Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

Bob Miller wrote in
ink.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:
Bob Miller wrote in
ink.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:
Bob Miller wrote in
link.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:
"HiC" wrote in
ink.net:

Went into a local Circuit City and took a good long look at
their HDTV selections. They had several including 2 1080p sets
that I was told were set up correctly and what I was seeing was
as good as it gets. Everything HD from the cams to the screen.
Both the 1080p's were running some sort of hard drive unit, not
off a broadcast.

I've been hearing how amazing HDTV is. Well....while there's a
certain "pow" when you first see them, I get the sense it's due
to some artifically induced phenomena. The colors seem vivid,
but it seems to me in an enhanced - i.e. forced way. There seems
to be an excessive "whiteness" to the image that adds a certain
kind of sparkle/sharpness, but again it seems artificial. The
real world as viewed by eyeballs doesn't seem that "sharp" or
vivid. The demos that were showing were clearly intended to take
advantage of this, all these closeups of brightly colored
flowers, snowboarders on glaring snow etc. I don't believe a sky
exists anywhere the shade of blue they were depicting in that
demo.

I see all kinds of artifacts in the images. Yeah, okay, they're
not meant to be viewed from 6 inches away. But when I back off
to 8 - 10 feet, I still see this odd graininess, especially when
the image pans. Plus all these other odd things that happen to
the image. Overall I find it harder on my eyes than a sharp
picture on a good analog tv.

As I understand it, in a few years we're getting all digital
whether we like it or not. Is the whole HDTV thing just a bill
of goods we got sold/crammed down our throats?
When I bought an HDTV-ready TV, I bought a CRT model. CRT and
rear projection CRT are proven technologies that can reproduce
signals at these resolutions. They've been in use for some time
in the computer industry, doing just that.

The difference is not HUGE, but my SD signals are actually
received, often, at EDTV resolution from a satellite, so what I'm
actually comparing is the line-doubled 480p signal from the
satellite to the 1080i signal from the same source. My estimate
is that the picture clarity is 3db better on the HDTV signals,
especially the good ones.

That's about twice as good as the SDTV signals.

Might that suggest that if the EDTV signal was actually true 480P
and had been captured with a good 720P camera that it might be as
good as the 1080i signal?
Actually, you might suggest it, but it runs counter to my actual
experience. I see materials that are converted from HD cameras all
the time and, while they are 1000% better than regular SDTV
signals, they are still about 3db short of a 1080i or 720p
production over the 1080i path from my satellite. Even the best
DVD films are about 3db worse. For example, I have the entire LotR
trilogy in anamorphic widescreen. It is good, but it still has
that 3db clarity loss from the 1080i version broeadcast by my movie
supplier.

That was a question. I was following your math and maybe
misunderstood it. You were saying "line-doubled 480P" which I
interpreted as 480i information. And I was then suggesting that if
it were true 480P from a very good source, since it has twice the
information as the 480i line doubled version, might it not be as
good as the 1080i you were comparing it to since you said the 1080i
was only twice as good as what I took to be 480i. Wouldn't 480P then
equal your 1080i?

I don't have any actual 480i sources....well, actually I do--I have
an S- Video line running from my computer, but it can be replaced
with a component line if I need that. The 480i is inferior to MOST
of the SD stuff off my satellite (which is sending 480p to the TV).
A lot depends on the original production, but I'm talking about a
well-transmitted channel without too much compression on it, from a
source using a digital uplink. For example today's Jays-Mariners
game.


So what is the 480P being captured with? 720P, 1080i or a 480P native
camera if there is such a thing? I thought you were saying that the
480P was line doubled 480i which would mean it is really just 480i
info.

No, the 480p is generated directly inside the satellite box from whatever
programming is coming down the pipe. Sometimes that's just crud,
sometimes it's fairly high resolution MPEG-2 stuff, depending on channel
and compression settings. It's captured originally with whatever devices
the program producers use. The 480p from my DVD player is generated
directly from the data on the discs. It is line doubled in the TV. I
think to 960p, but I cannot be sure of that without some detailed specs
on the TV.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:49:38 +0300, Paul Keinanen wrote:

Those panning problems that I have seen, especially in news footage,
seems to be much faster than that and I have always assumed that this
was due to frame rate (30-25 fps) conversion artifact.

