----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
Robert,
Thanks for mentioning that I provided early warning about the various 1080p issues (CES report, and
18000 words equivalent to 44 pages helping on the Tips list, just for 1080p). It is nice to see
that you have used the information as intended.
To be honest when I analyzed the way 1080p is being implemented since the start I felt like
witnessing a Ferrari driven with the parking brakes on across the US; both Ferrari and the driver
ignored the warning upon departure, later the driver realizes at the end of the trip, but the baby
is already his, and Ferrari says: on a future model we might "add this feature".
As you might recall, around one year ago I wrote about the issues of:
a) 2005 the year of 1080p competition (the introduction was already made in 2004),
b) not-accepting 1080p on 1080p sets,
c) deinterlacing/scaling issues using 540 line fields and completing the frames with magic
processing to get to a 1080p frame
d) when the job above is better done by external scalers, one more reason for needing 1080p inputs
on 1080p TVs
e) non-1080i/p outputs on component analog of future Hi Def DVD players
f) and possibly not even HDMI 1080p if we let the MPAA go their way
etc, etc
After almost the full year 2005, now, some magazines, forums, HDTV conferences, and stores realize
about the subject and talk as experts reading the evening news.
It is sad to witness such lack of vision and ignorance to the early warnings, and still expect that
consumers pay the price by not providing the timely education.
-------------------------------------------------
Anthony,
The person at the store that told you that 1080p is not part of the standard is wrong.
1080p/24 and 30 fps are actually two the 18 formats (but not p60fps) that are part of the ATSC
standard, let us imagine this scenario:
Broadcaster
------------
1) A broadcaster can perfectly use this format (1080p/24 for film based content),
2) all ATSC OTA tuners must be able to read that format (they must decode any of the 18 formats to
be licensed as conforming devices),
3) but they have to pass thru 1080p for the 1080p TV set to map the pixel grid without doing any
deinterlacing job, otherwise
4) the signal is output from the STB as 1080i (as to be expected from most if not all STBs) and the
set has to reconstruct the p frames from the i fields,
5) and upgrade the 24fps to 60fps (or preferably 72 or 48fps to avoid the 2:3 pull down artifacts).
And finally,
6) 1080p60fps would be a problem for the standard but also for the millions of OTA STBs that can not
decode the format.
However, does anyone could expect that while increasingly pursuing multi-casting of 6 SD channels
within 6MHz at 19.3 Mbps a broadcaster could even think on going the 1080p quality road? However,
some broadcasters like CBS on the recent Display Search HDTV conference in Beverly Hills stated that
they were very serious about maximum quality. Good, someone is still listening.
Satellite/cable
-------------
A satellite or cable provider can do the same or even go to 60fps (not in the ATSC standard) if they
want, using MPEG-4 the signal will occupy about the same bandwidth space of today's 1080i MPEG-2.
But, does anyone could expect that a satellite provider will go for higher quality when everyone
knows they have done a lot of damage to the current 1080i quality? starting by reducing the 1920 to
1280 and keep compressing? Marc Cuban was very outspoken about this problem on the same conference
above.
In other words, I see 1080p has more chances for implementation on stored media (like Hi Def DVD),
but not because is not a standard (like people at the store say) or because it is not possible.
DVD analogy
------------
Using 1080i/60 outputs on Hi Def DVD to feed a 1080p set (and the implicit conversions/video
processing) is an scenario as odd as when progressive DVD players where just introduced.
Some people still played back the film based 24fps signal and sent it as 480i/60 via S-video
interlaced rather than internally create 480p/60 in the digital domain and send it out via component
progressive. One positive difference with today's players is that they have the extra HDMI output
which would maintain the signal digitally from player to display, regardless if sent as i or p,
saving on the D/A and A/D conversions required for CRT based displays (or using component analog on
digital displays).
