HDTV and YOU!

[Afrobean]

Re: HDTV and YOU!

It really wasn't that long ago that we were all using a 56k fax modem. Therefore it isn't that far fetched to think that technology will continue to rise on this steep incline.

I went from maxing out at like 32kb/s to maxing out at like 200 kb/s. Over a period of like 10 years.

Do you really think we'll have ~1 gb/s internet connections that soon?

Remember when people were buying HDDVD players and HDDVDs? What happened soon after? Blu-ray...everything eventually gets outdated and so why waste your money now on these movies. Blu-ray players and blu-ray movies are expensive.

As was said, they were competing formats. Blu-ray didn't obsolete HD-DVD, it put it out because only one format is viable to market.

You got lucky with your $100 BD player. Most of them are still $200. And $300 gets you a piece of garbage television from some unknown manufacturer at 22 inches. Vizio, Sharp, Samsung, etc. will all run you close to $1,000 even discounted if you want a decent size and resolution.

Actually, "most" of them are more. It's the cheap ones that are ~200 or a little less.

And man, my TV is a 42 in. 1080 and it cost me less than 1100. LG. It is LCD rather than plasma, so there's that, I guess...

yet I can still read it. Amazing.

Yeah, but what's the resolution set to? 480x640? 800x600? 1028x768? SHUT UPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

You're clearly lacking knowledge on the subject if you think CRTs can have dead pixels. They're incapable of it.

I'm aware of the condition, but the screen does have a pixel which is consistently black and fails to display anything there. That's why I said, "not sure what the deal is", but there is definitely a pixel there which is quite truthfully dead.

you're worrying about delay at least once.

Yeah, holding the guitar up to the screen for 10 seconds was mighty hard.

[MalDON]

Re: HDTV and YOU!

Actually let me interject because are a few flaws in your description on what HD is.

HD has nothing to do with quality (although HD video uses a lot better compression codecs which usually results it a lot clearer image), it's the screen resolution. Your example photo showing 720p v. 1080p is wrong. There is little to no visual difference.

In fact, most people cannot tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. Playing 1080p video on any TV smaller than 42" is useless. However, playing 720p video on a tv larger than 42" is just asking for bad video.

Both 720p and 1080p primarily use the VC-1 codec (partly developed by Microsoft; ironically used by Sony with Blu-Ray). The reason there is such a big visual difference between 480 video and 720 is the interlacing and the encoder used. However, you can use any dvd up-converter and magically a dvd looks damn near close to a 720p video.

I use my HD DVD drive for my 360 to play dvd's. It does an amazing job upscaling dvd's.

I think what I'm trying to say is that if anyone falls for the "HD = good quality picture" is an idiot. I've seen many times normal dvd video being upscaled to 1080p on tv and them passing it off as HD. Which it is, but it's not the same as if it was shot with an HD camera.

[Afrobean]

Re: HDTV and YOU!

Actually let me interject because are a few flaws in your description on what HD is.

HD has nothing to do with quality (although HD video uses a lot better compression codecs which usually results it a lot clearer image), it's the screen resolution. Your example photo showing 720p v. 1080p is wrong. There is little to no visual difference.

This is right, but quality at high res is better than quality at low res.

And the fact that there isn't a massive difference between my 720 and 1080 example is indicative of the fact that 1080 is only a little better than 720. The differences are clearer on a 2x zoom, but 1080 really just isn't that much better than 720.

In fact, most people cannot tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. Playing 1080p video on any TV smaller than 42" is useless. However, playing 720p video on a tv larger than 42" is just asking for bad video.

I wouldn't use the word "useless", but yeah... Anyway, I was reading some things earlier and folks were using 720p projectors for upwards of 10 feet displays, and they had nothing but good words for it, at least considering how much cheaper a 720p projector is than 1080p...

Both 720p and 1080p primarily use the VC-1 codec (partly developed by Microsoft; ironically used by Sony with Blu-Ray). The reason there is such a big visual difference between 480 video and 720 is the interlacing and the encoder used. However, you can use any dvd up-converter and magically a dvd looks damn near close to a 720p video.

Not exactly, and frankly, some things look like garbage even upconverted, without even considering deinterlacing artifacts. For example, Smallville looked pretty darn good upscaled (aside from deinterlacing, that is), but Birds of Prey looked like complete ****.

Seriously, it can complement what is there, but it can't generate information that isn't present in the source data.

I think what I'm trying to say is that if anyone falls for the "HD = good quality picture" is an idiot. I've seen many times normal dvd video being upscaled to 1080p on tv and them passing it off as HD. Which it is, but it's not the same as if it was shot with an HD camera.

