HD TV question

Ian wrote:
Not a lot of films on DVD are even in 1080p so unless you
are connecting the TV to a HD source like satellite or cable TV, it
might not be worth spending all that extra money.

Actually, NO DVD films are 1080 anything. Or even 720. I think you
mean blu-ray (or the now dead HD-DVD). They are almost all 576 (PAL) or
480 (NTSC), although they can be half or less.

Of course, for those of us who have no intention of watching anything
but PAL (576) all these 720 and 1080 sets (or the fairly common 768 and
WTH are they like that?) give any advantages at all. None of them scale
a PAL picture well.

NTSC (480 line) of course scales 3:2 to 720 - which must be what the
standard was for.

Andy

"J G Miller" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:08:04 +0100, Ian wrote:
Not a lot of films on DVD are even in 1080p
Can you name any movies released on DVD (in DVD format) which are in
1080p or even 720p?

Only DVD-HD or Blu-Ray discs provide movies in 1080p format.

Not that I want to go against you .....
And I guess I am not going against you!

Has anyone spotted the fact that a lot of new movies are not nearly as sharp
as ones made only 2-3 years ago..
I am not saying (actually I am) that they are feathering quality out on
regular DVD's to push BluRay. Somethings def up tho, as the new stuff
doesnt upscale that well, and the HD Stuff is VASTLY superior..

I do feel that they are pushing quality down to drive up HD sales :/.

mr deo wrote:

I am not saying (actually I am) that they are feathering quality out on
regular DVD's to push BluRay. Somethings def up tho, as the new stuff
doesnt upscale that well, and the HD Stuff is VASTLY superior..

Could it also be that they are not applying as much edge enhancement and
"sharpening" to the DVD transfers as they used to? Since average screen
sizes have got bigger, these types of treatment have become more obvious
and objectionable.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Andy Champ wrote:

Of course, for those of us who have no intention of watching anything
but PAL (576) all these 720 and 1080 sets (or the fairly common 768 and
WTH are they like that?) give any advantages at all. None of them scale
a PAL picture well.

Prolly because the cheaper panels were designed for computer monitor
usage where 768 is a common vertical resolution.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

The message
from Andy Champ contains these words:

====snip====

Of course, for those of us who have no intention of watching anything
but PAL (576) all these 720 and 1080 sets (or the fairly common 768 and
WTH are they like that?)

That's the standard 4:3 aspect ratio height that goes with a common
1024 pixels wide computer display (typically a 15 inch CRT monitor).

give any advantages at all.
None of them scale
a PAL picture well.

NTSC (480 line) of course scales 3:2 to 720 - which must be what the
standard was for.

Quite likely, whatever. A lot of this stuff is japanese designed (or
chinese copies of) and the Japs are rather obsessed by 'merkin
'standards', so much so that the likes of Canon and Nikon totally ignore
the slightly more economic 25 fps frame rate option for their stills
camera's movie modes and only offer either 15 [1] or 30 fps (regardless
of whether it's the 'PAL' or the NTSC setting that's been chosen). :-(

[1] Yes, I realise 15 fps is much more economic than 25 fps, but it
bears no easy relationship with 25 fps (50 interlaced scans per second)
and is obviously optimised for the yank tv display standard. A 16 2/3
fps rate, although slightly less economic, would have been a much better
option for the PAL format choice.

--
Regards, John.

Please remove the "ohggcyht" before replying.
The address has been munged to reject Spam-bots.

"mr deo" wrote in message
om...


Has anyone spotted the fact that a lot of new movies are not nearly as
sharp
as ones made only 2-3 years ago..
I am not saying (actually I am) that they are feathering quality out on
regular DVD's to push BluRay. Somethings def up tho, as the new stuff
doesnt upscale that well, and the HD Stuff is VASTLY superior..

I do feel that they are pushing quality down to drive up HD sales :/.







what a bizarre conspiracy theory!
every dvd releasing company got together in a secret pact to make their
discs worse in the hope you'd buy a blu ray player hmmmm......




--
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

"The dog from that film you saw" wrote in
message ...

"mr deo" wrote in message
om...


Has anyone spotted the fact that a lot of new movies are not nearly as
sharp
as ones made only 2-3 years ago..
I am not saying (actually I am) that they are feathering quality out on
regular DVD's to push BluRay. Somethings def up tho, as the new stuff
doesnt upscale that well, and the HD Stuff is VASTLY superior..

I do feel that they are pushing quality down to drive up HD sales :/.







what a bizarre conspiracy theory!
every dvd releasing company got together in a secret pact to make their
discs worse in the hope you'd buy a blu ray player hmmmm......



In all fairness, It's CGI films that dont have sony stamps, so no.. I dont
think they are trying to push players, but more than one film I have
purchased recently includes a "GET IT NOW ON BLURAY" leaflet on the inside..
I dont think they want to push player sales, they want to push media sales..
But it could be that they are just ignoring DVD users now and not giving the
DVD cuts a lot of time or quality editing.

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:24:54 -0700 (PDT), Boltar
wrote:

Hi

I'm thinking about buying my first HD TV and I was wondering if theres
any real visible difference between 720p and 1080p on screen sizes of
around 32 inches?

it depnds how you use it.

i have a recent 22" samsung which is 1080p and i like that one - but
the resoution is mainly useful as it doubles as a computer screen.
Pity it cannot channel hop on DTV a bit faster though.

any laptop user who plugs into a better screen sometimes will tell you
1000+ lines is lot more useful than 750.

Or should I be more concerned with 100hz or the
various difference image engines the TVs seem to have? I've read good
reviews of Panasonic and Samsung TVs - are they better than the
average?

i saw a big difference on CRT when i got a progressive scan screen -
part of that i think is going from 25 Hz to 50 Hz, so refresh rate
matters to some extent.

100 Hz - well again computer monitors tend to go for more pixels
rather than even faster scan.

personally - i think the better sets seem to do more in terms of
picture processing to a lower res signal to improve it - so maybe it
matters just as much with lower res source material.


Cheers

B2003
--
Regards

- replace xyz with ntl

John Rumm wrote:

Prolly because the cheaper panels were designed for computer monitor
usage where 768 is a common vertical resolution.


Obviously, lots of computers have 32 inch 768 line displays.

Nope, I don't believe that one. I might on a sub-20 inch unit, but
that's not many pixels for a computer screen even that size.

Andy

Out of curiosity, are you going to hang the TV from the wall on put it
on a stand?

On a stand , why?


I currently have a Sony CRT TV of 4:3 vintage, and I am considering
going 'widescreen'. However, I cannot make up my mind whether putting
it on a stand or onto the wall would be better.

John