|
|
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
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?
HiC wrote:
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? I noticed much the same thing, glad I'm not the only one! Especially during moderate to fast pans I can notice the artifacts. After a few minutes of watching it the wow effect had worn off and I didn't think it was all that great, in fact I find my old 32" JVC easier on the eyes.. |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
I agree and have postponed an HDTV purchase as a consequence. Nonetheless,
be aware that the sets in a store have the contrast pumped all the way up, yielding an artificailly harsh picture display. "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?
|
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, saxmaniac wrote:
Nonetheless, be aware that the sets in a store have the contrast pumped all the way up, yielding an artificailly harsh picture display. That, more than anything else, is what you are seeing. The sets in the store are invariably set in "vivid" mode, which has a very high white level. Supposedly, the pretty (garish) colors sell more sets. Anyone with any sense goes through a proper set adjustment once they get the set at home. There are various DVDs available to help you do it (at least do the basic stuff with color bars!). It's much more important with a large screen HDTV than with a small standard definition TV. In modern TVs, the factory settings in "standard" (NOT "vivid"!) mode are usually pretty good, but are rarely exactly right. If you have an installer do it for you, watch what they do. If they don't put up some test patterns and hold up a blue filter to their eye, they're not doing a proper set adjustment. -- 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. |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
"Mark Crispin" wrote in message da.com...
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, saxmaniac wrote: Nonetheless, be aware that the sets in a store have the contrast pumped all the way up, yielding an artificailly harsh picture display. That, more than anything else, is what you are seeing. The sets in the store are invariably set in "vivid" mode, which has a very high white level. Supposedly, the pretty (garish) colors sell more sets. I love going into a TV store and turning down the contrast/color/etc settings to proper levels, and just stand back and watch people start to gather around it. But there's never been any accounting for taste, and it's astonishing the number of people who think a TV image which burns out their eyeballs with contrast and color saturation qualifies as a "good picture". |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 03:42:53 GMT, "HiC" wrote:
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. Most likely a compression artifact in the signal source, i.e. a too low bit rate was used. If the original source was from a (feature) film, which may have been upconverted from 24p to 1080i x 60 with 3:2 pulldown and then converted to 1080p x 60 in the display, you may observe some jerkiness when panned. Paul |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
Maybe SED will improve things?
http://www.behardware.com/articles/5...-kind-sed.html Mike "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?
HiC wrote:
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. As many have said, it isn't just the set that's off. If it's coming from a hard drive then it's likely that it's re-compressed at a bit rate around 12-15Mb/s, maybe even from an original off-air signal that was broadcast at 18Mb/s. When you consider that the prime source used maybe 400Mb/s, you can see why it might suffer. If you'd seen original film transfers or studio-quality video on a decent monitor you'd know why HD is praised. But then, if you'd seen high-end SD in the same environment you would probably have thought you were seeing HD, so poor is the current delivery of TV to the home. Unfortunately, what you saw _is_ as good as it gets for most people. Squeezing high-bitrate video down a soda straw delivery 'pipe' robs HD of what makes it shine. "Digital" in home TV terms means low-bitrate MPEG. Yeah, it's noise-free. It's also quality-free. |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
"Mike Alpha" wrote in message ... Maybe SED will improve things? http://www.behardware.com/articles/5...-kind-sed.html Mike Not much. The vendors will still not calibrate the sets properly in production, there will still be compression and distribution artifacts, and there will still be a tendency on the part of the mass market to make buying decisions based on first impressions that confuse intensity with quality. No one should make judgements on the quality of a display without at least attempting to properly adjust it and viewing a variety of sources. Same for HDTV or any other technology, in general. Leonard -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 4354 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try SPAMfighter for free now! |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
Jim Mack wrote:
HiC wrote: 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. As many have said, it isn't just the set that's off. If it's coming from a hard drive then it's likely that it's re-compressed at a bit rate around 12-15Mb/s, maybe even from an original off-air signal that was broadcast at 18Mb/s. When you consider that the prime source used maybe 400Mb/s, you can see why it might suffer. If you'd seen original film transfers or studio-quality video on a decent monitor you'd know why HD is praised. But then, if you'd seen high-end SD in the same environment you would probably have thought you were seeing HD, so poor is the current delivery of TV to the home. Unfortunately, what you saw _is_ as good as it gets for most people. Squeezing high-bitrate video down a soda straw delivery 'pipe' robs HD of what makes it shine. "Digital" in home TV terms means low-bitrate MPEG. Yeah, it's noise-free. It's also quality-free. I had a similar reaction when CDs arrived; they just didn't sound as natural as vinyl records. When I got my HDTV home I set it up to be more natural; but my wife said it looked too dull and much preferred the Vivid setting. Of course we went with what she preferred and I am now used to it. |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
