my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » The Afterlife   » 1080P screens (Page 2)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: 1080P screens David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 11-25-2005 10:51 PM                        Which of the following statements are true: A) The author of the bobbing/weaving article is full of shit. B) Joe is pulling my chain. C) Joe's HDTV is a weaver. D) Joe's HDTV is a bobber but Joe is in denial about it.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 11-25-2005 11:26 PM                        Seriously, I suggest you understand how interlaced video works. 30 frames per second = 60 fields per second. Each field of video contains a unique image, a separate moment in time (if the source was shot on 60i video). I'm sure my TV does whatever is correct, as I can see the 60 different images per second. I can also see the interlace flicker even on 1080i. Only one field is ever on the screen at any given time, and that is EXACTLY how it should be. Period. Also, if you studied up on how interlaced video works, you would discover that throwing away every other field would also throw away every other moment in time for 60i video. The resulting motion would be extremely stuttery for all 60i video and would look completely unnatural. Any manufacturer who does this deserves diarrhea in their stocking this Christmas. My TV, by the way, is the Sony 34XBR960 or some bullshit like that. The ATSC standard calls for 1080p to be broadcast at either 30 or 24 frames per second. The standard cannot handle 60 frames per second like it can with 720p. But 1080p can do a full 60 frames per second if you have a source like a Playstation 3 hooked up to the TV. There are no fields in 480p, 720p or 1080p. Yup, 60 frames per second!  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 11-26-2005 11:11 AM                        I merely reported what the writer said in his article. I don't claim to be an expert on this. But if the author is wrong, why are the TV manufacturers saying he's right? He flat-out states that some HDTVs claiming to be 1080p are in fact delivering half that resolution (540p) because they bob instead of weave [edit: when scaling an interlaced 1080i broadcast to the set's native 1080p resolution]. Take your complaints here. Maybe you can get Gary Merson to explain it better. [ 11-26-2005, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: David Stambaugh ]  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 11-26-2005 05:05 PM                        quote: David Stambaugh when scaling an interlaced 1080i broadcast to the set's native 1080p resolution Well you didn't say THAT! You made it sound as if 540p was the highest resolution the set could achieve and it was scaling that to 1080i. And like I said before, if any manufacturers are doing that to achieve 1080p, then they suck. But still, only one field should be visable at a time. They should scale the 540p up to 1080p 60 times in one second. That way half of the information is NOT thrown away, and you don't get combing artifacts. It is hard to get rid of combing artifacts when dealing with interlaced material. That's why interlacing in any form sucks ass and should be illegal.  |  IP: Logged Michel Hafner Film Handler Posts: 3 From: Switzerland Registered: Dec 2005 posted 12-06-2005 05:23 AM                     Fortunately the difference between a 1080p source and a 1080i source is not that big if the source is correctly mastered film at 24 fps. The 2:3 pulldown is reversable and you retrieve the original film frames. The main difference is that vertical filtering is applied to reduce line twitter when watched as 1080i direct and the 2:3 motion judder in 60Hz displays is not film like. That's avoidable though when the frames are output at 24 Hz or a multiple of it, which is still rarely done because 2:3 cadence errors are difficult to handle and most displays are married to the TV standards of 60 Hz and 50 Hz.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-06-2005 07:26 AM                     One of the output rates Extron scalers offer (many of them, at least) is a 72Hz rate just to deal with jutter. However...most projectors either can't deal with 72Hz or turn the 72Hz output back to 60Hz making for an even worse picture. That being said...if you have a CRT projector/monitor...the 72Hz rate eliminates the jutter associated with the 3:2 pull-down conversion as each frame is now shown 3 times.  |  IP: Logged Martin Brooks Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 900 From: Forest Hills, NY, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 12-08-2005 09:30 PM                        I believe I read recently that CBS requires all program producers to provide HDTV material in 1080p and that CBS does intend to broadcast in 1080p at some point in the future. Now that doesn't mean that all CBS affiliates or cable/satellite services will broadcast in 1080p, but it's a start. And my understanding is that the HD-DVD formats are going to be 1080p. I suppose the players will have some kind of downscaling mechanism for sets that can't handle 1080p. Those who say that the current lineup of HDTV sets that are being sold is a scam are absolutely correct. Most are 720p vertical at best. Some of the sets actually do look okay with HD material, but they look like absolute CRAP with analog material and with most DVDs. I'm stickin' with my 20 year old Sony CRT until someone comes out with inexpensive and good looking 1080p. Anyone know what's going on with Panasonic? Their plasma sets are out of stock everywhere and have been for months.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 12-08-2005 11:13 PM                        Hmmm... I wonder if my Sony CRT HDTV can do anything besides 60Hz?  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-10-2005 11:36 AM                     quote: Joe Redifer Bullshit. Try 7680 x 4320, or 4320p. Hell yeah. 1080p sucks ass. Joe, Those other resolutions may be possible perhaps from some other source than "off air" but the "consortium" claims it will be at least another 15 to 20 years before they can actually transmit the 1080P signal over the air. Most present HD transmitters strain just to do what they are doing today. quote: Martin Brooks Anyone know what's going on with Panasonic? Their plasma sets are out of stock everywhere and have been for months. Now come on Martin... if you're sticking with your gold ole CRT set how would you know that ? Mark  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 12-10-2005 03:34 PM                        15 to 20 years is bullshit. Look where we were 15 years ago. 1990-ish. We couldn't even fathom something like MPEG-2. We were way too stupid. Codecs are developing at a substantial speed, and it's only a matter of time. The problem with the TV industry is that everyone who works in it is a retard. They are thinking 40mbps MPEG2 for their 1080p broadcasts. Damn 'tards.