|
|
Posted by Roy L. Fuchs on 02/06/06 05:46
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 00:16:49 -0500, "Rich Clark"
<rdclark2SPAM@TRAPcomcast.net> Gave us:
>
>"Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
>news:f9gdu19v3jnb3n7b531mnc3uh7kjn4bivm@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:56:17 -0500, "Rich Clark"
>> <rdclark2SPAM@TRAPcomcast.net> Gave us:
>>
>>>
>>>"Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
>>>news:8sbdu158rkq96s3v0p6skrp1fs6d0qn47c@4ax.com...
>>>> There are plenty of VERY GOOD video processors out there.
>>>
>>>None of which can make NTSC video look like a computer display.
>>
>> Bullshit. They are up to NS-5 now, and even my NS-2 puts out NTSC as
>> well as HDTV inputs to my PC monitor at 1280x1024 just fine.
>> Flawlessly in fact.
>
>The OP's source is a VCD. Nothing a scan converter can do to change that.
That still does NOT preclude the fact that a video processor is the
best way to get DVD output onto a PC monitor.
>>>
>>>> Hahahaha... this makes no sense. Pixel shape? Sure.... OK.
>>>
>>>Analog video has rectangular pixels. Computer displays have square pixels.
>>>"Pixel shape." Get it?
>>
>> Yes, except it has nothing to do with signal content. The pixels
>> are fired by the electron gun and managed by the shadow mask, or
>> aperture grill(e).
>> Period.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture_grille
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_mask
>>
>> You are outside your realm of knowledge apparently, or you are making
>> something more complex than it is. Either way, your opinion seems to
>> be tainted by an experience with OLD technology.
>>
>> Do you have a cite that describes anything about the signal managing
>> pixel shape? No, you cannot. Why? They manage scan lines and scan
>> line count... period. The signal content has NOTHING to do with pixel
>> shape.
>>
>> You should refrain from making remarks based on a very old
>> technology with which you are familiar with, ie "scan converters". It
>> is not related to the modern version. Also, your knowledge of the
>> subject itself seems outdated. Reminds me of the old video cards that
>> could not put out to an HDTV monitor, despite having a DVI output.
>> You claim scan converters suck because you haven't even looked at one
>> since the crappy version you apparently experienced some years ago.
>> You need to look at them again, because they are fairly flawless these
>> days.
>>
>> The viewsonic device I have here is MADE to put out to a VGA
>> monitor. It accepts several forms of input up to and including
>> progressive scan HDTV signaling. It converts them all just fine, and
>> does so quite precisely. It even has a cable tuner in it, so I think
>> it handles NTSC just fine.
>
>I love you guys who spew all your advanced knowledge without trying to solve
>the OP's problem.
I answered the question asked in the topic quite precisely, dumbass.
> He wants to know why his VCD's look like crap on his TV,
VCDs look like crap on anything except a tiny 320x200 or 640x480
window on your PC monitor's higher res screen.
>and whether connecting his DVD player to an LCD monitor would help.
I never once said that it would.
> It
>won't, and you know it.
See above. I never said it would.
> Tell him to buy a scan converter if you want to.
That answers the question he posed in the topic header.
> It
>won't make his VCDs look any better than they do on an analog TV.
I never said it would. I also didn't notice you giving him any
links to a cite regarding lossy compression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossy_compression
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|