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 Lloydhttp://notstupid.laughingsquid.com


OK, I see what you;'re point is now. I'm not sure I agree that the
diff btwn ntsc and 480 is much greater than between 480 and HD. But
I agree that it is arguable. Sorry for the confusion.