Observations and Questions

Started by Jan 13, 2006 14 posts
Read-only archive
#1
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

I will admit that I am probably going to mix apples and oranges in my
following comments probably because there are issues that I don't
understand or because there have been recent developments that I am unaware
of but here goes.

1) A lot of us that participate in these Tips discussions are early
adopters and as a result our monitors can only accept component or VGA
video input. DVI was on the horizon somewhere five years ago when I bought
my monitor but I don't think HDMI was even being discussed then. Worse
than that, my Sony KP65XBR10W was sold to me as having multiple HD
component video inputs which was incorrect. Sony even initially vehemently
try to convince me that I was wrong. Of course I wasn't. As far as VGA
goes, I am under the probably mistaken impression that the VGA input on at
least my 65" Sony is well below what I would consider HD.

So, as a result we are currently suffering without being able to take
advantage of the forthcoming HD DVD or Blu-Ray players unless we use an
outboard scaler and even then I am under the strong impression that while
the picture quality MAY be better than current DVD quality the component
video output is going to have to be downrezzed because of the copy
protection issues. I do have a smaller, 32" Sony HD LCD, but I want the
ability to do it on the 65" Sony.

I believe that there was mention of a class action law suit in the digest
version of the Tips that I received this morning and the manufacturer
mentioned was Mits. While I agree with the issue, I doubt that "we" have
the critical mass for a lawsuit like this to have any real impact other
than the final settlement being perhaps $500 discount coupons for the
newest set of our choice from our preferred manufacturer.

I would assume that the vast majority of the public at large gets their HD
content from either a satellite or cable company. I am convinced that
literally ALL of the content from those providers is well below native HD
resolution of 1920x1080i. There was a very recent article in one of the
leading video magazines about this. I can't remember if it was The Perfect
Vision or Widescreen Review. I also vaguely remember a statement years
ago, perhaps incorrectly attributed to Mark Cuban, that said something to
the effect "I won't allow anyone to downrez any content I provide from
HDNet". Before I get jumped on about native being 1920x1080i, I do
understand that several other resolutions are also considered HD such as
720p. But, in my experience, ignoring the emotion of motion artifacts that
are present, in some cases on some monitors, with 1080i, you get the best
possible resolution with 1080i or 1080p. I have never had any problem with
motion artifacts on my 65" XBR. Unfortunately I don't think any provider
is providing 1920x1080i content EXCEPT OTA. I believe that the only OTA
provider that's providing 1080i is CBS. I believe that everyone else is
providing 720p. MPEG4 will probably benefit the provider more than the
consumer squeezing more content into less and less bandwidth thereby
allowing the providers to maximize their bandwidth. I'm sure that MPEG4
compression algorithms are much better at compressing the content than
MPEG2 but it surely can not improve the input it receives. IMHO, there
will never be any 1080p broadcast content.

In summary, to be it seems sad to me that we are reduced to discussing the
HD DVD and Blu-Ray players as our primary source of true HD. The cable and
satellite companies will continue to downrez the quality of their video
until there is an outcry. IMHO, there will never be a large outcry because
the public at large doesn't really care that they can't receive the best
possible video quality and they will continue to accept mediocrity as their
personal standard.

Be slow to attribute to malice what can be simply explained by ignorance or
stupidity.




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]
#2
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

> In summary, to be it seems sad to me that we are reduced to discussing
> the HD DVD and Blu-Ray players as our primary source of true HD.

I have expected it would be that way after about 2 years with broadcast
HD, cable and satellite and have said so many times within TIPS with my
complaints over HD content that is obviously not meeting the ability of
the system.

I prefer broadcast in HD because it is better but I don't expect it will
ever be quite right. Thank GOD for D-Theater, HD DVD and Bluray.
Broadcast HD can't keep up with them anyway!

Richard Fisher
www.HDLibrary.com Published by Tech Services
A division of Mastertech Repair Corporation

Thomas B Kemp wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> I will admit that I am probably going to mix apples and oranges in my
> following comments probably because there are issues that I don't
> understand or because there have been recent developments that I am
> unaware of but here goes.
>
> 1) A lot of us that participate in these Tips discussions are early
> adopters and as a result our monitors can only accept component or VGA
> video input. DVI was on the horizon somewhere five years ago when I
> bought my monitor but I don't think HDMI was even being discussed then.
> Worse than that, my Sony KP65XBR10W was sold to me as having multiple HD
> component video inputs which was incorrect. Sony even initially
> vehemently try to convince me that I was wrong. Of course I wasn't. As
> far as VGA goes, I am under the probably mistaken impression that the
> VGA input on at least my 65" Sony is well below what I would consider HD.
>
> So, as a result we are currently suffering without being able to take
> advantage of the forthcoming HD DVD or Blu-Ray players unless we use an
> outboard scaler and even then I am under the strong impression that
> while the picture quality MAY be better than current DVD quality the
> component video output is going to have to be downrezzed because of the
> copy protection issues. I do have a smaller, 32" Sony HD LCD, but I
> want the ability to do it on the 65" Sony.
>
> I believe that there was mention of a class action law suit in the
> digest version of the Tips that I received this morning and the
> manufacturer mentioned was Mits. While I agree with the issue, I doubt
> that "we" have the critical mass for a lawsuit like this to have any
> real impact other than the final settlement being perhaps $500 discount
> coupons for the newest set of our choice from our preferred manufacturer.
>
> I would assume that the vast majority of the public at large gets their
> HD content from either a satellite or cable company. I am convinced
> that literally ALL of the content from those providers is well below
> native HD resolution of 1920x1080i. There was a very recent article in
> one of the leading video magazines about this. I can't remember if it
> was The Perfect Vision or Widescreen Review. I also vaguely remember a
> statement years ago, perhaps incorrectly attributed to Mark Cuban, that
> said something to the effect "I won't allow anyone to downrez any
> content I provide from HDNet". Before I get jumped on about native
> being 1920x1080i, I do understand that several other resolutions are
> also considered HD such as 720p. But, in my experience, ignoring the
> emotion of motion artifacts that are present, in some cases on some
> monitors, with 1080i, you get the best possible resolution with 1080i or
> 1080p. I have never had any problem with motion artifacts on my 65"
> XBR. Unfortunately I don't think any provider is providing 1920x1080i
> content EXCEPT OTA. I believe that the only OTA provider that's
> providing 1080i is CBS. I believe that everyone else is providing
> 720p. MPEG4 will probably benefit the provider more than the consumer
> squeezing more content into less and less bandwidth thereby allowing the
> providers to maximize their bandwidth. I'm sure that MPEG4 compression
> algorithms are much better at compressing the content than MPEG2 but it
> surely can not improve the input it receives. IMHO, there will never be
> any 1080p broadcast content.
>
> In summary, to be it seems sad to me that we are reduced to discussing
> the HD DVD and Blu-Ray players as our primary source of true HD. The
> cable and satellite companies will continue to downrez the quality of
> their video until there is an outcry. IMHO, there will never be a large
> outcry because the public at large doesn't really care that they can't
> receive the best possible video quality and they will continue to accept
> mediocrity as their personal standard.
>
> Be slow to attribute to malice what can be simply explained by ignorance
> or stupidity.
>
>
>
>
> 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]
#3
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Richard, your remarks are on point. There are some OTA sources of merit,
PBS and ????. Even PBS is some localities has changed to broadcasting
sub-channels. Allowing sub-channels is (in my view) one of the worst
decisions ever reached by the FCC. I can only hope that with complete
digital conversion, additional full-bandwidth channels will be allocated
with the elimination of sub-channels; the digital channels can be
allocated next to each other because the system has been designed to
eliminate the need for unused "guard channels".

Maybe the ultimate hope is for fiber to the home, providing so much
bandwidth that everything can be in full HD. If such a delivery system
were widely installed, it seems that DISH and Direct could be seriously
impacted, and would have to change their business plans.



Howard in South Bend, where Fox and PBS are alone in not broadcasting
sub-channels!


On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 16:53 -0500, Richard Fisher wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> > In summary, to be it seems sad to me that we are reduced to discussing
> > the HD DVD and Blu-Ray players as our primary source of true HD.
>
> I have expected it would be that way after about 2 years with broadcast
> HD, cable and satellite and have said so many times within TIPS with my
> complaints over HD content that is obviously not meeting the ability of
> the system.
>
> I prefer broadcast in HD because it is better but I don't expect it will
> ever be quite right. Thank GOD for D-Theater, HD DVD and Bluray.
> Broadcast HD can't keep up with them anyway!
>
> Richard Fisher
> www.HDLibrary.com Published by Tech Services
> A division of Mastertech Repair Corporation
>
> Thomas B Kemp wrote:
> > ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >
> > I will admit that I am probably going to mix apples and oranges in my
> > following comments probably because there are issues that I don't
> > understand or because there have been recent developments that I am
> > unaware of but here goes.
> >
> > 1) A lot of us that participate in these Tips discussions are early
> > adopters and as a result our monitors can only accept component or VGA
> > video input. DVI was on the horizon somewhere five years ago when I
> > bought my monitor but I don't think HDMI was even being discussed then.
> > Worse than that, my Sony KP65XBR10W was sold to me as having multiple HD
> > component video inputs which was incorrect. Sony even initially
> > vehemently try to convince me that I was wrong. Of course I wasn't. As
> > far as VGA goes, I am under the probably mistaken impression that the
> > VGA input on at least my 65" Sony is well below what I would consider HD.
> >
> > So, as a result we are currently suffering without being able to take
> > advantage of the forthcoming HD DVD or Blu-Ray players unless we use an
> > outboard scaler and even then I am under the strong impression that
> > while the picture quality MAY be better than current DVD quality the
> > component video output is going to have to be downrezzed because of the
> > copy protection issues. I do have a smaller, 32" Sony HD LCD, but I
> > want the ability to do it on the 65" Sony.
> >
> > I believe that there was mention of a class action law suit in the
> > digest version of the Tips that I received this morning and the
> > manufacturer mentioned was Mits. While I agree with the issue, I doubt
> > that "we" have the critical mass for a lawsuit like this to have any
> > real impact other than the final settlement being perhaps $500 discount
> > coupons for the newest set of our choice from our preferred manufacturer.
> >
> > I would assume that the vast majority of the public at large gets their
> > HD content from either a satellite or cable company. I am convinced
> > that literally ALL of the content from those providers is well below
> > native HD resolution of 1920x1080i. There was a very recent article in
> > one of the leading video magazines about this. I can't remember if it
> > was The Perfect Vision or Widescreen Review. I also vaguely remember a
> > statement years ago, perhaps incorrectly attributed to Mark Cuban, that
> > said something to the effect "I won't allow anyone to downrez any
> > content I provide from HDNet". Before I get jumped on about native
> > being 1920x1080i, I do understand that several other resolutions are
> > also considered HD such as 720p. But, in my experience, ignoring the
> > emotion of motion artifacts that are present, in some cases on some
> > monitors, with 1080i, you get the best possible resolution with 1080i or
> > 1080p. I have never had any problem with motion artifacts on my 65"
> > XBR. Unfortunately I don't think any provider is providing 1920x1080i
> > content EXCEPT OTA. I believe that the only OTA provider that's
> > providing 1080i is CBS. I believe that everyone else is providing
> > 720p. MPEG4 will probably benefit the provider more than the consumer
> > squeezing more content into less and less bandwidth thereby allowing the
> > providers to maximize their bandwidth. I'm sure that MPEG4 compression
> > algorithms are much better at compressing the content than MPEG2 but it
> > surely can not improve the input it receives. IMHO, there will never be
> > any 1080p broadcast content.
> >
> > In summary, to be it seems sad to me that we are reduced to discussing
> > the HD DVD and Blu-Ray players as our primary source of true HD. The
> > cable and satellite companies will continue to downrez the quality of
> > their video until there is an outcry. IMHO, there will never be a large
> > outcry because the public at large doesn't really care that they can't
> > receive the best possible video quality and they will continue to accept
> > mediocrity as their personal standard.
> >
> > Be slow to attribute to malice what can be simply explained by ignorance
> > or stupidity.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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]
#4
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

I would like to correct some misconceptions:

1. Originally the FCC allowed sub-channels as a way to encourage the
transition. Later, the FCC ruled that cable companies only had to carry one of the
OTA station’s sub-channels, a decision that will eventually kill most other
sub-channels. (If most viewers can watch only one sub-channel, the OTA
station will want it to be high quality. Reducing the resolution of their
principal channel makes little sense if very few people are watching the other
sub-channels.)
2. There is no connection between sub-channels and guard channels. Every
OTA station will eventually have one 6-megahertz physical channel, no more and
no less, to do with as they please. In ATSC, individual sub-channels do not
have their own frequency assignments. The data for all of the station’s
sub-channels is mixed together and modulated with a single carrier.
3. I am amused at how people think 1080p high-def DVD will be better than
OTA. High-def DVDs will still be 24 frames per second. OTA does somewhat
better most of the time. When better “motion adaptive processing” comes along
it will probably benefit OTA as much as DVD. It is a bit unwise to compare
theoretical DVD players of the future to OTA broadcasts of the present.
4. If you can’t see a dramatic difference between a 720x480 image (DVD) and
a 1920x1080 image then there is something wrong with your experiment.

-Ken


In a message dated 1/15/2006 2:31:06 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Richard, your remarks are on point. There are some OTA sources of merit,
PBS and ????. Even PBS is some localities has changed to broadcasting
sub-channels. Allowing sub-channels is (in my view) one of the worst
decisions ever reached by the FCC. I can only hope that with complete
digital conversion, additional full-bandwidth channels will be allocated
with the elimination of sub-channels; the digital channels can be
allocated next to each other because the system has been designed to
eliminate the need for unused "guard channels".

Maybe the ultimate hope is for fiber to the home, providing so much
bandwidth that everything can be in full HD. If such a delivery system
were widely installed, it seems that DISH and Direct could be seriously
impacted, and would have to change their business plans.



Howard in South Bend, where Fox and PBS are alone in not broadcasting
sub-channels!


On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 16:53 -0500, Richard Fisher wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> > In summary, to be it seems sad to me that we are reduced to discussing
> > the HD DVD and Blu-Ray players as our primary source of true HD.
>
> I have expected it would be that way after about 2 years with broadcast
> HD, cable and satellite and have said so many times within TIPS with my
> complaints over HD content that is obviously not meeting the ability of
> the system.
>
> I prefer broadcast in HD because it is better but I don't expect it will
> ever be quite right. Thank GOD for D-Theater, HD DVD and Bluray.
> Broadcast HD can't keep up with them anyway!
>
> Richard Fisher
> www.HDLibrary.com Published by Tech Services
> A division of Mastertech Repair Corporation


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]
#5
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

I assume that Comcast Cable HD programs are highly compressed and cannot
match the PQ of OTA. Comcast claims it is not compressed but I don't believe
that.

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Howard A. Blackstead
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 5:31 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Observations and Questions

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

Richard, your remarks are on point. There are some OTA sources of merit,
PBS and ????. Even PBS is some localities has changed to broadcasting
sub-channels. Allowing sub-channels is (in my view) one of the worst
decisions ever reached by the FCC. I can only hope that with complete
digital conversion, additional full-bandwidth channels will be allocated
with the elimination of sub-channels; the digital channels can be
allocated next to each other because the system has been designed to
eliminate the need for unused "guard channels".

Maybe the ultimate hope is for fiber to the home, providing so much
bandwidth that everything can be in full HD. If such a delivery system
were widely installed, it seems that DISH and Direct could be seriously
impacted, and would have to change their business plans.



Howard in South Bend, where Fox and PBS are alone in not broadcasting
sub-channels!


On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 16:53 -0500, Richard Fisher wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> > In summary, to be it seems sad to me that we are reduced to discussing
> > the HD DVD and Blu-Ray players as our primary source of true HD.
>
> I have expected it would be that way after about 2 years with broadcast
> HD, cable and satellite and have said so many times within TIPS with my
> complaints over HD content that is obviously not meeting the ability of
> the system.
>
> I prefer broadcast in HD because it is better but I don't expect it will
> ever be quite right. Thank GOD for D-Theater, HD DVD and Bluray.
> Broadcast HD can't keep up with them anyway!
>
> Richard Fisher
> www.HDLibrary.com Published by Tech Services
> A division of Mastertech Repair Corporation
>
> Thomas B Kemp wrote:
> > ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >
> > I will admit that I am probably going to mix apples and oranges in my
> > following comments probably because there are issues that I don't
> > understand or because there have been recent developments that I am
> > unaware of but here goes.
> >
> > 1) A lot of us that participate in these Tips discussions are early
> > adopters and as a result our monitors can only accept component or VGA
> > video input. DVI was on the horizon somewhere five years ago when I
> > bought my monitor but I don't think HDMI was even being discussed then.

