What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
The camera starts rolling on Best Buy holiday campaign. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - A behind the scenes look at one employee's singing debut.
57 Comments
- sound, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3DTV HDTV ... TV broadcasters in the US are required to implement DTV, there is no requirement to do HDTV.
DTV == Digital TeleVision == a digital signal. The signal may contain one HDTV quality image or multiple lower resolution images.
1080i == 1080 lines interlace scanned as a previous poster said
1080p == 1080 lines progressive scanned as a previous poster said
720p == 720 lines progressive scanned
NTSC == 525 lines interlace scanned (US TV standard since 1954, the number of lines varies with vertical refresh rate and that varies with local power frequency, the US is 60Hz., in 50Hz. countries the number of lines is different but is still interlaced)
progressive scanned == each line of information is sent in sequence
interlace scanned == for each vertical refresh, 1/2 the lines are sent, either the odd (for field 1) or even (for field 2), the two 'fields' together make up a 'frame' or a complete image (this is all assuming they haven't changed the terminology since I left TV broadcasting in 1993) - darthsnoopy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4um, 1080p and 1080i are incredibly different. It'd be more fair to compare 1080i to 540p.
The "p" is for a progressive signal...at 30fps each frame contains all necessary data. the "i" on 1080i is for interlaced. You get twice the framerate, but half the data per frame. So sure there's 1080 lines where every other line is signifigant. these lines alternate between frames, and the going back and forth at twice the framerate gives you the complete image.
This is why high speed motion on an interlaced signal, as well as details such as text, look horrid. Try using yoru HDTV as a monitor, and set it to 1080i. There's a reason computers use progressive signals, and that CRT technology was so far ahead of tube tv's for so many years.
On that note, 720p looks smoother than 1080i, as it contains more data.
That all being said, there is a huge lack of 1080p signals out there today (as there is a lack of 7.1 audio content). As with everything, those buying it to have it and think they're future proof are paying the 'tax' of trying to be on top of things. And asfore mentioned, the sets of today really aren't displaying 1080p signals properly anyway. - Bitgod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, I have to admit, I just got my 720p HDTV last week, and was kinda bummed at how crappy things I was fine with on my old 4:3 tv looked. But I know it's the source, not the tv, because static things look great. As much as I like Tivo, I'm interested now in how well the new Directv mpeg4 stuff looks. (new DVR won't be running Tivo software)
- stokestack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is all you need to know:
"many 1080p televisions don't accept 1080p sources at all. In our experience, only the aforementioned HP can handle 1080p via its HDMI inputs"
Oh yeah, that and the fact that everything broadcast as "HD" today looks like ass because it's compressed out the ass. The broadcast standard only allows a max of 19 megabits per second, and as it turns out, most broadcasters are only using about half that. That's so-called HD at hardly more than DVD's max bit rate, with the same codec.
Rome looks pretty good on HBO HD because very little is moving on the screen most of the time. Then a horse walks in front of the camera and the whole picture disintegrates into a pixelated mass.
"digital quality" = diarrhea - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"This seems to be on everyone's minds as we head into the holiday buying season"
um, no, not really. Personally, I'm good. - Amadeus2490, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2
Well, I feel that buying a 4,500 dollar 1080p television at this point in time would just be a waste, as like the article mentioned, almost nothing is in 1080p at this time. By the time things start to be in 1080p, the price of those TV sets will be alot cheaper than what they are now.
And 1080p is considered ultra HD? I thought *true* "ultra" HD would be much higher? - sekyuritei, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1We used 45" Sharp LCD TVs as monitors at my last job. They support 1080p - I highly recommend them. If you go progressive, you won't have anything to regret.
- vertigoblue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11080p isn't a bad choice because its the same amount of lines as 1080i but its just processed differently
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1for at least another year it's going to be 720p looks the best. HDMI doesn't even support 1080p yet, even if the max resolution of the TV you are looking at might support it, you can't get a 1080p source to it.
TV broadcasters only send a HD data stream max of 4.5-7 megabits per second, and even then the data is compressed. SO picture quality has a long way to go before 1080p is achieved where it needs at least 15 megabits per second to render in progressive mode. The only reson why this data issue is a problem is because they want to try to extend the time and keep costs as low as possible for as long as possible by keeping data streams low when they deffinatly have the bandwidth for it available already. Typical American Capitalizm (tm) at work.
BTW, there is no such thing as "Ultra" HDTV. That was an improperly used and already coined phrase for UHDTV standards when tv's begin to advertise in the mega pixels rather than in the kilo pixels. For instance, we will soon see tv's advertise 3mp for 3 megapixel progressive or 5mp, etc. But at the rate we are going it will take well over 5 more years (possibly 10) to even get past the 1080p issue as being top of the line.
Zethris
Http://www.thinkingpost.net - Tobey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I feel sorry for you Zethris, if your local stations are sending out 4.5-7Mbps! Most of my stations run around 15-16Mbps.
But even if you could get the full 19Mbps of bandwidth (which will never happen with all the multicasting) it still wouldn't look any better than what we have now. We'd need way more bandwidth to take advatage of it.
Right now, the only thing 1080P would be good for is HD-DVD and Blu-Ray movies. And I know I'm not going to spend four grand on a TV just so I can watch movies in 1080P. - antifuse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh yeah, that and the fact that everything broadcast as "HD" today looks like ass because it's compressed out the ass
Hrmm... I've found that just about everything I've ever watched in HD on my buddy's 53" Samsung (with Rogers Cable HD) has kicked the CRAP out of regular TV. Football (and hockey... drool) is PHENOMENAL on the HD channels. - Arkz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"This seems to be on everyone's minds as we head into the holiday buying season and we're faced with more HDTV buying choices than ever before. Just buy a "standard" 720p/1080i set or step up and pay the extra bucks for a higher-resolution 1080p set?"
...1080i and 1080p are the exact same resolution, so you would be paying "the extra few bucks" to be able to view 1080 content in 60fps aswell as 30, i dont think much is in 1080p though... - TheGeneral, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It definitely all depends on the source. I agree with everyone that there is not enough HD programming right now, but for NFL and the Xbox 360...HD is a must. The difference between 1080i/720p and 1080p is so miniscule, you won't be able to notice.
Too bad Cox doesn't carry Fox HD in Oklahoma City. I've emailed them numerous times and they keep telling me that Sinclair Broadcasting wants Cox to pay more for them to carry this channel, so they won't do it. I wish they would bite the bullet and stop impeding technological advances! - AkiraXXX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I had to agonize over this situation when my regular ol' tube TV died this summer. After looking and looking and looking, I just couldn't see the point of jumping on the HD bandwagon quite yet. I have satellite TV and they wanted to charge me more money just for the "privilege" of accessing an HD signal (which I'm already paying for via my basic fees, plus the SOBs are putting commericals on the stations to boot!). I'd have to pay for a receiver too. Don't even ask about recording HD on a PVR. Then I looked at the crap they were offering: UGH! So I have to pay MORE for an HD set, MORE for HD programming, MORE for an HD receiver, get LESS since I really can't use HD on a PVR and get LESS programming. Top it off with the fact that with true HD screens, 95% of the content is still not HD and that mean that the 42" widescreen you just bought becomes more like a 25" 4:3 TV (unless you distort the picture so it looks unnatural) and I just said "Forget it!" My compromise? A 4:3 aspect 720p HD TV that was on sale. The signal is the same, but the image quality is much, much better. It was a great compromise for the short term until this HD fiasco settles down.
- Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Perhaps people are starting to realize Nintendo's logic regarding HDTV...
- Tekmazter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I feel bad for a lot of you guy's. I picked up an HD tube set tv and the HD signal is WaaaaaaaaaaY better than what's up on standard tv. Maybe all of your providers just suk @ss, but seriously ... HD is sooooo much better than 'standard' tv and with prices so low now on even LCD's (30" sizes anyway) why not take the plunge?
Anyway, there's like next to nothing in 1080p and NBC (USA) can't even seem to get a decent lineup of HD shows let alone look at them broadcasting in HD. Fox is the only station right now that really seems to be pushing more and more HD for their regular lineups. So.. what good is HD if maybe 1/10th of the shows are actually in HD? --oh yea, there's tha XBox/XBox360 and hooking up a PC option - hibern8, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Uh, no you shouldn't ... personally I haven't even thought about it. Regular TV still looks great because HDTV broadcasts are still pretty much dog poop. Who watches TV anyways?
- Websteria, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My Epson Powerlite 200+ 720p Projector w 77" 16:9 screen seems to display HD signals juuuust fine. :-)
- scbysnx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sharp has a 45 inch 3000 dollar 1080P lcd! I'd say thats worth buying
- Merlinhoot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I got one cause i noticed some regular tv programs appeared like I was missing part of the picture on the sides.
Now that I have it it is very nice but everytime you change the channel you have to stretch some channels to fit the screen.
It will become second nature eventually.
We went to Abtelectronics in Glenview, IL. and got a Toshiba 42HP95
http://www.abtelectronics.com/scripts/site/site_product.php3?id=20605
It was on special price for the day and because my friend had a birthday that day he got more time of 0% financing. - shaggypaul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+02880p?!? Surely you jest. How far ahead in time do I need to travel to pick one of those up?
- danormsby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0So HD isn't High Definition any more but standard definition?
Maybe we should switch to an analogue single that isn't pixelated. Has to be the highest definition we can get right? - jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0They can have my analog TV when they can pry it out of me cold, dead, trailer!
- shiftless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I can't wait for my HD Tivo. Otherwise I just don't have time to watch HD broadcasts.
- zdiggler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Even thought the set said 1080i doesn't mean it got 1920x1080 counted pixels there. It just means that it can take 1080i input maximum. If you look at the detailed specs on the monitor you will see NATIVE RES of the set.
- longofest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Did anyone else notice the date on the article? Its from October! Getting a bit old, but I'll digg it anyways...
- mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How much of the "I can see the difference.." is psychosomatic?
Bottom line: 1080p won't make network TV any more intelligently written or worth watching. Do you really want to watch that hulking psycho-behemoth from "Meet Your New Mommy" in HD? Sorry, folks, it's a content problem, not a resolution problem.
As for DVD: Who cares about HD-DVD? Sony's only recent act of business-savvy was putting Blu-Ray, which it developed, in a PS3. Almost every studio has signed on for Blu-Ray. Now, Sony is boycott-proof. It's not as simple as not buying a Sony TV or PS3.
Don't want to give money to Sony? Don't buy DVD's, CD's, or Blu-Ray DVD's. Sony gets royalties from all three. You're all SOL. Sony gets your money no matter what.
Fair disclosure: The 34" Sony XBR (CRT) looks fantastic. Screw LCD and plasma. No burn-in issues, HDMI input, super-deep blacks and true whites, with a 10 year lifespan at least. It's in the corner of the room, so it's not like it's taking up usable space. Only $1200 ($1300 with delivery). And yes, I bought it before the rootkit fiasco. - desertcoyote, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I feel bad for those that say their HD looks like ass. I'm in San Diego and I can tell you that NFL, especially ESPN SUnday night game look beautiful. As for regualr network lineups, FOX and CBS seem to have HD covered just fine.
- cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I own a Sharp LC-45GX6U, and it *does* resolve every single pixel on a 1080i signal, dispite what c|net says. There's several very, very long threads about these great LCD TV's on AVForum.com. When I connect my PC to the unit, I need to turn overscan settings on the video card OFF. All of the Sharp LCD TV's are real LCD screens capable of full resolution.
Also to prove this, you can use a Gefen switchbox between the LCD panel and the external A/V concentrator for this TV, and output a full 1920x1080 in 60 frames a second, progressive, from a PC. Not only does it look FANTASTIC, it's a full 1920x1080 with NO OVERSCAN and full 1:1 pixel mapping. I've been using my LC-45GX for my PC's monitor for a couple months now and it's a lot of fun.
I guess c|Net can't figure out how to use an HDTV - how to turn off the "Stretch" modes with the single-button "View Mode" control on the remote.
My experiences with HDTV thus far have brought me to this conclusion: 1080i always looks better then 720p, 1080p is great but only if you're connecting a computer to the screen (and in which case, you need 60FPS 1080p which almost no TV's do, not the 24FPS version), and for besides a tube-based TV you'll probably never see a difference between i and p. - Stelmate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I just don't really see the point right now, I can see a "small" difference between 720p and 1080i, but mostly that depends on the TV screen itself. I'm sticking with the lower resolution Panasonic plasma for now. I just don't trust the companies that are putting out 1080p TVs (besides Sony, but their prices are just stupid). Its kinda like would you rather have a Mercedes with a V6 or a Ford Escort with a V8 (I know ford doesn't make a escort with a V8 but its a hypothetical question) The higher resolution will only make a difference in grade "A" panels, not third rate panels.
- generalleoff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My 25 inch "TV" runs at 2880p @ 60FPS but I use it at 1440P @ 85FPS so I'm good. I find PCs to have replaced TV years ago and they even still have far superior screens for a better price. I'm just waiting for a decent HDTV capture card that supports 1080P and some content worth watching that is not encoded like ass. The problem with that is I stopped watching TV cuz it was crap and HD crap is still crap.
- UnlivedPhalanx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think I am fine with my 1080i 16:9 HDTV for a while.
- interiot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0To clarify: you absolutely want 1080P-NATIVE. However, 1080i-INPUT is just fine, spending the extra dough on a 1080P-INPUT is probably a waste.
1080p-native means your LCD panel is 1920x1080. This means you can display all the pixels in a proper 1080i signal. This means HD-Net and HD-Net-movies look GORGEOUS.
At this point, 1080p-native sets are getting closer in price to 720p-native sets... I got a 37" one for $2000. The extra bonus is that you can display computer content it 1080p wonderfully. Even at 37", 1920 pixels wide looks AWESOME. - broo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0lol- Sony's blueray; I will wait to see if this is another MiniDisc, DAT or Betamax format (or Memorystick, UMD, AIT, etc.)...
Blueray is just another name for 'copy protection by Sony'- with a built-in hardware 'rootkit' on every blueray player and PS3 so they can control what you play/watch...
1080p is nice, but it will be a few years before this is feasable for anyone to broadcast- and 720x480 DivX movies do NOT look better at 1080p! - hornig, on 12/05/2007, -0/+0"By David Carnoy
Executive editor, CNET Reviews
(October 24, 2005)"
THAT is an freaking old article! I would not use this for my current buying decision!
Is this digging in the old stuff?
greets, Andreas - rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yes it is important but until the prices come down from the sucker prices you won't see me in line to get one. The other thing is that broadcasters will only broadcast the 1080i FCC standard. I don't expect the FCC to increase the standard anytime soon. They seem to have a problem implementing HDTV anyway. The 1080p and the 2160p set may up process the 1080i signal but don't expect much improvement despite what a salesman may tell you.
- hackeron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0yes, 1080p is marketting ***** - I have a 21" crt monitor from 2001 that cost me $500 back in the day capable of displaying 1080p.
- Adamesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You guys can go back and forth on HD with your mini-screens. For under $1,000 the 480p Infocus 4805 projector with the screen looks great to me (and that's all standard DVD can do) particularly when it's projecting onto a 106" screen! :-)
Is HD on a 45" screen more exciting than 480p Gamecube or Harry Potter DVDs on a screen over 100"s? Not to me! Particlarly not considering the price! - wilf_brim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Right now I don't see the point in getting a 1080i vs 720p set. Most people (myself included) do not get any significant amount of content in any of the current HD formats. Getting certain brodcasters (like the aformentioned Sinclair) to but ANYTHING out in HD is damn near impossible.
And right now we are many months to years away from getting 1080p recorded content, and I don't even know how much better it will look than 720p or 1080i. Right now (when I can get a good program) the difference between 1080i and SD 480p is huge. There is less of a difference between a 1080i and a 720p signal. I expect that we are starting to see some diminishing returns effect here. Given the bandwidth cost for the increase from 1080i to 1080p and the questionable increase in quality, I don't see the point in moving to that standard, unless you feel like wasting the money so you can say you have the best thing. - peterlisanti, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I got a Westinghouse 37" LCD 1080p.
Got it for $1600. Best deal out there.
