Invisible wrote:
> 
> They were running National Geographic HD. (Doesn't mean they had an HD
> decoder of course...) Lots of long short of mountains, jungles, big
> savanas and stuff that's clearly meant to make you go "wow". It honestly
> didn't look much different to what I get on my 7 year old TV at home.

It was either National Geographic HD or Discovery HD which I saw at the
store here in Finland (Verkkokauppa.com is the store) from multiple
HD-screens at once. I couldn't figure out if the resolutions seemd to be
good or bad, 'cause I almost got a headache from the infernally bad
MPEG-encoding! Seriously, I'd take old-fashion analog-RF rather than
such crap, while the analog problems are easier for brains to filter.

> (I remember I once plugged my laptop into the TV because we didn't own a
> DVD player. The Windows desktop was... unreadable. Literally, you just
> couldn't read *any* of the writing! But then, I guess usually you sit 12
> feet from your TV screen, so they're not going to bother making it able
> to display tiny writing like that...)

That's a sign of bad TV or bad TV-out. I had 25" Finlux (some
basic-model, but good picture quality) and Matrox G550 connected via
S-video: Windows desktop was usable (no, not clear, but useable) even
with 1280x960. It was unbelievably clear with 800x600 (didn't outperfom
a monitor, but I was really surprised that a TV could do that).

> I think we've established that the shop was overpriced. ;-)

Certainly ;).

And yes, SD-picture seems soft when watched with 93" picture from 5
meters away. I think that (really a big picture with home theatre
enthustians) is a real winner-goal for HD. 768x576 vs. 1920x1080 makes
pretty big difference, once you can see the pixels of the first one.

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
   http://www.zbxt.net
      aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message