Posted by M.I.5� on 01/02/07 14:40

"Tony Morgan" <Tony@rhylonline.com> wrote in message
news:OVdnk7Cf5PmFFwOc@axxc27.dsl.pipex.com...
> In message <1167650577.440888.209960@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> Rexunrex@yahoo.com writes
>>
>>Neck & Red wrote:
>>
>>> Why would the consumer want to buy a new tiny monitor and video card
>>> when
>>> he's got a 50" or bigger HDTV in his living room?
>>
>>Most people don't have these.
>>
>>> Oh, and HD-DVD blows away the picture quality of a movie theater.
>>
>>Really? So 1920 by 1080 pixels or 1280 by 720 pixels from HDDVD
>>are larger than images that are 2048, 4096 or 8192 pixels wide?
>>Where did you learn math, from George Bush?
>>
> And Neck & Red seem to have the same clue as George Bush.
>
> My 17" 1920x1200 laptop screen viewed from between 2 and 3 feet looks
> (subject to source) far better than a 50" wall-mounted TV viewed from
> between 12 and 20 feet.
>
> The general public has been well and truly conned by the marketing men
> with their TV sales line of "HD-Ready". Worse, many (most?), have been
> coerced into paying top-dollar prices for HD-Ready TVs - when in a couple
> of years (when HD media/broadcast becomes more universally and readily
> available) because of economies of high-volume production coupled with
> competitive pressures, the public will be paying a fraction of today's
> prices.
>
> Insofar as media is concerned, double the resolution means file-size
> quadrupling - and AFAIK there's a finite amount of data that can be held
> on a DVD, so where will we be going? Two/ three DVD disks per movie?
>
> Digital broadcasting can ( and does) provide the bandwidth needed to
> present HD content - but DVDs? - no way.
>

HDDVD/Bluray has considerably more space than vanilla DVD. Around 5 to 6
times the space.

[Back to original message]