Discussion in 'Televisions' started by Squiffy, Mar 8, 2005.
Makes interesting reading.
That's a long article - think I'll print this one off for tube reading on the way home!
Unfortunately, it is filled with misinformation. Here are some from up until the point I stopped reading the article.
1- Including silly and misleading terms such as "true HD resolution" and "virtual HD."
2- Referring to non-existent "HD internet services."
The only ones that I know of are illegal.
3- "with the visual quality matching (if not surpassing, on the right home entertainment system) that offered by a theatrical screening."
HD looks great but "surpassing" a "theatrical screening?" Since when?
4- "There is also a requirement that all TV sets over 13 inches in screen size sold in the US market post 2007 have an integral digital tuner - although this does not necessarily mean that they be HDTV tuners."
All digital tuners (ATSC) support HD resolutions. There's no such thing as "HDTV tuners." It's up to the TV whether it supports HD resolutions.
I lost interest in the article after reading those.
I thought it quite informative, especially the stuff on some of the new formats like BD, HD DVD, EVD, etc.
But then I'm complete uninformed so am easily impressed by the jargon around HDTV.
Screen Digest's report contains plenty of interest facts and data though.
Google doesn't seem to think "virtual 1080p" ridiculous, neither does the avsforum.com
And Abit, many British "theatrical screenings" could be beaten by even modest home cinemas.
Reads like a fairly reasonable report to me: demostrates US HDTV market not as rosy as some believe atm but room for growth, interesting conclusions about timing of release of HD packaged media, summary at end seems pretty accurate.
Must admit that ScreenDigest maths are poor though: "plasma screens with a resolution of 1,024x1,024, which fall into the grey zone as half field refreshment means that they have an effective resolution of 1,024x514." errr... 1024/2 = 512 mate!
No offense but I wouldn't be using Google searches to confirm whether something is valid or ridiculous or not. "Partially pregnant" brings up almost 500 responses.
News to me about that being some commonly accepted term in the avsforum. I've never heard of the term before. It is also a silly term that serves only to confuse people and therefore shouldn't be created or perpetuated.
Why are they bad?
How so about the "US HDTV market not as rosy as some believe?"
In most cities you get seven free channels showing HD content. With satellite services you can add an additional five more for $10, not including the premium channels.
I'd concentrate more on what the eyes can see, not whether the screen is progressive or not, especially when comparing 720p and 1080i.
..quite a few reasons IMHO - the last two screenings I went to were terrible - hence the reason why I rarely bother with the flicks these days. Two Towers with a stereo soundtrack and a picture full of artifacts - those were two reasons why I gave up - and this wasn't your back-water village cinema either. Ten quid for the pleasure - no thanks!!
"virtual 1080p" appears to be used in marketing collateral of several products that Google highlights, and it also highlights posts from avsforum.com so it's not totally made up by Screen Digest.
I would suggest that as Screen Digest get paid for their research and opinion it has some measureable worth. Therefore one could be inclinded to accept their view, as opposed to one found for free on a bulletin board. Stating they are "ridiculous" without an explanation of why doesn't do anyone any favours.
Why are some cinema's bad? To clarify problems I've seen: speakers not working (e.g. centre), or wrong aspect ratio, or blurred, or many nasty things. Why? Because multiplexes are staffed by teenagers with little training perhaps?
I believe you missed the point about US HDTV -- obviously because you are commenting on an article that you said you haven't read -- it's not availablity but take up that is "not as rosy". Thanks for the channel guide, but I spend plenty of time in USA and can read TV Guide or a newspaper or even USA Today to see what is in HD -- happen to have watched the Oscars in HD in a New York City bar the other day.
So how do your eyes compare 720p versus 1080i? And isn't one of those progressive?
Wow, and I thought our movies were expensive.
I can't recall ever seeing a bad movie in a theater, if you discount the content and some of the noisy morons you run into.
I never claimed that they did make it up. I'm simply saying it is a ridiculous term that shouldn't be introduced into technology that is already confusing enough for the average consumer.
