Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Has anyone heard anything about 1080p broadcasting?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
May 20, 2005 1:41:31 PM

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

Anything?
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 3:51:43 PM

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

most of HDTV broadcast is 1080i or 720P, one of the major problem for
1080P broadcast is the band width needed for these channels on sat. and
cable both, i don't see 1080P broadcast in next 5-7 years, HD-DVd or
Bluray DVD will play 1080P next year maybe.

it is not worth paying extra money for 1080P sets right now, in the
future it will lot cheaper and justification as broadcast is
available, for me 720P is so much better, i don't know 1080P will do
much of difference, only new programs filmed by HD cameras look good
with 720P or 1080i, anything upconverted don't look good anyway.
May 20, 2005 9:45:19 PM

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

"Test" <mailtest@elcochevy.com> wrote in message
news:mailtest-95D4D1.09413120052005@news.charter.net...
> Anything?

There will be no 1080p60 broadcasts in with current standards for broadcast.
1080p24 is possible some time down the road; but most HDTV sets will display
it as 720p60 or 1080i60 anywho.

Richard.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 3:25:56 AM

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

In article <Pmpje.7843$zd5.6565@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> writes:
>
> "Test" <mailtest@elcochevy.com> wrote in message
> news:mailtest-95D4D1.09413120052005@news.charter.net...
>> Anything?
>
> There will be no 1080p60 broadcasts in with current standards for broadcast.
> 1080p24 is possible some time down the road; but most HDTV sets will display
> it as 720p60 or 1080i60 anywho.
>
Because of MPEG2 compression that removes many of the redundancies,
after you convert the upconverted 24p film to 60Hz interlaced, then
encode the 60Hz interlaced video into MPEG2, then the redundancies
from the repeated fields are fairly efficiently encoded. Therefore,
the 60Hz interlaced 1080i does fairly closely reproduce the same
image as the 24p original. (Well, not quite, but it is a fairly
honest approximation.)

Much of the evil of 1080i30 (or i60, depending upon your method
of describing 1080line 60Hz interlaced) MPEG2 being squeezed into
the ATSC channel is due to the MPEG2 compression artifacts. These
artifacts occur when too many of the DCT coefficients are removed
or their precision is truncated.

When encoding the 24fps film into 60Hz interlaced video, there is
HUGE amount of redundancy that wouldn't normally occur from a fully
video originated signal (e.g. like an American football game that is
recorded in true 1080i.) The film has LOTS of repeated frames, and
MPEG2 encoding can take good advantage of those redundancies.

So, from an MPEG2 ARTIFACT standpoint, the 24fps film material can
look significantly less MPEG artifact prone than the true 60Hz video.

My guess as to the largest disadvantage of the 24fps film material
that is upconverted to 1080i 60Hz vs. the true 1080p24 is that there
will be SOME loss of vertical resolution that is natural when filtering*
interline twitter (an especially obnoxious artifact that mixes
temporal/spatial aliasing with the perception of flicker.)
*When filtering the interline twitter, a crude (perhaps 5 line)
vertical filter will cause some loss of vertical resolution. This
loss of resolution might be partially mitigated when rebuilding the
24fps frames from the 60Hz interlaced signal, but won't be perfect.
A DYNAMIC and INTELLIGENT interline filter (that doesn't remove detail
unless twitter is found to exist) can help to avoid the loss of
perceptable detail.

**The vertical filter can also be a component of normal MPEG2 artifacts
mitigation also... By doing some horizontal/vertical/diagonal filtering,
some of the information that MPEG2 encoding finds to be troublesome can
be removed. In essence, the vertical filter can be used to mitigate
interlace twitter (which exists only on interlaced material), but also
can be used to mitigate MPEG artifacts.

When 'filtering' is directly done by MPEG2 encoding, that filtering is
mostly done by truncating some DCT coefficients for various reasons. Such
a 'truncation' (either by removing precision or effectively total removal of
certain coefficients) is a NONLINEAR filtering process. This NONLINEAR
filtering can easily produce artificial detail that is outside of the nyquist
sampling limit. This can produce MORE aliasing-like artifacts (than normal
frequency domain filtering) by removal of detail, and can be very very ugly.
*This dct truncation-caused aliasing is one of the causes of the stairstep
or 'aliasing' like artifacts that were fairly common on early DV
camcorders.

