Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

TRUE HDTV?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 10:21:53 PM

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

I have been looking at the new Sony LCD 42 and 50 inch sets.
I look at the specs and the resolution says 1378 by 768 or something
similar.
Even though they have 1080i inputs. SO whats the real story?
are these sets down converting from true 1080i to a lower resolution?

It seems to me, even though many of these sets look great that
many of us think we are watching true HD and we are maybe close but not
quite.

Even most of the sales people don't really know what they are selling.

True HD is 1080i or 720p.

ANyone to shed light on this would be welcome.

ed

More about : true hdtv

Anonymous
January 31, 2005 2:26:54 AM

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

"edmellnik" <emellnik@emavideo.com> wrote:

> I have been looking at the new Sony LCD 42 and 50 inch sets.
> True HD is 1080i or 720p.
> ANyone to shed light on this would be welcome.

I have a Sony 42" RPLCD, my son has the 50". Major difference is that since
both use the same bulb, my 42" is a tad brighter.

Don't bother about resolution figures... either Sony can produce an
absolutely awesome picture at either HD resolution, and even standard TV
signals are very watchable without fear of burn-in. Good bang for the buck.

--
Anti-Spam address: my last name at his dot com
Charles Gillen -- Reston, Virginia, USA
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 4:17:46 AM

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

edmellnik wrote:
> I have been looking at the new Sony LCD 42 and 50 inch sets.
> I look at the specs and the resolution says 1378 by 768 or something
> similar.
> Even though they have 1080i inputs. SO whats the real story?
> are these sets down converting from true 1080i to a lower resolution?
>
> It seems to me, even though many of these sets look great that
> many of us think we are watching true HD and we are maybe close but not
> quite.
>
> Even most of the sales people don't really know what they are selling.
>
> True HD is 1080i or 720p.
>
> ANyone to shed light on this would be welcome.
>
> ed

There are few fixed pixel display HD TVs out there which can display
1920x1080 pixels. All HD TVs scale/downscale the 1080i or
upscale/downscale the 720p signal to the native resolution of the set.
And before someone posts about their 1080i CRT, none of the CRT TVs can
display the full 1920x1080i resolution either. But don't get too hung up
on this. For a smaller set, say 50" or less, at a typical viewing
distance of 8 or 10 feet, you will be hard press to tell the difference
between a 1280x720 or 1920x1080 display because of the limits of the
angular resolution of the old Mark 1 eyeball. Heck, many are hard
pressed to see the difference between 42" 852x480 ED sets and 720p HD
sets at normal viewing distances. It is there, but not overwhelmingly
obvious.

But why HD at all? Because NTSC sets we have watched for 60 years are
really pretty low resolution at roughly 480 horizontal x 480i vertical.
It is the step up to either ED, 720p, or 1080i with better color range
which is big. Until you get into the range of really big screens over
50", the benefits of a true 1920x1080 display over a 1280x720 pixel
display will be modest.

Alan F
Related resources
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 10:36:08 AM

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

edmellnik wrote:
> I have been looking at the new Sony LCD 42 and 50 inch sets.
> I look at the specs and the resolution says 1378 by 768 or something
> similar.
> Even though they have 1080i inputs. SO whats the real story?
> are these sets down converting from true 1080i to a lower resolution?
>
> It seems to me, even though many of these sets look great that
> many of us think we are watching true HD and we are maybe close but not
> quite.

The Plasma, LCD, and DLP HD sets on the market today are native 720p
sets. They show 720p signals directly, while 1080i signals are
converted. This is "true" HD.

The CRT HD sets on the market today are native 1080i. They show 1080i
signals directly, while 720p signals are converted. This, too, is
"true" HD.

There may be a few exceptions, but this is the general rule at present.
Native 1080p sets are just starting to come to market this year.
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 11:32:23 AM

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

Jim Gilliland wrote:
> edmellnik wrote:
>
>> I have been looking at the new Sony LCD 42 and 50 inch sets.
>> I look at the specs and the resolution says 1378 by 768 or something
>> similar.
>> Even though they have 1080i inputs. SO whats the real story?
>> are these sets down converting from true 1080i to a lower resolution?
>>
>> It seems to me, even though many of these sets look great that
>> many of us think we are watching true HD and we are maybe close but not
>> quite.
>
>
> The Plasma, LCD, and DLP HD sets on the market today are native 720p
> sets. They show 720p signals directly, while 1080i signals are
> converted. This is "true" HD.

