# Some high def fun,Is HD all that?



## FAST6191 (Feb 2, 2008)

First a request. I can only seem to find the "low res" 1080p stuff aka some resolutionx800 or similar. Does anyone have a place to grab "true 1080p" stuff legally as I would like this to be able to be replicated. Not that it ultimately matters much as TV broadcast and a good chunk of the stuff you may watch in "HD" is only 720.

*Introduction*

A bit of fun from me today. There will be large images later but they are offsite so 56kers do not need to worry, I request you do not link the images using  tags later in the thread as it will most certainly break the page for most people (use thumbnails if you must). Feel free to use them or this post wherever you like though. Imageshack was being a pain when I came round to uploading so instead I 7zipped them and added them to my 4shared site, if someone wants to upload feel free.

I have seen many people now who should not better and some who do not run around attempting to extol the virtues of "high definition (henceforth HD)" on the "uninformed" masses. 2 things strike me here: the "HD" seen on new TVs has been had by users of PCs for several years now (several means longer than some of you reading this have been alive) and I am also led to wonder who could actually tell the difference in a meaningful way. Of course this is just one mans opinion so I figured lets do a test to see.
For some my "qualifications" are nice to know, I have nothing formal but I have been playing with making/encoding/transcoding video for several years now (about 5 as something more than a passing interest) and trained myself to see errors as part of that. My sight is perfect although this is an attempt for everyone to judge for themselves.

[b]Now HD/ video basics for the uninitiated.[/b]
Before we get to HD it is probably best to have some history/technical info.
Many years ago the world desired some way of playing back video other than the traditional film reel approach (see early TV) as making/distributing 
thousands of reels was not really viable. This led to the standards of PAL (and other standards such as SECAM but lets not bog it down here) and 
courtesy of the tendency for 60Hz AC power in various parts of the world NTSC (it was many years ago so generating new signals/pulses at given rates was not as trivial 
(read cheap) as it is today) being broadcast over the air.

PAL region AC power is 50Hz so they got 50 fields per second (later scaled back for colour TV due to latency) in PAL regions. A field can be rather 
crudely defined as half a frame formed from alternating lines (if you have ever seen seen black horizontal lines in a video or screen grab from one a bad conversion or rather weak settings of the filters to do it from this is most likely the reason).

Why fields? the human eye is perfectly happy to accept 25 frames per second (and sometimes a bit less) as fluid motion (i.e. 50 is overkill) so for bandwidth (especially for analog TV) it was scaled 
back.

These both conflicted with FILM (people still shot video to reels for the most part and still do for the vast majority of things) which is 24 frames per second (there was a series of earlier standards using 17/19 and other assorted FPS: why some badly made programs have war footage and old films running way too fast) so it needed to be converted.
PAL regions being 1 frame faster just sped it up incurring a slightly higher pitch sound and slightly faster action (later in life various people 
made algorithms to change the pitch back to normal). Not normally noticeable unless you compare side by side, regular NTSC viewers tend to be more likely to pick it up.

NTSC being 6 frames faster than FILM decided to play fields more than once to bring it "up to speed" (for the most part, some things are recorded at this rate such as news and sports but that brings a new set of problems). Unfortunately the numbers are not simple so the 3:2 pulldown was developed whereby fields were played more than once). For regular viewers of PAL this can mean quite a juddery picture.
As time went on rather than encode a whole stream like this flags were made to allow the decoding/receiving equipment to do the job but problems can still occur with mixed footage (CGI and regular footage). This area is somewhat extraneous to the current debate though (search for telecine and inverse telecine (IVTC) if you want to know more, the following link is a bit old and does not feature the latest and greatest for helping fix the problem but: [url=http://www.doom9.org/ivtc-tut.htm]http://www.doom9.org/ivtc-tut.htm[/url] ). It was not all bad though as a great deal of games were made for the NTSC market and then suffered very much during PAL conversion (often a slowdown and borders approach was taken).

Again this was also later scaled back ever so slightly (to about 29.97) with the introduction of colour to allow for latency and depending on who you speak to sound too.

This is all explained in far more depth here: [url=http://www.doom9.org/video-basics.htm]http://www.doom9.org/video-basics.htm[/url]

Fine but what is HD?
Well PAL is 625 vertical lines (which courtesy of the tendency for the TV to "overscan" means about 540 can be seen).
NTSC is 525 or with overscan about 487.

