|
|
Posted by Justin on 04/26/07 04:25
WinField wrote on [Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:17:49 -0700]:
>
>
> Justin wrote:
>> WinField wrote on [Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:11:32 -0700]:
>>
>>>Results: the FS version had noticeably better detail. When the WS frame
>>>was zoomed to approximate the FS view, the full-screen picture actually
>>>looked high-definition compared to what the 27" WS TV was showing.
>>>Sharks! & yes, Derek IS a gerbil-butt.
>>
>>
>> How did the FS version look when at the same zoom level?
>>
>> If not, then you lose. Bye now.
>
> The FS version (zoomed-up) looks like you do when you get up in the
> morning. Pretty scary and crappy. =)
>
> But your point is valid. What I did tonight is swap the movie playback
> test between the two TVs. WS on the newer 36" Sony, and the FS on the
> 27" JVC. And no zooming around. Just a straight-up on-the-rocks test.
>
> Results: much closer, but FS still has a bit more detail.
More detail or more screen real estate devoted to less detail?
I.e. you can see all the ice cubes in the drink but can't see Bond &
Jinx on the same screen at the same time.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|