1920x1080 HDTV's? (was Re: [mythtv-users] bobdeint as output filter?)

[Dan wolf]

Almost every TV you will ever see is a complete rip off.  You think it
takes 9 big ones to make a damn TV?  Think again.  In addition, all
the specs the salesmen give you are complete bullshit, and the specs
on the TV box are bullshit too.  Hell, the TV I bought SAID it had a
comb filter, but then I found out it doesn't.  I got fricken screwed.

TVs are nothing but lies


On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:22:55 -0500, Michael T. Dean
<mtdean at thirdcontact.com> wrote:
> While writing the below response, I started to wonder if there are *any*
> HDTV's available with 1920x1080 pixels.  More info below.  Keeping it
> short for those who just want to get to the point...  :)
> 
> On 12/31/2004 11:55 AM, Kyle Rose wrote:
> 
> >FWIW, I hate interlacing.  Interlacing was a technology devised to
> >overcome a limitation of one kind of display technology and should
> >have been deprecated with the advent of DTV.  Sorry to open THAT can
> >of worms; just my $0.02. :)
> >
> >
> The limitation: bandwidth.
> 
> If interlacing is no longer relevant in the age of digital TV, that
> implies that we now have unlimited bandwidth.  However, looking at ATSC
> high-definition TV, we have two primary modes:  720p (1280x720 at 60frames
> (fr)/sec and 60fields (fi)/sec) and 1080i (1920x1080 at 30fr/sec and
> 60fi/sec).  (Yes, I'm ignoring the 30fr/sec with 30fi/sec, and the
> 24fr/sec with 24fi/sec progressive modes available for 1080 and 720
> resolutions--not to mention the 12 other formats with lower resolutions.)
> 
> So, what is the purpose of 1080i?  Basically,it allows higher resolution
> at approximately the same bandwidth. 720p gives 921,600 pixels and 1080i
> gives 2,073,600 pixels--more than double the pixels of 720p.  However
> both 720p and 1080i take approximately 3MHz bandwidth, compared to 6MHz
> for NTSC (HDTV takes less bandwidth because of the compression that's
> possible with the digital signal).  So, if 1080i takes half the
> bandwidth of NTSC, why not make it 1080p at 6MHz?  Well, the broadcasters
> feel that the benefits of the progressive format are not worth the cost
> of the bandwidth--i.e. they would rather be able to transmit twice the
> number of channels (=2 times as much space for advertisements) in the
> bandwidth they have available.
> 
> Therefore, 1080i yields a much better picture than 720p for
> "slow-changing" scenes:  it is not ideal for sports or other shows that
> are composed primarily of fast-motion scenes.  Given that in most
> television shows--dramas, comedies, news, etc.--the fast-motion scenes
> are a very small percentage of the show, 1080i allows much better
> overall picture quality.
> 
> Of course, since nearly all HDTV's on the market have only 1280x720
> pixels, the quality benefit is chiefly available to those people using a
> computer to output to something other than a TV (i.e. high resolution
> monitors (such as WUXGA) or--for those with a lot of extra cash lying
> around--a projector with an extremely high optical resolution that can
> fully resolve 1920x1080, like the Runco DTV-1200 (
> http://www.runco.com/OP_PA_dtv1200.html , MSRP $44,995.00)).
> 
> But, wait!  My TV says it supports 1080i.  It does.  It accepts a 1080i
> signal, deinterlaces it, scales it down to 1280x720 pixels, and displays
> it.  Therefore, the TV's available today completely negate the advantage
> of 1080i (better picture quality) by scaling down to 1280x720 (which can
> even produce a lower-quality image than an unscaled 720p image).
> 
> So, are there any real 1920x1080 TV's out there?  I figure if I'm buying
> an HDTV, I'm not wasting money on a 1280x720 one, but I can't find any
> 1920x1080 TV's.  Toshiba used to have one (
> http://www.tacp.toshiba.com/televisions/product.asp?model=57HLX82 , MSRP
> $8999.99), but now that they've gone exclusively Digital Light
> Processing (DLP) (instead of the Liquid Crystal on Silicon (LCOS) they
> used for the 1920x1080 TV), it seems they only have 1280x720.  I'm not
> willing to spend on a projector more than twice what I spent on my car,
> so the Runco is out of the question.  Anyone know of any others?
> 
> It looks to me like I may be sticking with SDTV for several more years...
> 
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users at mythtv.org 
> http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
> 


-- 
------------------------------------------------
I have one Gmail invite left, email me to grab it!