1080P Standard?

It looks as if that will soon be the new standard and all lower resolutions(except maybe 1080i) will be gone. We need one standard anyway. Man, I wonder what people are to do with their older HDTV's.

In article ,
says...
It looks as if that will soon be the new standard and all lower resolutions(except maybe 1080i) will be gone. We need one standard anyway. Man, I wonder what people are to do with their older HDTV's.


1080I isn't going anywhere for quite a while, around here, there are NO
plans for a couple of the stations to do anything more than 720P and the
one that does 1080I just bought all new stuff, and isn't about to change
anytime soon.

So everyone with a 720P/1080I set will still be watching it years from
now...maybe decades..

BDK

BDK wrote:
In article ,
says...

It looks as if that will soon be the new standard and all lower resolutions(except maybe 1080i) will be gone. We need one standard anyway. Man, I wonder what people are to do with their older HDTV's.



1080I isn't going anywhere for quite a while, around here, there are NO
plans for a couple of the stations to do anything more than 720P and the
one that does 1080I just bought all new stuff, and isn't about to change
anytime soon.

So everyone with a 720P/1080I set will still be watching it years from
now...maybe decades..

BDK

Not to mention the cable companies that have recently invested a whole
lot in delivering both 720P and 1080i in 1080i format.

Sam Spade wrote:

BDK wrote:

In article ,
says...

It looks as if that will soon be the new standard and all lower
resolutions(except maybe 1080i) will be gone. We need one standard
anyway. Man, I wonder what people are to do with their older HDTV's.

1080I isn't going anywhere for quite a while, around here, there are
NO plans for a couple of the stations to do anything more than 720P
and the one that does 1080I just bought all new stuff, and isn't about
to change anytime soon.

So everyone with a 720P/1080I set will still be watching it years from
now...maybe decades..

BDK


Not to mention the cable companies that have recently invested a whole
lot in delivering both 720P and 1080i in 1080i format.

Yes, there will be no broadcast 1080/60p any time soon. The bandwidth
is just not there. The ATSC format does provide for 1080/24p and
1080/30p broadcasting, but no one has adopted this and I doubt if they
ever will as a broadcast format.

1080/60i and 720/60p will remain the OTA broadcast and cable & sat
network formats of choice for many years to come. Since most HDTVs are
inherently progressive displays (plasma except for ALiS, LCD, DLP,
SXRD), all 1080p when applied to display resolution means is that it
will display 1920x1080i at full resolution. And will look very good for
Blu-Ray (when they fix it) and HD-DVD movies.

However, anyone with a TV of 50" or less will be hard pressed to see
the difference between a 1366x768 and 1920x1080 screen at normal living
room sitting distances. Try it with the new Pioneer Pro-FHD1 1080p
plasma with other Pioneer and Panasonic plasmas in the stores.

Alan F

AlanF wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:

BDK wrote:

In article ,
says...

It looks as if that will soon be the new standard and all lower
resolutions(except maybe 1080i) will be gone. We need one standard
anyway. Man, I wonder what people are to do with their older HDTV's.

1080I isn't going anywhere for quite a while, around here, there are
NO plans for a couple of the stations to do anything more than 720P
and the one that does 1080I just bought all new stuff, and isn't
about to change anytime soon.

So everyone with a 720P/1080I set will still be watching it years
from now...maybe decades..

BDK


Not to mention the cable companies that have recently invested a whole
lot in delivering both 720P and 1080i in 1080i format.

Yes, there will be no broadcast 1080/60p any time soon. The bandwidth
is just not there. The ATSC format does provide for 1080/24p and
1080/30p broadcasting, but no one has adopted this and I doubt if they
ever will as a broadcast format.

1080/60i and 720/60p will remain the OTA broadcast and cable & sat
network formats of choice for many years to come. Since most HDTVs are
inherently progressive displays (plasma except for ALiS, LCD, DLP,
SXRD), all 1080p when applied to display resolution means is that it
will display 1920x1080i at full resolution. And will look very good for
Blu-Ray (when they fix it) and HD-DVD movies.

However, anyone with a TV of 50" or less will be hard pressed to see
the difference between a 1366x768 and 1920x1080 screen at normal living
room sitting distances. Try it with the new Pioneer Pro-FHD1 1080p
plasma with other Pioneer and Panasonic plasmas in the stores.

Alan F

The bandwidth is there for 1080/60P we just have to use MPEG4 AVC codec.
Broadcasters could use this legally after delivering an SD quality
program with MPEG2. Of course if we were to allow MPEG4 for that SD
program all current receivers would be obsolete which would open the
door to switching modulations.

