1080P vs. 720P

wrote in message
...
And are they so sure 1080p60 can't fit in 6 MHz ... if it's black and
white?

Not sure what you point is. If you have a B&W source, it is likely from
film, so why do you need 60 frames anyway?

Leonard

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 06:40:41 -0400 Leonard Caillouet wrote:
|
| wrote in message
| ...
| And are they so sure 1080p60 can't fit in 6 MHz ... if it's black and
| white?
|
| Not sure what you point is. If you have a B&W source, it is likely from
| film, so why do you need 60 frames anyway?

I doubt there is much, if any, 60 fps black and white from film. But there
are a lot of other formats ATSC recognizes that really seem to have no use.
Why are those in there? So why not 1080p60 monochrome? So can you answer
this technical question, if you are qualified to answer it? And if you want
to focus on film, what about 2880x1620p24 monochrome?

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

On Jun 28, 10:11 pm, "Leonard Caillouet" wrote:
"ninphan" wrote in message

oups.com...

The new 1080p Viera's have a minimum half life of 60,000 hours.
After watching your $2,800 plasma for over 7 hours a day for 20 years
you'll probably want to replace it.
Duh.

Half-life? You mean after 60,000 hours it suddenly loses half of the pix?
For real? Gee, I am sure getting an education from you!

Come on, Matthew, I can't believe you aren't having some fun with this...

Leonard

A pity you're not getting educated in the art of reading, for two
posts in a row you've put words in my posts that were not there.
Did I say that the brightness fades only when in vivid mode? Did I say
the brightness changes suddenly to 50% after 60,000 hours?
If you want to be an ass, at least do it based on what I've said and
not based on the fictional posts you're reading.

I (my spouse and I) watch, and this is the absolute extreme, 25 hours
of television a week.
That means I'll reach 60,000 hours of television watching in 46 years.
I think I'll probably want to replace my main television every ten
years if the last 20 years are any indication. That means I'll
probably be at about 13,000 hours of watching when the television is
replaced, or moved to a second television spot.
Watching in studio reference mode (or cinema mode on the 700U models)
I have no doubt that when I replace my set it will approximately 90%
of the brightness it was the day I bought it.
That's what happens when you get to your 10th generation of plasma
displays. You constantly make a better product, particularly in the
case of plasmas when Panasonic is concerned.
Where I running a sports bar where I expect my sets to be on from 11am
to 2:30am every day I'd be more inclined to go with Samsung LCD
panels, but I want a superior viewing experience for Blu-ray discs and
the newest Panasonic and upcoming Pioneer plasmas are #1 in my book
for a home theatre room where an overhead projector set-up is not
desirable.
To match the black level performance of one of these sets and 1080p
you'll be spending a hell of a lot more than $2,800.

This whole discussion stemmed from someone saying that plasmas
currently only last 10,000 hours, which is just not the case. But lets
all get out kickers in a twist and act like girls shall we?

wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 06:40:41 -0400 Leonard Caillouet wrote:
|
| wrote in message
| ...
| And are they so sure 1080p60 can't fit in 6 MHz ... if it's black and
| white?
|
| Not sure what you point is. If you have a B&W source, it is likely from
| film, so why do you need 60 frames anyway?

I doubt there is much, if any, 60 fps black and white from film. But there
are a lot of other formats ATSC recognizes that really seem to have no use.
Why are those in there? So why not 1080p60 monochrome? So can you answer
this technical question, if you are qualified to answer it? And if you want
to focus on film, what about 2880x1620p24 monochrome?

That isn't a technical question. The ATSC standard is required to
support 8 bit color. B&W is a subset of that. Why special case B&W
geometry and needlessly complicate things? There is no real reason to
have different geometry for B&W when it is a very small fraction of what
is broadcast.

Matthew

--
I'm a consultant. If you want an opinion I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

Leonard Caillouet wrote:
"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message
...
Nah. Fish in a barrel.

I thought you were going to explain how he gets 480 to 1080 with no
resampling, just an abacus...guess neither of us have the intellect to
function on the same plane with him.


You have that right. I think that it would take more alcohol than would
be prudent.

Matthew

--
I'm a consultant. If you want an opinion I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:42:55 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 05:53:11 -0700 ninphan wrote:
| On Jun 26, 5:07 pm, Mutlley wrote:
| ninphan wrote:
|
| Most television and cinema is still being shot on film, which is
| capable of resolutions much higher than 1080p.
|
| I think that modern 35mm film is the equivalent to 8000P
|
| It really depends on how detailed the scanning is. You can scan it at
| 1080p, you can scan it at 1440p, etc.
| It's like the scan settings (dots per inch) when you scan a photograph.