Jim Mack wrote:
HiC wrote: 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. As many have said, it isn't just the set that's off. If it's coming from a hard drive then it's likely that it's re-compressed at a bit rate around 12-15Mb/s, maybe even from an original off-air signal that was broadcast at 18Mb/s. When you consider that the prime source used maybe 400Mb/s, you can see why it might suffer. If you'd seen original film transfers or studio-quality video on a decent monitor you'd know why HD is praised. But then, if you'd seen high-end SD in the same environment you would probably have thought you were seeing HD, so poor is the current delivery of TV to the home. Unfortunately, what you saw _is_ as good as it gets for most people. Squeezing high-bitrate video down a soda straw delivery 'pipe' robs HD of what makes it shine. "Digital" in home TV terms means low-bitrate MPEG. Yeah, it's noise-free. It's also quality-free. Heresy!! Very dangerous to talk like that in this venue. MPEG2 and 19.34 Mbps 8-VSB as used with over the air broadcasting are beyond criticism here. It has been suggested that capturing at 720P, down converting to 480P, transmitting at 480P and then upconverting at the set might be an option that would offer a better experience for most at screen sizes 42" or under. No one wants to hear anything but 1080i/p here. The combination of MPEG2, 1080i and 8-VSB is going to kill free OTA TV for channels 2-51 IMO. Bob Miller |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
"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. -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
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. Much of what you're complaining about is because the set is adjusted improperly. I've had HD for 4 years, and I still get amazed on how realistic stuff looks. |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
HiC wrote: 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 Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Jim Mack wrote:
As many have said, it isn't just the set that's off. If it's coming from a hard drive then it's likely that it's re-compressed at a bit rate around 12-15Mb/s, maybe even from an original off-air signal that was broadcast at 18Mb/s. When you consider that the prime source used maybe 400Mb/s, you can see why it might suffer. There is also a very real possibility that the set is being fed an analog signal and thus is not HD at all. Not much attention is paid in these mass market stores to proper grounding either. -- 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. |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
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? Bob Miller |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Bob Miller wrote:
Heresy!! Very dangerous to talk like that in this venue. MPEG2 and 19.34 Mbps 8-VSB as used with over the air broadcasting are beyond criticism here. It has been suggested that capturing at 720P, down converting to 480P, transmitting at 480P and then upconverting at the set might be an option that would offer a better experience for most at screen sizes 42" or under. No one wants to hear anything but 1080i/p here. The combination of MPEG2, 1080i and 8-VSB is going to kill free OTA TV for channels 2-51 IMO. For the benefit of the other newsgroups: this is Psycho Bob Miller, the official crackpot of alt.tv.tech.hdtv. Sometimes he posts under his own name, other times he uses sock puppets that loudly "agree" with him. Psycho Bob wages a lonely FUD crusade in an increasingly futile attempt to convince people that North America is far behind the rest of the world because we choose the 8-VSB modulation and HDTV instead of COFDM modulation with SD. Years ago, Psycho Bob bet his company's future on piggy-backed datacasting on broadcast TV channels, based upon the assumption that the US would choose COFDM. He lost a lot of money, and now has nothing better to do than to post nonsense on alt.tv.tech.hdtv. His basic message comes down to: don't buy an HDTV, because HDTV will die. According to Psycho Bob: . there are no impulse noise issues with COFDM modulation . Europe, which has no over-the-air HDTV, is more advanced than the US whose digital stations are primarily HDTV. . everybody in the UK and Australia watches perfect digital TV in their homes with rabbit ear indoor antennas . 480p is the highest video quality that any consumer actually wants . nobody other than a "few fanatics" in the USA actually watches or cares about HDTV. . Japan's "one-seg", which is a service for low-resolution video to mobile phones that is piggy-backed on digital TV signals, constitutes broadcast digital television to cell phones. . all US broadcasters currently broadcasting in HDTV will abandon HDTV or only offer it as a pay-TV service. He makes many other absurd claims, but this gives you a taste. For a while, Psycho Bob was posting some foreign language press releases with pretty pictures that seemed to back up his claims, but that stopped when people who could read those languages came back and reported what the text actually said. No matter how many times he is debunked and made to look foolish, he's like one of these stupid whack-a-mole games at a carnival; he keeps on coming back for more. It's amusing when you have some free time to kill, although eventually you put it aside for a while and let someone else have the fun. -- 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. |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 23:42:53 -0400, HiC wrote
