HDTV now or wait???????
victor voul
I am somewhat confused by the current status of the HDTV technology and the
current 'generation' of the hardware presently on the market. Upgrading to
Dolby Digital/DTS seems reasonably understandable. However the video side of
the upgrading is confusing. I currently have a 36" TV, and would like to make
the HDTV transition.
I have read that current HDTV broadcasts are in 1080 lines per inch. Then I see
"HDTV "ready"' television receivers that claim they are capable of 720 lines
per inch. I have read that Dish Network will soon be broadcasting some
programming in a HDTV format. Will these competing satellite formats be
broadcasting in different HDTV standards. Are there currently 16:9 RPTVs that
have 1080 line per inch resolution capability? Is the market not yet
standardized and still in a confusing state of flux, or am I just confused???
Perhaps it is still too early to make the transition to HDTV?
I would really appreciate any help in understanding all this from someone who
has recently been down this road, or have found some articles or internet sites
helpful in understanding the current state of this technology.
Thanking you in advance,
Please remove **nospamQQ** from my address when replying via email.
krom...@my-deja.com
idr...@aol.comnospamQQ (victor voul) wrote:
> As a consumer that is seriously contemplating upgrading my home
theater set up,
> I am somewhat confused by the current status of the HDTV technology
and the
> current 'generation' of the hardware presently on the market.
Upgrading to
> Dolby Digital/DTS seems reasonably understandable. However the video
side of
> the upgrading is confusing. I currently have a 36" TV, and would
like to make
> the HDTV transition.
> I have read that current HDTV broadcasts are in 1080 lines per inch.
Then I see
> "HDTV "ready"' television receivers that claim they are capable of
720 lines
> per inch.
Whoa, whoa, you wish :-) its 1080/720 lines *total*, not per inch.
there are two main HDTV standards, 1080-interlaced, and 720 non-
interlaced. Most HDTV sets support one or the other, some support both.
Some TV stations broadcast in 1080i, some in 720p. If a station
broadcasts in 720p, for example, and your TV only supports 1080i, then
your HDTV receiver (which is not built into the TV) will have a feature
that converts the signal into one your TV supports (be it 1080i, or a
lower standard like 540p or 480p which most/all HDTVs support)
Conversely, if your TV supports 720p and not 1080i, if the broadcast is
in 1080i the converter box will convert it to something your TV will
support (I'm not sure what receivers today tend to do in this case,
convert to 720p, 540p, or 480p?)
>I have read that Dish Network will soon be broadcasting some
> programming in a HDTV format. Will these competing satellite formats
be
> broadcasting in different HDTV standards. Are there currently 16:9
RPTVs that
> have 1080 line per inch resolution capability?
There are HDTV RPTVs that are 16:9 and support 1080i.
> Is the market not yet
> standardized and still in a confusing state of flux, or am I just
confused???
It is a confusing state of affairs to be sure.
> Perhaps it is still too early to make the transition to HDTV?
> I would really appreciate any help in understanding all this from
someone who
> has recently been down this road, or have found some articles or
internet sites
> helpful in understanding the current state of this technology.
> Thanking you in advance,
Its not necessarly too early to make the jump. HDTVs are good quality,
and will be compatible with future HDTV. They do require you buy a
receiver box (similar to how DSS works), and the technology in that box
may or may not become obsoleted sooner.
I think the main thing to keep in mind is to make sure the HDTV
supports at least 1080i, 480p, and possibly 540p. If it supports 720p
as well (not many do), then great. If it supports 720p *instead* of
1080i, then I'd stay away because it seems as though a majority of
broadcasters are embracing the 1080i format over the 720p format.
Andy K.
>
> Please remove **nospamQQ** from my address when replying via email.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Steve Zipser
> there are two main HDTV standards, 1080-interlaced, and 720 non-
> interlaced. Most HDTV sets support one or the other, some support both.
>
NO!
All support 1080I. Only a few support the better 720P (along with 1080I)
which requires a wider bandwidth!
Zip;--
Sunshine Stereo, Inc http://sunshinestereo.com Tel: 305-757-9358
9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores, FL 33138 Fax: 305-757-1367
Conrad Johnson Spectron Parasound Entech Gallo Davis NEAR Seleco PSB
Audible Illusions Straightwire Niles Oracle Faroudja Rega Benz-Micro
Dunlavy Lexicon Zenith Mordaunt-Short EAD CleanLines Monster RUNCO ESP
Nakamichi Genelec Solid Steel Camelot Salamander Audio Logic PASS NHT
victor voul
Where does progressive scanning technology fall into all this?
What is proggresive scan?
Are all HDTVs supporting progressive scanning?
As far as 1080i,720p and 540p.
