My dedicated theater room houses a 60" Sony SXRD. Which is essentially an implementation of LCOS, and yes it does do 1080P natively. Please don't even begin to argue that plasma running at 1368x768 or ANY other resolution for that matter can compare to LCOS or a proper 3 Chip DLP projector. The SXRD technology, a long with their Ruby projectors of the same tech are BY FAR the finest picture quality sub $10,000 on the market. Honestly I don't even know what are you are arguing, flopping back and forth between your main screen to LCDs, to plasmas.
I just saw your load of spew, so deiced to reply to your arrogance.
Good for you, so the majority of content looks like "crap" on your LCOS 60 inch. FYI. Sitting back several feet from fixed pixel displays makes all of the difference. In your case I would sit back about
10 feet. I've seen your screen and I'll stick with a plasma, the majority of them looks better.
I love the arrogance of premature HD adopters, as in nothing looks poorly on their screens.
Well 480 does, where as it looks great on a plasma. Oh, don't argue any valid points, you'll make me take notice of my screen's many flaws.
What will you do when Laser TV (superior to DLP) and SEDTV (superior to all) are made available? Will you sell your precious?
WHAT?! Again, I have NO IDEA what are you are arguing. You're talking about HD resolutions compared to hard disks????, compared to speakers!??!?!! The majority of video content is being created in HD, and film, well film doesn't exactly have a "resolution". Though it's been said to accurately represent it, you would need about 5000 lines of vertical resolution. We're safe there. So you can't really qualify that. If you're referring to old tv shows, or existing content on DVD, then I guess you would be correct. But the majority of that has masters that can be transferred to HD video. How exactly has digital TV ruined visual content? What are you talking about!
Have you ever heard that saying that leads to "your hair is brown"? I'm just going to assume like you, so go with yes.
I tend to ramble, but you really can't be this "clueless"? And really? Content that was captured at NTSC can be mastered for HD, even the really old broadcasts from the sixties? Tell me more about this voodoo? And in any case, you can sit around for years as most content is upscaled, yes upscaled for your HD set, because once again the majority of content is SD.
How does digital TV ruin the visual content. Well for starters, in general they're digitally compressing analogue interlaced signals to digital, which adds more artifacts and dumbs down the detail. Shows I watch, where as in the past I could see things like the white of eyes, are now so degraded do to digital compression, that I can only see black. Networks that don't pay a higher premium don't get the bandwidth, so it's always a pleasure to watch a sub-par internet-quality stream on any of my TVs. I encountered this with Frasier last week on CBS. It's always fun to see mass blocking when the action picks up, or experience sound sync issues. For reference, I'm on Dish Network now and prior Cox cable where it was all fiber optics.
Some aspects of digital TV are better, but like HD sets, it's a work in progress.
When you've actually used anything beyond SD DVD's , and researched a little of what you are attempting to argue, then come back to this discussion. I don't care what your magical "1600p" display is doing, it's not making mountains out of mole hills.
You're currently praising the merits of HD from the top of a mole hill. Maybe you should step slightly down before you fall off.
Once again my friend, you assume I'm not privy to your precious "bastardizing" HD signal. I have a HDTV hooked up to my Wii so I can use widescreen. I also have a little 14" CRT in my office that I paid $77 for and it looks substantial better than any HDTV -- especially yours -- for the shows I care to watch.
Wow, sweet dude. You took a bunch of sources and shrunk them down to fit on what, a 20" screen? ANYTHING will look good enough if you reduce the size of the image enough, I mean are kidding me? Throw a movie source at 1080 on a LARGE screen , and then compare it to the same move from a 480 source on the same large screen. You tell me which is better. Not only that you're comparing different resolutions, using different compression schemes ( some optimized for web delivery! ) and using different sources! (video/film) and THEN presenting us with a JPEG comparison picture! JPEG! The king of crappy compression! Your comparison is absolutely retarded.
I must have offended your limited understanding of HD with my screenshot.
Have fun swimming in your own ignorance, you should come up for some air a little bit more often..
Could you please point me to a 20" screen that displays 2560x1600?
So let me get this straight. I SHRUNK DOWN a 1080p trailer, a 720p screenshot of Bioshock, and a 480i DVD for a 1680x1050 20", then scaled it up to 2560x1600 for my 30'? WOW, that makes complete sense! You truly are a twit! You should research a 20" screen resolution before stating something that RETARDED to borrow on your unwarranted comment.
And I agree that comparing the same examples would be better in some cases, but my examples pertain more to what's being discussed in this thread. The Bio screen is relevant to your "gasping" comment earlier about it being so beautiful and only deserving of higher rezes, since 800x600 and lower weren't adequate. So my example shows it next to a lower rez DVD, which is relevant to your comment about 480 and how it doesn't look "great," but yet the 720 Bio screen shot looks like VOMIT compared to a great looking 480 example.
Did you forget about your earlier posts? The 1080p trailer is their to show how much detail is missing from this higher rez, so even though it may look "sharper" on your screen, you're really not seeing much more detail than 480 in many cases.
Sharper and less detailed, that's great. You must have poor vision if you can't see this.
Oh, that explains why you bought a 60" screen.
When it comes down to it, watching a HD broadcast on a HD set, because so much detail is removed in the compression, pretty much brings it up to par with a SD broadcast on a SD set, otherwise the HD set reveals to many flaws and looks like CRAP, which because SD content is still the majority, is most of the time.
Photoshop does a good job with jpegs and keeping the images integrity. You do know that there are higher settings than a "0" for this format? Do you? Or are you a proud ignoramus? The PNG was 3 megs I was being nice, because I'm going to assume that you're on a dial-up.
FYI 480i to 480p is not upscaling. It's deinterlacing, slight difference.
I guess you would be correct.
Hey, are you one of those guys that watches a movie only for the eye-candy, I'm going to once again assume like you and choose yes.
Have a nice day
jerk!
<]=)
