Was analog 1920x1080p possible?

[Tantalust]

From the Dec. '07 issue of Widescreen Review, Jeffery Boccaccio, Invisions
Technology
["Digital Performance Testing"] .

At 1080p, with 256 levels of brightness per pixel, "...over a trillion
instructions per second, the only transport system that could successfully
move this level of data was digital."

True?

- -
"There's nothing on it worthwhile, we're not going to watch it in this
household, and I don't want it in your intellectual diet."
- Philo T. Farnsworth, to his children

[Doug Smith W9WI]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:42:42 +0000, Tantalust wrote:
> From the Dec. '07 issue of Widescreen Review, Jeffery Boccaccio, Invisions
> Technology
> ["Digital Performance Testing"] .
>
> At 1080p, with 256 levels of brightness per pixel, "...over a trillion
> instructions per second, the only transport system that could successfully
> move this level of data was digital."

Anything is possible with enough bandwidth...

[Albert Manfredi]

Exactly right.

We know that the luminance bandwidth of NTSC is 4.2 MHz, and PAL goes
from 5 MHz to 6 MHz, depending on the specific flavor. So what would
the estimate be for an analog version of 1080p?

If 1080p means 1920 X 1080 at 60p, and 1080 visible lines means 1125
total lines, then the luminance bandwidth would be 960 cycles/line *
1125 lines/frame * 60 frames/sec = 64.8 MHz

Although 1080 at 60p is beyond what is specified for ATSC at this
time. ATSC goes up to 720 at 60p, 1080 at 30p, or 1080 at 60i.
Luminance bandwidth should not exceed ~32 MHz theoretical max. No
reason why that can't be transmitted analog, if you throw enough
bandwidth at it.

Bert

[Don Stauffer in Minnesota]

On Mar 26, 7:42 am, "Tantalust" <Tantal...@paradise.net> wrote:
> From the Dec. '07 issue of Widescreen Review, Jeffery Boccaccio, Invisions
> Technology
> ["Digital Performance Testing"] .
>
> At 1080p, with 256 levels of brightness per pixel, "...over a trillion
> instructions per second, the only transport system that could successfully
> move this level of data was digital."
>
> True?

If we disregard compression, then digital transmission does provide a
slight improvement in error rate at a given SNR, but it is not super.
Compression is a real biggie with digital. But, I see no reason that
the bandwidth required CANNOT be obtained to do 1080p analog. I have
seen some experimental closed circuit stuff that was amazingly high
resolution.

[Tantalust]

Thanks for the replies all, I thought it sounded somewhat dubious.

[Jörg Marx]

Tantalust <Tant...@paradise.net> wrote:

> From the Dec. '07 issue of Widescreen Review, Jeffery Boccaccio, Invisions
> Technology
> ["Digital Performance Testing"] .
>
> At 1080p, with 256 levels of brightness per pixel, "...over a trillion
> instructions per second, the only transport system that could successfully
> move this level of data was digital."
>
> True?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD-MAC>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_sub-nyquist_sampling_Encoding_sys
tem>

HTH
Jörg
--
Going to triple-check table height/slantness, then face Atsugi and
light some incense....(Was anybody else advised to read "Shogun" to
understand Japanese mechanical video?)
Gary Woods in sci.engr.television.broadcast

[Tantalust]

""Jörg Marx"" <nos...@bounce.de> wrote in message
news:1iezgcw.w8ligsuomfrwN%nos...@bounce.de...

> Tantalust <Tant...@paradise.net> wrote:
>
>> From the Dec. '07 issue of Widescreen Review, Jeffery Boccaccio,
>> Invisions
>> Technology
>> ["Digital Performance Testing"] .
>>
>> At 1080p, with 256 levels of brightness per pixel, "...over a trillion
>> instructions per second, the only transport system that could
>> successfully
>> move this level of data was digital."
>>
>> True?
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD-MAC>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_sub-nyquist_sampling_Encoding_sys
> tem>
>
> HTH

Interesting. Thanks Jörg.