Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HDTV and EDTV

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 2:39:14 PM

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

Is HDTV picture that much better than EDTV comparing the cost?

Many Thanks

More about : hdtv edtv

December 27, 2004 2:43:21 PM

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

"BeeFarmer" <OhioBeeFarmer@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:33as5jF3te26nU1@individual.net...
> Is HDTV picture that much better than EDTV comparing the cost?
>
> Many Thanks


Yes.

Richard.
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 2:50:56 PM

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

I've looked at HDTV and EDTV at Sears\Circut City\Best Buys and a few other
local stores. The pictures in some cases seem better on EDTV but I haven't
seen the opposite. Could it be that these stores are not providing the best
picture to show off the HDTV abilities as I haven't been knock out of my
socks by the difference yet. Richard is there something the stores are
showing?

Thanks


"Richard" <rfeirste at nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:10t0et7rnr5uafe@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "BeeFarmer" <OhioBeeFarmer@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:33as5jF3te26nU1@individual.net...
>> Is HDTV picture that much better than EDTV comparing the cost?
>>
>> Many Thanks
>
>
> Yes.
>
> Richard.
>
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 3:15:18 PM

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

"BeeFarmer" <OhioBeeFarmer@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:33as5jF3te26nU1@individual.net...
> Is HDTV picture that much better than EDTV comparing the cost?
>
> Many Thanks

YES - DEFINITELY

ED by the way is called "standard definition" in ATSC terms, the term ED was
a marketing ploy by the plasma vendors to make them sound better.

and HD doesn't cost more than standard definition

"ED" plasma is more expensive than a HD projector
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 3:19:32 PM

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

"BeeFarmer" <OhioBeeFarmer@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:33asrhF3ur72iU1@individual.net...
> I've looked at HDTV and EDTV at Sears\Circut City\Best Buys and a few
> other local stores. The pictures in some cases seem better on EDTV but I
> haven't seen the opposite. Could it be that these stores are not
> providing the best picture to show off the HDTV abilities as I haven't
> been knock out of my socks by the difference yet. Richard is there
> something the stores are showing?
>
> Thanks

Normally, the quality of the video source in the big box retailers is
pathetically poor.
They simply don't spend the money or the effort to have decent signals.

Think of it this way ED = DVD in resolution
720x480 (except DVD is interlaced on the disk and ED is not)
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 3:59:29 PM

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

These comments are specifically for 42" Plasma TVs. For viewing
distances of 6 ft or less, the HD 42" plasma is definitely better at
showing HDTV content. At 10ft +, there HD and ED are more equivalent.
You can judge for yourself - as my eyesite may not be as sharp as
yours. The problem is finding out if the store is displaying 1080i or
480p content. Comparing 480p between HD and ED tvs is a waste of time.
JCPZero
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 7:58:49 PM

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

EDTV is 480p while HDTV is 720p or 1080i. 480p is like a good DVD picture,
which is better than the usual fare, but not high definition by any means.
But if you were watching something without a lot of small detail -- like
close-up shots of actors -- and/or on a small screen TV set, under 50" or
so, you might not notice a lot of difference. But watch something like a
football game on a 60" screen and the difference between 480p and 720p is
HUGE. If the stores you are going to are not demonstrating this to you,
then they are not doing their jobs.

Personally, I would not even consider buying "EDTV" to save a few bucks,
even a thousand bucks. I would stick with my old standard set until I could
buy a good HD set before I would go the half-assed route.

mack
austin


"BeeFarmer" <OhioBeeFarmer@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:33asrhF3ur72iU1@individual.net...
> I've looked at HDTV and EDTV at Sears\Circut City\Best Buys and a few
> other local stores. The pictures in some cases seem better on EDTV but I
> haven't seen the opposite. Could it be that these stores are not
> providing the best picture to show off the HDTV abilities as I haven't
> been knock out of my socks by the difference yet. Richard is there
> something the stores are showing?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> "Richard" <rfeirste at nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:10t0et7rnr5uafe@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "BeeFarmer" <OhioBeeFarmer@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:33as5jF3te26nU1@individual.net...
>>> Is HDTV picture that much better than EDTV comparing the cost?
>>>
>>> Many Thanks
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Richard.
>>
>
>
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 7:58:50 PM

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

That's kind of what I was thinking was to wait for the price to come down.
You explained it to me very well. I will continue to ready the forums and
keep an eye on the prices. The Hitachi's and Sony's I've seen have been
really nice but I bet there are others out there I just haven't seen yet.

Many Thanks!