Nonono, the problem with progressive (which is equal to what film is), is
that you can only pan up to a certain , or else the pan will look ugly
(jerky). If you ever get your hands on an ASC-manual, they have tables in
there about recommended speeds.
But hey, 18 year old camera-men don't know about such things ;-)

cheers

-martin-
--
"I have no fear of losing my life. If I have to save a koala or a crocodile
or a kangaroo or a snake, mate, I will save it."

Farewell Stevo!

Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

Dave Oldridge wrote:
Bob Miller wrote in
ink.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:
Bob Miller wrote in
ink.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:
Bob Miller wrote in
link.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:
"HiC" wrote in
ink.net:

Went into a local Circuit City and took a good long look at
their HDTV selections. They had several including 2 1080p sets
that I was told were set up correctly and what I was seeing was
as good as it gets. Everything HD from the cams to the screen.
Both the 1080p's were running some sort of hard drive unit, not
off a broadcast.

I've been hearing how amazing HDTV is. Well....while there's a
certain "pow" when you first see them, I get the sense it's due
to some artifically induced phenomena. The colors seem vivid,
but it seems to me in an enhanced - i.e. forced way. There seems
to be an excessive "whiteness" to the image that adds a certain
kind of sparkle/sharpness, but again it seems artificial. The
real world as viewed by eyeballs doesn't seem that "sharp" or
vivid. The demos that were showing were clearly intended to take
advantage of this, all these closeups of brightly colored
flowers, snowboarders on glaring snow etc. I don't believe a sky
exists anywhere the shade of blue they were depicting in that
demo.

I see all kinds of artifacts in the images. Yeah, okay, they're
not meant to be viewed from 6 inches away. But when I back off
to 8 - 10 feet, I still see this odd graininess, especially when
the image pans. Plus all these other odd things that happen to
the image. Overall I find it harder on my eyes than a sharp
picture on a good analog tv.

As I understand it, in a few years we're getting all digital
whether we like it or not. Is the whole HDTV thing just a bill
of goods we got sold/crammed down our throats?
When I bought an HDTV-ready TV, I bought a CRT model. CRT and
rear projection CRT are proven technologies that can reproduce
signals at these resolutions. They've been in use for some time
in the computer industry, doing just that.

The difference is not HUGE, but my SD signals are actually
received, often, at EDTV resolution from a satellite, so what I'm
actually comparing is the line-doubled 480p signal from the
satellite to the 1080i signal from the same source. My estimate
is that the picture clarity is 3db better on the HDTV signals,
especially the good ones.

That's about twice as good as the SDTV signals.

Might that suggest that if the EDTV signal was actually true 480P
and had been captured with a good 720P camera that it might be as
good as the 1080i signal?
Actually, you might suggest it, but it runs counter to my actual
experience. I see materials that are converted from HD cameras all
the time and, while they are 1000% better than regular SDTV
signals, they are still about 3db short of a 1080i or 720p
production over the 1080i path from my satellite. Even the best
DVD films are about 3db worse. For example, I have the entire LotR
trilogy in anamorphic widescreen. It is good, but it still has
that 3db clarity loss from the 1080i version broeadcast by my movie
supplier.

That was a question. I was following your math and maybe
misunderstood it. You were saying "line-doubled 480P" which I
interpreted as 480i information. And I was then suggesting that if
it were true 480P from a very good source, since it has twice the
information as the 480i line doubled version, might it not be as
good as the 1080i you were comparing it to since you said the 1080i
was only twice as good as what I took to be 480i. Wouldn't 480P then
equal your 1080i?
I don't have any actual 480i sources....well, actually I do--I have
an S- Video line running from my computer, but it can be replaced
with a component line if I need that. The 480i is inferior to MOST
of the SD stuff off my satellite (which is sending 480p to the TV).
A lot depends on the original production, but I'm talking about a
well-transmitted channel without too much compression on it, from a
source using a digital uplink. For example today's Jays-Mariners
game.


So what is the 480P being captured with? 720P, 1080i or a 480P native
camera if there is such a thing? I thought you were saying that the
480P was line doubled 480i which would mean it is really just 480i
info.