(in article . 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? I bought a 16:9, 34" glass Sony WEGA just before the Utah winter olympics 4-5 years ago and have been watching the D channels ever since. That broadcast was amazing. One night, I'm watching ice hockey and the picture looks like crap...well like normal video. Five minutes later NBC put up a lower third saying they didn't have the "good cameras" in the hockey venue. 1. The color space is very different than NTSC. Much more vivid. 2. The Greek Olympic games sucked in comparison. Don't know if they used cheap cameras, had bad satellites or multicasting at the stations was reducing bandwidth. My fear is that by the time enough HD sets are bought by consumers, the good video I saw in the Utah games will be a distant memory. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
"HiC" wrote:
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. As others have suggested, you can almost be guaranteed that the color in display sets in stores is misadjusted. The first thing I had to do when setting up my LCD monitor was to crank the color intensity control way down. 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. After watching a well adjusted digital TV image, I don't think you can go back to analog very easily. It's very much the same as trying to go back to AM radio, after listening to FM or CDs. Analog TV looks grainy, fuzzy, the raster is obvious, it's just unacceptable. But not all DTV is alike. Some Standard Def digital programs, for example, are sharp and clear. Others look just about as grainy and fuzzy as analog TV. The nice thing about HDTV is that *finally* you can see TV pictures that are as sharp and clear as the best images on a PC monitor. (Which is not to say that all programs will be that way, of course.) And the audio is excellent as well. Much better than even than the stereo analog audio in the best analog programs. 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? Supposedly, 18 Feb 2009. We'll see. Overall, it would be a good thing, in the sense that DTV will work a lot better if the spectrum isn't overcrowded with the much more powerful analog transmitters, digital should have an easier time of it. I think if you take it home and adjust it properly, you'll not regret going to DTV. And you'll not be able to enjoy analog TV any longer. Bert |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
HiC wrote:
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? Well, watching just about any nature show on Discovery HD is like being there. I recall the some of the Olympic's broadcasts were so astounding clear that it was like being in a luxury box at the event itself. |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
Ray S wrote:
HiC wrote: 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? Well, watching just about any nature show on Discovery HD is like being there. I recall the some of the Olympic's broadcasts were so astounding clear that it was like being in a luxury box at the event itself. Discovery HD is mostly composed of slow pans and virtually still shots. They also have the luxury of encoding in non real time. What I remember of the Olympics was divers coming off the high board and turning into so many pixels. Where ever there was intense action there was macroblocking. When they hit the water it looked like a pixelated blob. Postcard shots are great in 1080i with MPEG2 at 18 Mbps stuffed in a 6 MHz channel but it can't handle action. Countries like China, the UK and France will have a better codec, MPEG4, better modulation such as DVB-T/H or CDMB-T/H and will also, hopefully, make their OTA receivers upgradeable so that they are not obsolete in a few years like ours are now. The Olympics in 2008 will look great in China but probably not while being watched from China in the US. http://www.hometheaterfocus.com/blog...05/29/207.aspx Bob Miller |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
Bob Miller wrote:
Ray S wrote: HiC wrote: 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? Well, watching just about any nature show on Discovery HD is like being there. I recall the some of the Olympic's broadcasts were so astounding clear that it was like being in a luxury box at the event itself. Discovery HD is mostly composed of slow pans and virtually still shots. They also have the luxury of encoding in non real time. What I remember of the Olympics was divers coming off the high board and turning into so many pixels. Where ever there was intense action there was macroblocking. When they hit the water it looked like a pixelated blob. Hmmm, I never experienced that. Off the top of my head I think TimeWarner WI broadcasts in 720P. NFL games are brilliant and clear without breakup, much to my dismay watching the Packers last weekend. I recall watching one of the ubiquitous shark shows on Discovery and being amazed at the detail when they had sharks flying up out of the water to grab food. The spray of individual drops was clear and detailed. Postcard shots are great in 1080i with MPEG2 at 18 Mbps stuffed in a 6 MHz channel but it can't handle action. Countries like China, the UK and France will have a better codec, MPEG4, better modulation such as DVB-T/H or CDMB-T/H and will also, hopefully, make their OTA receivers upgradeable so that they are not obsolete in a few years like ours are now. The Olympics in 2008 will look great in China but probably not while being watched from China in the US. http://www.hometheaterfocus.com/blog...05/29/207.aspx Bob Miller |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:37:19 +0000, Bob Miller wrote:
Jim Mack wrote: [quoted text muted] The combination of MPEG2, 1080i and 8-VSB is going to kill free OTA TV for channels 2-51 IMO. Bob Miller Dude! Where do you buy your dope! You need to connect with reality. With all the hype of how good MPEG4 looks at NAB this year, nobody was able to show a MPEG4 encoder that looked as good as the best MPEG2 encoders at 18Mbs. In fact, I would say that MPEG4 (without the production extensions) is what is killing HDTV as it is being implemented at such low bitrates (8-12Mbs) that there is hardly any benefits over SDTV other than a wider screen. Watch any HDTV program on Dish and DirecTV for a few minutes to find out. I have yet to find any average consumer that picks 720p over 1080i (on the proper monitor) as looking the best. On an A-B comparison, they complain that the 720p picture is always soft or out of focus. Never a complaint about motion artifacts of interlace but tons of complaints about 720P flickering or stuttering. MPEG4 and 720P are the corporate screwing of the public for bandwidth at the cost of picture quality. (smells like MPAA trying to protect theater attendance to me) |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
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. -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
My first exposure to high definition TV was in the Shinjuku subway station
in Tokyo Japan in 1991, when Sony had deployed an analog HD system long before the advent of MPEG, digital broadcasting, or flat panel TVs. It was called the MUSE system, and was installed in train / subway stations to attract consumer attention and build market demand. It blows away anything subsequently introduced based on my recollection. The analog modulation scheme did not rely on macroblocks, compression, or other digital conveniences. The CRTs, extremely fine pitch Trinitrons, were wide aspect ratio, gorgeous displays, which make current LCDs look like the non-linear, smeared displays they truly are. ATSC and the engineering efforts associated with bringing digital broadcasting to the U.S. have made a lot of great achievements, but unfortunately, delivering a truly superb quality end-product is not among them, IMHO. There are enough improvements over standard definition TV that most people, myself included, still buy into the upgrades for lack of better options. Smarty "Dave Oldridge" wrote in message 9... 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. -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
In article , Ty Ford wrote: My fear is that by the time enough HD sets are bought by consumers, the good video I saw in the Utah games will be a distant memory. Absolutely. It happens in every industry. Giggle. Now elmo is an expert in _every_ industry. It's pretty apparent, reading his posts, that he isn't an expert in *any* industry. Matthew -- Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game You can't win You can't break even You can't get out of the game |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
"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? the difference between Discovery Channel (SD) and DiscoveryHD is staggering. jaw dropping. period. if you can't see the difference, it's probably time to see an optometrist. that said, I'm not impressed in the least with "HD" movies. cable, satellite, hd-dvd, and especially blu-ray aren't particularly stunning. |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
"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? Mass merchandisers virtually never display HD as it really is. The sets are normally adjusted to "torch mode" - max brightness, max contrast, max saturation with hightened reds. WhoreTV My local Circuit City has a multi-drop component distribution system that adds ghosting and noise to the displayed images. RP and FP displays are almost never converged. Media is most often selected to show the extremes of imagery - colors/dynamic range. It's called "eye candy". But at home, with proper adjustment, there is NOTHING like HD. I have had HD for about 4 years now and it has changed my TV viewing habits dramatically. If you think analog is better, I suggest you watch Starship Troopers or better yet, Finding Nemo in HD. |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
What is your source for Discovery? cable? satellite? OTA?
-- All the Best Richard Harison "Khee Mao" wrote in message ... "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? the difference between Discovery Channel (SD) and DiscoveryHD is staggering. jaw dropping. period. if you can't see the difference, it's probably time to see an optometrist. that said, I'm not impressed in the least with "HD" movies. cable, satellite, hd-dvd, and especially blu-ray aren't particularly stunning. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
"Smarty" wrote in message ... My first exposure to high definition TV was in the Shinjuku subway station in Tokyo Japan in 1991, when Sony had deployed an analog HD system long before the advent of MPEG, digital broadcasting, or flat panel TVs. It was called the MUSE system, and was installed in train / subway stations to attract consumer attention and build market demand. It blows away anything subsequently introduced based on my recollection. The analog modulation scheme did not rely on macroblocks, compression, or other digital conveniences. The CRTs, extremely fine pitch Trinitrons, were wide aspect ratio, gorgeous displays, which make current LCDs look like the non-linear, smeared displays they truly are. ATSC and the engineering efforts associated with bringing digital broadcasting to the U.S. have made a lot of great achievements, but unfortunately, delivering a truly superb quality end-product is not among them, IMHO. There are enough improvements over standard definition TV that most people, myself included, still buy into the upgrades for lack of better options. Smarty In the late 1990's I saw reference ATSC vs MUSE at Sarnoff, MIT, CableLabs and other development centers (including TV mfg corporate labs in Japan) using the same fine pitch, professional quality Trinitrons, showing the same kinds of full resolution, highest quality NHK programming you refer to. Done right, ATSC was (and is) as beautiful as the analog MUSE Hi-Vision system it replaced. Done right --- the gotcha. When you subtract overcompression, low dynamic range flat panel displays and poor media quality in the first place, the comparison suffers. Poor image quality is not the fault of ATSC - nor it is always the case. If people would just crank up the bits, quality would improve. |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
