CAGcast #38: The "No" Heard 'round the World

[quote name='CheapyD']Next CAGcast will be a late this week, so look for it on Friday...or don't.[/QUOTE]

Well if thats the case I expect a full review of Street Fighter because I know your ass will be playing it. :D
 
Hmmm, here's a clear-up on the differences between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD's picture qualitysince it seems like CheapyD and Wombat weren't to clear on the subject.

First things first.

Standard television if your TV can support it is shown in 480p. The P stands for progressive.

That means your TV is composed of 480 horizontal lines going down progressively (kind of like a waterfall)

480i is on older TV Sets, I stands for Interlaced. It is still 480 horizontal lines but the fact that it's interlaced means that each line comes and dissappear being replaced by another line, Interlaced's picture is more poor than Progressive, on both the transition on the lines is happening so quickly that you don't notice the lines going down, or the lines being replaced. But comparing a progressive picture to an interlaced side by side, you will notice a difference.

NOW!

All the high definition you see right now, is projected in 720p or 1080i, that's either 720 horizontal lines going down progressively, or 1080 horizontal lines composing the picture being replaced one by one.

All the HD-DVD movies on the market right now are all 720p/1080i, the player itself though can put out 1080p (the highest definition possible as of now) but the discs are too small, companies cannot yet fit a 1080p movie on a HD-DVD disc.

The main advantage of Blu-Ray is that it gives you a 1080p picture.

Now remember, even in 2 years when all channels are gonna be digital, even then just a few are gonna be 1080p.

And also in either case you are always gonna need 3 things.

For example if you want to watch a movie in 1080p, you are gonna need a TV that can put out a 1080p resolution (a few on the market right now), a 1080p source (a Blu-Ray player) and a 1080p HDMI cable.


So three things: TV, cable, and source, all need to match each other to put out the desired resolution.

Blu-Ray players have been out since late June, Best Buy carries them (I work there), right now there is only Samsung's model. And if you want to check out a 1080p picture, head over to your Best Buy and at one of the endcaps there should be a 40 inch 1080p Samsung LCD TV, hooked up to the Samsung Blu-Ray thru Monster HDMI cables and that is gonna be your 1080p resolution, and I personally do notice a difference.

Blu-Ray also gives you a better sound when hooked up thru HDMI.

I personally don't care for either and am sticking to DVD's.

An upconvert DVD player for a 100 dollar, and the best HDMI cable for a 150 dollar, will give you a near HD quality picture. And that's enough for me.

Ask if you have anymore questions.
 
[quote name='mannam23']It's pretty retarded to spend $150 on an hdmi cable when you can get one for under $50.[/quote]I got two for around $25 shipped.
 
[quote name='CheapyD']Next CAGcast will be a late this week, so look for it on Friday...or don't.[/QUOTE]

BOOO! HISSS!

I need my fix maing!
 
Thanks for the info, I wasn't really clear on the difference between i and p. Nice to know Blu-Ray has better sound, atleast that's something it's got going for it.
 
yes you can get a cheap HDMI cable for 50 dollars, and even cheaper online.

People have been debating wheter there is a difference because their arguement is that a cable is just a cable.

The main difference between the cheapest cable and the most expensive cable is usually the shielding inside the cable, for example a $150 Monster Ultra 1000 Cable has all the strand conductors inside the cable silver plated which gives each strand more pressure. The added pressure on every single strand makes sure you don't lose any kind of picture quality when going from the source to your TV.

The biggest difference between a cheap cable and an expensive cable is the price, you'll notice just a slight difference in picture and sound quality.
 
Can't wait to hear the guys' thoughts on the neutering of E3. If they wanted to tone it down, they could have just brought it back here to Atlanta. That would have cut out about 2/3 of the crowd right there.

Cheapy: Was 2006 your first E3?

Have you ever been, Wombat?
 
[quote name='DeathDealer']woot, im the man. the next internet star.
now qoute that on your damn site.[/QUOTE]

Apparently we're the Ebert & Roeper of video game racism discourse. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top