Report: Looking Forward to Ultra-High Definition TV
 

While the market for High-Definition TV has hit the mainstream, the industry
has already started speculating about the commercialization of Ultra-High
Definition (UHD).

http://hdtv.biz-news.com/news/en_US/...-definition-tv

--
Certified SPAM-free sig

Report: Looking Forward to Ultra-High Definition TV
 

UCLAN wrote:
While the market for High-Definition TV has hit the mainstream, the
industry has already started speculating about the commercialization of
Ultra-High Definition (UHD).

http://hdtv.biz-news.com/news/en_US/...-definition-tv



Is that what they use for the megatron displays at stadiums and in times
square NY?

It would be great for remote classrooms too!

Report: Looking Forward to Ultra-High Definition TV
 

Quoting from the story at the basenote link:

"The In-Stat report says the rising popularity of high
resolution digital cinema will expose consumers
to high resolution content."

This is incorrect, and is the fatal flaw in the wishful thinking.

Most digital cinema today is "2k",
2048x1080,
which is only 5% more pixels than 1920x1080 HDTV.
In fact, for 1.85:1 compositions, they are identical, at
1998x1080.
DCI does offer a 5x higher bit rate.
Are the masses raving about that difference?

IMAX 35-70 film is effectively at least "8k". If there
were a significant market for this, IMAX wouldn't be
abandoning it for IMAX Digital, which is some kind of
dual-projector 2k.

Exhibitors have decided that 2k is "theatrical quality".
If you attend a Carmike these days, you are watching
what amounts to HDTV. This is not going to generate
demand for home 4k.

Sony would like exhibitors to think that 4k would be an
upgrade worth investing in. Is it happening?

If exhibitors are spending on any upgrades from 2k,
it's more likely to 3D, not 4k.

Home TV is going to 3D long before it goes to 4k or 8k.

And, drifting along, the 3D issue actually provides the
path to 4k and higher. Home 3D is likely to require
eyewear. If you can get people to don stuff at home to
watch TV, then why not make that gear stereo direct
retinal projection viewers (non-stereo VGA DRP gadgets
are just now coming to retail). Even a tiny apartment
could have a virtual 50-foot screen.

Beware the lawyers. Expect UHD DRM to be nasty.
Perhaps even 100% PPV.

--
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
 

rjn wrote:
Quoting from the story at the basenote link:

"The In-Stat report says the rising popularity of high
resolution digital cinema will expose consumers
to high resolution content."

This is incorrect, and is the fatal flaw in the wishful thinking.

Most digital cinema today is "2k",
2048x1080,
which is only 5% more pixels than 1920x1080 HDTV.
In fact, for 1.85:1 compositions, they are identical, at
1998x1080.
DCI does offer a 5x higher bit rate.
Are the masses raving about that difference?

IMAX 35-70 film is effectively at least "8k". If there
were a significant market for this, IMAX wouldn't be
abandoning it for IMAX Digital, which is some kind of
dual-projector 2k.

Exhibitors have decided that 2k is "theatrical quality".
If you attend a Carmike these days, you are watching
what amounts to HDTV. This is not going to generate
demand for home 4k.

Sony would like exhibitors to think that 4k would be an
upgrade worth investing in. Is it happening?

If exhibitors are spending on any upgrades from 2k,
it's more likely to 3D, not 4k.

Home TV is going to 3D long before it goes to 4k or 8k.

Yes, but will the market support it!?

And, drifting along, the 3D issue actually provides the
path to 4k and higher. Home 3D is likely to require
eyewear.

No, there is an LCD technology that delivers different views
at slightly different angles! c.f.
http://www.physorg.com/news163845853.html

If you can get people to don stuff at home to
watch TV, then why not make that gear stereo direct
retinal projection viewers (non-stereo VGA DRP gadgets
are just now coming to retail). Even a tiny apartment
could have a virtual 50-foot screen.

That may well be the next "leap".

Beware the lawyers. Expect UHD DRM to be nasty.
Perhaps even 100% PPV.

Yes, there goes THAT technology!-)

Report: Looking Forward to Ultra-High Definition TV
 

RickMerrill wrote:

Home TV is going to 3D long before it goes to 4k or 8k.

Yes, but will the market support it!?

Indeed. Don't take my prediction of "3D before UHD" as
a prediction that home 3D will happen. It might not.
For example, if the exhibitors can derail the home standards
effort, they're likely beavering away at it, as they view 3D as
being their main market advantage over HDTV today.

And, drifting along, the 3D issue actually provides the
path to 4k and higher. Home 3D is likely to require
eyewear.