Doe the images look the same all things being equal, or is one more "higher
definition" than the others?
Thank you very much!!
Paul Mander
The best we can hope for is the new Sony 36'' widescreen TV which
interpolates to a higher resolution.
Paul
victor voul <idr...@aol.comnospamQQ> wrote in message
news:20000419202846...@ng-fz1.aol.com...
Bob
victor voul wrote in message
<20000419202846...@ng-fz1.aol.com>...
>Andy, Thanks much for your clarifying help.
>Where does progressive scanning technology fall into all this?
>What is proggresive scan?
>Are all HDTVs supporting progressive scanning?
>As far as 1080i,720p and 540p.
>Doe the images look the same all things being equal, or is one more "higher
>definition" than the others?
>Thank you very much!!
>
3, 5...); "progressive" means that every line is drawn. Most "compatible"
tvs support 480i and 480p and 1080i. Some will convert 540p and 720p to
1080i. Some support all 18 hdtv formats (the Sony 34" 16x9 direct view, for
instance). There are very few that actually support all 18 formats.
Supposedly 720p looks the best, but theres quite a bit of debate about this.
When you consider that (non-progressive) DVD is about 480i, and this looks
great, then 720p and 1080i must rock. I've seen a few HDTVs, but I've yet
to see one actually displaying a HD signal, because there are too few
television stations with HD signals. I know that if you stretch a regular
ntsc signal into 16x9, it can look pretty bad, depending on the tv.
Aldo Pignotti
>I've seen a few HDTVs, but I've yet
> to see one actually displaying a HD signal, because there are too few
> television stations with HD signals. I know that if you stretch a
regular
> ntsc signal into 16x9, it can look pretty bad, depending on the tv.
>
>
I've seen in store demos of HD that were incredible. Bright and
smooth, like a really excellant film movie like IMAX. I've never
seen in home HDTV, though. BTW, Pioneer Elite does a very good
job at expanding NTSC to fill its screen. I've got a 53" RPTV and
I watch digital cable in full screen mode. VHS is a little too
noisy and I watch that in 4*3 mode.
-----
It ain't no sin
to be glad you're alive - the boss
pgnewarkboy
fan of golf but the course was so beautiful I watched for a few hours. The
picture had depth that was breathtaking. I wouldn't presume to tell anybody
to wait or not to wait for hdtv. Prices will surely come down in time. Of
course, in the long run we are all dead. Jon M8x <jon...@aol.com> wrote in
message news:20000420184552...@ng-md1.aol.com...
> >I've seen a few HDTVs, but I've yet
> >to see one actually displaying a HD signal, because there are too few
> >television stations with HD signals.
>
They
> had a Pioneer Elite playing the high-definition broadcast, and it was
simply
> awesome
Robb Gonyer
<z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
>In article <8dl9tq$hpr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, krom...@my-deja.com says...
>> there are two main HDTV standards, 1080-interlaced, and 720 non-
>> interlaced. Most HDTV sets support one or the other, some support both.
>>
>
>NO!
>
>All support 1080I. Only a few support the better 720P (along with 1080I)
>which requires a wider bandwidth!
"the better 720P" has been proven to be very subjective. There is so
much argument over which is better, which proves to me that people
can't see the difference (but of course the next 10 followups will
be from people who SWEAR they can see the difference). What
the won't tell you is that they saw the different formats on different
TV's, at different shops, in different lighting, and so on.
Sammy
wrote:
Precisely. And even if there is a difference (and there may well be an
slight improvement with 720p and fast movement), just how significant is
that difference? Most who have seen football, basketball, etc in 1080i
are very happy with the results. I certainly have been. While there may
be an occasional artifact, I never found it to be distracting or
intrusive. I would not let the lack of 720p sway me from a particular
set. I would choose the improved resolution of 1080i over 720p anytime.
Steve Zipser
>
> "the better 720P" has been proven to be very subjective. There is so
> much argument over which is better, which proves to me that people
> can't see the difference (but of course the next 10 followups will
> be from people who SWEAR they can see the difference). What
> the won't tell you is that they saw the different formats on different
> TV's, at different shops, in different lighting, and so on.
>
I am sorry but you are absolutely incorrect. The ISF and Joe Kane have
conducted comparisons where it was absolutely plain as day that 720P was
better! No doubt about it. You know absolutely naught of what you
speak.
Steve Zipser
<C2D658058ACF16B0.4F318A47...@lp.airnews.net>,
x...@xxx.xxx says...
>
> > On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 19:48:57 -0400, Steve Zipser
> > <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <8dl9tq$hpr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, krom...@my-deja.com says...
> > >> there are two main HDTV standards, 1080-interlaced, and 720 non-
> > >> interlaced. Most HDTV sets support one or the other, some support
> > >> both.
