|
|
Posted by Biz on 12/09/05 21:38
"Frank Sereno" <fserenonospam@nospamsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4Vlmf.327$kW.210@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> Kenneth Crudup wrote:
> > In article <1134152881.368725.313180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Logical Anomaly's Ego" <TomServosAgent@aol.com> says:
> >
> >
> >>I hate comcast enough to wonder if they don't already screw with people
> >>like this. I haven't taken the HD leap yet, and I would have to do it
> >>with Comcast...ugh. Are there any differences between over the air HD
> >>(which I couldn't get anyway), HD over cable and HD over satelite?
> >
> >
> > Much I hate to defend ComCrap, I have their HD-capable DVR hooked to an
> > HD set, and on HD content (in L.A., we have at least 15 channels) it
> > looks great- and I can record it, too. It even up-converts SDTV analog
> > to 16:9 1080i as well.
> >
> > -Kenny
> >
>
> Kenny,
>
> How is that DVR hooked up to your TV? Are you using HDMI or component
> cables? I'll tell everyone the simple truth and that is regular TV
> looks like CRAP on an HD TV. I don't understand how people can't tell
> the difference.
>
> Frank
Regular tv looks like crap on any tv larger than about 32"-35". But with an
HDTV and/or the right attached gear, you can make SD tv look better. But
nothing is going to make broadcast SD channels look as good as HD content.
DVD's look decent on HDTV's UNTIL you compare it to real HD content, so its
possible for 480i/p content to look decent, but with the heavy compression
that about all digital broadcasters are using, theres no chance for any
decent PQ for SD content....
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|