1080 HD TVs

"Roderick Stewart" <escapetime.TakeThisOut@removethisbit.beeb.net> wrote...
> In article <fftj0i$fkd$1@aioe.org>, PeeGee wrote:
>> Even under these conditions, when BBC freeview works the picture is
>> far, far clearer and more watchable than the analogue.
>
> As long as you don't mind different parts of the image moving
> independently of each other, rapid cutting sequences degenerating into
> little squares, large areas with smooth gradients such as a clear
> evening sky being covered with contour lines, and dark shadows
> looking like dancing jigsaw puzzles.
> Digital broadcasting gives us a different set of faults to try to
> ignore, but it is certainly not free of them.

Are we entitled to expect that HD broadcasts will be free of these
artefacts?

Matti
 >> Stay informed about: 1080 HD TVs 

tony sayer wrote:
> In article <fftj0i$fkd$1@aioe.org>, PeeGee <triessuk.DeleteThis@yahoo.co.uk>
> scribeth thus
>> tony sayer wrote:
>>> In article <+KYgR4rdXdWh9OsnXKnnnqdhN=vK@4ax.com>, Kay Robinson
>>> <Kay_Robinson.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> scribeth thus
>>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:37:12 +0100, tony sayer <tony.DeleteThis@bancom.co.uk>
>>>> sharpened a new quill and scratched:
>>>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> It seems to me that we have someone here who never saw a good analogue
>>> picture on a CRT!. If your telling me that what you see of the current
>>> freeview offerings at the poor bitrates currently in use then we have
>>> rather different standards as to what a TV picture should look like!.
>>>
>> I disagree - we probably all have the same idea how the picture should
>> be, but some of us cannot get near that with analogue terrestrial.
>
> Fair enough and thats why the BBC engineers came up with digital
> transmission for TV and radio, but unfortunately the accounts and
> marketing bullshitters have done a hatchet job on that with quantity
> over quality!..!..
>
>>> However I'm fast coming to the conclusion that the quality of analogue
>>> pix out there must be rather poor, suppose thats not too surprising with
>>> the majority of TV's and aerial installations. We have analogue and
>>> digital here and from what I've seen of Freeview on all the TV's we have
>>> it still leaves a lot to be desired over the analogue piccy we have:!.
>>>
>> I take it you have better than 49dBuV/m (33 for digital) and your aerial
>> is not 36m below line of sight to the transmitter (wolfbane/megalithia
>> estimates)?
>
> 24.98 Km miles from Sandy heath in Bedfordshire 128 dB path loss @700
> MHz minimal Fresnel obstruction, path is LOS RX aerial 13 MAGL and
> tweaked for the mid upper part of bands 4/5 i.e. not a wideband Yagi nor
> a Log periodic..

I'll take that as a yes :-) (I'm a mathematician, not an injuneer!)

>> Even under these conditions, when BBC freeview works the picture is far,
>> far clearer and more watchable than the analogue.
>
> Humm.. another one who hasn't seen a good PAL decoder then;!...

Can't say (I don't open sets to look)! Seriously, I suspect I have never
had better than generic (= bad) decoders that are unable to cope with
multiple ghosting and other defects in the signal and I have tried
minimising these by moving the aerial slightly. It is clearly the signal
fed to the set that is the problem (even UHF from the sat receiver is a
better picture or should that be "not perceivably worse"?) I am not
convinced that there is a cost effective method of improving the signal
capture to give a decent picture :-( In the case of FIVE, it is
watchable if you like programs shot outside during snow showers!