So, by very careful filtering in the frequency domain (I mean, normal
linear filters) in the horizontal, vertical and various diagonal directions,
various excess DCT coefficients can be mitigated and the alias-prone
filtering based upon DCT coefficient truncation can be lessened. So
effective PREFILTERING of the video can help the MPEG2 (or DV) encoder
to do a better -- VISUALLY more ACCURATE -- job.

Back closer to the main subject -- it is likely to be advantageous
to do significant DYNAMIC vertical (and horizontal) filtering even
when the video isn't interlaced. It is true that interlace
might force the use of larger amounts of vertical filtering than otherwise
desired, but MPEG2 encoding does encourage the use of filters that might
seem to be superfluous.

Given the significant redundancy in the 24fps originated 1080/60Hz video,
there might be the need for less vertical filtering for the purpose
of optimizing MPEG2 encoding, but the interlace might push the use for
more vertical filtering anyway. True 60Hz interlaced video can be very
difficult due to the potential of much less redundancy (no built in guarantaeed
redundancy that film would provide) and also the interlace issues (both!!!)

John
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 5:16:40 AM

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

Test <mailtest@elcochevy.com> wrote in news:mailtest-
95D4D1.09413120052005@news.charter.net:

> Anything?

This was written last week by Bill Husted of
Cox News Service


When you see an HDTV set advertised that uses the interlaced technique -
that's most of them - it might be touted as 1080i. That means the screen
is painted with 1,080 lines, and the interlaced method is used.

By now you may have figured out that the new technology for HDTV - the
one that will offer better pictures - is progressive scan. A set like
that would be advertised as 1080p.

Here's the kicker: For now, there isn't a huge benefit in owning a 1080p
set. Broadcasters, satellite companies and cable companies broadcast a
picture that is interlaced. You won't see much difference in picture
quality between a 1080i and a 1080p set right now.

But down the line, all those signals will come in as 1080p. And DVDs in
HDTV format - probably just a year down the road - will use progressive
scan. When that happens, 1080p will really shine.

This means two things. One is that the 1080i set you buy today will not
be state-of-the-art anymore.

The other is that the new technology will accelerate a drop in prices
for the 1080i sets, which will still be excellent choices for many of us
with income impairment.

Besides, as the number of sets sold rises, economies of scale will bring
down prices down for all sets. You're already seeing that happen. But we
haven't reached the steep downhill slope yet.
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 5:17:50 PM

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

Gamers might be interested to know that the new PlayStation (PS3) will
support - and have as standard - the 1080p format:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050516/sfm178.html?.v=2 One incentive to get a
decent TV!

dOinK

"RobH" <Rob@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Xns965CCE52DC48CRob@24.93.43.121...
> Test <mailtest@elcochevy.com> wrote in news:mailtest-
> 95D4D1.09413120052005@news.charter.net:
>
>> Anything?
>
> This was written last week by Bill Husted of
> Cox News Service
>
>
> When you see an HDTV set advertised that uses the interlaced technique -
> that's most of them - it might be touted as 1080i. That means the screen
> is painted with 1,080 lines, and the interlaced method is used.
>
> By now you may have figured out that the new technology for HDTV - the
> one that will offer better pictures - is progressive scan. A set like
> that would be advertised as 1080p.
>
> Here's the kicker: For now, there isn't a huge benefit in owning a 1080p
> set. Broadcasters, satellite companies and cable companies broadcast a
> picture that is interlaced. You won't see much difference in picture
> quality between a 1080i and a 1080p set right now.
>
> But down the line, all those signals will come in as 1080p. And DVDs in
> HDTV format - probably just a year down the road - will use progressive
> scan. When that happens, 1080p will really shine.
>
> This means two things. One is that the 1080i set you buy today will not
> be state-of-the-art anymore.
>
> The other is that the new technology will accelerate a drop in prices
> for the 1080i sets, which will still be excellent choices for many of us
> with income impairment.
>
> Besides, as the number of sets sold rises, economies of scale will bring
> down prices down for all sets. You're already seeing that happen. But we
> haven't reached the steep downhill slope yet.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 11:24:22 AM

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

iserum@gmail.com wrote:
> most of HDTV broadcast is 1080i or 720P, one of the major problem for
> 1080P broadcast is the band width needed for these channels on sat. and
> cable both, i don't see 1080P broadcast in next 5-7 years, HD-DVd or
> Bluray DVD will play 1080P next year maybe.

HD-DVD/Blu-Ray (whichever) will mostly source movies; content developed
for theaters. That content is all 24p right now (actually, it's _film_
displayed at 24 frames per second), so any 1080p will be 1080p24, not
1080p60.