> > >>
> > >
> > >NO!
> > >
> > >All support 1080I. Only a few support the better 720P (along with
> > >1080I)
> > >which requires a wider bandwidth!
> >
> > much argument over which is better, which proves to me that people
> > can't see the difference (but of course the next 10 followups will
> > be from people who SWEAR they can see the difference). What
> > the won't tell you is that they saw the different formats on different
> > TV's, at different shops, in different lighting, and so on.
> >
>
> slight improvement with 720p and fast movement), just how significant is
> that difference? Most who have seen football, basketball, etc in 1080i
> are very happy with the results. I certainly have been. While there may
> be an occasional artifact, I never found it to be distracting or
> intrusive. I would not let the lack of 720p sway me from a particular
> set. I would choose the improved resolution of 1080i over 720p anytime.
There is no improved resolution of 1080I over 720P! What planet are you
on? 1080I is just 540 lines of resolution displayed twice - it has a
much lower bandwidth, and you are clueless.
Sammy
Zipser <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
I would suggest you do some research about this. This subject has been
discussed to death. You are incorrect and it is obvious that you are the
one who is clueless. But if you want to keep on embarrassing yourself by
posting this incorrect information, be my guest.
I've noted for some time that you love to parrot information posted and
written by others, whether or not it is true. You spread that
misinformation. But that's what parrots do. As much as mcfarty disgusts
me, it's clear that a lot of what he says about you is correct. You are
an abrasive SOB with loads of misinformation that you're happy to spout
as the gospel.
Steve Zipser
<4102CB04AF658911.F6A958F4...@lp.airnews.net>,
x...@xxx.xxx says...
> I would suggest you do some research about this. This subject has been
> discussed to death. You are incorrect and it is obvious that you are the
> one who is clueless. But if you want to keep on embarrassing yourself by
> posting this incorrect information, be my guest.
>
> I've noted for some time that you love to parrot information posted and
> written by others, whether or not it is true. You spread that
> misinformation. But that's what parrots do. As much as mcfarty disgusts
> me, it's clear that a lot of what he says about you is correct. You are
> an abrasive SOB with loads of misinformation that you're happy to spout
> as the gospel.
>
$50 right now sammy. You are dead wrong! Why do you think all but one
RP HDTV does 1080I and not 720P? BECAUSE IT REQUIRES MORE BANDWIDTH FOR
THE INCREASED INFORMATION, ya moron!
PUT UP or SHUT UP!
Zip
PS. Cowardly pussies like you post w/o a name, and email address, or a
clue!
Robb Gonyer
to no difference. So are you telling me I should spend the extra
on a set that can display a format that 75% of the networks have
opted not to support? Not to mention, the only set under $10k
that supports 720P is the Panasonic, which has been known to
have other flaws. I am absolutely happy with my Elite 610. You
aren't very well informed for a guy who sells high end gear.
>In article <39035b62...@news1.newscene.com>, cri...@qconline.com
>says...
>>
>> "the better 720P" has been proven to be very subjective. There is so
>> much argument over which is better, which proves to me that people
>> can't see the difference (but of course the next 10 followups will
>> be from people who SWEAR they can see the difference). What
>> the won't tell you is that they saw the different formats on different
>> TV's, at different shops, in different lighting, and so on.
>>
>
Robb Gonyer
wonder why you alienate everyone you reply to? A simple reply would
suffice, if you believe you have something to offer. Wait a minute,
let me digress to your level for a moment - "What are you, a jackass?"
Whoops, sorry. I think you get my point. You are clueless. You know
naught of what you speak (or whatever the hell you said). You
certainly know how to NOT make friends.
>
>There is no improved resolution of 1080I over 720P! What planet are you
>on? 1080I is just 540 lines of resolution displayed twice - it has a
>much lower bandwidth, and you are clueless.
>Zip
>--
Robb Gonyer
abrasive SOB. He can't possibly talk to his customers this way
or his shop would be out of business in no time.
I can just see it now. Joe Consumer pops into Zippies Place.
"I think these speakers sound kinda good, what do you think?"
Zippie da do da -"What are you, stupid? Dr. Bose says these
are better, so they must be. You must be plain clueless".
>>
>> There is no improved resolution of 1080I over 720P! What planet are you
>> on? 1080I is just 540 lines of resolution displayed twice - it has a
>> much lower bandwidth, and you are clueless.
>> Zip
>
Robb Gonyer
>
>$50 right now sammy. You are dead wrong! Why do you think all but one
>RP HDTV does 1080I and not 720P? BECAUSE IT REQUIRES MORE BANDWIDTH FOR
>THE INCREASED INFORMATION, ya moron!