I don't have to be an expert to realize that when something is called "virtual" it means that it isn't. It shouldn't really require further "explanation."
Thankfully, my experience has been good.
Wrong. I clearly stated that I read up to a certain point.
Did they even mention current sales numbers for HDTVs?
Hmm, you appear to be a bit defensive. Considering the location in your profile and the fact that this is a British forum I think it was safe and reasonable to include information as to what is actually available in my country.
Where did say or suggest that one of those resolutions is not progressive??
1080i definitely looks superior to my eyes.
...should have said that was a tenner for 2 (plus drinks/food extra of course)
You can get 99% of new release dvd's these days for around a tenner - I\d rather have a "hard" copy than some poorly displayed effort.
...the noisy morons etc are enough to put me off even b4 you start to consider the poor display/sound issues - it just ain't worth the risk, especially for the amount it costs. I would be tempted by one of those cinema passes, but having a family etc makes it quite difficult to get my monies worth. I'll stick with my home system thanks - better than the majority of films I've ever seen in a cinema.
If one read the entire article one would realise that it's got an economic focus, and is it not about whether 720p compares to 1080i or format feature comparisons; which is what should be expected from an international Research Briefing and Market Intelligence company such as Screen Digest. Albeit with some minor inaccuracies about technical details.
Penetration, not availability.
How many HD sets are purchased is irrelevant, for example here in UK we can buy HD capable sets and yet have no content to buy to display on them.
The point (of that section of the report) is not the number of HDTV purchased as percent of TV market, it's number of people paying for HDTV services when they are available to them. Which Screen Digest's research showed was 1% of potential pay TV audience (using year old data) in USA. "Free HD" doesn't count towards total of pay TV audience; again that's simply availability.
Television broadcasters don't make more money simply because their transmissions are in HD, unless they charge for them; especially as advertisers don't pay extra for HD.
Therefore with "free" channels making a loss with HD, and pay TV only getting 1% penetration they refer to "lustre performance of pay HDTV services in the US to date".
Hence my "US HDTV market not as rosy as some believe atm but room for growth" comment.
And if it's not about money, what is it about? Who has the most HD channels? Is it a competition? What do you win? Do you get to chant too?
You didn't, I was infuring that you should care if a screen was progressive or not if you are displaying a progressive signal on it.
1080i better for movies/drama versus 720p better for sport and news in my opinion -- much like film versus video.
Boy this is fun, haven't been on the forums in ages!
While this article is ok in some parts, there are some completely idiotic statements. For example they state NTSC resolution as 648x486. What a hell is that?. There is no such thing. It is 720x480 non square pixel just like PAL as far as horizontal resolution. There is 640x480 resolution but it uses square pixels, thus can't be called NTSC. Statements like NTSC is so bad that difference between NTSC and HD is a lot bigger than between PAL and HD. Total crap. The difference in quality is the same. They conveniently forget to mention that 1080i at 50Hz is lower quality than 1080i at 60hz. Also they call 1080p true HD but 720 and 1080i are not. It is just another idiotic opinion. First of all there is no 1080p so far that runs as 50 or 60 fps. Sony is just coming with cameras that support these refresh rates. Second of all it is very doubtful that 1080p will ever be used in broadcast. It takes a lot of bandwith no matter which codec is used. In the future 1080p will be used for production and converted to 720p or 1080i for transmision. 1080i derived from 1080p can be nicely deinterlaced by receiving equipment.
"Free channels making a loss with HD?"
In the American market isn't a matter of win or lose when it comes to HD or who makes the most money off of it. It is a standard that is here to stay. It's as simple as that. No one forced the networks to convert to high definition; they did it on their own. It's more of a built it and they will come attitude and if not it really doesn't matter as that is the chosen standard as part of a mandated digital transition. If in the process of transition some money can be made, then fine, but that's certainly not what is driving the market for HD.
Maybe in your country, with a much smaller market, the approach is more about economics?
Sorry, you lost me.
