>> And besides, I didn't say there was *no* difference. I just said the
>> difference was rather small. Certainly not worth paying tens of
>> thousands of pounds for.
>
> They're now the standard TV sets and you don't pay much more than what you used
> to pay for.

Yeah, sure. Buy a new TV. Buy a new signal decoder. By a new disk 
player. All for what? A noticeable but small increase in picture 
sharpness. Big deal.

>> Increasing the framerate does sound like one hell of a good idea. On the
>> other hand, they'll probably just increase it from 50 Hz to 55 Hz and
>> call it "extreme motion" or something. :-P
>
> Nope, it's 120hz and very visible a difference.

Not having watched any video at 120 Hz, I couldn't say. (And are you 
saying there are actual plans to implement this? Or just that you've 
seen it somewhere?)

By the way, normal TV (in my country) is 50 Hz, but that's interlaced, 
so it's actually 50 *half frames* per second. It's a piffling 25 *full 
frames* per second. How does progressive scan change this? Is it still 
only 25 full frames per second? Or does it actually allow 50 full frames 
per second?

Post a reply to this message