"Mack McKinnon" <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote in
message news:D bXzd.25090$yv2.11621@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> EDTV is 480p while HDTV is 720p or 1080i. 480p is like a good DVD
> picture, which is better than the usual fare, but not high definition by
> any means. But if you were watching something without a lot of small
> detail -- like close-up shots of actors -- and/or on a small screen TV
> set, under 50" or so, you might not notice a lot of difference. But watch
> something like a football game on a 60" screen and the difference between
> 480p and 720p is HUGE. If the stores you are going to are not
> demonstrating this to you, then they are not doing their jobs.
>
> Personally, I would not even consider buying "EDTV" to save a few bucks,
> even a thousand bucks. I would stick with my old standard set until I
> could buy a good HD set before I would go the half-assed route.
>
> mack
> austin
>
>
> "BeeFarmer" <OhioBeeFarmer@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:33asrhF3ur72iU1@individual.net...
>> I've looked at HDTV and EDTV at Sears\Circut City\Best Buys and a few
>> other local stores. The pictures in some cases seem better on EDTV but I
>> haven't seen the opposite. Could it be that these stores are not
>> providing the best picture to show off the HDTV abilities as I haven't
>> been knock out of my socks by the difference yet. Richard is there
>> something the stores are showing?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> "Richard" <rfeirste at nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:10t0et7rnr5uafe@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> "BeeFarmer" <OhioBeeFarmer@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:33as5jF3te26nU1@individual.net...
>>>> Is HDTV picture that much better than EDTV comparing the cost?
>>>>
>>>> Many Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> Richard.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 12:39:50 AM

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

"Mack McKinnon" <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote in
message news:D bXzd.25090$yv2.11621@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> EDTV is 480p while HDTV is 720p or 1080i. 480p is like a good DVD
> picture, which is better than the usual fare, but not high definition by
> any means. But if you were watching something without a lot of small
> detail -- like close-up shots of actors -- and/or on a small screen TV
> set, under 50" or so, you might not notice a lot of difference. But watch
> something like a football game on a 60" screen and the difference between
> 480p and 720p is HUGE. If the stores you are going to are not
> demonstrating this to you, then they are not doing their jobs.
>
> Personally, I would not even consider buying "EDTV" to save a few bucks,
> even a thousand bucks. I would stick with my old standard set until I
> could buy a good HD set before I would go the half-assed route.

I also would definitely NOT buy and EDTV, but the price differential is
sometimes far more than one thousand dollars.
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 2:16:23 AM

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

BeeFarmer wrote:

> Is HDTV picture that much better than EDTV comparing the cost?
>
> Many Thanks

It appears that we have mostly anti-ED people on this forum. The short
answer is that it depends on a large extent to the size of the screen
and how far away you sit from it. On a 42" plasma at 10 feet, the
difference between an ED and the current officially HD (1024x768)
plasmas is not that obvious. On a big 60" set at 8 feet, the difference
between an ED 480p and HD 720p or 1080i set is more noticeable.

However, HD is more than just resolution, it is digital, better
dynamic range of color & picture. The 37" and 42" 852x480p ED
plasmas are quite popular because they handle HD signals (by downscaling
to 480p), do a pretty good job with SD channels (simpler scaling
involved in taking 480i to 480p than to 768p for example), present a
fine picture for DVDs (which are 720x480 resolution), and run $2000 USD
or more cheaper than the current 42" HD plasmas. One drawback to the ED
plasmas is the Screen Door Effect (SDE) which you will see if you sit
too close to the screen.

At the moment, 42" ED plasmas reportedly make up around 54% of all
plasmas of all sizes sold. So they are very popular.

Are they true HD? No. But I would argue that the step from an SD CRT
TV (say 32" or less) to a good quality 37' or 42" ED plasma is far
bigger in picture improvement than the step from a ED to HD TV. Did I
get an ED plasma? No. I got a 42" HD Panasonic commercial model, because
I could afford it. But I can very close to buying a 37" Panasonic ED
consumer plasma (TH-37PD25U) with the idea of only keeping it as the
main TV for several years. The price difference is pretty big so it
really comes down to a person's budget and if they decide the ED is good
enough for them. This will be something people will debate until HD
plasmas come down in price enough to drive EDs out of the market, but
that won't happen for a few years.

Alan F
December 28, 2004 2:17:44 AM

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

There is no such thing as EDTV. Only SD and HDTV. You gotta speak the
language before you can communicate.


"BeeFarmer" <OhioBeeFarmer@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:33as5jF3te26nU1@individual.net...
> Is HDTV picture that much better than EDTV comparing the cost?
>
> Many Thanks
>
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 12:00:06 PM

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

Alan Figgatt wrote:
> BeeFarmer wrote:
>
>> Is HDTV picture that much better than EDTV comparing the cost?
>>
>> Many Thanks
>
>
> It appears that we have mostly anti-ED people on this forum. The short
> answer is that it depends on a large extent to the size of the screen
> and how far away you sit from it. On a 42" plasma at 10 feet, the
> difference between an ED and the current officially HD (1024x768)

1024x768 is not an official HD geometry. It is marketed as HD because
the FTC has not (and probably will not) set minimum standards for
advertizing HDTV.

