On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 01:07:12 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
On Jun 20, 12:28 am, "Keith G" wrote:

IMO, the HDMI/ordinary DVD beat the HDDVD clip (Italian Job II) hands
down - there was equal sharpness in both images but the HDDVD picture
was much darker with less 'luminosity'. The one Bluray clip (Philips
promo 'Follow The Blue Line') was much better than before, but I think
the clip probably sucks anyway - there was still the 'sandy'
appearance
on skin tones and the 'orange peel' effect was still apparent. Pump
this
digital photo I took of the screen up to get an idea - eyes, nose and
mouth areas, in particular:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Bluray%20Pic.jpg


That looks utterly abysmal. Is it a true representation of how it
looks on the screen, too?


Not quite - it's a digital photo of a 'freeze frame' so it hasn't been
done any favours, but I think it clearly shows the origin of the 'sandy'
effect on skintones in the (promotional) clip I saw.



I've been increasingly unimpressed by the hi-def images I've been
seeing too - not dissimilar to how you describe things and the image
you've linked to. So much so, I've given up on the current "state of
the art" and picked up (well, with the help of a couple of other
strapping blokes!) a Toshiba 36" CRT for £125. Whilst far from
perfect, it beats the pants off most of the HD images I've seen in
shop displays and at friends and family. I really had high hopes for
HD too.

CRTs still beat the crap out of LCD or plasma when it comes to
reproducing colour. The flat screen stuff always looks like the colour
has been laid on afterwards as a sort of molten plasticky layer, with
scant regard for fine tone - a bit like a child's first go at painting
by numbers. CRTs make a vastly better job of this.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com