PUBLIC BEING MIS-SOLD HD

On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Karyudo wrote:
Ah, but you are confusing horizontal and vertical resolution.

As the kids say, "well duh!" ;-)

Please don't educate the "common_ " troll. He totally
discredited himself with this public demonstration of ignorance of the
difference between horizontal and vertical resolution, or for that matter
even understanding what that means.

The last thing that we want is for him to acquire any sort of clue. That
would allow him to babble credible nonsense instead of absurd nonsense.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 21:04:32 -0800, Mark Crispin
wrote:

On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Karyudo wrote:
Ah, but you are confusing horizontal and vertical resolution.

As the kids say, "well duh!" ;-)

Please don't educate the "common_ " troll. He totally
discredited himself with this public demonstration of ignorance of the
difference between horizontal and vertical resolution, or for that matter
even understanding what that means.

The last thing that we want is for him to acquire any sort of clue. That
would allow him to babble credible nonsense instead of absurd nonsense.

-- Mark --

Oh, he's one of *those*, is he? Then you're right: I won't bother.

It would be nice if people who really don't know what they're talking
about would stop posting to Usenet as if they were authorities.
Although I guess that accounts for about half the traffic on Usenet,
so it'll never happen...

I'm no genius myself, but I try to make pretty damn sure I know what
I'm talking about before I make any pronouncements. On occasion I've
sounded like a moron, I'm sure, but I try to limit it to one moronic
statement per topic. Even in my blunders, I've learned a bunch from
Usenet.

In article common_ writes:
Karyudo wrote:

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:37:23 GMT, common_ wrote:

Karyudo wrote:

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:27:27 GMT, common_ wrote:

SD Digital is capable of 480i - the same as a DVD player. Analog TV
was 240i, at best.

That is false. Analog TV is capable of 576i (PAL) or 480i (NTSC), the
same as digital TV or DVD. DVD was created to show NTSC/PAL signals.
So, presumably, was digital TV. Where do you get your insanely low
numbers??

I should have said "broadcast" resolution, not to be confused with
display resolution. Broadcast resolution of a typical analog TV signal
is under 330 lines, cable is even worse as they restrict HF bandwidth
even more.

Ah, but you are confusing horizontal and vertical resolution. All NTSC
TV, whether analog or digital, is 525 lines. About 480 of which are
picture. That doesn't change, whether it's OTA or cable or DVD. So all
NTSC can correctly claim to be 480i. There is no such animal as 240i,
and no broadcast NTSC has ever been anything but 480i. In fact,
broadcast analog NTSC actually has a few MORE than 480 lines.

no I am not,,,

Its a function of frequency response with analog TV. Your VHS recorder
is only 200 lines, a Super VHS is only 330 lines,,due to the high
frequency recording limitations of the tape.


No, you are confused, and you have numbers that don't even match
conventional figures.

When you talk about the resolution of VHS or Super VHS (or other
analog recording systems), you are talking about the bandwidth of
the signal. When they say resolution, they are using it as shorthand
for "lines of horizontal resolution per picture height". i.e., on a
4:3 screen, they are measuring across 3/4 of the width of the picture.
Given the speed the line is scanned, this works out to about 80 lines of
horizontal resolution per picture height per megahertz of video bandwidth.

When you talk about the 480 (or slightly more) lines of picture information
in a NTSC picture, you are talking about the number of scan lines that are
drawn from the top to the bottom of the picture. It is a measure of
VERTICAL resolution.

You are confusing HORIZONTAL resolution as a bandwidth measure with
VERTICAL resolution as a feature of the scanning parameters of the system.


There are some web site writers claiming to write buyer's guides for
plasma and LCD who suffer from the same ignorance. (If they cannot get
simple things like this right, the rest of their articles are probably
similar nonsense.)



The sharpness control on your analog TV is in fact a treble control -
boosting and cutting the high frequencies.

True. This affects HORIZONTAL resolution.


Your TV standard analog TV can resolve 480 lines, under ideal
conditions - conditions that are never met in the real world. They
roll off the information above about 4 mhz, for various technical
reasons. Just because your set can resolve 480i does not mean you are
getting 480i on the display.

You are getting 480i unless you are losing some of it to overscan
(which happens on most tube sets). Remember, if it is NTSC, it is
480i (or 483i in some cases if processed in analog all the way).

The HORIZONTAL resolution (lines of horizontal resolution per picture
height) of broadcast NTSC is typically limited to 336 or lower to keep
the video signal from overlapping with the audio signal. No such restriction
exists if the signal is input from a composite signal with separate audio,
but even then, a consumer set with 6 MHz luminance bandwidth would be
pretty high end.

You fail to say which you are talking about here.


You fail to understand the difference between 'capable" and 'actual"

Digital does not have a lines of resolution issue, its resolution
issue is how much the broadcaster decides to compress (make that how
much of the original signal they throw away,,), an analog picture will
looks increasingly fuzzy as bandwidth is reduced, a digital signal
will look increasingly blocky, and show motion artifacts as
compression is increased.

No, digital has a number of samples, and that affects the resolution.
We like to claim that the number of samples gives the resolution, but
that makes some assumptions about visual reconstruction filters that
are not strictly true.