What 1080p60 material exists?
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 7:33:59 PM

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

"dOinK" <doinkx@on-my-tan-line.no> wrote in message
news:D 6n5d1$3ob$1@bat-news01.osl.basefarm.net...
> Gamers might be interested to know that the new PlayStation (PS3) will
> support - and have as standard - the 1080p format:
> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050516/sfm178.html?.v=2 One incentive to get a
> decent TV!
>
> dOinK

Yeah...but I wonder how many games will actually be able to deliver 60fps at
1080p? I think having a display capable of 720p would be safe enough, and
probably more practical for 60fps in a complex game world.

I saw the PS3 conference at E3 and one of the developers were showing off
their demo at 720p...so I think a 720p display would be most practical (and
affordable) for gamers, even though it supports 1080p. On the other hand
1080p can offer better desktop resolution support for connected computers.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 1:40:46 AM

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

"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0N-dnTPl7MwoQw3fRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
> "dOinK" <doinkx@on-my-tan-line.no> wrote in message
> news:D 6n5d1$3ob$1@bat-news01.osl.basefarm.net...
>> Gamers might be interested to know that the new PlayStation (PS3) will
>> support - and have as standard - the 1080p format:
>> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050516/sfm178.html?.v=2 One incentive to get
>> a decent TV!
>>
>> dOinK
>
> Yeah...but I wonder how many games will actually be able to deliver 60fps
> at 1080p? I think having a display capable of 720p would be safe enough,
> and probably more practical for 60fps in a complex game world.
>
> I saw the PS3 conference at E3 and one of the developers were showing off
> their demo at 720p...so I think a 720p display would be most practical
> (and affordable) for gamers, even though it supports 1080p. On the other
> hand 1080p can offer better desktop resolution support for connected
> computers.
>
I agree, as long as we're talking about today (even affordable 1080i sets
are hard to find now). But I think (hope) the situation will be different a
year from now, given the current rate of developments in the business.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 6:51:01 AM

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

On Sun, 22 May 2005 21:40:46 +0200, "dOinK" <doinkx@on-my-tan-line.no>
wrote:

>
>"Son of man" <sonofman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:0N-dnTPl7MwoQw3fRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
>> "dOinK" <doinkx@on-my-tan-line.no> wrote in message
>> news:D 6n5d1$3ob$1@bat-news01.osl.basefarm.net...
>>> Gamers might be interested to know that the new PlayStation (PS3) will
>>> support - and have as standard - the 1080p format:
>>> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050516/sfm178.html?.v=2 One incentive to get
>>> a decent TV!
>>>
>>> dOinK
>>
>> Yeah...but I wonder how many games will actually be able to deliver 60fps
>> at 1080p? I think having a display capable of 720p would be safe enough,
>> and probably more practical for 60fps in a complex game world.
>>
>> I saw the PS3 conference at E3 and one of the developers were showing off
>> their demo at 720p...so I think a 720p display would be most practical
>> (and affordable) for gamers, even though it supports 1080p. On the other
>> hand 1080p can offer better desktop resolution support for connected
>> computers.
>>
>I agree, as long as we're talking about today (even affordable 1080i sets
>are hard to find now). But I think (hope) the situation will be different a
>year from now, given the current rate of developments in the business.
>

Let's hear it for the humble Panasonic ED plasma's.

They just look good. We all know they're really bad little boys.
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 9:45:32 AM

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

On Sat, 21 May 2005 01:16:40 +0000, RobH wrote:

> Test <mailtest@elcochevy.com> wrote in news:mailtest-
> 95D4D1.09413120052005@news.charter.net:
>
>> Anything?
>

1080p is not a Broadcast Standard.
ATSC does not have enough bandwidth to support 1080p so Live 1080p is not
possible.

1080p will probably be a Video Game and perhaps a HD-DVD standard, if we
ever settle on a HD-DVD Standard and get them into production..



--
Korbin Dallas
The name was changed to protect the guilty.
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 9:45:33 AM

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

Korbin Dallas (korbindallas@dodgeit.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> 1080p is not a Broadcast Standard.

Yes, it is.

> ATSC does not have enough bandwidth to support 1080p so Live 1080p is not
> possible.

1080/24p and 1080/30p are both legal ATSC modes, and both take up less
space than the 1080/60i that CBS and NBC broadcast.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/AngryTVGod.gif
!