![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Howard Brazee" wrote in message ... On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:46:35 -0800, "Charles Tomaras" wrote: I can certainly see the difference between TV broadcast and Blu-Ray. But it's not a huge difference. I disagree. It's a huge difference. The compression artifacts of an HDTV broadcast from OTA or Comcast in Seattle are dramatic on difficult material. When watching Blue Ray I never seem to be distracted by the technical aspects of the picture quality but when watching Television I'm constantly noticing the imperfections and am constantly reminded that while it's better than the days of SD, it is far from perfect and we are most likely stuck with it for a long time. I suppose "huge" depends on the size of your TV screen. Well, the compression artifacts are visible on my 32" bedroom LCD as on my 58" plasma. Broadcast looks great for things that don't move much but really looks bad on difficult material like a nice shot of fall leaves on wind blown trees or an explosion or busy screen of stuff. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:45:51 -0700, Howard Brazee
wrote: On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:23:35 -0800, JRStern wrote: I'm happy with 720p for all broadcast. I'm on the fence about whether 1080p for BluRay (or other net/sat feed) is a better experience. I'd always thought more pixels was better - until we actually started to get it. I can certainly see the difference between TV broadcast and Blu-Ray. But it's not a huge difference. Looking at a 720 screen, I like the image quality better from ABC that broadcasts in 720p, compared to others that broadcast in 1080i. On a 1080 screen, yes the 1080p image is better, but that's as much because the source and display match, as because 1080 "is better" than some lower number, eg 720. Actually, after a couple of years now of watching this stuff, I am amazed - but mostly convinced - that automagic scaling of 720p signal to the 768 or howevermany vertical pixels, and likewise for the horizontal from 1280 to 1366, I think it is - works remarkably well, doesn't it? OTOH, I've seldom or never seen 720p signal on a 720 pixel screen, maybe it shines like a mackerel in the moonlight. J. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Nov 11, 8:50*pm, "Charles Tomaras" wrote:
Well, the compression artifacts are visible on my 32" bedroom LCD as on my 58" plasma. Broadcast looks great for things that don't move much but really looks bad on difficult material like a nice shot of fall leaves on wind blown trees or an explosion or busy screen of stuff. Is this the reason 32" at 720p are on sale everywhere pre-Black Friday? I'm trying to decide whether to buy one. I'm over 50, and back in 2000, I complained about high-resolution (sic!) Pentium 3 computer screens. The customer service rep said, "People over forty sometimes can't adjust to the intensity of the resolution." My 19" 720p is as clear as I need it (and I still prefer the resolution of old machines). On the other hand, I don't want to spend money on a television where I'm conscious of the artifacts. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 07:27:06 -0800 (PST), Alls Quiet
wrote: On Nov 11, 8:50*pm, "Charles Tomaras" wrote: Well, the compression artifacts are visible on my 32" bedroom LCD as on my 58" plasma. Broadcast looks great for things that don't move much but really looks bad on difficult material like a nice shot of fall leaves on wind blown trees or an explosion or busy screen of stuff. Is this the reason 32" at 720p are on sale everywhere pre-Black Friday? I'm trying to decide whether to buy one. I'm over 50, and back in 2000, I complained about high-resolution (sic!) Pentium 3 computer screens. The customer service rep said, "People over forty sometimes can't adjust to the intensity of the resolution." My 19" 720p is as clear as I need it (and I still prefer the resolution of old machines). On the other hand, I don't want to spend money on a television where I'm conscious of the artifacts. I've been watching a 32" 720p for a couple of years now, and especially for broadcast think it's ideal. Artifacts should not be significantly more observable on it than on a 19" - unless you're viewing that 19" from thirty feet away! And y'know what, even then. I was very sensitive to digital artifacts when I first got the new set, but I don't notice them at all anymore. Now when I view an old NTSC screen, I wonder how we ever lived with such noise! J. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
"UCLAN" wrote in message
... While the market for High-Definition TV has hit the mainstream, the industry has already started speculating about the commercialization of Ultra-High Definition (UHD). http://hdtv.biz-news.com/news/en_US/...-definition-tv -- Certified SPAM-free sig Oh, thanks for posting this Uclan. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Sony PS4 to be capable of Super Hi Vision aka Ultra High Definition | NV55 | High definition TV | 8 | December 12th 08 06:15 AM |
| Watch high definition trailers on your current non high definition computer | fluffy cupcake | UK digital tv | 6 | December 20th 06 01:39 AM |
| One third of High Definition TV owners are watching channels in High Definition. | [email protected] | High definition TV | 13 | December 30th 05 11:38 AM |
| Ultra High Definition | Z1Z | High definition TV | 0 | September 29th 03 03:11 AM |
| Ultra High Definition | Z1Z | High definition TV | 0 | September 29th 03 03:11 AM |