Good HI-Def Tv Read [Archive] - FLG

Gremlin

04-19-2006, 11:19 AM

Good Read (http://editorials.teamxbox.com/xbox/1544/The-Facts-and-Fiction-of-1080p/p1/)

DeadLamb

04-19-2006, 11:50 AM

blah.. everything else I have read says the same thing, 1080p is marketing buzz and not going to be main stream any time soon. Bulk of HD is off broadcast TV and it's not going 1080p. It's just too much info to send.

I also don't agree that 720p is better then 1080i as the write up throws out. It 100% depends on what you are watching. Brighter lower motion shows like Tonight show or CSI Miami at 1080i blows away anything I have ever seen at 720p. Flip side is 720p works way better for highspeed motion like sports..

then again WB at 1080i looks like ass and fox looks like crap at 720p, it all about if the networks cares about the HD or not. Clearly WB and fox don't right now.

Avery Hawk

04-19-2006, 12:34 PM

then again WB at 1080i looks like ass and fox looks like crap at 720p, it all about if the networks cares about the HD or not. Clearly WB and fox don't right now.

Like their "target" deomgraphics are HD "frendly" I mean come on ....WB home of "ethnic Programing" and Fox "Nascar Central" ......LOL That's why they don't care less than 10% of their viewership is HD compliant......

Chronoglass

04-19-2006, 12:38 PM

Fox "Nascar Central" ......LOL That's why they don't care less than 10% of their viewership is HD compliant......

pfft, moddy alone is like 15%!
take the rest of the nascar fans (12) and they could eat the rest of their demographic.... in 1 sitting

Area51_FLG

04-19-2006, 12:54 PM

termdec

04-19-2006, 01:12 PM

Like their "target" deomgraphics are HD "frendly" I mean come on ....WB home of "ethnic Programing"

Eh, most of their primetime stuff is shitty teen drama. Probably mostly watched by rich white kids. As far as I know UPN is the 'urban' station.

WebHog

04-19-2006, 01:56 PM

Looks like this article put to rest my thoughts on 1080p...

1080p displays upconvert all incoming signals to their 1080p native resolution, but they can not accept a native or compressed 1080p signal. Luckily, the first 1080p input capable HDTVs are coming... Glad I waited!

So, basically what I was hoping for and what looks to be the case is...
who cares what the signal type is(720p/1080i) if your 1080p HDTV can upconvert it to 1080p.

The networks may not broadcast at 1080p for a long time if ever, but once you see 1080p Blu-ray/HD-DVD there's no going back, trust me. The signal is unfawking-believable!!

Avery Hawk

04-19-2006, 03:15 PM

Eh, most of their primetime stuff is shitty teen drama. Probably mostly watched by rich white kids. As far as I know UPN is the 'urban' station.

UPN and WB are Merging.......:eek:

xwred1

04-19-2006, 05:32 PM

DeadLamb

04-19-2006, 07:02 PM

I found this yesterday,

yeah that's always the link I want to find, but can't, when ever 1080p comes up..

you don't really have to be able to fallow it word for word to get the gen idea of it being more good buzz over being used that much..

meh, Alias return is starting right now (in HD), blah blah time over! :stalker:

WebHog

04-19-2006, 08:42 PM

yeah that's always the link I want to find, but can't, when ever 1080p comes up..

you don't really have to be able to fallow it word for word to get the gen idea of it being more good buzz over being used that much..

meh, Alias return is starting right now (in HD), blah blah time over! :stalker:

ARGH!!!! DAMN IT!!! From what I saw at CES 2066, 1080p looked awesome, just haven't had alot of time to invest in researching it. Of course, I realize that some of the time that stuff at CES is smoke and mirrors, but All I was hoping for was some investment protection before I drop a few big bills on this new set and thought for sure that 1080p would be the way to go, but I think it's all just a little too early. Can't wait to have this discussion in another 6 months...

DeadLamb

04-19-2006, 09:02 PM

Can't wait to have this discussion in another 6 months...

yeah but what is really going to change in 6 months content wise? If one likes HDtv they pretty much HAVE to like or watch prime time broadcast TV. It's really the only "new" stuff in HD outside of sports.. Sure you get HDnet etc off cable but that's mostly older films etc and that too is not 1080p.

nothing broadcast is going to be going 1080p soon, if ever. So cost for cost looking to bump up to a 1080p set it not really going to gain one much.. Only wide card IMO is if one wants to run the screen as a CPU monitor also.

problem is so many tv sets are moving away from having digital cpu connections.

Over all I'm just happy that cost are dropping so quickly.. Still not cheap but it's way cheaper then it was a few years ago.

Gremlin

04-19-2006, 09:40 PM

Well I wonder how much this is going to cost :drool:

Panasonic 103" plasma TV (http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/09/panasonics-103-incher-up-close-and-personal/)

2 million pixels

xwred1

04-19-2006, 10:20 PM

Reading that article, the main thing I come back with is don't bother shooting for a 1080p tv now, cause you'll get boned.