No, the 480p is generated directly inside the satellite box from whatever
programming is coming down the pipe. Sometimes that's just crud,
sometimes it's fairly high resolution MPEG-2 stuff, depending on channel
and compression settings. It's captured originally with whatever devices
the program producers use. The 480p from my DVD player is generated
directly from the data on the discs. It is line doubled in the TV. I
think to 960p, but I cannot be sure of that without some detailed specs
on the TV.


So the DVD stuff is originally 480i unless it is a movie. The satellite
"high resolution MPEG-2 stuff" could be anything?

I would like to see real 480P that was captured originally in 480P or
higher like 720P or 1080P. Then I would like to see that broadcast and
upconverted to compare on a 42 Inch screen, native 480P, 720P and 1080i
and then compare to a 1080i source on the same screens.

I think it would be pretty close. Then looking at the difference and
looking at the data of how many screens being sold are 42 inch and lower
how many people would opt for more programing in 480P as apposed to less
programming in HD.

Bob Miller

Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

I think you need to see a quality set, set up properly. May be out of
budget, though.

"HiC" wrote in message
ink.net...
Went into a local Circuit City and took a good long look at their HDTV
selections. They had several including 2 1080p sets that I was told were
set
up correctly and what I was seeing was as good as it gets. Everything HD
from the cams to the screen. Both the 1080p's were running some sort of
hard
drive unit, not off a broadcast.

I've been hearing how amazing HDTV is. Well....while there's a certain
"pow"
when you first see them, I get the sense it's due to some artifically
induced phenomena. The colors seem vivid, but it seems to me in an
enhanced - i.e. forced way. There seems to be an excessive "whiteness" to
the image that adds a certain kind of sparkle/sharpness, but again it
seems
artificial. The real world as viewed by eyeballs doesn't seem that "sharp"
or vivid. The demos that were showing were clearly intended to take
advantage of this, all these closeups of brightly colored flowers,
snowboarders on glaring snow etc. I don't believe a sky exists anywhere
the
shade of blue they were depicting in that demo.

I see all kinds of artifacts in the images. Yeah, okay, they're not meant
to
be viewed from 6 inches away. But when I back off to 8 - 10 feet, I still
see this odd graininess, especially when the image pans. Plus all these
other odd things that happen to the image. Overall I find it harder on my
eyes than a sharp picture on a good analog tv.

As I understand it, in a few years we're getting all digital whether we
like
it or not. Is the whole HDTV thing just a bill of goods we got
sold/crammed
down our throats?

Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

On 14 Sep 2006 22:32:45 +0200, Martin Heffels
t wrote:

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:49:38 +0300, Paul Keinanen wrote:

Those panning problems that I have seen, especially in news footage,
seems to be much faster than that and I have always assumed that this
was due to frame rate (30-25 fps) conversion artifact.

Nonono, the problem with progressive (which is equal to what film is), is
that you can only pan up to a certain , or else the pan will look ugly
(jerky). If you ever get your hands on an ASC-manual, they have tables in
there about recommended speeds.
But hey, 18 year old camera-men don't know about such things ;-)

For news footage I can understand that if you are under fire, the
panning speed is not the first thing you think about :-).

Paul

Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 12:14:14 +0300, Paul Keinanen wrote:

For news footage I can understand that if you are under fire, the
panning speed is not the first thing you think about :-).

:-))
--
"I have no fear of losing my life. If I have to save a koala or a crocodile
or a kangaroo or a snake, mate, I will save it."

Farewell Stevo!

Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

rz wrote:
I think you need to see a quality set, set up properly. May be out of
budget, though.


Whats with all the 'quality set, set up properly' talk? You'd think that
only engineers and compulsive tweakers bought tv's and watched dvd's.

Heres how average people do it. They go to the store, buy a tv, hook up
their dvd player using the nice color coded cables, plunk in a dvd and
watch it.

If DVD did in fact dissolve into pixel clouds and display numerous
artifacts like the original poster claimed, nobody would have moved on
from VHS tapes. Now if you stick in that copy of Finding Nemo thats on
the floor of the kids room thats covered with cheeze wiz and scratches.....

Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

Bob Miller wrote in
hlink.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:
Bob Miller wrote in
ink.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:
Bob Miller wrote in
ink.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:
Bob Miller wrote in
link.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:
"HiC" wrote in
ink.net:

Went into a local Circuit City and took a good long look at
their HDTV selections. They had several including 2 1080p sets
that I was told were set up correctly and what I was seeing
was as good as it gets. Everything HD from the cams to the
screen. Both the 1080p's were running some sort of hard drive
unit, not off a broadcast.