>PUT UP or SHUT UP!
>Zip
>
>PS. Cowardly pussies like you post w/o a name, and email address, or a
>clue!
Oooohhhh.. big words. Stop showing off your intelligence, Zipper.
You're scaring everyone.
Steve Zipser
says...
> I've seen both on an ISF calibrated set. To my eyes, there was little
> to no difference. So are you telling me I should spend the extra
> on a set that can display a format that 75% of the networks have
> opted not to support? Not to mention, the only set under $10k
> that supports 720P is the Panasonic, which has been known to
> have other flaws. I am absolutely happy with my Elite 610. You
> aren't very well informed for a guy who sells high end gear.
I think you are missing the point. 720P and 1080I were compared by the
ISF at the last two CEDIA shows. 720P was clearly (but not dramatically)
better with fast moving scenes - especially fast moving scenes with
diagonal lines - which is exactly what you would expect because of the
interlace artifacts.
As for 720P and ABC, you are indeed wrong. Fox and PBTV are also
broadcasting some 720P programming. Did you stop to think about why more
networks (and TV's and DSS receivers) support only 1080I? It is because
720P requires a 40% wider bandwidth - hence it requires more expensive
gear, and electronics, etc. But there is one point that we are not
addressing - I think the overwhelming point right now is that BOTH
systems are so radically better than NTSC, that the differences netween
them seem unimportant. But they do exist. That is inarguable, even if
you have not seen an adequate comparison.
Go call Joe Kane if you do not believe me ;-)
One other point is that set top tuners are in their infancy. I certainly
expect that they will improve in quality soon. RCA is already about to
release their 2nd generation DSS/Set-top box and Panasonic is readying
their new unit - which should properly match up with their excellent (and
reasonably priced) RPTV.
Cheers
Zip
John Kotches
Steve Zipser wrote:
>
> In article
> <4102CB04AF658911.F6A958F4...@lp.airnews.net>,
> x...@xxx.xxx says...
> > I would suggest you do some research about this. This subject has been
> > discussed to death. You are incorrect and it is obvious that you are the
> > one who is clueless. But if you want to keep on embarrassing yourself by
> > posting this incorrect information, be my guest.
> >
> > I've noted for some time that you love to parrot information posted and
> > written by others, whether or not it is true. You spread that
> > misinformation. But that's what parrots do. As much as mcfarty disgusts
> > me, it's clear that a lot of what he says about you is correct. You are
> > an abrasive SOB with loads of misinformation that you're happy to spout
> > as the gospel.
> >
>
> $50 right now sammy. You are dead wrong! Why do you think all but one
> RP HDTV does 1080I and not 720P? BECAUSE IT REQUIRES MORE BANDWIDTH FOR
> THE INCREASED INFORMATION, ya moron!
> PUT UP or SHUT UP!
> Zip
A few things to point out,
1) Each frame of a 720p image contains 921,600 (1280*720) pixels of
information to be encoded. I'm not sure of the frame rate for 720p.
Multiply 921,600 x the frame rate to get the amount of data to be
passed to the encoder every second.
2) Each frame of a 1080i image contains 1,036,800 (1920*1080) pixels of
information to be encoded at a frame rate of 60/second. So 62,208,000
pixels get encoded every second.
3) Unless more than 67.5 frames / second are used for 720p, in terms
of input to the encoder, 1080i uses more bandwidth.
I'm sorry, I don't know what the output from the MPEG encoder is in
Mbits/second, but I suspect it's at a fixed rate. That being the case
it is possible that 720p has less compression artifacts from the
encoding.
Can someone with expertise in MPEG encoders jump in here and help me out
in terms of output from the encoding process?
<<< Derogatory comment deleted >>>
> --
> Sunshine Stereo, Inc http://sunshinestereo.com Tel: 305-757-9358
> 9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores, FL 33138 Fax: 305-757-1367
> Conrad Johnson Spectron Parasound Entech Gallo Davis NEAR Seleco PSB
> Audible Illusions Straightwire Niles Oracle Faroudja Rega Benz-Micro
> Dunlavy Lexicon Zenith Mordaunt-Short EAD CleanLines Monster RUNCO ESP
> Nakamichi Genelec Solid Steel Camelot Salamander Audio Logic PASS NHT
--
************************************************************
* A goofy Unix SA working for a large computer equipment *
* manufacturer and services provider. Opinions expressed *
* are mine and not my employers. jkotches@_pobox_.com *
************************************************************
Brian L. McCarty
at z...@sunshinestereo.com wrote on 24/4/00 9:56:
> PS. Cowardly pussies like you post w/o a name, and email address, or a
> clue!