Matthew (What has the FTC done lately?)

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 2:48:16 PM

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

In article <A65Ad.800$S72.717@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
"curmudgeon" <curmudgeon@buzzoff.net> writes:
> There is no such thing as EDTV. Only SD and HDTV. You gotta speak the
> language before you can communicate.
>
>
Back in the early days of the digital TV developments, the term
EDTV was indeed used in technical discussions... It was mostly
meant (probably not formally defined) to imply the super-NTSC type
schemes, the MAC schemes or the non-analog composite video schemes
that provided resolution greater than NTSC.

However, EDTV has fallen into disuse, or perhaps wasn't used all that
often or for very long (for example, perhaps not much after 1986.) AFAIR,
the Sarnoff super-NTSC type scheme
(e.g. adding quadrature modulation, another subcarrier in the NTSC Fukinuki
hole and digital data in the sync blanking regions) would have been
an EDTV scheme... Off topic: imagine how darned fragile and non-CATV
friendly that signal would have been!!!

John
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 3:44:34 PM

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

EDTV distinguishes itself from SDTV by being Progressively Scanned (480p).
It is usually Widescreen, but not always.

Beyond a certain distance (about 1.5x the diagonal measure of a 16:9 screen)
your eyes can't see the HDTV pixels and at a larger distance, (about 4x) you
can't see the pixels of NTSC. So if you sit far from the screen, HDTV
resolution is overkill, as you won't see the difference unless you get
closer.

A useful viewing distance calculator can be found here:
http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancec...

Brad H

"curmudgeon" <curmudgeon@buzzoff.net> wrote in message
news:A65Ad.800$S72.717@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> There is no such thing as EDTV. Only SD and HDTV. You gotta speak the
> language before you can communicate.
>
>
> "BeeFarmer" <OhioBeeFarmer@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:33as5jF3te26nU1@individual.net...
> > Is HDTV picture that much better than EDTV comparing the cost?
> >
> > Many Thanks
> >
>
>
December 29, 2004 3:36:32 AM

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

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 23:17:44 -0500, "curmudgeon"
<curmudgeon@buzzoff.net> wrote:

>There is no such thing as EDTV. Only SD and HDTV. You gotta speak the
>language before you can communicate.
>

Are you nuts ?

Get with the program. EDTV is selling big time.

Take your "no such thing" baloney and get out of here.

communicate ???

LOL.
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 7:45:52 PM

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

Here's my understanding of the situation:

480i with a bandwidth of 6 MHz is SDTV. Also called NTSC here in North
America.
720p and 1080i is HDTV. There may be other formats, like 1080p, considered
to be HDTV but rarely used.
480p is EDTV (since it's neither SDTV nor HDTV, and can have a higher
bandwidth than SDTV, e.g. downsampled HDTV)

I hope it's enough language to communicate.






"curmudgeon" <curmudgeon@buzzoff.net> wrote in message
news:A65Ad.800$S72.717@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> There is no such thing as EDTV. Only SD and HDTV. You gotta speak the
> language before you can communicate.
>
>
> "BeeFarmer" <OhioBeeFarmer@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:33as5jF3te26nU1@individual.net...
>> Is HDTV picture that much better than EDTV comparing the cost?
>>
>> Many Thanks
>>
>
>
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 8:35:16 PM

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

Hasenpfeffer wrote:
> Here's my understanding of the situation:
>
> 480i with a bandwidth of 6 MHz is SDTV. Also called NTSC here in North
> America.
> 720p and 1080i is HDTV. There may be other formats, like 1080p,
> considered to be HDTV but rarely used.
> 480p is EDTV (since it's neither SDTV nor HDTV, and can have a higher
> bandwidth than SDTV, e.g. downsampled HDTV)
>
> I hope it's enough language to communicate.

Actually, from what I understand (and I could be wrong), the 480p is done
internal to the unit, similar to a DVD player, so the bandwidth would be the
same as the input is still 480i (unless, of course, these units can accept
an input of 720p or 180i and downscale it to 480p).

Though I can't see the sense of setting up for HD service to downscale.....