> > Worse than that, my Sony KP65XBR10W was sold to me as having multiple HD

> > component video inputs which was incorrect. Sony even initially
> > vehemently try to convince me that I was wrong. Of course I wasn't. As

> > far as VGA goes, I am under the probably mistaken impression that the
> > VGA input on at least my 65" Sony is well below what I would consider
HD.
> >
> > So, as a result we are currently suffering without being able to take
> > advantage of the forthcoming HD DVD or Blu-Ray players unless we use an
> > outboard scaler and even then I am under the strong impression that
> > while the picture quality MAY be better than current DVD quality the
> > component video output is going to have to be downrezzed because of the
> > copy protection issues. I do have a smaller, 32" Sony HD LCD, but I
> > want the ability to do it on the 65" Sony.
> >
> > I believe that there was mention of a class action law suit in the
> > digest version of the Tips that I received this morning and the
> > manufacturer mentioned was Mits. While I agree with the issue, I doubt
> > that "we" have the critical mass for a lawsuit like this to have any
> > real impact other than the final settlement being perhaps $500 discount
> > coupons for the newest set of our choice from our preferred
manufacturer.
> >
> > I would assume that the vast majority of the public at large gets their
> > HD content from either a satellite or cable company. I am convinced
> > that literally ALL of the content from those providers is well below
> > native HD resolution of 1920x1080i. There was a very recent article in
> > one of the leading video magazines about this. I can't remember if it
> > was The Perfect Vision or Widescreen Review. I also vaguely remember a
> > statement years ago, perhaps incorrectly attributed to Mark Cuban, that
> > said something to the effect "I won't allow anyone to downrez any
> > content I provide from HDNet". Before I get jumped on about native
> > being 1920x1080i, I do understand that several other resolutions are
> > also considered HD such as 720p. But, in my experience, ignoring the
> > emotion of motion artifacts that are present, in some cases on some
> > monitors, with 1080i, you get the best possible resolution with 1080i or

> > 1080p. I have never had any problem with motion artifacts on my 65"
> > XBR. Unfortunately I don't think any provider is providing 1920x1080i
> > content EXCEPT OTA. I believe that the only OTA provider that's
> > providing 1080i is CBS. I believe that everyone else is providing
> > 720p. MPEG4 will probably benefit the provider more than the consumer
> > squeezing more content into less and less bandwidth thereby allowing the

> > providers to maximize their bandwidth. I'm sure that MPEG4 compression
> > algorithms are much better at compressing the content than MPEG2 but it
> > surely can not improve the input it receives. IMHO, there will never be

> > any 1080p broadcast content.
> >
> > In summary, to be it seems sad to me that we are reduced to discussing
> > the HD DVD and Blu-Ray players as our primary source of true HD. The
> > cable and satellite companies will continue to downrez the quality of
> > their video until there is an outcry. IMHO, there will never be a large

> > outcry because the public at large doesn't really care that they can't
> > receive the best possible video quality and they will continue to accept

> > mediocrity as their personal standard.
> >
> > Be slow to attribute to malice what can be simply explained by ignorance

> > or stupidity.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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]
#6
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

I have Comcast HD and an OTA HD reciever. I see little to no difference
between the signals.

Bobby C

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Robert Bullock
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 6:55 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Observations and Questions


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

I assume that Comcast Cable HD programs are highly compressed and cannot
match the PQ of OTA. Comcast claims it is not compressed but I don't believe
that.

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Howard A. Blackstead
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 5:31 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Observations and Questions

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

Richard, your remarks are on point. There are some OTA sources of merit,
PBS and ????. Even PBS is some localities has changed to broadcasting
sub-channels. Allowing sub-channels is (in my view) one of the worst
decisions ever reached by the FCC. I can only hope that with complete
digital conversion, additional full-bandwidth channels will be allocated
with the elimination of sub-channels; the digital channels can be
allocated next to each other because the system has been designed to
eliminate the need for unused "guard channels".

Maybe the ultimate hope is for fiber to the home, providing so much
bandwidth that everything can be in full HD. If such a delivery system
were widely installed, it seems that DISH and Direct could be seriously
impacted, and would have to change their business plans.



Howard in South Bend, where Fox and PBS are alone in not broadcasting
sub-channels!


On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 16:53 -0500, Richard Fisher wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> > In summary, to be it seems sad to me that we are reduced to discussing
> > the HD DVD and Blu-Ray players as our primary source of true HD.
>
> I have expected it would be that way after about 2 years with broadcast
> HD, cable and satellite and have said so many times within TIPS with my
> complaints over HD content that is obviously not meeting the ability of
> the system.
>
> I prefer broadcast in HD because it is better but I don't expect it will
> ever be quite right. Thank GOD for D-Theater, HD DVD and Bluray.
> Broadcast HD can't keep up with them anyway!
>
> Richard Fisher
> www.HDLibrary.com Published by Tech Services
> A division of Mastertech Repair Corporation
>
> Thomas B Kemp wrote:
> > ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >
> > I will admit that I am probably going to mix apples and oranges in my
> > following comments probably because there are issues that I don't
> > understand or because there have been recent developments that I am
> > unaware of but here goes.
> >
> > 1) A lot of us that participate in these Tips discussions are early
> > adopters and as a result our monitors can only accept component or VGA
> > video input. DVI was on the horizon somewhere five years ago when I
> > bought my monitor but I don't think HDMI was even being discussed then.

> > Worse than that, my Sony KP65XBR10W was sold to me as having multiple HD

> > component video inputs which was incorrect. Sony even initially
> > vehemently try to convince me that I was wrong. Of course I wasn't. As

> > far as VGA goes, I am under the probably mistaken impression that the
> > VGA input on at least my 65" Sony is well below what I would consider
HD.
> >
> > So, as a result we are currently suffering without being able to take
> > advantage of the forthcoming HD DVD or Blu-Ray players unless we use an
> > outboard scaler and even then I am under the strong impression that
> > while the picture quality MAY be better than current DVD quality the
> > component video output is going to have to be downrezzed because of the
> > copy protection issues. I do have a smaller, 32" Sony HD LCD, but I
> > want the ability to do it on the 65" Sony.
> >
> > I believe that there was mention of a class action law suit in the
> > digest version of the Tips that I received this morning and the
> > manufacturer mentioned was Mits. While I agree with the issue, I doubt
> > that "we" have the critical mass for a lawsuit like this to have any
> > real impact other than the final settlement being perhaps $500 discount
> > coupons for the newest set of our choice from our preferred
manufacturer.
> >
> > I would assume that the vast majority of the public at large gets their
> > HD content from either a satellite or cable company. I am convinced
> > that literally ALL of the content from those providers is well below
> > native HD resolution of 1920x1080i. There was a very recent article in
> > one of the leading video magazines about this. I can't remember if it
> > was The Perfect Vision or Widescreen Review. I also vaguely remember a
> > statement years ago, perhaps incorrectly attributed to Mark Cuban, that
> > said something to the effect "I won't allow anyone to downrez any
> > content I provide from HDNet". Before I get jumped on about native
> > being 1920x1080i, I do understand that several other resolutions are
> > also considered HD such as 720p. But, in my experience, ignoring the
> > emotion of motion artifacts that are present, in some cases on some
> > monitors, with 1080i, you get the best possible resolution with 1080i or

> > 1080p. I have never had any problem with motion artifacts on my 65"
> > XBR. Unfortunately I don't think any provider is providing 1920x1080i
> > content EXCEPT OTA. I believe that the only OTA provider that's
> > providing 1080i is CBS. I believe that everyone else is providing
> > 720p. MPEG4 will probably benefit the provider more than the consumer
> > squeezing more content into less and less bandwidth thereby allowing the

> > providers to maximize their bandwidth. I'm sure that MPEG4 compression
> > algorithms are much better at compressing the content than MPEG2 but it
> > surely can not improve the input it receives. IMHO, there will never be

> > any 1080p broadcast content.
> >
> > In summary, to be it seems sad to me that we are reduced to discussing
> > the HD DVD and Blu-Ray players as our primary source of true HD. The
> > cable and satellite companies will continue to downrez the quality of
> > their video until there is an outcry. IMHO, there will never be a large

> > outcry because the public at large doesn't really care that they can't
> > receive the best possible video quality and they will continue to accept

> > mediocrity as their personal standard.
> >
> > Be slow to attribute to malice what can be simply explained by ignorance

> > or stupidity.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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]
#7
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

It is difficult to correctly generalize comments on OTA vs cable HD
quality. In most cases the degree of compression on cable is relatively
(compared to satellite) low. Further, the cable head end often receives
feeds from the local OTA station via fiber or microwave where there is
no or little compression. In those cases it is quite possible that the
cable signal will be superior to OTA. A good case in point is our local
(Rochester, NY) PBS station. They have had 3 subchannels (I believe
that they are now back to 2) in addition to the HD channel. They feed
Time Warner with fiber. It is easy to see the difference in quality
between cable and OTA in this case - cable is far superior. Our local
ABC station also feeds TW via fiber, but they have no subchannels - so
OTA is slightly better than cable (though I've never been able to see
it). The local NBC station has a weather subchannel and TW gets their
signal OTA - so cable is never better than OTA - but again there is not
much visable difference.

