|
|
Posted by My Name Is Nobody on 11/05/07 23:36
"Spex" <No.spam@ta.com> wrote in message
news:13itr7vk7v0tj17@corp.supernews.com...
> My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>> "nappy" <n@n.n> wrote in message
> Looks to me like you are an extremely naive person who believes or is
> easily misled by the marketing BS that companies spew out. Canon hasn't
> lied in what it has said it has just made it easy (for the ignorant
> consumer who purchases equipment based on printed specs) to misinterpret
> the information. As all good marketing depts do.
Yeah that's right, we weren't all as blessed as you apparently believe you
were, by being born KNOWING IT ALL, (Don't you wish).
You are calling me extremely naive, easily misled? What an extremely
arrogant pompous ass you are. You may know something about video, (or at
least think you do) but as you have so aptly demonstrated, you don't know a
damn thing about me, and calling your communication skills extremely crude
and juvenile would be way over stating your meager abilities.
>
> Canon references 1920x1080 because its imagers are that resolution. most
> other camera are not that high res. My XH-A1 has 1440x1080 CCDs.
>
> What are you so hung up about capturing at 1920x1080 when the actual
> resolution of the camera is way less than that at 800+ tvl?
Why are you so "hung up" on totally misreading my question and this
situation?
>
> The camera will spit out 1920x1080 out of its HDMI port but the only
> benefits will be that you can capture uncompressed or to a less heavily
> compressed codec with 4:2:2 sampling rather than HDV at 4:2:0 it won't get
> you any more resolution out of the camera.
>
Thank you for your pathetic contribution.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|