• Announcements

    • Scorchie™

      Upgrade   07/22/2016

      Welcome to Version 4.  You will need to log back in with your Display Name and/or Email Address.  If you don't know this, please issue a password or account reset to obtain the details you need. Some posts will appear "broken" (links, quote text, et al).  The forum is rebuilding all content which will take some time to complete.  Once this is done, the "missing" posts should also hopefully reappear. Should you encounter problems and wish to discuss, please post here:  

DeeVee

Member
  • Content count

    161
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About DeeVee

  • Rank
    AV Forum Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Interests
    digital tv, movies, comics and eating.
  1. Unfortunately America, Korea and Japan population drive a larger part of product availability/price. Beta was superior to VHS but how did that turn out?
  2. 1:1 pixel mapped to the screen resolutions? I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing the real world.
  3. And most of those unsuspecting consumers got exactly what they wanted. A big, flat, bright screen that displays widescreen tv via a set top box. I agree that marketing 853 x 480 panels as HD ready is pushing the "marketing" line but so is making generic claims about these panels. If someone spends an extra $2000 to get a 1024 x 768 panel that will mainly be used to watch Foxtel and DVDs then they will have been equally mislead.
  4. Can you actually tell that the vertical resolution has been reduced? Would you back yourself to spot a 853 x 480 display by sight alone?
  5. Isn't stretching out out to a 1024 x 576 display another way of saying scaling? Until there is a genuine HD standard adopted by all stations, any fixed pixel display will have to scale. That's why trusting your eyes to make your choice is the better option.
  6. Except our standard definition is 720 x 576. What gives the least amount of scaling? 853 x 480 or 1024 x 574 (if such a display did exist)?
  7. Yeah, I realised that. My point was towards the tiresome reiteration of the problem with 853 x 480 fixed pixel plasmas. If people are happy with their picture, why judge the fact that some scaling has occurred. Are i-pod owners being ripped off because of the lossy compression used for the mp3 format?
  8. The old 480p chestnut. If Sharp do introduce a 540p panel no doubt some naysayer will lament the loss of 36 horizonal "lines".
  9. It might just be Apple powerbooks, however it would only allow 16:9 or 4:3 (not zoom). 4:3 fixed the ratio but, obviously, gave the bars.
  10. If you want to watch movies via the laptop, svideo is the go and use the ARC feature to correct the stretched picture. The piture isn't good enough to be used as an alternate monitor, but is ok with video from about 2.5 metres. Unfortunately, the ARC control is inactive when using VGA or DVI. Therefore, the laptop would have to be a widescreen model or allow the 4:3 resolution to be manually overridden. As an example, a 15' powerbook looked stretched (native resolution 1280x854) whereas the 17' powerbook looked ok (native resolution 1440x900). I.e a 16:10 laptop looks ok stretched to 16:9, but not a 4:3 laptop stretched to 16:9.
  11. I'd add to this that the Michaeldvd site requires reviewer's displays to be able to natively display 576 lines. This means that the reviewers all would see the benefits of the pal transfer. I'll second the fact that 480 line region 1 dvds do look better on 480p plasmas. Particularly given that many dvd players only do progressive scan with ntsc.
  12. This may seem a stupid question, but can you record digital tv on a basic (not digital) VHS? If so does it retain the 720x576 resolution? Stereo? With the abundance of PVR, dvd recorders and PC capture cards (plus "torrents") I hadn't considered this an issue. Anybody know the facts?
  13. Davo I think the dual G5 bit is to run the 1080p QT movies. I've run 720p QT movie previews on this single 2g G5 and they're superb. Try the Batman Beyond clip, on the Apple website, under the Quicktime tab. They have 480p, 720p and 1080p versions. Agree that any pc with a decent graphics card should be fine. Sorry about derailing the thread...
  14. I mentioned the Apple mainly in reaction to the number of times I read that no true HD display exists. Lazy journalism given that one has existed for over 3 years. Whilst you might not base your home theatre around a 30" screen, a lot of people could do worse than use one for a smallish room. If I lived in a single living room unit, I'd certainly consider one linked to a dual G5 power mac, tuner card and 5.1 system, rather than conventional pc, plus separate plasma, lcd or crt with stb. I'm using a 17" G5 imac (widescreen) in my office and its far preferable for watching video than a 68cm (26"??) 4:3 CRT. Offshore, Its just a screen. You need a power mac to drive it. However the mac has pc slots for digital tuner and (obviously) an optical drive. Plus all G5 have optical sound out, for true 5.1 sound. That said I was comparing it to a $30,000 projector.
  15. Actually, Apple's 30" cinema display has 2560 x 1600 pixels for $4,899. Its available in most larger David Jones. You will need a dual G5 to watch it, but it still comes in well below the Sony. DJ's in Brisbane have one set up with some QT 7 (H264) movie trailers. Last week they had the 1980 x 1080 Fantastic Four. Rather nice. If that Sound and Image review was written within the last 12 months, then someone didn't try very hard.