Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

1920x1080 Mode

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 6:04:08 AM

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

The ATSC Digital Television Standard specifies that 1920x1080
is a valid resolution, however, I don't think my Toshiba 65H80
will do this high of a resolution, and I've never heard of it
being transmitted.

Does anyone know of TVs that will display this resolution, and/or
of any sources (cable, satellite, etc.) that transmit it?
--
% Randy Yates % "My Shangri-la has gone away, fading like
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % the Beatles on 'Hey Jude'"
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % 'Shangri-La', *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

More about : 1920x1080 mode

Anonymous
July 29, 2005 6:04:09 AM

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

Randy Yates (yates@ieee.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> The ATSC Digital Television Standard specifies that 1920x1080
> is a valid resolution, however, I don't think my Toshiba 65H80
> will do this high of a resolution, and I've never heard of it
> being transmitted.

CBS, NBC, WB, many PBS stations, HDNet, HDNet Movies, INHD, HBO-HD,
Showtime-HD, and many more all use 1920x1080/60i.

> Does anyone know of TVs that will display this resolution, and/or
> of any sources (cable, satellite, etc.) that transmit it?

Well, every "HD-ready" set will *accept* that resolution, but there are
very few (like 3-4 models) that can show it at full resolution. Good
CRTs can handle 1440x1080, though.

--
Jeff Rife | "My God, what if the secret ingredient is people?"
| "No, there's already a soda like that: Soylent Cola."
| "Oh. How is it?"
| "It varies from person to person."
| -- Fry and Leela, "Futurama"
July 29, 2005 12:40:13 PM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:
> Randy Yates (yates@ieee.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>The ATSC Digital Television Standard specifies that 1920x1080
>>is a valid resolution, however, I don't think my Toshiba 65H80
>>will do this high of a resolution, and I've never heard of it
>>being transmitted.
>
>
> CBS, NBC, WB, many PBS stations, HDNet, HDNet Movies, INHD, HBO-HD,
> Showtime-HD, and many more all use 1920x1080/60i.
>
>
>>Does anyone know of TVs that will display this resolution, and/or
>>of any sources (cable, satellite, etc.) that transmit it?
>
>
> Well, every "HD-ready" set will *accept* that resolution, but there are
> very few (like 3-4 models) that can show it at full resolution. Good
> CRTs can handle 1440x1080, though.
>

Sharp 45" (LC-45GX6U or LC-45GD46 ?), Samsung 46" (LT-P468W),
Westinghouse 37" (LVM37W1). I purchased the Westinghouse -- very nice.
About $1800 after price match and rebate at Great Indoors.

Just because the networks are broadcasting in 1920x1080 does not mean
the original show was shot at that resolution, recorded in that
resolution, and not compressed during transmission somewhere along the way.

In my case, I wanted the resolution because I am hoping to attach a PC
to it.

Roger
Related resources
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 6:14:48 AM

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

Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> writes:

> Randy Yates (yates@ieee.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> The ATSC Digital Television Standard specifies that 1920x1080
>> is a valid resolution, however, I don't think my Toshiba 65H80
>> will do this high of a resolution, and I've never heard of it
>> being transmitted.
>
> CBS, NBC, WB, many PBS stations, HDNet, HDNet Movies, INHD, HBO-HD,
> Showtime-HD, and many more all use 1920x1080/60i.

I don't mean to be ungrateful for your response, but I wonder why
these sources, especially, HBO and Showtime, which are usually
transmitted over cable systems, would expend the bandwidth (and
therefore $$$) to transmit such high resolutions when the vast
majority of customers are unable to utilize that bandwidth.

>> Does anyone know of TVs that will display this resolution, and/or
>> of any sources (cable, satellite, etc.) that transmit it?
>
> Well, every "HD-ready" set will *accept* that resolution, but there
> are very few (like 3-4 models) that can show it at full resolution.

