Report: Looking Forward to Ultra-High Definition TV
 

jAk wrote:

But in stores surely they are sending digital signals to all those tv - no?

I haven't made an exhaustive study of the matter, but
every time I've peeked, they are using YPrPb (analog
component).

Isn't HD programming delivered with digital signals?

Yep, but the "last meter" from the player/receiver/STB could be
HDMI (digital), DP( digital), DVI (digital or analog), YPrPb (analog),
Y/C (analog), composite (analog), or RF (analog).

The problem is that the digital connections are all point-to-point,
and difficult to split/repeat, both due to the signalling and the
DRM. How would you drive 14 TVs from the same HDMI port?

Of the analog connections, only YPrPb (component) is HD-capable,
and it's not terribly hard to split/repeat, particularly if you aren't
too particular about quality :-(

--
Regards, Bob Niland
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.

Report: Looking Forward to Ultra-High Definition TV
 

On Nov 9, 7:46*am, rjn wrote:
jAk wrote:
But in stores surely they are sending digital signals to all those tv - no?

I haven't made an exhaustive study of the matter, but
every time I've peeked, they are using YPrPb (analog
component).
Isn't HD programming delivered with digital signals?

Yep, but the "last meter" from the player/receiver/STB could be
HDMI (digital), DP( digital), DVI (digital or analog), YPrPb (analog),
Y/C (analog), composite (analog), or RF (analog).

The problem is that the digital connections are all point-to-point,
and difficult to split/repeat, both due to the signalling and the
DRM. How would you drive 14 TVs from the same HDMI port?

Of the analog connections, only YPrPb (component) is HD-capable,
and it's not terribly hard to split/repeat, particularly if you aren't
too particular about quality :-(

--
Regards, Bob Niland * * * * * * * * * * * /rjn* * * * * email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.

How about a DA with one output able to report back to the source ? The
'n' outputs are destinations. Do the monitors require bidirectional
data to enable the inputs? Surely some enterprising fellow could come
up with a way to make a DA for use in stores.

G²

Report: Looking Forward to Ultra-High Definition TV
 

In article jAk writes:
On 11/8/09 3:47 PM, G-squared wrote:

Last week in Target all the TVs were running the same HD programming
and all of them were out of sync. I would expect analog component to
be time aligned as there is no needed processing. I.E. it appears the
TVs were getting digiral signals. But I could be wrong.

G²

Isn't HD programming delivered with digital signals?

No. Not always.

Analog component can deliver HD programming.

One digital receiver, an analog component distribution amplifier, and
a bunch of component connections.

Why? Because when most of the HD sets were monitors without tuners,
this worked. Some stores still have it.

Alan

Report: Looking Forward to Ultra-High Definition TV
 

I'm happy with 720p for all broadcast.

I'm on the fence about whether 1080p for BluRay (or other net/sat
feed) is a better experience. I'd always thought more pixels was
better - until we actually started to get it.

So I can't see any purpose in more resolution - 3D is another matter.

J.

Report: Looking Forward to Ultra-High Definition TV
 

On Nov 9, 6:23*pm, JRStern wrote:
I'm happy with 720p for all broadcast.

I'm on the fence about whether 1080p for BluRay (or other net/sat
feed) is a better experience. *I'd always thought more pixels was
better - until we actually started to get it.

So I can't see any purpose in more resolution - 3D is another matter.

J.

Actually what is nice is that there is no chroma subcarrier any more.
Cheap std def TVs could use very elementary chroma luma separation
which has poor bandwidth. To make things look OK, the image
enhancement systems were centered at 2-2.5 MHz so the cheap as well as
expensive sets could use it. The point of all this is now that that
subcarrier irritant is gone with HD, the enhancement is actually
enhancement rather than an artefact generator. Unfortunately, I'm
starting to see the same sort of crap showing up on broadcast HD. Not
nearly as gross as std def was but not as clean as it could be.

BTW, my definition of enhancement is it looks clean and crisp but you
can't see any signs as to why it's good. If you can seen dark / light
outlines, it's an artefact generator.

