|
|
Posted by sbt on 10/18/05 19:54
In article <jpb5f.3492$h25.595@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>, AnthonyR
<nomail@nospam.com> wrote:
> "Waylon Kenning" <use.the.reply.to.header@this.is.fake> wrote in message
> news:k526l1po6asflfes9ilkuf248l5tarp3qm@4ax.com...
>
> >
> > I admit that watching video on a portable device is pretty appealing,
> > as long as the screen's relatively big enough.>
> > Waylon Kenning.
>
> Hmm, What about magnifier glasses, lol
> or a screen enlarger lens you can snap in front of the 2.5 " screen to make
> it 4"?
> :)
>
I'm not arguing for or against the product, and I don't know if I would
purchase one for myself (already have an original iPod and a 60GB iPod
Photo), but the screen size argument against it doesn't resonate with
me.
Although some (many?) will quibble that 12", 13", 17" and 19" TVs are
too small, they have been practically a mainstay of dorm rooms and
kids' bedrooms for the past couple decades at least. Is there really
that much difference between watching a compact TV's screen from 10
feet and a 2.5" screen from 1.5 or 2 feet away? (The picture on that
LCD screen was a lot sharper than I've seen on a lot of TVs.)
320x240 is an NTSC resolution, and is about the quality you get from
videotape.
--
Spenser
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|