Some thoughts on the transition to HDTV. I am not sure why most fixed pixel displays such as LCD, Plasma, DLP, etc remain way short of HDTV’s spatial resolution of 1920x1080 for 1080i/P? Most offer something like 1280x768 or 1365x768. This is not the 2,000,000+ pixels that we have come to call HDTV. We have been stuck at this medium resolution for years. I can’t see paying $20,000+ for a RUNCO DLP projector that displays only 720P when a new DELL laptop provides 1920x1200 resolution in a 16:10 screen for $2,400 – computer and all. What is wrong here? It seems the larger the display, the lower the resolution. This has really dampened my enthusiasm for HDTV. I sometimes get the feeling that for some, the currant resolution is enough and no real effort is being maid to push it any higher.
I want the clarity of a display that delivers pixel for pixel. Besides a better image, a 1080P display goes a long way in saying where the bar should be with regards to the upcoming HD-DVD format. If we have enough 1080P displays around while HD-DVD is still being developed, this will help ensure that HD-DVD comes out as a 1080P format and not something less like 720P or 1080i. Lets hope we don’t have the scenario where it something like ten years from now when everything is 1080P and our software is the lowest common denominator because today’s current displays weren’t up to the task. For now though, I will have my friends crowd around my computer monitor to see what HDTV is really supposed to look like.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Richard F. Fisher
Mastertech Repair Corporation, Lawrenceville, GA
770-513-3987 E-Mail - help@mastertechtv.com
Have you been calibrated? ISF and HAA Trained
Factory Authorized
Mitsubishi, Hitachi, Toshiba, Harman Kardon, Infinity, JBL, NAD
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
1920X1080 is currently limited to about 1440 due to mastering and storage issues
Why exactly is it limited ? Seems pointless to buy a really good set like the Toshiba LyCos with its 1080p 1920 display if we'll never get full use of it. Is this the reason (1440 limitation) why I've heard d-vhs looks better than hdtv ? Any hope for the future, besides super hdtv which is probably 50 years off ?
This message has been edited by admriker444 on Jun 12, 2003 3:21 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
DVE on D-VHS will be the first true 1920X1080 prerecorded format. Joe has worked for months on end to get this mastered correctly. All his hard work is to be transfered to Japan for D-Theater mastering. He is currently tackling the same kind of problem mastering to a true 480P DVD format using the HD DVE source.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
First thanks for the detailed response to my post. I see you one of the few people that whenever there is a comparison of 720P to 1080i, you remember to point out that 1080i when sourced from 24fps film can be converted to 1080P just as we do with 480i DVD. However, it would be much better if it were sent as a 24P in the first place so we would not have the extra processing of interlacing and de-interlacing. Also a 24fps progressive signal takes up less bandwidth then an interlace signal because there is no repeat information.
You mention that currently over the air programming is limited to a horizontal resolution of 1440. Will it be brought up to full spec in the future? Is this the case with D-VHS as well as I was told it was 1920x1080? If it is not, I would be angry because it would be the latest of many “Hat Tricks” the electronics industry tries to pull off on unsuspecting consumers. Take the older CRT computer monitors for example. We know a 15” monitor really has a viewable area of 13.9 inches. Only after much bickering was the real dimension given. I would appreciate it then when I purchase HD material, I am given the resolution such as “Presented in 1080i 1440x1080” so I know exactly what I am getting. Apparently saying 720P or 1080i will not be enough. Computer monitors state exactly their resolution – so why can’t HDTV hardware and programming follow along?
Weather or not HD programming is full spec. I want 1080x1920 because I plan to show digital photos. These are already over and above HDTV, so the more pixels the better for me. If I can go beyond 1920x1080, I will get it.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
>>it would be much better if it were sent as a 24P in the first place
In those Joe Kane articles from WSR he wants this to be a viable format. 24 frames is the only way you can eliminate the "film Judder" artifact which my calibration eyes have chosen to ignore since we are stuck in a 30 or 60 frame video world. I almost wish I was not taught that artifact.
But that would be putting my head in the sand wouldn't it.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Judder is indeed a problem since there is no common denominator between film’s 24fps and video’s 30fps that we can work with. Bummer. We can get 24P from 1080i, but we still have cadence issues when this is shown at 60fps.
Joe Kane said years ago that TVs should offer a choice of frame rates. I suspect that in the digital world, we are not limited to the 60 cycles per second that our NTSC system bound to. If we can show 24P at 72fps, cadence is restored. The STB should just be a buffer to hold data. But I am sure you already know this. It is just too bad computer guys don’t talk to low-tech TV makers. PC displays have offered a choice of frame rates for years, only to them it is referred to as a Refresh Rate.
Perhaps the problem of cadence can be best addressed from the other end. What if the film industry decides not to use 24fps but 30fps or 60fps when they go digital? Perhaps I will finally be able to watch a move longer then two hours in one sitting.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