You have never seen a true "480i" analog TV picture,,such does not
exist in the real world.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Depends on the processing of the signal, and
if one counts 482i or 483i as the same thing. Of course, if one plays
a DVD, sends it over an NTSC transmitter to a NTSC receiver, is it an
analog signal? It sure is 480i.

Karyudo wrote:
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:35:57 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
wrote:

In article ,
Karyudo wrote:

I reiterate: I've watched analog HD (as have millions of people). I
did so in an electronics store in 1996.
And it was SO great, that you're watching it today.

Not.

Thanks for playing.

What has that got to do with you being wrong? I should be the one
facetiously thanking *you* for playing.

Since you were wrong about HD being only digital, and wrong to call my
statements that I'd watched analog HD in 1996 "bull****".

By the way, even if analog HD is no longer with us (well, it sort of
is, since HD laserdiscs are still available), it was obviously a hell
of a lot better than what *you* were watching in 1996.

At least 'fess up and admit that it's your statements that are the
only bull****.

That will never happen.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

Karyudo wrote:
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 21:04:32 -0800, Mark Crispin
wrote:

On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Karyudo wrote:
Ah, but you are confusing horizontal and vertical resolution.
As the kids say, "well duh!" ;-)

Please don't educate the "common_ " troll. He totally
discredited himself with this public demonstration of ignorance of the
difference between horizontal and vertical resolution, or for that matter
even understanding what that means.

The last thing that we want is for him to acquire any sort of clue. That
would allow him to babble credible nonsense instead of absurd nonsense.

-- Mark --

Oh, he's one of *those*, is he? Then you're right: I won't bother.

Him and Elmo are both playing that game. Neither will ever admit being
wrong and neither really knows anything significant about the subject at
hand. They have both proven that virtually every post they have made.

It would be nice if people who really don't know what they're talking
about would stop posting to Usenet as if they were authorities.

It's probably the only avenue for self esteem open to them.

Although I guess that accounts for about half the traffic on Usenet,
so it'll never happen...

I'm no genius myself, but I try to make pretty damn sure I know what
I'm talking about before I make any pronouncements. On occasion I've
sounded like a moron, I'm sure, but I try to limit it to one moronic
statement per topic. Even in my blunders, I've learned a bunch from
Usenet.

Separating the wheat from the chaff can be a challenge.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 08:21:58 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
wrote:

In article ,
Karyudo wrote:

The last thing that we want is for him to acquire any sort of clue. That
would allow him to babble credible nonsense instead of absurd nonsense.

-- Mark --

Oh, he's one of *those*, is he? Then you're right: I won't bother.

ummmmm....no offense, but how do you know Mark isn't the "troll"?

I don't know that with 100% certainty, but judging by the wildly
off-base post by common_sense, my gut reaction is to side with Mark.

It also hasn't taken long for me to see you're on up there on the
"potential troll" list yourself, Elmo. You were wrong about analog HD,
you called my posts bull****, and then apparently failed to learn
anything from it. Or to admit you were wrong. Which, just to
reiterate, you were.

Wes Newell wrote:
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 08:27:49 -0800, pickles_james wrote:

i was watching S.W.A.T by the way and i tried all resolutions 1080i,
720p and yes, my tv was set up correct and the player was set up
correct, before all the answers are " it wasnt set up correct"

Are you sure that you were getting an actual HD program, and not an SD
program over HD. Big difference. Even with the small 19" monitors I use in
the bedrooms, HD blows SD away. And it's not hard to tell the difference.
Isn't S.W.A.T an older show? Was it ever recorded in HD?

Christ man, that show is from the 70's. It's not HD.

Couldn't he have been refering to the movie S.W.A.T. that came out in
2003?

SAC 441 wrote:
I notice you used the "Pounds Sterling" symbol
for the pricing point in your posting.Are you in the UK? I am not sure
that the Euro version of HD is as quite as good as the US version.It
also explains probably why you are watching 30+ year old remastered US
originated shows.

Also, standard TV in Europe has a much better picture than standard TV
in the USA, so the HDTV improvement shouldn't be quite as noticeable as
it is here.

Bill

common_ wrote:

basically you have discovered the truth of HD - if you are not
watching it on a 50 or more inch screen it means squat - the human eye
can not resolve the difference.

I can sure notice the difference on a 42-inch screen...

Bill

wrote in message
oups.com...
Wes Newell wrote:
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 08:27:49 -0800, pickles_james wrote:

i was watching S.W.A.T by the way and i tried all resolutions 1080i,
720p and yes, my tv was set up correct and the player was set up
correct, before all the answers are " it wasnt set up correct"

Are you sure that you were getting an actual HD program, and not an SD
program over HD. Big difference. Even with the small 19" monitors I use
in
the bedrooms, HD blows SD away. And it's not hard to tell the difference.
Isn't S.W.A.T an older show? Was it ever recorded in HD?

Christ man, that show is from the 70's. It's not HD.

Couldn't he have been refering to the movie S.W.A.T. that came out in
2003?

The original poster stated in a follow-up that it was the 2006 release.

--
RJ