Hi-def not really Hi-def?

[imascrub]

What's everybody think about this article?

http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2007/01/31/einstein-hdtv-and-the-error-you-just-made/


In it the author talks about hi-def just being barely above standard-def due to native resolution + screen size + how far you're sitting from the tv.

I can't really make a proper comment on it because I don't have a HDTV, but what I can say is that after watching blu-ray movies/trailers/demos at Fry's (from like 3 feet away) and stuff on their big flat screen on display, and watching Saw3 last night on my monitor through PC, I can say now that the difference in clarity is amazing.

It just sounds like this guy's going on about something he doesn't know. Maybe it's just cuz I want to get a HDTV and he seems to be against it, which means against me, which makes me :bomb: lol *shrug*

[panasonic]

doesn't matter what he says when you compare one sticks out

[H.Cornerstone]

That guy is on crack, normal tv is so bad Anything is better.

[Zoglog]

The guy is an idiot, he's using the argument of larger TVs as a reason why HDTV is useless. Normal TV is 480i which is actually 240 lines of resolution interlaced to create 480. Normal HDTV broadcast is 720p or 720 lines of resolution. So why is better worse again?

According to his argument we should all be happy watching Ipod Video sized images from our couch so that we won't see "pixels".............................

In terms of resolution all HD formats are a relatively large jump in picture quality and actually has taken quite awhile. But with no suprise considering the bandwidth and size videos of that resolution. It's only with recent technology that we can bring Motion pictures of this caliber to the living room. I mean rewind 5 years back, much of he population still didnt have broadband of any kind and DVD burners were not widely available. DVD-Roms were just coming of age and even at that capacity we still only get 480 resolution at a higher bitrate.

[dallow]

What Zoglog said.