|
|
Posted by Barry Watzman on 01/17/07 05:49
Re: "It looks better primarily because the digital signal on the HD
channel is cleaner than the noisy analog signal on the Standard Def
broadcast"
I beg to differ. The signals are MUCH more different than that; and I
say that having just sold a 50" Hitachi and acquired a JVC 1080p HDTV
set in the last 3 weeks, and also being able to receive the same
broadcast on multiple channels being broadcast (live, simultaneously) in
both analog and digital (or HDTV).
There is a HUGE and real resolution difference between these signals,
the width of the image not withstanding. It's much more than just
analog vs. digital, or absence of analog noise. I wish that the TV set
would tell me what resolution and refresh rate was being used, but it
doesn't. However, it's not just "up converted analog".
Joshua Zyber wrote:
> "M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:45ace878$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>> Programs such as the nightly news broadcast in 4:3 on the HD channel
>>> are not true HD. They're Standard Definition that's been upconverted
>>> to the higher resolution. It may look better than the regular SD
>>> feed, but it's not true High Definition.
>> So you now agree that standard resolution material looks better on
>> systems whose resolution is higher than the source material. That's 3
>> then.
>
> It looks better primarily because the digital signal on the HD channel
> is cleaner than the noisy analog signal on the Standard Def broadcast.
> Also, upconversion of Standard Definition material is performed by
> interpolating extra pixels between the original active picture content.
> This can create a smoother image with less visible pixel structure when
> magnified to a large screen size, but it doesn't add real picture
> detail. There is no comparison at all between upconverted SD material
> and true HD material. It's a night and day difference.
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|