No more CRT from this year (UK)

[kyleb]

Nope, you should look it up yourself if you want details. You can start with the last two Star Wars films and most of the trailers at the apple HD site. Most digital movie transfers are being done in 1080p, and that's what will be on HDDVD and BluRay (they will be able to offer the bandwith better than cable/satellite/digital).

I did search around a bit and came up with nothing, though after some further diging I see that the more recent Star Wars are two of a few films that were shot digitally in 1080p. And yeah, transfers are done 1080p but from analog flim with a much higher effective resolution making even the 1080p transfer essentially downsampled. Reguardless, even when displayed on a native 720p that still comes well more than twice the resolution of even PAL SDTV and most certianly fits into the definition of HD.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

What's going to be better? Downsampling from film to 1080p for display at 1080p, or downsampling from film to 1080p and then downsampling again (but in realtime) to 720p or whatever native scale a TV is using for display (and there's a lot of different resolutions out there)?

I know if I'm going to spend thousands on a quality HD TV, I'm going to want it to handle all HDTV formats, not just downscale to whatever the manufacturers can make the most money selling this quarter. i'm not going to say "well it's better than PAL, so that will do, even it it's a lot less than what I could be getting out of my next-gen DVD collection".

 

[kyleb]

What's going to be better? Downsampling from film to 1080p for display at 1080p, or downsampling from film to 1080p and then downsampling again (but in realtime) to 720p or whatever native scale a TV is using for display (and there's a lot of different resolutions out there)?

Like I said, neither will be any better than the other in some cases, and in many situations the difference isn't much. Its the same as if you compare a 1200dpi print to a 600dpi one; right in front of your face the difference is obvious, but the further you keep stepping back the quicker that difference fades.

I know if I'm going to spend thousands on a quality HD TV, I'm going to want it to handle all HDTV formats, not just downscale to whatever the manufacturers can make the most money selling this quarter. i'm not going to say "well it's better than PAL, so that will do, even it it's a lot less than what I could be getting out of my next-gen DVD collection".

Then for heaven's sake don't just settle for a native 1080p display, "quad-HD" displays have already been demo'ed and quality upscalers are bound follow right behind put those piddlely little native 1080p displays to shame. Oh and don't go for first gen Blu-Ray junk either as they are bound to move to more layers and hence higher bitrates down the line. Seriously, there are countless excuses to wait for the next great thing and you will always be able to find those if that is what you are looking for, but there are a lot of quality HDTVs out there as well.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Like I said, neither will be any better than the other in some cases, and in many situations the difference isn't much. Its the same as if you compare a 1200dpi print to a 600dpi one; right in front of your face the difference is obvious, but the further you keep stepping back the quicker that difference fades.

"Some cases", "isn't much", "difference fades" - you're just guessing here arn't you?

Then for heaven's sake don't just settle for a native 1080p display, "quad-HD" displays have already been demo'ed and quality upscalers are bound follow right behind put those piddlely little native 1080p displays to shame. Oh and don't go for first gen Blu-Ray junk either as they are bound to move to more layers and hence higher bitrates down the line. Seriously, there are countless excuses to wait for the next great thing and you will always be able to find those if that is what you are looking for, but there are a lot of quality HDTVs out there as well.

Now you're just being silly. I'm talking about getting what been specced, getting all the resolution that's been filmed without upscaling or downscaling. You seem to think this is unecessary, even though it's what the industry is basing their filming, digital transfer, and next gen DVD formats on, and what they are beginning to ship out to customers in their newer TVs.

 

[kyleb]

"Some cases", "isn't much", "difference fades" - you're just guessing here arn't you?

No I'm talking about a wide range of display sizes and viewing distance as I've stated clearly in many of my previous post, is that just too much for you to grasp?

Now you're just being silly. I'm talking about getting what been specced, getting all the resolution that's been filmed without upscaling or downscaling. You seem to think this is unecessary, even though it's what the industry is basing their filming, digital transfer, and next gen DVD formats on, and what they are beginning to ship out to customers in their newer TVs.

