|
|
Posted by WinField on 04/26/07 05:00
Justin wrote:
> 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.
More detail. Not just being closer to objects.
Wrinkles around the eyes. Skin pores. Easier to see the threads and
weave of cloth. Small text/print on objects not as fuzzy.
- winfield
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|