<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: iPhone, iPod touch output video better than classic, nano</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.crunchgear.com/2007/10/05/iphone-ipod-touch-output-video-better-than-classic-nano/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.crunchgear.com/2007/10/05/iphone-ipod-touch-output-video-better-than-classic-nano/</link>
	<description>Gadgets, gear and computer hardware.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:35:35 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Geo</title>
		<link>http://www.crunchgear.com/2007/10/05/iphone-ipod-touch-output-video-better-than-classic-nano/#comment-578184</link>
		<dc:creator>Geo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:58:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crunchgear.com/2007/10/05/iphone-ipod-touch-output-video-better-than-classic-nano/#comment-578184</guid>
		<description>Check your sources.  The output ability of the touch and iPhone are significantly less.  They are interlaced while the classic and nano are progressive.  You have issue with your capturing because the screen should not be bowed like in your caps.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Check your sources.  The output ability of the touch and iPhone are significantly less.  They are interlaced while the classic and nano are progressive.  You have issue with your capturing because the screen should not be bowed like in your caps.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kev</title>
		<link>http://www.crunchgear.com/2007/10/05/iphone-ipod-touch-output-video-better-than-classic-nano/#comment-523129</link>
		<dc:creator>Kev</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:04:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crunchgear.com/2007/10/05/iphone-ipod-touch-output-video-better-than-classic-nano/#comment-523129</guid>
		<description>You dumbass - that's just because the below output is in letterbox format, being stretched to widescreen!! change the settings!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You dumbass - that&#8217;s just because the below output is in letterbox format, being stretched to widescreen!! change the settings!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jen</title>
		<link>http://www.crunchgear.com/2007/10/05/iphone-ipod-touch-output-video-better-than-classic-nano/#comment-467856</link>
		<dc:creator>jen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Oct 2007 07:39:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crunchgear.com/2007/10/05/iphone-ipod-touch-output-video-better-than-classic-nano/#comment-467856</guid>
		<description>Wow, what a huge difference!  How big can you blow things up and still have it look ok?  I have an iPod touch and a 37" LCD, and I'm thinking of getting some component cables.  Would it look ok?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, what a huge difference!  How big can you blow things up and still have it look ok?  I have an iPod touch and a 37&#8243; LCD, and I&#8217;m thinking of getting some component cables.  Would it look ok?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.038 seconds -->
