Posted by Frank on 06/02/06 17:35

On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 07:17:58 -0700, in 'rec.video.production',
in article <Re: Mini DV>,
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote:

>
>"Nik" <news@invalid.com> wrote in message
>news:e5pc98$8t6$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>> Larry in AZ wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Switch back and forth between something like the "Tonight Show" in HD
>>> and SD, and the difference is not 10 percent - more like 400 percent.
>>>
>>> We also have a rear-pojection TV that faithfully displays 1920x1080i.
>>> That makes a difference. If your display is down-converting to 1280
>>> or something less than that, it may not be as apparent.
>>
>>
>> Presumably the rear-projection is a fairly decent size?
>>
>> Would the same difference be so apparent if the screen were only to be
>> 24" on the diagonal?

No, it would not be. In fact, most folks knowledgeable in HDTV feel
that a screen size under 34" or 36" isn't able to properly demonstrate
the advantages of HDTV and thus isn't generally worth owning except in
the most extreme cases such as where physical space limitations simply
don't allow for a larger display, even a thin, flat panel.

Also, many people feel that in SDTV-land, once you exceed a screen
size (measured diagonally, of course) above the 32" to 36" range, the
image falls apart and that it's necessary to go HD at that point if a
decent-looking but larger display size is required/desired.

>One of the reasons HD became more desirable is
>the increasing screen size and growing number of
>home-theater installations, etc.

This is absolutely true, but even people with more modest setups can
appreciate HDTV when it's well done; that is, a high-quality display
device coupled with high-quality program material and decent sound
reproduction.

--
Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
[Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]
Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/

[Back to original message]