Not Accepting 1080p?

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Hugh,

The particular case of the Sony, the player claimed that will "automatically" adjust its output
resolution to the native accepted by the display, 1080i for SXRD.

It is a good feature so most consumers would not have to fiddle around changing manually output
resolutions, but not for me, I did not want features like that so automatic.

Why? 1080p scalers for example, I want to feed the scaler a variety of choices so I can test who
does what best, a $3000 scaler not necessarily would do a better 1080p upconversion if not having
pixel-by-pixel motion adaptation of active images, if the player has that circuitry with Gennum chip
and does it better internally, like progressive players do with 480i.

I asked to talk to the technical support at Sony CES, not even that person was able to tell me if I
could defeat the automatic resolution feature with a menu setting on the player (they did not allow
me to play with yet in the fear that I would leave the demo down).

The Pioneer Elite claiming 24fps on 1080p outputs is implicitly telling that IT SHOULD HAVE a manual
override because of the fewer displays that can do something with such frame rate, not to mention
accepting 1080p itself.

I could not play with the menu either because of the same fear (of the reps) that they could not
bring back the demo as it was. The informal answer was yes, there was a manual setting to change
resolutions and frame rates on the menu.

Now when you think the way the internal circuitry of the HD DVD player should think, if the player
was designed intelligently, a 1080i video disc (sauced from 1080i video cameras, like Leno) should
be send as is to a native 1080i, not doing a) the 1080p upscale Sony claimed it does for everything,
then b) detecting that the display connected to it is a 1080i set and downrez the 1080p to 1080i, c)
and output that 1080i over HDMI to the display.

Too much up and down.

Even when done in the digital domain, there is no need to subject the 1080i signal to that abuse if
the output is going to be 1080i anyway, so I expect the player to have a "if this do this" "if that
do that" output processing ability to obtain the best matching of "media to display" with the
minimum conversion.

We will have to wait until a comprehensive lab report (hopefully Greg Rogers at WSR) tests all the
combinations.

I hope I did not confuse you more.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra


-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Hugh Campbell
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 6:01 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Not Accepting 1080p?


----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Let's assume for a second that high def DVD's are out and we have a player
hooked up to a Sony SXRD which cannot accept 1080p. The player is
outputting a 1080p movie via HDMI. What does the picture look like on the
television? Is there no picture, or does the television receive the 1080p
signal from the high def. DVD player and downconvert it? Is a 1080i picture
or 480p or something in between? Or, does the signal not pass on HDMI (due
to lack of acceptance by the television) and you have to use component
cables thereby sending a 480p picture to the television.

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]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Thanks Rodolfo, that sounds reasonable. Would it work the same way with
all the televisions that are 1080p but will not accept 1080p? I would
assume so in order to avoid a blank screen. Bottom line the sets will down
rez to 1080i. Sounds weird for a set that has a 1080p native resolution.

Hugh


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rodolfo La Maestra" <[email protected]>
To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: Not Accepting 1080p?


> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Hugh,
>
> The particular case of the Sony, the player claimed that will
> "automatically" adjust its output
> resolution to the native accepted by the display, 1080i for SXRD.
>
> It is a good feature so most consumers would not have to fiddle around
> changing manually output
> resolutions, but not for me, I did not want features like that so
> automatic.
>
> Why? 1080p scalers for example, I want to feed the scaler a variety of
> choices so I can test who
> does what best, a $3000 scaler not necessarily would do a better 1080p
> upconversion if not having
> pixel-by-pixel motion adaptation of active images, if the player has that
> circuitry with Gennum chip
> and does it better internally, like progressive players do with 480i.
>
> I asked to talk to the technical support at Sony CES, not even that person
> was able to tell me if I
> could defeat the automatic resolution feature with a menu setting on the
> player (they did not allow
> me to play with yet in the fear that I would leave the demo down).
>
> The Pioneer Elite claiming 24fps on 1080p outputs is implicitly telling
> that IT SHOULD HAVE a manual
> override because of the fewer displays that can do something with such
> frame rate, not to mention
> accepting 1080p itself.
>
> I could not play with the menu either because of the same fear (of the
> reps) that they could not
> bring back the demo as it was. The informal answer was yes, there was a
> manual setting to change
> resolutions and frame rates on the menu.
>
> Now when you think the way the internal circuitry of the HD DVD player
> should think, if the player
> was designed intelligently, a 1080i video disc (sauced from 1080i video
> cameras, like Leno) should
> be send as is to a native 1080i, not doing a) the 1080p upscale Sony
> claimed it does for everything,
> then b) detecting that the display connected to it is a 1080i set and
> downrez the 1080p to 1080i, c)
> and output that 1080i over HDMI to the display.
>
> Too much up and down.
>
> Even when done in the digital domain, there is no need to subject the
> 1080i signal to that abuse if
> the output is going to be 1080i anyway, so I expect the player to have a
> "if this do this" "if that
> do that" output processing ability to obtain the best matching of "media
> to display" with the
> minimum conversion.
>
> We will have to wait until a comprehensive lab report (hopefully Greg
> Rogers at WSR) tests all the
> combinations.
>
> I hope I did not confuse you more.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Hugh Campbell
> Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 6:01 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Not Accepting 1080p?
>
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Let's assume for a second that high def DVD's are out and we have a player
> hooked up to a Sony SXRD which cannot accept 1080p. The player is
> outputting a 1080p movie via HDMI. What does the picture look like on the
> television? Is there no picture, or does the television receive the 1080p
> signal from the high def. DVD player and downconvert it? Is a 1080i
> picture
> or 480p or something in between? Or, does the signal not pass on HDMI
> (due
> to lack of acceptance by the television) and you have to use component
> cables thereby sending a 480p picture to the television.
>
> 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]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Hugh,