How is the input resolution translated to the displayed resolution?
--
% Randy Yates % "With time with what you've learned,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % they'll kiss the ground you walk
%%% 919-577-9882 % upon."
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 6:14:49 AM

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

Randy Yates (yates@ieee.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > CBS, NBC, WB, many PBS stations, HDNet, HDNet Movies, INHD, HBO-HD,
> > Showtime-HD, and many more all use 1920x1080/60i.
>
> I don't mean to be ungrateful for your response, but I wonder why
> these sources, especially, HBO and Showtime, which are usually
> transmitted over cable systems, would expend the bandwidth (and
> therefore $$$) to transmit such high resolutions when the vast
> majority of customers are unable to utilize that bandwidth.

There is no difference in bandwidth required for 1920x1080/60i vs.
1280x720/60p (which Fox, ABC, and ESPN-HD all use), at least as far as
cable systems are concerned: both take 3MHz. Cable systems would love for
*every* channel to go to this if they could drop the 640x480/60i analog
versions of the channel, since *those* take 6MHz.

> > Well, every "HD-ready" set will *accept* that resolution, but there
> > are very few (like 3-4 models) that can show it at full resolution.
>
> How is the input resolution translated to the displayed resolution?

It depends on the display. An 853x480 plasma will convert everything to
that resolution. My CRT displays 720p and 1080i as 1080i, while 480i and
480p are displayed as 480p. Since the CRT is analog, there are no pixels...
the dot pitch of the phosphor/mask is the limiting resolution.

--
Jeff Rife | "The only petitions that I sign are to bring back
| canceled sitcoms, thank you. America needs the
| wisdom of 'Herman's Head' now more than ever."
| -- Comic Book Guy, "The Simpsons"
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 12:39:15 PM

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

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 02:04:08 +0000, Randy Yates wrote:

> The ATSC Digital Television Standard specifies that 1920x1080
> is a valid resolution, however, I don't think my Toshiba 65H80
> will do this high of a resolution, and I've never heard of it
> being transmitted.
>
> Does anyone know of TVs that will display this resolution, and/or
> of any sources (cable, satellite, etc.) that transmit it?

The DLP and LCD rear projection sets all handle 1920x1080i. The next step
is 1080p (progressive). The new Samsungs (don't know if they are shipping
yet) can do 1080p.
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 10:40:05 PM

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

"Randy Yates" <yates@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:p st2qsfb.fsf@ieee.org...
> The ATSC Digital Television Standard specifies that 1920x1080
> is a valid resolution, however, I don't think my Toshiba 65H80
> will do this high of a resolution, and I've never heard of it
> being transmitted.
>
> Does anyone know of TVs that will display this resolution, and/or
> of any sources (cable, satellite, etc.) that transmit it?

Your Toshiba will accept 1080i.... it can display all 1080 lines vertically
and about 1600 across horizontally according to reviews - which is really
quite good.

of the major OTA networks, NBC and CBS broadcast 1080, only ABC uses 720
ALL cable networks/pay channels use 1080 as far as I know.
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 12:20:41 AM

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

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 02:14:48 GMT Randy Yates <yates@ieee.org> wrote:
| Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> writes:
|
|> Randy Yates (yates@ieee.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
|>> The ATSC Digital Television Standard specifies that 1920x1080
|>> is a valid resolution, however, I don't think my Toshiba 65H80
|>> will do this high of a resolution, and I've never heard of it
|>> being transmitted.
|>
|> CBS, NBC, WB, many PBS stations, HDNet, HDNet Movies, INHD, HBO-HD,
|> Showtime-HD, and many more all use 1920x1080/60i.
|
| I don't mean to be ungrateful for your response, but I wonder why
| these sources, especially, HBO and Showtime, which are usually
| transmitted over cable systems, would expend the bandwidth (and
| therefore $$$) to transmit such high resolutions when the vast
| majority of customers are unable to utilize that bandwidth.

You think they should wait for all the customers to first buy receivers
that they won't be able to get anything out of?