Actually, very few of the display you mention are 1280x720. If they
don't have a native resolution of 1280x720 then the scale the image to
fit the pixel geometry they have. Some of them are 1024x768 and, IMHO,
are not HD.

> The CRT HD sets on the market today are native 1080i. They show 1080i
> signals directly, while 720p signals are converted. This, too, is
> "true" HD.
>
> There may be a few exceptions, but this is the general rule at present.

This is the general rule for CRTs. The general rule for fixed pixel
displays is that the image is scale to something other than 1280x720.

Matthew

--
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
January 31, 2005 6:55:30 PM

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

It is typical of HDTV sets to convert everything to 720p or, in the case of
Sony, 768p. (Actually, 768 lines of 1368 dots displayed at an overscanned
788p.) Anything over 720p is HDTV. Programs that originated in 720p or
1080i will look great on a 768p Sony.

mack
austin


"edmellnik" <emellnik@emavideo.com> wrote in message
news:gtGdnRKoWcrIOWDcRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>I have been looking at the new Sony LCD 42 and 50 inch sets.
> I look at the specs and the resolution says 1378 by 768 or something
> similar.
> Even though they have 1080i inputs. SO whats the real story?
> are these sets down converting from true 1080i to a lower resolution?
>
> It seems to me, even though many of these sets look great that
> many of us think we are watching true HD and we are maybe close but not
> quite.
>
> Even most of the sales people don't really know what they are selling.
>
> True HD is 1080i or 720p.
>
> ANyone to shed light on this would be welcome.
>
> ed
>
>
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 6:58:27 PM

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

>Some of them are 1024x768 and, IMHO, are not HD.

Noted. But we can be comforted by the fact that the incredibly gorgeous
pictures look exactly like HDTV and that most everyone else calls them HDTV.

mack
austin

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:10vscr65dkp5n54@corp.supernews.com...
> Jim Gilliland wrote:
>> edmellnik wrote:
>>
>>> I have been looking at the new Sony LCD 42 and 50 inch sets.
>>> I look at the specs and the resolution says 1378 by 768 or something
>>> similar.
>>> Even though they have 1080i inputs. SO whats the real story?
>>> are these sets down converting from true 1080i to a lower resolution?
>>>
>>> It seems to me, even though many of these sets look great that
>>> many of us think we are watching true HD and we are maybe close but not
>>> quite.
>>
>>
>> The Plasma, LCD, and DLP HD sets on the market today are native 720p
>> sets. They show 720p signals directly, while 1080i signals are
>> converted. This is "true" HD.
>
> Actually, very few of the display you mention are 1280x720. If they don't
> have a native resolution of 1280x720 then the scale the image to fit the
> pixel geometry they have. Some of them are 1024x768 and, IMHO, are not HD.
>
>> The CRT HD sets on the market today are native 1080i. They show 1080i
>> signals directly, while 720p signals are converted. This, too, is "true"
>> HD.
>>
>> There may be a few exceptions, but this is the general rule at present.
>
> This is the general rule for CRTs. The general rule for fixed pixel
> displays is that the image is scale to something other than 1280x720.
>
> Matthew
>
> --
> 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
January 31, 2005 7:54:40 PM

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

768 x 1368 is HD for a square pixel and is 16x9 geometry. Some sets have
rectangular pixels and scale to as mentioned 1024 x 768 or something
similar. The screen still looks like 16x9 but it lacks the true HD that
other sets have. Typically they try to hide this info in the technical data
and normally say that it can display 1080i or 720p.

On the most part is may not matter since there are more factors that make up
a good picture then just resolution but if you are paying for a high end
plasma you want to get what you pay for.

"Mack McKinnon" <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote in
message news:SxsLd.83005$_56.50243@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> It is typical of HDTV sets to convert everything to 720p or, in the case
> of Sony, 768p. (Actually, 768 lines of 1368 dots displayed at an
> overscanned 788p.) Anything over 720p is HDTV. Programs that originated
> in 720p or 1080i will look great on a 768p Sony.
>
> mack
> austin
>
>
> "edmellnik" <emellnik@emavideo.com> wrote in message
> news:gtGdnRKoWcrIOWDcRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>>I have been looking at the new Sony LCD 42 and 50 inch sets.
>> I look at the specs and the resolution says 1378 by 768 or something
>> similar.
>> Even though they have 1080i inputs. SO whats the real story?
>> are these sets down converting from true 1080i to a lower resolution?
>>
>> It seems to me, even though many of these sets look great that
>> many of us think we are watching true HD and we are maybe close but not
>> quite.
>>
>> Even most of the sales people don't really know what they are selling.
>>
>> True HD is 1080i or 720p.
>>
>> ANyone to shed light on this would be welcome.
>>
>> ed
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 9:40:21 PM

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

The Sony "grand wega" series happen to use the same very good, well
conceived projection engine. So the 42" rear projection has the best image
either for the old NTSC or for the new HDTV signal. Agree with other lucky
owners, this set provided the best kick for the buck! Have to laugh though
on people new to HD. Instead of trusting their own eyes, they are busy to
find some technology they will never understand really except willing to
invest five years to learn electronics. Easier to listen to some blabla and
repeat the nonsense. I follow electronics quite a while, but to buy TV I
rather use my well proven "eyeball test" than any electronic engineering
knowledge. Never wanted to buy a rear projection TV but walked into a
magazine and picked up the set which had the very best image for a
competitive price. Never looked back!


"edmellnik" <emellnik@emavideo.com> wrote in message
news:gtGdnRKoWcrIOWDcRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>I have been looking at the new Sony LCD 42 and 50 inch sets.
> I look at the specs and the resolution says 1378 by 768 or something
> similar.
> Even though they have 1080i inputs. SO whats the real story?
> are these sets down converting from true 1080i to a lower resolution?
>
> It seems to me, even though many of these sets look great that
> many of us think we are watching true HD and we are maybe close but not
> quite.
>
> Even most of the sales people don't really know what they are selling.
>
> True HD is 1080i or 720p.
>
> ANyone to shed light on this would be welcome.
>
> ed
>
>
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 9:55:01 PM

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

Mack McKinnon wrote:

>
> Anything over 720p is HDTV.

Really, Do you think 300x720 is HDTV? By your definitions it is.

ATSC specifies 1280x720 as the minimum pixel geometry of HD. Anything
less than that can be HD by marketeers because they agreed with your
definitions.

Is 2x720 HD?

Matthew

--
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
February 1, 2005 6:34:19 AM

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

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:36:08 -0500, Jim Gilliland
<usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote:


>
>The Plasma, LCD, and DLP HD sets on the market today are native 720p
>sets. They show 720p signals directly, while 1080i signals are
>converted. This is "true" HD.
>
>The CRT HD sets on the market today are native 1080i. They show 1080i
>signals directly, while 720p signals are converted. This, too, is
>"true" HD.
>

Funny how the fast 720p signal is being used by the slow LCD sets, and
the slow 1080i signal is used by the fast CRT sets.
February 1, 2005 9:54:24 AM

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

Is it 1378x768 progressive o interlaced?. High Definition 720p is
1280x720 progressive native, some manufacters have sets that exceed
that resolution slightly, While the set is capable of displaying
1378x768 what you'll see is 1080i or 720p content scaled to the sets
native resolution. If the set is progressive scan then the set can be
called HDTV, if it's interlaced then it's more along the lines of EDTV
runs at approx 1/2 the resolution of HDTV.

While I agree with most of what Alan said, there is a noticable
difference in clarity and overalll picture quality on HD sets, even the
CRT RP ones which Alan and others claim can't do true 1080i. While
these sets may not be capable of the full 1080i, they come close enough
to get the HDTV stamp and there is noticable difference when the source
material is good enough. Overall though, I would not worry much about
resolution in the 42 to 50" range. You'll only going to squeeze so much
out of a set that size. The main thing to be concerned with is
1080i/720p inputs as long as the set takes one of these you'll be able
to view High Definition content for years to come (these resolutions
are standardized by the ATSC, no one I've talked to sees them as going
away or being replaced any time soon) Don't get too worried about if
you viewing it in "true" HD or not, instead focus on the overall
picture quality that you see. Sony applies a number of tecniques (some
are unique) that help them achieve pristine picture quality, so I'd bet
you'll be very happy with the set.

Lastly I think if you're going to go LCD, Sony is the best choice right
now. There LCD sets are excellent, my next set will probably be an Sony
LCD

-Jeremy
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 10:58:12 AM

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

daddy1 wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:36:08 -0500, Jim Gilliland
> <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote:
>
>>The Plasma, LCD, and DLP HD sets on the market today are native 720p
>>sets. They show 720p signals directly, while 1080i signals are
>>converted. This is "true" HD.
>>
>>The CRT HD sets on the market today are native 1080i. They show 1080i
>>signals directly, while 720p signals are converted. This, too, is
>>"true" HD.
>>
> Funny how the fast 720p signal is being used by the slow LCD sets, and
> the slow 1080i signal is used by the fast CRT sets.

Yes, but CRT makers have been using interlace for many decades - it's
just a customary part of the design. The newer technologies gain no
benefit from interlace, so they simply don't use it.
February 1, 2005 12:33:26 PM

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

You can call a ferret a mink, but that doesn't make it one.

"Mack McKinnon" <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote in
message news:D AsLd.83024$_56.50364@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> >Some of them are 1024x768 and, IMHO, are not HD.
>
> Noted. But we can be comforted by the fact that the incredibly gorgeous
> pictures look exactly like HDTV and that most everyone else calls them
> HDTV.
>
February 1, 2005 12:36:19 PM

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

Once again Martin You're trying to teach a pig how to sing. All you'll
accomplish is frustrating yourself and pissing off the pig. <g>


"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:10vthal8dmucf6c@corp.supernews.com...
> Mack McKinnon wrote:
>
>>
>> Anything over 720p is HDTV.
>
> Really, Do you think 300x720 is HDTV? By your definitions it is.
>
> ATSC specifies 1280x720 as the minimum pixel geometry of HD. Anything less
> than that can be HD by marketeers because they agreed with your
> definitions.
>
> Is 2x720 HD?
>
> Matthew
>
> --
> 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
February 1, 2005 1:11:25 PM

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> Mack McKinnon wrote:
> > 720p and 1080i have been designated "HD" by the powers-that-be in
the
> > industry. You know what they are talking about; you are just
arguing about
> > this to hear yourself arguing.
> >
>
> The answer this simple question: At what point between 1x720 and
> 1280x720 is a display considered to be HD according to the
"powers-that-be"?
>
> Matthew

I think that question is becoming more difficult to answer. I think
it's bad because it confuses customers, but it's good because there are
sets on the market now that are more capable than "EDTV" standards, but
aren't quite HD.
Comparing EDTV to HD, there is a signifigant enough difference (on
paper anyway) to set them apart in the specs. "EDTV" is 480p (704x480p
-or- 640x480p) or 337,920 pixels. Using the progressive scan HD format
(to compare apples to apples), HD is 720p (1280x720p) or 921,600
pixels. HD is almost 3x the resolution of EDTV, even if you're not
seeing that quality difference in the content being broadcast today, I
think it's fair to let customers know and sets advertised as HDTV sets
should be able to get pretty close to the mark on one of the ATSC
formats.


The ATSC is the standards group that has given us these resolutions.
Interesting enough the ATSC does not acknowledge "EDTV" by that label,
as part of their 18 formats they do have serveral resolutions below HD
that the industry has stamped "EDTV". According to the ATSC only 1080p,
1080i and 720p are High Definition. If a set has to scale down to
display that it is not HD. There's a bit of controversy over CRT RP TVs
being unable to display true 1080i. I've spoken with a few vendors via
e-mail who state this is not the case and that their product has to
meet display critera (not simply scale) to be branded 1080i native. If
the CRTs in a 22" CRT (DirectView) computer monitor can do 1280x1024
with ease, I don't see why a 30" CRT DirectView -or- a 51" CRT RP
couldn't do 1920x1080i. I understand there are some differences, but we
are talking about the same core technology (CRT guns)

If a set does 1378x768 (1058304 pixels) interlaced native then it's
around 1/2 the resolutuon of 1080i(1920x1080 (2073600 pixels)) when
scaled up 1080i it looks very good. Again, it all comes down to the
picture quality you eyes see not what's on paper. If the set can take
in a 1080i or 720p signal and make it look fantastic on screen that's
what counts the most.
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 3:19:12 PM

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

Mack McKinnon (MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> >Some of them are 1024x768 and, IMHO, are not HD.
>
> Noted. But we can be comforted by the fact that the incredibly gorgeous
> pictures look exactly like HDTV

The do *not* look like the HDTV on my set. Despite its geometry issues
(which can be mostly fixed by the service menu), the RCA F38310 has really
good resolution compared to anything else on the market. Measured resolution
on my set is 800x900 TV lines, which would equate (roughly) to a 1400x900
fixed-pixel display. With the deep and accurate blacks that a CRT provides,
this makes the set one of the best. The Sony XBR 9xx series are about the
only thing better, but they are quite a bit smaller for my taste.