Yes and No.

If I give you 1 line response it will leave more doors open than I will be closing, so I will
explain in detail, hang in there:

A 1080p set that displays 1080p but does not accept 1080p will expect the player to supply 1080i on
the HDMI input of the set (or 720p) to understand the signal.

The set will accept and process that 1080i, and the last stage it will actually show 1080p (created
by the set).

The TV set does not down-res 1080p to 1080i as you said, it just does not accept it, it can not sync
to it, so the player is the one that has to accommodate to the limitation of the TV input.

If the disc has film content stored (or flagged) as 1080p/24fps it will downres it to output it as
1080i for the 1080i input of the TV, rather than sending it out as 1080p 24fps (film) or 1080p 60fps
(progressive upconversion of 1080i video on the disc, like Leno but doubled) which a 1080p set
accepting 1080p would be able to handle (and it might be better than letting the TV do the 1080i to
p processing, remember progressive DVDs on first generation DTVs with bad line doublers?).

This is much more complicated that what I am going to say, but imagine you have in the TV 3 pieces:

a) an HDMI input with some processing to pass the signal to the next stage
b) a stage of video processing for AR and scale up 480i/p, 720p, 1080i to a final display res of
1080p.
c) a final display stage that takes those 1080p/60fs and just map them to the chip, the light engine
would just display all those at that speed.

Again, this is a very ruff simplification just to make the point.

Manufacturers are doing the following:

For (a) they are putting HDMI chips that do what they have to do but not at 1080p speed, they can
not accept it.

For (b) they are having internal circuitry with limited bandwidth that cannot work as fast as 1080p
requires regarding scaling and doubling with weaving fields (putting two 1080i fields together in
memory for a 1080p frame, and buffer 3 or 4 filed sin memory to calculate pixel movement).

The bandwidth they implement is fine for just bobbing 1080i (uses one field of 540 lines, create
another 540 lines, and shoot one 1080p frame, this is fine when an image does not move, but not
everything is like golf). It requires the double of the 1080i bandwidth and CPU processing power to
work as fast as 1080p requires (2 million pixels every 1/60, not 1 million every 1/60 of 1080i).
That is costly, ask Faroudja.

For (c) they display the 1080p created by (b) mapping 2 million pixels to the chip grid.

Most 1080P TVs do (c) with limited (b, bobbing), because they do not want to spend more to do (b)
properly and they do not want to spend extra on an 1080p capable HDMI chip for (a), what for? the
set would not know what to do if (a) supplies a 1080p signal to (b), it can not handle the speed.

Of course all manufacturers find easier to blame the chip (a) than saying "we did not think people
wanted 1080p". They say the HDMI specs (1.3 for 2Q06) are not completed for 1080p (when they
actually handle 1080p from day one, even DVI does), how in a world HP and Brillian and Ruby did it
if not?

The real reason is that they decided to implement a cheaper non-1080p HDMI chip, a chip that was
designed cheap for other purposes like a 1080i set, or a DVD player, because they do not need 1080p
capabilities on such chip.

