[Jerrell Jones (Unverified) Posted Aug 29th 2008 1:15PM]

EW look at those pimples hahah
u dnt even need quad HD there is a lot of stuff that still doesnt even use regular HD

[Marco E Posted Aug 29th 2008 1:21PM]

Lol, like you look any better. You couldn't even get that woman to slap your fugly ass.

[musicguy Posted Aug 29th 2008 1:38PM]

lol play nice now Marco.

[Bobby (Unverified) Posted Aug 29th 2008 1:53PM]

Engadget editor does not understand concept.
HD, Quad HD are not to make look "better"
They are to make look as it is !!!! No more lies !

[Ray (Unverified) Posted Aug 29th 2008 2:18PM]

@bobbi

I dont want to see things as is, i will never sit close enough to someone IRL to see the details that come out in quad HD

Im already having a problem looking at all my local news channels since they switched over to HD... these people never looked uglier. Hell, ive seen most of them in person and theyve looked much better than they do on screen

[Vidikron Posted Aug 29th 2008 3:07PM]

@Ray

Unless you are watching on a gigantic screen, chances are you would never sit close enough to a QuadHD screen to see the difference either. 1080p already goes to waste in many home situations.

[phanbouy (Unverified) Posted Aug 29th 2008 3:11PM]

@Vidikron

shh!! higher number = more nerd worship

[FreeRange Posted Aug 29th 2008 4:06PM]

Somebody at Fox News just read Bobby's post and thought, "Maybe we should stay SD..."

[JeremyBenthem Posted Aug 29th 2008 4:09PM]

is that just a piece of the screen, cause if that picture represents the whole screen at a 600x448 res nevermind Quad HD, its not even SD and I can notice that stuff

[OneLove Posted Aug 29th 2008 4:42PM]

So Quad HD adds red arrows to the image and points out everyone flaws. I see.

[chris (Unverified) Posted Aug 31st 2008 12:09AM]

you think that's bad imagine how porn looks in quad hd? ewwww