[opendtv] Re: Samsung Rep admits HDMI won't support 1080p until v.1.3
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 09:06:04 -0500
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.
Other related posts:
