Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> 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.

If I was you, I'd first buy new glasses and then actually stare at the TV rather
than at a specs sheet..

>
> >> 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?)

Like I said, I've seen.  It's easy, you go outside and enter some store...

>
> 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?

beats me.  Just looks terrific.  Then again, I don't use glasses

Post a reply to this message