-----------------------------------------------------
Regarding the comment that Brillian uses motion adaptive deinterlacing allow me to correct that
statement to convey what exactly Brillian does on each input (the specs were edited by Brillian,
from an interview I did before the HDTV conference when they were to release the first 1080p set a
couple of months ago):
---------------
"1080i Inputs: Currently Brillian treats 1920x1080i video as 1920x540p frames. Brillian uses the
highest quality scaling filters to vertically scale the 1920x540 fields to 1920x1080. The next
generation 1080p units will incorporate hardware to perform the same high quality pixel by pixel
motion adaptive deinterlacing on 1080i inputs that Brillian currently only uses on 480i inputs.
Moving forward to next generation designs, Pixel Works has new chip sets which support the all
important pixel by pixel motion adaptive deinterlacing of 1080i sources. Brillian continues to
evaluate these chip sets, as well as those from other companies.
Silicon Optix is one such company under evaluation.
The 1080p set is capable to accept an external 1080p signal on its digital input, as 24, 30 or 60
fps. An accepted 60fps 1080p signal is passed to the display as is without video processing. 24fps
and 30fps inputs are frame rate converted to 60fps using a video buffer without video processing."
---------------
As I said before, HP is not the only RPTV set accepting 1080p on digital inputs, Brillian is. In
addition to Ruby today, and the Qualia 004 after the 1080p upgrade, among other projectors, if you
care for FPTVs.
I hope this helps,
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
P.S. 46 pages so far, and counting
-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Dr Robert A Fowkes
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 1:24 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: What's hot?
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
At 12:36 PM 12/13/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>This is a path I choose not to go down until I have absolutely no
>choice and also until things shake out regarding true 1080P.
Anthony, I fully respect your position in this and know that you are
doing what you believe is best for you. Everyone should be allowed
to choose for themselves how they wish to view and listen to the
various media out there whether it be analog, digital, mono, pure two
channel, 5.1, 7.1, or even just two tin canes connected with a piece
of string. <g>
I, like you, don't appreciate being told by others what we should or
should not like. Different strokes for different folks. Quality is
in the eyes (and ears) of the beholder and this is a highly
individualized situation. Sometimes "experts" get a bit carried away
and they confuse the issues, especially when the average person often
doesn't know a lot of the terminology and technology involved. Just
look at all the confusion regarding "HD capable" and "HD ready" among
a lot of other stuff. We all know that a lot of folks out there who
purchased HD sets (and others who think they have HD sets when they
really have ED sets - if that!) think that they are watching HD when
they view DVDs on their new sets. And don't get me started about
aspect ratios and filling the screen to eliminate "those black bars."
A lot of salespeople out there compound the situation with either
faulty or just plain misleading information. I'm constantly amazed
by war stories I hear from the trenches. (Actually, by this point it
doesn't surprise me any more.) People like you, Rudolfo, Dale and
many, many others on this great little list do our best to promote
clarity, but it's an uphill battle.
On the 1080p front, Rudolfo pegged it when he noted that most of the
1080p sets out there don't accept native 1080p signals at this
point. And the party line of many manufacturers, "Well, there just
isn't that much 1080p content out there right now" really begs the
issue since we all know that it's on its way eventually. Besides,
when 1080p content does proliferate does it make sense to have to
down scale it to 1080i and then let the set upscale it again?!? Why
not have 1080p throughput from the start. Also, while I'm fairly
confident that the current 1080p sets (which do not offer 1080p
native input readily) probably have respectable scaling capabilities
I'm also confident that better scalers will come along. If you lock
into a 1080p set that only upscales to 1080p you lock in to today's
technology. A lot of things at CEDIA impressed me about the new HP
line of 1080p monitors (especially the picture) and the fact that it
offers 1080p input made me confident enough to buy one. Yes, HP is
relatively new to the consumer TV side of things but that doesn't
dissuade me. After all, they've made monitors for computers for
years and most computer manufacturers like Dell, among others, have
discovered that the TV market is more lucrative than the computer
side of things. Besides, HP isn't exactly a spectator in this
technology. "Wobulation" is actually their invention even though TI
holds the patents on DLP.
I actually received the stand for my new monitor from HP the other
day and assembled it (very easy job). The quality of the
construction and the packaging makes me feel confident that my set
will arrive in good condition as well. In other words, I'm not
apprehensive about being a "bleeding edger." That's one of the fun
things about our common affliction.
-- RAF
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] 