Man, I just got done reading **** on Kotaku from people who don't understand. HD recording technology is not necessary. All movies and TV programs are recorded on film which has higher fidelity that never makes it to air or DVD. Even movies which are decades old, the film master has a higher resolution than 1080p even. On low quality film, grain and damage is a potential problem, but major motion pictures used 35mm typically and that looks just dandy, assuming the film master has been kept in good shape (or they can manage a good restoration as was the case with Sleeping Beauty for example).

Like, really, all this extra fidelity is sitting there on the master film. They just have to go back to the master and make a new higher resolution transfer. Like, what? When I buy Superman the Movie on BD, you think they just took the 480i DVD transfer and upscale it? **** no, they go back to the master film and make a 1080p transfer from the original source.

ps funny story, I tried putting together an example today showing off a live action image, but I seriously could not tell the difference between the 720 and 1080 samples, so I didn't go forward with posting it. After flipping back and forth between them, the only difference I could note was that the wrinkles in the person's furrowed brow were slightly more defined in the 1080 one. Kinda sad for me, but even so, it proves that 720 is a worthy means of delivery for BD content and still get an amazing image.

[Squeek]

Re: HDTV and YOU!

I'm aware of the condition, but the screen does have a pixel which is consistently black and fails to display anything there. That's why I said, "not sure what the deal is", but there is definitely a pixel there which is quite truthfully dead.

Dust on the light.

It happens.

@Afro: I said years ago that 1080p is at the threshold of human vision limitations. 720p is just about the best you can see.

The reason is because we can only see 60 lines per degree arc. 720p is pretty close to 60. 1080p is way over 60.

[Afrobean]

Re: HDTV and YOU!

I said years ago that 1080p is at the threshold of human vision limitations. 720p is just about the best you can see.

The reason is because we can only see 60 lines per degree arc. 720p is pretty close to 60. 1080p is way over 60.

Years ago? You were familiar with 1080p back then?

:\

But yeah, man, I totally agree. It's funny seeing people yell about how BD will die because an even higher resolution format will come along. Yeah, that's great to have 2k vertical resolution, but it won't be distinguishable from 1080, and it'll scarcely ever be viable in the mass consumer market. It'd only be any good for those of us with projector rooms with a screen size somewhere in the neighborhood of ****ing enormous.

[MalDON]

Re: HDTV and YOU!

Most High end studio grade HD cameras record in much higher resolutions than 1080p. They do this for many reasons, one being to stabilize the film digitally, making film prints for theaters, better visual effects, etcetcetc.

Film grain is not ALWAYS better than digital. It takes a very very high end film camera and a ton of money to match what a fairly 'inexpensive' HD studio camera can record.

Squeek is right, our eyes can only see so much. When I download movies from online rental services such as XBL, I'd rather download a 720p file and watch it sooner than waiting for a 180p video, when the quality is damn near the same.

[Tokzic]

Re: HDTV and YOU!

I said years ago that 1080p is at the threshold of human vision limitations. 720p is just about the best you can see.

The reason is because we can only see 60 lines per degree arc. 720p is pretty close to 60. 1080p is way over 60.

no

It's a resolution, not a quality.

If we end up having 120" screens twenty years from now, yes, we're going to have 2k vertical resolutions, and yes, it will be better to the human eye than 1080p.

[Afrobean]

Re: HDTV and YOU!

no

It's a resolution, not a quality.

If we end up having 120" screens twenty years from now, yes, we're going to have 2k vertical resolutions, and yes, it will be better to the human eye than 1080p.

Assuming a reasonable viewing distance and a reasonable screen size, there is a threshold over which additional resolution would be literally unnoticeable. Do you really think 120 inch screens would ever be commonplace? If anything comes along in the commercial market on a higher resolution than 1080p, it will definitely be niche. No way in hell would that be worthwhile for anyone who doesn't have a home theatre setup that cost them in excess of like 20k. Seriously man, can you imagine a day when every person watches television on a screen that's goddamned 10 feet diagonal?

[Tokzic]

Re: HDTV and YOU!

Assuming a reasonable viewing distance and a reasonable screen size, there is a threshold over which additional resolution would be literally unnoticeable. Do you really think 120 inch screens would ever be commonplace? If anything comes along in the commercial market on a higher resolution than 1080p, it will definitely be niche. No way in hell would that be worthwhile for anyone who doesn't have a home theatre setup that cost them in excess of like 20k. Seriously man, can you imagine a day when every person watches television on a screen that's goddamned 10 feet diagonal?

lcd walls, my man

dare to dream

[robertsona]

Re: HDTV and YOU!

