... surely you don't mean that Microsoft's demonstrations of high definition 1080p24 material - that require a 1920 by 1440 pixel display according to the blurb - are not actually true (1920 by 1080 pixel) high definition, but interpolated 1440 by 1080 pixel video, Brian? That would be misleading, at the very least - particularly as the 720p24 material is the correct 1280 by 720 pixels. :wink:
Misleading because:[list=1][*]WMV is therefore not providing 8Mbps from 1920 by 1080 pixels but from just 1440 by 1080 pixels (the equivalent rate for full definition material is roughly 11Mbps, ceteris paribus)[*]The interpolation required to scale for display from 1440 to 1920 pixels is likely to partially or completely mask the low level registration errors which are probably the most visible artefact of codecs based upon motion vector estimation (such as MPeg4 and WMV)[*]If one wished to examine the advantages of 1080p material over 720p material, instead of having 50% greater horizontal resolution at 1080p the increase in resolution over 720p is just 12.5%[*]The reduced horizontal resolution is one thing, but because the data is also scaled up horizontally by 33% this in itself is likely to add artefacts to which the 720p material is not subjected, and the effective horizontal resolution of the 1080p material is probably less than that of the 720p material![/list=1]
If one was trying to push 720p material and downplay the advantages of (true) 1080p material, whilst at the same time pretending that the demonstrations truly showed a like for like comparison of each format, this would probably be a great way of doing it, but I'm sure that Bill Gates would not misrepresent the abilities of WMV, or allow the deliberate biasing of demonstration material in favour of intermediate definition 1280 by 720p material over high definition 1920 by 1080p material - even if red laser products have a relatively limited capacity compared to blue laser ones when storing 720p material using WMV, let alone full resolution 1080p material...