|
|
Posted by MassiveProng on 01/18/07 12:54
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 08:10:38 -0000, "M.I.5?"
<no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> Gave us:
>
>"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:gadsq2hb428nih9u7i7ndfcmhjl8btfp35@4ax.com...
>> Joshua Zyber wrote:
>>
>>>That you insist on this yet also believe
>>>that progressive scan offers no benefit over interlace is borderline
>>>insane.
>>
>> Did he really claim that? This "M.I.5?" idiot is about as clueless as
>> they come, ain't he?
>>
>
>You are quoting out of context. On a CRT display it provides a very obvious
>benefit even for interlaced source material. On a plasma display it also
>provides a very obvious benefit even for interlaced source material.
>
>However, on an LCD display, it makes no difference *for interlaced source
>material* (we were specifically discussing DVD at the time) - which is what
>I said. There is no way that conversion to progressive can alter the fact
>that the odd lines occur in a time frame one fiftieth of a second earlier
>than the even lines.
DVD MPEG2 frames are NOT interlaced, dumbass.
>
>Of course for progressive source material then once again there is an
>obvious benefit - but we weren't discussing that context.
>
How would you even know, shit for brains?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|