I've been hearing how amazing HDTV is. Well....while there's a
certain "pow" when you first see them, I get the sense it's
due to some artifically induced phenomena. The colors seem
vivid, but it seems to me in an enhanced - i.e. forced way.
There seems to be an excessive "whiteness" to the image that
adds a certain kind of sparkle/sharpness, but again it seems
artificial. The real world as viewed by eyeballs doesn't seem
that "sharp" or vivid. The demos that were showing were
clearly intended to take advantage of this, all these closeups
of brightly colored flowers, snowboarders on glaring snow etc.
I don't believe a sky exists anywhere the shade of blue they
were depicting in that demo.

I see all kinds of artifacts in the images. Yeah, okay,
they're not meant to be viewed from 6 inches away. But when I
back off to 8 - 10 feet, I still see this odd graininess,
especially when the image pans. Plus all these other odd
things that happen to the image. Overall I find it harder on
my eyes than a sharp picture on a good analog tv.

As I understand it, in a few years we're getting all digital
whether we like it or not. Is the whole HDTV thing just a bill
of goods we got sold/crammed down our throats?
When I bought an HDTV-ready TV, I bought a CRT model. CRT and
rear projection CRT are proven technologies that can reproduce
signals at these resolutions. They've been in use for some
time in the computer industry, doing just that.

The difference is not HUGE, but my SD signals are actually
received, often, at EDTV resolution from a satellite, so what
I'm actually comparing is the line-doubled 480p signal from the
satellite to the 1080i signal from the same source. My
estimate is that the picture clarity is 3db better on the HDTV
signals, especially the good ones.

That's about twice as good as the SDTV signals.

Might that suggest that if the EDTV signal was actually true
480P and had been captured with a good 720P camera that it might
be as good as the 1080i signal?
Actually, you might suggest it, but it runs counter to my actual
experience. I see materials that are converted from HD cameras
all the time and, while they are 1000% better than regular SDTV
signals, they are still about 3db short of a 1080i or 720p
production over the 1080i path from my satellite. Even the best
DVD films are about 3db worse. For example, I have the entire
LotR trilogy in anamorphic widescreen. It is good, but it still
has that 3db clarity loss from the 1080i version broeadcast by my
movie supplier.

That was a question. I was following your math and maybe
misunderstood it. You were saying "line-doubled 480P" which I
interpreted as 480i information. And I was then suggesting that if
it were true 480P from a very good source, since it has twice the
information as the 480i line doubled version, might it not be as
good as the 1080i you were comparing it to since you said the
1080i was only twice as good as what I took to be 480i. Wouldn't
480P then equal your 1080i?
I don't have any actual 480i sources....well, actually I do--I have
an S- Video line running from my computer, but it can be replaced
with a component line if I need that. The 480i is inferior to MOST
of the SD stuff off my satellite (which is sending 480p to the TV).
A lot depends on the original production, but I'm talking about a
well-transmitted channel without too much compression on it, from a
source using a digital uplink. For example today's Jays-Mariners
game.


So what is the 480P being captured with? 720P, 1080i or a 480P
native camera if there is such a thing? I thought you were saying
that the 480P was line doubled 480i which would mean it is really
just 480i info.

No, the 480p is generated directly inside the satellite box from
whatever programming is coming down the pipe. Sometimes that's just
crud, sometimes it's fairly high resolution MPEG-2 stuff, depending
on channel and compression settings. It's captured originally with
whatever devices the program producers use. The 480p from my DVD
player is generated directly from the data on the discs. It is line
doubled in the TV. I think to 960p, but I cannot be sure of that
without some detailed specs on the TV.


So the DVD stuff is originally 480i unless it is a movie. The
satellite "high resolution MPEG-2 stuff" could be anything?

Almost ALL TV series are done on film. How that gets transferred to DV
is, of course, up to whoever compresses the MPEG-2. But if they do it
from film, the resolution will be that of the compression equipment.

I would like to see real 480P that was captured originally in 480P or
higher like 720P or 1080P. Then I would like to see that broadcast and
upconverted to compare on a 42 Inch screen, native 480P, 720P and
1080i and then compare to a 1080i source on the same screens.

