4745a4aa$1@news.povray.org...

> I see three possibilities:
> 1. The TV they were proudly displaying was actually rubbish.
> 2. The signal they were feeding it with was naff.
> 3. There's little actual difference between HD and SD.

4. You need to see an ophtalmologist?

G.

Post a reply to this message

scott escribió:
> http://www.bur.st/~anthony/dba/160206/stateoftheunion_1.jpg
> 
> Now, if you can't tell the difference...
> 

I see interlacing artifacts >_< Progressive video ftw.

Post a reply to this message

> Well one is live the other cartoon (feel free to guess which is which)

lol :D The HD one?

Post a reply to this message

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

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:474548a9$1@news.povray.org...


> more crisp picture. I could buy a *car* for that amount of money! Hell,
> I could almost buy a copy of *Oracle* for that!

Where the hell are you shopping? I priced LCD HD TVs last weekend, and I
could get a good one for R7000. (that's somewhere around 450 pounds, if you
convert)

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47456cf5@news.povray.org...

> (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...)

Odd. I often plug my laptop into my 6 year old TV, since I also don't have a
DVD player. At 800*600, the desktop is easily visible and the text readable.
It's not as clear as on the laptop screen, but then I wouldn't expect it to
be.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>> But Oh My God, the picture quality was amazing.
> 
>   Yeah, assuming the bluray player/drive doesn't decide that your 1-year-old
> TV/monitor (or if you are using a computer, almost anything in it, more
> prominently your 1-year-old top-of-the-line graphics card) is an illegal
> ripping machine and thus decides to give you a low-resolution blurred
> version of the image.

...this part worries me...

Post a reply to this message

> I see interlacing artifacts >_< Progressive video ftw.

Yeh, I found it pretty hard to find any 1080p screen-caps on the net, I 
guess that's because most broadcasters use 1080i max at the moment.

There are some 720p and 1080p clips here:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/musicandvideo/hdvideo/contentshowcase.aspx

They look pretty impressive even on a 1280x1024 monitor.

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:

> Where the hell are you shopping?

The wrong place, clearly. ;-)

> I priced LCD HD TVs last weekend, and I
> could get a good one for R7000. (that's somewhere around 450 pounds, if you
> convert)

Doesn't mean it's possible to buy it in this country for that price.




(For another example, the guy in HQ was shocked that we were being asked 

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> savanas and stuff that's clearly meant to make you go "wow".

Myself, I find the compression artifacts tremendously distracting.

> As far as I know, a normal TV operates at something like 300x200 or so. 
> That means that 4x would only be 600x400 - still extremely low.

640x480, actually, for NTSC disregarding overscan.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message