Do you also wonder whether the chicken came first or the egg?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 6:22:24 AM

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

"Randy Sweeney" <DockScience@yahoo.com> writes:

> "Randy Yates" <yates@ieee.org> wrote in message
> news:p st2qsfb.fsf@ieee.org...
>> The ATSC Digital Television Standard specifies that 1920x1080
>> is a valid resolution, however, I don't think my Toshiba 65H80
>> will do this high of a resolution, and I've never heard of it
>> being transmitted.
>>
>> Does anyone know of TVs that will display this resolution, and/or
>> of any sources (cable, satellite, etc.) that transmit it?
>
> Your Toshiba will accept 1080i.... it can display all 1080 lines vertically
> and about 1600 across horizontally according to reviews - which is really
> quite good.
>
> of the major OTA networks, NBC and CBS broadcast 1080, only ABC uses 720
> ALL cable networks/pay channels use 1080 as far as I know.

When you say "cable networks/pay channels," do you mean the "HD"
versions of those channels (e.g., Showtime-HD)?
--
% Randy Yates % "She's sweet on Wagner-I think she'd die for Beethoven.
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % She love the way Puccini lays down a tune, and
%%% 919-577-9882 % Verdi's always creepin' from her room."
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % "Rockaria", *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 6:50:45 AM

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

Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> writes:

> There is no difference in bandwidth required for 1920x1080/60i vs.
> 1280x720/60p (which Fox, ABC, and ESPN-HD all use), at least as far as
> cable systems are concerned: both take 3MHz.

I'm not sure I understand your syntax. Does the "c" in "a x b/c (i/p)"
mean the frame rate or the field rate? If it means the frame rate,
then according to table A3 of the August 2001 ATSC specification,
there is no 1920x1080/60i mode, only 1920x10280/29.97i and
1920x10280/30i.

And I would sure think there is a difference in encoded bitrate between
1920x1080/30i (or 1920x1080/30p for that matter) and 1280x720/30p. And,
of course, bitrate translates to bandwidth.
--
% Randy Yates % "Though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % you still wander the fields of your
%%% 919-577-9882 % sorrow."
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 6:52:31 AM

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

Randy Yates <yates@ieee.org> writes:
> [...]
> only 1920x10280/29.97i and 1920x10280/30i.

Sorry about the typo - should read

only 1920x1080/29.97i and 1920x1080/30i.
--
% Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side
%%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall."
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 4:33:54 PM

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

Randy Yates (yates@ieee.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I'm not sure I understand your syntax. Does the "c" in "a x b/c (i/p)"
> mean the frame rate or the field rate?

It's the refresh rate.

> And I would sure think there is a difference in encoded bitrate between
> 1920x1080/30i (or 1920x1080/30p for that matter) and 1280x720/30p.

No, there is no difference, because you can use any amount of the 19.3Mbps
you want no matter what the mode. Thus, a cable company has to assume
that at some point the OTA signal they are passing through *will* use all
of it.

--
Jeff Rife | "I'm reading a great John Grisham novel...it's
| about a young Southern lawyer who fights an
| evil corporate giant."
| -- Dick Solomon, "3rd Rock from the Sun"
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 4:35:14 PM

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

Randy Sweeney (DockScience@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> of the major OTA networks, NBC and CBS broadcast 1080, only ABC uses 720
> ALL cable networks/pay channels use 1080 as far as I know.

ESPN-HD is 720p. I don't know about other sports channels like regional
sports networks because I don't get any in HD.

--
Jeff Rife | "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going
| to take pan & scan anymore."
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 5:34:17 PM

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

"Randy Yates" <yates@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:ek9flnof.fsf@ieee.org...

>> of the major OTA networks, NBC and CBS broadcast 1080, only ABC uses 720
>> ALL cable networks/pay channels use 1080 as far as I know.
>
> When you say "cable networks/pay channels," do you mean the "HD"
> versions of those channels (e.g., Showtime-HD)?

Yes
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 5:35:35 PM

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

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d56c7cafc6048d5989ebb@news.nabs.net...
> Randy Sweeney (DockScience@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> of the major OTA networks, NBC and CBS broadcast 1080, only ABC uses 720
>> ALL cable networks/pay channels use 1080 as far as I know.
>
> ESPN-HD is 720p. I don't know about other sports channels like regional
> sports networks because I don't get any in HD.