They probably have back inventory and is cheaper to deplete that inventory, as I said before, why
not, the section (b) is already limiting 1080p, due also to cost considerations.

So here are the alternatives:

Most sets:
a) HDMI chip max at 1080i
b) 1080i limited processing stage
c) 1080p (with lots of created pixels, 540p bobbing, get 1 million, create 1 million)

or

Ridiculous combination (a sandwich of 1080p, 1080i bottle neck, 1080p):
a) HDMI chip max at 1080p
b) 1080i limited processing stage
c) 1080p (with lots of created pixels as above)

or

Saving a buck on chip, while investing on b, ridiculous as well.
a) HDMI chip max at 1080i
b) 1080p bandwidth for video processing for 1080i to p weaving (expensive)
c) 1080p mapping from the processing above, the final result is that just changing the HDMI chip to
1 1080p chip would give full 1080p performance, for a few cents more.

or

The way it should be (HP, Brillian, Ruby and $$ FPs):
a) HDMI chip max 1080p (a bit more $, but Silicon Image said that in some cases is even cheaper)
b) 1080p bandwidth for video processing for 1080i to p weaving (expensive)
c) 1080p mapping from the processing above, perfect for a full 1080p system

This last option allows for external 1080p scalers, like Robert is doing with his setup, smart.


I hope this is clear now.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra


-----Original Message-----
From: Hugh Campbell
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 7:00 PM
To: HDTV Magazine; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Not Accepting 1080p?


Thanks Rodolfo, that sounds reasonable. Would it work the same way with
all the televisions that are 1080p but will not accept 1080p? I would
assume so in order to avoid a blank screen. Bottom line the sets will down
rez to 1080i. Sounds weird for a set that has a 1080p native resolution.

Hugh


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rodolfo La Maestra" <[email protected]>
To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: Not Accepting 1080p?


> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Hugh,
>
> The particular case of the Sony, the player claimed that will
> "automatically" adjust its output
> resolution to the native accepted by the display, 1080i for SXRD.
>
> It is a good feature so most consumers would not have to fiddle around
> changing manually output
> resolutions, but not for me, I did not want features like that so
> automatic.
>
> Why? 1080p scalers for example, I want to feed the scaler a variety of
> choices so I can test who
> does what best, a $3000 scaler not necessarily would do a better 1080p
> upconversion if not having
> pixel-by-pixel motion adaptation of active images, if the player has that
> circuitry with Gennum chip
> and does it better internally, like progressive players do with 480i.
>
> I asked to talk to the technical support at Sony CES, not even that person
> was able to tell me if I
> could defeat the automatic resolution feature with a menu setting on the
> player (they did not allow
> me to play with yet in the fear that I would leave the demo down).
>
> The Pioneer Elite claiming 24fps on 1080p outputs is implicitly telling
> that IT SHOULD HAVE a manual
> override because of the fewer displays that can do something with such
> frame rate, not to mention
> accepting 1080p itself.
>
> I could not play with the menu either because of the same fear (of the
> reps) that they could not
> bring back the demo as it was. The informal answer was yes, there was a
> manual setting to change
> resolutions and frame rates on the menu.
>
> Now when you think the way the internal circuitry of the HD DVD player
> should think, if the player
> was designed intelligently, a 1080i video disc (sauced from 1080i video
> cameras, like Leno) should
> be send as is to a native 1080i, not doing a) the 1080p upscale Sony
> claimed it does for everything,
> then b) detecting that the display connected to it is a 1080i set and
> downrez the 1080p to 1080i, c)
> and output that 1080i over HDMI to the display.
>
> Too much up and down.
>
> Even when done in the digital domain, there is no need to subject the
> 1080i signal to that abuse if
> the output is going to be 1080i anyway, so I expect the player to have a
> "if this do this" "if that
> do that" output processing ability to obtain the best matching of "media
> to display" with the
> minimum conversion.
>
> We will have to wait until a comprehensive lab report (hopefully Greg
> Rogers at WSR) tests all the
> combinations.
>
> I hope I did not confuse you more.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Hugh Campbell
> Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 6:01 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Not Accepting 1080p?
>
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Let's assume for a second that high def DVD's are out and we have a player
> hooked up to a Sony SXRD which cannot accept 1080p. The player is
> outputting a 1080p movie via HDMI. What does the picture look like on the
> television? Is there no picture, or does the television receive the 1080p
> signal from the high def. DVD player and downconvert it? Is a 1080i
> picture
> or 480p or something in between? Or, does the signal not pass on HDMI
> (due
> to lack of acceptance by the television) and you have to use component
> cables thereby sending a 480p picture to the television.
>
> 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]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Thanks again Rodolfo, for the excellent explanation. I hate that you had
to do so much writing but it certainly explained everything to me. It was
hard for me to understand how a 1080p set that couldn't accept 1080p would
handle an incoming 1080p signal, but as usual you have made sense of a
difficult matter.