No, there is an LCD technology that delivers different views
at slightly different angles! c.f.http://www.physorg.com/news163845853.html

Even if that works, it may be too late/expensive/etc to
satisfy the current efforts to arrive at a home 3D standard.
Any such efforts are fraught with technical and market risk,
plus the normal vendor gaming. LCD glasses work with
today's 60P monitors, given a 3D signal & sync signal
(as long as "dim" works for you). Getting users buy all new
TVs just to get 3D is a hard sell.

And speaking of tech challenges ...
UHD: what connection supports 8k rates?

{HMD DRP} Even a tiny apartment
could have a virtual 50-foot screen.

That may well be the next "leap".

But has substantial challenges of its own. If it were
offered at today's HD res, your second headset would
immediately run up against fan-out limitations in HDMI DRM.

Is it even known how stores will send the same signal
to dozens of demo TVs after the Hollywood Lawyers(TM)
get their pet pols to "close the analog hole"?

--
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
 

rjn wrote:
RickMerrill wrote:

Home TV is going to 3D long before it goes to 4k or 8k.

Yes, but will the market support it!?

Indeed. Don't take my prediction of "3D before UHD" as
a prediction that home 3D will happen. It might not.
For example, if the exhibitors can derail the home standards
effort, they're likely beavering away at it, as they view 3D as
being their main market advantage over HDTV today.

And, drifting along, the 3D issue actually provides the
path to 4k and higher. Home 3D is likely to require
eyewear.
No, there is an LCD technology that delivers different views
at slightly different angles! c.f.http://www.physorg.com/news163845853.html

Even if that works, it may be too late/expensive/etc to
satisfy the current efforts to arrive at a home 3D standard.
Any such efforts are fraught with technical and market risk,
plus the normal vendor gaming. LCD glasses work with
today's 60P monitors, given a 3D signal & sync signal
(as long as "dim" works for you). Getting users buy all new
TVs just to get 3D is a hard sell.

And speaking of tech challenges ...
UHD: what connection supports 8k rates?

{HMD DRP} Even a tiny apartment
could have a virtual 50-foot screen.

That may well be the next "leap".

But has substantial challenges of its own. If it were
offered at today's HD res, your second headset would
immediately run up against fan-out limitations in HDMI DRM.

Is it even known how stores will send the same signal
to dozens of demo TVs after the Hollywood Lawyers(TM)
get their pet pols to "close the analog hole"?

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

Those are excellent observations. Some sort of "compatible 3d" will be
needed to introduce new technology.

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

I thought analog was to be off the cable/table by 2012. So if that
happens then the analog hole will die a natural death.

I used to be able to explain to the kids the difference between AM/FM
but with the digital transmissions the grandkids will be on their own!

Report: Looking Forward to Ultra-High Definition TV
 

RickMerrill wrote:

Is it even known how stores will send the same signal
to dozens of demo TVs after the Hollywood Lawyers(TM)
get their pet pols to "close the analog hole"?

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).

The threat to that is ICT (Image Constraint Token), which
may start appearing in HDCP-infested content in 2012
(Mayans permitting, of course :-)

Of course, anyone who buys a TV based on what it looks
like in a retail display, while being fed a repeated, split,
analog signal, of who knows what source & res, is nuts.

On the other hand, the details you really need to know
are almost never provided at point of sale.

--
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 7, 6:55*pm, rjn wrote:
RickMerrill wrote:
Is it even known how stores will send the same signal
to dozens of demo TVs after the Hollywood Lawyers(TM)
get their pet pols to "close the analog hole"?
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).

The threat to that is ICT (Image Constraint Token), which
may start appearing in HDCP-infested content in 2012
(Mayans permitting, of course :-)

Of course, anyone who buys a TV based on what it looks
like in a retail display, while being fed a repeated, split,
analog signal, of who knows what source & res, is nuts.

On the other hand, the details you really need to know
are almost never provided at point of sale.

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

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

Report: Looking Forward to Ultra-High Definition TV
 

On 11/8/09 3:47 PM, G-squared wrote:
On Nov 7, 6:55 pm, wrote:
wrote:
Is it even known how stores will send the same signal
to dozens of demo TVs after the Hollywood Lawyers(TM)
get their pet pols to "close the analog hole"?
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).

The threat to that is ICT (Image Constraint Token), which
may start appearing in HDCP-infested content in 2012
(Mayans permitting, of course :-)

Of course, anyone who buys a TV based on what it looks
like in a retail display, while being fed a repeated, split,
analog signal, of who knows what source& res, is nuts.

On the other hand, the details you really need to know
are almost never provided at point of sale.

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

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?