>
>
>
>
>
>
> "curmudgeon" <curmudgeon@buzzoff.net> wrote in message
> news:A65Ad.800$S72.717@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>> There is no such thing as EDTV. Only SD and HDTV. You gotta speak
>> the language before you can communicate.
>>
>>
>> "BeeFarmer" <OhioBeeFarmer@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:33as5jF3te26nU1@individual.net...
>>> Is HDTV picture that much better than EDTV comparing the cost?
>>>
>>> Many Thanks
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 8:35:17 PM

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

L Alpert wrote:
> Hasenpfeffer wrote:
>
>>Here's my understanding of the situation:
>>
>>480i with a bandwidth of 6 MHz is SDTV. Also called NTSC here in North
>>America.
>>720p and 1080i is HDTV. There may be other formats, like 1080p,
>>considered to be HDTV but rarely used.
>>480p is EDTV (since it's neither SDTV nor HDTV, and can have a higher
>>bandwidth than SDTV, e.g. downsampled HDTV)
>>
>>I hope it's enough language to communicate.
>
>
> Actually, from what I understand (and I could be wrong), the 480p is done
> internal to the unit, similar to a DVD player, so the bandwidth would be the
> same as the input is still 480i (unless, of course, these units can accept
> an input of 720p or 180i and downscale it to 480p).
>
> Though I can't see the sense of setting up for HD service to downscale.....

You are thinking about the 480p progressive scan feature for DVDs
which can deinterlaced film source material into 720x480p. This feature
is also known as 3:2 pull down. This is not the same as 480p widescreen
source broadcasts as one of the ATSC standards, which Fox used to do
until they switched to 720p this year.

There are 18 different formats accepted for ATSC many of which are not
HD. See http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ISSUES/what_is_ATSC.html for the list.
Enhanced Definition for OTA broadcasts effectively means the 704x480p
16:9 standard, but with Fox dropping it, I don't know if there are any
stations broadcasting at that standard in the US any more. All of the
major networks are either 720p60 or 1080i60 now.

For TV sets, ED has come to mean 16:9 480p sets. Fixed pixel ED
plasmas have a resolution of 852x480p pixels. At 852 horizontal pixels,
these sets do have higher resolution than the 720 or 704 pixels of
resolution for US encoded DVDs or ED broadcasts. They upscale DVDs
horizontally & downscale the 720p or 1080i signals to 480p and still
provide a pretty good picture for medium sized 37" or 42" screens at
typical 8 or 10 feet viewing distance.

Alan F
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 8:35:17 PM

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

"L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:o VBAd.584319$wV.467742@attbi_s54...
> Hasenpfeffer wrote:
> > Here's my understanding of the situation:
> >
> > 480i with a bandwidth of 6 MHz is SDTV. Also called NTSC here in North
> > America.
> > 720p and 1080i is HDTV. There may be other formats, like 1080p,
> > considered to be HDTV but rarely used.
> > 480p is EDTV (since it's neither SDTV nor HDTV, and can have a higher
> > bandwidth than SDTV, e.g. downsampled HDTV)
> >
> > I hope it's enough language to communicate.
>
> Actually, from what I understand (and I could be wrong), the 480p is done
> internal to the unit, similar to a DVD player, so the bandwidth would be
the
> same as the input is still 480i (unless, of course, these units can accept
> an input of 720p or 180i and downscale it to 480p).

Not True. Progressive scan DVD players do create the 480p signal, as would
HDTV tuners. The bandwidth is therefore double 480i, since 2x the number of
scan lines are sent each 1/60th of a second. The 480p capable TV doesn't
receive one field and repeat it, which is what a line doubler does.

Brad H
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 3:12:29 AM

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

Alan Figgatt wrote:
> L Alpert wrote:
>> Hasenpfeffer wrote:
>>
>>> Here's my understanding of the situation:
>>>
>>> 480i with a bandwidth of 6 MHz is SDTV. Also called NTSC here in
>>> North America.
>>> 720p and 1080i is HDTV. There may be other formats, like 1080p,
>>> considered to be HDTV but rarely used.
>>> 480p is EDTV (since it's neither SDTV nor HDTV, and can have a
>>> higher bandwidth than SDTV, e.g. downsampled HDTV)
>>>
>>> I hope it's enough language to communicate.
>>
>>
>> Actually, from what I understand (and I could be wrong), the 480p is
>> done internal to the unit, similar to a DVD player, so the bandwidth
>> would be the same as the input is still 480i (unless, of course,
>> these units can accept an input of 720p or 180i and downscale it to
>> 480p). Though I can't see the sense of setting up for HD service to
>> downscale.....
>
> You are thinking about the 480p progressive scan feature for DVDs
> which can deinterlaced film source material into 720x480p. This
> feature is also known as 3:2 pull down. This is not the same as 480p
> widescreen source broadcasts as one of the ATSC standards, which Fox
> used to do until they switched to 720p this year.

How many stations are going to broadcast the 480p version of DTV, and how
many cable and satellite carriers will offer this scale of service?