Hugh


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rodolfo La Maestra" <[email protected]>
To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 2:00 AM
Subject: Re: Not Accepting 1080p?


> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Hugh,
>
> Yes and No.
>
> If I give you 1 line response it will leave more doors open than I will be
> closing, so I will
> explain in detail, hang in there:
>
> A 1080p set that displays 1080p but does not accept 1080p will expect the
> player to supply 1080i on
> the HDMI input of the set (or 720p) to understand the signal.
>
> The set will accept and process that 1080i, and the last stage it will
> actually show 1080p (created
> by the set).
>
> The TV set does not down-res 1080p to 1080i as you said, it just does not
> accept it, it can not sync
> to it, so the player is the one that has to accommodate to the limitation
> of the TV input.
>
> If the disc has film content stored (or flagged) as 1080p/24fps it will
> downres it to output it as
> 1080i for the 1080i input of the TV, rather than sending it out as 1080p
> 24fps (film) or 1080p 60fps
> (progressive upconversion of 1080i video on the disc, like Leno but
> doubled) which a 1080p set
> accepting 1080p would be able to handle (and it might be better than
> letting the TV do the 1080i to
> p processing, remember progressive DVDs on first generation DTVs with bad
> line doublers?).
>
> This is much more complicated that what I am going to say, but imagine you
> have in the TV 3 pieces:
>
> a) an HDMI input with some processing to pass the signal to the next stage
> b) a stage of video processing for AR and scale up 480i/p, 720p, 1080i to
> a final display res of
> 1080p.
> c) a final display stage that takes those 1080p/60fs and just map them to
> the chip, the light engine
> would just display all those at that speed.
>
> Again, this is a very ruff simplification just to make the point.
>
> Manufacturers are doing the following:
>
> For (a) they are putting HDMI chips that do what they have to do but not
> at 1080p speed, they can
> not accept it.
>
> For (b) they are having internal circuitry with limited bandwidth that
> cannot work as fast as 1080p
> requires regarding scaling and doubling with weaving fields (putting two
> 1080i fields together in
> memory for a 1080p frame, and buffer 3 or 4 filed sin memory to calculate
> pixel movement).
>
> The bandwidth they implement is fine for just bobbing 1080i (uses one
> field of 540 lines, create
> another 540 lines, and shoot one 1080p frame, this is fine when an image
> does not move, but not
> everything is like golf). It requires the double of the 1080i bandwidth
> and CPU processing power to
> work as fast as 1080p requires (2 million pixels every 1/60, not 1 million
> every 1/60 of 1080i).
> That is costly, ask Faroudja.
>
> For (c) they display the 1080p created by (b) mapping 2 million pixels to
> the chip grid.
>
> Most 1080P TVs do (c) with limited (b, bobbing), because they do not want
> to spend more to do (b)
> properly and they do not want to spend extra on an 1080p capable HDMI chip
> for (a), what for? the
> set would not know what to do if (a) supplies a 1080p signal to (b), it
> can not handle the speed.
>
> Of course all manufacturers find easier to blame the chip (a) than saying
> "we did not think people
> wanted 1080p". They say the HDMI specs (1.3 for 2Q06) are not completed
> for 1080p (when they
> actually handle 1080p from day one, even DVI does), how in a world HP and
> Brillian and Ruby did it
> if not?
>
> The real reason is that they decided to implement a cheaper non-1080p HDMI
> chip, a chip that was
> designed cheap for other purposes like a 1080i set, or a DVD player,
> because they do not need 1080p
> capabilities on such chip.
>
> They probably have back inventory and is cheaper to deplete that
> inventory, as I said before, why
> not, the section (b) is already limiting 1080p, due also to cost
> considerations.
>
> So here are the alternatives:
>
> Most sets:
> a) HDMI chip max at 1080i
> b) 1080i limited processing stage
> c) 1080p (with lots of created pixels, 540p bobbing, get 1 million, create
> 1 million)
>
> or
>
> Ridiculous combination (a sandwich of 1080p, 1080i bottle neck, 1080p):
> a) HDMI chip max at 1080p
> b) 1080i limited processing stage
> c) 1080p (with lots of created pixels as above)
>
> or
>
> Saving a buck on chip, while investing on b, ridiculous as well.
> a) HDMI chip max at 1080i
> b) 1080p bandwidth for video processing for 1080i to p weaving (expensive)
> c) 1080p mapping from the processing above, the final result is that just
> changing the HDMI chip to
> 1 1080p chip would give full 1080p performance, for a few cents more.
>
> or
>
> The way it should be (HP, Brillian, Ruby and $$ FPs):
> a) HDMI chip max 1080p (a bit more $, but Silicon Image said that in some
> cases is even cheaper)
> b) 1080p bandwidth for video processing for 1080i to p weaving (expensive)