Report: Looking Forward to Ultra-High Definition TV
 

On Nov 8, 4:04*pm, jAk wrote:
On 11/8/09 3:47 PM, G-squared wrote:





On Nov 7, 6:55 pm, *wrote:
*wrote:
Is it even known how stores will send the same signal
to dozens of demo TVs after the Hollywood Lawyers(TM)
get their pet pols to "close the analog hole"?
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).

The threat to that is ICT (Image Constraint Token), which
may start appearing in HDCP-infested content in 2012
(Mayans permitting, of course :-)

Of course, anyone who buys a TV based on what it looks
like in a retail display, while being fed a repeated, split,
analog signal, of who knows what source& *res, is nuts.

On the other hand, the details you really need to know
are almost never provided at point of sale.

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

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?

Over the air, cable and satellite, yes. Distribution within a store
for display models, probably but not necessarily. It _could_ be analog
component but it seems more trouble to me.

G²

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

Report: Looking Forward to Ultra-High Definition TV
 

"Howard Brazee" wrote in message
...
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.

Well, the compression artifacts are visible on my 32" bedroom LCD as on my
58" plasma. Broadcast looks great for things that don't move much but really
looks bad on difficult material like a nice shot of fall leaves on wind
blown trees or an explosion or busy screen of stuff.

Report: Looking Forward to Ultra-High Definition TV
 

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:45:51 -0700, Howard Brazee
wrote:

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.

Looking at a 720 screen, I like the image quality better from ABC that
broadcasts in 720p, compared to others that broadcast in 1080i.

On a 1080 screen, yes the 1080p image is better, but that's as much
because the source and display match, as because 1080 "is better" than
some lower number, eg 720.

Actually, after a couple of years now of watching this stuff, I am
amazed - but mostly convinced - that automagic scaling of 720p signal
to the 768 or howevermany vertical pixels, and likewise for the
horizontal from 1280 to 1366, I think it is - works remarkably well,
doesn't it? OTOH, I've seldom or never seen 720p signal on a 720 pixel
screen, maybe it shines like a mackerel in the moonlight.

J.

Report: Looking Forward to Ultra-High Definition TV
 

On Nov 11, 8:50*pm, "Charles Tomaras" wrote:

Well, the compression artifacts are visible on my 32" bedroom LCD as on my
58" plasma. Broadcast looks great for things that don't move much but really
looks bad on difficult material like a nice shot of fall leaves on wind
blown trees or an explosion or busy screen of stuff.

Is this the reason 32" at 720p are on sale everywhere pre-Black
Friday? I'm trying to decide whether to buy one. I'm over 50, and back
in 2000, I complained about high-resolution (sic!) Pentium 3 computer
screens. The customer service rep said, "People over forty sometimes
can't adjust to the intensity of the resolution." My 19" 720p is as
clear as I need it (and I still prefer the resolution of old
machines).

On the other hand, I don't want to spend money on a television where
I'm conscious of the artifacts.

Report: Looking Forward to Ultra-High Definition TV
 

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 07:27:06 -0800 (PST), Alls Quiet
wrote:

On Nov 11, 8:50*pm, "Charles Tomaras" wrote:

Well, the compression artifacts are visible on my 32" bedroom LCD as on my
58" plasma. Broadcast looks great for things that don't move much but really
looks bad on difficult material like a nice shot of fall leaves on wind
blown trees or an explosion or busy screen of stuff.

Is this the reason 32" at 720p are on sale everywhere pre-Black
Friday? I'm trying to decide whether to buy one. I'm over 50, and back
in 2000, I complained about high-resolution (sic!) Pentium 3 computer
screens. The customer service rep said, "People over forty sometimes
can't adjust to the intensity of the resolution." My 19" 720p is as
clear as I need it (and I still prefer the resolution of old
machines).

On the other hand, I don't want to spend money on a television where
I'm conscious of the artifacts.

I've been watching a 32" 720p for a couple of years now, and
especially for broadcast think it's ideal. Artifacts should not be
significantly more observable on it than on a 19" - unless you're
viewing that 19" from thirty feet away! And y'know what, even then.

I was very sensitive to digital artifacts when I first got the new
set, but I don't notice them at all anymore. Now when I view an old
NTSC screen, I wonder how we ever lived with such noise!


J.

Report: Looking Forward to Ultra-High Definition TV
 

"UCLAN" wrote in message
...
While the market for High-Definition TV has hit the mainstream, the
industry has already started speculating about the commercialization of
Ultra-High Definition (UHD).

http://hdtv.biz-news.com/news/en_US/...-definition-tv

--
Certified SPAM-free sig


Oh, thanks for posting this Uclan. :)