HDTV and EDTV

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

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

Many Thanks
27 answers Last reply
More about hdtv edtv
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
    >
  3. 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
  4. 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)
  5. 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
  6. 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.
    >>
    >
    >
  7. 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:dbXzd.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.
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  8. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Mack McKinnon" <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote in
    message news:dbXzd.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.
  9. 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
  10. 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
    >
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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/viewingdistancecalculator.html

    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
    > >
    >
    >
  14. 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.
  15. 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
    >>
    >
    >
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message
    news:oVBAd.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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Brad Houser wrote:
    > "L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:oVBAd.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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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$1@news01.intel.com...
    >
    > "L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:oVBAd.584319$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
    >
    >
  24. 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$1@news01.intel.com...
    >>
    >> "L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message
    >> news:oVBAd.584319$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
  25. 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.
  26. 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.)
  27. 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......
Ask a new question

Read More

HDTV TV Home Theatre