>
> There are 18 different formats accepted for ATSC many of which are
> not HD. See http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ISSUES/what_is_ATSC.html for
> the list. Enhanced Definition for OTA broadcasts effectively means
> the 704x480p 16:9 standard, but with Fox dropping it, I don't know if
> there are any stations broadcasting at that standard in the US any
> more. All of the major networks are either 720p60 or 1080i60 now.

Well, I wasn't sure if the EDTV was expecting the source to be 480p or if
was scaling it similar to PS DVD players.

>
> For TV sets, ED has come to mean 16:9 480p sets. Fixed pixel ED
> plasmas have a resolution of 852x480p pixels. At 852 horizontal
> pixels, these sets do have higher resolution than the 720 or 704
> pixels of resolution for US encoded DVDs or ED broadcasts. They
> upscale DVDs horizontally & downscale the 720p or 1080i signals to
> 480p and still provide a pretty good picture for medium sized 37" or
> 42" screens at typical 8 or 10 feet viewing distance.

I would still have a problem with going through the trouble of obtaining a
720p or 1080i source signal and downscale it.

>
> Alan F
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 3:12:30 AM

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

"L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:NJHAd.281566$V41.265950@attbi_s52...
> Alan Figgatt wrote:
>> L Alpert wrote:
>>> Hasenpfeffer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here's my understanding of the situation:
>>>>
>>>> 480i with a bandwidth of 6 MHz is SDTV. Also called NTSC here in
>>>> North America.
>>>> 720p and 1080i is HDTV. There may be other formats, like 1080p,
>>>> considered to be HDTV but rarely used.
>>>> 480p is EDTV (since it's neither SDTV nor HDTV, and can have a
>>>> higher bandwidth than SDTV, e.g. downsampled HDTV)
>>>>
>>>> I hope it's enough language to communicate.
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, from what I understand (and I could be wrong), the 480p is
>>> done internal to the unit, similar to a DVD player, so the bandwidth
>>> would be the same as the input is still 480i (unless, of course,
>>> these units can accept an input of 720p or 180i and downscale it to
>>> 480p). Though I can't see the sense of setting up for HD service to
>>> downscale.....
>>
>> You are thinking about the 480p progressive scan feature for DVDs
>> which can deinterlaced film source material into 720x480p. This
>> feature is also known as 3:2 pull down. This is not the same as 480p
>> widescreen source broadcasts as one of the ATSC standards, which Fox
>> used to do until they switched to 720p this year.
>
> How many stations are going to broadcast the 480p version of DTV, and how
> many cable and satellite carriers will offer this scale of service?
>
>
>>
>> There are 18 different formats accepted for ATSC many of which are
>> not HD. See http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ISSUES/what_is_ATSC.html for
>> the list. Enhanced Definition for OTA broadcasts effectively means
>> the 704x480p 16:9 standard, but with Fox dropping it, I don't know if
>> there are any stations broadcasting at that standard in the US any
>> more. All of the major networks are either 720p60 or 1080i60 now.
>
> Well, I wasn't sure if the EDTV was expecting the source to be 480p or if
> was scaling it similar to PS DVD players.
>
>>
>> For TV sets, ED has come to mean 16:9 480p sets. Fixed pixel ED
>> plasmas have a resolution of 852x480p pixels. At 852 horizontal
>> pixels, these sets do have higher resolution than the 720 or 704
>> pixels of resolution for US encoded DVDs or ED broadcasts. They
>> upscale DVDs horizontally & downscale the 720p or 1080i signals to
>> 480p and still provide a pretty good picture for medium sized 37" or
>> 42" screens at typical 8 or 10 feet viewing distance.
>
> I would still have a problem with going through the trouble of obtaining a
> 720p or 1080i source signal and downscale it.
>

Well, it only costs me an additional $5 a month to "obtain a 720p or 1080i
source signal" and downscale it for my EDTV... which looks great by the way.
Doesn't seem like it's too much trouble. Of course, like you said... you
have a problem with it. Too bad for you.
Sac D
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 9:45:27 PM

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

Brad Houser wrote:
> "L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message
> news:o VBAd.584319$wV.467742@attbi_s54...
>> Hasenpfeffer wrote:
>>> Here's my understanding of the situation:
>>>
>>> 480i with a bandwidth of 6 MHz is SDTV. Also called NTSC here in
>>> North America.
>>> 720p and 1080i is HDTV. There may be other formats, like 1080p,
>>> considered to be HDTV but rarely used.
>>> 480p is EDTV (since it's neither SDTV nor HDTV, and can have a
>>> higher bandwidth than SDTV, e.g. downsampled HDTV)
>>>
>>> I hope it's enough language to communicate.
>>
>> Actually, from what I understand (and I could be wrong), the 480p is
>> done internal to the unit, similar to a DVD player, so the bandwidth
>> would be the same as the input is still 480i (unless, of course,
>> these units can accept an input of 720p or 180i and downscale it to
>> 480p).
>
> Not True. Progressive scan DVD players do create the 480p signal, as
> would HDTV tuners. The bandwidth is therefore double 480i, since 2x
> the number of scan lines are sent each 1/60th of a second. The 480p
> capable TV doesn't receive one field and repeat it, which is what a
> line doubler does.
>
> Brad H