In my dream house two of the walls would be huge aquariums with awesome exotic fish and the other two would be huge TV screens robertsona out yo

[Tps222]

Re: HDTV and YOU!

LCD and plasma are going to be irrelevant within the next 20 years anyways, because we are going to have Laser powered televisions, in which the quality of the picture will be actually be improved (Laser will allow for 90% of all colors that humans can see visible as opposed to the somewhere 40-50% of what LCD and plasma televisions produce today), along with a lot of other things. Go look up laser televisions.

Also, for the LCD vs Plasma people: The technology has advanced to the point that LCD is the clear winner under 42'', and is pretty much now equal with plasma for over as well (Plasma was the clear leader in the past), and they are almost equal in price now. Personally, I'm an LCD fan.

[Squeek]

Re: HDTV and YOU!

Uh, computers have been able to display 100% of the colors humans can see for ages. You have it backwards. Humans can't see the colors that technology can make. The basic 24-bit RGB color scheme of Windows 95-era is already more colors than we can see, and we've far exceeded that scale.

I've said it many times before in the HDTV argument. Until you can improve basic human eyesight, there's no reason to continue to pursue higher quality.

That's why some companies are working on things like 3D televisions instead.

[Afrobean]

Re: HDTV and YOU!

I've said it many times before in the HDTV argument. Until you can improve basic human eyesight, there's no reason to continue to pursue higher quality.

HD isn't outside the realm of human eyesight. From a normal viewing distance, good 720p content is easily distinguishable from 480i, especially if your example of 480i content is analog. Improving human eyesight is not a requisite to enjoy HD, although I suppose you could use that argument to some truth while comparing 720p to 1080p.

That's why some companies are working on things like 3D televisions instead.

This is great and all, but I don't see it becoming prominent any time soon. Not enough media is currently filmed to take advantage of 3D, and of those that are, it's only 3D in parts (because CURRENT 3D effect options can give headaches if used for too long a period). I haven't been paying too much attention to developments in the technology though... are they still taking it in the direction that lenticular tech is in? I think I might have heard something about special glasses with shutters timed to the hertz ranges for the individual frames that would show to each eye individually (that is, without the glasses, the image would look like it's shaking VERY fast from side to side, but with the glasses on, it'd be a perfect 3D image). To be honest, I don't know if I could get behind the tech if it requires me to wear something on my head while I view it.

[MalDON]

Re: HDTV and YOU!

Uh, computers have been able to display 100% of the colors humans can see for ages. You have it backwards. Humans can't see the colors that technology can make. The basic 24-bit RGB color scheme of Windows 95-era is already more colors than we can see, and we've far exceeded that scale.

I've said it many times before in the HDTV argument. Until you can improve basic human eyesight, there's no reason to continue to pursue higher quality.

That's why some companies are working on things like 3D televisions instead.

If anything we need to improve internet bandwidth so Cable companies don't have to compress the video so much. With time warner during peak, 1080p tv is horrible.

[Afrobean]

Re: HDTV and YOU!

If anything we need to improve internet bandwidth so Cable companies don't have to compress the video so much. With time warner during peak, 1080p tv is horrible.

Not sure what you're implying, but 1080p isn't streamed ANYWHERE. I don't think 720p format video is streaming anywhere either. But yeah, they don't even do 1080p video over cable or ANYTHING (there is 1080i, but interlaced is chosen specifically to lower bandwidth usage); the only thing 1080p is good for is SOME gaming and BD (and HD-DVD, technically).

But even so, yeah bandwidth needs MASSIVE improvement, but that's not the only thing standing in the way of HD digital distribution. They also need to NOT have caps. They also need better consumer grade storage equipment. They also need an effective standard method of delivery, something which gives the company enough power for their art to not be illegally shared, yet still gives the end user power to do with it what they want. And finally, they need a streamlined method for consumer reception of media (like VCR:VHS), and yes, I know that they're already working on this sort of thing, as well as implementing it into existing devices. Also notice that in addition to our Internet connection being fast enough and our storage space being high enough, we also need to consider that the structure of the Internet is not conducive to the form either. We don't just need an Internet connection that can download fast enough, we need servers that can handle delivering that kind of data to many users at once. Seriously consider your internet connection right now and think if Youtube **** is REALLY the quality maximum on YOUR end of what video you can stream, or if it's imposed by Youtube to make the delivery easier on their end.

But even if they do that, many folks will still prefer DVD/BD. I can say with absolute certainty that given the choice, I would ALWAYS prefer to have a physical medium. Even something like a USB stick or something would be preferable to fully digital form for me.