Real life thread

[Jeff Head]

Hey Jeff, don't kill me but I don't like 4K. Not that it's not good. On the Contrary, a 4K would look absolutely stunning IF you can find source material that's also 4K. Sadly, most of the media that we get nowadays is still standard 2K, i.e. 1080p. Almost all the BD discs are still 1080p and most the HD cable/satellite feed is still 720p or at most 1080i. ...

No prob, vesicles.

I got the Samsung TV because Samsung has quite a library of 4k movies available through a special page right on the TV. The TV comes with 1TB of memory which you can download them either to rent or purchase.

Also, there are several NetFlix programs which are 4K. A list I saw on NetFlix listed their series "House of Cards," "Marco Polo"; "Breaking Bad," "The Blacklist"; and movies like "The Smurfs 2," "Philadelphia," "Jerry Maguire," "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," alsoa umber of documentaries like "Oceans," "Forests," "Deserts" and "Flowers."

Amazon also has a library of 4k movies and videos.

There is also a whole section of 4K content on YouTube.
Finally, Direct TV has teamed with Samsun to provide a package of 20 or more movies movies that you can rent if you have DirectTV. You end up renting the moives and they play on the Genie DVR. But DirecTV's 4K satellite, launched late in 2015, should add more content options soon.

All of the content I have watched so far are GREAT.

In addition, the TV up-converts HD content to 4K. This is not the same...but given the older 32" TV I had before at 720, what I am seeing now is lots, lots better. Probably would have been euqlly impressed for the HD content on the 1080 we were going to buy, but we have now watched quite a bit of actual 4K content and we really like it.

And at $499 at Costco...we are in very reasonably.

I haven't even looked at the gaminig side of it yet...but that will come I am sure.

 

[B.I.B.]

I don't know if its true, I have been told with satellite TV the quality of the picture diminishes in apartment blocks because of the amount of households the receiving dish has to supply. Therefore there would be little point in paying 10-20K for a very expensive 4K TV .

 

[vesicles]

I don't know if its true, I have been told with satellite TV the quality of the picture diminishes in apartment blocks because of the amount of households the receiving dish has to supply. Therefore there would be little point in paying 10-20K for a very expensive 4K TV .

That's not possible. Keep in mind that ALL cable/satellite signals in the US are now digital. There is no such thing as diminished picture quality. You either see it or don't with digital signals, unlike the linear change in amount of signal with an analog feed.

As long as you don't see pixelation, you are getting the exact same signal as intended by the station. Now, the kind signal that will be sent by the station could vary. This would depend on the station. It could be as low as 480p, which is DVD quality. To qualify as HD, all they need to do is bump the signal up to 720p. For big events like the Super Bowl, you will most likely get 1080p or above. As Jeff mentioned, you will now get 4K signals too.

This is the nice thing about digital signals. You no longer have to worry about quality of the transmission. I used to spend $100-200 for a Monster cable when we had only analog signal back in the 2000's. These cables are coated with 24k gold and would not lose any signal during transmitting. You also want to keep the cable as short as possible for potential loss of signal over long distance. Now with the digital signals? I just go to my local Wal-Mart and pick up a $10 HDMI cable. As long as it works, it will faithfully transmit everything with absolutely no signal loss because it's all digital. So much simpler with the digital signal.

 

[B.I.B.]

That's not possible. Keep in mind that ALL cable/satellite signals in the US are now digital. There is no such thing as diminished picture quality. You either see it or don't with digital signals, unlike the linear change in amount of signal with an analog feed.

As long as you don't see pixelation, you are getting the exact same signal as intended by the station. Now, the kind signal that will be sent by the station could vary. This would depend on the station. It could be as low as 480p, which is DVD quality. To qualify as HD, all they need to do is bump the signal up to 720p. For big events like the Super Bowl, you will most likely get 1080p or above. As Jeff mentioned, you will now get 4K signals too.