And it can actually accept and display 1080p through DVI. - Izzard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think these comments demonstrate that some people like widescreen, some like 4:3; some like LCDs and plasma TVs, some prefer CRTs; some like to spend buckets on a TV to watch stuff that is fed to them and some prefer to spend less on a nice monitor and go and get what they want off the 'Net.
- mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That's why the stand is solid-hardwood. No fiberglass for me, thank you.
And it's 200 lbs. Plus the 50 lb receiver underneath it.
Who needs 1080p?! I mean, my living room isn't that big, but I watch from 8 feet away. No difference. No digg - forever200, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0ok on another point I've read everyone raving about sharp lcd tvs... first off they blow... the contrast on those tvs are so bad I can't even begin to tell you... if your looking for the best lcd tv out there and I say fact here samsungs lcd are by far the best....high contrast great for pc displays oh and gameing on them is great not to mention the way they handle 480i single.. prefection... I work with tvs all day.. yes kill me.. but I can say samsung is by far the best brand out there for lcd... and dlp but that is another story....oh and plasma is better then lcd.. pansonic plasmas all the way for price and quailty..
- DarkGeneral, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Good article... But 1080p televisions are becoming more useful since the PS3, XBOX 360, HD DVD and Blu-Ray all handle 1080p and the more these products sell the more of a demand 1080p TV's will spike upwards.
- mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Screw looks. Bad writing and good picture do not equal something worth watching.
- Hale, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0wouldn't any LCD with a 1920x1080 resolution be capable of 1080p..?
- Adamesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Very amusing Gamecube naysayers! The point was the projector & screen size, not the gamecube :-)
Of course, I can run any system to that screen and pixel-map some DVD players to it. The 720p LCD projectors in the current generation and similar price range were inferior to many of the 480p projectors. You guys should just check it out before splurging 2wice the funds on a 1080i or 1080p "tiny" 50" display :-) The resolution is only part of the equation when your option is playing on a movie screen.
But back to the 'cube for a sec - I think some of y'all got caught up in the market-hype. There are some great games for it. For $100, you can't go wrong..that's from someone who's not into Zelda (except the original NES vesion), Pokemon, or Animal Crossing. I bought it almost exclusively because of Factor 5. The Rogue Leader games are incredible (Starfighter was the Star Wars game for Xbox at the time - it was a huge dissapointment next to RL). Bounty Hunter is incredible - XBoxers really missed out on that one. Metal Arms is good. Many of the same titles you all have are on GC. When I bought GC, Nintendo had not yet lost Rare and Perfect Dark! My big GC disappointment is surely not games, it's Dolby Pro Logic 2! I wanted digital! At least Revolution will be backward compatible and will likely have Dolby Digital.
Anyway - all 4 systems have their benefits - yes, all 4 - that includes Dreamcast - which really shines at 106" because of the "real" vga interfaces - I think that's due to the Windows CE compatibility. - mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Also, adamesq: A word of advice.
Invoking the greatness of the Gamecube in public is a great way to get made fun of. I have a purple lunchbox at home. Animal Crossing: Fun. ZeldaWW: Brilliant. Eternal Darkness: Great. Everything else on Lamecube- meh.
I try not to get into PS2 vs Xbox fights generally, but I do have to call on the Gamecube on 106" is better than HD at 45" line. I'll take Warriors in 720p or COD2 at 1080i on my 34" over a Lamecube any day. - Misterbarbaredo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Playstation 3 is 1080p as well. So along with the Blu-Ray and HD-dvd this is the highest resolution you can get. Sorry X-Box 360 is not 1080 (as far as i know) its 720p. And boo for the Wii which is 480(but still lots of fun)
- *Ica*, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Oh yeah, that and the fact that everything broadcast as "HD" today looks like ass because it's compressed out the ass."
And this is where the US will suffer for choosing MPEG2. I cant understand that decision either, surely MPEG4 was ready for broadcast use at that time, so why choose MPEG2?
Here in the UK HDTV launches in a few months in h.264, of course theres nothing to stop them compressing that to hell to cram in a load of channels but I guess there's only so much content in HD at the moment so that isnt an option. -
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is