Wow... talk about a misleading quote. Here's what that article actually says:
"Overall, we couldn't help but feel that the HD-A30 was extremely similar to its predecessor--the HD-A20--which isn't a good thing, as 1080p output on both players is disappointing. Don't get us wrong, there's a lot to like about HD DVD hardware compared to Blu-ray hardware, such as its lower cost and stronger mandatory requirements. And if your HDTV can accept and properly display 1080p/24, the HD-A30 delivers excellent picture quality as well. The problem is that the vast majority of HDTVs can't handle 1080p/24 properly, which means that for most people, the HD-A30 just doesn't justify the price premium over the HD-A3. "
They actually say that the image quality is excellent if your TV handles 1080p/24 correctly. Though they worded it strangely, they are saying that the disappointing image quality is due to problems with various displays... not the A30.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Vidikron (FU) @ Dec 10th 2007 10:20AM
Wow... talk about a misleading quote. Here's what that article actually says:
"Overall, we couldn't help but feel that the HD-A30 was extremely similar to its predecessor--the HD-A20--which isn't a good thing, as 1080p output on both players is disappointing. Don't get us wrong, there's a lot to like about HD DVD hardware compared to Blu-ray hardware, such as its lower cost and stronger mandatory requirements. And if your HDTV can accept and properly display 1080p/24, the HD-A30 delivers excellent picture quality as well. The problem is that the vast majority of HDTVs can't handle 1080p/24 properly, which means that for most people, the HD-A30 just doesn't justify the price premium over the HD-A3. "
They actually say that the image quality is excellent if your TV handles 1080p/24 correctly. Though they worded it strangely, they are saying that the disappointing image quality is due to problems with various displays... not the A30.