Yes, but the native input signal (in this case, from the actual DVD) is
still 480i. The extra bandwidth or data storage is not needed for the input
signal, only from the output of the player to the viewing device.
If the HD tuner (or in this case the EDTV tuner) is the one that is
generating the progressive scan signal from a standard 480i signal, the
input bandwidth to the tuner still only needs to be enough to support the
480i.

Of course, if it will need to downconvert 720p or 1080i to 480p, then the
input bandwidth of the device (tuner) will need to be higher to support
those signals as well.
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 9:47:49 PM

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

Sac D wrote:
> "L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message
> news:NJHAd.281566$V41.265950@attbi_s52...
>> Alan Figgatt wrote:
>>> L Alpert wrote:
>>>> Hasenpfeffer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here's my understanding of the situation:
>>>>>
>>>>> 480i with a bandwidth of 6 MHz is SDTV. Also called NTSC here in
>>>>> North America.
>>>>> 720p and 1080i is HDTV. There may be other formats, like 1080p,
>>>>> considered to be HDTV but rarely used.
>>>>> 480p is EDTV (since it's neither SDTV nor HDTV, and can have a
>>>>> higher bandwidth than SDTV, e.g. downsampled HDTV)
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope it's enough language to communicate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, from what I understand (and I could be wrong), the 480p
>>>> is done internal to the unit, similar to a DVD player, so the
>>>> bandwidth would be the same as the input is still 480i (unless, of
>>>> course, these units can accept an input of 720p or 180i and
>>>> downscale it to 480p). Though I can't see the sense of setting up
>>>> for HD service to downscale.....
>>>
>>> You are thinking about the 480p progressive scan feature for DVDs
>>> which can deinterlaced film source material into 720x480p. This
>>> feature is also known as 3:2 pull down. This is not the same as 480p
>>> widescreen source broadcasts as one of the ATSC standards, which Fox
>>> used to do until they switched to 720p this year.
>>
>> How many stations are going to broadcast the 480p version of DTV,
>> and how many cable and satellite carriers will offer this scale of
>> service?
>>>
>>> There are 18 different formats accepted for ATSC many of which are
>>> not HD. See http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ISSUES/what_is_ATSC.html for
>>> the list. Enhanced Definition for OTA broadcasts effectively means
>>> the 704x480p 16:9 standard, but with Fox dropping it, I don't know
>>> if there are any stations broadcasting at that standard in the US
>>> any more. All of the major networks are either 720p60 or 1080i60
>>> now.
>>
>> Well, I wasn't sure if the EDTV was expecting the source to be 480p
>> or if was scaling it similar to PS DVD players.
>>
>>>
>>> For TV sets, ED has come to mean 16:9 480p sets. Fixed pixel ED
>>> plasmas have a resolution of 852x480p pixels. At 852 horizontal
>>> pixels, these sets do have higher resolution than the 720 or 704
>>> pixels of resolution for US encoded DVDs or ED broadcasts. They
>>> upscale DVDs horizontally & downscale the 720p or 1080i signals to
>>> 480p and still provide a pretty good picture for medium sized 37" or
>>> 42" screens at typical 8 or 10 feet viewing distance.
>>
>> I would still have a problem with going through the trouble of
>> obtaining a 720p or 1080i source signal and downscale it.
>>
>
> Well, it only costs me an additional $5 a month to "obtain a 720p or
> 1080i source signal" and downscale it for my EDTV... which looks
> great by the way. Doesn't seem like it's too much trouble. Of
> course, like you said... you have a problem with it. Too bad for you.
> Sac D

I would have a problem with it for a 480p output display, but since I have a
1080i IO from both cable and OTA, it is not too bad for me at all.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 8:24:15 PM

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

Bandwidth is the product of horizontal resolution x vertical resolution x
refresh rate. 480p has twice the bandwidth as 480i only if hor. res. and
vert. res. stay the same.
DVD only hold a certain amount of picture information. I believe that 480p
is a good format to display all the information. If nothing else, than for
the absence of scan lines on CRT's. My computer creates the signal from the
DVD, but no matter how high I set the resolution, the quality does not
increase. The bandwidth is there, but not "used". Just a larger bucket for
the same amount of water.