I don't count ESPN-HD as HD

when I was thinking of the HD channels on cable, I honestly didn't even
consider ESPN

must be a mental problem
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 9:47:50 PM

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

Randy Sweeney (DockScience@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > ESPN-HD is 720p. I don't know about other sports channels like regional
> > sports networks because I don't get any in HD.
>
> I don't count ESPN-HD as HD

That's as may be, but it still is, and has about the same amount of HD
material as channels like HBO-HD.

--
Jeff Rife | "What kind of universe is this where a man can't
| love his fake wife's mother's best friend?"
|
| -- Ned Dorsey, "Ned and Stacey"
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 6:04:57 AM

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

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 13:35:35 -0400 Randy Sweeney <DockScience@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
| "Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
| news:MPG.1d56c7cafc6048d5989ebb@news.nabs.net...
|> Randy Sweeney (DockScience@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
|>> of the major OTA networks, NBC and CBS broadcast 1080, only ABC uses 720
|>> ALL cable networks/pay channels use 1080 as far as I know.
|>
|> ESPN-HD is 720p. I don't know about other sports channels like regional
|> sports networks because I don't get any in HD.
|
| I don't count ESPN-HD as HD
|
| when I was thinking of the HD channels on cable, I honestly didn't even
| consider ESPN
|
| must be a mental problem

This is allowed here (or even just emulating it). This _is_ Usenet :-)

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 6:09:41 AM

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

Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> writes:

> Randy Yates (yates@ieee.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> I'm not sure I understand your syntax. Does the "c" in "a x b/c (i/p)"
>> mean the frame rate or the field rate?
>
> It's the refresh rate.

Can you define that term for me? I don't think the specification uses
that language, and I'm not sure what you mean. I would have said that
frame rate and refresh rate are synonymous, but you seem to be making
a distinction.

> No, there is no difference, because you can use any amount of the 19.3Mbps
> you want no matter what the mode. Thus, a cable company has to assume
> that at some point the OTA signal they are passing through *will* use all
> of it.

In another post you mentioned that the channel is 3 MHz wide. Is this
for the 19.3 Mbps signal? In other words, if there is no extra
bandwidth required, e.g., if they are somehow "padding" the transport
with other bits (FEC?), then I guess I see your point. I don't know
enough about the protocol to understand the situation fully.

Thanks for your responses and information, Jeff.
--
% Randy Yates % "How's life on earth?
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % ... What is it worth?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Mission (A World Record)',
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 6:09:42 AM

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

Randy Yates (yates@ieee.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> >> I'm not sure I understand your syntax. Does the "c" in "a x b/c (i/p)"
> >> mean the frame rate or the field rate?
> >
> > It's the refresh rate.
>
> Can you define that term for me?

Google is your friend.

The history is that computer monitors/video cards used "refresh rate" to
describe what they did. It's how often the picture can change.

> In another post you mentioned that the channel is 3 MHz wide. Is this
> for the 19.3 Mbps signal?

That's the standard bandwidth for a 256QAM-encoded digital cable HDTV
channel. Since 19.3Mbps is the most that ATSC requires support for, cable
companies pretty much don't need to allow more, even if some cable channel
might send them higher...the cable company can re-encode it to fit the
space.

> In other words, if there is no extra
> bandwidth required, e.g., if they are somehow "padding" the transport
> with other bits (FEC?), then I guess I see your point.

The full bandwidth of an OTA ATSC signal is something like 30Mbps. The
audio and video streams can only use 19.3Mbps of that. The rest is error
correction, PSIP, etc. Very little of that is needed for cable
transmission. They still use error correction, but it is a much lower
amount (since they have much more control over the transmission medium).