What the definition of compatible is for current receivers is becoming
comical. If a broadcaster wants they can use as little as 2 Mbps for the
SD required MPEG2 program and use the rest of their bandwidth, 17.34
Mbps, for MPEG4 today.

IMO that would make all current receivers 88.5% incompatible.
Broadcasters could also elect to use A-VSB and if they do they will have
to use MPEG4 AVC with it to get even an SD program to fit in this robust
segment. At least from the data I have been given. To deliver a robust
A-VSB SD program will eliminate the POSSIBILITY of also delivering an HD
program in the same 6 MHz.

The best of both worlds, no HD and a single robust SD program. They will
probably simulcast the same content so you will have two copies of the
same SD program one in robust A-VSB form and the other in 8-VSB.

Could you possibly think of anything worse? From what I here
broadcasters are all excited by the concept of A-VSB. Can't imagine why
accept it will give them a slim change, at least in their minds, to stay
in business in a world of 8-VSB.

So with A-VSB you will have maybe 30% compatibility for all current
receivers but no HD. With MPEG-4 but no A-VSB you will have 11.5%
compatibility for current receivers and the possibility of HD even
1080/60P on the MPEG4 side but again not receivable by all current
receivers.

I guess the FCC and Congress are "protecting" as much as 11.5% of the
OTA spectrum for 8-VSB and MPEG2, just enough to mess everything up and
kill OTA.

Bob Miller

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
nk.net...
AlanF wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:

BDK wrote:

In article ,
says...

It looks as if that will soon be the new standard and all lower
resolutions(except maybe 1080i) will be gone. We need one standard
anyway. Man, I wonder what people are to do with their older HDTV's.

1080I isn't going anywhere for quite a while, around here, there are NO
plans for a couple of the stations to do anything more than 720P and
the one that does 1080I just bought all new stuff, and isn't about to
change anytime soon.

So everyone with a 720P/1080I set will still be watching it years from
now...maybe decades..

BDK


Not to mention the cable companies that have recently invested a whole
lot in delivering both 720P and 1080i in 1080i format.

Yes, there will be no broadcast 1080/60p any time soon. The bandwidth is
just not there. The ATSC format does provide for 1080/24p and 1080/30p
broadcasting, but no one has adopted this and I doubt if they ever will
as a broadcast format.

1080/60i and 720/60p will remain the OTA broadcast and cable & sat
network formats of choice for many years to come. Since most HDTVs are
inherently progressive displays (plasma except for ALiS, LCD, DLP, SXRD),
all 1080p when applied to display resolution means is that it will
display 1920x1080i at full resolution. And will look very good for
Blu-Ray (when they fix it) and HD-DVD movies.

However, anyone with a TV of 50" or less will be hard pressed to see the
difference between a 1366x768 and 1920x1080 screen at normal living room
sitting distances. Try it with the new Pioneer Pro-FHD1 1080p plasma with
other Pioneer and Panasonic plasmas in the stores.

Alan F

The bandwidth is there for 1080/60P we just have to use MPEG4 AVC codec.
Broadcasters could use this legally after delivering an SD quality program
with MPEG2. Of course if we were to allow MPEG4 for that SD program all
current receivers would be obsolete which would open the door to switching
modulations.

What the definition of compatible is for current receivers is becoming
comical. If a broadcaster wants they can use as little as 2 Mbps for the
SD required MPEG2 program and use the rest of their bandwidth, 17.34 Mbps,
for MPEG4 today.

IMO that would make all current receivers 88.5% incompatible. Broadcasters
could also elect to use A-VSB and if they do they will have to use MPEG4
AVC with it to get even an SD program to fit in this robust segment. At
least from the data I have been given. To deliver a robust A-VSB SD
program will eliminate the POSSIBILITY of also delivering an HD program in
the same 6 MHz.

The best of both worlds, no HD and a single robust SD program. They will
probably simulcast the same content so you will have two copies of the
same SD program one in robust A-VSB form and the other in 8-VSB.

Could you possibly think of anything worse? From what I here broadcasters
are all excited by the concept of A-VSB. Can't imagine why accept it will
give them a slim change, at least in their minds, to stay in business in a
world of 8-VSB.

So with A-VSB you will have maybe 30% compatibility for all current
receivers but no HD. With MPEG-4 but no A-VSB you will have 11.5%
compatibility for current receivers and the possibility of HD even
1080/60P on the MPEG4 side but again not receivable by all current
receivers.

I guess the FCC and Congress are "protecting" as much as 11.5% of the OTA
spectrum for 8-VSB and MPEG2, just enough to mess everything up and kill
OTA.

Bob Miller


You forgot your link to your stupid little video.