Mark Crispin wrote in
da.com: On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Jim Mack wrote: As many have said, it isn't just the set that's off. If it's coming from a hard drive then it's likely that it's re-compressed at a bit rate around 12-15Mb/s, maybe even from an original off-air signal that was broadcast at 18Mb/s. When you consider that the prime source used maybe 400Mb/s, you can see why it might suffer. There is also a very real possibility that the set is being fed an analog signal and thus is not HD at all. Not much attention is paid in these mass market stores to proper grounding either. -- 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. Yes, I was in my local CC store today and told that ALL the HDTV's are fed thru component vid cables. |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
"Richard Harison" wrote in message ... What is your source for Discovery? cable? satellite? OTA? cable for both. |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
People? As in transmission end or user end? The whole compression thing p$%%es
me off! There HAD to be other alternatives! -- All the Best Richard Harison "R Sweeney" wrote in message ... "Smarty" wrote in message ... My first exposure to high definition TV was in the Shinjuku subway station in Tokyo Japan in 1991, when Sony had deployed an analog HD system long before the advent of MPEG, digital broadcasting, or flat panel TVs. It was called the MUSE system, and was installed in train / subway stations to attract consumer attention and build market demand. It blows away anything subsequently introduced based on my recollection. The analog modulation scheme did not rely on macroblocks, compression, or other digital conveniences. The CRTs, extremely fine pitch Trinitrons, were wide aspect ratio, gorgeous displays, which make current LCDs look like the non-linear, smeared displays they truly are. ATSC and the engineering efforts associated with bringing digital broadcasting to the U.S. have made a lot of great achievements, but unfortunately, delivering a truly superb quality end-product is not among them, IMHO. There are enough improvements over standard definition TV that most people, myself included, still buy into the upgrades for lack of better options. Smarty In the late 1990's I saw reference ATSC vs MUSE at Sarnoff, MIT, CableLabs and other development centers (including TV mfg corporate labs in Japan) using the same fine pitch, professional quality Trinitrons, showing the same kinds of full resolution, highest quality NHK programming you refer to. Done right, ATSC was (and is) as beautiful as the analog MUSE Hi-Vision system it replaced. Done right --- the gotcha. When you subtract overcompression, low dynamic range flat panel displays and poor media quality in the first place, the comparison suffers. Poor image quality is not the fault of ATSC - nor it is always the case. If people would just crank up the bits, quality would improve. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
Interesting. I dumped cable ($$) for StarChoice satellite (Canada). One
wonders what compression ratios are used. Doubt either at this time is at least MPEG4 -- All the Best Richard Harison "Khee Mao" wrote in message ... "Richard Harison" wrote in message ... What is your source for Discovery? cable? satellite? OTA? cable for both. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
R Sweeney wrote: If you think analog is better, I suggest you watch Starship Troopers or better yet, Finding Nemo in HD. Not that I think analog is better, but I'd like to see an example of HD that doesn't exhibit the characteristics I outlined. |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
"Richard Harison" wrote in message ... People? As in transmission end or user end? The whole compression thing p$%%es me off! There HAD to be other alternatives! People as in transmission end. The problem we have is scarcity of bits in the HFC cable and DBS plants... and a bit of Hollywood paranoia thrown in for extra low res. If Comcast is to have their Comcast-owned home humidity and golf playing moose channels in analog basic cable, they have to shave bits off of the HD channels. |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
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? Bob Miller |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
"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? HDTV is a godsend, just never-ever-ever judge the quality [and usually the lack of which] of _any_ display in a typical retail store. |
Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
"Jim Mack" wrote
Unfortunately, what you saw _is_ as good as it gets for most people. Squeezing high-bitrate video down a soda straw delivery 'pipe' robs HD of what makes it shine. "Digital" in home TV terms means low-bitrate MPEG. Yeah, it's noise-free. It's also quality-free. That sounds exactly like the remarks I've read on the overseas forums. Our 8' wide screen and HD front projector, showing immaculate high-definition OTA signals, regularly draws gasps from newbie visitors. After seeing it, most of our friends and relatives have either bought or are in the planning stages of a HD home theater. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:42 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com