TV Question?? 1080p??
- Thread starter pOiNTBLaNK
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 26
- Views 4K
I don't know of any monitor on the market that supports non-interlaced 1080. I don't even think it's broadcast--I don't believe it appears in HD specs.
I'd like to know which looks better: 1080i or 720p?
I'd like to know which looks better: 1080i or 720p?
cameron119 said:
I can't think of any monitors that accept it either, but my NEC HT1000 PJ will actually accept the 1080p signal even though it scales it down to it's native resolution.
Nope. The only consumer models capable of 1080p are the discontinued Toshiba 57" LCOS and the Mitsubishi (82" ?) LCOS. This fall, TI plans to ship its xHD3 1080p DLP chip, so we should see the first 1080p DLP sets late this year or early next year. Samsung has two 1080p DLPs planned, a 61" followed by a 73"; these will probably run at least $6000.
The 1080p format is part of the ATSC specification. Of course, there is currently no source of 1080p programming, nor is there any consumer HD STB that can output at 1080p. However, 1080p sets will ultimately de-interlace 1080i content, much like your progressive scan DVD player de-interlaces 480i into a 480p picture signal. Thus, future 1080p sets will deliver the best possible HD picture for 1080i channels.
As far as 1080i vs 720p, that depends on the type of content (film or sports), and the supplied bit rate. Many people prefer 720p60 for content with lots of motion, and 1080i for content with less movement.
I thought there was a CRT projector capable of natively displaying it... but I very well could be wrong. There is a LITTLE 1080p out there, most noticeably video clips that have been done specifically for 1080p demonstration.
I dont even think 1080p is worth discussing. Any rentable production trucks out there? LMAO we cant even get enough 1080i on our screens. BY 2006 we may still have analog. 1080p will be for our grandkids.
Vurbano, you do realize that 1080i is just scaled down 1080p, right? A lot of HD is shot in 1080p and then just scaled to 720p or 1080i from what I understand. I don't think they are natively shooting this stuff in 1080i (though I suppose I could be wrong).
We really, really, really don't need or want another "Which looks better" debate 
. See my previous arguments with Vurbano on the subject.
. See my previous arguments with Vurbano on the subject.
Sort of... more like a "I think I remember reading that but don't have any quotes handy" kind of thing . Seriously though, I really do think it's shot in 1080p and scaled to 1080i, as opposed to natively shot in 1080i.
-MP
. Seriously though, I really do think it's shot in 1080p and scaled to 1080i, as opposed to natively shot in 1080i.-MP
vurbano said:
Public pressure. Not much else. 1080p is a resource hog, no doubt about it
. That link to thenew DLP sets was interesting. I was amazed at the MSRP on the 1080p set. Very cost effective!
ahhmadpoet said:Public pressure. Not much else. 1080p is a resource hog, no doubt about it
the same public pressure that makes espnhd give us 20 hourrs a month in hd sports events?
the same public pressure that prevents affialites from cutting 3 sd channels from their hd channel reducing the bandwidth and giving us a crappy HD picture?
the same public pressure making stations go to HD and give up their real revenue source... analog and after that SD?
the same public pressure forcing COX to give us 100 channels of analog still?
the same public pressure forcing D* and the cable compainies not to compress?
cost effective? so all existing HD stations can upgrade for free?
LMAO call scotty he needs to beam you up.
Apparently you misunderstood .
1) Stations are forced to go to digital, not to HD. You can still be broadcasting 480 programming in the digital spectrum. They are doing HD because it's what the public wants.
2) Majority of people still have analog sets, regardless of what the FCC wants to happen.
3) If enough people did some talkign with their wallet, D* would listen.
4) Cost effective was in reference to the cost of the 1080p-capable set. Very nice price for it.
Try not to jump the gun too much
. 1) Stations are forced to go to digital, not to HD. You can still be broadcasting 480 programming in the digital spectrum. They are doing HD because it's what the public wants.
2) Majority of people still have analog sets, regardless of what the FCC wants to happen.
3) If enough people did some talkign with their wallet, D* would listen.
4) Cost effective was in reference to the cost of the 1080p-capable set. Very nice price for it.
Try not to jump the gun too much
Apparently you misunderstood.madpoet said:Apparently you misunderstood
1) Stations are forced to go to digital, not to HD. You can still be broadcasting 480 programming in the digital spectrum. They are doing HD because it's what the public wants.
2) Majority of people still have analog sets, regardless of what the FCC wants to happen.
3) If enough people did some talkign with their wallet, D* would listen.
4) Cost effective was in reference to the cost of the 1080p-capable set. Very nice price for it.
Try not to jump the gun too much
THERE IS NO PRESSURE TO GO HD. There is no real pressure not to do any of the things i listed. lmao
I didnt misunderstand anything. Stations are forced to go digital only if 85% of people can get it. Nothing is forcing HD. There is no pressure to go HD. HD does not generate revenue for most stations and therefore no amount of screaming will force it. Even when or after 2006 if things are all digital what will force hD? nothing, standard digital will be the revenue cash cow then. You can buy all the HD sets you want but that wont make things go HD unless congress passes yet another law. Jumping the gun? Talking about the 1080p pipe dream is jumping the gun and just ridiculous! Talk about it again in 30 yrs.
Apparently you missed the underlaying criticism of "public pressure" in my previous post.
Try to read more carefully please.
6000 bucks is cost effective?
FWIW, in my HDTV Newsletter yesterday, there was an interview with Gary Shapiro, the head of CES and he is strongly pushing the broadcasters to go HD instead of just digital. The industry is waking up to the fact that SD is not going to cut it and once people see HD, there is no going back.
Vurbano, why do we have ANYTHING in HD right now then? It isn't because they are required to, it's because they see a value in doing it. You seem to be trying to argue both sides of the fence. Either public pressure means nothing (in which case why do we have HD now?) or it works (which is why we have HD now). So if they see the same value in broadcasting 1080p content, we will get it. That simple. Try and figure out which side of the position you're on, and get back to me.
-MP
-MP