This is the nice thing about digital signals. You no longer have to worry about quality of the transmission. I used to spend $100-200 for a Monster cable when we had only analog signal back in the 2000's. These cables are coated with 24k gold and would not lose any signal during transmitting. You also want to keep the cable as short as possible for potential loss of signal over long distance. Now with the digital signals? I just go to my local Wal-Mart and pick up a $10 HDMI cable. As long as it works, it will faithfully transmit everything with absolutely no signal loss because it's all digital. So much simpler with the digital signal.

I don't live in the US, and until recently we did /still have analog in parts of the country.We certainly still had analog when 4k came out.

 

[siegecrossbow]

My "USS Lexington Museum" thread was commended and placed on the headline by CJDBY's moderators!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Jeff Head]

My "USS Lexington Museum" thread was commended and placed on the headline by CJDBY's moderators!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Congrats!

Among many others, I love this pic:

 

[B.I.B.]

I just caught the tail end on this radio interview where a medical doctor suggested, just as man had evolved over thousands of years from cultural and environmental factors, he will continue to do so.
In time they will naturally have squinty type eyes because of the amount of time spent squinting into cell phones and similar sized devices.

 

[vesicles]

I just caught the tail end on this radio interview where a medical doctor suggested, just as man had evolved over thousands of years from cultural and environmental factors, he will continue to do so.
In time they will naturally have squinty type eyes because of the amount of time spent squinting into cell phones and similar sized devices.

Was this supposed to be a joke? If it is, then hahahaha! It is hilarious! If not, then this "doctor" should have his license revoked...

 

[B.I.B.]

Was this supposed to be a joke? If it is, then hahahaha! It is hilarious! If not, then this "doctor" should have his license revoked...

He may well have been joking I don’t know.

A check with the radio programs listed in our paper showed it to be a talk given by a ‘evolutionary biologist.’ Where I started to listen, he was talking about the human eye where one of the “vestigial traits” in the human body could be found. The one in the eye is in the corner, something which would have formed a third eye lid. It’s called a (something??.. membrane found in birds and reptiles and amphibians. Apparently when you look at these animals you will see this membrane come down and clean the eye. Anyway that’s about all I heard.

 

[vesicles]

He may well have been joking I don’t know.

A check with the radio programs listed in our paper showed it to be a talk given by a ‘evolutionary biologist.’ Where I started to listen, he was talking about the human eye where one of the “vestigial traits” in the human body could be found. The one in the eye is in the corner, something which would have formed a third eye lid. It’s called a (something??.. membrane found in birds and reptiles and amphibians. Apparently when you look at these animals you will see this membrane come down and clean the eye. Anyway that’s about all I heard.

It's called nictitating membrane. It is usually translucent and moves horizontally to cover one's eyes when needed (assuming you have one, of course).

I hate the idea that, evolutionarily "you lose it if you don't use it". That is simply wrong. Sadly, too many professionals still tend to think that way. Evolution only happens when there is pressure for it. For instance, hypothetically, 1% of human has wings. These people will slowly die off and at best stay as minority if nothing happens. If all of a sudden, a global flood occurs. The only way to stay alive is to fly away. Then these winged humans suddenly become advantageous. While most "normal" human drown, these winged human survive and have offsprings. Then before long, all human on Earth have wings. And you have evolution.

So the nictitating membrane must be disadvantageous for land animals or mammals. This should be why most mammals lost it. Not because it is useless. If it is useless, there would not be any pressure one way or another. Mammals would have kept it.

Any difference you see between human and any other animals should be caused by some functional advantages with how human ancestors behaved and lived back when human first evolved. These features may not be advantageous now because we don't have the same environment that our ancestors had back in the day.

So with the narrow eye lids mentioned by that doctor, that will never happen. There never be any evolutionary pressure to favor such physiology.

Evolution always always goes hand in hand with global disasters, the kind that will make a species extinct. Always! Without such disaster when we just go about our everyday life, evolution will never happen.