My reference to the $100 security camera wasn't about specs. My point was that a cheap security camera doesn't include any PTZ (pan, tilt, zoom) functionality. The human body OTOH has far more capability. Although the human eye can't zoom in the same fashion as a camera lens, it does have the capability to redirect attention. Not only can we mimic pans and tilts, but we can pedestal ourselves up and down...we can articulate (and locomote) our bodies to change our POV with few limits.
And the people who like to say "you can't do that"...well, they're not going to have their orders obeyed. I have yet to see a movie theater equipped with "Brazil"-esque devices to lock down the human body (even the eyeballs!) so that it can't possibly move, or anyone who would want to watch a feature-length film while restrained by such a device.
On the other side of the coin, although video displays are still mostly fixed devices, there's an increasing use of multiple displays, multiplexed displays (picture in picture really didn't catch on, although it deserves a mention) and mixed environments where TV and computer displays can be brought up and used as needed. It doesn't take much imagination to see that people will continue to "think outside the box" when it comes to display technology. I predict a rich and varied future in this realm.
Just yesterday I was stretched out on the couch watching a movie, and realized that my head was oriented perpendicular to the TV screen; I was laying on my side, but the TV still was in its "normal" panoramic orientation. Amazing to think that my brain automatically "fixed" the image, and I didn't see the picture as if it was standing on end!
I think that the state of the art in display technology has only scratched the surface of how it can evolve to accommodate the human being.
You know, Coca-Cola won't advertise in REC-709 media because their red isn't available! Not that I need Coke ads... but it makes a point.
LOL...yes, it certainly does! To think that the Coca-Cola Company had absolutely no problem with the colorimetrics of NTSC TV!!!
Was their red available in the various color spaces that NTSC used? I don't think so...http://www.gottadance.org/gamuts.shtml"The 1953 NTSC standard had a very nice color range, but the phosphors in use were rather dim. From the late 1950s to late 1970s, televisions became much brighter but suffered a greatly reduced color gamut, thanks to the different phosphors being used. Reds became reddish-orange, and greens became yellow-green. There were no standards that television manufacturers were willing to conform to."http://01966633.com/t/1038839/rec-601-smpte-c-rec-709-confusion-thread
(Another nice reference, right here at AVS Forums.)
I do agree with you about the now self-imposed limitations of "Color TV 1.x" that have been carried over to v2.0 (HD) and beyond. When ATSC came out, I was sorely disappointed to learn that not only was raster scanning retained, but even deprecated things like blanking intervals, IRE 7.5 black levels etc. were inexplicably still
part of the D/HDTV system! I can understand why the original HDTV standards like BT.709 were heavily constrained by the low availability and high cost of the equipment that makes all those bits so inexpensive today.
By the same token, now that digital
HDTV has paved the way (note that a lot of original HDTV development was done using analog technology), isn't it about time for improvements in colorimetry such as a color space that meets or exceeds the color gamut visible to the best human eyes. (I'm hardly an expert, but if the CIE x
axis' lower limit was extended down to 0, and the upper limits on the x
axes adjusted accordingly, that's all that needs to be done to include what we currently consider to be the limits of human color perception. I'll leave it to the real mathematicians to figure out the best way to toss out the unused parts of that triangle.) At least BT.2020 is a step in the right direction, compared to BT.709, CCIR 601 and the analog color spaces (ie. SMPTE-C) that came before.
Maybe by the time a 16K standard needs to be agreed upon, that the engineers who work on that standard might want to throw all of the antiquated thinking that's based on things like the color of tungsten and phosphors, take the "clean sheet" approach and replace it all with less arcane and more universal functions that would be a more suitable platform for use in the 21st century.