"Brad Houser" <bradDOThouser@intel.com> wrote in message
news:cqvimt$oqt$1@news01.intel.com...
>
> "L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message
> news:o VBAd.584319$wV.467742@attbi_s54...
>> Hasenpfeffer wrote:
>> > Here's my understanding of the situation:
>> >
>> > 480i with a bandwidth of 6 MHz is SDTV. Also called NTSC here in North
>> > America.
>> > 720p and 1080i is HDTV. There may be other formats, like 1080p,
>> > considered to be HDTV but rarely used.
>> > 480p is EDTV (since it's neither SDTV nor HDTV, and can have a higher
>> > bandwidth than SDTV, e.g. downsampled HDTV)
>> >
>> > I hope it's enough language to communicate.
>>
>> Actually, from what I understand (and I could be wrong), the 480p is done
>> internal to the unit, similar to a DVD player, so the bandwidth would be
> the
>> same as the input is still 480i (unless, of course, these units can
>> accept
>> an input of 720p or 180i and downscale it to 480p).
>
> Not True. Progressive scan DVD players do create the 480p signal, as would
> HDTV tuners. The bandwidth is therefore double 480i, since 2x the number
> of
> scan lines are sent each 1/60th of a second. The 480p capable TV doesn't
> receive one field and repeat it, which is what a line doubler does.
>
> Brad H
>
>
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 10:33:15 PM

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

Hasenpfeffer wrote:
> Bandwidth is the product of horizontal resolution x vertical
> resolution x refresh rate. 480p has twice the bandwidth as 480i only
> if hor. res. and vert. res. stay the same.
> DVD only hold a certain amount of picture information. I believe that
> 480p is a good format to display all the information. If nothing
> else, than for the absence of scan lines on CRT's. My computer
> creates the signal from the DVD, but no matter how high I set the
> resolution, the quality does not increase. The bandwidth is there,
> but not "used". Just a larger bucket for the same amount of water.

My point is (and maybe I haven't been able to put it into the right words)
that if the input signal to the device is 480i and the progressive scan is
the device output signal, then the bandwidth needed for the input to the
device (be it cable, satellite or OTA) still only needs to enough to support
the 480i.

If the input to the device is 480p, then yes, the bandwidth needed is
doubled.

>
> "Brad Houser" <bradDOThouser@intel.com> wrote in message
> news:cqvimt$oqt$1@news01.intel.com...
>>
>> "L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:o VBAd.584319$wV.467742@attbi_s54...
>>> Hasenpfeffer wrote:
>>>> Here's my understanding of the situation:
>>>>
>>>> 480i with a bandwidth of 6 MHz is SDTV. Also called NTSC here in
>>>> North America.
>>>> 720p and 1080i is HDTV. There may be other formats, like 1080p,
>>>> considered to be HDTV but rarely used.
>>>> 480p is EDTV (since it's neither SDTV nor HDTV, and can have a
>>>> higher bandwidth than SDTV, e.g. downsampled HDTV)
>>>>
>>>> I hope it's enough language to communicate.
>>>
>>> Actually, from what I understand (and I could be wrong), the 480p
>>> is done internal to the unit, similar to a DVD player, so the
>>> bandwidth would be the same as the input is still 480i (unless, of
>>> course, these units can accept
>>> an input of 720p or 180i and downscale it to 480p).
>>
>> Not True. Progressive scan DVD players do create the 480p signal, as
>> would HDTV tuners. The bandwidth is therefore double 480i, since 2x
>> the number of
>> scan lines are sent each 1/60th of a second. The 480p capable TV
>> doesn't receive one field and repeat it, which is what a line
>> doubler does. Brad H
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 1:56:43 PM

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

"L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:NJHAd.281566$V41.265950@attbi_s52...
>
> Well, I wasn't sure if the EDTV was expecting the source to be 480p or if
> was scaling it similar to PS DVD players.

It can do either. If the source is 480p or 720p DTV, it is already
progressive. If it's a DVD of a movie, it can be effectively treated as
progressive much of the time. If it's 1080i DTV, when downscaling, the
interlace disappears. The biggest problem is 480i TV (NTSC etc.), but that's
always going to be a problem, and at least it usually looks a lot better if
it only has to de-interlace, and not scale as well.

> I would still have a problem with going through the trouble of obtaining a
> 720p or 1080i source signal and downscale it.

