Sky reveals HDTV launch lineup

Tiny Tim _ wrote:


Based on my experience I would rather watch HD source on an SD TV than an SD
broadcast on an HDTV. If today's broadcasts (I have Sky digital) look blocky
and pixelated on a 32" SD set I can promise you they look a bloody sight
worse when magnified up to 45" and upscaled to a display resolution that
simply does not exist in the source material.

e.g. If you look at a VGA photo (640*480 pixels) and blow that up to fill a
1600*1200 monitor it looks total cack. But if you take a 7MP (3072*2304
pixels) and shrink that to fit a 1600*1200 monitor it looks just fine. The
same argument applies to TV sources and displays.


I've been watching SD digi TV and DVDs on a very high resolution apple
cinema display (an LCD monitor) for some time. We can watch at native
resolution (one line of TV scan to one line of pixels) or we can "blow
up" the picture to the native screen resolution.

95% of the time we do the latter; it looks fine.

We've downloaded the odd High Def DivX of shows from the states. They
played OK on our Mac, unlike the WMA high def. stuff that won't play at
all.

YMMV


U n d e r a c h i e v e r (and proud)
--

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
you have to consider that standard definition TV
is hardly very high resolution now (ignoring the interlace factor):

720 pixels x 576 lines = 414,720 pixels

My definition of SDTV is a 480-line picture with 400 or so vertical lines of
resolution -- US standard and it's not so good, I guess, measured against
others' SDTV.. That's half the number of pixels described above. We are
getting more of an upgrade with HDTV because our SDTV resolution is crap*
compared, to UK.

*technical term

Nigel Barker wrote:

Well, that certainly was NOT the case in the US: the instant
OTA HD became available, very impressive pictures were available
in stores. Some was from OTA HD, other demos were from hard=drive
based in-store servers.

The demos that I have seen are not from PCs but from D-VHS playback.

All the HD demos I have seen have been from HD media streamers. These
will be everywhere in 6 months.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/7rm2m
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 07:24:43 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

Nigel Barker wrote:

Well, that certainly was NOT the case in the US: the instant
OTA HD became available, very impressive pictures were available
in stores. Some was from OTA HD, other demos were from hard=drive
based in-store servers.

The demos that I have seen are not from PCs but from D-VHS playback.

All the HD demos I have seen have been from HD media streamers. These
will be everywhere in 6 months.

I was referring to the US store demos being D-VHS playback. It's PC playback
that I have seen in Europe plus HD-1 broadcast.

--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

Sal M. Onella wrote:

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
you have to consider that standard definition TV

is hardly very high resolution now (ignoring the interlace factor):

720 pixels x 576 lines = 414,720 pixels


My definition of SDTV is a 480-line picture with 400 or so vertical lines of
resolution -- US standard and it's not so good, I guess, measured against
others' SDTV.. That's half the number of pixels described above. We are
getting more of an upgrade with HDTV because our SDTV resolution is crap*
compared, to UK.


Actually, not really. 576/480 = 1.2, whereas 720/(576 * .7) = 1.8
(.7 because of Kell factor). Also, because the 576 countries usually
use 50HZ, they need a worse KEll factor blur to avoid worse flicker.

Doug McDonald

Nigel Barker wrote:

All the HD demos I have seen have been from HD media streamers. These
will be everywhere in 6 months.


I was referring to the US store demos being D-VHS playback. It's PC playback
that I have seen in Europe plus HD-1 broadcast.


I saw some tape demos here in the US in high end stores, before
OTA HD was available. Now, everybody is using either HD based
PC loops, OTA, or satellite HD feeds such as HDNet.

Doug McDonald

"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
...


Actually, not really. 576/480 = 1.2, whereas 720/(576 * .7) = 1.8
(.7 because of Kell factor). Also, because the 576 countries usually
use 50HZ, they need a worse KEll factor blur to avoid worse flicker.


I don't understand all of that. I know the 480 number to be the
count of visible scan lines in NTSC and 50 Hz to be some countries'
systems frame rate . I will look up Kell factor, but I think I will need
some help in determining what 576 means. I don't recognize it.

My lack of experience is showing, but that's all right -- no better way
to learn than to admit ignorance.

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
om...
In article , Jc wrote:
The vast majoirty of people in the UK got their sets in the 1970's!

If the vast majority of TVs in this country were really 30 years old
they'd be black and white, mono and the high street retailers would be
out of business. What utter rubbish.

You must be very young. We did have colour TV in the 1970s you know.

Rod.


Heck, even before -- 1967 to be exact.

Ref: Pearce DW. Macmillan dictionary of modern economics.
Macmillan Press Ltd, London, 1992

I saw it on display in a shop window and I have not been in the UK since
1968.
I recall thinking it was a good, clear picture, accurate colors, albeit soft
and subdued.)

(Yes, I know Baird's work in the 1920s and 1930s. Spare me :-)

"Ivan" wrote in message
...
.. I
remember being severely ****ed off expecting to see the Moon landing in
colour, only for it to be shown in 405 lines B\W on BBC1.



You really didn't miss too much.

The very first lander carried a B/W camera. The US prelude coverage was in
color, but grainy
images of Neil Armstrong stepping off the ladder were definitely monochrome.
The big surge
to color in the US had just passed in 1967/1968 (or so) and our TV networks
were all exclusively
in color. IIRC, we knew in advance that the images would not be in color,
since, at that time,
a small-enough/light-enough color video camera did not exist to make the
trip.

They took a "car" on later missions. :-)))

In article [email protected], Sal M. Onella wrote:
Actually, not really. 576/480 = 1.2, whereas 720/(576 * .7) = 1.8
(.7 because of Kell factor). Also, because the 576 countries usually
use 50HZ, they need a worse KEll factor blur to avoid worse flicker.

I don't understand all of that. I know the 480 number to be the
count of visible scan lines in NTSC and 50 Hz to be some countries'
systems frame rate . I will look up Kell factor, but I think I will need
some help in determining what 576 means. I don't recognize it.

There are 575 active picture lines in the 625/50 system. One of them is in
the form of two separate half lines, at the end of one field and the
beginning of the other. Some equipment that includes buffer storage can cope
more easily with this by providing storage for 576 lines. You could say
there are 576 picture lines per frame, though two of them are only half the
duration of all the others.

Rod.