Bob Miller wrote:
The bandwidth is there for 1080/60P we just have to use MPEG4 AVC
codec.
Broadcasters could use this legally after delivering an SD quality
program with MPEG2. Of course if we were to allow MPEG4 for that SD
program all current receivers would be obsolete which would open the

door to switching modulations.

What the definition of compatible is for current receivers is
becoming
comical. If a broadcaster wants they can use as little as 2 Mbps for
the
SD required MPEG2 program and use the rest of their bandwidth, 17.34

Mbps, for MPEG4 today.

IMO that would make all current receivers 88.5% incompatible.
Broadcasters could also elect to use A-VSB and if they do they will
have
to use MPEG4 AVC with it to get even an SD program to fit in this
robust
segment. At least from the data I have been given. To deliver a
robust
A-VSB SD program will eliminate the POSSIBILITY of also delivering
an HD
program in the same 6 MHz.

The best of both worlds, no HD and a single robust SD program. They
will
probably simulcast the same content so you will have two copies of
the
same SD program one in robust A-VSB form and the other in 8-VSB.

Could you possibly think of anything worse? From what I here
broadcasters are all excited by the concept of A-VSB. Can't imagine
why
accept it will give them a slim change, at least in their minds, to
stay
in business in a world of 8-VSB.

So with A-VSB you will have maybe 30% compatibility for all current
receivers but no HD. With MPEG-4 but no A-VSB you will have 11.5%
compatibility for current receivers and the possibility of HD even
1080/60P on the MPEG4 side but again not receivable by all current
receivers.

I guess the FCC and Congress are "protecting" as much as 11.5% of
the
OTA spectrum for 8-VSB and MPEG2, just enough to mess everything up
and
kill OTA.

Bob Miller

So YOU Bob, want the billions that have already been spent to be
discarded and then start over. You know, I read that shoot-out stuff
from '99 between 8VSB and COFDM and at that time NEITHER worked well.
You will say that it was a faulty COFDM receiver but they KNEW it was a
shoot-out and they used the 'faulty' receiver anyway. What I think
happened was there is a perception that COFDM requires a larger power
output for a given coverage area and that it is less tolerant of
co-channel issues. Now I KNOW that it isn't a big deal with 8VSB since
channels 59,60,& 61 are DTV in LA and channels 58 and 62 analogs are
running as well. I have no problems with any of them.

Larger transmitters cost more and use more power. I think the congress
was presented with a pair of mediocrities and they chose the less
expensive - logical at the time.

Expecting everybody to buy all new stuff is just DUMB so live with it.

GG

G-squared wrote:
Bob Miller wrote:
The bandwidth is there for 1080/60P we just have to use MPEG4 AVC codec.
Broadcasters could use this legally after delivering an SD quality
program with MPEG2. Of course if we were to allow MPEG4 for that SD
program all current receivers would be obsolete which would open the
door to switching modulations.

What the definition of compatible is for current receivers is becoming
comical. If a broadcaster wants they can use as little as 2 Mbps for the
SD required MPEG2 program and use the rest of their bandwidth, 17.34
Mbps, for MPEG4 today.

IMO that would make all current receivers 88.5% incompatible.
Broadcasters could also elect to use A-VSB and if they do they will have
to use MPEG4 AVC with it to get even an SD program to fit in this robust
segment. At least from the data I have been given. To deliver a robust
A-VSB SD program will eliminate the POSSIBILITY of also delivering an HD
program in the same 6 MHz.

The best of both worlds, no HD and a single robust SD program. They will
probably simulcast the same content so you will have two copies of the
same SD program one in robust A-VSB form and the other in 8-VSB.

Could you possibly think of anything worse? From what I here broadcasters are all excited by the concept of A-VSB. Can't imagine why accept it will give them a slim change, at least in their minds, to stay
in business in a world of 8-VSB.

So with A-VSB you will have maybe 30% compatibility for all current receivers but no HD. With MPEG-4 but no A-VSB you will have 11.5%
compatibility for current receivers and the possibility of HD even 1080/60P on the MPEG4 side but again not receivable by all current
receivers.

I guess the FCC and Congress are "protecting" as much as 11.5% of the OTA spectrum for 8-VSB and MPEG2, just enough to mess everything up and
kill OTA.

Bob Miller

So YOU Bob, want the billions that have already been spent to be
discarded and then start over.

What billions would have to be discarded? As to broadcasters they would
have to switch out an 8-VSB modulator for a COFDM one. Not that
expensive. Broadcasters would do that in a heartbeat if they could. They
would love to switch to COFDM. The cost to them would be trivial
compared to the cost in bit rate alone that they will suffer when they
start using A-VSB. And that bit cost goes on forever. Every day they
lose at least 8 Mbps all the time. And the cost of buying an A-VSB
modulator will be far higher than that of a COFDM modulator.