The question is, at what point is increasing the resolution going to be
non-productive even for extremely large video screens (stadium sized)?
I've projected by 35mm still slides to a small to mid size (4.5 feet wide
by 3 feet high) screen, and can see some impressive detail, especially in
the shots I stopped down to f/16 or smaller, with wide angle lenses, to
get a virtually infinite depth of field. I'm assuming the professional
people making the Hollywood films are getting everything technically right
to capture the very best quality on film (or less so in cases where the
intent is to have less, such as dark scenes, intentionally out of focus,
etc). Being able to get resolutions beyond even 8640 lines seems quite
plausible to me based on what I have seen.

That begs the next question: is it worth it? Digitizing that high means
greater cost, not only of the digitizing equipment, but also of storage
and processing. Higher resolutions probably will compress better when
there are sufficient areas of generally the same color.

Is this an adequate set of definitions?

HD - High definition: 1080 lines
VHD - Very high definition: 2160 lines
UHD - Ultra high definition: 4320 lines
EHD - Extremely high definition: 8640 lines

Or should the steps be some other multiple?

There is no requirement for an integral multiple. There really never has
been. The algorithms are the same, the precision of the operands is very
important.

The real standards in video production have already been set:

2K == 2048x1536
4K == 4096x3072
8K == 8192x6144

All are aspect ratio independent.

You can look it up.

Modern deep precision floating point is fast enough to do significant
processing on 2K sources in real time. 4K in real time is not far off.
It will only take a few quad processors. 8K is still an acknowledged
challenge.

Matthew

So, are there any plans by the manufacturers to start producing TVs
with some of these higher definitions than 1080p?

On 6/23/07 8:23 AM, Mr_Fixit wrote:
In article .com rjn
writes:


It's not for lack of panels, because dense small ones are common.

All the 23 & 24 inch computer LCD monitors are 1920x1200.

The 30s are 2560x1600.

Wrong A/R of course, but you can easily build a 1920P
mediaPC TV in the 23-30in range.

It's not a question of technology, it's a matter of visual acuity. You
cannot "see" the difference between 720P and 1080i/1080p in a small
display. Even trained experts have difficulty discerning the difference in
70" displays.

So when considering a 30~40~50" display why spend the extra money to
achieve a higher level of resolution that you cannot possibly see the
difference in? It's marketing hype.


Does this apply to action game playing as well?

No Way wrote:

So, are there any plans by the manufacturers to start producing TVs
with some of these higher definitions than 1080p?

What would they display?

Matthew

--
I'm a consultant. If you want an opinion I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:20:09 -0400 Matthew L. Martin wrote:
| wrote:
| On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 06:40:41 -0400 Leonard Caillouet wrote:
| |
| | wrote in message
| | ...
| | And are they so sure 1080p60 can't fit in 6 MHz ... if it's black and
| | white?
| |
| | Not sure what you point is. If you have a B&W source, it is likely from
| | film, so why do you need 60 frames anyway?
|
| I doubt there is much, if any, 60 fps black and white from film. But there
| are a lot of other formats ATSC recognizes that really seem to have no use.
| Why are those in there? So why not 1080p60 monochrome? So can you answer
| this technical question, if you are qualified to answer it? And if you want
| to focus on film, what about 2880x1620p24 monochrome?
|
| That isn't a technical question. The ATSC standard is required to
| support 8 bit color. B&W is a subset of that. Why special case B&W
| geometry and needlessly complicate things? There is no real reason to
| have different geometry for B&W when it is a very small fraction of what
| is broadcast.

That depends on how well the compression behaves. If the sampling is 4:1:1
it's probably not much color. But there can still be noise in it, so at
the point where it is compressed, if at least they can configure that to
complete dampen all the color info during compression, that would take out
most of the bits. A single bit that says "ain't no color bits here" would
have optimized it. The question is, just how much. If it is not enough
to squeeze in one more highly compressed SD channel on the air, then I guess
it has no real value.

If I have computer generated still frames that change once every few seconds,
like those "community board" channels on cable than no one really watches,
and program it to make sure the changes on multiple channels are dispersed
over time (not all changing at once), I wonder how many such channels I
could get over an ATSC channel.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 02:14:51 GMT No Way wrote:

| So, are there any plans by the manufacturers to start producing TVs
| with some of these higher definitions than 1080p?

So, are there any plans by content producers to make content available
to consumers at these higher definitions than 1080p?

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|