Dave Hancock

Robert Bullock wrote:

>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>I assume that Comcast Cable HD programs are highly compressed and cannot
>match the PQ of OTA. Comcast claims it is not compressed but I don't believe
>that.
>
>Bob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
>Howard A. Blackstead
>Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 5:31 PM
>To: HDTV Magazine
>Subject: Re: Observations and Questions
>
>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>Richard, your remarks are on point. There are some OTA sources of merit,
>PBS and ????. Even PBS is some localities has changed to broadcasting
>sub-channels. Allowing sub-channels is (in my view) one of the worst
>decisions ever reached by the FCC. I can only hope that with complete
>digital conversion, additional full-bandwidth channels will be allocated
>with the elimination of sub-channels; the digital channels can be
>allocated next to each other because the system has been designed to
>eliminate the need for unused "guard channels".
>
>Maybe the ultimate hope is for fiber to the home, providing so much
>bandwidth that everything can be in full HD. If such a delivery system
>were widely installed, it seems that DISH and Direct could be seriously
>impacted, and would have to change their business plans.
>
>
>
>Howard in South Bend, where Fox and PBS are alone in not broadcasting
>sub-channels!
>
>
>On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 16:53 -0500, Richard Fisher wrote:
>
>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> > In summary, to be it seems sad to me that we are reduced to discussing
>> > the HD DVD and Blu-Ray players as our primary source of true HD.
>>
>>I have expected it would be that way after about 2 years with broadcast
>>HD, cable and satellite and have said so many times within TIPS with my
>>complaints over HD content that is obviously not meeting the ability of
>>the system.
>>
>>I prefer broadcast in HD because it is better but I don't expect it will
>>ever be quite right. Thank GOD for D-Theater, HD DVD and Bluray.
>>Broadcast HD can't keep up with them anyway!
>>
>>Richard Fisher
>>www.HDLibrary.com Published by Tech Services
>>A division of Mastertech Repair Corporation
>>
>>Thomas B Kemp wrote:
>>
>>
>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>>I will admit that I am probably going to mix apples and oranges in my
>>>following comments probably because there are issues that I don't
>>>understand or because there have been recent developments that I am
>>>unaware of but here goes.
>>>
>>>1) A lot of us that participate in these Tips discussions are early
>>>adopters and as a result our monitors can only accept component or VGA
>>>video input. DVI was on the horizon somewhere five years ago when I
>>>bought my monitor but I don't think HDMI was even being discussed then.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>>Worse than that, my Sony KP65XBR10W was sold to me as having multiple HD
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>>component video inputs which was incorrect. Sony even initially
>>>vehemently try to convince me that I was wrong. Of course I wasn't. As
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>>far as VGA goes, I am under the probably mistaken impression that the
>>>VGA input on at least my 65" Sony is well below what I would consider
>>>
>>>
>HD.
>
>
>>>So, as a result we are currently suffering without being able to take
>>>advantage of the forthcoming HD DVD or Blu-Ray players unless we use an
>>>outboard scaler and even then I am under the strong impression that
>>>while the picture quality MAY be better than current DVD quality the
>>>component video output is going to have to be downrezzed because of the
>>>copy protection issues. I do have a smaller, 32" Sony HD LCD, but I
>>>want the ability to do it on the 65" Sony.
>>>
>>>I believe that there was mention of a class action law suit in the
>>>digest version of the Tips that I received this morning and the
>>>manufacturer mentioned was Mits. While I agree with the issue, I doubt
>>>that "we" have the critical mass for a lawsuit like this to have any
>>>real impact other than the final settlement being perhaps $500 discount
>>>coupons for the newest set of our choice from our preferred
>>>
>>>
>manufacturer.
>
>
>>>I would assume that the vast majority of the public at large gets their
>>>HD content from either a satellite or cable company. I am convinced
>>>that literally ALL of the content from those providers is well below
>>>native HD resolution of 1920x1080i. There was a very recent article in
>>>one of the leading video magazines about this. I can't remember if it
>>>was The Perfect Vision or Widescreen Review. I also vaguely remember a
>>>statement years ago, perhaps incorrectly attributed to Mark Cuban, that
>>>said something to the effect "I won't allow anyone to downrez any
>>>content I provide from HDNet". Before I get jumped on about native
>>>being 1920x1080i, I do understand that several other resolutions are
>>>also considered HD such as 720p. But, in my experience, ignoring the
>>>emotion of motion artifacts that are present, in some cases on some
>>>monitors, with 1080i, you get the best possible resolution with 1080i or
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>>1080p. I have never had any problem with motion artifacts on my 65"
>>>XBR. Unfortunately I don't think any provider is providing 1920x1080i
>>>content EXCEPT OTA. I believe that the only OTA provider that's
>>>providing 1080i is CBS. I believe that everyone else is providing
>>>720p. MPEG4 will probably benefit the provider more than the consumer
>>>squeezing more content into less and less bandwidth thereby allowing the
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>>providers to maximize their bandwidth. I'm sure that MPEG4 compression
>>>algorithms are much better at compressing the content than MPEG2 but it
>>>surely can not improve the input it receives. IMHO, there will never be
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>>any 1080p broadcast content.
>>>
>>>In summary, to be it seems sad to me that we are reduced to discussing
>>>the HD DVD and Blu-Ray players as our primary source of true HD. The
>>>cable and satellite companies will continue to downrez the quality of
>>>their video until there is an outcry. IMHO, there will never be a large
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>>outcry because the public at large doesn't really care that they can't
>>>receive the best possible video quality and they will continue to accept
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>>mediocrity as their personal standard.
>>>
>>>Be slow to attribute to malice what can be simply explained by ignorance
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>>or stupidity.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>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]
#8
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

I see this all the time...

Hello HD DVD and Bluray!

Richard Fisher
www.HDLibrary.com Published by Tech Services
A division of Mastertech Repair Corporation

Bob Caplan wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> I have Comcast HD and an OTA HD reciever. I see little to no difference
> between the signals.
>
> Bobby C
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Robert Bullock
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 6:55 AM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: Observations and Questions
>
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> I assume that Comcast Cable HD programs are highly compressed and cannot
> match the PQ of OTA. Comcast claims it is not compressed but I don't believe
> that.
>
> Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Howard A. Blackstead
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 5:31 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: Observations and Questions
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Richard, your remarks are on point. There are some OTA sources of merit,
> PBS and ????. Even PBS is some localities has changed to broadcasting
> sub-channels. Allowing sub-channels is (in my view) one of the worst
> decisions ever reached by the FCC. I can only hope that with complete
> digital conversion, additional full-bandwidth channels will be allocated
> with the elimination of sub-channels; the digital channels can be
> allocated next to each other because the system has been designed to
> eliminate the need for unused "guard channels".
>
> Maybe the ultimate hope is for fiber to the home, providing so much
> bandwidth that everything can be in full HD. If such a delivery system
> were widely installed, it seems that DISH and Direct could be seriously
> impacted, and would have to change their business plans.
>
>
>
> Howard in South Bend, where Fox and PBS are alone in not broadcasting
> sub-channels!
>
>
> On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 16:53 -0500, Richard Fisher wrote:
>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> > In summary, to be it seems sad to me that we are reduced to discussing
>> > the HD DVD and Blu-Ray players as our primary source of true HD.
>>
>>I have expected it would be that way after about 2 years with broadcast
>>HD, cable and satellite and have said so many times within TIPS with my
>>complaints over HD content that is obviously not meeting the ability of
>>the system.
>>
>>I prefer broadcast in HD because it is better but I don't expect it will
>>ever be quite right. Thank GOD for D-Theater, HD DVD and Bluray.
>>Broadcast HD can't keep up with them anyway!
>>
>>Richard Fisher
>>www.HDLibrary.com Published by Tech Services
>>A division of Mastertech Repair Corporation
>>
>>Thomas B Kemp wrote:
>>
>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>>I will admit that I am probably going to mix apples and oranges in my
>>>following comments probably because there are issues that I don't
>>>understand or because there have been recent developments that I am
>>>unaware of but here goes.
>>>
>>>1) A lot of us that participate in these Tips discussions are early
>>>adopters and as a result our monitors can only accept component or VGA
>>>video input. DVI was on the horizon somewhere five years ago when I
>>>bought my monitor but I don't think HDMI was even being discussed then.
>
>
>>>Worse than that, my Sony KP65XBR10W was sold to me as having multiple HD
>
>
>>>component video inputs which was incorrect. Sony even initially
>>>vehemently try to convince me that I was wrong. Of course I wasn't. As
>
>
>>>far as VGA goes, I am under the probably mistaken impression that the
>>>VGA input on at least my 65" Sony is well below what I would consider
>
> HD.
>
>>>So, as a result we are currently suffering without being able to take
>>>advantage of the forthcoming HD DVD or Blu-Ray players unless we use an
>>>outboard scaler and even then I am under the strong impression that
>>>while the picture quality MAY be better than current DVD quality the
>>>component video output is going to have to be downrezzed because of the
>>>copy protection issues. I do have a smaller, 32" Sony HD LCD, but I
>>>want the ability to do it on the 65" Sony.
>>>
>>>I believe that there was mention of a class action law suit in the
>>>digest version of the Tips that I received this morning and the
>>>manufacturer mentioned was Mits. While I agree with the issue, I doubt
>>>that "we" have the critical mass for a lawsuit like this to have any
>>>real impact other than the final settlement being perhaps $500 discount
>>>coupons for the newest set of our choice from our preferred
>
> manufacturer.
>
>>>I would assume that the vast majority of the public at large gets their
>>>HD content from either a satellite or cable company. I am convinced
>>>that literally ALL of the content from those providers is well below
>>>native HD resolution of 1920x1080i. There was a very recent article in
>>>one of the leading video magazines about this. I can't remember if it
>>>was The Perfect Vision or Widescreen Review. I also vaguely remember a
>>>statement years ago, perhaps incorrectly attributed to Mark Cuban, that
>>>said something to the effect "I won't allow anyone to downrez any
>>>content I provide from HDNet". Before I get jumped on about native
>>>being 1920x1080i, I do understand that several other resolutions are
>>>also considered HD such as 720p. But, in my experience, ignoring the
>>>emotion of motion artifacts that are present, in some cases on some
>>>monitors, with 1080i, you get the best possible resolution with 1080i or
>
>
>>>1080p. I have never had any problem with motion artifacts on my 65"
>>>XBR. Unfortunately I don't think any provider is providing 1920x1080i
>>>content EXCEPT OTA. I believe that the only OTA provider that's
>>>providing 1080i is CBS. I believe that everyone else is providing
>>>720p. MPEG4 will probably benefit the provider more than the consumer
>>>squeezing more content into less and less bandwidth thereby allowing the
>
>
>>>providers to maximize their bandwidth. I'm sure that MPEG4 compression
>>>algorithms are much better at compressing the content than MPEG2 but it
>>>surely can not improve the input it receives. IMHO, there will never be
>
>
>>>any 1080p broadcast content.
>>>
>>>In summary, to be it seems sad to me that we are reduced to discussing
>>>the HD DVD and Blu-Ray players as our primary source of true HD. The
>>>cable and satellite companies will continue to downrez the quality of
>>>their video until there is an outcry. IMHO, there will never be a large
>
>
>>>outcry because the public at large doesn't really care that they can't
>>>receive the best possible video quality and they will continue to accept
>
>
>>>mediocrity as their personal standard.
>>>
>>>Be slow to attribute to malice what can be simply explained by ignorance
>
>
>>>or stupidity.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>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]
#9
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Bobby - Which HD OTA receiver do you have and how do
you like it?
I am going to give my 34" Sony to my sister-in-law and
she only watches locals so all I need to set her up is
a roof antenna and a HD tuner.

Joe Soprano
San Diego

--- Bob Caplan <[email protected]> wrote:

> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> I have Comcast HD and an OTA HD reciever. I see
> little to no difference
> between the signals.
>
> Bobby C
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine
> On Behalf Of
> Robert Bullock
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 6:55 AM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: Observations and Questions
>
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> I assume that Comcast Cable HD programs are highly
> compressed and cannot
> match the PQ of OTA. Comcast claims it is not
> compressed but I don't believe
> that.
>
> Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine
> On Behalf
> Of
> Howard A. Blackstead
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 5:31 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: Observations and Questions
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Richard, your remarks are on point. There are some
> OTA sources of merit,
> PBS and ????. Even PBS is some localities has
> changed to broadcasting
> sub-channels. Allowing sub-channels is (in my view)
> one of the worst
> decisions ever reached by the FCC. I can only hope
> that with complete
> digital conversion, additional full-bandwidth
> channels will be allocated
> with the elimination of sub-channels; the digital
> channels can be
> allocated next to each other because the system has
> been designed to
> eliminate the need for unused "guard channels".
>
> Maybe the ultimate hope is for fiber to the home,
> providing so much
> bandwidth that everything can be in full HD. If such
> a delivery system
> were widely installed, it seems that DISH and Direct
> could be seriously
> impacted, and would have to change their business
> plans.
>
>
>
> Howard in South Bend, where Fox and PBS are alone in
> not broadcasting
> sub-channels!
>
>
> On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 16:53 -0500, Richard Fisher
> wrote:
> > ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >
> > > In summary, to be it seems sad to me that we
> are reduced to discussing
> > > the HD DVD and Blu-Ray players as our primary
> source of true HD.
> >
> > I have expected it would be that way after about 2
> years with broadcast
> > HD, cable and satellite and have said so many
> times within TIPS with my
> > complaints over HD content that is obviously not
> meeting the ability of
> > the system.
> >
> > I prefer broadcast in HD because it is better but
> I don't expect it will
> > ever be quite right. Thank GOD for D-Theater, HD
> DVD and Bluray.
> > Broadcast HD can't keep up with them anyway!
> >
> > Richard Fisher
> > www.HDLibrary.com Published by Tech Services
> > A division of Mastertech Repair Corporation
> >
> > Thomas B Kemp wrote:
> > > ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> > >
> > > I will admit that I am probably going to mix
> apples and oranges in my
> > > following comments probably because there are
> issues that I don't
> > > understand or because there have been recent
> developments that I am
> > > unaware of but here goes.
> > >
> > > 1) A lot of us that participate in these Tips
> discussions are early
> > > adopters and as a result our monitors can only
> accept component or VGA
> > > video input. DVI was on the horizon somewhere
> five years ago when I
> > > bought my monitor but I don't think HDMI was
> even being discussed then.
>
> > > Worse than that, my Sony KP65XBR10W was sold to
> me as having multiple HD
>
> > > component video inputs which was incorrect.
> Sony even initially
> > > vehemently try to convince me that I was wrong.
> Of course I wasn't. As
>
> > > far as VGA goes, I am under the probably
> mistaken impression that the
> > > VGA input on at least my 65" Sony is well below
> what I would consider
> HD.
> > >
> > > So, as a result we are currently suffering
> without being able to take
> > > advantage of the forthcoming HD DVD or Blu-Ray
> players unless we use an
> > > outboard scaler and even then I am under the
> strong impression that
> > > while the picture quality MAY be better than
> current DVD quality the
> > > component video output is going to have to be
> downrezzed because of the
> > > copy protection issues. I do have a smaller,
> 32" Sony HD LCD, but I
> > > want the ability to do it on the 65" Sony.
> > >
> > > I believe that there was mention of a class
> action law suit in the
> > > digest version of the Tips that I received this
> morning and the
> > > manufacturer mentioned was Mits. While I agree
> with the issue, I doubt
> > > that "we" have the critical mass for a lawsuit
> like this to have any
> > > real impact other than the final settlement
> being perhaps $500 discount
> > > coupons for the newest set of our choice from
> our preferred
> manufacturer.
> > >
> > > I would assume that the vast majority of the
> public at large gets their
> > > HD content from either a satellite or cable
> company. I am convinced
> > > that literally ALL of the content from those
> providers is well below
> > > native HD resolution of 1920x1080i. There was a
> very recent article in
> > > one of the leading video magazines about this.
> I can't remember if it
> > > was The Perfect Vision or Widescreen Review. I
> also vaguely remember a
> > > statement years ago, perhaps incorrectly
> attributed to Mark Cuban, that
> > > said something to the effect "I won't allow
> anyone to downrez any
> > > content I provide from HDNet". Before I get
> jumped on about native
> > > being 1920x1080i, I do understand that several
> other resolutions are
> > > also considered HD such as 720p. But, in my
> experience, ignoring the
> > > emotion of motion artifacts that are present, in
> some cases on some
> > > monitors, with 1080i, you get the best possible
> resolution with 1080i or
>
> > > 1080p. I have never had any problem with motion
> artifacts on my 65"
> > > XBR. Unfortunately I don't think any provider
> is providing 1920x1080i
> > > content EXCEPT OTA. I believe that the only OTA
> provider that's
> > > providing 1080i is CBS. I believe that everyone
> else is providing
> > > 720p. MPEG4 will probably benefit the provider
> more than the consumer
> > > squeezing more content into less and less
> bandwidth thereby allowing the
>
> > > providers to maximize their bandwidth. I'm sure
> that MPEG4 compression
> > > algorithms are much better at compressing the
> content than MPEG2 but it
> > > surely can not improve the input it receives.
> IMHO, there will never be
>
> > > any 1080p broadcast content.
> > >
> > > In summary, to be it seems sad to me that we are
> reduced to discussing
> > > the HD DVD and Blu-Ray players as our primary
> source of true HD. The
> > > cable and satellite companies will continue to
> downrez the quality of
> > > their video until there is an outcry. IMHO,
> there will never be a large
>
> > > outcry because the public at large doesn't
> really care that they can't
> > > receive the best possible video quality and they
> will continue to accept
>
> > > mediocrity as their personal standard.
> > >
> > > Be slow to attribute to malice what can be
> simply explained by ignorance
>
> > > or stupidity.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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]
#10
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Joe,

I have a Samsung Sir T-151, an older model. It works well for my purposes.

