An update from Scott at CES
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 146
- Views 42K
ergoman said:
You shouldn't be if your read Scotts own words less than a month ago regarding how he will stand up to anyone on the rez issue and that he is not owned by any satellite company. Check back earlier ont he VOOM thread. It was even repeated by someone just a few days ago. Scott brought it on himself. I am just hoping that he was playing a big joke on us all but, as you can tell, most people here would not find it funny.
I'm actually enjoying all the traffic stemming from CES. Reminds me of the good old days of last year when the Duelin' Dolans were giving everyone here fits. 
mdonnelly said:I'm actually enjoying all the traffic stemming from CES. Reminds me of the good old days of last year when the Duelin' Dolans were giving everyone here fits.
You know you are right. This is rather exciting in a perverted sort of way.
Stacy- I think you are right on target with what you believe is going on. Discovery HD, I found to be an excellent channel to compare E* and D*, same with HDNet but HDNet Movies and HBO, Showtime not so due to the content variations. While HDNety has very strict rules set by Mark Cuban for HDCAM or better for content, Discovery HD Theater often runs and accepts programming that is upconvert from DVCAM or DVCPRO wide screen. I just happen to know this as fact as a content provider. Your observation I believe is quite valid.
Anyway, the purpose of my explanations are to put some sort of fact to the emotional posts complaining about loss of resolution between 1280 and 1920 and whether it really makes a difference at this point in time. However, I appreciate there are those who choose to not be bothered with facts and prefer to whine driven by emotion.
BFG- if you got this far, I ask again, what monitor do you use to watch HDTV content?
Anyway, the purpose of my explanations are to put some sort of fact to the emotional posts complaining about loss of resolution between 1280 and 1920 and whether it really makes a difference at this point in time. However, I appreciate there are those who choose to not be bothered with facts and prefer to whine driven by emotion.
BFG- if you got this far, I ask again, what monitor do you use to watch HDTV content?
I have 2 monitors.
43" 1280x720p samsung DLP and 26" samsung crt (which has 800 lines horiz, 1080 vert)
And I just want the service providers to pass what they are getting from the content providers that is all. i know and fully understand that not all HD is equally and only the vertical measurement of 1920 is needed to be HD (hence why my CRT with 800 lines is still called an HDTV monitor) But I can still tell the difference from a higher quality source and a lower quality source, and I don't want the service provider to rob me from receiving a source that is less in quality then what they are getting (within in reasonable re encoding etc...)
43" 1280x720p samsung DLP and 26" samsung crt (which has 800 lines horiz, 1080 vert)
And I just want the service providers to pass what they are getting from the content providers that is all. i know and fully understand that not all HD is equally and only the vertical measurement of 1920 is needed to be HD (hence why my CRT with 800 lines is still called an HDTV monitor) But I can still tell the difference from a higher quality source and a lower quality source, and I don't want the service provider to rob me from receiving a source that is less in quality then what they are getting (within in reasonable re encoding etc...)
Last edited:
There is no range of horizontal pixels. There are ONLY two ATSC High Definition resolutions:
1280x720
or
1920x1080
That's it.
Hammer
1280x720
or
1920x1080
That's it.
Hammer
May I pick a nit? Horizontal pixels <> Horizontal resolution. Don may be able to elucidate further since this is his livelyhood, but in order to resolve "x" lines, you need to to have 2x pixels. If you took a Sony SXRD 1080x1920 (to keep it consistant) set and tried to draw 1920 vertical black lines, you would have a black screen!
If you want to check your monitor's resolving capabilities, use a computer program (such as Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop) to paint an image the size of your native resolution. Make a repeating pattern or alternating white/black lines each one pixel wide. Do this for both horizontal and vertical orientations.
You will be amazed at what this will show on your monitor. This will also show the importance of using a digital connection instead of an analog one.
You will be amazed at what this will show on your monitor. This will also show the importance of using a digital connection instead of an analog one.
Foxbat said:
You do have a point- I even wrote a paper on this sometime back in the late 90's
While this is not the place to go into much detail on this, I'll try to explain in brief why what you say is logical yet not true.
In summary it has to do with definition. H Resolution in analog TV was defined as a visual test of detail resolving power and that test was performed at 4 corners and the center of the screen. Since the image was scan line based on the vertical and voltage based on the horizontal the test had to do with the ability of the screen to focus the line and also switch the voltage along that line rapidly from black level voltage to white level voltage. BGHetter sets (analog) simply had better focus systems and faster rise and fall times on the voltage switch. The resolution was the number on the test chart corresponding to the visible number of lines in the test that could be seen. The test chart had to be shot with a camera that had at least 2x the resolution of the monitor being tested ot be generated electronically by a fast switching signal generator.
