----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
Shane,
1080p fits the 6 MHz bandwidth at only 24fps or 30fps, they can be transmitted but both are too slow
to be shown that way, but a good 1080p set that accepts 1080p 24 or 30 could upconvert to 60 by
doubling the frames and remove the jerkiness. All HD-STBs should receive 1080p 24fps or 30fps if
transmitted, to meet the license, but they would output it as 1080i or 720p in HD.
A scaler can receive a 1080p 24 or 30 and upconvert it to 60 for the display, but the problem is how
to tune it as RF (the HD-STB) and pass it to the scaler as 1080p 24 or 30.
1080p 60fps is not in the ATSC standard, it would require about the double of 1080i, most probably
less than the double because the savings of transmitting progressive.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
M. Shane Sturgeon
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 11:55 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: 1080p For The Masses per USA Today
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
So how does 1080p fit into ATSC bandwidth? If 1080i requires up to 18 ...
-- M. Shane Sturgeon
Mobile: (937) 532.8135
Fax: (530) 430.2201
AIM: ShaneSturgeon
|---------+--------------------------------->
| | "Rodolfo La Maestra" |
| | <Rodolfo.LaMaestra@Ver|
| | izon.net> |
| | Sent by: "HDTV |
| | Magazine" |
| | <hdtvmagazine_tips@ilo|
| | vehdtv.com> |
| | |
| | |
| | 07/01/2005 11:20 PM |
| | Please respond to |
| | "HDTV Magazine" |
|---------+--------------------------------->
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------|
|
|
| To: "HDTV Magazine" <
[email protected]>
|
| cc:
|
| Subject: Re: 1080p For The Masses per USA Today
|
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------|
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
Shane,
It is quite the opposite, most HD sources are 1080i, just a few are 720p
(ESPN, ABC, Fox).
We all know that simple raw pixel count is not the total picture for
calculating bandwidth but is
one way to see a difference the two signal have from their start, before
they get compressed:
720p is 720x1280 pixels on 60 frames x second = 55,260,000 (viewable,
actually more in total
pixels)
1080i is 1080x1920 pixels on 30 frames x second = 62,208,000 (viewable,
actually more in total
pixels)
In other words, just by raw viewable pixel count per second the 720p format
would require 11% less
pixels x second than the 1080i format.
Additionally, proponents of the 720p format keep reminding the HDTV
community that progressive is
known to allow for better compression than the interlaced.
Now some could say that the source camera would get only 1440 of the 1920,
and that DirecTV butches
all over 1280, in those cases the required bandwidth could certainly be
different, but your question
was not on that direction.
>From the point of view of required Mbps depending of the image (reference
book: the Guide to Digital
Television 2nd ed, page 18):
A 1080i signal would require between 10-18 Mbps (10 with simple film
material, a little higher with
simple video material, 18 for sports)
A 720p signal would require between 6-16 Mbps (low numbers on talking heads
and films, sports might
be acceptable under 16 Mbps)
The ATSC bandwidth is 19.39 Mbps.
That is the theory.
I respect those numbers, but I believe the reality is different for 1080i,
I could not stand the
digital artifacts of anything under 15Mbps, I guess no one has seen the
pixelated crab running on
the beach on the PBS trailer short. PBS is now running 4 sub multicasts,
one HD, one SD, two frozen
SDs that change to regular SD content during the day, I have no way to
measure that but I suspect
that the HD sub is running at about 14 Mbps or less.
Back to 1080p sets -------------
In practical terms, a good 1080i HD source with no butchering compression
"should" show great on a
1080p set "if the internal video processor is good for doubling the
pixels".
The first problem I see is that no manufacturer is telling how they do that
magic. HDNet on the
1080p QUALIA looks great, and should allow the viewer to sit closer and
increase the angle of view
(and the cinematic experience, which in my opinion is one of the main
purposes of HD).
Regular DirecTV was not a good experience on the QUALIA 1080p, I did not
want to see so much detail
of an originally butchered picture. There is so much you can do with a
scaler when the image is
poor and compressed, it might be better to be seen as S-video 480i
converted to p and let the lower
resolution mask the imperfections, which is what I have to do sometimes
with the Elite on some
DirecTV content.