Bobby

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Joe Soprano dba Fun Services
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 10:30 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Observations and Questions


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

Bobby - Which HD OTA receiver do you have and how do
you like it?
I am going to give my 34" Sony to my sister-in-law and
she only watches locals so all I need to set her up is
a roof antenna and a HD tuner.

Joe Soprano
San Diego



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]
#11
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Here in Woodbridge, VA the Comcast picture looked the same as OTA on my
1080P DLP set. DiscoveryHD on Comcast was noticeably better than on DirecTV.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Bullock" <[email protected]>
To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: Observations and Questions


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

I assume that Comcast Cable HD programs are highly compressed and cannot
match the PQ of OTA. Comcast claims it is not compressed but I don't believe
that.

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Howard A. Blackstead
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 5:31 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Observations and Questions

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

Richard, your remarks are on point. There are some OTA sources of merit,
PBS and ????. Even PBS is some localities has changed to broadcasting
sub-channels. Allowing sub-channels is (in my view) one of the worst
decisions ever reached by the FCC. I can only hope that with complete
digital conversion, additional full-bandwidth channels will be allocated
with the elimination of sub-channels; the digital channels can be
allocated next to each other because the system has been designed to
eliminate the need for unused "guard channels".

Maybe the ultimate hope is for fiber to the home, providing so much
bandwidth that everything can be in full HD. If such a delivery system
were widely installed, it seems that DISH and Direct could be seriously
impacted, and would have to change their business plans.



Howard in South Bend, where Fox and PBS are alone in not broadcasting
sub-channels!


On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 16:53 -0500, Richard Fisher wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> > In summary, to be it seems sad to me that we are reduced to discussing
> > the HD DVD and Blu-Ray players as our primary source of true HD.
>
> I have expected it would be that way after about 2 years with broadcast
> HD, cable and satellite and have said so many times within TIPS with my
> complaints over HD content that is obviously not meeting the ability of
> the system.
>
> I prefer broadcast in HD because it is better but I don't expect it will
> ever be quite right. Thank GOD for D-Theater, HD DVD and Bluray.
> Broadcast HD can't keep up with them anyway!
>
> Richard Fisher
> www.HDLibrary.com Published by Tech Services
> A division of Mastertech Repair Corporation
>
> Thomas B Kemp wrote:
> > ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >
> > I will admit that I am probably going to mix apples and oranges in my
> > following comments probably because there are issues that I don't
> > understand or because there have been recent developments that I am
> > unaware of but here goes.
> >
> > 1) A lot of us that participate in these Tips discussions are early
> > adopters and as a result our monitors can only accept component or VGA
> > video input. DVI was on the horizon somewhere five years ago when I
> > bought my monitor but I don't think HDMI was even being discussed then.

> > Worse than that, my Sony KP65XBR10W was sold to me as having multiple HD

> > component video inputs which was incorrect. Sony even initially
> > vehemently try to convince me that I was wrong. Of course I wasn't. As

> > far as VGA goes, I am under the probably mistaken impression that the
> > VGA input on at least my 65" Sony is well below what I would consider
HD.
> >
> > So, as a result we are currently suffering without being able to take
> > advantage of the forthcoming HD DVD or Blu-Ray players unless we use an
> > outboard scaler and even then I am under the strong impression that
> > while the picture quality MAY be better than current DVD quality the
> > component video output is going to have to be downrezzed because of the
> > copy protection issues. I do have a smaller, 32" Sony HD LCD, but I
> > want the ability to do it on the 65" Sony.
> >
> > I believe that there was mention of a class action law suit in the
> > digest version of the Tips that I received this morning and the
> > manufacturer mentioned was Mits. While I agree with the issue, I doubt
> > that "we" have the critical mass for a lawsuit like this to have any
> > real impact other than the final settlement being perhaps $500 discount
> > coupons for the newest set of our choice from our preferred
manufacturer.
> >
> > I would assume that the vast majority of the public at large gets their
> > HD content from either a satellite or cable company. I am convinced
> > that literally ALL of the content from those providers is well below
> > native HD resolution of 1920x1080i. There was a very recent article in
> > one of the leading video magazines about this. I can't remember if it
> > was The Perfect Vision or Widescreen Review. I also vaguely remember a
> > statement years ago, perhaps incorrectly attributed to Mark Cuban, that
> > said something to the effect "I won't allow anyone to downrez any
> > content I provide from HDNet". Before I get jumped on about native
> > being 1920x1080i, I do understand that several other resolutions are
> > also considered HD such as 720p. But, in my experience, ignoring the
> > emotion of motion artifacts that are present, in some cases on some
> > monitors, with 1080i, you get the best possible resolution with 1080i or

> > 1080p. I have never had any problem with motion artifacts on my 65"
> > XBR. Unfortunately I don't think any provider is providing 1920x1080i
> > content EXCEPT OTA. I believe that the only OTA provider that's
> > providing 1080i is CBS. I believe that everyone else is providing
> > 720p. MPEG4 will probably benefit the provider more than the consumer
> > squeezing more content into less and less bandwidth thereby allowing the

> > providers to maximize their bandwidth. I'm sure that MPEG4 compression
> > algorithms are much better at compressing the content than MPEG2 but it
> > surely can not improve the input it receives. IMHO, there will never be

> > any 1080p broadcast content.
> >
> > In summary, to be it seems sad to me that we are reduced to discussing
> > the HD DVD and Blu-Ray players as our primary source of true HD. The
> > cable and satellite companies will continue to downrez the quality of
> > their video until there is an outcry. IMHO, there will never be a large

> > outcry because the public at large doesn't really care that they can't
> > receive the best possible video quality and they will continue to accept

> > mediocrity as their personal standard.
> >
> > Be slow to attribute to malice what can be simply explained by ignorance

> > or stupidity.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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]
#12
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Ah, Woodbridge...I lived in Dale City right after high school - spent a year
at the NOVA campus there and really enjoyed living near D.C. Can't say I
miss the I-95 traffic though!

Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Aaron W. Thompson
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:43 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Observations and Questions

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

Here in Woodbridge, VA the Comcast picture looked the same as OTA on my
1080P DLP set. DiscoveryHD on Comcast was noticeably better than on DirecTV.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Bullock" <[email protected]>
To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: Observations and Questions


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

I assume that Comcast Cable HD programs are highly compressed and cannot
match the PQ of OTA. Comcast claims it is not compressed but I don't believe
that.

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Howard A. Blackstead
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 5:31 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Observations and Questions

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

Richard, your remarks are on point. There are some OTA sources of merit,
PBS and ????. Even PBS is some localities has changed to broadcasting
sub-channels. Allowing sub-channels is (in my view) one of the worst
decisions ever reached by the FCC. I can only hope that with complete
digital conversion, additional full-bandwidth channels will be allocated
with the elimination of sub-channels; the digital channels can be
allocated next to each other because the system has been designed to
eliminate the need for unused "guard channels".

Maybe the ultimate hope is for fiber to the home, providing so much
bandwidth that everything can be in full HD. If such a delivery system
were widely installed, it seems that DISH and Direct could be seriously
impacted, and would have to change their business plans.



Howard in South Bend, where Fox and PBS are alone in not broadcasting
sub-channels!