Let's then review all the confirmed SOCKPUPPETS (aka "cowardly pussies")
that YOU have created, Zippie:
Mahn...@aol.com
bobop...@aol.com
mcf...@my-deja.com
bwimc...@aol.com
mcla...@aol.com
droug...@aol.com
gigiz...@aol.com
ratzo...@aol.com
seks...@aol.com
We all KNOW who the "cowardly pussy" is. . . two years in a row you failed
to come to public panels at the CES where I was speaking on audio.
Wagers with the queen of the pussies is a complete waste of time!
Zipser is a liar http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=369217967
Zipser is a scammer http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=368363274
Zipser is a cheater http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=374900703
Zipser is a THIEF http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=509980240
Zippie SOCKPUPPETS http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=374900703
Robb Gonyer
*MY* point was that the majority of the people will not perceive
the difference. That's all. And by the way, I (and a lot of other
people) do not consider Joe Kane to be the last word on
everything Video. I believe he's made some good contributions
to the industry though.
Sammy
Zipser <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
> There is no improved resolution of 1080I over 720P! What planet are you
> on? 1080I is just 540 lines of resolution displayed twice - it has a
> much lower bandwidth, and you are clueless.
>
> $50 right now sammy. You are dead wrong! Why do you think all but
> one RP HDTV does 1080I and not 720P? BECAUSE IT REQUIRES MORE
> BANDWIDTH FOR THE INCREASED INFORMATION, ya moron! PUT UP or SHUT UP!
> Zip
>
> PS. Cowardly pussies like you post w/o a name, and email address, or
> a clue!
It's not cowardice. It's just that I don't want to receive garbage email
from an idiot such as yourself. My headers clearly state that no email
reply is wanted. So why do you care if there isn't an email address?
Because you intend to ignore my request? I'm sure that's the case. The
last thing I want is an email bomb from someone who will retaliate when
he's proven wrong. Your ego just can't handle that.
Now to the matter at hand. I don't claim to be as technically savvy as
others and I may not be expressing what I'm going to say as precisely as
others can, but 1080i is NOT just the same 540 lines of information
displayed twice. There is different information in each of the 1080
interlaced lines. You don't understand the concepts of spacial vs
temporal resolution. And you don't understand horizontal retrace and how
that relates to 720p vs 1080i. You don't understand a thing about this
entire subject.
If a 1080i video camera is placed in front of a painting, the resultant
signal will be frame after frame of the same 1080 distinctly different
lines. Now, those lines are accumulated in two passes (fields) per
frame, with each field consisting of alternating lines. Because there is
no motion, this is a purely spacial resolution situation and there will
be 1080 different vertical 'pixels' and 1920 different horizontal
'pixels'. If you can't grasp this, zippy, don't bother to read on.
If a 720p camera is placed in front of the same painting, it will
produce a signal in one pass (frame) of 720 distinctly different lines
('pixels') vertically. There will be 1280 horizontal pixels. If spatial
resolution only is considered, 1080i has more resolution than 720p. If
we stop time and look at each signal, there will be more resolution in
the 1080i image of the painting than the 720p image.
Now, if we add motion, we get into a different situation and temporal
resolution comes into play. This is where 720p can have an advantage.
720p gathers it's 720 vertical lines in the same time it takes 1080i to
gather 1/2 of the image (540 alternating lines). By the time 1080i has
done it's two passes to get 1080 lines, 720p has made two passes of 720
lines each. When motion is considered, 720p will give a constant 720
lines of resolution whereas 1080i will have it's effective and perceived
resolution vary from 540 to 1080, although 1080 is probably never
achieved and the average is somewhere in between.
Now, you say, "Why do you think all but one RP HDTV does 1080I and not
720P? BECAUSE IT REQUIRES MORE BANDWIDTH FOR THE INCREASED INFORMATION,
ya moron!" Well, let's see who's the moron. Ever hear of horizontal
retrace? 720p must paint 720 horizontal lines per pass. 1080 paints 540
horizontal lines per pass. For the same width screen, the beam must move
faster to paint a 720p image. 720p requires about a 45 KHz horizontal
scan rate. 1080i requires about 33 HKz. Between this and some other
factors that are way beyond you, manufacturers felt this was too
expensive to implement, so most RPTV's don't do 720p. If you really read
Joe Kane's articles, you would know that he feels that 1080i is actually
not properly implemented on most sets and that a deflection yoke that
properly implements 1080i could be designed to implement 720p for very
little extra cost. But overall, this yoke would cost more than using the
current designs which make 1080i easy to implement.
So, zippy, it's time you get a clue instead of calling everyone else
clueless. You lose the bet. 1080i is more than just the same 540 lines
shown twice. But I don't want or need your filthy money. Use it to take
a class to learn about this stuff before you spout your mouth off and
make a fool of yourself. Or donate it to the Society for the Prevention
of the Procreation of zipple idiots.
Sammy
<39A3C7271742E6BD.E6C491AE...@lp.airnews.net>,
Sammy <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
Come on zippy. I'm waiting for your response. You've made posts since
this response to your bet has appeared, so you must have seen it. Show
some balls. You're so willing to insult someone based upon your
ignorance, but certainly seem afraid to respond when you're proven
wrong. Chicken shit.
Steve Zipser
It seems we were both right - and both wrong.
I believe this was posted yesterday - from the latest Perfect Vision:
What I found was that the two formats each had advantages and
disadvantages. 720p offered higher effective vertical resolution owing to
the lack of vertical filtering required for 1080i to reduce interlace
artifacting, whereas the higher horizontal resolution of 1080i was
similarly striking.
During my overall HDTV viewing experience, I rarely found interlacing to
pose a problem and this surprised me I expected interlace to be quite a
nuisance, as it is in NTSC. The main effect of interlace on 1080i is to
give it a scan-line structure (2.3 picture heights) at my viewing
distance. In contrast, the scan-line structure for 720p is undetectable
at my normal viewing distance.
It depends how we measure resolution - but when you state:
> > but 1080i is NOT just the same 540 lines of information
> > displayed twice. There is different information in each of the 1080
> > interlaced lines.
You are wrong.
Cheers
Zip
In article
<AD64EB6D77DEFCFC.05A2AAA0...@lp.airnews.net>,
x...@xxx.xxx says...
--
the_falcon
clueless by spewing:
>Sammy:
>It seems we were both right - and both wrong.
>I believe this was posted yesterday - from the latest Perfect Vision:
>
>What I found was that the two formats each had advantages and
>disadvantages. 720p offered higher effective vertical resolution owing to
>the lack of vertical filtering required for 1080i to reduce interlace
>artifacting, whereas the higher horizontal resolution of 1080i was
>similarly striking.
>
>During my overall HDTV viewing experience, I rarely found interlacing to
>pose a problem and this surprised me I expected interlace to be quite a
>nuisance, as it is in NTSC. The main effect of interlace on 1080i is to
>give it a scan-line structure (2.3 picture heights) at my viewing
>distance. In contrast, the scan-line structure for 720p is undetectable
>at my normal viewing distance.
>
>It depends how we measure resolution - but when you state:
>> > but 1080i is NOT just the same 540 lines of information
>> > displayed twice. There is different information in each of the 1080
>> > interlaced lines.
>
>You are wrong.
>Cheers
>Zip
First of all Zippy, where in the above does it say ANYTHING about
1080i being the same 540 lines displayed twice? Let me give you a
hint...NOWHERE!
Are you really clueless enough to believe your own bullshit? Does the
interlaced structure of NTSC as it stands now show the same
information on each odd & even line? NO! You retard. That's exactly
how it is with 1080i. Each pass of the gun draws 540 lines of
information, first the odd lines, then the even lines. To even THINK
that it merely displays the same 540 lines twice is to make yourself
look like a clueless twit.
For God's sake Zippy, read a book or something.
Steve N.
<The Falcon> wrote in message
news:kmfbgsoos9v24ifgj...@4ax.com...
> First of all Zippy, where in the above does it say ANYTHING about
> 1080i being the same 540 lines displayed twice? Let me give you a
> hint...NOWHERE!
It doesn't matter. Zippy will futilely twist things around to try and make
himself look correct. Don't worry, it seems everyone on this board is
familiar with his puerile stratagems.
> Are you really clueless enough to believe your own bullshit?
He is precisely that.
>Does the
> interlaced structure of NTSC as it stands now show the same
> information on each odd & even line? NO! You retard. That's exactly
> how it is with 1080i. Each pass of the gun draws 540 lines of
> information, first the odd lines, then the even lines. To even THINK
> that it merely displays the same 540 lines twice is to make yourself
> look like a clueless twit.
Oh, he does that naturally.
> For God's sake Zippy, read a book or something.
We can only hope.
If he and his sockpuppets were to leave this board, we would be stuck with
interesting, constructive threads. Thank god he is here to keep things
juvenile and twisted.
Sammy
Zipser <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
> Sammy:
> It seems we were both right - and both wrong.
> I believe this was posted yesterday - from the latest Perfect Vision:
>
> What I found was that the two formats each had advantages and
> disadvantages. 720p offered higher effective vertical resolution owing to
> the lack of vertical filtering required for 1080i to reduce interlace
> artifacting, whereas the higher horizontal resolution of 1080i was
> similarly striking.