Besides, it doesn't matter to me what the screen is so long as the picture quality is high.
I'm more concerned with practical and visible resolution and in that department 1080i is definitely superior so I'd rather watch it for all types of programming. If it were a question of 1080i versus 1080P then that would be different.
I agree with the other statements, criticizing the article, but not entirely with this one. I watch HDTV on a natively progressive 1280x720 screen - DLP RPTV. In terms of quality of what I see on my screen I would rate sources something like this:
1. IMAX 1080p WMV-HD (Coral Reef DVD, and other Microsoft 1080p demo material)
2. 1080i HDNet and Discovery based material, as well CBS.
2. Some ABC 720p material (Lost, MNF).
3. All NBC 1080i material, as well as most ABC 720p.
4. Fox 720p, TSN 1080i, and all other HD channels.
This ranking makes me think that it's not necessarily the virtues of 720p vs 1080i, but the quality of the cameras, professionalism and overall attitude towards HD, that makes HDNet and CBS picture quality stand out even when deinterlaced and converted to be displayed on 720p screen. And these 2 companies are well known to be the most serious about HDTV for a long time. ABC lags behind, but when things are done properly, (Lost), their picture quality looks on par with the best 1080i material.
My point is, you see better results with 1080i not because of the standard itself, but who implements it and how. It looks better on both interlaced 1080 and progressive 720 displays. Equal results can (and are) achieved using 720p as well.
I wasn't going to post to this forum anymore but I caught this last post before signing off and I just wanted to point out something obvious in your post.
And that is, how are you expected to see a higher resolution with your display when it can only show 1280x720? While it is obvious to consider implemenation on whoever produces HD content I don't really see how you can see a noticeable difference, when it comes to resolution, on a display that can not do better than 1280x720.
My experience in coming to the conclusion that 1080i looks obviously superior in resolution is comparing friend's plasmas and LCDs with 1366x768 resolution, one with a Sharp 1920x1080 LCD, and Sony's Super Fine Pitch HD CRTs. The difference is obvious, even when compensating for screen size differences and discounting obvious variances in quality of production. The best of 1080i looks better than the best of 720p.
People can argue progressive this or that but when it comes to comparing it to 1080i ultimately it is what the eyes see that matters. My friends are also in agreement that 1080i does look more impressive. As I have said before a better argument would be 1080P against 1080i.
So long and take care everyone.
You know Abit, there's no harm in someone claiming that 720p is better than 1080i or vice versa. It's a matter of opinion, so no one is right or wrong. 720p should be less susceptible to artefacting than 1080i. However I suspect that 720p the US networks are probably broadcasting 720p at a lower bit rate than the 1080i channels. I think I read somewhere that Fox is broadcasting 720p at 8Mbps?! If so that's ridiculuous.
I agree with your point about about 'virtual 1080p'. Virtual 1080p is to video what 24/96 DTS is to audio: marketing bull.
D-Theatre, WMV HD demos HD1 broadcasts, modded consoles 720p and 1080i, so while not main stream its out there and available............
I agree about cinemas being crap, out of focus over projected images with dodgy brightness and flickering poor sound overpriced seats, food drinks and staff that come from the "Don't go there girlfriend" school of customer service.....
I am really not sure what that report was about had very little about HD in it more was about DVD!!!! some interesting stuff on other optical formats... (not HD DVD and Blu ray) but FVD, DMD, EVD etc etc
WHy not???? most of the US AUS and the current Euro service all use component (they dont mention HDCP at this point!!!)
I love this bit!!! 1920x720p!!!thats wide!!!2.667:1 !!!!
Like the legal ones outside the USA?
BBC and others have been mooting this in UK for ages , regular SD services over broadband been available for quite some time; other countries have broadband delivery plans too. HD over broadband was even in the news today http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4332337.stm "It also sees delivering TV over broadband as a way of getting high-definition (HD) content to people sooner than they will be able to get it through conventional, regular broadcasts."
