bhaskar wrote:
if you had actually carefully read what I had wrote - I said that progressive transfers CAN be better -
Had I said progressive transfer are better,
Bhaskar thats the whole point I have been trying to make....
Progressive transfers CAN be better.. is what you say, while we all (okay some of us... the usual suspects) say that Progressive transfered DVDs are always better in PQ vis-a-vis Interlaced encoded DVDs.... qualitiatively ( as I have stated ad-infintum) and also quantitatively (as the others Rana, DragunR2 have pointed out)....
Your viewpoint is that you prefer OAR to progressive transfers...
I have absolutely do not have complaints abt that... but I am a lil bit concerned with ur hierarchical structure... I think OAR comes next to progressive transfers (technically speaking progressive transfer is also a misnomer.... its just a tweak in the video encoding algorithm).
Once I have a P-E dvd I can choose any AR i want....
My viewpoint is that progressive transfers are ALWAYS better (vis-a-vis PQ)... than interlaced dvds.... You can always argue that some progressively encoded dvd's have washed out colors... well I can always adjust my color settings on my TV to make it more pleasing.... but the advantage is... I can still enjoy the picture, without any discernable combing artifacts or DOUBLE images (yeah you get that in ur regular TV's )...
Perhaps my choice of word was wrong... u are not contradictory in ur statemnts but u are factually incorrect !
Of cos you will be correct only in the special case, if you have a high-end DVD system like the one Arsh has ! It can rectify the images by discarding the garbage frames and even then you need a progressive TV to actually view the "rectified video sequence"..... Hence the cheaper and effective alternative is progressively encoded DVD's.... I hope I have made myself clear..
If you wish to disagree thats ur prerogative
!
Cheerz !
Edited By sknath on 1049873679