In digital the image is pixel based and not scan line / voltage based. While the analog test chart could be used to define the resolution, that was not how it was defined and is not a standard. Instead, the resolution both horizontal and vertical was defined as the number of pixels in the image and related directly to the construction of the digital display. To differentiate this, the digital display is said to be of a "native resolution" While you can feed a native resolution monitor different pixel arrangements, the optimum picture will be displayed as the native resolution. eg. a 720P x 1280 DLP monitor will perform at optimum H resolution of 1280 pixels x 720 pixels vertical.
OK I said I would not get into too much detail but I think I need to go just a bit further to be clear on this digital vs. analog res test.
In the analog test the lines must be black and white. In the digital, we know each pixel is discrete. therefore we know that in effect, each pixel could resolve one at 255.255.254, next at 255.255.255, next at 255, 255, 254 and so forth, This may appear as all white to most people but in effect the screen actually has resolved less than white, white, less than white. So, by definition the digital based monitor is defined as native pixel resolution and the analog is line resolution. There may be lines on a digital display but there can never be discrete pixels on an analog display. The line test on a digital display is not considered a standard even though many use it.
jpn said:
No, he had it correct. There are 1920 vertical lines layed next to each other across the horizontal width of the screen.
Likewise the vertical scan in an analog monitor has horizontal lines stacked vertical
This confuses alot of people, you are not alone! Your description sort of implies a hybrid between analog and digital and no such animal exists
My decision is to not screw with the stinkin HD until the product has matured. I will know that when the price of HD receivers have come down. The HD televisions came down after they were very high at first, now its time for the satellite receivers to do the same.
Thats a good suggestion I have already for hooking up to my TV for gaming. my 42" sony RPLCD GW is actually 1388/700 displayable lines. But tell me this why does 1920x1280 look cripser on my TV even technically I can do much more then 1280x720?gpflepsen said:
rthomp03 said:You will never ever see 1080p unless they double the satellite fleet.
Why?
1920x1080p24 takes less bandwidth than 1920x1080i60.
Film is shot at 24 frames/second. This would be the ideal solution for broadcasting films and TV shows that are shot on film stock. That's every weekly TV show (not reality shows).Then it would be the job of the sat receiver to output a 60p signal or (even better) a 24p signal and let the display output that at the appropriate rate for its own needs.
It occurs to me that there might be one or two shows that are shot on digital film, which is still 24 fps, so 1080p24 works here too...
Cheers,
Cheers,
Thanks, Don, I knew you could educate us. I meant to say "horizontal lines of resolution" since that term had been used by someone in an earlier post. If their display could truely display 1200 lines of resolution, that would equate to something like 2400 pixels.
As to using "1080i x 1920" instead of "1920 x 1080i", I wanted to stay consistant with what people had been saying in previous posts. I normally specify H x V for resolution as that matches the aspect ratios (4:3, 16:9).
pixels.As to using "1080i x 1920" instead of "1920 x 1080i", I wanted to stay consistant with what people had been saying in previous posts. I normally specify H x V for resolution as that matches the aspect ratios (4:3, 16:9).
Last edited:
"If their display could truely display 1200 lines of resolution, that would equate to something like 2400 pixels."
The problem is that when you attempt to define a digital system with a measurement designed for analog it falls apart and just doesn't adequately yield accurate results or information. Therefore even your 2x statement just isn't true in all cases. However- in a lay person's world where accuracy is entirely subjective, lines of resolution which was originally developed by engineers to define analog resolution of cameras and monitors, has been used to define resolving capability of non visual media such as video tape and even broadcast RF signals which engineers use "bandwidth" to define resolution or rather the capabuility to resolve detail in the image. eg. VHS video tape was said to be 230 lines, Betacam SP 500 lines, DVCAM 550 lines, SVHS tape 260 lines. Fact is none of these are valid just like it is wrong to measure how fast you go in your car with the tachometer. In the car example the speed is dependent on other influencing factors such as transmission gear, rear end ratio, and tire diameter.
The problem is that when you attempt to define a digital system with a measurement designed for analog it falls apart and just doesn't adequately yield accurate results or information. Therefore even your 2x statement just isn't true in all cases. However- in a lay person's world where accuracy is entirely subjective, lines of resolution which was originally developed by engineers to define analog resolution of cameras and monitors, has been used to define resolving capability of non visual media such as video tape and even broadcast RF signals which engineers use "bandwidth" to define resolution or rather the capabuility to resolve detail in the image. eg. VHS video tape was said to be 230 lines, Betacam SP 500 lines, DVCAM 550 lines, SVHS tape 260 lines. Fact is none of these are valid just like it is wrong to measure how fast you go in your car with the tachometer. In the car example the speed is dependent on other influencing factors such as transmission gear, rear end ratio, and tire diameter.