Approach in every capitalist country should be market economics is it not; unless extraneous factor such as regulation. In UK, HDTV is definately being driven by market economics and not regulation; but in USA wasn't it the FCC who required HDTV rather than broadcasters voluntarily offering it? Which would explain your position that "In the American market isn't a matter of win or lose when it comes to HD or who makes the most money off of it." Can't imagine the broadcasters' shareholders are happy with that though.
No one was arguing about standards, or whether HD is here to stay ... I believe there was a Market Intelligence report being discussed.
But someone was rubbishing the report because:
1. contained some references that manufacturers use in their marketing collateral that are "ridiculous"
2. uniformed of things going on outside USA
3. assumed cinemas work properly outside USA
4. disagreement over a technical definition.
I still think it's a pretty good report, despite the fact they got some simple arithemic wrong and a couple of anorak facts.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Something people on this board often pick up on is calling Region 1 DVDs NTSC and Region 2 DVDs PAL. The above is a perfect example why.
Yes in DV1 (Digital Video) NTSC is 720x480 pixels but did they say they were talking about Region 1 DVDs?
An analogue NTSC broadcast on a digital display is 648x483 pixels; likewise PAL is 768x576.
An analogue NTSC broadcast on an analogue display is 338x483 tv lines; likewise PAL is 403x576.
Its the analogue bandwidth you see.
Pretty much everyone except Americans think that analogue NTSC broadcast was/is terrible; but perhaps thats probably because theyre used to it. Similarly in PAL land we are used to 4% speed up of film based material.
Not only did analogue NTSC broadcasts have lower definition but also used the YIQ colourspace to save bandwidth which was the source of the nickname Never Twice Same Color.
PAL had more pixels and has always been in the YUV colourspace.
It therefore seems self evident that moving from analogue 338x483 in YIQ to say digital 1280x720 in YUV will be more visually impactful than moving from analogue 403x576 in YUV to the same; more so for half UK viewers who enjoy broadcast digital 720x576 in YUV already.
LMAO. Would that be lower quality 3:2 pulldown motion judder?
They were talking about 1080p as a standard the broadcasters use for their production not as a signal to be transmitted to customers.
provides the best available visual quality that current technology restrictions allow - although today its primary role is as a picture acquisition (ie, production) format.
A key point in the article that some seemed to have missed in their defence of all things American is that is that everyones definition of HD is different
is it 720p, 1080i or 1080p or something else?
You can laugh all you want but that is fact which can't be disputed. Besides I was not referring to film converted to HD but HD video capture. 60Hz will always have more resolution than 50Hz, and smoother motion capture especially for sports.
That is fine that you are used to 4% speed up and like it. I'll tell you what. How about all CD's and music be played at 4% speed up in countries where 50Hz is used?. I bet a lot of people would hear it and be upset. Please do not even say that it is not the same.
Analog broadcasts do not have pixels so your numbers are absurd. You can spin all you want but this not the first time in this forum when you are trolling. This the last time I am responding to your absurd posts.
You will drive away people from US from this forum because you are not able to read facts plus bash and dispute anything we say. Good riddance.
Abit, I still don't think you understood the idea of my post. What I wanted to say is that what you collectivelly refer to as "1080i" I define as specific sources, produced by specific companies, that tend to look better than certain sources from certain other providers (to which you refer as 720p). And I say that they look better on any kind of display, 1280x720 DLP, 1368x768 LCD, 1920x1080 plasma or LCD, 1024x1024 plasma, 1080i CRT RPTV or DirectView CRT. It's good that you noticed the obvious fact in my previous post (the resolution of the screen I'm using for comparison), but I have to admit that a 10 year old boy would have caught that too Anyway, not a single thing that you said proves that 1080i is better than 720p, but entirely proves my point.
Let's agree to disagree on this one, the outcome of this argument will not make ABC switch to 1080i or CBS to 720p.
I guess I can address a couple of more posts while I take care of some last minute work.
First off, I never said there was anything wrong with anyone "claiming" anything or having an opinion on something. I have shared my actual experience and the experience of a group of friends that simply agree with me.
You say it's a matter of "opinion" but resolution, even apparent resolution, can be observed and measured, especially when it is as obvious as I say it is between 1080i and 720p on a proper display. I brought up nothing about artifacts or anything else in regards to image quality. I have been addressing visible resolution and nothing more.
As to suspecting FOX and ABC (the two networks broadcasting in 720P), I'd have to ask why you would think that? You say you "think" you "read somewhere that Fox is broadcasting 720p at 8Mbps?!" as if you are looking for reasons to support 720p over 1080i, to the extent that you are willing to dismiss the experience of Americans that actually watch HDTV every day. Seems a bit odd to do that.
Where are these "legal" HD internet services that supposedly exist?
The article referred to HD internet services as if they already exist. In the beginning of your post (above) you are also referring to them as if they already exist which again brings me to the question, where are these "legal" HD internet services that supposedly exist?
HD was never required, only a transition to digital television. It still isn't required.
As I have already alluded to in my prior post there is a difference in what is driving the market in your country and in mine. In America it isn't a question of some kind of exclusive premium revenue stream, or other services, in addition to SD services. The approach here is one of a new standard, regardless. In the interim if money can be made as the transition continues then that's understandable, but it is certainly not the ultimate goal of offering HD services. The fact that all the standard networks produce and broadcast most of their shows in HD for free over the air is the most obvious example of that. Those decisions were also made long before even a reasonable number of consumers owned HD TVs.
1. They were "ridiculous," especially considering the source. Whether they are manufacturer terms or not, addressing pseudo terms without further explanation and disclaimers is misleading and irresponsible.
2. Where are these "legal" HD internet services?
3. I'm an optimist. I felt it was safe to assume that a modern and advanced country, such as yours, would be capable of displaying movies properly within a theater. I'm still inclined to believe that is still the case, despite some of the negativity I am seeing.
4. What "definition" that I brought up was incorrect?
As for the quality of the report, I would say that if a person is in the business of writing then they should honor the fundamentals of good and responsible writing by getting their facts straight, especially in regards to technical information. I would have fired not only the writer that wrote the article but the editor that let it through.
That's my opinion.
Beeblebrox12 I clearly understood what you were saying because I certainly addressed variations of production quality that can be had from different sources.
That said, I will once again say that 1080i obviously looks more impressive. Unless all FOX and ABC content is subpar 720p and the other networks are pristine 1080i, which is rather unlikely, then overall the comparison is fair.
Finally, I don't know what your point is in mentioning me noticing your screen resolution. You did introduce it as your point of reference, not "on any kind of display" as you are now saying, so it was obvious that the limitations of your point of reference should have been addressed. I think if you had meant to say "on any kind of display" in the first place you would have done so and not used your 1280 x 720 as your point of reference. The reference you make to a "10 year old boy" is also rather odd, apparently defensive, and could fairly be taken as derogatory. Considering all that, and based on plenty of experience with the type of displays I mentioned, I'm sorry but I'm inclined to think that you are now merely bluffing when it comes to your experience with similar displays.
One final point. I am not a video tech or videophile, far from it, or someone that favors anything for purely technical reasons. My experience in evaluating picture quality comes from doing what I would consider serious still photography up to medium format. I know what resolution is and I know what sharp is. It is something I always strived for when taking pictures and it is something I also appreciate and look for in video. Whether something is interlaced or progressive means nothing to me. As I have said before, ultimately what matters is what you can see on the screen.
Well it would help if the rest of the world weren't for the most part getting 2nd hand film prints from the US (since the studios are too stingy in most cases), which doesn't help the presentation quality at all, regardless of the capabilities of the indivdial cinemas. Watching a new release in the UK and seeing the dirt that's got onto the print from weeks in a fleapit in Nowheresville, USA doesn't encourage people who care about having a good cinematic experience to go to the cinema.
Roll on digital distribution when this annoyance will be removed.
Aren't you a wee bit exaggerating, laddie?
Separate names with a comma.