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 12-10-2005 04:43 PM                     There are physical limitations with how many bits of data you can fit in a 6MHz space of broadcast spectrum. Ultimately, over the air broadcast is doomed because of those limitations. I believe 1080p HD material will become more widespread over the Internet than through broadcast. Currently the Internet offers the only way that 1080p can be remotely transmitted. In less than 10 years Internet connections of around 100Mb/sec will be commonplace and will easily handle 1080p material and resolutions of video higher than that. 10 years from now many computer monitors (also doubling as TV sets) will feature native resolutions far above the 1080P standard. Even now things are changing. Apple's 30 inch Studio Cinema Display features a 2560 X 1600 native resolution. Dell is about to release a similar 30 inch display with the same resolution (along with a 9 in 1 flash memory card reader and 4 port USB hub). The Dell monitor will likely cost well under $2000 (several hundred less than the current $2500 price of the Apple display). That's the current picture on high end monitors. By 2008, Intel will be releasing mainstream desktop processors that sport 8 cores. AMD will likely do the same. Graphics card performance will be even more astounding by then. The point of stating that is computer technology will be extremely capable of handling video streams of 4K resolution. The only bottleneck in the equation is hard discs. But even they're getting faster and will start incorporating flash memory to speed up I/O performance further. What can broadcast methods do to improve? Not much. 6MHz is always going to be 6MHz. Unless some big network folks can persuade the FCC to allot 12MHz or 18MHz wide channel bandwidths any formats above 1080p are going to be all but impossible to deliver over the airwaves. Sure, people can come up with new data compression codecs for video, but you're only going to be able to compress the data only so much. I don't think the codec writers are going to be able to keep up with what is capable via the Internet versus what can be crammed into a tight space for broadcast.  |  IP: Logged Martin Brooks Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 900 From: Forest Hills, NY, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 12-10-2005 05:06 PM                        quote: quote: Martin Brooks Anyone know what's going on with Panasonic? Their plasma sets are out of stock everywhere and have been for months. Now come on Martin... if you're sticking with your gold ole CRT set how would you know that ? Every once in a while I pop into my local HDTV dealer to see if anything looks good. Sometimes I have a weak moment and think I might buy something, even though the HDTV only goods good if you stay really far back and anything analog on the HDTV looks really incredibly bad. Then I realize I'm about to spend $3K so I can watch 3 hours a week of TV shows that I hardly care about in the first place and that doesn't include the fees to increase my cable capability to HDTV and I walk out. Someday I'll give in, but it will probably be after the HD-DVD formats are released and only if they're successful.  |  IP: Logged Lyle Romer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1400 From: Davie, FL, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 12-15-2005 12:31 PM                     Bobby, The issue long term isn't what hardware is capable of, it's what the providers will give us. It's been almost 15 years since they put out HDTV standards. There is plenty of hardware available to recieve HDTV but not enough content provided in HD. I mean, all NFL football games (which the networks pay huge bucks to broadcast) aren't even avialable in HD. Hardly any college football is available in HD. Look at movies. 35mm film is capable of displaying better than 4k resolution but when it comes to digital effects or digital intermediates, they are being produced at 2k to save money. If they won't master movies at 4k now (when there is "hardware" to display it), why would they bother mastering 4k so that a small percentage of people (tech geeks) can watch it over the internet in 4k when the vast majority of the viewers have, at best, a 1080p display. I also have reservations about 100 Mb/sec being "commonplace." Look how many people are on dial-up today when there are reasonably priced high speed options. That 100 Mb/sec connection is certainly going to cost $50-$100 per month not including the content. I don't think they will make the mistake that JDS Uniphase (sp?) made and overbuild bandwidth capacity so as to make it so cheap that it's worthless. Heck, it'll probably take 10-15 years before 1080i displays are commonplace. Look at all the people getting suckered into buying 720p monitors now that think they have upgraded to HD.  |  IP: Logged Greg Mueller Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1687 From: Port Gamble, WA Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-15-2005 01:35 PM                        I read on some bulletin board (can't remember which) that Direct TV claims they are going to have 150-170 channels of "HD" (I think they mean 720P) by 2007. They do have a few now, but my ED screen is working fine so I won't be upgrading anytime soon. Another thing I ran across in reading about screens and such, is a review of plasma screens. Turns out that the early estimations of plasma screen life expectancy didn't turn out to be as bad as feared. I've had my Panasonic ED plasma screen since they first came out and have seen no loss of brightness, which was supposed (as far as I know) to be an indicator of dissipating gas.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 12-15-2005 05:17 PM                     I walked through the back of Fry's Electronics last week and just perused the line of 1080P 36-60" DLP sets (and I think there were some CRT 1080P units in there). What I found amazing was the vast difference in basic quality between the sets...yet NONE of them really looked good. Now in general all of them looked better than the plasma displays and the 720P units, but where is this supposed great quality I keep hearing about?  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.