant to show what you can actually SEE when those formats are used, I feel it is accurate. (Although I have considered adding a note to the top stating that the horizontal numbers are "pixel equivalents" for the analog formats and 1080i. Do you think that would help?

I would appreciate your input on this, and some other issues that have come up in this discussion. Tvaughan1 and I have recently found ourselves disagreeing about a lot of things. He says that:

• Interlace and Progressive lines display the same amount of detail. (as opposed to the refs above.)
• There is no other non-POV way to measure sharpness except by pixel count.
• DVDs and DV tape have less then 360 TV lines of resolution, despite universal reports that they have over 500. This makes DVDs no sharper then broadcast TV. (And PAL discs less sharp then PAL TV.)
• CRT phosphors maintain an image for a full 1/30 of a second, causing both fields to be visible at once. I showed him a photo that I felt disproved this, but he rejected it as original research.
• Interlace portrays motion better then progressive scan. He keeps implicitly denying the existence of 60p formats.

He has no references for any of this, but I'm getting exhausted by the discussion. Can you help? Image talk:Resolution chart.svg, and Talk:Interlace Algr 07:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have references for all of the statements that I have made. However, the above statements do not accurately reflect my statements. The discussion continues on Template talk:TV resolution. Tvaughan1 17:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In this entire discussion you have only ever shown me two references, one was a subset of [5] in PDF without the Kell factor info, the other was a quote taken out of context where they were comparing 720p to 1080i, and you tried to apply it to 1080p as well. (It was also from 1993, before any actual 720p gear had been made.) Algr 18:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

hi, i am willing to help you where ever i can, but could we please continue our/your discussion on the template or picture discussion sites? please ;), --Andreas -horn- Hornig 14:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3D

I didn't write that page, I merely gave it a more descriptive name. You could read its talk page (and the related page on meta) for the reasoning behind it. It refers to anaglyphs right at the top; one argument against anaglyphs is that they generally cannot be viewed without a set of red/green glasses, which most people don't possess. (Radiant) 16:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)