On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:14:46 -0000, wrote:

On Jun 27, 8:00 am, Mark Lloyd wrote:


You may not have read all of what I wrote. I did see a huge
difference. It was just that the majority of it was with something
other than spatial resolution.

I read it and here it is. I stated that an HD picture puts to shame
regular NTSC:


Yes, That I said that most of the difference is in getting away from
NTSC rather than HD itself. I did NOT contradict you.

Yes, some will be worse off, but not by much. There is a small
minority that receive NTSC today over the air and don't accept the
value proposition of having an HD picture that puts to shame what they
are watching now,


And you responded with:

"Strangely, I find the difference (HD resolution compared to 480
lines)
to be nearly insignificant. There is a considerable difference, but
most of that is in ATSC, rather than HD. "

Which perhaps you could explain? Certainly if you look at an HD
image, the image detail is far superior.

The problem with that is that you omitted the reference. Comparison is
between TWO different things.

If you look at a flower, on
std TV there is no detail, on HD, you can see the pollen and small
hair like plant material. . And that is directly attributable to
the fact that it is either 720P or 1080i, both of which have more
lines of resolution.

I did not say there was no difference. I said the difference was small
compared to something else (the way a cow is a lot larger than an ant
but is a SMALL animal compared to a whale).

BTW, do you know how many lines a NTSC picture actually has? It's LESS
than 480.

That was why they went to higher resolution in
the first place. No different than looking at a picture on a VGA
computer screen vs XGA, where you also saw a big improvement in
detail.

At least it appears we agree on one thing, and that is that HD is a
big improvement over std TV.

Yes. The problem seems to be in the omitted middle. To help explain, I
will mention three things he

1. NTSC. Ordinary analog video as we've had since World War II.

2. 480-line video, as with a DVD player connected with a YUV or HDMI
output. Still not HD.

3. HD: 720p / 1080i or greater.

You said that #3 was much better than #1.

I DID NOT DISAGREE.

I said that most of this difference was between #2 and #1, rather than
between #3 and #2.

You may continue to disagree with me, but please try to understand
what it is you're claiming to disagree with. Since this point of
disagreement involves #2 above, it should not be ignored.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"