>
> During my overall HDTV viewing experience, I rarely found interlacing to
> pose a problem and this surprised me I expected interlace to be quite a
> nuisance, as it is in NTSC. The main effect of interlace on 1080i is to
> give it a scan-line structure (2.3 picture heights) at my viewing
> distance. In contrast, the scan-line structure for 720p is undetectable
> at my normal viewing distance.
>
> It depends how we measure resolution - but when you state:
> > > but 1080i is NOT just the same 540 lines of information
> > > displayed twice. There is different information in each of the 1080
> > > interlaced lines.
>
> You are wrong.
> Cheers
> Zip
Interesting. At the beginning of your post, you say we're both right and
both wrong. At the end, you say that I'm wrong.
The post you mentioned said nothing to prove that your claim is correct.
You said that the identical 540 lines were used to construct the entire
1080i frame. This is incorrect and you know it. Effective and perceived
resolution of a 1080i image is certainly less than 1080i when any motion
is present. No one argues with this. But there is no way that the
information in the two 540 fields used to construct the 1080i frame is
identical. That was your claim and you are incorrect.
Just to refresh your memory, this is what you said:
> > > There is no improved resolution of 1080I over 720P! What planet are
> > > you
> > > on? 1080I is just 540 lines of resolution displayed twice - it has a
> > > much lower bandwidth, and you are clueless.
You are wrong and you're not even man enough to admit it. I will stop
this childish activity now. You will, of course, not do so. That's your
nature. Time to put the killfile to good use.
/ /
Do a Usenet search and read some of his 'prolific' posts--There are
1000's--
Zip-Kike is the embodiement of the asshole
he blames everyone else to be that doesn't share his POV--
T B
Brent Wilkins
wrote:
>
>Zip-Kike is the embodiement of the asshole
>he blames everyone else to be that doesn't share his POV--
>
>T B
Racist bastard
Steve Zipser
says...
PLEASE let this non audio thread die. Don't lend any credence to bigots
by answering them.
Zip
Robert Dewar
Entertaining to see that Zip is still churning out the same
technical rubbish as always :-) I am just visiting when I have
nothing better to do to see if this forum has got any better,
but I think not -- definitely it's back to AV Sciences which
is mercifully Zip and McCarty free :-)
Robert Dewar
Steve Zipser <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
> $50 right now sammy. You are dead wrong! Why do you think
> all but one
> RP HDTV does 1080I and not 720P? BECAUSE IT REQUIRES MORE
> BANDWIDTH FOR
> THE INCREASED INFORMATION, ya moron!
> PUT UP or SHUT UP!
> Zip
Wonderful behavior from someone who pretends to be a
businessman. I still can't believe ANYONE would buy
ANYTHING from someone who would post something like
the above. Perhaps some customers like to be told they
are morons by someone who does not know what he is
talking about??
Robert Dewar
"Steve N." <sn...@voicenet.com.nospam> wrote:
>
> <The Falcon> wrote in message
> news:kmfbgsoos9v24ifgj...@4ax.com...
>
> > First of all Zippy, where in the above does it say ANYTHING
about
> > 1080i being the same 540 lines displayed twice? Let me give
you a
> > hint...NOWHERE!
>
> It doesn't matter. Zippy will futilely twist things around to
try and make
> himself look correct.
The pity is that someone asks a perfectly reasonable question,
and Zip nonsense results in so much noise that the original
poster can't get any useful information.
I abandoned this newsgroup long ago because there was so much
junk. If anything it seems worse now on my little visit. I
strongly recommend AVSForums as an alternative, FAR better
quality information, and far more civil, and no Zipser.
Robert Dewar
"Bob" <rjm...@X.home.com> wrote:
> Some will convert 540p and 720p to
> 1080i.
I thought that 540p and 1080i were essentially identical
at the interface level. Certainly the 1080i sets I have
played with can handle 540p with no trouble at all.
Robert Dewar
have forgotten what it was). I think that the technical quality
of the sets that you can buy now is excellent. I have a 73"
diamond Mitsu 16x9 hidef set and I feed it with a Toshiba
progressive DVD player, and HD satellite signals (the latter
are very variable, only occasionally are they REALLY
significantly better than a good DVD -- well the Direct TV
demo looks good, but you can't spend day after day watching
the demo).
A lot depends on the available material, which so far is
limited.
Regarding 720p and 1080i, I think there is too little difference
to be significant. I would not worry about it. In practice, 720p
looks better with 720p source, and 1080i looks better with 1080i
source, as you would expect, but the difference is small.
