Are there any HDTV set that is capable of HDTV 1080p?

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 05:28:01 -0700, smallox <smallox@qt.com> wrote:

>Are there any HDTV set that is capable of HDTV 1080p? I see a
>lot of 1080i in the store and on the web, but none for 1080p.

The only one I have ever seen is a Bill Gates kind of expensive
from projection unit from Runco.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

George Thorogood <thorogood@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:<iffv80dis1cnuc0o75c28ultvauaff9p3b@4ax.com>...
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 05:28:01 -0700, smallox <smallox@qt.com> wrote:
>
> >Are there any HDTV set that is capable of HDTV 1080p? I see a
> >lot of 1080i in the store and on the web, but none for 1080p.
>
> The only one I have ever seen is a Bill Gates kind of expensive
> from projection unit from Runco.

I think it's still rare to find a tv that can do full HDTV resolution.
I haven't actually gone to the stores or manufacturers to check but I
just read about one. There is one from mistubishi that is crazy big.
The Alpha 925 (WL82925) 82" display - 1920x1080p 3-chip LCoS Light
Engine. This is probably not the size you are looking for so this
probably doesn't help much. Maybe another person can post a smaller
model if there are any yet. I would like a 27" (about) inch HDTV CRT
screen that could do 1920x1080(24p) that is digital cable ready for
$400. I bet you can get that in 8 years.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

You'll probably see it supported on all the upcomming 2004 giant
displays by 70+" Samsung, LG and Mitsubishi. Not likely on the smaller
sets now or in the near future.

A few comments about 1080p, a set doesn't need to support this to be
true "HD" to be HD it only has to support 1080i or 720p, if you're
holding out waiting of 1080p it's probably not worth it because A. It
will be very expensive when available and B. No one will broadcast in
it in the US, not for a very very long time. In fact when that time
rolls around they something beyond HD will probably be on the horizon
(who knows). The bandwidth requirements to go from 1080i/720p up to
1080p is a huge leap. Also a lot of todays boxes just aren't set up to
even downconvert 1080p.




okner@newshosting.com (okner@newshosting.com) wrote in message news:<19c13a19.0404281230.4142325d@posting.google.com>...
> George Thorogood <thorogood@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:<iffv80dis1cnuc0o75c28ultvauaff9p3b@4ax.com>...
> > On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 05:28:01 -0700, smallox <smallox@qt.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Are there any HDTV set that is capable of HDTV 1080p? I see a
> > >lot of 1080i in the store and on the web, but none for 1080p.
> >
> > The only one I have ever seen is a Bill Gates kind of expensive
> > from projection unit from Runco.
>
> I think it's still rare to find a tv that can do full HDTV resolution.
> I haven't actually gone to the stores or manufacturers to check but I
> just read about one. There is one from mistubishi that is crazy big.
> The Alpha 925 (WL82925) 82" display - 1920x1080p 3-chip LCoS Light
> Engine. This is probably not the size you are looking for so this
> probably doesn't help much. Maybe another person can post a smaller
> model if there are any yet. I would like a 27" (about) inch HDTV CRT
> screen that could do 1920x1080(24p) that is digital cable ready for
> $400. I bet you can get that in 8 years.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

No, it's not a huge leap. READ the ATSC specs and 1080p is one of them.
BUT it's at 30 or 24 fps...not 60. Same bandwidth at 1080 @60i

"JDeats" <jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:b0738dc6.0404281824.34e87018@posting.google.com...
> You'll probably see it supported on all the upcomming 2004 giant
> displays by 70+" Samsung, LG and Mitsubishi. Not likely on the smaller
> sets now or in the near future.
>
> A few comments about 1080p, a set doesn't need to support this to be
> true "HD" to be HD it only has to support 1080i or 720p, if you're
> holding out waiting of 1080p it's probably not worth it because A. It
> will be very expensive when available and B. No one will broadcast in
> it in the US, not for a very very long time. In fact when that time
> rolls around they something beyond HD will probably be on the horizon
> (who knows). The bandwidth requirements to go from 1080i/720p up to
> 1080p is a huge leap. Also a lot of todays boxes just aren't set up to
> even downconvert 1080p.
>
>
>
>
> okner@newshosting.com (okner@newshosting.com) wrote in message
news:<19c13a19.0404281230.4142325d@posting.google.com>...
> > George Thorogood <thorogood@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:<iffv80dis1cnuc0o75c28ultvauaff9p3b@4ax.com>...
> > > On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 05:28:01 -0700, smallox <smallox@qt.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Are there any HDTV set that is capable of HDTV 1080p? I see a
> > > >lot of 1080i in the store and on the web, but none for 1080p.
> > >
> > > The only one I have ever seen is a Bill Gates kind of expensive
> > > from projection unit from Runco.
> >
> > I think it's still rare to find a tv that can do full HDTV resolution.
> > I haven't actually gone to the stores or manufacturers to check but I
> > just read about one. There is one from mistubishi that is crazy big.
> > The Alpha 925 (WL82925) 82" display - 1920x1080p 3-chip LCoS Light
> > Engine. This is probably not the size you are looking for so this
> > probably doesn't help much. Maybe another person can post a smaller
> > model if there are any yet. I would like a 27" (about) inch HDTV CRT
> > screen that could do 1920x1080(24p) that is digital cable ready for
> > $400. I bet you can get that in 8 years.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

jeremy@pdq.net (JDeats) wrote in message news:<b0738dc6.0404281824.34e87018@posting.google.com>...
> You'll probably see it supported on all the upcomming 2004 giant
> displays by 70+" Samsung, LG and Mitsubishi. Not likely on the smaller
> sets now or in the near future.
>
> A few comments about 1080p, a set doesn't need to support this to be
> true "HD" to be HD it only has to support 1080i or 720p, if you're
> holding out waiting of 1080p it's probably not worth it because A. It
> will be very expensive when available and B. No one will broadcast in
> it in the US, not for a very very long time.


