File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Shom me some good examples why 720p is supposed to be better than SD.
>> Anonymous
You just posted it.

More pixels = better quality
>> MR. Anon
Because SD = 640x480 (square pixels). That's tiny as hell.
>> Anonymous
more pixels = better quality ON A DISPLAY OF THE SAME SIZE.

very important.

1080p on my father's 120" projector looks the same as 720p or 1080i on my 50" plasma.
>> Anonymous
and at the same viewing distance
>> Anonymous
Why don't you go to Best Buy or some store that sells HD displays and see for yourself.

Oh and when you go, make sure you ask them if the input into the TV is HD quality. When you see a range of like 20 TVs, they usually don't have HD quality on them. However they'll usually have at least 1 TV setup somewhere w/ either HD cable/satellite or a Blu/HD movie on.

If you can't see the difference between HD and SD you need glasses. It's just that simple. Once you accept that, then you can have the opinion on if you want to pay the extra money for it. With more and more channels going HD, cable to have 40 by end of the year and DirectTV to have 100 by the end of the year, I believe it's well worth it.
>> Anonymous
because widescreen gives people boners
>> HD = Awesome Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
This is from The LotR:Fellowship in 1080p
This is much better than any DVD.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
This one is from Spiderman 2
>> Spin The Black Circle !ZV9v1et5Mk
>>226632
I did exactly this , went in said let me see 1080p playing Blu Ray and my haw jit the floor, fucking nice picture.
>> Anonymous
If you see Pirates on bluray displaying on Sonys XBR4 you will shit yourself, It looks as if it's completely real no lie. I believe Fantastic Four 2 gives the same quality.
>> Anonymous
op's pic is misleading

DVD resolution, although "technically" 720x480 becomes horizontally compressed to ~640x480 due to standard television pixels being .9x wide as they are tall
>> 
>>226680
Use a jpeg you fucking pleb.
>> Anonymous
>>226769
are you the only asshole that's gay for .jpg, or are there more than one of you? .png has better image quality because it doesn't get any of those fucking .jpg artifacts. Why the fuck do you get so upset and request inferior image quality?
>> Anonymous
>>226776
png is far better suited for imaged with large singular color areas such as vectors

it is unnecessarily bloated in filesize for images which are already compressed (such as videos) and/or contain interlacing artifacts
>> ­­
>>226561
Go download a 720p movie, and a DVDRip, and compare them. That's enough.
>> Anonymous
>>226846
how do I download hd movie ?
>> Anonymous
>>226786

But that doesn't change the fact that jpg is lossy, and png is not. Therefore png will always be at least as good quality, usually much better. Especially with big pictures like this where you want to show how good the quality actually is, it wouldn't make sense to use jpg.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
heres some 720
>> Anonymous
>>227270
While he's right about using the PNG for this example, people use PNG waaaay too fucking much on already compressed images. It just increases filesize.
>> Anonymous
>>227270
But a frame from a movie is pretty much a photograph, and jpg is quite superior to png when it comes to photos.

Concerning the quality/size ratio, that is.
>> Anonymous
>>227289

I tend to use it so the image doesn't get degraded anymore, which is more important to me than file size
>> Anonymous
>>227291
Listen to this guy; Re-compressing an already lossy compressed image in a lossy compression makes it worse.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I see what you did there...
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Also... Trinity looks more milf-like in HD.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
And sexy is sexier...
>> Anonymous
>>226617
but 720p is also a better format than 1080i
>> Anonymous
>>226776
jpeg is still a more versatile format.
>> Anonymous
>>227270
maybe your hardware just sucks faggot. what are you running?
>> Anonymous
>>227347
because of high definition, women are gonna have to start waxing their faces
>> Anonymous
>>227360
a reason they aren't making porn in HD.
A major con of HD is the depth in skin complexion that it picks up. I don't want to see all that shit.
>> Anonymous
>>227366
they do make porn in HD
lurkmoar
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
in hd, horatio is more horatio...er.
reson enough to stop posting, buy sony hdtv and watch CSI Miami in HD (on Comcast, because is fucking comcastic, bitches)

in during:yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>227368
adding to my own post, thats not the highest quality pic i got off my comcast hd, its just my favorite. this one is better, so uhm see my last post and do that
>> Anonymous
>>227367
Very few lurk-fag. They don't shoot 99.9 percent of them in HD for the reasons I described.
>> Anonymous
holy shit, it just occured to me how much Horotio is looking like Elton John
>> Anonymous
MY DICK IS SO HARD!!!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>227376
i read your post and was like

<--
>> Anonymous
>>227356
do you even know what progressive and interlaced mean in terms of video? most poeple honestly can't see the difference unless the screen is relatively large

1080 is going to be higher quality than 720 just do to its resolution
>> Anonymous
Hint to OP and rest of thread: there's more to HD than a resolution increase.
>> Anonymous
>>227368
>>227370
>>227382
Come on... post High Res Versions of the "YEAHHHHHHHHHH" combo :D
>> Anonymous
>>227382
he's blatantly singing while sitting at a piano here
>> Anonymous
>>227371
way to change your argument in an attempt to be right after failing horribly.
again, YOU FAIL
>> Anonymous
Why the hell do we need to see every skin blemish? The change from video to dvd was understandable. Dvd to HD is just grasping for straws.
>> Anonymous
too much > enough.

I see things in HD that I can't even see in REAL LIFE.