I suppose, but it doesn't need to degrade the quality quite as much as it
would seem. For one thing, all TV encodes color at lower resolution than the
grayscale (luma). DVD and DTV both encode it at 1/2 the resolution in each
direction as the luma. (It is much worse for NTSC and worse still for VHS.)
An EDTV set has the opportunity to display the color portion of an HD signal
at its full resolution, or nearly so, meaning only the luma portion really
needs to be scaled down. Another factor is that there isn't as much visual
variation in quality from signal to signal as there would be for an HD set.
HDTV looks good, not as subtly detailed or sharp as on an HD set, but still
very good. DVD also looks very good, as does widescreen 480p DTV. Even
standard TV usually looks pretty good on these sets, as it doesn't need to
be scaled. And the only time interlace comes into play at all is on a 480i
signal, so you nearly always have what looks like a nice stable
progressive-scan image. In addition, for many typical viewing situations
(considering size of set, viewing distance, and visual acuity of the
viewers), the perceived difference between this and a true HD set may be
minimal. So all in all, particularly if it saves a few thousand dollars, for
many people an ED set makes as much sense as an HD set. Besides, the
majority of people buying plasma sets seem more concerned with getting a
flat TV than with getting HDTV.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 1:56:43 PM

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

"L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:%VCBd.737914$mD.435472@attbi_s02...
> Hasenpfeffer wrote:
>> Bandwidth is the product of horizontal resolution x vertical
>> resolution x refresh rate. 480p has twice the bandwidth as 480i only
>> if hor. res. and vert. res. stay the same.
>> DVD only hold a certain amount of picture information. I believe that
>> 480p is a good format to display all the information. If nothing
>> else, than for the absence of scan lines on CRT's. My computer
>> creates the signal from the DVD, but no matter how high I set the
>> resolution, the quality does not increase. The bandwidth is there,
>> but not "used". Just a larger bucket for the same amount of water.
>
> My point is (and maybe I haven't been able to put it into the right words)
> that if the input signal to the device is 480i and the progressive scan is
> the device output signal, then the bandwidth needed for the input to the
> device (be it cable, satellite or OTA) still only needs to enough to
> support the 480i.
>
> If the input to the device is 480p, then yes, the bandwidth needed is
> doubled.

ED plasma displays are capable of 60 frames per second progressive-scan
display at 480x852 or so resolution. Like many HDTVs, most EDTVs do not have
ATSC/DTV digital tuners built in, containing only an NTSC tuner. However,
that's not how you'd want to watch DVD or digital cable or satellite, let
alone (H)DTV. When it comes to ATSC DTV tuners, they all have to be able to
receive all the formats, including the HD formats, so yes, the input would
be 480p60, 720p60, or whatever, then sent to the EDTV display via component
or DVI. (The signal would generally be downconverted to 480p60 inside the
digital tuner.)
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 8:35:11 PM

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

Matthew Vaughan wrote:
> "L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message
> news:NJHAd.281566$V41.265950@attbi_s52...
>>
>> Well, I wasn't sure if the EDTV was expecting the source to be 480p
>> or if was scaling it similar to PS DVD players.
>
> It can do either. If the source is 480p or 720p DTV, it is already
> progressive. If it's a DVD of a movie, it can be effectively treated
> as progressive much of the time. If it's 1080i DTV, when downscaling,
> the interlace disappears. The biggest problem is 480i TV (NTSC etc.),
> but that's always going to be a problem, and at least it usually
> looks a lot better if it only has to de-interlace, and not scale as
> well.
>> I would still have a problem with going through the trouble of
>> obtaining a 720p or 1080i source signal and downscale it.
>
> I suppose, but it doesn't need to degrade the quality quite as much
> as it would seem. For one thing, all TV encodes color at lower
> resolution than the grayscale (luma). DVD and DTV both encode it at
> 1/2 the resolution in each direction as the luma. (It is much worse
> for NTSC and worse still for VHS.) An EDTV set has the opportunity to
> display the color portion of an HD signal at its full resolution, or
> nearly so, meaning only the luma portion really needs to be scaled
> down. Another factor is that there isn't as much visual variation in
> quality from signal to signal as there would be for an HD set. HDTV
> looks good, not as subtly detailed or sharp as on an HD set, but
> still very good. DVD also looks very good, as does widescreen 480p
> DTV. Even standard TV usually looks pretty good on these sets, as it
> doesn't need to be scaled. And the only time interlace comes into
> play at all is on a 480i signal, so you nearly always have what looks
> like a nice stable progressive-scan image. In addition, for many
> typical viewing situations (considering size of set, viewing
> distance, and visual acuity of the viewers), the perceived difference
> between this and a true HD set may be minimal. So all in all,
> particularly if it saves a few thousand dollars, for many people an
> ED set makes as much sense as an HD set. Besides, the majority of
> people buying plasma sets seem more concerned with getting a flat TV
> than with getting HDTV.

All good points. It seems to have more to do with personal need and/or
finances. As always, caveat emptor. As long as the buyer knows what they
are getting (and hopefully understand).

As for myself, once the flat screen prices drop below my break point (and
I'm not 100% sure what that will be!!!), I will get one capable of 1080i
minimum, maybe 1080p. Until then, I will stick with my RPTV @ 1080i......
!