|
|
Posted by Justin on 04/26/07 14:24
WinField wrote on [Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:00:01 -0700]:
>
>
> 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.
By being "closer" to the objects, more fine detail can be shown as it
has more screen real estate for less image?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|