With COFDM they would maintain a high bit rate and have a robust signal
at the same time.

As to the cost to early adopters, hard to imagine that buyers of 8-VSB
receivers are still considered early adopters after almost nine years,
they have been buying the latest 8-VSB receivers offered over and over
in the vain attempt to find one that works for years. Some tell of
owning 12 and more receivers. And they would line up to buy an LG 5th
gen receiver that matched the prototype tested 2 years ago if LG ever
decided to make it.

They would have to pony up for a new COFDM receiver yes. All of maybe
$130 initially for a basic HDTV receiver but one that worked.

You know, I read that shoot-out stuff
from '99 between 8VSB and COFDM and at that time NEITHER worked well.
You will say that it was a faulty COFDM receiver but they KNEW it was a
shoot-out and they used the 'faulty' receiver anyway.

They? They, the ones controlling the "shootout" were the NAB and MSTV,
they were the strongest proponents of 8-VSB. "They" were the enemies of
COFDM. "They" went to a great deal of trouble, in secret, to find a
"receiver" that would not work. "They" then pretended "they" knew
nothing about the problem with this "receiver", namely that is was NOT a
receiver. This was a fraud, a fraudulent test, performed by those who
wanted a certain outcome. "They" did it in secret. I personally called
the engineer who was in charge of finding COFDM receivers and was told
that the three I offered were not needed since they had ALL the
receivers they needed. "They" had ONE "receiver" that was actually a
transmitter monitor specifically set up to accept all interference and
meant to be attached, hard wired, directly to a transmitter not be
carted around the far field as a receiver.

"They" knew exactly what they were doing and that was to participate in
a fraudulent charade to discredit COFDM.


What I think
happened was there is a perception that COFDM requires a larger power
output for a given coverage area and that it is less tolerant of
co-channel issues. Now I KNOW that it isn't a big deal with 8VSB since
channels 59,60,& 61 are DTV in LA and channels 58 and 62 analogs are
running as well. I have no problems with any of them.

Not a big deal with COFDM either. Co-channel interference is not an
issue. Sharp filter technology has long ago made that a non issue. It
was a non issue when it was used as a canard to sabotage COFDM in 2001
and the parties knew that.

All test of COFDM that have been done in the real world have found that
the power differential is a non issue. They can't find it in the real
world. Australia was in the 8-VSB camp for years before they did a
comprehensive test, in the open, and switched to COFDM. And Australia
has lots of big open spaces where coverage is what it is all about. Same
with Russia and China, all in the COFDM camp.

Well China has a foot in both camps but the market will decide and that
means COFDM exclusively.
Larger transmitters cost more and use more power. I think the congress
was presented with a pair of mediocrities and they chose the less
expensive - logical at the time.


8-VSB is far far more expensive. First it has cost nine years of
stagnation.

Expecting everybody to buy all new stuff is just DUMB so live with it.

"Everybody" has not bought 8-VSB. In fact few have. And it is not all
new stuff just a receiver. COFDM receivers are very inexpensive. $19 on
Ebay, as little as $35 new. An HD COFDM receiver would cost under $100
within six months of it being OKed in the US.

Bob Miller
GG

"Bob Miller" wrote

"They" knew exactly what they were doing and that was to participate in a
fraudulent charade to discredit COFDM.

****, all these years I always thought they were participating in
fraudulent charades to discredit "viacel". :-/

AlanF wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:

BDK wrote:

In article ,
says...

It looks as if that will soon be the new standard and all lower
resolutions(except maybe 1080i) will be gone. We need one standard
anyway. Man, I wonder what people are to do with their older
HDTV's.

1080I isn't going anywhere for quite a while, around here, there are
NO plans for a couple of the stations to do anything more than 720P
and the one that does 1080I just bought all new stuff, and isn't
about to change anytime soon.

So everyone with a 720P/1080I set will still be watching it years
from now...maybe decades..

BDK


Not to mention the cable companies that have recently invested a
whole lot in delivering both 720P and 1080i in 1080i format.

Yes, there will be no broadcast 1080/60p any time soon. The
bandwidth is just not there. The ATSC format does provide for
1080/24p and 1080/30p broadcasting, but no one has adopted this and I
doubt if they ever will as a broadcast format.

The only thing 1080/24p has a problem with is 60i video. If you had a
channel dedicated to film sourced material (filmed TV shows and movies)
there shouldn't be a problem with 24p.

Even then I don't think deinterlacing 60i to 24p for commercials or the odd
program would render an unwatchable mess. I, for one, would like to see a
movie channel (HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, TMC) show it's faire in 1080/24p.