On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 16:53 -0500, Richard Fisher wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> > In summary, to be it seems sad to me that we are reduced to discussing
> > the HD DVD and Blu-Ray players as our primary source of true HD.
>
> I have expected it would be that way after about 2 years with broadcast
> HD, cable and satellite and have said so many times within TIPS with my
> complaints over HD content that is obviously not meeting the ability of
> the system.
>
> I prefer broadcast in HD because it is better but I don't expect it will
> ever be quite right. Thank GOD for D-Theater, HD DVD and Bluray.
> Broadcast HD can't keep up with them anyway!
>
> Richard Fisher
> www.HDLibrary.com Published by Tech Services
> A division of Mastertech Repair Corporation
>
> Thomas B Kemp wrote:
> > ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >
> > I will admit that I am probably going to mix apples and oranges in my
> > following comments probably because there are issues that I don't
> > understand or because there have been recent developments that I am
> > unaware of but here goes.
> >
> > 1) A lot of us that participate in these Tips discussions are early
> > adopters and as a result our monitors can only accept component or VGA
> > video input. DVI was on the horizon somewhere five years ago when I
> > bought my monitor but I don't think HDMI was even being discussed then.

> > Worse than that, my Sony KP65XBR10W was sold to me as having multiple HD

> > component video inputs which was incorrect. Sony even initially
> > vehemently try to convince me that I was wrong. Of course I wasn't. As

> > far as VGA goes, I am under the probably mistaken impression that the
> > VGA input on at least my 65" Sony is well below what I would consider
HD.
> >
> > So, as a result we are currently suffering without being able to take
> > advantage of the forthcoming HD DVD or Blu-Ray players unless we use an
> > outboard scaler and even then I am under the strong impression that
> > while the picture quality MAY be better than current DVD quality the
> > component video output is going to have to be downrezzed because of the
> > copy protection issues. I do have a smaller, 32" Sony HD LCD, but I
> > want the ability to do it on the 65" Sony.
> >
> > I believe that there was mention of a class action law suit in the
> > digest version of the Tips that I received this morning and the
> > manufacturer mentioned was Mits. While I agree with the issue, I doubt
> > that "we" have the critical mass for a lawsuit like this to have any
> > real impact other than the final settlement being perhaps $500 discount
> > coupons for the newest set of our choice from our preferred
manufacturer.
> >
> > I would assume that the vast majority of the public at large gets their
> > HD content from either a satellite or cable company. I am convinced
> > that literally ALL of the content from those providers is well below
> > native HD resolution of 1920x1080i. There was a very recent article in
> > one of the leading video magazines about this. I can't remember if it
> > was The Perfect Vision or Widescreen Review. I also vaguely remember a
> > statement years ago, perhaps incorrectly attributed to Mark Cuban, that
> > said something to the effect "I won't allow anyone to downrez any
> > content I provide from HDNet". Before I get jumped on about native
> > being 1920x1080i, I do understand that several other resolutions are
> > also considered HD such as 720p. But, in my experience, ignoring the
> > emotion of motion artifacts that are present, in some cases on some
> > monitors, with 1080i, you get the best possible resolution with 1080i or

> > 1080p. I have never had any problem with motion artifacts on my 65"
> > XBR. Unfortunately I don't think any provider is providing 1920x1080i
> > content EXCEPT OTA. I believe that the only OTA provider that's
> > providing 1080i is CBS. I believe that everyone else is providing
> > 720p. MPEG4 will probably benefit the provider more than the consumer
> > squeezing more content into less and less bandwidth thereby allowing the

> > providers to maximize their bandwidth. I'm sure that MPEG4 compression
> > algorithms are much better at compressing the content than MPEG2 but it
> > surely can not improve the input it receives. IMHO, there will never be

> > any 1080p broadcast content.
> >
> > In summary, to be it seems sad to me that we are reduced to discussing
> > the HD DVD and Blu-Ray players as our primary source of true HD. The
> > cable and satellite companies will continue to downrez the quality of
> > their video until there is an outcry. IMHO, there will never be a large

> > outcry because the public at large doesn't really care that they can't
> > receive the best possible video quality and they will continue to accept

> > mediocrity as their personal standard.
> >
> > Be slow to attribute to malice what can be simply explained by ignorance

> > or stupidity.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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]
#13
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

DirecTV limits resolution on all current HD channels (MPEG2 ones) to
1440 pixels.

Aaron W. Thompson wrote:

> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Here in Woodbridge, VA the Comcast picture looked the same as OTA on
> my 1080P DLP set. DiscoveryHD on Comcast was noticeably better than on
> DirecTV.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Bullock"
> <[email protected]>
> To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Observations and Questions
>
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> I assume that Comcast Cable HD programs are highly compressed and cannot
> match the PQ of OTA. Comcast claims it is not compressed but I don't
> believe
> that.
>
> Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Howard A. Blackstead
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 5:31 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: Observations and Questions
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Richard, your remarks are on point. There are some OTA sources of merit,
> PBS and ????. Even PBS is some localities has changed to broadcasting
> sub-channels. Allowing sub-channels is (in my view) one of the worst
> decisions ever reached by the FCC. I can only hope that with complete
> digital conversion, additional full-bandwidth channels will be allocated
> with the elimination of sub-channels; the digital channels can be
> allocated next to each other because the system has been designed to
> eliminate the need for unused "guard channels".
>
> Maybe the ultimate hope is for fiber to the home, providing so much
> bandwidth that everything can be in full HD. If such a delivery system
> were widely installed, it seems that DISH and Direct could be seriously
> impacted, and would have to change their business plans.
>
>
>
> Howard in South Bend, where Fox and PBS are alone in not broadcasting
> sub-channels!
>
>
> On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 16:53 -0500, Richard Fisher wrote:
>
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> > In summary, to be it seems sad to me that we are reduced to
>> discussing
>> > the HD DVD and Blu-Ray players as our primary source of true HD.
>>
>> I have expected it would be that way after about 2 years with broadcast
>> HD, cable and satellite and have said so many times within TIPS with my
>> complaints over HD content that is obviously not meeting the ability of
>> the system.
>>
>> I prefer broadcast in HD because it is better but I don't expect it will
>> ever be quite right. Thank GOD for D-Theater, HD DVD and Bluray.
>> Broadcast HD can't keep up with them anyway!
>>
>> Richard Fisher
>> www.HDLibrary.com Published by Tech Services
>> A division of Mastertech Repair Corporation
>>
>> Thomas B Kemp wrote:
>> > ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>> >
>> > I will admit that I am probably going to mix apples and oranges in my
>> > following comments probably because there are issues that I don't
>> > understand or because there have been recent developments that I am
>> > unaware of but here goes.
>> >
>> > 1) A lot of us that participate in these Tips discussions are early
>> > adopters and as a result our monitors can only accept component or VGA
>> > video input. DVI was on the horizon somewhere five years ago when I
>> > bought my monitor but I don't think HDMI was even being discussed
>> then.
>
>
>> > Worse than that, my Sony KP65XBR10W was sold to me as having
>> multiple HD
>
>
>> > component video inputs which was incorrect. Sony even initially
>> > vehemently try to convince me that I was wrong. Of course I
>> wasn't. As
>
>
>> > far as VGA goes, I am under the probably mistaken impression that the
>> > VGA input on at least my 65" Sony is well below what I would consider
>
> HD.
>
>> >
>> > So, as a result we are currently suffering without being able to take
>> > advantage of the forthcoming HD DVD or Blu-Ray players unless we
>> use an
>> > outboard scaler and even then I am under the strong impression that
>> > while the picture quality MAY be better than current DVD quality the
>> > component video output is going to have to be downrezzed because of
>> the
>> > copy protection issues. I do have a smaller, 32" Sony HD LCD, but I
>> > want the ability to do it on the 65" Sony.
>> >
>> > I believe that there was mention of a class action law suit in the
>> > digest version of the Tips that I received this morning and the
>> > manufacturer mentioned was Mits. While I agree with the issue, I
>> doubt
>> > that "we" have the critical mass for a lawsuit like this to have any
>> > real impact other than the final settlement being perhaps $500
>> discount
>> > coupons for the newest set of our choice from our preferred
>
> manufacturer.
>
>> >
>> > I would assume that the vast majority of the public at large gets
>> their
>> > HD content from either a satellite or cable company. I am convinced
>> > that literally ALL of the content from those providers is well below
>> > native HD resolution of 1920x1080i. There was a very recent
>> article in
>> > one of the leading video magazines about this. I can't remember if it
>> > was The Perfect Vision or Widescreen Review. I also vaguely
>> remember a
>> > statement years ago, perhaps incorrectly attributed to Mark Cuban,
>> that
>> > said something to the effect "I won't allow anyone to downrez any
>> > content I provide from HDNet". Before I get jumped on about native
>> > being 1920x1080i, I do understand that several other resolutions are
>> > also considered HD such as 720p. But, in my experience, ignoring the
>> > emotion of motion artifacts that are present, in some cases on some
>> > monitors, with 1080i, you get the best possible resolution with
>> 1080i or
>
>
>> > 1080p. I have never had any problem with motion artifacts on my 65"
>> > XBR. Unfortunately I don't think any provider is providing 1920x1080i
>> > content EXCEPT OTA. I believe that the only OTA provider that's
>> > providing 1080i is CBS. I believe that everyone else is providing
>> > 720p. MPEG4 will probably benefit the provider more than the consumer
>> > squeezing more content into less and less bandwidth thereby
>> allowing the
>
>
>> > providers to maximize their bandwidth. I'm sure that MPEG4
>> compression
>> > algorithms are much better at compressing the content than MPEG2
>> but it
>> > surely can not improve the input it receives. IMHO, there will
>> never be
>
>
>> > any 1080p broadcast content.
>> >
>> > In summary, to be it seems sad to me that we are reduced to discussing
>> > the HD DVD and Blu-Ray players as our primary source of true HD. The
>> > cable and satellite companies will continue to downrez the quality of
>> > their video until there is an outcry. IMHO, there will never be a
>> large
>
>
>> > outcry because the public at large doesn't really care that they can't
>> > receive the best possible video quality and they will continue to
>> accept
>
>
>> > mediocrity as their personal standard.
>> >
>> > Be slow to attribute to malice what can be simply explained by
>> ignorance
>
>
>> > or stupidity.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 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]
#14
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