What about things that aren't "broadcast" at all?

Doesn't XBox already support 1080 output? And few would argue that P
isn't way better than I for game consoles.

Also, a MediaPC being used as a DVD source can scale to 1080p without
breaking a sweat.

Not to mention that HD-DVD (probably WM9 encoded on BlueRay media) is
right around the corner.

I agree with the original poster. I want to see 1080p capable devices
just because they will be the most versitile no matter what you throw
at it.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

> Also, a MediaPC being used as a DVD source can scale to 1080p without
> breaking a sweat.
>
> Not to mention that HD-DVD (probably WM9 encoded on BlueRay media) is
> right around the corner.
>
> I agree with the original poster. I want to see 1080p capable devices
> just because they will be the most versitile no matter what you throw
> at it.

A MediaPC or HTPC can output at 1080p, but I won't myself say it's without
breaking a sweat. You need what I'd call a reasonably good configuration to
get a smooth picture. I want 1080p also but it maybe awhile before
affordable equipment will be up to the demands of WM9 at that res and right
now there not a lot of other sources.

Windows XP
512 Ram
Mediaplayer 9
3.0 GHz CPU
128 mb Video card

That the recommeded system I've read that some have choppy video even at
these type of specs at 1080p. 720p is a lot less demanding and gives a great
picture. If you haven't already try some of the free demos from Microsoft
all are there at 720p and some are also avaliable at 1080p. I can run 720p
no sweat but 1080p is very taxing on my system and it covers the minimum
spec.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/content_p...


Jolt

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

This configuration is what's required to decode WM9 (Windows Media 9)
encoded HD. Their codec provides the best compression around (about
145 minutes of HD-video/audio can fit on a 4.7-Gig DVD+R, using
current red laser technology) at the cost of processing power required
to decode in real-time.

Microsoft MediaPC requirements are geared around their WM9-HD standard
(which they are pushing to be an industry standard).

To decode and playback MPEG-2 encoded HD (still the standard) takes
far less strenious requirements.


>
> Windows XP
> 512 Ram
> Mediaplayer 9
> 3.0 GHz CPU
> 128 mb Video card
>
> That the recommeded system I've read that some have choppy video even at
> these type of specs at 1080p. 720p is a lot less demanding and gives a great
> picture. If you haven't already try some of the free demos from Microsoft
> all are there at 720p and some are also avaliable at 1080p. I can run 720p
> no sweat but 1080p is very taxing on my system and it covers the minimum
> spec.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/content_p...
>
>
> Jolt

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <b7eb1fbe.0404291128.458c41fd@posting.google.com>,
gaf1234567890@hotmail.com (G) wrote:

> Not to mention that HD-DVD (probably WM9 encoded on BlueRay media) is
> right around the corner.

first of all HD DVD and Blue Ray are competing formats. WM9 is only
associated with HD DVD, not Blue Ray. And it's not a sure thing yet.

Neither format has indicated it would support 1080p.

>
> I agree with the original poster. I want to see 1080p capable devices
> just because they will be the most versitile no matter what you throw
> at it.

Me too. But they will command a big premium.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

poldy <poldy@kfu.com> wrote in message news:<poldy-1C2367.09330730042004@netnews.comcast.net>...
> In article <b7eb1fbe.0404291128.458c41fd@posting.google.com>,
> gaf1234567890@hotmail.com (G) wrote:
>
> > Not to mention that HD-DVD (probably WM9 encoded on BlueRay media) is
> > right around the corner.
>
> first of all HD DVD and Blue Ray are competing formats. WM9 is only
> associated with HD DVD, not Blue Ray. And it's not a sure thing yet.
>

Well, blue ray is refering the laser type namely (as opposed to red
laser in current technology). It may have been geared towards HD video
in it's conception, but it's grown beyond that and in fact it's
largest bsckers are PC hardware vendors who intend to incorporate it
into the next generation storage devices (completely seperate from HD,
although HD could be one application of its use).

Source:
http://www.blu-ray.com/info/

WM9 is a compression codec (counterparts are other next generation HD
compression codecs: MPEG-4, JVT's AVC (Advanced Video Coding), etc...)
since these are compression formats (more or less) they could be used
in combination with blue-ray devices.



> Neither format has indicated it would support 1080p.
>

When you playback WM9 or MPEG-2 HD video on a computer monitor at
1920x1080 it is 1920x1080 progressive scan (1080p). SVGA monitors
along with LCD and Plasma HD displays do not display interlaced
formats natively.

This card (along with an ATI Radeon) will give you 1080p today.
http://www.dvico.com/products_mul_hd3.html