tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9713529.post115691342080362132..comments2023-10-20T10:35:33.016-04:00Comments on TVPhotogBlog: Mine is Bigger than YoursAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00594015663562269549noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9713529.post-1156991645685289872006-08-30T22:34:00.000-04:002006-08-30T22:34:00.000-04:00FTOJRLST,If you don’t mind I am going to copy/past...FTOJRLST,<BR/><BR/>If you don’t mind I am going to copy/paste the same response I gave lenslinger. I can see your points but it’s only at the glass end that I believe there is a real difference. Sure there are good reasons for both but you can’t make that comparrison with your $300.00 home job. The home viewer or the news director could care less about the picture quality as long as it’s usable Widescreenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06300582861465738430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9713529.post-1156949820046416282006-08-30T10:57:00.000-04:002006-08-30T10:57:00.000-04:00The sad thing is that the decision is a BUDGET dec...The sad thing is that the decision is a BUDGET decision instead of a News / Public Service decision. When asked why, the answer is often stated that we examine the breaking news from Katrina or the Middle East - shot in low-rez, crappy light and hand-held.<BR/><BR/>It's all Dan Rather's fault, because when Walter retired, all the news money went to the faces of the news - not the content. Now Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com