HDTV Forum

Actually I was of the same opinion of Ken, that the spec was something that would not change in the near future, that was until Dolby Digital Plus was welcomed as audio codec for broadcast over a year ago.

While it was approved they also made clear that some converter box would be needed for current STBs to been able to decode the new audio codec and convert to DD for the legacy STB to recognize, adding one more box to avoid legacy STBs to become obsolete.

Dolby Digital Plus was adopted because of its ability to maintain quality audio with considerable compression (compared with Dolby Digital), more detail on my HDTV Terms Glossary of the magazine.

In other words, some enhancements seem possible of official acceptance as long as legacy equipment, already in the hands of millions of consumers, is not rendered obsolete.

That was an audio codec, with a separate adaptor box. A video codec using the similar approach could also become to life, although who wants more boxes and adaptors, especially when the FCC has mandated integrated tuners to avoid more boxes to avoid adding complexity of consumer understanding of the technology.

The bottom line is, Ken, that what we thought was "cast in stone" has a precedent that it isn't, and that opens the ball game to anything/any time.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

Since, a 1080p will only cost the position of 2 or 3 1080i then why can't it be done?

I would be happy with 1080P30/24 since that is what most of the sources are and it will compress more efficiently than 1080I30/24. Rodolfo, we have discussed this before... Our boxes can't down convert a 1080P source to 1080I even though that is on the ATSC table?

Hmm, is there even an expensive ATSC generator that provides ATSC 1080P 30/24?

Rodolfo- I hope that you are right and I am wrong, but the odds against ever seeing 1080p60 OTA in the US seem astronomical to me. (Motion Compensated Processing might make it irrelevant. Besides, if 60 frames per second is such a big leap forward, why has Hollywood refused to budge from 24?) -Ken

[quote]In theory, I see no benefit at all to a set that accepts 1080p60 at its interface. ...an external rescaler might be better than the set

Richard,

Although to meet the standard any ATSC box should have been designed to receive any of the 18 formats (regardless of what they output), until we actually have such OTA signal we would not be able to propperly verify that, a testing generator of ATSC RF 24/30 could do the job in lieu of no stations doing such broadcast.

The FCC opened the field when they did not force the implementation of the 18 format table-3 of DTV, they let broadcasters and manufacturers pick and choose from those formats, a let the market decide attitude (I would say a "I do not know enough attitude, so do what you want", but I am not sure OTA STBs where left as flexible as well, meaning, a broadcaster could choose 480p, 720p, 1080i or 1080p (and we have cases for the first 3), a display manufacturer could choose to make displays with about the same choices and to complicate it more the CEA a few years ago permitted the HD naming to equipment handling only 810i of a 1080i signal, but a STB is another kind of animal, is the one that should tune any of the given choices to be in business.

Unless we do a test to confirm, even if a broadcaster would transmit 1080p I would not think that those STBs that have a native output to pass thru 1080p, so all the millions of STBs would most probably downconvert to another HD format (720p or 1080i).

Ken,
Hollywood would not need to move out of 24p because that would be a rate they used form the start, enough for storage and transmission of film, the theater film projectors already do 48 out of those 24, and home theaters are already moving in the same direction with scalers, RPTVs, panels, and projectors at 48, 72 and 120, multiples fo the 24.

Even Hi def DVD would not need more than 24 for a film transfer that originates from 24 celluloid or digital (like Lucas).

Video is another story, if shot as 1080p60 progressive it has to be transmitted that way and the reception equipment has to have that kind of input and processing ability as well, that is the part that would be more difficult, since transmitting such signal would double up the requirements of the bandwidth ( not for 24fps 1080p coming from film).

Frankly I would not like a broadcaster sending me a 60fps version of a 24fps film source, because in order to do that they would have to do 2:3 pulldown to convert the 24frames (48 half frames) into 60i fields, and also deinterlace those 60 i fields into 60p frames. I rather receive pure 24fps frames and let my equipment deal with it, I could set an upgrade path to improve my processing but I cannot control what it was broascast to me after two levels of processing.


Wallaua,

The response to your question is : the input of the display must be 1080p 60 (frames ps) if a scaler in front on the TV performs the deinterlacing of 1080i60 (fields).

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

Rodolfo - The question was intended to be a rhetorical one to KQ6QV, who wrote in his 12/21 post that "I see no benefit at all to a set that accepts 1080p60 at its interface" and then later "an external rescaler might be better than the set

I give up. I am unable to write a statement that cannot be misinterpreted. -Ken

This item really may be buried somewhere in this thread, but I thought that I ought to call attention to it (helps keep a perspective on 1080p).

Today's digital displays are basically progressive in nature - they work best by collecting the entire frame in a buffer and then that frame is transferred to the display. It's been that way with LCDs, Plasmas, and DLPs. The next logical step from the in display development was full resolution - 1080 x 1920 displays. The 720 x1280 technology being used was simply scaled up. And that technology was progressive. Now, suddenly, the display was capable of something that the available signals weren't delivering, and most of last year's 1080p sets weren't capable of accepting these signals. This year, the manufacturers have added (limited) 1080p input capability as 1080p sources were announced.

My point is: 1080i x1920 digital displays don't exist. There is no "step up" from 1080i to 1080p - so the only thing that anyone is paying extra for is the increased resolution.

I just purchased a Sony KDS-R70XBR2 (70", 1080p) which is attached via HDMI to a Cox HD-DVR cable box and a Sony DVP-NS75H DVD player. Both outputs are, supposedly, 1080i, but the specs on the TV say that the HDMI imputs are capable of receiving 1080p. Does that make the TV HDMI 1.3?
Also, should I get a High Def DVD player, or, more likely, my son get a PS3, will I need a different HDMI cable?

jboeche,

Having 1080p input capability is not directly related to a specific HDMI version, 1080p was a feature of the HDMI spec since version 1.0 a few years ago.

A handfull of devices currently have 1.3, but they will be more in 2007, your TV does not, but if it is the new model it does accept and display 1080p.

Most of the normal lenght HDMI cables made by responsible manufacturers (over 95%) do 1080p, oversized cables sometimes have difficulty; I just installed a 30 feet HDMI cable between the scaler and my 1080p projector, and it handles very well 1080p at that lenght, you do not want to know the price though, but I consider the cable another piece of equipment on the HT, a piece that could become a bottleneck when bridging otherwise excellent quality equipment.

You should buy the cable with a returning policy that would allow you for the store to supply a replacement that eventually performs well within the period of time you need to install and test the 1080p equipment pieces that would allow you to test the 1080p capability of the entire chain.

Perhaps you should get the PS3 HW and SW first if you are sure you want those anyway.

The added capabilities of 1.3 on a source equipment (like the PS3) would NOT show their full benefit with a display that does not have 1.3 capabilities, and I am not just talking about the entry point HDMI receiver chip on the TV, I am also talking about the rest of the TV handling for deep color, the bandwidth, the video processing, the extra features of 1.3, which is not just in the cable or the receiving HDMI chip.

Check some of articles on this magazine regarding the HDMI subject, they cover the versions, new capabilities, cables, testing programs, etc.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra