The quality remains to be seen, but you don't put proprietary nonsense in the headline as if it means something. Words like "stereo", "H.264", and other industry-wide terms have meaning and tell the reader something. Putting brand-specific gimmicks in the headline as if we're supposed to know what they are simply makes the poster look like a company shill.
If the company's top-of-the-line encoding only approaches Blu-Ray, then whatever they're calling "HD" is a fraud. Not that most things labeled "HD" aren't...
It's sad that the FCC failed so completely in its task to define HD and the future of the U.S. TV system. Technology exists to measure visually perceptible degradation. The FCC should have set not only raw resolution requirements, but established requirements for that resolution to be maintained in MOTION pictures. Today's crop of compressed garbage would have failed that test and others that could have been specified even 10 years ago.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Information Central @ Feb 24th 2009 4:33AM
The quality remains to be seen, but you don't put proprietary nonsense in the headline as if it means something. Words like "stereo", "H.264", and other industry-wide terms have meaning and tell the reader something. Putting brand-specific gimmicks in the headline as if we're supposed to know what they are simply makes the poster look like a company shill.
If the company's top-of-the-line encoding only approaches Blu-Ray, then whatever they're calling "HD" is a fraud. Not that most things labeled "HD" aren't...
It's sad that the FCC failed so completely in its task to define HD and the future of the U.S. TV system. Technology exists to measure visually perceptible degradation. The FCC should have set not only raw resolution requirements, but established requirements for that resolution to be maintained in MOTION pictures. Today's crop of compressed garbage would have failed that test and others that could have been specified even 10 years ago.