Brian L. McCarty
robert...@my-deja.com wrote on 5/15/00 8:36 AM:
> Wonderful behavior from someone who pretends to be a
> businessman. I still can't believe ANYONE would buy
> ANYTHING from someone who would post something like
> the above. Perhaps some customers like to be told they
> are morons by someone who does not know what he is
> talking about??
Who said massive druguse had no effect on one's personality?
The drug use caused him to be bounced from the navy, now he's being bounced
from life!
---
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) is a proven:
Steve Zipser
> > I thought that 540p and 1080i were essentially identical
> > at the interface level. Certainly the 1080i sets I have
> > played with can handle 540p with no trouble at all.
>
> about this on AVSCIENCE:
>
> "Why 540p equals 1080i to the electronics of a HDTV set":
> http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/Forum12/HTML/002258.html
>
> ////
>
> To other readers:
>
> I rarely post in the Usenet newsgroups these days, because of the
> huge amount of inaccurate information, compared to the more intelligent
> discussion on the web-style newsgroups-style forums at
> http://www.avsforum.com and http://www.hometheaterforum.com instead
> of here in alt.home-theater.misc ....
>
> As a note, I disagree with the people that 540p looks the same as 1080i
> to the human eye. It may actually look the same if the set isn't
> sharp enough to show the difference between 720p and 1080i, due to
> an large spot size (common in small HDTV sets).
>
> There are 60 images per second on a 1080i signal or 480i signal.
> The two fields in one frame can contain entirely different images -
> so even though it is 30 frames per second, it's actually 60 images
> per second to the human eye: a temporal resolution is actually 60
> images per second. A 540-line field consisting the odd scanlines
> followed by a sixtieth of a second later, by the even scanlines.
>
> The vertical resolution of HDTV 1080i is 1080 not 540. It's
> just that the interlacing causes artifacts, especially during
> pans, that reduce the perceived resolution of 1080i to below that
> of 720p. This is also because of the time difference between
> the even scanlines and the odd scan lines that the image is captured.
>
> Video cameras do not generally capture a whole image THEN
> broadcast odd scanlines then even scan lines of the SAME IMAGE.
> It goes like this: The whole image is captured, the odd scanlines
> are output, the whole image is captured again, the even scanlines
> are output. For video source material such as news, sitcoms,
> game shows, etc, there are 60 different images being broadcast
> per second at NTSC 480i or HDTV 1080i - there are two separate
> images interleaved in the same frame.
>
> Also, with a very sharp, well calibrated setup (9" CRT such as
> Sony G90 projector setup), static images generally look better
> at 1080i, while motion images look better at 720p, if you've seen
> this in action.
>
> Most HDTV sets can do 540p as that is simply doing 1080i with
> interlacing disabled: overlapping the fields instead of offsetting
> them by one scanline. Electronically, sets that support 480p can
> naturally display 960i too. Sets that support 720p can naturally
> display 1440i too. Sets that support 1080i can display 540p too.
> Even if they are not listed in the specs. Just not necessarily
> resolve the resolution due to scanline-overlap issues. The
> horizontal/vertical frequencies are identical.
>
Thanks Mark for an excellent post. Of course this does not take into
consideration the artifacts caused by digital conversion - almost all
sets downconvert 720P to 1080I, and the RCA DTS-100 upconverts 480I and
480P to 540P - and this can cause artifacting which can be noticeable in
specific situations - areas of very high contrast - high speed moving
scenes, etc ;-)
Cheers
Zip
Mark Rejhon
////
To other readers:
_______________________________________________________________________
____
Mark D. Rejhon WinNT.Linux.Win95 \ / mailto:ma...@ottawa.com
http://www.marky.com/ C.C++.VB.Shell \/ AlphaWorld Home 10S 15W
"A friend is someone who will be there without asking anything of you.
A friend is someone you know that knows you, and accepts you."
_______________________________________________________________________
Bizarro...@nospamacostallc.com
Robert Dewar <robert...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <MPG.136d57b2e...@news2.mia.bellsouth.net>,
> Steve Zipser <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
> > $50 right now sammy. You are dead wrong! Why do you think
> > all but one
> > RP HDTV does 1080I and not 720P? BECAUSE IT REQUIRES MORE
> > BANDWIDTH FOR
> > THE INCREASED INFORMATION, ya moron!
> > PUT UP or SHUT UP!
> > Zip
> Wonderful behavior from someone who pretends to be a
> businessman. I still can't believe ANYONE would buy
> ANYTHING from someone who would post something like
> the above. Perhaps some customers like to be told they
> are morons by someone who does not know what he is
> talking about??
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
If there is a NOSPAM in my address remove it
to email me.
Bizarro...@nospamacostallc.com
gotten real tired of the immaturity of the clueless trolls
who have ruined this ng. I'll be moving to the forums.
> ////
> To other readers:
--