Why don't you talk about picture quality in your videos?
August 19, 2005
| || |I've noticed that most of the time when I look at the video reviews of the televisions
(for instance, Sony's new KDF-E50A10), you guys focus more on the inputs and such rather than the picture quality, which is what most of my friends are interested in. Your reviews are brilliant, but I wish you would give more in-depth reviews with regard to the quality of the picture.
CNET reader e-mail
| |Vic, we like to think of the videos as trailers for the full review movie.
We would try to demonstrate image quality in our videos, but frankly, it's impossible to convey in that little, low-resolution window. And while we could certainly talk about it, we prefer to cover the tricky concepts of video quality in printed words. Saying "While this Sony's depth of black still falls a bit short of last year's DLP-driven sets', its other image-quality strengths keep it competitive" in a video isn't nearly as informative as printing it, and backing it up with links, geek boxes, and everything else found in our full-text reviews. Yeah, you have to click a bit to get to our Performance
write-up, but if you're interested in in-depth image quality analysis, it's worth it.
, a TV reviewer with five years' experience, has color bars and a resolution chart tattooed inside either eyelid.