Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

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 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.


Scanned twice to get a different half frame if everything is moving.
Scanned twice to get a full frame which would then be called 1080P if
you are doing a movie and have the luxury of scanning each frame twice
or a still image where little moves. Works great for still images.
Baseball can be pretty still most of the time. But how about basketball
or other active sports where more of the image is in chaotic motion.

I understand that 1080i also introduces artifacts due to interlace that
would not be present with P. I like progressive and can't wait till
interlace leaves the scene altogether.

You talk of db as to image quality. I am taking that in the colloquial
to mean half as good on the way down or twice as good on the way up. Is
that how you are using it?

Bob Miller

Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

big snip

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

Back when Lucy and Desi were making series that was true, and it is
still true of dramas, but for some reason, sitcoms are often shot on
video, some even in super 16. Given the choice of a less expensive
medium, the producer will usually take it.

Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

In article ,
Ray S wrote:

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.....

What ticks me off is the amazing variation of quality broadcast on the
supposedly "high-def" cable channels.

When the FCC gave away all that broadcast spectrum for HD, then backed
off time and time again in requiring the stations to actually put HD up
- it led to this current disaster.

Out of the 15 HD channels my cable company provides, I get about 2 that
seem to understand how to deliver an actual HD signal. (Discovery and
iNHD on my cable provider - and both of THEM have picture quality
problems now and then)

Virtually everything else is an 70/30 split of god awful pillar boxed
repurposed SD network junk, or "kinda HD" that's clearly been compressed
and decompressed from satellite - easily identifiable because it LOOKS
decent until some producer uses a cross dissolve between scenes - and
the dissolve disintegrates into a blocky mess while the codec tries to
catch up.

Personally, I hope next year, Apple's iTV HDMI interface does to the
HDTV Broadcast industry what iTunes did to the vinyl record and plastic
CD distribution industry - pushes it rapidly towards oblivion.

Sigh.

Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

Hey Elmo, how did that grammar lesson go? Did you understand what I was saying?

Chip

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

William Davis wrote:
In article ,
Ray S wrote:

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.....

What ticks me off is the amazing variation of quality broadcast on the
supposedly "high-def" cable channels.

When the FCC gave away all that broadcast spectrum for HD, then backed
off time and time again in requiring the stations to actually put HD up
- it led to this current disaster.

Out of the 15 HD channels my cable company provides, I get about 2 that
seem to understand how to deliver an actual HD signal. (Discovery and
iNHD on my cable provider - and both of THEM have picture quality
problems now and then)

Virtually everything else is an 70/30 split of god awful pillar boxed
repurposed SD network junk, or "kinda HD" that's clearly been compressed
and decompressed from satellite - easily identifiable because it LOOKS
decent until some producer uses a cross dissolve between scenes - and
the dissolve disintegrates into a blocky mess while the codec tries to
catch up.

Personally, I hope next year, Apple's iTV HDMI interface does to the
HDTV Broadcast industry what iTunes did to the vinyl record and plastic
CD distribution industry - pushes it rapidly towards oblivion.

Sigh.



Congress gave the extra channels to broadcasters for a digital
transition and they have to give them back at the end of that transition
in 2009.

And while members of Congress may have spouted off something about HD
being part of the deal it wasn't. We are a nation of laws and the law
that broadcasters agreed to only mentions ONE SD program in the free and
clear as being required.

Broadcasters can do anything they want with the rest of the spectrum
after they deliver that ONE SD program including delivering and selling
you an HD program.

And if you don't think they plan on doing that let me tell you about a
bridge I could sell you cheap.

Bob Miller

Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

Bob Miller wrote:

Congress gave the extra channels to broadcasters for a digital
transition and they have to give them back at the end of that transition
in 2009.

And while members of Congress may have spouted off something about HD
being part of the deal it wasn't. We are a nation of laws and the law
that broadcasters agreed to only mentions ONE SD program in the free and
clear as being required.

Broadcasters can do anything they want with the rest of the spectrum
after they deliver that ONE SD program including delivering and selling
you an HD program.

And if you don't think they plan on doing that let me tell you about a
bridge I could sell you cheap.

Bob Miller

Oh yeah Bob, like I am going to listen to a business deal you have to offer...

Chip

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

What ticks me off is the amazing variation of quality broadcast on the
supposedly "high-def" cable channels.

When the FCC gave away all that broadcast spectrum for HD, then backed
off time and time again in requiring the stations to actually put HD up
- it led to this current disaster.


The FCC has not mandated HD at all,,only that in 2009, analog OTA goes
away in favor of Digital. HD is a side technical benefit of the
switch to digital - but it requires the OTA broadcaster to turn off 4
of his SD digital subs to send out. Broadcaster do no have to send out
any HD at all, and many do not.

FCC has nothing to do with cable or sat.,,both are free to send out
anything they want, or can charge for, to the subscribers.

That said, I agree, the digital picture quality on cable and Sat is
bad - way over compressed. Instead of giving us 50 channels of
pristine SD or even HD pictures, they give us 500 channels of pixels -
not likely to change either.

Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

Dave Oldridge wrote:
....
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. ...

All the same, there's some reason to think you get some sort of
quality premium for a progressive signal. I don't know why -- it
doesn't seem to be just the absence of motion blur. Owners of 480
line plasma displays seem to think they look very good showing
downconverted HD signals; some people think 720p looks at least
as good as 1080i; and Gamecube owners seem to agree that a 480p
picture looks much better than a 480i picture.

Greg

Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 19:27:38 GMT, Dave Oldridge
wrote:


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.

At least with computer video cards with interlaced output for TV,
there is a deliberate filtering in the vertical direction to avoid the
25/30 Hz flicker. If you display an object, that is only 1 scan line
high on a 50/60 Hz interlaced display, that object gets updated only
on the other field, i.e. it is updated only 25 or 30 times a second,
causing unpleasant flicker on such CRTs. The vertical filtering will
stretch the object to adjacent lines, thus partially updating it in
both fields.

The technical description on some HD cameras seem to indicate that the
camera array, which is progressive by nature, two or more adjacent
rows are summed (possibly with unequal weights) to generate the
interlaced signal and increase the camera signal to noise ratio. This
of course reduces the vertical resolution. When viewing the interlaced
signal even of a static object, the display does not show the camera
pixel rows independently, but rather some kind of weighted sum of the
neighbouring pixel rows. With equal weights the odd and even fields
would be identical and thus the 1080i would be effectively 540p. With
unequal weights, the odd and even field are more different.

How common is this summing of pixel rows for interlace signals in
current CCD studio cameras ?

Paul

Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, wrote:
Bob Miller wrote:
Broadcasters can do anything they want with the rest of the spectrum
after they deliver that ONE SD program including delivering and selling
you an HD program.
And if you don't think they plan on doing that let me tell you about a
bridge I could sell you cheap.
Bob Miller
Oh yeah Bob, like I am going to listen to a business deal you have to offer...

The one thing that you can take to the bank is that Bob Miller will be
wrong.

Come 2009 or later, when his dire predictions of an SD-only free TV fail
to come to pass, he'll weasel out. He'll either claim that he never said
that or that some corrupt and sinister plot caused the difference. But
that won't stop him from issuing other dire predictions.

He obviously likes the attention. It's not doing his business any good
though; but the attention (even getting mocked as a Psycho Bob) is the
only thing that matters to him any more.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.