|
|
Posted by Larry in AZ on 06/01/06 20:40
Waiving the right to remain silent, "doc" <doc@anywhere.com> said:
> for what it's worth, i totally agree. mpeg2 is fine and produces
> excellent quality. i hear all this riff raff about HDTV and DV
> versus mpeg2, and here's the rub . . the average consumer can tell
> the difference between sd and hd but when there are four of them
> mixed, they cannot tell the difference correctly. oh they will say
> this one is better than the other but as far as the hd being the
> better one, they're not always right. moreover, what's better is not
> necessarily cost effective. to pour a fortune into making hd and
> watching hd for what appears to the average consumer as about 10%
> better picture, is simply not worth it.
I respectfully disagree. I've had HD via Cox Cable for more than a year,
and the difference is astounding. Even our non-techie friends and
relatives can see it immediately.
Switch back and forth between something like the "Tonight Show" in HD and
SD, and the difference is not 10 percent - more like 400 percent.
We also have a rear-pojection TV that faithfully displays 1920x1080i.
That makes a difference. If your display is down-converting to 1280 or
something less than that, it may not be as apparent.
--
Larry Jandro
Video Engineering & Equipment Rentals
Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
[Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to reply]
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|