Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skiddins You mention there are no other resolutions than 1080 or 720 line.
But 720 line less than a 100 more than PAL, at that res, whats the point? |
What are you talking about??
720 x 576 = 414,720
1280 x 720 = 921,600
Don't you think there is a little difference? Not even a bit? (Ignore the fact that it has 100+% more pixels...)
Quote:
|
The old system, NTSC was crap, have they chosen the better system this time?
|
Hmm, better than a system that refreshes at 50 Hz. I get headaches from that.
Quote:
|
But I'm more interested in the way that colour is converted, other than a difference in the number of lines, there was a HUGE difference in the quality of the colours that the NTSC (nicknamed Never The Same Colour) and PAL systems produced.
|
Yeah. In 1970.
Quote:
|
My interest is in how the colour is being transmitted on the HDTV systems, as once again, they, meaning all the corporations, haven't come up with a single standard which could be used across the world, so once again different systems everywhere.
|
Color isn't transmitted in any special way. You get a raw TS MPEG-2 stream from the satellite/cable/antenna.
Quote:
There is.
They have managed to improve the picture over the last 15 years or so by adding something else to the signal, sorry it's been quite a while since I read about so I've forgotten what.
Also guys, have you seen PAL on PAL TV's and NTSC on NTSC TV's?
I have some imported NTSC DVD's and the difference is less noticable, but there is still a difference, mainly in the colours again.
|
I have. I've lived in a PAL country for a few odd years. I really can't see the difference on anything made after 1985. Today? Not a chance. The only thing that does creep me out though, is the 50 Hz refresh rate on PAL systems.
Now tell me, since 720p isn't really such an improvement, why would Sky bother to go with 720p?