> c) 1080p mapping from the processing above, perfect for a full 1080p
> system
>
> This last option allows for external 1080p scalers, like Robert is doing
> with his setup, smart.
>
>
> I hope this is clear now.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hugh Campbell
> Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 7:00 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Not Accepting 1080p?
>
>
> Thanks Rodolfo, that sounds reasonable. Would it work the same way with
> all the televisions that are 1080p but will not accept 1080p? I would
> assume so in order to avoid a blank screen. Bottom line the sets will
> down
> rez to 1080i. Sounds weird for a set that has a 1080p native resolution.
>
> Hugh
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rodolfo La Maestra" <[email protected]>
> To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 6:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Not Accepting 1080p?
>
>
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> Hugh,
>>
>> The particular case of the Sony, the player claimed that will
>> "automatically" adjust its output
>> resolution to the native accepted by the display, 1080i for SXRD.
>>
>> It is a good feature so most consumers would not have to fiddle around
>> changing manually output
>> resolutions, but not for me, I did not want features like that so
>> automatic.
>>
>> Why? 1080p scalers for example, I want to feed the scaler a variety of
>> choices so I can test who
>> does what best, a $3000 scaler not necessarily would do a better 1080p
>> upconversion if not having
>> pixel-by-pixel motion adaptation of active images, if the player has that
>> circuitry with Gennum chip
>> and does it better internally, like progressive players do with 480i.
>>
>> I asked to talk to the technical support at Sony CES, not even that
>> person
>> was able to tell me if I
>> could defeat the automatic resolution feature with a menu setting on the
>> player (they did not allow
>> me to play with yet in the fear that I would leave the demo down).
>>
>> The Pioneer Elite claiming 24fps on 1080p outputs is implicitly telling
>> that IT SHOULD HAVE a manual
>> override because of the fewer displays that can do something with such
>> frame rate, not to mention
>> accepting 1080p itself.
>>
>> I could not play with the menu either because of the same fear (of the
>> reps) that they could not
>> bring back the demo as it was. The informal answer was yes, there was a
>> manual setting to change
>> resolutions and frame rates on the menu.
>>
>> Now when you think the way the internal circuitry of the HD DVD player
>> should think, if the player
>> was designed intelligently, a 1080i video disc (sauced from 1080i video
>> cameras, like Leno) should
>> be send as is to a native 1080i, not doing a) the 1080p upscale Sony
>> claimed it does for everything,
>> then b) detecting that the display connected to it is a 1080i set and
>> downrez the 1080p to 1080i, c)
>> and output that 1080i over HDMI to the display.
>>
>> Too much up and down.
>>
>> Even when done in the digital domain, there is no need to subject the
>> 1080i signal to that abuse if
>> the output is going to be 1080i anyway, so I expect the player to have a
>> "if this do this" "if that
>> do that" output processing ability to obtain the best matching of "media
>> to display" with the
>> minimum conversion.
>>
>> We will have to wait until a comprehensive lab report (hopefully Greg
>> Rogers at WSR) tests all the
>> combinations.
>>
>> I hope I did not confuse you more.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Rodolfo La Maestra
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
>> Hugh Campbell
>> Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 6:01 PM
>> To: HDTV Magazine
>> Subject: Not Accepting 1080p?
>>
>>
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> Let's assume for a second that high def DVD's are out and we have a
>> player
>> hooked up to a Sony SXRD which cannot accept 1080p. The player is
>> outputting a 1080p movie via HDMI. What does the picture look like on
>> the
>> television? Is there no picture, or does the television receive the
>> 1080p
>> signal from the high def. DVD player and downconvert it? Is a 1080i
>> picture
>> or 480p or something in between? Or, does the signal not pass on HDMI
>> (due
>> to lack of acceptance by the television) and you have to use component
>> cables thereby sending a 480p picture to the television.
>>
>> 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]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Rodolfo,

>
> For (b) they are having internal circuitry with limited bandwidth that
> cannot work as fast as 1080p
> requires regarding scaling and doubling with weaving fields (putting two
> 1080i fields together in
> memory for a 1080p frame, and buffer 3 or 4 filed sin memory to calculate
> pixel movement).

The CPU and memory components available today will quite easily handle the
fatest and fastest bandwidth requirements that 1080P can throw at them. And
they can do so at relative low cost. Remember, it's running at less than 150
MHz bus speed even at 1080P/60Hz. That was verified in the Leslie Chard
response to Microsoft a couple of weeks ago.

For reference, the PCI bus in your ordinary home computer these days has
more than enough bandwidth to transport 1080P/60 and still have plenty of
room to spare.


> The bandwidth they implement is fine for just bobbing 1080i (uses one
> field of 540 lines, create
> another 540 lines, and shoot one 1080p frame, this is fine when an image
> does not move, but not
> everything is like golf). It requires the double of the 1080i bandwidth
> and CPU processing power to
> work as fast as 1080p requires (2 million pixels every 1/60, not 1 million
> every 1/60 of 1080i).
> That is costly, ask Faroudja.

Again, not as CPU intensive as might sound. Video decoders today are
handling multiple, simultaneous MPEG2 or MPEG4 streams. To process just one
even with upconverting/deinterlace/weaving is not all that difficult in
comparison. Some vendors just do it better than others.

>
> For (c) they display the 1080p created by (b) mapping 2 million pixels to
> the chip grid.
>
> Most 1080P TVs do (c) with limited (b, bobbing), because they do not want
> to spend more to do (b)
> properly and they do not want to spend extra on an 1080p capable HDMI chip
> for (a), what for? the
> set would not know what to do if (a) supplies a 1080p signal to (b), it
> can not handle the speed.
>
> Of course all manufacturers find easier to blame the chip (a) than saying
> "we did not think people
> wanted 1080p". They say the HDMI specs (1.3 for 2Q06) are not completed
> for 1080p (when they
> actually handle 1080p from day one, even DVI does), how in a world HP and
> Brillian and Ruby did it
> if not?

Late model year 2005 when chip availability was much better. The problem
with stuff you saw at CES 2005 that was delivered to the consumer throughout
2005 was that most of the internal cards were designed in mid-late 2004.
1080P supporting components didn't really start arriving on the scene until
early '05. Too late for the bulk of '05 releases, but as you noted there
were some late introduction exceptions.

Part of the problem here was the footing dragging and lobbying done on
Microsoft's part to get WM9/VC-1 included in the latest generation of video
decoders. They were slow. Peripheral components for those decoders had to
wait for the dust to settle. Not many wanted to commit before the standards
were pinned down because it costs you a couple of million to spin a chip of
any size or design complexity these days.

> The real reason is that they decided to implement a cheaper non-1080p HDMI
> chip, a chip that was
> designed cheap for other purposes like a 1080i set, or a DVD player,
> because they do not need 1080p
> capabilities on such chip.

HDMI chips have gone through natural progression in R&D just like most other
processors and transceivers. It's not that one was necessarily designed with
"cheap" in mind upfront. Rather it's an older design where the complexity
and processing power wasn't warranted.

>
> The way it should be (HP, Brillian, Ruby and $$ FPs):
> a) HDMI chip max 1080p (a bit more $, but Silicon Image said that in some
> cases is even cheaper)
> b) 1080p bandwidth for video processing for 1080i to p weaving (expensive)
> c) 1080p mapping from the processing above, perfect for a full 1080p
> system

Big $$ FPs are not necessarily priced as such because they have mega-buck
electronics or superior scalers. The biggest difference between a $5k FP and
a $25k FP is the lens optics. Source: a consultant to Runco.

Remember that there are some isolated sets out there that do take 1080P over
selected inputs. My HLRxx model Samsung is one. For pass through on the VGA
port, you can have 1080P. That should show that it's the HDMI I/O and not
the internal circuitry bandwidth behind it that is at issue.

Bob



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]