Hd-a2 $98.87

[AlphaWolf]

Of course, there are always exceptions. I'm just saying that this player is very attractive to who buy lower end HDTVs and therefore the non-inclusion of 1080P is even less of a factor, and even more so according to the above statements.

Ya at <$100 its a great buy, for those looking for better players this would still make a great 2nd unit for an office or bedroom where you don't have your high end HD display.

If I ran across a unit in store at this price I'd have a hard time resisting, but I'm not ready to make an effort to jump into the HD format war just yet.

 

[Ty]

If I ran across a unit in store at this price I'd have a hard time resisting, but I'm not ready to make an effort to jump into the HD format war just yet.

Yea, I'm not committed to HD-DVD in that I'll be buying discs but I figure for 100 bucks, I can get some good use out of it renting from Netflix/Blockbuster Online.

 

[Ruined]

Re: 1080p vs. 1080i in terms of signal transmission, on most 1080p sets you will see zero difference between a 1080i signal and 1080p signal. This is because decent 1080p TVs perform a process called inverse telecine on the 1080i signal which reorders the data to make a 1080p signal; a 1080i signal contains all the data of a 1080p signal, it just needs to be reordered/reassembled, and good 1080p HDTVs know how to do this.

So, the HD-A2 even though it only has 1080i output, on a decent 1080p HDTV will be converted to 1080p with inverse telecine and should look the same as if 1080p was being output from the player.

 

[Mize]

Re: 1080p vs. 1080i in terms of signal transmission, on most 1080p sets you will see zero difference between a 1080i signal and 1080p signal. This is because decent 1080p TVs perform a process called inverse telecine on the 1080i signal which reorders the data to make a 1080p signal; a 1080i signal contains all the data of a 1080p signal, it just needs to be reordered/reassembled, and good 1080p HDTVs know how to do this.

So, the HD-A2 even though it only has 1080i output, on a decent 1080p HDTV will be converted to 1080p with inverse telecine and should look the same as if 1080p was being output from the player.

I don't understand this...1080i is interlaced so, by definition, it's broadcasting at half the throughput (aka 'bandwidth'). If you deinterlace it you'd cut your frame rate in half, wouldn't you? How can you add data back that wasn't there to begin with?

 

[Sxotty]

I don't understand this...1080i is interlaced so, by definition, it's broadcasting at half the throughput (aka 'bandwidth'). If you deinterlace it you'd cut your frame rate in half, wouldn't you? How can you add data back that wasn't there to begin with?

I think I read before that b/c of the framerate of the original film material and the way it is sent you actually send duplicate info on 1080p so 1080i is actually the same only from HD media encoded at 1080p though... I don't know if it is actually the case, but some sites said as much.

 

[Mize]

I just did some reading.
Since most cinematic content is 24 fps, halving your bandwidth (60 Hz to 30 Hz) in theory wouldn't hurt too much. In reality, it's not so great. The player is likely outputting 1080i at 60Hz from a source that was recorded at 24 fps. This causes the infamous "judder" effect that our PAL friends don't have. The TV then reinterlaces down to an effective 30 Hz and introduces a second Judder (Judder is just beat frequency in Fourier terms). There are apparently 1080i-to-1080p boxes that do this reasonably well for about $1k, but few TVs are very good at it they say.

 

[Sxotty]

I just did some reading.
Since most cinematic content is 24 fps, halving your bandwidth (60 Hz to 30 Hz) in theory wouldn't hurt too much. In reality, it's not so great. The player is likely outputting 1080i at 60Hz from a source that was recorded at 24 fps. This causes the infamous "judder" effect that our PAL friends don't have. The TV then reinterlaces down to an effective 30 Hz and introduces a second Judder (Judder is just beat frequency in Fourier terms). There are apparently 1080i-to-1080p boxes that do this reasonably well for about $1k, but few TVs are very good at it they say.

Who is they? I read that it worked fine and you get the same image in 1080i60hz or 1080p 30hz.

