Quote:
Originally Posted by tomdkat
Dude, are you even reading what you wrote above. Your quote above in bold has what, DVD artifacting in it. How can you say you didn't write "DVD artifacting" when your own quote, quoted by you, has those exact words in it?  |
Well, you're taking the words completely out of their context. I'm talking about the total context and meaning of all of the words together used in a specific phrase. I did not say that I didn't use the two words "DVD artifacting" in my comment. My statement is specifically saying that
I did not think you meant DVD artifacting because the exact words
EXCLUDE DVD artifacting, as stated such:
"I'd bet those effects have more to do with the alternating fields than any actual DVD artifacting."
Of course I have to write the words "DVD artifacting" to be able to
exclude that term as a specific problem, and for it to be understood. I can't substitute some sort of pronoun or other term here and have it make sense, okay?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomdkat
Actually, it wasn't. You mentioned 720p looking "better" than 1080p in this regard due to the de-interlacer having "issues" (para-phrasing, of course). My point was (and is), the 720p "looking better" (regardless, I mean irregardless for the English language guys out there...  , of the degree (somewhat or otherwise)) is irrelevant in the case of my dad viewing 1080i from his cable box and the combing STILL being present.
Got it now?
Peace... |
Well, actually it was basically the same thing, because your very first comments were about your Dad watching 1080i signal upconverted to 1080p on his set and noticing visual anomolies, which you then tested against a direct 720p signal, and that the 720p signal reduced some anomolies, as stated in your comments as such:
"Yep, I agree. I've seen this (to some degree) on my dad's 42" Vizio 1080p LCD HDTV. We have an $80 Toshiba upconverting DVD player connected to it via HDMI and I was testing feeding the set 720p output from the player as well as 1080i output. We used Gladiator as the test material. During one scene, I saw some artifacting when feeding the TV a 1080i signal that disappeared when we fed it a 720p signal. This isn't scientific but made me wonder it the Toshiba player could de-interlace better than the TV. When watching 1080i over cable, my dad often notices combing which shouldn't happen if a good de-interlacer is involved. Perhaps his TV is a "flag reader" or something."
The gist of this is that your Dad is watching 1080i cable input to a set that can deinterlace and then upconvert to 1080p, and he notices an effect that might not be there if there were a good deinterlacer built in the set, as you stated yourself. Your tests regarding 720p vs 1080i (which by your statement is upconverted by the set to 1080p) confirm my opine that direct 720p "looked better". That opine came as a direct result of your comments. Certainly those two exact words are mine, but completely indicated as being true by your own comments regarding your test. You also decry the deinterlacing capabilities of the set vs the Toshiba player, and I merely confirmed that I agree.
"Regardless" is considered to be the correct form and usage.