And even when hoping that a scaler would help, a good scaler starts at the
$1500 level, you will not
find the quality of such product into a $5000 DLP 1080p.
The 1080p conversion could be done by
a) displaying an entire new 1080x1920 frame copy of the previous one (as
Richard hinted), but
hopefully by
b) doing motion compensation prediction to intelligently calculate the
motion of the added frame
based on the previous and next, and also by
c) (when blending the two 540 fields together into one frame) adding to the
540x1920 field another
intelligent detail before blending with the next field of 540x1920 to
compensate for the motion of
the image recorded on the two fields that you should not need when both are
on the same frame
(remember each field is an independent picture of a moment in time that the
camera registers), or
also by,
d) using the 540 line field as a base (540x1920) and calculate and add
other 540 "invented"
lines/pixels so it becomes a full 1080 frame in 1/60th (made of half
original pixels and half
invented by the video processor). According to a conversation I had with
Faroudja many 1080p
scalers do that to save in construction cost with the bandwidth required to
full 60fps resolution of
1080p to do it correctly, I "suspect" most 1080p sets will go this
direction on the first
generation, that disclaimer would certainly not even appear on the fine
print.
or other e), f), g) methods, all proprietary and magic, but could also be
magic poison if done
cheaply.
I guess you get the picture, pun intended, of the consequences of getting
married with a video
processor that is inside the TV and does a bad job at the interpolation
processing.
In other words, get a set that accepts 1080p and gives you "the option" to
take that job out of the
TV, a good scaler. You can later upgrade an otherwise excellent 1080p set
by spending on a good
scaler.
As with the first 5 years of sets from 1998 we will see 1080p video
processing improvements on
second and third generations of 1080p sets, and we should later see many
accepting 1080p when the
competition heats up on the second generations, although I assume only over
HDMI/DVI with HDCP
protection, the way things are going with the courts the "analog hole"
would most probably close the
1080p option, if we are lucky that the 1080i would survive.
I agree with Hugh, Hi Def DVD would probably be the driving force that
would make more people buy
1080p sets, but good video processing of well recorded DVDs might also be
an incentive if the set
has a good video processor, and surely all the manufacturers will say they
have the best chip and
their pixels fly. I not in a hurry would wait for a good round of lab
tests on the sets before
signing that check.
I also agree with Hugh regarding not expecting much quality out of 1080p
signals OTA or
cable/satellite even when the last two can easily go to MPEG-4 and use the
same bandwidth of
1080i/MPEG-2, they are all looking for ways to maximize the use of their
bandwidth for profits, the
factor of quality on that business model is always subjected to the
pressure of the money related
factors, and we have to let them know that butchered HDTV is not
acceptable, and investing on a
1080p set for a butchered signal is not what HDTV is about, and
manufacturers would suffer from
informed buyers that hold their purchases due to that.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
M. Shane Sturgeon
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 5:19 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: 1080p For The Masses per USA Today
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
But most networks are already sending 720p ... isn't that more bandwidth
intensive than 1080i?
-- M. Shane Sturgeon
|---------+--------------------------------->
| | "Larry Megugorac" |
| | <larry.megugorac@bodyc|
| | ote.com> |
| | Sent by: "HDTV |
| | Magazine" |
| | <hdtvmagazine_tips@ilo|
| | vehdtv.com> |
| | |
| | |
| | 07/01/2005 04:55 PM |
| | Please respond to |
| | "HDTV Magazine" |
|---------+--------------------------------->
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------|
|
|
| To: "HDTV Magazine" <
[email protected]>
|
| cc:
|
| Subject: Re: 1080p For The Masses per USA Today
|
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------|
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
The only reason I would be interested in a new display would be for 1080p
(for HD DVD's) and the latest connectivity technology. I doubt that 1080p
will ever reach broadcast levels as they are already scrimping on sending
out 1080i over the air waves.
Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
M.
Shane Sturgeon
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 1:44 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: 1080p For The Masses per USA Today
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
When I'm due for my next set, I'll probably go 1080p regardless. Even if
there's not much content yet at the time. I know that the lifespan of
whatever I get will last well after 1080p content becomes readily
available.