>
>> If I want a decent
>> picture I use satellite, but that's* too much hassle for independent
>> viewing on multiple TVs.
>
> Yes thats where the real hi def TV should now be, plenty of bandwidth up
> there in the Ghz regions!.... Jeez saw that when I worked at Pye
> Television Transmitters in the mid Sixties!, and bloody good it was then
> pity we still haven't got around to it!...
>> [snip]
>>
>> * Why is it that English schools seem unable to teach the correct use of
>> apostrophes? (Afterthought: is it because the "teachers" are actually
>> "supervisors"?)
>
> Thats 'cos I'm a broadcast transmission injuneer!..
>

<unjustified extrapolation> Injuneers forget all they have been taught
outside their specialist subject ;-) </unjustified extrapolation>

PeeGee
--
The reply address is a spam trap. All mail is reported as spam.
"Nothing should be able to load itself onto a computer without the
knowledge or consent of the computer user. Software should also be able
to be removed from a computer easily."
Peter Cullen, Microsoft Chief Privacy Strategist (Computing 18 Aug 05)
 >> Stay informed about: 1080 HD TVs 

Roderick Stewart wrote:
> In article <fftj0i$fkd$1@aioe.org>, PeeGee wrote:
>> Even under these conditions, when BBC freeview works the picture is far,
>> far clearer and more watchable than the analogue.
>
> As long as you don't mind different parts of the image moving independently

I did include the word "works" - interpret as you wish.

> of each other, rapid cutting sequences degenerating into little squares,

I don't find those any more watchable on analogue! The squares are
probably less irritating ;-)

> large areas with smooth gradients such as a clear evening sky being covered
> with contour lines, and dark shadows looking like dancing jigsaw puzzles.

I must look harder for these, especially when the signal strength gets
nearer "average" in my area!

> Digital broadcasting gives us a different set of faults to try to ignore,
> but it is certainly not free of them.
>
> Rod.
>
>

PeeGee
--
The reply address is a spam trap. All mail is reported as spam.
"Nothing should be able to load itself onto a computer without the
knowledge or consent of the computer user. Software should also be able
to be removed from a computer easily."
Peter Cullen, Microsoft Chief Privacy Strategist (Computing 18 Aug 05)
 >> Stay informed about: 1080 HD TVs 

In article <5ogom2Fn0ho3U1.TakeThisOut@mid.individual.net>, Matti Lamprhey wrote:
> >> Even under these conditions, when BBC freeview works the picture is
> >> far, far clearer and more watchable than the analogue.
> >
> > As long as you don't mind different parts of the image moving
> > independently of each other, rapid cutting sequences degenerating into
> > little squares, large areas with smooth gradients such as a clear
> > evening sky being covered with contour lines, and dark shadows
> > looking like dancing jigsaw puzzles.
> > Digital broadcasting gives us a different set of faults to try to
> > ignore, but it is certainly not free of them.
>
> Are we entitled to expect that HD broadcasts will be free of these
> artefacts?

Depends on what you mean by "entitled".

If you mean that we've been able to achieve moving broadcast pictures
without any of the artefacts listed above for about seventy years and
should therefore be capable of implementing a new system with modern
technology that doesn't have them either, then... yes.

If "entitled" carries any implication of "likelihood", then I think we all
know the answer.

Rod.
 >> Stay informed about: 1080 HD TVs 

"Kay Robinson" <Kay_Robinson.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RvUgR6IUgB1v4vlcTnvdBM+3HMoQ@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:38:40 GMT, "ThePunisher"
> <thepunisher.DeleteThis@ntlworld.com> sharpened a new quill and scratched:
>
>>Kay Robinson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:37:12 +0100, tony sayer <tony.DeleteThis@bancom.co.uk>
>>> sharpened a new quill and scratched:
>
> ----> Bobbit
>
>>>> Or do you think it was better for the same parameters on the older
>>>> Analogue PAL system?....
>>>
>>> Picture quality is far superior both in definition and colour
>>> grading.
>>> Resolution spec is 1920 x 1080, Contrast Ratio 1200:1, Brightness
>>> 500CD/MF. The swap from my old heavy analogue tv to the new one was
>>> as
>>> delightful a surprise as when I changed from B/W to colour. I'm
>>> enjoying re-watching all the DVDs I've bought over the past few
>>> years
>>> and seeing stuff I never saw before.
>>>
>>> Kay
>>>
>>
>>Where did all this 'stuff I never saw before' come from then? do you
>>own a
>>magic TV?
>
> Yes, well at least in the fact that I can see details I missed in
> previous viewing :-) I watch a lot of art and antiques progs and the
> close-up detail is simply astounding.
>
> Kay
>
> - - -

