Posted by AZ Nomad on 03/14/07 02:00

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:12:59 -0700, MassiveProng <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:


>On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:02:23 GMT, AZ Nomad
><aznomad.2@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> Gave us:

>>On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:16:23 -0700, Karl S <nospam@ak.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:49:28 -0700, MassiveProng wrote:
>>
>>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:54:10 -0700, Karl S <nospam@ak.net> Gave us:
>>>>
>>>>>On 12 Mar 2007 04:04:39 -0700, jeffd1975@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> especially the ones where I
>>>>>> copied from VHS to DVD.
>>>>>
>>>>>Because, in effect, you are watching a VHS recording which probably looked
>>>>>bad on an SD TV twenty years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>>Normal DVDs look terrific on my 92 inch projection TV.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Try it without an upconverting player.
>>
>>>They still look terrific. The projector does the upconverting.
>>
>>As does any tv that isn't defective. The only thing missing from having the
>>tv upconvert as opposed to a separate box is that special feeling of pride
>>that comes from spending too much.

> Early TVs were very poor at it. Sluggish, and fast action scenes
>showed many artifacts.
Perhaps. Do any current tvs have any problem?

[Back to original message]