Who will make the best digital dvd recorder in 2007 - Page 2

But does this not also happen when a commercial for an HD television runs on a standard def channel? The image is "simulated" because it has to be. The medium does not allow it. Not because the technology is deficient.

Exactly. That's why the U.S. makes advertisers state when things are "simulated" or "not real.," hence the "*Pictures simulated." Without that, someone could legitimately claim false advertising. That's all this "simulated" discussion is about...it's not because the technology is deficient. It may very well be good technology, but no one should use it or point it out as any kind of "evidence" or portrayal of reality. IMO, they should have left the pics out, but they know "someone" will actually believe the pics represent reality.

This thread has caused me to frown then smile. I bought my Panasonic after spending two years slogging through the comments on this and other forums and multiple magazine reviews. Every Toshiba, Pioneer, Sony, and yes, Panasonic had their proponents and detractors. Thanks to you guys, I knew every negative and positive point Panasonic had in general and my EH75 had in particular before I laid down the money for my first DVD recorder (early adopter, I ain't). I've used it for six months and if it died tomorrow, I'd go right out and buy another because it's become a very integral part of my home theater. And because I haven't seen Toshiba, Pioneer, or Sony come out with anything of overall better quality or better suited for my needs.

Yeah, be sure to always catch the words "simulated" and "for demonstration only" and "actual results may vary' and such weasel words. They try to BS you with theory, but all of those fancy pieces of math and jargon do not actually translate into anything material as seen on screen.

Better on paper, and that's about it.

Sort of like how DVD+R is theoretically better than DVD-R ... it's only on paper.

Particularly when the title of said page is "High Picture Quality" and then a list of those technologies used to justify that claim is presented with both pictures and words. Why would anyone actually believe that those pictures or words are supposed to represent some kind of reality?

No question about it, for some, it truly wouldn't represent any kind of reality that they could possibly ever relate with.


nx211

Ken Rockwell is notorious in photography forums for making sensational and dramatic but quasi-substantiated claims or conveniently forgetting/omitting things that get in the way of his posts. So a Ken Rockwell post is about as credible as a Wiki entry :-)