I am a little intrigued by this post, Kay, as I have been browsing the
specs for 26" and 32" TVs for some time now, trying to identify
potential candidates to replace my 24", 4:3 aspect ratio CRT when it
expires. I could find no models in these sizes with a native screen
display of 1920 x 1080. They all seemed to be based around 1366 x 768
screens. I had decided to wait. Which model do you have?

Mike Hardy
 >> Stay informed about: 1080 HD TVs 

emmaitch <thiscamethrough-btjanngs.TakeThisOut@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> >
> > Yes, well at least in the fact that I can see details I missed in
> > previous viewing :-) I watch a lot of art and antiques progs and the
> > close-up detail is simply astounding.
> >
> > Kay
> >
> > - - -
>
> I am a little intrigued by this post, Kay, as I have been browsing the
> specs for 26" and 32" TVs for some time now, trying to identify
> potential candidates to replace my 24", 4:3 aspect ratio CRT when it
> expires. I could find no models in these sizes with a native screen
> display of 1920 x 1080. They all seemed to be based around 1366 x 768
> screens. I had decided to wait. Which model do you have?
>
> Mike Hardy

The reason why 1080 screens are rare for smaller TV sets is because,
unless you've got your nose pressed against the screen, it is impossible
to see any difference compared to 720.

See here:
http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

Unless you're using the screen close up like a PC monitor, 1080 only
makes sense for large screens, at least 40", probably more. You're
wasting your time if you've decided to wait for a 26" telly with a
1920x1080 screen.
 >> Stay informed about: 1080 HD TVs 

aa RemoveThis @xx.com (Bion) writes:

> Unless you're using the screen close up like a PC monitor, 1080 only
> makes sense for large screens, at least 40", probably more. You're
> wasting your time if you've decided to wait for a 26" telly with a
> 1920x1080 screen.

Is the size of display the important factor here? Is it not the same as
for LCD computer monitors in that the 'native' resolution of the display
(irrespective of the screen size) should be the same as that of the
signal being displayed? So should the resolution of the HD TV screen not
be the same as that of the broadcast signal or other source (eg
HD-DVD/Blueray)?
 >> Stay informed about: 1080 HD TVs 

`
"Graham Murray" <newspost.TakeThisOut@gmurray.org.uk> wrote in message
news:87wst8f8e0.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk...
> aa.TakeThisOut@xx.com (Bion) writes:
>
>> Unless you're using the screen close up like a PC monitor, 1080 only
>> makes sense for large screens, at least 40", probably more. You're
>> wasting your time if you've decided to wait for a 26" telly with a
>> 1920x1080 screen.
>
> Is the size of display the important factor here? Is it not the same as
> for LCD computer monitors in that the 'native' resolution of the display
> (irrespective of the screen size) should be the same as that of the
> signal being displayed? So should the resolution of the HD TV screen not
> be the same as that of the broadcast signal or other source (eg
> HD-DVD/Blueray)?


it's not as important as that due to the type of image video is.
plus, even if you watch your 1080i, 1080p material on a 1080p screen,
there's a good chance that the tv will be overscanning anyway.
and yes - even plasmas and lcds will overscan even though that sounds mad.

example- i have a sharp lcd hdtv. you tell it that it's receiving a pc
signal via dvi it displays pixel for pixel, tell it that the source is AV
digital and the overscan kicks in.

--
Gareth.

That fly... is your magic wand.
http://www.last.fm/user/dsbmusic/
 >> Stay informed about: 1080 HD TVs 

In article <7cednUTOQbACA77anZ2dnUVZ8sWhnZ2d.RemoveThis@bt.com>, emmaitch
<thiscamethrough-btjanngs.RemoveThis@yahoo.co.uk> scribeth thus
>"Kay Robinson" <Kay_Robinson.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:RvUgR6IUgB1v4vlcTnvdBM+3HMoQ@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:38:40 GMT, "ThePunisher"
>> <thepunisher.RemoveThis@ntlworld.com> sharpened a new quill and scratched:
>>
>>>Kay Robinson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:37:12 +0100, tony sayer <tony.RemoveThis@bancom.co.uk>
>>>> sharpened a new quill and scratched:
>>
>> ----> Bobbit
>>
>>>>> Or do you think it was better for the same parameters on the older
>>>>> Analogue PAL system?....
>>>>
>>>> Picture quality is far superior both in definition and colour
>>>> grading.
>>>> Resolution spec is 1920 x 1080, Contrast Ratio 1200:1, Brightness
>>>> 500CD/MF. The swap from my old heavy analogue tv to the new one was
>>>> as
>>>> delightful a surprise as when I changed from B/W to colour. I'm
>>>> enjoying re-watching all the DVDs I've bought over the past few
>>>> years
>>>> and seeing stuff I never saw before.
>>>>
>>>> Kay
>>>>
>>>
>>>Where did all this 'stuff I never saw before' come from then? do you
>>>own a
>>>magic TV?
>>
>> Yes, well at least in the fact that I can see details I missed in
>> previous viewing :-) I watch a lot of art and antiques progs and the
>> close-up detail is simply astounding.
>>
>> Kay
>>
>> - - -
>
>I am a little intrigued by this post, Kay, as I have been browsing the
>specs for 26" and 32" TVs for some time now, trying to identify
>potential candidates to replace my 24", 4:3 aspect ratio CRT when it
>expires. I could find no models in these sizes with a native screen
>display of 1920 x 1080. They all seemed to be based around 1366 x 768
>screens. I had decided to wait. Which model do you have?
>
>Mike Hardy
>

Bad case of 'specmanship methinks;!..
--
Tony Sayer
 >> Stay informed about: 1080 HD TVs 

Graham Murray <newspost.TakeThisOut@gmurray.org.uk> wrote:

> aa.TakeThisOut@xx.com (Bion) writes:
>
> > Unless you're using the screen close up like a PC monitor, 1080 only
> > makes sense for large screens, at least 40", probably more. You're
> > wasting your time if you've decided to wait for a 26" telly with a
> > 1920x1080 screen.
>
> Is the size of display the important factor here? Is it not the same as
> for LCD computer monitors in that the 'native' resolution of the display
> (irrespective of the screen size) should be the same as that of the
> signal being displayed? So should the resolution of the HD TV screen not
> be the same as that of the broadcast signal or other source (eg
> HD-DVD/Blueray)?

I don't know the technicalities, but I've tried it with my own eyes. It
is an important factor. It makes no difference if your viewing
distance/screen size is too small to detect each pixel.

In any case, most HD broadcasts and HD games are 720. Conversely
displaying such material on non-native 1080 also makes little
difference.

If you look at review sites like cnet.com or www.hdtvtest.co.uk the best
rated screens are most often, Pioneer or Panasonic, of which most are
x720.

I've seen a Pioneer plasma and top of range Sony LCD side by side. The
Sony may claim to be fullHD, but it doesn't come close in terms of
picture quality for HD, and especially SD.

Unless you're using the screen close up as a PC monitor, the extra
pixels are usually a waste of money.
 >> Stay informed about: 1080 HD TVs 

>> 24.98 Km miles from Sandy heath in Bedfordshire 128 dB path loss @700
>> MHz minimal Fresnel obstruction, path is LOS RX aerial 13 MAGL and
>> tweaked for the mid upper part of bands 4/5 i.e. not a wideband Yagi nor
>> a Log periodic..
>
>I'll take that as a yes :-) (I'm a mathematician, not an injuneer!)

You did ask!...
>
>>> Even under these conditions, when BBC freeview works the picture is far,
>>> far clearer and more watchable than the analogue.
>>
>> Humm.. another one who hasn't seen a good PAL decoder then;!...
>
>Can't say (I don't open sets to look)! Seriously, I suspect I have never
>had better than generic (= bad) decoders that are unable to cope with
>multiple ghosting and other defects in the signal and I have tried
>minimising these by moving the aerial slightly. It is clearly the signal
>fed to the set that is the problem (even UHF from the sat receiver is a
>better picture or should that be "not perceivably worse"?) I am not
>convinced that there is a cost effective method of improving the signal
>capture to give a decent picture :-( In the case of FIVE, it is
>watchable if you like programs shot outside during snow showers!

Well digital transmission was designed to overcome reception problems
such these, but the way its been degraded its worse then minging
analogue;(..
>
>>
>>> If I want a decent
>>> picture I use satellite, but that's* too much hassle for independent
>>> viewing on multiple TVs.
>>
>> Yes thats where the real hi def TV should now be, plenty of bandwidth up
>> there in the Ghz regions!.... Jeez saw that when I worked at Pye
>> Television Transmitters in the mid Sixties!, and bloody good it was then
>> pity we still haven't got around to it!...
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> * Why is it that English schools seem unable to teach the correct use of
>>> apostrophes? (Afterthought: is it because the "teachers" are actually
>>> "supervisors"?)
>>
>> Thats 'cos I'm a broadcast transmission injuneer!..
>>
>
><unjustified extrapolation> Injuneers forget all they have been taught
>outside their specialist subject ;-) </unjustified extrapolation>
>
>PeeGee
Well usenet isn't an English essay .. least the spelling is correct most
of the time its a bit like conversational English in a boozer, i.e. a
few dropped H's its not like an after dinner speech is it?..
--
Tony Sayer
 >> Stay informed about: 1080 HD TVs 

In article <VA.00000190.006bebf5.RemoveThis@removethisbit.beeb.net>, Roderick
Stewart <escapetime.RemoveThis@removethisbit.beeb.net> scribeth thus
>In article <fftj0i$fkd$1@aioe.org>, PeeGee wrote:
>> Even under these conditions, when BBC freeview works the picture is far, 
>> far clearer and more watchable than the analogue.
>
>As long as you don't mind different parts of the image moving independently
>of each other, rapid cutting sequences degenerating into little squares,
>large areas with smooth gradients such as a clear evening sky being covered
>with contour lines, and dark shadows looking like dancing jigsaw puzzles.
>Digital broadcasting gives us a different set of faults to try to ignore,
>but it is certainly not free of them.
>
>Rod.
>
>

The "if its dig-it-al", "it must be better" politburo are very good at
their work eh?....
--
Tony Sayer
 >> Stay informed about: 1080 HD TVs 

aa RemoveThis @xx.com (Bion) writes:

>> Is the size of display the important factor here? Is it not the same as
>> for LCD computer monitors in that the 'native' resolution of the display
>> (irrespective of the screen size) should be the same as that of the
>> signal being displayed? So should the resolution of the HD TV screen not
>> be the same as that of the broadcast signal or other source (eg
>> HD-DVD/Blueray)?
>
> I don't know the technicalities, but I've tried it with my own eyes. It
> is an important factor. It makes no difference if your viewing
> distance/screen size is too small to detect each pixel.
>
> In any case, most HD broadcasts and HD games are 720. Conversely
> displaying such material on non-native 1080 also makes little
> difference.
>
> If you look at review sites like cnet.com or www.hdtvtest.co.uk the best
> rated screens are most often, Pioneer or Panasonic, of which most are
> x720.

Which would fit the theory that images look best when shown at the
native resolution of the display. To display a 720 image on a 1080
screen would mean either having to display the image smaller than the
screen size or that some pixels in the image would be displayed as 1 on
the screen and others as 2. Irrespective of whether individual pixels
are visible, surely the picture must look better if all the pixels are
the same size not with some twice the length/depth of others.
 >> Stay informed about: 1080 HD TVs