Acutally I'm being sarcastic to illustate your own sillyness, but again, the vast majorty of stuff is filmed with analog film and efectively downsampled to digital even when transfering to 1080p. And technically, nothing is "filmed" at 1080p, a few things have been "shot" or "captured" or whatever at 1080p, but with no film involved it isn't "filmed." Yeah, lots ot transfers will be done at 1080p; however, unless you have a big enough display and/or are close enough to it, haveing a native 1080p display isn't going to have any effect on image quality compared to a 720p one reguardless of what resolution it was shot at or the digital transfer was done at.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

No I'm talking about a wide range of display sizes and viewing distance as I've stated clearly in many of my previous post, is that just too much for you to grasp?

Acutally I'm being sarcastic to illustate your own sillyness, but again, the vast majorty of stuff is filmed with analog film and efectively downsampled to digital even when transfering to 1080p. And technically, nothing is "filmed" at 1080p, a few things have been "shot" or "captured" or whatever at 1080p, but with no film involved it isn't "filmed." Yeah, lots ot transfers will be done at 1080p; however, unless you have a big enough display and/or are close enough to it, haveing a native 1080p display isn't going to have any effect on image quality compared to a 720p one reguardless of what resolution it was shot at or the digital transfer was done at.

If 1080p is so unnecessary, why is it the industry's chosen top quality standard, and why is it being used for all film transfers and the likes of Star Wars? Are you saying you know more than all the people in the industry making movies, digitally transferring content, making 1080p displays and defining next-gen DVD standards? Why hasn't the whole industry made their life easier by sticking to 720p?

You're the one telling us how much better than CRT the new HD flatscreens are, but you're saying that no one needs the top quality resolution if they sit too far from the screen, or if their eyes arn't perfect, or how it's all unnessary and you won't be able to tell the difference?

Let me guess - you've recently bought yourself a very expensive flat-screen that can only do 720p?

 

[bobthebub]

haveing a native 1080p display isn't going to have any effect on image quality compared to a 720p one reguardless of what resolution it was shot at or the digital transfer was done at.

720p is under a megapixel per frame, 1080p is over 2 megapixels per frame.

I think that will make a difference to image quality, If I am close to a monitor I will see that difference, If I install a 10ft screen from a projector I will notice that difference

Resizing images makes a quality difference, I am sure you will have tried using using a tft that is native 1024x768 showing a 1280x1024 image or vice versa.

NTSC was commerciallised in 1954, PAL & NTSC around 1967 thats 40-50 years for those standards because it's hellish difficult to replace video production end to end with a new set of standards.

I personally think 1080p is a worthwhile target for the industry that will last a while, 1080p capabale 24" TFT's are not that exepnsive today and within a year or 2 30", 40", 50" panels and projectors will follow perhaps accellerated by new technologies like SED.

I can wait another couple of years for these things to become affordable if the alternative is to accept a halfway standard that would have to be superceded very soon or lead to a 2 tier industry.

What really is your point 720p is as good or better than 1080p?

 

[nutball]

OK, a quick search of the intarweb throws up numbers of order 0.3 arcminutes as being the limiting resolution of the human eye (under good lighting conditions, for an individual with perfect vision I suppose).

0.3 arcmin ~ 8.7x10^-5 radians

Assuming a viewing distance of 2.5m (which is the distance from my sofa to my telly) this is ~0.22mm

The vertical extent of a 16:9 32" screen is about 0.4m

This gives a vertical pixel count of ~1800 pixels as matching the resolution of the eye.

Though given all the uncertainties in the definitions plus the fact I can't really be arsed to do a thorough search this number could be out by a factor two!

 

[bobthebub]

OK, a quick search of the intarweb throws up numbers of order 0.3 arcminutes as being the limiting resolution of the human eye (under good lighting conditions, for an individual with perfect vision I suppose).

0.3 arcmin ~ 8.7x10^-5 radians

Assuming a viewing distance of 2.5m (which is the distance from my sofa to my telly) this is ~0.22mm

The vertical extent of a 16:9 32" screen is about 0.4m

This gives a vertical pixel count of ~1800 pixels as matching the resolution of the eye.