--
Jeff Rife | "This? This is ice. This is what happens to
| water when it gets too cold. This? This is
| Kent. This is what happens to people when
| they get too sexually frustrated."
| -- Chris Knight, "Real Genius"
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 4:51:09 AM

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

29.97 hz or 30 hz is the frame rate. The field rate is double that if
interlaced
scanning is used. The horizontal frequency is the number of lines per frame
x frame rate or
number of lines per FIELD x FIELD rate.
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 5:12:14 AM

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

Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> writes:

> Randy Yates (yates@ieee.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> >> I'm not sure I understand your syntax. Does the "c" in "a x b/c (i/p)"
>> >> mean the frame rate or the field rate?
>> >
>> > It's the refresh rate.
>>
>> Can you define that term for me?
>
> Google is your friend.

Not in this case.

> The history is that computer monitors/video cards used "refresh rate" to
> describe what they did. It's how often the picture can change.

We're not talking about computer monitors. Nonetheless, I get the meaning
now.

Since you've confirmed that your term "refresh rate" is synonymous
with "frame rate," I'll repeat my comment for the sake of correctness:

> > There is no difference in bandwidth required for 1920x1080/60i vs.
> > 1280x720/60p (which Fox, ABC, and ESPN-HD all use), at least as far as
> > cable systems are concerned: both take 3MHz.
>
> According to table A3 of the August 2001 ATSC specification,
> there is no 1920x1080/60i mode, only 1920x10280/29.97i and
> 1920x10280/30i.
--
% Randy Yates % "Remember the good old 1980's, when
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % things were so uncomplicated?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 6:08:48 PM

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

Randy Yates (yates@ieee.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > Google is your friend.
>
> Not in this case.

The first hit returned for a search on "refresh rate" has an excellent
definition of the term.

> We're not talking about computer monitors.

In the world of digital video, computer monitors are the pioneers in the
field, and many terms in digital TV have come from computing.

> Since you've confirmed that your term "refresh rate" is synonymous
> with "frame rate,"

Actually, it's not.

The frame rate of 1920x1080/60i is 30 frames per second (fps). The frame
rate of 1280x720/60p is 60fps.

"Refresh rate" is how often the display is refreshed, which is 60 times
per second for 1920x1080/60i (it gets new data once every field, which is
once every 1/60th of a second), and it is also 60 times per second for
1280x720/60p.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/AmericaOnline...
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 1:52:51 AM

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

Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> writes:
> [...]
> The frame rate of 1280x720/60p is 60fps.

Where do you get this from? I don't see it in the specification.
--
% Randy Yates % "My Shangri-la has gone away, fading like
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % the Beatles on 'Hey Jude'"
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % 'Shangri-La', *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 3:27:15 AM

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

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d5980bf4cdbfee6989ec5@news.nabs.net...

>
> In the world of digital video, computer monitors are the pioneers in the
> field, and many terms in digital TV have come from computing.
>

We were working with digital frame grabbers and digital time base correctors
in 1973.
What computer monitors were you using then?
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 3:57:01 AM

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

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:52:51 GMT Randy Yates <yates@ieee.org> wrote:

| Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> writes:
|> [...]
|> The frame rate of 1280x720/60p is 60fps.
|
| Where do you get this from? I don't see it in the specification.

See page 24 of http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_54a.pdf

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 4:29:28 AM

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

Frank Provasek (frank@frankcoins.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> We were working with digital frame grabbers and digital time base correctors
> in 1973.

So, tell me about the digital *video* you created. You know, where an
entire video was digitized and then transmitted to end users.

> What computer monitors were you using then?

Well, *I* wasn't using any, but everything that ended up in the first
Macintosh had already been demonstrated by Xerox PARC.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/ShermansLagoon/FrozenLemmi...
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 5:47:26 AM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net writes:

> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:52:51 GMT Randy Yates <yates@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> | Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> writes:
> |> [...]
> |> The frame rate of 1280x720/60p is 60fps.
> |
> | Where do you get this from? I don't see it in the specification.
>
> See page 24 of http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_54a.pdf

Thanks Phil.
--
% Randy Yates % "So now it's getting late,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % and those who hesitate
%%% 919-577-9882 % got no one..."
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % 'Waterfall', *Face The Music*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr
!