|
|
Posted by WinField on 01/17/07 18:37
M.I.(.75) -
(who saw-the-light while attending an audio/video demonstration?
M.I.¾ doesn't remember anything about that demo, but was very impressed
and has suddenly formulated his quadraphonic-pixel theorem
re: fixed-pixel display panels.)
_____________________
You keep challenging people to confirm and "see" your "double-pixel"
fixation; yet yourself, do nothing more than parrot your mantra over
and over. Where are the links to web pages that explain what you see in
your head? I've tried to do some research on your pixelated brain
matter, but as yet have not found anything that is even close to what
you are claiming.
For the record - I am interested in obtaining the best picture
quality when I buy my first hi-def monitor/TV. I currently have a 36"
sony CRT 4:3 standard television. At a minimum, I would hope that my
regular DVD's look as good on my new flat-panel display as they do now.
There seems to be no simple way to test M.I.'s (ludicrous) claim.
LCD's themselves are complicated to understand, especially if you go
molecular. Then getting past all the processing of various video
sources ... (one example below)
from: -Secrets of Home Theater & Hi-Fidelity-
'The Value of Using an Outboard Video Processor with All Home Theater
Video Displays' http://tinyurl.com/25gf9y
(quoted without permission)
"The bad news is that your brand new $5,000 HDTV probably does all the
video processing on a $5 chipset. That doesn't mean it's bad video
processing. It just means it isn't what it could be. The chassis is
fine, the display panel is fine, the controls operate fine. But the
video processing is not fine. That's just the way it is folks. The TV
companies are in business to sell TVs. If everyone agreed to pay $1,000
more than they had planned for that new HDTV, the companies would be
delighted to put in some superb video processing. But, consumers won't
agree to do that. We all want that new TV for as cheap as we can get it.
So, the video processing, because many of us are content with less than
superb quality, suffers. The picture is "good enough", and they are
selling TVs." {author: John E. Johnson, Jr. September 2006}
Onward thru the fog,
- winfield
M.I.5¾ wrote:
> "Joshua Zyber" <joshzyber@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:6ZWdnXNAT5BuVjHYnZ2dnUVZ_syunZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>>"M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:45ab337a$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>
>>>>To anyone else reading this thread, know that Mr. "M.I.5¾" has
>>>>absolutely no idea what he's talking about.
>>>
>>>... or, of course, Joshua Zyber, doesn't know what he's talking about.
>>>More likely since, I doubt that he has taken the trouble (or has the
>>>ability) to actually see for himself.
>>
>>The trouble to do what? To watch DVD content on a higher resolution
>>screen? I've been watching content on an HD projection screen likely
>>larger than your entire body for years.
>
>
> But did you compare it with a comparable technology regular resolution 720 x
> 576 projection system? If not, you are not in a position to contribute.
>
[Back to original message]
|