laptops with 1200 vertical resolution

[R. G. Newbury]

On 01/05/2013 07:01 AM, Tim<ignored_mailbox at yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> I don't know about elsewhere, but here in Australia, high resolution TV
> has been a bit of a flop.  We only have about 3 high res TV channels out
> of about 16, and much of what they put to air is standard resolution,
> anyway.  And, oddly enough, one of the better looking programs is a
> 1980s UK TV program shot using 900 line resolution tube cameras; bumped
> up to high res it looks very nice, compare that to modern 4:3 CCD studio
> cameras which rarely went above 750 line resolution.  Then there's the
> several heavily compressed standard resolution channels from the same
> station that looks like VHS is being put to air.  And people don't seem
> to be complaining about it, nor even noticing.  Seriously, why buy a
> $1000+ high res TV set when there's little of it to watch.

HD will come. If you like sports you might hit on your local station to 
broadcast Oz footie in HD. In North America, CBS has, for some years, 
broadcast (OTA) what appears to be a completely uncompressed HD stream 
and watching football ( American style) in that format is awesome. As a 
'benchmark' most HD programs hereabouts take 5 to 6 G/hour for storage. 
Some programs (The Good Wife is one example) regularly takes 8G/hr and 
the difference is noticeable. I get that program OTA from 2 different 
stations: one at 8G and one at 5G. The difference is noticeable. NFL 
football runs 11-12G/hr in 720p.
G