I think it would be pretty close. Then looking at the difference and
looking at the data of how many screens being sold are 42 inch and
lower how many people would opt for more programing in 480P as apposed
to less programming in HD.

3db is not a really LARGE difference in clarity. But it is a visible
one. Most of my movies on DVD are at what you could call EDTV resolution
and they are, as I said, only about 3db behind the 1080i stuff my movie
provider puts up.

But most TV series, even the 4:3 ones are shot on 35mm film and then
transferreb to video modes, often separately for the DVD releases.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

Bob Miller wrote in
ink.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:
Bob Miller wrote in
link.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:
"HiC" wrote in
ink.net:

Went into a local Circuit City and took a good long look at their
HDTV selections. They had several including 2 1080p sets that I
was told were set up correctly and what I was seeing was as good
as it gets. Everything HD from the cams to the screen. Both the
1080p's were running some sort of hard drive unit, not off a
broadcast.

I've been hearing how amazing HDTV is. Well....while there's a
certain "pow" when you first see them, I get the sense it's due to
some artifically induced phenomena. The colors seem vivid, but it
seems to me in an enhanced - i.e. forced way. There seems to be an
excessive "whiteness" to the image that adds a certain kind of
sparkle/sharpness, but again it seems artificial. The real world
as viewed by eyeballs doesn't seem that "sharp" or vivid. The
demos that were showing were clearly intended to take advantage of
this, all these closeups of brightly colored flowers, snowboarders
on glaring snow etc. I don't believe a sky exists anywhere the
shade of blue they were depicting in that demo.

I see all kinds of artifacts in the images. Yeah, okay, they're
not meant to be viewed from 6 inches away. But when I back off to
8 - 10 feet, I still see this odd graininess, especially when the
image pans. Plus all these other odd things that happen to the
image. Overall I find it harder on my eyes than a sharp picture on
a good analog tv.

As I understand it, in a few years we're getting all digital
whether we like it or not. Is the whole HDTV thing just a bill of
goods we got sold/crammed down our throats?
When I bought an HDTV-ready TV, I bought a CRT model. CRT and rear
projection CRT are proven technologies that can reproduce signals
at these resolutions. They've been in use for some time in the
computer industry, doing just that.

The difference is not HUGE, but my SD signals are actually
received, often, at EDTV resolution from a satellite, so what I'm
actually comparing is the line-doubled 480p signal from the
satellite to the 1080i signal from the same source. My estimate is
that the picture clarity is 3db better on the HDTV signals,
especially the good ones.

That's about twice as good as the SDTV signals.

Might that suggest that if the EDTV signal was actually true 480P
and had been captured with a good 720P camera that it might be as
good as the 1080i signal?

Actually, you might suggest it, but it runs counter to my actual
experience. I see materials that are converted from HD cameras all
the time and, while they are 1000% better than regular SDTV signals,
they are still about 3db short of a 1080i or 720p production over the
1080i path from my satellite. Even the best DVD films are about 3db
worse. For example, I have the entire LotR trilogy in anamorphic
widescreen. It is good, but it still has that 3db clarity loss from
the 1080i version broeadcast by my movie supplier.

That was a question. I was following your math and maybe misunderstood
it. You were saying "line-doubled 480P" which I interpreted as 480i
information. And I was then suggesting that if it were true 480P from
a very good source, since it has twice the information as the 480i
line doubled version, might it not be as good as the 1080i you were
comparing it to since you said the 1080i was only twice as good as
what I took to be 480i. Wouldn't 480P then equal your 1080i?

I think you misunderstand something. The i in 1080i implies not that the
resolution is any less, but that the raster is scanned twice to get the
full frame. What you actually see depends on the vertical refresh rate
of the mode, which I'll assume is 30fps. So you lose some resolution
along the time axis to trade for resolution in space. The picture is
still 1920x1080 pixels, but, due to the interlace, it's a little blurry
where it's moving. Usually the eye doesn't see this and most often, it
is obscured by motion blur in the original film source. Even on live
baseball it looks OK to me.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 19:22:02 GMT, Dave Oldridge
wrote:

3db is not a really LARGE difference in clarity.

Decibels have nothing to do with the clarity of your picture. You (usually)
use them to tell a difference in power, voltage or soundlevel.

cheers

-martin-
--