Course myself, I'm not going to be dropping bills on hd anything anytime soon, not unless my coke selling business picks up.

WebHog

04-20-2006, 07:33 AM

...Over all I'm just happy that cost are dropping so quickly.. Still not cheap but it's way cheaper then it was a few years ago.

Ditto, I remember walking into Good Guys on Arden a few years back when they first introduced flat panels. I think they had a 42" plasma and sold for $14,999.99.

Silly

04-20-2006, 09:43 AM

I found this yesterday, re:1080p being bs.
http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages_b/reality.html

I couldn't really follow it, I'm not into hd except knowing some of the res specs. Can any of you follow it all?

Bah. I'm calling shenanigans on that link. The first thing that caught my eye as being BS is his talking about "flicker" from 24fps signals, and since he can't even get that right I have to assume the rest is a whole bunch of crap as well. I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion here before, regarding PC flat panels, but I just don't see how he can be talking about flicker on digital displays. Sure it's a problem with a CRT (like normal TV) but it's just not something digital dispalys have a problem with. You could say that, maybee, he just used the wrong term and meant that 24fps would make the action scenes jumpy or something like that, but then why would 24fps look just fine for film? And, I think, any DVD or mpg or divx movie or etc... you watch on your PC is encoded @ 24fps, and that doesn't appear to "flicker". Here's an interesting link I found googling:

http://www.tech-notes.tv/Jim/Articles/24_Frame.html

Now my objections to the rest of the article are probalby more just personal opinion, but here they are... So, his contention is that since it costs more money to make a display that can handle 1080p that nobody will do it. Seems to make sence, but it ignores a big factor in the sales of any consumer electronics--especially electronics in the upper end of the technology/price spectrum--and that's the fact that manufacturers need to differentiate their product from the rest. So, let's say that sony comes out with a 1080p capable TV, but it costs $200 more to produce than a non-1080p capable set. What do they do? They put a huge sticker on the display model that points out that this is the only set that supports 1080p and raise the price $200. And there are plenty of people who will pay the extra $200. Then, once sony starts outselling everyone else--because they support 1080p--everyone else will follow suit and add support.

As for the argument that there's no content to display at that resolution right now: I dont' think the majority of consumers are that rational. Or, maybee, they're more rational than that. Who's to say who is right? Anyway, one argument for buying tech you can't even use now is "future-proofing". I know that if I were to drop $2K-$3K on a TV I'd sure as hell want to be watching the same TV in 5 years (heh, my 27" TV is going on 12 years old now, if you don't believe me). So, at least for me, another $200 spent just to make sure that I'm not sitting here in 3 years with a TV that won't display the new 1080p content--that nobody believes came out so quickly--and I don't have to go out and drop another $2K on a new TV, is worth it.

Silly

04-20-2006, 09:49 AM

Ditto, I remember walking into Good Guys on Arden a few years back when they first introduced flat panels. I think they had a 42" plasma and sold for $14,999.99.

Heh. That reminds me of a funny story. When I was working at Circuit Shitty, around '89-'90, they had this huge 72" tube TV in the entrance to the store. I think it was something like $35,000. One day some guy walked in and said 'I'll take it'. Of course the salesman probably wet himself. Well, for some strange reason the guy's first credit card was rejected. Then the next, and the next... Turned out the dumbass thought the TV was $3,500...:rolleyes:

xwred1

04-20-2006, 11:19 AM

24fps looks ok in films because its interlaced. Maybe he was meaning 24fps progressive would look bad?

24fps in films still bothers me sometimes too. Like if there's a scene with LOTS of white, I see flicker and it annoys me.

As for the argument that there's no content to display at that resolution right now: I dont' think the majority of consumers are that rational.

I bet there are ALOT of people who bought hdtvs, and think they are watching HD when in fact its normal tv.

Silly

04-20-2006, 01:23 PM

Film isn't interlaced. The link I posted does mention that every frame on a file (in theaters) is shown twice, which sort of makes it a 48Hz refresh rate, but the thing with digital displays (as I understand it) is that they do not decay. A pixel on an LCD screen just stays on until it's turned off. The reason you have to refresh the display on CRTs (or a movie screen) is that the pixel does not stay "on", it fades away right after you light it up. So, the guy's whole premise is invalid, since you don't have the worry about refresh rate with LCDs (or DLP projectors AFAIK)...

xwred1

04-20-2006, 05:12 PM

Well yeah, film or crt could flicker because you are just sending bursts of light or electrons. Digital screens should keep a pixel permanently colored until it decides it is time for a change.

I don't know what he's talking about them. Maybe some kind of stuttering because 24 doesn't divide cleanly into 60? I started to skim it when it got close to there because I'm not going to buy an hdtv and it was getting to be over my head and interest level.