Though given all the uncertainties in the definitions plus the fact I can't really be arsed to do a thorough search this number could be out by a factor two!

ka-ching!

Well done, add to that recent research showing that within the EU anyway average TV screen sizes for new purchases have moved from 28" with CRT's to 42" with Flat panels.

 

[nutball]

add to that recent research showing that within the EU anyway average TV screen sizes for new purchases have moved from 28" with CRT's to 42" with Flat panels.

Well that may be a slightly biased statistic ... it's next to impossible to get a plasma that isn't 37" or 42" (at least, that's what a typical search on a UK home electronics site shows). It's maybe in the same mould as Henry Ford claiming that "there's only demand for Model T's in black".

 

[bobthebub]

I think biased may be the wrong word, if you can only get 37" or 42" Plasma then they will be the ones selling therefore average sizes will increase.

HD screens will be predominantly Plasma/LCD at the moment so if we are going to discuss the optically resolvable detail with HD displays then the calculaltion should be applied to those sizes, and bigger screens being bought won't increase the size of the average TV viewing room so the viewing distance stays similar (Ok, might increase a bit if people stick them on the wall) .

 

[kyleb]

If 1080p is so unnecessary...

I never said it was unnecessary by any means, I explained how as display size decreases and/or viewing distance increases the higher resolution becomes irrelevant. On the other end, in a big movie theater with a 120' screen and sitting in a close seat, 1080p is downright low resolution compared to what can be accomplished by a well calibrated 35mm projector. But again, as you move back in the rows of seats that differece fades quicker and quicker. So there is nothing "unnecessary" about any resolution, but rather it depends on the specifics of the situation and in many cases the displays with native resolutions of 720p, 1366x768, or whatever are more than if not right as good as it gets as far as perceivable resolution goes.

Let me guess - you've recently bought yourself a very expensive flat-screen that can only do 720p?

Nah, I bought my TV back in 2004 for a fairly moderate price and it is well under 720p native. But at 42" sitting 8' back like all the seating in my livingroom is, the difference between my 852x480 display and one of higher resolution is fairly minor.

720p is under a megapixel per frame, 1080p is over 2 megapixels per frame.

and 720x480 is just over 1/3 of a megapixel, hence the reason a even at the botom of the range of resolution an HD TV looks a hell of a lot better than an SDTV in many cases.

OK, a quick search of the intarweb throws up numbers of order 0.3 arcminutes as being the limiting resolution of the human eye (under good lighting conditions, for an individual with perfect vision I suppose).

0.3 arcmin ~ 8.7x10^-5 radians

Assuming a viewing distance of 2.5m (which is the distance from my sofa to my telly) this is ~0.22mm

The vertical extent of a 16:9 32" screen is about 0.4m

This gives a vertical pixel count of ~1800 pixels as matching the resolution of the eye.

Though given all the uncertainties in the definitions plus the fact I can't really be arsed to do a thorough search this number could be out by a factor two!

I'm pretty sure they are off from personal experance. This calculator hits the mark about right from what I have seen, and it spits out 4.2' for a 32." to get ~2.5m (8') you'd need to put 61" diaginal into the for the diagonal screen size.
And again, it isn't a linear progression up to that point, but the further you back away from that distnace quicker the difference between the higher/lower resolution fades.

 

[bobthebub]

url=http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html]This calculator[/url] hits the mark about right from what I have seen, and it spits out 4.2' for a 32." to get ~2.5m (8') you'd need to put 61" diaginal into the for the diagonal screen size.
And again, it isn't a linear progression up to that point, but the further you back away from that distnace quicker the difference between the higher/lower resolution fades.

Good link, it proves to me that you have this argument the wrong way round, you should concentrate on getting a bigger TV so you can see the benefits of full HD.

That calculator says I need a 140' telly, anyone know any cheap 1080p projectors?

edit: none of which has much to do with whether 1080p or 720p is a better standard, the compelling points in favour of 1080p have been made above, your point is probably correct 1080/720 might not be discernable on a 32" telly at 8' but scaling issues and the fact that there are a wide range of target applications beside sitting on a sette 8' foot away with a 32" telly mean that 1080p is a desirable goal

Edit2: and that site defines HD as 1920x1080 which is interesting by itself but also suggests that 32" & 8' sits around the limit for 720p, i.e you may be able to see additional detail from 1080p, not only that but at that distance according to your link you should have a 60" telly to have a suitable viewing angle

 

[nutball]

I'm pretty sure they are off from personal experance. This calculator hits the mark about right from what I have seen, and it spits out 4.2' for a 32." to get ~2.5m (8') you'd need to put 61" diaginal into the for the diagonal screen size.

Right well that calculator assumes that the resolving power of the eye is ~1 arcminute, so you'd expect all the numbers to be different from mine by about a factor 3.

And again, it isn't a linear progression up to that point, but the further you back away from that distnace quicker the difference between the higher/lower resolution fades.

It is all linear with viewing distance.

L ~ R x theta (for small theta)

where L is the linear size subtended by angle theta (in radians) at viewing distance R.

 

[kyleb]

Yeah, the eqation shows the ablity to fully resolve a given resolution relates linearly to distance; i'm not auging that. I'm saying that if you take say two 60" displays, one native 1080p and one naitve 720p, at 4" the difference is blatently obvious, moving back from 4" to 6" that difference less obvious by a specific amount, and moving from 6" to 8" that difference is reduced at an even greater factor. I don't know the math behind how that works, but it quite obvious in pratice if you walk into a showroom where you can test it for yourself. Or like I said, take a 600dpi printand a 1200dpi print and tape them to a wall and keep steping back, that will ilustrate the same effect.

Good link, it proves to me that you have this argument the wrong way round, you should concentrate on getting a bigger TV so you can see the benefits of full HD.

Nah, it just proves that I don't obesess over a single factor like the getting the full THX recomended "theater experience", but rather weight that in with the many other aspects of what makes the most suitable display for the given situation when makeing such a choice.

 

[London Geezer]

Wow... seems like i sparked a big fire... or something...

Well, i don't think i need to justify my purchases to anyone, as i said, i needed to get a TV now, and went for the best option for the price.

If i had to wait for "the new thing" to come out, in this case bloody 1080p or SED or whatever, i'd be TV-less for a long time, and for what? For something i wouldn't use for even longer. Even the 720p panel i got won't be used "properly" for a long time, but i had to get one.

I think i've made the right decision, i got a cheap but fabulous 720p panel, and when things settle, i will get a 1080p one, if i feel the need. Knowing me, i'll convince myself that i will NEED a 1080p panel anyway. That's why i opted for a cheaper option now. I had to get something afterall.

No one is denying that 1080p is better than 720p, at double the pixel count it better bloody be better! Still, getting worried about that now is just silly for ME. Maybe not for you, but it's my money and my flat and my decision.

I think your "arguments" would be more valid if i bought a Sony Bravia, which cost around double the one i got, for technology which, as you said, is still not "finalised". As it stands, i got the cheaper one, still fantastic image quality.

As for LCD's "shortcomings", yes the blacks could be blacker, no one is denying that, but the set gives blacks that are better than most CRT i've set my eyes on, and the image quality in terms of colour reproduction and sharpness is light years ahead. Sure, SED will give better everything, but i needed a TV now, and a 42" plasma would have been too big and too expensive.
I could have bought a nice CRT TV, but well... NO. Sorry but NO. Call me a fashion victim, don't know, but i'm not buying a CRT TV even if my life depended on it. Speaking of fashion victim, could i not say the same about you? With all due respect, you definately seem more of a "trend" victim than i do, if you're prepared to wait years and years for The Best of The Best, according to what comes up next on internet technology websites. I limit myself to The Best For Me.

Next thing you know, people will be telling me not to buy HDDVD/Bluray because "they're interim formats" and i better wait for HDV or whatever they're called...

 

[Nappe1]

last time I checked, EICTA had only approved 720p(50 and 60) and 1080i(50 and 60) as standard HDTV modes in europe.

that does not mean that 1080p would not be supported later on, but at least first HDTV sets don't need to support it.