-- M. Shane Sturgeon
|---------+--------------------------------->
| | "Anthony Rizzuto" |
| | <
[email protected]>|
| | Sent by: "HDTV |
| | Magazine" |
| | <hdtvmagazine_tips@ilo|
| | vehdtv.com> |
| | |
| | |
| | 07/01/2005 04:35 PM |
| | Please respond to |
| | "HDTV Magazine" |
|---------+--------------------------------->
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|
|
| To: "HDTV Magazine" <
[email protected]>
|
| cc:
|
| Subject: Re: 1080p For The Masses per USA Today
|
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
Even Rodolfo made that point regarding the Sony's. If all I am doing is
upconverting the 1080i signal of the dozen stations that I have in HD,
for 4k, I can pass. When native 1080p prgraming is available in a
decent volume I'll think about it.
-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
Of Larry Megugorac
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 4:16 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: 1080p For The Masses per USA Today
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
Rodolfo,
As usual, the entire tips list would be lost with you and your very
concise explanations! I (we) are so grateful to have you as a member!!!
What I seem to be hearing (reading) about these new 1080p displays is
....junk in junk out...only when they are sent excellent source material
is when you will see their advantage.
Enjoy America's Birthday!!!
Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
Of Rodolfo La Maestra
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 11:22 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: 1080p For The Masses per USA Today
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
Hugh,
Look at it this way, would you consider than a EDTV set that is able to
display 480p has the double of the resolution of a SDTV 480i set (NTSC
quality on digital)?
A 480i set only shows 240 lines at the time a 480p set shows 480 (1/60),
your eyes see the double of lines over the same time period.
A 1080i set only shows 540i lines at the time a 1080p set shows 1080,
granted those 1080 are calculated by the internal doubler from the 540
fields, but the claim is based on what you "see" on the screen (1080)
not what the TV can receive (accept 1080p), so the statement it is not
actually wrong.
In a world where most fixed-pixel-displays are now 720p oriented, it is
good to see a come back of sets that could better exploit the larger
spatial resolution of 1080i (1920) when most programming is 1080i based.
Most 720p oriented sets penalize that spatial resolution by bringing it
down the 1920 to the panel's native horizontal number, which is usually
a cut of about 30% on every line, and that takes a large toll on the
entire image.
The improvement of these new sets when viewing 480p sources like
progressive DVD depends on the internal TV video processor, the set
could display many more (calculated) pixels but it could be a poor image
with excessive artifacts, and ironically, become more visible, which is
what I noticed on the QUALIA, excellent for high resolution pictures,
very unpleasant for images that have lower resolution to start with (or
over compressed, bit starved).
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Hugh Campbell
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 9:03 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: 1080p For The Masses per USA Today
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
It is interesting to note that in a number of press reports it is being
said that the Mits 1080p will show dramatic improvement when viewing
regular DVDs over the HD sets currently available. It's also said that
the Mits 1080p will have twice the resolution of current HDTV sets.
Just more to confuse the consumer.
Hugh
----- Original Message -----
From: <
[email protected]>
To: "HDTV Magazine" <
[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: 1080p For The Masses per USA Today
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>
> It's interesting that they say this is the first 1080p model meant for
"The
> masses". They must have missed the Samsung (HLR5688W) a few weeks
> ago.
>
> -- M. Shane Sturgeon
>
>
>
> |---------+--------------------------------->
> | | "Hugh Campbell" |
> | | <
[email protected]|
> | | r.com> |
> | | Sent by: "HDTV |
> | | Magazine" |
> | | <hdtvmagazine_tips@ilo|
> | | vehdtv.com> |
> | | |
> | | |
> | | 07/01/2005 08:27 AM |
> | | Please respond to |
> | | "HDTV Magazine" |
> |---------+--------------------------------->
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
> |
|
> | To: "HDTV Magazine" <
[email protected]>
|
> | cc:
|
> | Subject: 1080p For The Masses per USA Today
|
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
>
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Here's a link to a USA Today article on the Mits release of 1080p
> models for the "masses". Prices look good, hope the picture quality
> is as well.
>
>
http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/200 ... usat_x.htm
>
>
> Hugh
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
> same
> day) send an email to:
>
[email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
> same
day) send an email to:
>
[email protected]
>
To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]
To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]
To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same day) send an email to:
[email protected]
To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]
To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]
To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]
To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]
To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]
To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]
To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected] 