HD is higher resolution than this and for TVs commonly appears in the following flavours where the number refers to the horizontal
720 I or P (see just how close normal PAL TV is to this: 33% larger if overscan is taken into account)
1080 I or P (I will give the HD enthusiasts this one double* is quite a bit bit larger) *see next paragraph
I stands for interlaced and uses the same "half frame" concept as above
P stands for progressive and draws a whole frame at once.
(just for the intellectuals R is raster and while it does not exist really any more in general purpose items (save perhaps oscilloscopes and low end toys) it draws a dot where it is needed)

1080P tends to be considered the "king" of the HD scene right now but a good chunk of the "HD" screens sold are likely to be/have been 720P or even 720I (certainly a lot of the 
early adopters which coincidently form the backbone of those likely to attempt to extol virtues would have got one of those and Europe is still twiddling thumbs a bit in this regard: see the PAL xbox HD stuff). Not that it matters much as a large amount of broadcasts (and games which form the other “HD” demographic) are made in a 720? format if they do appear in HD at all (HD broadcasts in the majority of places come at a premium or selection is limited). However as the upscaling tests will show this may not be all that problematic.
The resolutions can get a bit confusing especially when widescreen (16:9 aspect ratio) is taken into account and the fact that some of the 1080 screens use a 1366 x 768 (yes a whole 48 lines more than the “inferior 720” or around 42% more than PAL ) resolution on chip and upscale that to appear at “true” 1080 aka 1920 x 1080 (widescreen).
So to clarify
720 tends to be: 1280x720 
1080 tends to be: 1920 x1080 unless you have a (rather common) version that uses 1366 x 768 and upscales.
For the record PC monitors have been at the lower HD resolutions for nearly 2 decades (IBM introduced XGA with 1024 x 768 (P naturally) in 1990, granted at lower colours for a little while: [url=http://www.videotechnology.com/0904/formats.html]http://www.videotechnology.com/0904/formats.html[/url] ) and as you are likely viewing this on one then you should in theory have the best platform for this sort of test (ignoring issues with odd aspect ratios making for circles appearing as ellipses).


Now people will tell you i on the end means it is lower quality and they are probably correct, if only in somewhat indistinguishable terms or it can even look better as an unintentional side effect from deinterlacing (even the most basic of the filters can sharpen, soften or get rid of artifacts).
Deinterlacing involves making a whole picture from fields. There are several methods by which this can be accomplished including:
reduce by 2 vertical followed by enlargement. Crude but effective. Essentially disregards the interlaced sections and makes them anew (similar to bobbing (below) but not quite as effective when it comes to things like ghosting.
field blend: fields are half frames are they not, surely you can just stack them. You can but scene changes (see the doom9 video basics for a great example) and high motion (be it from an unsteady camera, vibration and normal action) can make a mess of things. Pulldowns can also pose a problem but that is not explicitly related. By and large the most common method as it can be accomplished in real time quite easily.

bob: one of the great things about a picture is that a pixel is more often than not the same or very close or at least guessable based on the surrounding pixels. Simple bobs take fields and shift the video up and down a pixel and guess the result. More advanced techniques tend to stem from this and can guess at the picture using all manner of clever maths and others can attempt to be smart and only find the “combs” (and normally run into a wall when a horizontal line that is part of the picture appears: this is especially problematic with anime)

Before going on the “HD” disc formats are notably absent thus far. This is intentional as several other somewhat unimportant concepts would have to be introduced such as codec/standards comparison, suffice it to say they come in all the resolutions listed above.

[b]Anyway tech stuff not over but we are at the tests.[/b]
I wanted it to be repeatable by anyone so I had to choose a trailer.

The Bourne Ultimatum - 1080p Trailer clocking 80 megabytes available here at [url=http://www.h264info.com/clips.html]http://www.h264info.com/clips.html[/url] (if someone really has a problem with a high quality lossy codec being used (despite the fact the same or worse is used in real life: how many of you with cable or freeview (UK) have seen errors in the video) then the test can be switched to lossless (I just thought I would be nice on peoples bandwidth)). If it is wanted I can upload the lot to usenet. Video chosen mainly for high action. Again if someone can point me towards a true 1080p trailer site that would be great.

My setup
CCCP video decoder (FFDShow) 2007 - 07 -22 (current stable)
[url=http://www.cccp-project.net/]http://www.cccp-project.net/[/url]
No pre of post processing other than what is mandated by the H264 standard (even then it is the same frame being decoded and it has nothing to do with the clip after feeding it to avisynth).
Avisynth 2.57 (if you use batchDPG installed you already have this, the filters used should not have changed in this version if you still have 2.56)
[url=http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=57023]http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=57023[/url]
No special filters should be needed for this first round of tests although I am considering changing the source filter to the new ffmpegsource filter (not much testing has been done with it on my part):
[url=http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=127037]http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=127037[/url]
and maybe messing with the upscaling options of the deinterlacing filter here (this may get scrapped due to the quality comparison):
[url=http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=129953]http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=129953[/url]

The test.
There are several options available but I went with the following
The first choice was to scale one video down to standard definition and back up before stacking them for comparison.
The second test was the above and upscaling the lot to 2x resolution of the largest resolution for even finer picking apart.

Both of these are upscaling tests which contrary to the spy film/cheesy forensics show is not able to turn a mess of pixels and come up with a discernable face (it is a bit different for old style chemical based photographs but that is getting off track).

The scripts (ignore the odd coding, it works):
1st test downscaling and back
[code]video=directshowsource("The Bourne Ultimatum - Trailer.mp4", fps=23.98, convertfps=true).converttorgb32()
tweak=video.Lanczos4Resize(1268,540)#PAL vertical resolution
stackvertical(video.Subtitle("original", align=5).addborders(0,0,0,20),tweak.Lanczos4Resize(1920,816).Subtitle("scaled to PAL and back", align=5))
killaudio()
#trim(100,1000)
#ConvertToYV12()[/code]
2nd test downscaling and back before doubling the resolution
[code]video=directshowsource("The Bourne Ultimatum - Trailer.mp4", fps=23.98, convertfps=true).converttorgb32()
tweak=video.Lanczos4Resize(1268,540)#PAL vertical resolution
stackvertical(video.Subtitle("original", align=5).addborders(0,0,0,20),tweak.Lanczos4Resize(1920,816).Subtitle("scaled", align=5))
killaudio()
Lanczos4Resize(height*2,width*2)
#trim(100,1000)
#ConvertToYV12()[/code]

Script discussion.
Directshowsource runs the haali splitter and FFDshow with the previously mentioned setup (no extra post processing).
My scaling filter is lanczos3, it is a reasonably high quality filter. This may however pose an unfair advantage as TVs (the ultimate reason for doing all this) often use basic bicubic/bilinear filters as do media players (my script was not real time even on my fairly high powered rig: [url=http://gbatemp.net/index.php?showtopic=42858]http://gbatemp.net/index.php?showtopic=42858[/url] ). If someone wants to suggest a different method feel free.
The converttorgb32() parts are there to dodge an issue with my current setup and make scaling a bit easier (yv12 scaling needs to be a multiple of 4 which bothers the true mathematical division of the horizontal resolution: somewhere between 1270 and 1271)
stackvertical was used although it can easily be altered to stack horizontal (you might want to change the borders or comment it out, syntax is AddBorders (clip, int left, int top, int right, int bottom, int "color") 
everything with a # at the start has been commented out and is just left from me messing around.
The results:
Images are lossless (100%) JPG although I could be persuaded to change to PNG or slightly lossy JPG (90% or so) if it is requested. I used FFDShow grab filter to grab every 60th frame to ouput to 100% quality JPEG (I was the idea of finding framenumbers to tell the Imagewriter function) for the 1st test and virtualdub do the same for the second (I had some decoder issues when enabling raw video to grab the avisynth output, the script worked fine otherwise additions for the vdub script were SelectEvery(60,0) and changefps(0.4) on a new line).
In all truth I probably should have got the I-frames ( [url=http://wiki.multimedia.cx/index.php?title=Frame_Types]http://wiki.multimedia.cx/index.php?title=Frame_Types[/url] ) numbers from the original source and grabbed those but that should not matter.

A 7zip containing the all of test 1 and the choice picks below from test2 (the 36 frames I grabbed are 88.7 megabytes) are available here and you are all free to replicate the results for yourselves (nothing I have used is not freely available):
Test 1
[url=http://www.4shared.com/file/36675244/8f87aae0/test1.html]http://www.4shared.com/file/36675244/8f87aae0/test1.html[/url]

Test 2
[url=http://www.4shared.com/file/36675666/54b60192/test2.html]http://www.4shared.com/file/36675666/54b60192/test2.html[/url]

[b]Conclusion and further discussion.[/b]
Experimental problems:
While some results were obtained courtesy of some of the choices here the results are barely more than subjective if held against commonly accepted scientific practice (1 lossy source, dissimilar conditions to “real life”, no set metric for errors (not that there really can be)).
There is also the problem of still images: almost everyone should be able to discern errors in still images easier than video.
Future tests: interlaced content (not sure about pulldown stuff as it can be corrected with effort) and altered filters to match real world devices (going to need some more info though and trying to get that out of manufacturers is just shy of getting blood from a stone), NTSC as well as PAL downscaling (the lower NTSC resolution may make a more profound difference) and I really should use a true 1080p source and scale accordingly.
I might also attempt to cut the video in 4 and alter the quarters somewhat randomly to see if that makes a difference.

Conclusion
To my eye some of the upscaled looked nicer (brighter in places and a few less errors) although that technically is an error and some of the text appeared antialiased/sharpened (downscaling and upscaling is a type of image enhancement, see the filter mipsmooth: [url=http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=64940]http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=64940[/url] (forum down right now but type mipsmooth into a search engine and you can view a cached copy)
Subjectively I would call HD marketing hype at best with a good chunk of people suffering from the marketing equivalent of the placebo effect and scientifically about all I have shown is that if done properly it is damn hard to tell the difference in a meaningful way although it can be done.

Comments (if constructive all the better) welcome and flames regarding my being a luddite and how the HD fairy brought back your childhood dog also accepted.


----------



## Linkiboy (Feb 2, 2008)

I have a 720p TV thats 1366x768, but can also "natively" take a 1080 signal, does that mean its a "fake" 1080 tv?


----------



## betaboy (Feb 2, 2008)

QUOTE(Linkiboy @ Feb 2 2008 said:


> I have a 720p TV thats 1366x768, but can also "natively" take a 1080 signal, does that mean its a "fake" 1080 tv?



The chances are it downscales the 1080p picture to 720p. Is it a 32" Panasonic by any chance?


----------



## betaboy (Feb 2, 2008)

Sorry about the double post. Site running slow today for some reason! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





In answer to the 1st post, Sky have some legal HD demos to download (http://sky.com/hd/hd-video-downloads.htm) if that's what you are looking for. Sorry couldn't be bothered to wade though all the technical stuff in the post.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 2, 2008)

Thanks betaboy. I grabbed the Underwater Wonderland 2 and made a new script (same setup as before software wise). This time however I took the image and cut it into 4, scaled two quarters down to PAL (540 is rather nicely half of 1080 so I used the reduceby2() filter). The source is not quite as nice as the previous one (a bunch of compression artifacts) but the test still works. Again feel free to use any of this as you see fit.


```
a=directshowsource("artsworld_2_hd.wmv").reduceby2().Lanczos4Resize(1440,1080).crop(0,0,-720,-540)#.invert()
b=directshowsource("artsworld_2_hd.wmv").crop(720,0,-0,-540)
c=directshowsource("artsworld_2_hd.wmv").crop(0,540,-720,-0)
d=directshowsource("artsworld_2_hd.wmv").reduceby2().Lanczos4Resize(1440,1080).crop(720,540,-0,-0)#.invert()

stackvertical(stackhorizontal(a,b),stackhorizontal(c,d))
converttorgb32()
```

I will post some more pictures from it when I get back from my meal but until then you can test if you want and here are the first avs file of images.













In case you do not understand the script above the top left quarter and the bottom right are both downscaled and scaled back up (delete the # from the end of the first and 4th line to see the image inverted).
If someone really wants I will add borders and subtitles.
As an aside I also did a bilinear upscaling test (bilinear is more like what your media player/TV uses) and got pretty much the same results.

```
a=directshowsource("artsworld_2_hd.wmv").reduceby2().BilinearResize(1440,1080).crop(0,0,-720,-540)#.invert()
b=directshowsource("artsworld_2_hd.wmv").crop(720,0,-0,-540)
c=directshowsource("artsworld_2_hd.wmv").crop(0,540,-720,-0)
d=directshowsource("artsworld_2_hd.wmv").reduceby2().BilinearResize(1440,1080).crop(720,540,-0,-0)#.invert()

stackvertical(stackhorizontal(a,b),stackhorizontal(c,d))
converttorgb32()
```


----------



## Linkiboy (Feb 2, 2008)

QUOTE(betaboy @ Feb 2 2008 said:


> QUOTE(Linkiboy @ Feb 2 2008 said:
> 
> 
> > I have a 720p TV thats 1366x768, but can also "natively" take a 1080 signal, does that mean its a "fake" 1080 tv?
> ...


Sharp 32"

The screens are made OEM, then companies buy them, so it wouldn't surprise me if it was the same thing.

Oh well. I got bigger than 720p on a 720p tv. I'm not complaining.


----------



## Omgwtfisthat (Feb 2, 2008)

I've got a full 1080 HD Sony Bravia 46'' X


----------



## ackers (Feb 2, 2008)

I don't understand how Xbox 360 games are supposed to be HD yet the games are burned on DVD's rather than HD DVD's. How do we get the HD experience from a standard DVD? Correct me if any of my points are wrong.

Another thing, why do developers make 60Hz only games now for the current gen consoles? My TV, which is a 42" Panasonic Viera plasma (not HD - it's old), looks crap when I set it to 60Hz from the Xbox 360 dashboard. Because of that I generally avoid 60Hz only games.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 3, 2008)

A bit of a off topic question but I will go it Ackers.

"HD" merely refers to the resolution of the display being used. HD-DVD is just a tweak on the optical disc to cram more data on there (shorter wavelength of light leads to a smaller area able to be viewed meaning more pits per area and more data).
Because of that companies/groups defined new standards to allow for higher resolution content to be stored more resolution: more data for the same compression methods (these were also changed a bit to make it even easier to store more data).

Games on the other hand generate their own content for the screen so rather than filling a screen with premade stuff they map textures onto items and do various other calculations based upon this (light, physics, shadows, whatever).
These textures and images have more pixels used to display them meaning they are higher definition than some of the older titles.

As for 60Hz only it is nice to time updates to screen data with refresh rates and if you can not be bothered to use a clock generator you might as well use the current you are supplied with. Note this is mainly the TV companies/standards councils fault and the consoles just had to play along.
In the US and Japan this is 60Hz and in most of Europe there is 50Hz so Japan and the US (the traditional games markets and a good chunk of the games makers) made for their region at 60Hz.
Now time moved on and clock generators became cheap and easy so European markets said F it and added 60Hz compatibility to most of their stuff (even if they did not use the other standards). As converting games from 60Hz to 50Hz is a pain to do properly (and your customer base tends to not approve of bad conversions: see all the stuff from the 16 bit era: slowdown and black borders) and most new TVs (which apparently all gamers have) support 60Hz now guess what happened.

I would suggest fiddling with the options and reading the manual (some of the older plasma TVs are not exactly plug and play), should be available here but you did not give a model number so I could not chase it up further:
http://www.panasonic.co.uk/customer-Suppor...load-centre.asp


----------



## ZeWarrior (Apr 23, 2008)

There is so many things wrong with the first post. If a screen is advertised as being able to *display* 1080p, it *has* to be 1920x1080. Your mistaken. 720p screens are commonly 1366x768. Linki, in reality, your *not* getting higher than 720p. Your getting what you paid for. Your TV accepts the 1080p signal and downscales it to 1366x768. A TV can not be 1366x768 and upscale for 1080p, it doesn't have the necessary pixels to do so.

It's *impossible* for a TV to _display_ 1080p if its only 1366x768.
There might be other flaws here but I didn't bother to read everything to get into detail.


----------



## Masta_mind257 (Apr 23, 2008)

Linkiboy said:
			
		

> I have a 720p TV thats 1366x768, but can also "natively" take a 1080 signal, does that mean its a "fake" 1080 tv?



Hol-e crap my t.v does the same thing could that mean I have a 'fake'


----------



## Westside (Apr 23, 2008)

Masta_mind257 said:
			
		

> Linkiboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Answered by the post above, it is not "fake" lol, it is downscaled and lower quality than what the picture quality is meant to be.


----------



## Linkiboy (Apr 23, 2008)

ZeWarriorReturns said:
			
		

> There is so many things wrong with the first post. *If a screen is advertised as being able to display 1080p, it **has to be 1920x1080*. Your mistaken. 720p screens are commonly 1366x768. Linki, in reality, your *not* getting higher than 720p. Your getting what you paid for. Your TV accepts the 1080p signal and downscales it to 1366x768. A TV can not be 1366x768 and upscale for 1080p, it doesn't have the necessary pixels to do so.
> 
> It's *impossible* for a TV to _display_ 1080p if its only 1366x768.
> There might be other flaws here but I didn't bother to read everything to get into detail.


Well obviously a few years ago it didnt, maybe cheap cheap displays today. It still displays the 1080 signal, it just uses its hardware to downscale it to fit the screen, and to upscale to make it seem the right aspect ratio. Signal is still 1080. It still displays it.

Oh and in actuality, I am getting >720p, 720p = 1280x720


----------



## ZeWarrior (Apr 23, 2008)

Linkiboy said:
			
		

> ZeWarriorReturns said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your misunderstanding me. What I'm saying is the TV accepts the 1080p signal and downscales to 1366x768, your not seeing 1080p quality. And BTW, 1366x768 is standard for 720p LCD HDTV. So you are still getting what you payed for. And you're wrong. If a TV advertises to be 1080p, it *must* be 1920x1080 or its false advertising. BTW, a TV doesn't have to fix the aspect ratio if its displaying HD content. 16:9 is 16:9 or 1.78:1, 1080p, 720p, even 768p is 16:9. It doesn't have to change the AR at all. It doesn't display the full 1920x1080 is what I'm saying.


----------



## Linkiboy (Apr 23, 2008)

ZeWarriorReturns said:
			
		

> Linkiboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And where did you get this "fact"


----------



## ZeWarrior (Apr 24, 2008)

Its common sense. Or every TV on the ****ing market would be advertised as 1080p, no?


----------



## Westside (Apr 24, 2008)

Linkiboy said:
			
		

> ZeWarriorReturns said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He didn't say it's a fact, he said it's false advertisement if it is otherwise, and it is true.  Stretching a picture to have loose quality is NOT 1080p.


----------



## ZeWarrior (Apr 24, 2008)

Thank you, Westside. Linki is always trying to prove me wrong.


----------



## MC DUI (Apr 24, 2008)

ZeWarrior is correct on this occassion.


----------



## Linkiboy (Apr 24, 2008)

ZeWarriorReturns said:
			
		

> Its common sense. Or every TV on the ****ing market would be advertised as 1080p, no?


So what if it is common sense? You never use it yourself, so why should I?

TV manufacturers have done it, and gotten away with it. The reason not every TV is labeled as such is because it actually needs to have the hardware to properly process the 1080p image, makign it cost more. Consumers will say "hmm this is useless" when they see a 26" 1080p cost more than a 720p 32.

Westside stop being a dumbass 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 there is a reason I put "fact" in quotes. 

I have nothing better to do on these forums nowadays anyway. Testing Area sucks, zewarrior replying to old posts and other crap is fun to reply to

PS "He didn't say it's a fact, he said it's false advertisement if it is otherwise, and it is true. Stretching a picture to have loose quality is NOT 1080p." If it really is true, therefore it is considered a fact, however its not a fact at all, its an opinion, as well as the second sentence. "Displaying 1080p images" is extremely vague and can be argued. What about TVs that can scroll images? What about downscaling? Its still a 1080 image technically.


----------



## Linkiboy (Apr 24, 2008)

MC DUI said:
			
		

> ZeWarrior is correct on this occassion.


In my opinion, but in set up debates youre not always on the side you want to be. I find it fun to argue.


----------



## ZeWarrior (Apr 24, 2008)

I won't even bother. Get informed. I'm right, you're wrong, No matter how you put it. Acceptance is key to success.


----------



## Westside (Apr 24, 2008)

Linkiboy said:
			
		

> ZeWarriorReturns said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's like saying my ipod can display a 640X480 mp4 file.  It's completely useless because it just downscales it to a 320X240.  I'm better off saving space on my iPod downloaing the smaller version of that video.
Linki, please don't get angry at people for nothing, we just want to hear LEGIT reasons that you are defending yourself on.  We didn't come here to be called dumbasses or hear about how the testing area sucks and all.


----------



## ZeWarrior (Apr 24, 2008)

MC DUI said:
			
		

> ZeWarrior is correct on this occassion.



And many others. Give credit where credit is due. kthanxbai.


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Apr 24, 2008)

Ze is right.

Also in regards to the first post. In the U.S. almost all HD broadcasts are 1080p not 720p.
edit: let me add to that. That's over-the-air broadcasts. The ones you pick up with an antenna. I can't speak for cable or satellite because certain companies will compress the bitrates. I think DirecTV is actually being sued for that right now. Because they say they offer HD content but it is what some people refer to as "HD-Lite" because of their compression rates.


----------



## leetdude_007 (Apr 24, 2008)

crap in, crap out. simple as that. Planet Earth on blu-ray in, pure golden insanity pushing your eyes back into your sockets out.


----------



## ZeWarrior (Apr 24, 2008)

See, I'm not full of shit? I know what I'm talking about. No matter how you put it, I'm right, you're wrong.


----------



## MC DUI (Apr 24, 2008)

ZeWarriorReturns said:
			
		

> MC DUI said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Always do mate, on this occassion you're right, on others you're mainly expressing an opinion.


----------



## Westside (Apr 24, 2008)

ZeWarriorReturns said:
			
		

> See, I'm not full of shit? I know what I'm talking about. No matter how you put it, I'm right, you're wrong.


Lol, Ze, don't push it, arogance will make you seem foolish even if you were right.  This is the reason why Linki has always been a prick to you.  Ze, if you learn to be modest and learn to let it go even if it is someone else's fault once in a while, you will be surprised how many people will start agreeing with you.

Enough of who is right or wrong.  Let's get back to this discusion.


----------



## ZeWarrior (Apr 24, 2008)

MC DUI said:
			
		

> ZeWarriorReturns said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'd appreciate it if you didn't act like this was my first time being right. Sure, a couple times I may have been trying to force my opinion on others, which is wrong, but many times I've said factual things and still been called wrong. Its a shame how some people can't accept the truth. Then again, were all only human.

BTW, Westside, I'm just trying to make a point. I apologize if I'm being arrogant.


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Apr 24, 2008)

thaigrocer said:
			
		

> crap in, crap out. simple as that. Planet Earth on blu-ray in, pure golden insanity pushing your eyes back into your sockets out.




hehe Planet Earth  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It seriously ruins all other HD once you watch that. Nothing looks as good. It's regarded as the best VC1 encoding ever made.


----------



## ZeWarrior (Apr 24, 2008)

Bob Loblaw said:
			
		

> thaigrocer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Damn right. Its beautiful, simply beautiful.


----------



## Westside (Apr 24, 2008)

ZeWarriorReturns said:
			
		

> Bob Loblaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ugh, if I had the money, I would buy that.  I have an 1080p monitor and a Geforce 8800, but blu-ray drives are still pretty expensive...


----------



## ZeWarrior (Apr 24, 2008)

You can get a Blu-ray Reader for your PC for ~$150 from Newegg.


----------



## Westside (Apr 24, 2008)

ZeWarriorReturns said:
			
		

> You can get a Blu-ray Reader for your PC for ~$150 from Newegg.


I don't buy optical drives more expensive than $40, lol.  I know I am a cheap ass...


----------



## Linkiboy (Apr 24, 2008)

ZeWarriorReturns said:
			
		

> I won't even bother. Get informed. I'm right, you're wrong, No matter how you put it. Acceptance is key to success.



jesus christ you are thick as always

I WAS ARGUING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUING

now stop being an arrogant bitch


----------



## MC DUI (Apr 24, 2008)

ZeWarriorReturns said:
			
		

> MC DUI said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not acting as though this is your first time being right, I was responding to your post where your stated that I should give credit where credit is due, insinuating that on other occassions I had not given you credit for your posts. Now this may because I didn't read those threads, or on other occassions it was because the posts you had made were opinion not fact.


----------



## ZeWarrior (Apr 24, 2008)

Linkiboy said:
			
		

> ZeWarriorReturns said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Temper temper, stop throwing a fit. Is it really that hard to accept you're *wrong*?


----------



## leetdude_007 (Apr 24, 2008)

I'm waiting for blu-ray writers to get cheaper. I hope within a year or so.


----------



## ZeWarrior (Apr 24, 2008)

thaigrocer said:
			
		

> I'm waiting for blu-ray writers to get cheaper. I hope within a year or so.



I hope they get at least the readers down, the discs themselves are still very expensive.


----------



## Westside (Apr 24, 2008)

ZeWarriorReturns said:
			
		

> thaigrocer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It took DVD about 10 years (it was invented in 1993) to drop to the the price of $1 per disc on market.  I think we still have a VERY long time to wait.  However, the readers are surprisingly cheap consdering how long it has been on the market.


----------



## Mewgia (Apr 24, 2008)

ZeWarriorReturns said:
			
		

> Linkiboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh god, the irony.


----------



## Linkiboy (Apr 24, 2008)

ZeWarriorReturns said:
			
		

> Linkiboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are not in any position to make such statements. Lets look at your post. Not only do you continue to be thick headed, and not get what I'm trying to say, you're still acting like an arrogant bitch.

You claim to have won arguments other than this one, however I have never *seen* that happen(bolded for zewarrior), maybe something you thought you won but you didn't, and even if you have won arguments on this forum which I havent seen, you're acting like this is the first one you have won.

Also you have a tendency to ignore facts and valid points. See: this thread, and potentially, even this post.

If you haven't noticed, I did say that I was wrong, infact, a while ago.


----------



## ZeWarrior (Apr 24, 2008)

Mewgia said:
			
		

> ZeWarriorReturns said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh god, another one.