> and that most everyone else calls them HDTV.

Many people call digital cable "HDTV", too, but that doesn't make it so.

--
Jeff Rife | "You fell victim to one of the classic blunders,
| the most famous of which is 'Never get involved
| in a land war in Asia', but only slightly less
| famous is this: 'Never go in against a Sicilian,
| when death is on the line!'"
| -- Vizzini, The Princess Bride
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 5:45:05 PM

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

720p and 1080i have been designated "HD" by the powers-that-be in the
industry. You know what they are talking about; you are just arguing about
this to hear yourself arguing.

mack
austin


"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:10vthal8dmucf6c@corp.supernews.com...
> Mack McKinnon wrote:
>
>>
>> Anything over 720p is HDTV.
>
> Really, Do you think 300x720 is HDTV? By your definitions it is.
>
> ATSC specifies 1280x720 as the minimum pixel geometry of HD. Anything less
> than that can be HD by marketeers because they agreed with your
> definitions.
>
> Is 2x720 HD?
>
> Matthew
>
> --
> 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
February 1, 2005 5:45:06 PM

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

Mack McKinnon wrote:
> 720p and 1080i have been designated "HD" by the powers-that-be in the
> industry. You know what they are talking about; you are just arguing about
> this to hear yourself arguing.
>

The answer this simple question: At what point between 1x720 and
1280x720 is a display considered to be HD according to the "powers-that-be"?

Matthew
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 6:51:26 PM

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

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:10vv6f8cccefv49@corp.supernews.com...
> Mack McKinnon wrote:
>> 720p and 1080i have been designated "HD" by the powers-that-be in the
>> industry. You know what they are talking about; you are just arguing
>> about this to hear yourself arguing.
>>
>
> The answer this simple question: At what point between 1x720 and 1280x720
> is a display considered to be HD according to the "powers-that-be"?

I suggest you forward that question to someone in the industry who sets
these standards and report back on what you find out. Seriously, it would
be interesting to know what answer you get.

mack
austin
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 9:37:46 PM

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

jeremy@pdq.net wrote:

> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>>Mack McKinnon wrote:
>>
>>>720p and 1080i have been designated "HD" by the powers-that-be in
>
> the
>
>>>industry. You know what they are talking about; you are just
>
> arguing about
>
>>>this to hear yourself arguing.
>>>
>>
>>The answer this simple question: At what point between 1x720 and
>>1280x720 is a display considered to be HD according to the
>
> "powers-that-be"?
>
>>Matthew
>
>
> I think that question is becoming more difficult to answer. I think
> it's bad because it confuses customers, but it's good because there are
> sets on the market now that are more capable than "EDTV" standards, but
> aren't quite HD.
> Comparing EDTV to HD, there is a signifigant enough difference (on
> paper anyway) to set them apart in the specs. "EDTV" is 480p (704x480p
> -or- 640x480p) or 337,920 pixels. Using the progressive scan HD format
> (to compare apples to apples), HD is 720p (1280x720p) or 921,600
> pixels. HD is almost 3x the resolution of EDTV, even if you're not
> seeing that quality difference in the content being broadcast today, I
> think it's fair to let customers know and sets advertised as HDTV sets
> should be able to get pretty close to the mark on one of the ATSC
> formats.
>
>
> The ATSC is the standards group that has given us these resolutions.
> Interesting enough the ATSC does not acknowledge "EDTV" by that label,
> as part of their 18 formats they do have serveral resolutions below HD
> that the industry has stamped "EDTV". According to the ATSC only 1080p,
> 1080i and 720p are High Definition. If a set has to scale down to
> display that it is not HD. There's a bit of controversy over CRT RP TVs
> being unable to display true 1080i. I've spoken with a few vendors via
> e-mail who state this is not the case and that their product has to
> meet display critera (not simply scale) to be branded 1080i native. If
> the CRTs in a 22" CRT (DirectView) computer monitor can do 1280x1024
> with ease, I don't see why a 30" CRT DirectView -or- a 51" CRT RP
> couldn't do 1920x1080i. I understand there are some differences, but we
> are talking about the same core technology (CRT guns)
>
> If a set does 1378x768 (1058304 pixels) interlaced native then it's
> around 1/2 the resolutuon of 1080i(1920x1080 (2073600 pixels)) when
> scaled up 1080i it looks very good. Again, it all comes down to the
> picture quality you eyes see not what's on paper. If the set can take
> in a 1080i or 720p signal and make it look fantastic on screen that's
> what counts the most.
>
I would love to set anyone who says they know what is better, 720P, 480P
and 1080i, 10 feet in front of three Plasma 42" screens. A 42'
represents at least 95% of all screens in homes today.

