[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 22:36:34 -0500
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> At 9:28 AM -0500 11/10/05, Tom Barry wrote:
>
>>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.
Big correction: I meant to type "Bandwidth is mostly ( ) NOT the issue ..."
>
>
> NO. I am talking about transmission bandwidth. If you are only
> talking about the display, then you must be assuming that all sources
> will be upconverted to 1920 x 1080@60P for display.
>
> But you have been talking about receiver 1080@60P content, and that
> requires some form of distribution.
>
>
I fear we have been talking past each other since I was indeed talking
about display format, and mentioned that word a number of times,
including our discussions of whether it is Watkinson 576p->720p or my
own suggested 720p->1080p. I sort of thought we agreed on this part.
The eventual display format is best if larger than the transmission
format. That larger format cannot add any detail but can smooth to hide
the raster without losing any detail either.
It is still unclear to me whether 1080i or 720p (probably) will best
upconvert to the coming 1080p displays I personally expect to be
ubiquitous once they are cheap.
But I guess this is getting confusing so I'll end it here. We can pick
it up in some future thread. I'm sure it's a topic that will come up
again. ;-)
- Tom
>> > 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.
>
>
> I think you are still missing the point. This is a psychovisual
> issue. It makes people uncomfortable. Try it in a theater.
>
>
>> >>> 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)
>>
>
>
> I was not understanding your meaning. I do see the humor now.
>
> 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:
