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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » The Afterlife   » 1080P screens (Page 3)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: 1080P screens Greg Mueller Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1687 From: Port Gamble, WA Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-15-2005 05:39 PM                        Probably they were feeding 720P into them and upscaling the picture. It doesn't look very good. If you can get a salesman to hook up a true 1080P feed off a hard drive (I think it's the only source of 1080P right now) you'll see quite a difference. I felt the same way until the guy hooked up the hard drive.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-15-2005 07:41 PM                     quote: Brad Miller yet NONE of them really looked good. None of them looked good compared to what? iThey should have all looked better than any NTSC stuff you saw. If it didn't then the store is doing something really wrong. The Fry's store in Vegas usually has off air hd, a 1080p, and NTSC stuff all running within a stones throw of each other. Makes me wonder what they were running at the store you visited. When I bought my LCD set I looked at everything and the Samsung looked the best, seemingly had the best resolution, colorimetry and least amount of lag of all the LCD setes that were displayed. Its been a really good set. Mark  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 12-15-2005 07:42 PM                     Even worse, many electronics stores are just playing standard DVDs on those HDTV sets. One would figure if those dolts were going to do that they would at least attach a good DVD player that upsamples the image to 1080 format and sends it out of a HDMI output. Perhaps whenever HD-DVD and/or Blu-Ray can see the light of day then the real image detail potential of 1080P TV sets can be realized. Given one can already watch 1080P HD content on the Internet (though in pretty limited form) I see it as being one way how the broadcasters are falling behind. quote: Lyle Romer 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. Many people who are on dial up, and not living out in the sticks, are using those slower connections by choice. 10 years ago, my Internet connection was transitioning from 28k to 56k. Today I can download at up to 3 million bits per second. Although it sounds pretty extreme today, my guess of 30Mb/s to 100Mb/s connection speeds being pretty commonplace by 2015 is indeed conservative. Sure, lots of people living in rural areas are definitely hurting in Internet connection speed. My parents still use dial-up. WiMAX and other competing technologies will start impacting that. I think that competition will also force the hard wired service providers to get more aggressive with laying down more infrastructure. In the end, by 2015 it is going to be very difficult to find any populated corner of the United States not covered by very fast Internet connections. These wide bandwidth connections may turn into the delivery pipe of choice for entertainment providers. I really think traditional over the air, cable and satellite providers will be in trouble --that is unless they position themselves early. We're already seeing some of that just in regards to stuff like iPod downloads. quote: Lyle Romer 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. I don't agree with that either. HDTV monitors with "1080P" native resolution or greater (like 2560 X 1600) will be very common even before the end of this decade. A 1080P monitor with the proper connections can pull double duty as both a television and computer monitor. The same cannot be said for a TV with only native 720P resolution. I've been wanting a 1920 X 1080 HDTV for years. But one of the key features I want in addition to that high native resolution is the ability for it to work as a computer monitor.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 12-15-2005 11:37 PM                        1080p CRT TVs do not exist. But boy oh boy do I sure wish they did! Nothing is as sharp as CRT, it seems. quote: Lyle Romer Look at all the people getting suckered into buying 720p monitors now that think they have upgraded to HD. 720p is one form of HD.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-16-2005 08:58 AM                     Joe, Hate to tell ya but over the next 10 years you will pretty much see thhe CRT disappear completely. There are too many nastys inside of a crt. Many countries already have in place strict controls governing the manufacturing and disposal of them. Mark  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 12-16-2005 10:56 PM                        What Mark said. If you like the "look" of direct-view CRT sets, buy one now, cuz they won't be around much longer, at least not good ones. The Sony KD-34XBR960 34" widescreen HDTV is one of the best consumer sets ever made and the last of a dying breed of TV. Sony is shutting down its remaining CRT manufacturing facilities very fast (and laying off thousands of workers). I'd be very surprised if there's a CRT-based set in Sony's lineup 1 year from now.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 12-16-2005 11:31 PM                        Dave, that's the one I have. Supposedly it's the sharpest picture anywhere in terms of HDTV. The "all signals displayed at 1080i or 480p" is wrong, though. It can do 960i as well. Unfortunately that means 240p signals which run in progressive scan on any regular analog TV in the world are upscaled to 960i on this TV and as a result looks super blocky in that mode. Mark, I know, but I disagree with your reasons. CRT is fading out ONLY because they are extremely massive in depth, heavy, and don't get much bigger than 36 inches. If CRTs sold better, they'd continue to make them, trust me. People want shit they can hang on their walls and they want huge screens. CRT provides neither. I just wish they could come up with a technology that wasn't fixed-pixel dependant and could have all of the thinness/gigantor advantages of plasma and LCD. Displaying shit at its native resolution is the best way to go for any format. Up/downscaling sucks ass. I think they could do it if they wanted to, they just don't want to spend $$$ on R&D.  |  IP: Logged Paul Trimboli Master Film Handler Posts: 274 From: Perth Western Australia Registered: Dec 2002 posted 12-20-2005 08:09 AM                     I have a Philips HD CRT and love it. I am not really a fan of plasma or LCD, sure they look nice but not as good as CRT. I did like the look of a rear pro HD-ILA JVC I saw on the weekend, a really fantastic picture. Do HD broadcasts suffer from any compression artifacts in the US? I have noticed that HD is alot more compressed in AU because for some stupid reason they only allowed the bandwidth that normal analogue TV had, SD is fine but HD is to compressed.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 12-20-2005 09:42 AM                     Yes, HD broadcasts in the United States do suffer from compression artifacts. Some may be difficult to spot, but others, particularly in areas involving graphics and type, do stand out rather horribly. I was checking out a Sony VEGA "SXRD" 1080P LCD rear projection TV yesterday at Sears. Overall the picture quality was very good. But then the HD promo they were running went into displaying some type along with a "in HD" logo thingie in the lower left corner. All sorts of mosquito noise and blocking appeared along the edges of letters. It looked really bad. This is another issue where Internet-based 720p and 1080p broadcasts will eventually have an unbeatable advantage. Right now bandwidth is badly limited for most people. But several years from now that won't be the case. Video on demand over IP will have a higher bandwidths and better capability to display video with graphics that aren't all screwed up.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 12-20-2005 11:26 AM                        Minor correction: The Sony SXRD 1080p set isn't LCD, it's, well, SXRD (Sony's version of LCoS?). The picture quality is pretty damn good. The thing I noticed right away is no screen door effect like the DLP and LCD sets have. I've watched that HD demo loop at Sears and noticed the same issue with mosquito noise around the HD logo. All the sets seemed to have that artifact, so it must be in the source. Their HD demo material is very variable in quality, ranging from not all that great, to, uh, pretty great. Most of the time broadcast HD looks nothing like HD. I'm highly suspicious of the original material actually being in HD. Someone's cheating or lying to us. I was watching something a few days ago and an HD commercial came on for that new Kevin Costner movie. The picture quality for that commercial was 500% better than the actual show. It reminded me of how good my set can be but usually isn't because the source material is so lacking in quality.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 12-20-2005 01:07 PM                        There is only something like 19.3 megabits per second allotted for a digital tv broadcast stream. Some, like CBS, dedicate the whole thing to HDTV. When fast moving graphics come on, the screen can momentarily have a resolution of about 64x36 due to all of the blocky compression artifacts. But it usually subsides really quick. Others like the evil NBC dedicate part of that 19.3 megabits to a 480i all-weather channel that is completely unnecessary. That steals bandwidth away from the HDTV stream so whenever anything moves on NBC it looks pretty bad. Dissolves look awful and take awhile to settle back to normal resolution because of this. MPEG 2 is extremely inefficient.  |  IP: Logged Greg Mueller Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1687 From: Port Gamble, WA Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-20-2005 06:06 PM                        So how are the satellite HD channels (720P I think) Any better or not worth it?  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-21-2005 06:30 AM                     You will see less artifcts on a 720P broadcast than you will on a 1080i. The artifacts are most noticable on fast moving objects, mainly on live or taped broadcasts. Less noticable on film originations. Watch a football game in 1080i sometime..... Mark  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 01-05-2006 10:11 AM                        HP has introduced a line of 1080p DLP sets that will actually accept a 1080p input signal. Most 1080p sets, like the Sony SXRD, don't accept a 1080p input. HP 1080p TV Unfortunately I don't think I could ever convince myself to spend $4k-$5k on a TV that uses a "color wheel".  |  IP: Logged Lyle Romer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1400 From: Davie, FL, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 01-05-2006 01:00 PM                     Bobby, Since you brought up 1080p over ip, how do you think this will work? Will people need to pay for the super broadband connection (I would assume at least 50 Mbps to support 4 TVs) and then pay for the content on top of this? I ask because it sounds like it can get pretty expensive. Existing cable/satellite systems don't need a dedicated "pipe" for each customer. I mean, most people (who don't notice most artifacts anyway) would rather pay what they are paying now for cable/satellite service and deal with some compression artifacts then pay twice as much for a pristine picture. Although this bandwidth will be available, it doesn't mean it will be affordable for the masses. Personally, I think we might see a pseudo-VOD in the relatively near future. Using existing speed (and price) broadband to download content to a DVR for somewhat delayed (but more convenient than going to a video store) viewing.  |  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.