All the best Sony's. One plasma would be native 480P ED with a real 480P
source, one 720P, one 1080i and then ask the viewer to pick out the
1080i. Most people pick the 42" native ED plasma as best. At 10 feet you
can squint all you want but picking the true 1080i will be very difficult.

So for at least 95% of the public ED for anything equal to or less than
42" is as good as it gets. And ED can be delivered without all that
macroblocking that 1080i incurs trying to squeeze 1080i into a 6 MHz
channel with MPEG2.

Far better to deliver multiple ED programs without macroblocking with
MPEG4.

And I love HD. But HD today and for a lot of the future is an elitist
hobby that waste a lot of OTA bandwidth for 95% of the public.

It would be better and I think broadcasters realize that letting cable
and satellite handle real HD while they deliver ED will be a better use
of OTA spectrum.

Once the battle over must carry of multicasting is over we will know
better what broadcasters intend to really do with their spectrum.


HINT HINT HINT!!!! The battle over multicasting is all about
multicasting. YOU CAN'T MULTICAST HD 1080i with MPEG2 on a 6 MHz channel.

Another HINT HINT. In my talks with broadcasters and listening to
Congressional hearing over the last 5 years the ONLY ONLY thing
broadcasters want to talk about is MUST CARRY of MULTICASTING.

I wonder what the future intentions of broadcasters might be. Any ideas?

Bob Miller
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 1:26:15 AM

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

"Jim Gilliland" <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote in message
news:41fe2651$0

> The Plasma, LCD, and DLP HD sets on the market today are native 720p sets.
> They show 720p signals directly, while 1080i signals are converted. This
> is "true" HD.

There are a lot of plasma panels that are NOT HD... I would suspect that
they represent the majority of PDP's sold to date given the high percentage
of 42 inch "ED" sets out there
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 10:17:36 AM

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

Randy Sweeney wrote:
> "Jim Gilliland" <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote in message
> news:41fe2651$0
>
>>The Plasma, LCD, and DLP HD sets on the market today are native 720p sets.
>>They show 720p signals directly, while 1080i signals are converted. This
>>is "true" HD.
>
> There are a lot of plasma panels that are NOT HD... I would suspect that
> they represent the majority of PDP's sold to date given the high percentage
> of 42 inch "ED" sets out there

Yes, that's correct - I certainly hadn't meant to include any of the
many ED plasmas in that statement. And someone else pointed out that
the native resolution of even some of the HD plasmas and LCDs aren't
actually 1280x720, which may also be true - I'm not that familiar with
all of the plasmas. The DLP HD sets on the market are all based on the
TI HD chips, so they at least are consistent at 720p.
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 10:20:03 AM

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

Mack McKinnon wrote:
> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:10vv6f8cccefv49@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Mack McKinnon wrote:
>>
>>>720p and 1080i have been designated "HD" by the powers-that-be in the
>>>industry. You know what they are talking about; you are just arguing
>>>about this to hear yourself arguing.
>>>
>>
>>The answer this simple question: At what point between 1x720 and 1280x720
>>is a display considered to be HD according to the "powers-that-be"?
>
>
> I suggest you forward that question to someone in the industry who sets
> these standards and report back on what you find out. Seriously, it would
> be interesting to know what answer you get.
>

The point is that the CEA has used the definition you parroted. As far
as they are concerned 1x720 is HD.

Matthew
!