[opendtv] Re: Samsung Rep admits HDMI won't support 1080p until v.1.3
- From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 09:28:24 -0500
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> Cost is not the issue. The issue is whether you will see any
> additional benefit from a 1080@60P display, and what impact it will
> have on the delivered image quality. That is, will it look better, or
> worse because there is not enough bandwidth to compress all of the
> potential detail.
>
Bandwidth is mostly (except maybe HDMI) the issue because we are talking
display format here, not transmission format.
> I think you need to actually experience what it is like to sit 9 feet
> from a screen that is four feet high. For one thing, this is well
> inside the designed viewing distance of 3.3 picture heights (i.e.
> 13.2 feet). You would most likely see the rater at 9 feet, and would
> probably be uncomfortable watching at this distance. IF you want to
> experience this, sit in the first row of the theater, the next time
> you go to the local cinema.
If I want to experience this I can reach out from where I sit and move
the zoom control. Yes, I can see the raster but that just makes the
point I'd need a higher rez display if I wanted it at 4 feet high and
this seating distance.
>>> And MPEG-2 is already outdated. You will never deliver decent quality
>>> 1920 x 1080@60P via a 19.3 MBps ATSC channel, unless the camera is
>> > out of focus.
>>
>>Oxymoronic, but also true I guess. ;-)
>
> No oxymoron here.
Sorry but "high quality out of focus picture" does seem humorously
oxymoronic to me. (some artistic license excluded)
- Tom
> At 11:15 PM -0500 11/9/05, Tom Barry wrote:
>
>> >
>>
>>> You are still ascribing more value to a 1080@60P display than is justified.
>>>
>>
>>Hey, I'm ascribing value, not trying to justify current cost.
>
>
> Cost is not the issue. The issue is whether you will see any
> additional benefit from a 1080@60P display, and what impact it will
> have on the delivered image quality. That is, will it look better, or
> worse because there is not enough bandwidth to compress all of the
> potential detail.
>
>
>>> Now put this together with your post about your XGA projector.
>>>
>>> What you need is a display that delivers enough resolution at the
>>> designed viewing distance for your application, so that you cannot
>>> perceive the raster, but rather, a sharp TV image.
>>>
>>
>>Yes, and I noted the limits of my 576p display. They are not currently
>>a problem to me but would have been if I'd kept it at 4 feet tall and my
>>current viewing distance.
>
>
> This is just the fundamentals of display scalibility. That is, how
> much resolution do you need to perceive a sharp picture on a given
> sized screen at the designed viewing distance? The math says 1080@60
> P is overkill for most consumer applications.
>
>
>>If my projector was 1080p I'd move it back a couple feet and use that 4
>>foot screen. I'm not saying everybody (or most) would, only that I
>>would and believe I'd see a better picture given proper source (not
>>avail. OTA).
>
>
> And that is why the marketplace provides these choices.
>
> Unfortunatley it is not likely that you will see a better picture,
> only a larger one. The sources and the compression used for
> distribution are not up to the capabilities of a 1080@60P display.
>
>
>>It's kool-aid only based upon current non-availability of highly
>>detailed source and the high prices currently being charged to early
>>adopters. I think I showed with my purchase this weekend I don't intend
>>to pay those prices.
>
>
> The reason for the non-availability of suitable source is that we are
> still many years away from being to fully exploit 720P much less
> 1080P. It takes very good cameras to produce the level of detail you
> are talking about, and the chances of this detail making it through
> the distribution chain are nearly ZERO. You will not see this level
> of quality from cable, DBS or DTV broadcasts...bits are too precious
> to be wasted on 1% or less of the viewers.
>
> You MIGHT get this level of detail from one fo the new HD -DVD
> formats, but even here, the peak bit rates limitations are likely to
> limit the level of detail you will be able to see. And the most
> likely candidate for HD DVD distribution - motion pictures, do not
> posses this level of detail in the first place. 720@ 24P can convey
> virtually everything that is shot for cinema release - motion
> pictures are NOT about detail - its about the "look."
>
> Where you will appreciate the extra detail is for non-entertainment
> applications that can take full advantage of the large "desktop" on
> your wall.
>
>
>>But we are still mostly arguing whether anyone sits 9 feet from the
>>screen and wants it 4 feet high. Obviously I do and you don't. You
>>say potato...
>
>
> I am currently sitting about 9 feet from a 50 inch diagonal screen
> that is about 24 inches in height. If I move to three picture heights
> (6 feet) it is overpowering and I can see many of the artifacts from
> compression.
>
> I think you need to actually experience what it is like to sit 9 feet
> from a screen that is four feet high. For one thing, this is well
> inside the designed viewing distance of 3.3 picture heights (i.e.
> 13.2 feet). You would most likely see the rater at 9 feet, and would
> probably be uncomfortable watching at this distance. IF you want to
> experience this, sit in the first row of the theater, the next time
> you go to the local cinema.
>
>
>>> Think system, not the specs for one component of that system.
>>>
>>> And MPEG-2 is already outdated. You will never deliver decent quality
>>> 1920 x 1080@60P via a 19.3 MBps ATSC channel, unless the camera is
>>
>> > out of focus.
>>
>>Oxymoronic, but also true I guess. ;-)
>
>
> No oxymoron here. The reality is that the tools are being misused in
> an attempt to claim higher numbers. Unfortunatley this means that
> Digital is often worse than the analog version it was designed to
> replace. Bigger number are not the answer. The answer is to produce
> the highest quality samples, deliver them without trashing them, then
> let the local display system present them on whatever size screen you
> can afford.
>
>
>>> 720P emission encoding is more than adequate for a terrestrial DTV
>>> broadcast system.
>>>
>>
>>We do agree here.
>>
>
>
> I'm glad to hear it. I am quite certain that people will be blown
> away by the quality of good 720P when presented on a large 1080@60P
> display.
>
> Regards
> Craig
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>
> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
> FreeLists.org
>
> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
> unsubscribe in the subject line.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