G²

Report: Looking Forward to Ultra-High Definition TV
 

JRStern wrote:
I'm happy with 720p for all broadcast.

I'm on the fence about whether 1080p for BluRay (or other net/sat
feed) is a better experience. I'd always thought more pixels was
better - until we actually started to get it.

So I can't see any purpose in more resolution - 3D is another matter.

It is above all, personal taste/druthers. That in turn is partly a
function of the size of the screen. The smaller it is, the less the
difference between 720 p and 1080 p.

Further, comparisons, unless done in a very controlled manner, are
dodgey; content varies a lot in quality of original, compression used,
artefacts or not.

--
john mcwilliams

Report: Looking Forward to Ultra-High Definition TV
 

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:23:35 -0800, JRStern
wrote:

I'm happy with 720p for all broadcast.

I'm on the fence about whether 1080p for BluRay (or other net/sat
feed) is a better experience. I'd always thought more pixels was
better - until we actually started to get it.

I can certainly see the difference between TV broadcast and Blu-Ray.
But it's not a huge difference.

I'm not sold on Ultra-High Definition, at least not without very large
screens.

So I can't see any purpose in more resolution - 3D is another matter.

I have my doubts about 3D succeeding. I don't see people wanting to
use 3D glasses to watch a football game nor most other standard TV.
Occasional movies yes, and 3D games, certainly. But 2D has to be
top rate if the TV is going to cost more - and the cost can't be too
much more.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

Report: Looking Forward to Ultra-High Definition TV
 

"Howard Brazee" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:23:35 -0800, JRStern
wrote:

I'm happy with 720p for all broadcast.

I'm on the fence about whether 1080p for BluRay (or other net/sat
feed) is a better experience. I'd always thought more pixels was
better - until we actually started to get it.

I can certainly see the difference between TV broadcast and Blu-Ray.
But it's not a huge difference.

I disagree. It's a huge difference. The compression artifacts of an HDTV
broadcast from OTA or Comcast in Seattle are dramatic on difficult material.
When watching Blue Ray I never seem to be distracted by the technical
aspects of the picture quality but when watching Television I'm constantly
noticing the imperfections and am constantly reminded that while it's better
than the days of SD, it is far from perfect and we are most likely stuck
with it for a long time.

Report: Looking Forward to Ultra-High Definition TV
 

JRStern wrote:

So I can't see any purpose in more resolution - 3D is another matter.

That ("purpose in more resolution") is another problem for 4K.

Sony, who are trying to sell 4K projectors, admit that you
can't see the difference until you are closer than 2.3 Picture
Heights from the screen. Very few homes even have room for
a screen that large for typical family viewing (a virtual HMD
is another matter - it could be any desired PH).

Then there's the content. For a lot of 35mm-sourced content,
what 4K brings mainly is more obvious film grain.

My understanding is that contemporary CGI-heavy features,
particularly fully-animated features, are only being done at
2K, because they are compute-bound in rendering. Doubling
the pixel width increases rendering time by 4X. Time-to-market
is not likely to allow routine 4K CGI for years yet.

And then there's the question of what all the SD and 16mm-
sourced content looks like at 4K. Ugh.

And as other contributors have pointed out, with the exception
of carefully mastered BRD titles, "HD" today is usually NOT
bringing us a quality "2K" presentation.

--
Regards, Bob Niland
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.

Report: Looking Forward to Ultra-High Definition TV
 

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:46:35 -0800, "Charles Tomaras"
wrote:

I can certainly see the difference between TV broadcast and Blu-Ray.
But it's not a huge difference.

I disagree. It's a huge difference. The compression artifacts of an HDTV
broadcast from OTA or Comcast in Seattle are dramatic on difficult material.
When watching Blue Ray I never seem to be distracted by the technical
aspects of the picture quality but when watching Television I'm constantly
noticing the imperfections and am constantly reminded that while it's better
than the days of SD, it is far from perfect and we are most likely stuck
with it for a long time.

I suppose "huge" depends on the size of your TV screen.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison