Interspersed.
J. C. O'Connell wrote: > WRONG WRONG WRONG. You obviously dont > know a damn thing about HDTV and > are nearly blind. On a large > set, the difference between analog NTSC > and true HD is HUGE and the HD is the > better one of course. All you have > to do is see them side by side or > switch from a HD broadcast to the same analog > channel counterpart to see the HUGE > difference in picture quality that only > HD allows. Done so. Yes there's a quality difference. But frankly, TV (apart from sports) is a place where 'good enough' suffices. And the quality differences are less than those between NTSC and my computer monitor. > > Are you so stupid that you think that > the entire video engineering world would change to a new > DTV standard in 1998 after about 45 years > (NTSC color standard dates to 1953) for > no reason? The HD standard's picture quality simply > blows away what you can get with the > old NTSC standard, even broadcast quality > NTSC coming right off the best cameras. > Its not perfect, no, but its way way way > better than NTSC ever was. Because the FCC wants the analog TV broadcast spectrum back, so it can resell it for billions of dollars (Since digital broadcasts are far more efficient from a required amount of spectrum standpoint). Note that HD broadcasts didn't start showing up until the FCC imposed deadlines on termination of analog broadcasts. HDTV was dead in the water until then, nobody except a few Home Theater enthusiasts and a few TV manufacturers wanted it. Even then it didn't become mainstream until flat-panel TV's became practical a couple years ago. > > One larger sets, the NTSC interlaced 480 lines > are clearly visible and on HD they disappear. > On NTSC, your watching a cropped 4x3 image > of nearly all the prime time network TV > shows, whereas on HD broadcasts of same > shows you are seeing the whole image. And? > > NTSC is WORSE in every respect. By going > to a NEW and completely incompatible DTV > standard, they improved the picture quality > without anything worse than before and mostly > every key specification better and VISIBLY > better too. No, NTSC is not worse. It's lower quality at (FAR) lower cost. In other words, it's a much better deal. > > As for blu-ray and HD-DVD, both of these formats > are superior to DVD in all respects. I dont > know where you get or got your information > or eyeglass presription, but you couldnt > be more wrong on all counts except maybe > what you like and dont like in programming. > BUT- EVEN THAT may be wrong too, because the > HDTV picture quality is so much better and > the viewing experience is so much different > than NTSC that you will be surprised to find > that you may even like more genres of what > to watch once you UPGRADE to HD. I know I > did. Yeah, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are capable of giving better quality. But until the actual data on them is giving the quality, it won't happen. I've yet to see a Blu-Ray or HD disc which isn't poorly upsampled DVD content. And I work with some media whores who have gone whole-hog into HD, so i get to see this stuff on good equipment. Frankly, I care more about the quality of the programming than how pretty it looks (or good it sounds). And there's sweet f all of good content on broadcast TV these days. > > JCO > > -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
