On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:13:06 +0000, Vincent
wrote:

HD looks perfect to me.

....unless it's BBC HD which is often no better than SD since the bit
rate was reduced in August. I first saw HD in the late '80s at a
demonstration given by BBC Research Department. It was stunning. I next
saw it at home last year watching Wimbledon. It was stunning and I had
no hesitation in recommending it to a number of friends. Since the bit
rate reduction in August there's no way I would now recommend BBC HD to
anyone.

--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather

On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:23:08 +0000, Alan White
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:13:06 +0000, Vincent
wrote:

HD looks perfect to me.

...unless it's BBC HD which is often no better than SD since the bit
rate was reduced in August. I first saw HD in the late '80s at a
demonstration given by BBC Research Department. It was stunning. I next
saw it at home last year watching Wimbledon. It was stunning and I had
no hesitation in recommending it to a number of friends. Since the bit
rate reduction in August there's no way I would now recommend BBC HD to
anyone.


I agree about BBC HD, mostly. I've ranted about this in another
thread, but I definitely noticed the bitrate drop, and still can. It
makes BBC HD by far the worst of all the HD channels. It's just
"better" enough than SD to see how bad a lot of things are - poor
quality sets, bad makeup, actors/actresses with spots and scars and
other things that SD doesn't have the resolution or quality to reveal.

It's still better than SD though in my opinion.

--
Vincent