 

[Mize]

They are the avs forums etc., but it's simply Fourier analysis...beat frequencies are MORE pronounced the closer the two frequencies...i.e. 24->60 fps is cleaner than 24->30 fps.

 

[Zaphod]

The player is likely outputting 1080i at 60Hz from a source that was recorded at 24 fps. This causes the infamous "judder" effect that our PAL friends don't have. The TV then reinterlaces down to an effective 30 Hz and introduces a second Judder

No. You get exactly the same 3:2 pulldown atrifacts (judder) from a 24Hz source whether the transport is interlaced or progressive when the display rate is 60Hz (which it is for most HD so the PAL comparison isn't valid anymore). What really matters to remove judder is a display that can show a direct multiple of 24Hz (usually 72), and if you have such a TV it is likely to have a smart enough deinterlacer/processor to transform the 3:2 pulldown in a signal anyway (make it 3:3) so it still probably doesn't matter if the transport is 1080i.

 

[Mize]

Sorry, you're going to have to (please) explain this...or maybe I can figure it out.

The poster above said that TVs convert 1080i to 1080p just fine. As I understand it a 1080i source is sending half the frame every 1/60th of a second (US), whereas a 1080p source is sending a full frame every 1/60th of a second.

For 60Hz video the 1080p will clearly be smoother.

Now let's talk 24 fps video.

As I understand it (and I know I'm likely wrong) a 1080p source is doing 3:2 pulldown: in order to approximate 24 Hz at 60 Hz display it's sending full frames like this:

AAABBCCCDDEEEFF

where each change in letter represents a new frame from the 24 Hz source video.

For 1080i it can only send half the data rate as 1080p so I'll add numbers:

A1A2A1B1B2C1C2C1D1D2

Where A1 or B1 denote the first interlaced image and A2/B2 etc. denotes the second.

Now the claim is that the 1080p TV set (if equipped) converts this to 1080p display.

Here's the problem. When frame A1 arrives at the TV A2 is still not there, right? So the TV cannot display information it doesn't have. It can delay (aka buffer), but how would this work?

A1 A2 A1 - B1 B2 - C1 C2 C1 - D1 D2
xx A A A B B C C C

So now it's doing 3:2 pulldown...okay get this part.

Here's the part I don't get. The actual information (frame) is changing 24x/second. The 1080i-equipped system can only update the data 30x/second compared to 60x/second on the 1080p. Judder is simply an optical beat frequency abs(f1-f2) so on a 24->60Hz system judder should happen at a beat frequency of 60-24 = 36 Hz (i.e. pretty smooth to most people before further smoothing (aka correction) by the TV). With a 30Hz data refresh is should be much more visible (6 Hz). Why isn't it? Is there additional smoothing other than the initial buffering?

 

[Zaphod]

With a 30Hz data refresh is should be much more visible (6 Hz).

No, it should be the same as the 60Hz version. The data doesn't actually refresh @ 30 or 60Hz, only at 24Hz and the rest is just redundancy (more for the 1080p@60Hz transport). As long as the display device knows that it's getting data from a 24Hz source with 3:2 pullown (A1-A2-B1-B2-B2-C1-C2-D1-D2-D2), it's fairly trivial[*] for it to discard every fifth field (the redundancy) and still display the first four (two discrete frames) in an A-A-B-B-B-C-C-D-D-D... pattern on a progressive display.


[*]Caveat: Some HD TVs with crappy signal processing might not deinterlace properly (weave) and instead just take the single 540-line fields and digitize the missing information (bob) up to the vertical resolution of the display (whether it be 768, or 1080, probably more likely for the former) or screw it up in some other fashion. That should be the exception rather than the rule, though, and I believe these days it’s pretty much a non issue for recent sets.

 

[Ruined]

The key is that when you say 1080i60 that is referring to 60 fields/second, not 60 frames/second. 1080p60 is 60 frames/second. 1080p has the unnatural "judder" because film is 24fps. And, 1080i60 can be deinterlaced to 1080p60 through a TVs inverse telecine circuit; all the data of a 1080p signal is in a 1080i signal, its just ordered differently.

However, with the advent of new 120hz TVs, 1080i60 can be deinterlaced to 1080p24. If you have a 120hz TV with good inverse telecine, it should be able to recreate the original 24fps judder-free from 1080i because the original 24fps timing is recoverable from the 1080i60 signal. Send that same 120hz TV 1080p60 and you will be stuck with judder. Of course, 1080p24 sent to it would also result in judder-free images.

In summary, it doesn't make much of a difference if you transmit the signal in 1080i or 1080p unless you have a mediocre TV that cannot do inverse telecine - any major brand HDTV sold these days can do it.

 

[Geo]

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...d_Toshiba_HD_DVD_Player_Sales_Top_90,000/1150

Quoting sources close to the retailers, VB estimates that 90,000 units were sold at top outlets, including Wal-Mart, Best Buy and Circuit City. According to the trade paper, that's nearly as many sales as the best-selling stand-alone Blu-ray Disc player (Sony's the $499 BDP-S300) has sold since its launch.

In a separate report, BetaNews estimated that 40,000 to 70,000 of the 90,000 units were sold at Wal-Mart alone.

Of course, in it's utterly crappiest month, PS3 put more B-r players into circulation than that.

Still, nice little bump there.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Of course, in it's utterly crappiest month, PS3 put more B-r players into circulation than that.

The software attach rate is proving to be incredibly low with the PS3 though.

The question is whether these "cheap" players go to "cheap" (for want of a better term) end users and will dilute HD DVD's attach rates or maintain them.

 

[Geo]

I do wonder how these guys are making much money on this stuff, even per unit (i.e. ignore the low volume compared to DVD).

We have about 15 B-r titles and another 5 on order (the Harry Potter set for Dec 13th). Sounds pretty good for B-r studios, right? Well, 5 of those were free, and another 6 were "buy one get one", in other words 1/2 price. So more than 1/2 of what we own (or will shortly in the case of the HP) were either free or deeply discounted.

 

[Mize]

I don't think either format is in the money making zone yet - this is the slog-it-out-for-market-share-and-try-not-to-lose-too-much phase

Dave's got a great point though. What are the chances that a person who buys the cheapest player is going to buy very many $30 titles? I have a 50" 1080p plasma and have only bought 7 blu-ray movies (including the amazing Planet Earth for $80!) in the past six months. I guess it should push up rentals, but hasn't Blockbuster already dumped HDDVD?

 

[AlphaWolf]

We have about 15 B-r titles and another 5 on order (the Harry Potter set for Dec 13th). Sounds pretty good for B-r studios, right? Well, 5 of those were free, and another 6 were "buy one get one", in other words 1/2 price. So more than 1/2 of what we own (or will shortly in the case of the HP) were either free or deeply discounted.

A quick guesstimate suggests that Sony has given away more BR titles than they have sold.

I guess it should push up rentals, but hasn't Blockbuster already dumped HDDVD?

Not exactly.

 

[Geo]

They didn't dump it anywhere they had it. They just didn't expand distribution outside of their highest volume (250?) stores. . . which they did do with B-r.

 

[Mize]

ok. Read that in an old us news and world report at the doc's office yesterday...love reading old news.

 

[Ty]

The question is whether these "cheap" players go to "cheap" (for want of a better term) end users and will dilute HD DVD's attach rates or maintain them.

That's my strategy at this point. I picked up one of the $98 HD-DVD players but will absolutely not commit to buying discs until the war has shaken out a bit more. Until then, I only plan to rent.

Which segues nicely to my next statement.....

I guess it should push up rentals, but hasn't Blockbuster already dumped HDDVD?

You can still rent HD-DVDs online from Blockbuster.