> DirecTV limits resolution on all current HD channels (MPEG2 ones) to
> 1440 pixels.

I wish that was all they were limiting. This hardly accounts for being
bit starved causing pixelation and macroblocking. While the local
Charter and Comcast cable may not have macroblocking they suffer none
the less from pixelation and contouring to varying degrees. Some may
notice and others may not.

Richard Fisher
www.HDLibrary.com Published by Tech Services
A division of Mastertech Repair Corporation

Dave Hancock wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> DirecTV limits resolution on all current HD channels (MPEG2 ones) to
> 1440 pixels.
>
> Aaron W. Thompson wrote:
>
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> Here in Woodbridge, VA the Comcast picture looked the same as OTA on
>> my 1080P DLP set. DiscoveryHD on Comcast was noticeably better than on
>> DirecTV.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Bullock"
>> <[email protected]>
>> To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:54 AM
>> Subject: Re: Observations and Questions
>>
>>
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> I assume that Comcast Cable HD programs are highly compressed and cannot
>> match the PQ of OTA. Comcast claims it is not compressed but I don't
>> believe
>> that.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
>> Howard A. Blackstead
>> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 5:31 PM
>> To: HDTV Magazine
>> Subject: Re: Observations and Questions
>>
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> Richard, your remarks are on point. There are some OTA sources of merit,
>> PBS and ????. Even PBS is some localities has changed to broadcasting
>> sub-channels. Allowing sub-channels is (in my view) one of the worst
>> decisions ever reached by the FCC. I can only hope that with complete
>> digital conversion, additional full-bandwidth channels will be allocated
>> with the elimination of sub-channels; the digital channels can be
>> allocated next to each other because the system has been designed to
>> eliminate the need for unused "guard channels".
>>
>> Maybe the ultimate hope is for fiber to the home, providing so much
>> bandwidth that everything can be in full HD. If such a delivery system
>> were widely installed, it seems that DISH and Direct could be seriously
>> impacted, and would have to change their business plans.
>>
>>
>>
>> Howard in South Bend, where Fox and PBS are alone in not broadcasting
>> sub-channels!
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 16:53 -0500, Richard Fisher wrote:
>>
>>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>> > In summary, to be it seems sad to me that we are reduced to
>>> discussing
>>> > the HD DVD and Blu-Ray players as our primary source of true HD.
>>>
>>> I have expected it would be that way after about 2 years with broadcast
>>> HD, cable and satellite and have said so many times within TIPS with my
>>> complaints over HD content that is obviously not meeting the ability of
>>> the system.
>>>
>>> I prefer broadcast in HD because it is better but I don't expect it will
>>> ever be quite right. Thank GOD for D-Theater, HD DVD and Bluray.
>>> Broadcast HD can't keep up with them anyway!
>>>
>>> Richard Fisher
>>> www.HDLibrary.com Published by Tech Services
>>> A division of Mastertech Repair Corporation
>>>
>>> Thomas B Kemp wrote:
>>> > ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>> >
>>> > I will admit that I am probably going to mix apples and oranges in my
>>> > following comments probably because there are issues that I don't
>>> > understand or because there have been recent developments that I am
>>> > unaware of but here goes.
>>> >
>>> > 1) A lot of us that participate in these Tips discussions are early
>>> > adopters and as a result our monitors can only accept component or VGA
>>> > video input. DVI was on the horizon somewhere five years ago when I
>>> > bought my monitor but I don't think HDMI was even being discussed
>>> then.
>>
>>
>>
>>> > Worse than that, my Sony KP65XBR10W was sold to me as having
>>> multiple HD
>>
>>
>>
>>> > component video inputs which was incorrect. Sony even initially
>>> > vehemently try to convince me that I was wrong. Of course I
>>> wasn't. As
>>
>>
>>
>>> > far as VGA goes, I am under the probably mistaken impression that the
>>> > VGA input on at least my 65" Sony is well below what I would consider
>>
>>
>> HD.
>>
>>> >
>>> > So, as a result we are currently suffering without being able to take
>>> > advantage of the forthcoming HD DVD or Blu-Ray players unless we
>>> use an
>>> > outboard scaler and even then I am under the strong impression that
>>> > while the picture quality MAY be better than current DVD quality the
>>> > component video output is going to have to be downrezzed because of
>>> the
>>> > copy protection issues. I do have a smaller, 32" Sony HD LCD, but I
>>> > want the ability to do it on the 65" Sony.
>>> >
>>> > I believe that there was mention of a class action law suit in the
>>> > digest version of the Tips that I received this morning and the
>>> > manufacturer mentioned was Mits. While I agree with the issue, I
>>> doubt
>>> > that "we" have the critical mass for a lawsuit like this to have any
>>> > real impact other than the final settlement being perhaps $500
>>> discount
>>> > coupons for the newest set of our choice from our preferred
>>
>>
>> manufacturer.
>>
>>> >
>>> > I would assume that the vast majority of the public at large gets
>>> their
>>> > HD content from either a satellite or cable company. I am convinced
>>> > that literally ALL of the content from those providers is well below
>>> > native HD resolution of 1920x1080i. There was a very recent
>>> article in
>>> > one of the leading video magazines about this. I can't remember if it
>>> > was The Perfect Vision or Widescreen Review. I also vaguely
>>> remember a
>>> > statement years ago, perhaps incorrectly attributed to Mark Cuban,
>>> that
>>> > said something to the effect "I won't allow anyone to downrez any
>>> > content I provide from HDNet". Before I get jumped on about native
>>> > being 1920x1080i, I do understand that several other resolutions are
>>> > also considered HD such as 720p. But, in my experience, ignoring the
>>> > emotion of motion artifacts that are present, in some cases on some
>>> > monitors, with 1080i, you get the best possible resolution with
>>> 1080i or
>>
>>
>>
>>> > 1080p. I have never had any problem with motion artifacts on my 65"
>>> > XBR. Unfortunately I don't think any provider is providing 1920x1080i
>>> > content EXCEPT OTA. I believe that the only OTA provider that's
>>> > providing 1080i is CBS. I believe that everyone else is providing
>>> > 720p. MPEG4 will probably benefit the provider more than the consumer
>>> > squeezing more content into less and less bandwidth thereby
>>> allowing the
>>
>>
>>
>>> > providers to maximize their bandwidth. I'm sure that MPEG4
>>> compression
>>> > algorithms are much better at compressing the content than MPEG2
>>> but it
>>> > surely can not improve the input it receives. IMHO, there will
>>> never be
>>
>>
>>
>>> > any 1080p broadcast content.
>>> >
>>> > In summary, to be it seems sad to me that we are reduced to discussing
>>> > the HD DVD and Blu-Ray players as our primary source of true HD. The
>>> > cable and satellite companies will continue to downrez the quality of
>>> > their video until there is an outcry. IMHO, there will never be a
>>> large
>>
>>
>>
>>> > outcry because the public at large doesn't really care that they can't
>>> > receive the best possible video quality and they will continue to
>>> accept
>>
>>
>>
>>> > mediocrity as their personal standard.
>>> >
>>> > Be slow to attribute to malice what can be simply explained by
>>> ignorance
>>
>>
>>
>>> > or stupidity.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 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]