Posted by Ken Maltby on 10/24/05 19:15

"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:435ce4ed.86022968@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 03:39:08 GMT, Phil Wheeler <w6tuh-ng4@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>>Will your DVDR fit on your nightstand?
>
>>>>Under it, actually. But it is in the LR with the HD set; only a player
>>>>in the bedroom under the nightstand.
>
>>> I prefer to be in the den near the keg I have in my spare
>>> refrigerator.
>
>>> A couple of steins and I don't notice the picture quality.
>
>>I can toast to that, Bob :)
>
> My son just bought a 42" TV.
>
> I told him that the only DVDR HDD worth considering is a Pioneer with
> a 160 GB HDD. He's going to need the best resolution possible and that
> takes lots of disk space. And he certainly does not want to cheapen
> his system with second rate crap.
>
> If he records cable TV, what is the minimum resolution for that 42" TV
> screen? I would expect 2 GB per hour (2 hour per SL DVD equivalent)
> resolution to be the minimum. But maybe he needs even higher to get
> the best for that size screen.
>
-----

Interesting thread, but there are so many variables and
much of the issue is rapped around individual subjective
perception, that lurking seems the best course of action.
Still, there are a couple of points being overlooked:

There are display devices the "Upconvert" to High
Definition. Some may do it better than others, and the
cleaner the lower definition source the better. If the
cable or satellite company aren't trying to squeeze too
much out of the bandwidth they are using for standard
TV, and the signal is clean, the upconversion can be
quite good.

Larger screens are meant to be viewed from a
reasonable distance. What are noticeable compression
effects viewed 5 feet from my 100" screen, aren't noticed
at 10 feet.

That said I have noticed some real impact with my most
highly compressed MPEG2, when it is played full screen
on my projection system. I can have it totally disappear if I
reduce the "Zoom" setting so that it is projected to fill a little
over half the screen. (Still a pretty large display.)

It is a sensible step to use less compression if you intend
playback to a large display. To make this more practical it
could be time to move to a setup that can handle formats
developed with HD in mind. The situation for HD formats
hasn't resolved itself, as far as I can tell, but we do have
some early attempts that work.

Products that work with various flavors of MPEG4,
including the HD variants, could provide some relief for this
issue, through some of the efficiency of the algorithms used.
The www.buffalotech.com "Link Theater" multimedia device
that I use, could be a good example of a device that can
already deal effectively with HD formats, as well as standard
TV definition encoded in MPEG4.

Luck;
Ken

[Back to original message]