[mythtv-users] the US being, considerably less urbanized than either Australia or Britain
ffrr at tpg.com.au
Sun Feb 19 02:49:28 UTC 2006
Yeechang Lee wrote:
>Matthew Geier <matthew at sleeper.apana.org.au> says:
>>On all the equipment I have access to, I can't tell the difference
>>between SD and HD. As in Australia both are 16:9 MPEG2 sources, so
>>both are clean images. I simply don't have access to a screen that
>>can make use of the extra resolution of HD. I get a sharp clear
>>widescreen picture on SD thank you.
>You're right that I shouldn't have conflated HDTV with 16:9; as you
>note, DVB/Freeview (UK) does indeed go out in 16:9 dimensions despite
>being in SDTV resolution. DVB never made headway in the US because
>cable (including digital cable, functionally equivalent to DVB) and
>digital satellite so long ago captured the great majority of viewers,
>and because the distances are so much greater (the US being
>considerably less urbanized than either Australia or Britain).
Really? Take a look at land mass and populations of Australia vs USA.
I might be wrong, but I can't see how Australia can be more 'urbanised'
More information about the mythtv-users