----------



## Salamantis (Apr 24, 2008)

ZeWarriorReturns said:
			
		

> thaigrocer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ze, stop being more arrogant than Sony, or you'll end up just like them. Humiliated on the internet.


----------



## ZeWarrior (Apr 24, 2008)

Salamantis said:
			
		

> ZeWarriorReturns said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wrong Quote? BTW, Linki, Please, Enlighten me, Where in this thread you admitted you were wrong. You have no valid points. At least not for this argument. And quick question, if you already admitted you're wrong, why the fuck do you continue to ignorantly insult others knowing you're wrong.


----------



## Linkiboy (Apr 24, 2008)

ZeWarriorReturns said:
			
		

> Salamantis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


http://gbatemp.net/index.php?s=&showto...t&p=1105979

Wow, you just proved my last post too.

They were valid, from a lawyer viewpoint.


----------



## ZeWarrior (Apr 24, 2008)

I can't even begin to describe how ignorant you are for stating your arguing for fun. If this is what you do for amusement on forums, I can just imagine how you must be in the real world. You, BoneMonkey, I can be in this list, and many others kill this forum because what we find amusing, is irritating to others.


----------



## Salamantis (Apr 24, 2008)

Yeah, sorry Ze, I was referring to this one:



			
				ZeWarriorReturns said:
			
		

> Linkiboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Linkiboy (Apr 24, 2008)

ZeWarriorReturns said:
			
		

> I can't even begin to describe how ignorant you are for stating your arguing for fun. If this is what you do for amusement on forums, I can just imagine how you must be in the real world. You, BoneMonkey, I can be in this list, and many others kill this forum because what we find amusing, is irritating to others.


Hmmm... how exactly is it making me ignorant? Care to explain?

I am not online like I am in real life. Not many people are.


----------



## Westside (Apr 24, 2008)

Westside said:
			
		

> if you learn to be modest and learn to let it go even if it is someone else's fault once in a while, you will be surprised how many people will start agreeing with you.
> 
> Enough of who is right or wrong.  Let's get back to this discusion.


No one listens to Westside Hodja.


----------



## Linkiboy (Apr 24, 2008)

Westside said:
			
		

> Westside said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Westside is right, but ZeWarrior is a special exception for me.


----------



## ZeWarrior (Apr 24, 2008)

Linkiboy said:
			
		

> ZeWarriorReturns said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If your fighting because you find it amusing, theres no way about it. You're being ignorant. And tell me, if you don't act like this in the real world, why do it here? To seem like a big guy, bossing everyone around due to anger issues in the real world? Grow up.


----------



## ZeWarrior (Apr 24, 2008)

Linkiboy said:
			
		

> Westside said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Way to prove my comment on you being ignorant.


----------



## Linkiboy (Apr 24, 2008)

ZeWarriorReturns said:
			
		

> Linkiboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think you know what ignorant means. And its not to everyone. Have you noticed? I only do it towards *you*. Now how many other members have shown discontempt towards you? More than I will count.

No, I do not have anger issues in the real world, how "ignorant" of you to make that assumption.


----------



## JimmyJangles (Apr 24, 2008)

thaigrocer said:
			
		

> crap in, crap out. simple as that. Planet Earth on blu-ray in, pure golden insanity pushing your eyes back into your sockets out.


Ah, I so wish I could watch Planet Earth on blue-ray.  I have it on dvd, which will look terrible on my new HD TV.  Once I get me a PS3 I hope the dvd upscaler does a good job, but even if it does, I know it won't compare to true HD, so I may be forced to buy the blue-ray version anyway.  Man, this switch to HD is gonna get expensive quick


----------



## ZeWarrior (Apr 24, 2008)

Linkiboy said:
			
		

> ZeWarriorReturns said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorant

You fall into this category you see.


----------



## what2 (Apr 24, 2008)

wow, you really see true desperation to win an argument once you see someone quoting a dictionary definition 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## Linkiboy (Apr 24, 2008)

ZeWarriorReturns said:
			
		

> You see I think it is, *you* who doesn't know the definition of ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So how does "fighting" make me ignorant? You were "fighting" against me.


----------



## ZeWarrior (Apr 24, 2008)

Linkiboy said:
			
		

> ZeWarriorReturns said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Its not just because your fighting but because your causing an argument, for the sake of an argument. When you know this won't end well.

edit: sorry mthr


----------



## Linkiboy (Apr 24, 2008)

ZeWarriorReturns said:
			
		

> Linkiboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


and how does that make me have "a lack of knowledge"


----------

