Quote:
Originally Posted by old_tv_nut
The original digital TV tests showed plainly (but note, with tube pickup cameras and CRT displays) that 1080I had more visual resolution for still scenes (with the vertical resolution toned down to reduce twitter), while 720P was better for sports with high motion. You cannot say definitively one is always better than the other.
|
720p vs 1080i is a wash, although 720p does not have interline twitter. I was talking about 1080p24 BD movie, which loses vertical resolution when watched on a 1080i monitor.
Here, this is about DVDs, but the same is true regarding HD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARC Tech-109
to say that because my TV set is 1080i only I can't enjoy the full resolution of a BD doesn't hold any water
|
Of course it does, and of course you can't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_tv_nut
"The only use of an interlaced CRT TV set is watching interlaced programs." Once again false opinion. You just contradicted yourself with the later statement regarding the computer monitor.
|
No, I don't. After the designers of computer consoles realized that interlacing sucks, they promptly switched to progscan. If you've tried using a computer with interlaced and progscan CRT monitor, you know the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_tv_nut
"because NTSC has stuck with 4:3 interlace" what the???
|
The U.S. stuck with NTSC until HDTV came along, at least for OTA. Europe tried other formats, in particular PALPlus, which supported 25p and 16:9. As early as the late 1980s brands like Nokia, Siemens and other started offering TV sets with 16:9, progscan, 100 Hz refresh rate, and built-in deinterlacer. Compared to the-old school PAL, this felt almost like HD. Fun fact, in the early 2000s Australia adopted 625p50 as HD format.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_tv_nut
The problem here is once again we are splitting hairs of opinion with the belief that one is "better" than the other.
|
Digital IS better than analog. First generation analog can look great, given enough bandwidth, like the original MUSE HD, which needed 30 MHz. Even if you could afford a TV set or a VTR, with this bandwidth there were no hopes for broadcast.
Digital has better quality, requires less bandwidth to transmit (or bitrate to store, which is just the other side of the same coin), the devices are smaller, cheaper, and all around more democratic, and copies do not lose quality.
Digital vs analog is sort of like video vs film - until the 1970s film cameras were smaller, more dependable, portable, provided better image quality, etc. But as video developed, it moved farther and farther from film, which just could not miniaturize further, because the size of film roll was a given. Betacam spelt the end of Auricons and Eclairs. Similarly, DV spelt the end of analog Betacam, and there is no returning back as digital keeps on moving forward. The latest 4K and 8K CMOS sensors with global shutter fix the most glaring defect of modern digital cinematography, so film is finally dead.