At 7:10 PM -0500 1/12/07, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
Instead, the difference was like this is not TV anymore. This is more
like a good movie source. Subjectively, it's like going from looking at
a butter knife to looking at a razor blade.
DVDs ARE good movie source, oversampled from high resolution source and
encoded as component, progressive scan frames. Take away all of the
legacy crap and the underlying images are very good.
Back in the '80s, when i was was beginning to understand the issues
related to various forms of image encoding and display, I created an
image I called the Composite video footprint. The difference between
this, and a raster that was not filtered for interlace, displayed on a
progressive scan CRT was dramatic. See attached.
And this image did not show the losses associated with composite video
encoding. The ability to process and distribute component video was a
huge breakthrough, first made obvious by Sony's Betacam, which used
analog component processing. This "finally" became available to
consumers with DVDs, which made it possible to eliminate both the
composite video footprint, and to a lesser extent, the interlace footprint.
If one were to take any of the HD formats and resample to 576P, then
encode using MPEG-2 or H.264, the difference between the downsampled
version and an HD encoding would be nearly impossible to detect on most
of the HD capable displays shipped to date. In fact, the downsampled
version might look better at 10 Mbps than the HD version due to
quantization of the HD source.
Regards
Craig