|
|
Posted by Jay G. on 06/24/06 16:45
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 03:20:27 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 07:17:01 -0500, "Jay G." <Jay@tmbg.org> Gave us:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 06:06:27 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 17:54:22 -0500, "Jay G." <Jay@tmbg.org> Gave us:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 04:26:49 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>>>>> The HD content piped by a cable service is not true HD content.
>>>>> They screw with it (compress).
>>>>
>>>>HD DVD discs "screw with it (compress)" too.
>>>
>>> You retarded fuck. The topic of that remark was about Off air HD
>>> content being modified before being piped out by cable providers.
>>
>>In that case, you should've used to word "recompress," instead of compress.
>
> Bullshit. The proper term for fucking up good content is
> "reprocessed".
You didn't use that term either.
>>However, you also used the term "true HD" to describe a compressed version
>>of HD, namely OTA. I feel that's in error as well.
>
> You're a goddamned idiot. Broadcast HDTV IS the ORIGINAL
> implementation, dumbass.
It's the original broadcast implimentation.
> When General Instrument made the encoder racks, that WAS and STILL IS
> the exact array size, and content processing that was the original
> design.
Of course, what those encoder racks encode is an uncompressed HD signal.
An uncompressed source is what I'd consider to be "true HD." Everything
else is compromised in some way, although they can still look very good.
> CSI, however looks EXACTLY as good via HDTV broadcast as the up
> converted HD scanned DVD versions do off the HD DVD player.
So if upconverted DVD looks exactly as good as what you deem is
"true HD," then what is the point of buying HD DVD?
-Jay
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|