 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.187.45.238
In Reply to: You're both correct posted by Tommart on March 19, 2006 at 17:06:12:
Heck, 1080i/720p broadcast is pretty spotty. Too often, little better than SD broadcasts and only occasionally as good as HDNET/Discovery channel. High bitrate broadcasts cost bucks and penny-pinching networks seldom take full advantage of the available bandwidth.
Follow Ups:
....not 720 or 768 lines, in my opinion.Recently every new display that I've seen that has 1080 or more lines also supports 1080p.
As prices continue to drop, 1080 line displays that support 1080p will become common.
In two years, I predict that almost all $2500 and up HDTVs will have 1080 lines and can pass 1080p through their inputs.
I also predict that almost all HD players will support 1080p in two years.
It won't matter if broadcast is sticking with 720p/1080, but I think they'll change as well.
The 1080p standard may last 10 or more years..
The reason that most 1080 line displays don't support 1080p at the input is because those manufacturers cheaped-out on the HDMI receiver chip. The HDMI spec supported 1080p60 from the start (v1.0). Manufacturers, however, chose to "count beans" and opted for the cheaper version of the chip (720p/1080i max, which, in my opinion, Silicon Image should have never made available) with their 1080 line displays. When DVI chips went to 165MHz, the excuse for not accepting a 1080p60 input with a 1080 line display ceased to exist. And that was many, many years ago.If 1080p60 input capability really wasn't that important, you wouldn't see so many new models with this feature. The fact that most 1080 line display manufacturers will actually offer 1080 line displays which will accept a 1080p input in 2006 (just one year later, after their 2005 models didn't) screams "damage control". And to think that they all knew Blu-ray was right around the corner. That's pretty shitty, if you ask me. Well, at least they can pimp their new and improved displays...
A few companies are upgrading to newer chipsets that will handle VC-1 and MPEG-4 AP. This will allow 1080p delivery, but use less bandwidth than MPEG-2 does at 1080i.And for the last (hopefully, but I'm sure it won't be) friggin' time, broadcast does not drive video technology.
This statement is so wrong. The move to digital TV is nearly 100% driven by broadcast issues.
Broadcast doesn't drive video technology anywhere what it used to. In the past, yes, but not anymore. Other areas push video technology now. And it's not about the move to digital TV. It's about higher resolution viewing. Broadcast digital TV is about fitting 978 channels in the space of 6. It's about money. It's about advertising dollars. For the broadcast industry, digital TV is not about a better picture (though it can be a side benefit in some cases, it's not the motive).Much of the push to higher resolution is from DVD, the computer industry's higher resolution screens/games and video technology (VC-1, MPEG-4 AP and others), the fact that technology exists to make larger screens (not front projectors) that reveal the crap we couldn't see on 19" televisions and the fact the cost to make them has been steadily decreasing over the last 5 years (more affordable to more people).
The broadcast industry has to make higher resolution material avaiable to keep their audience. But the fact that we will have 1080p available in our homes way before anyone broadcasts in this format should tell you something -- like the broadcast industry doesn't drive video technology anymore. Apparently not.
The push for digital TV is driven by broadcast, because the analog spectrum for TV broadcasts is going away. That is why the ATSC standard was promulgated.There are copious amounts of information available on this, if you would but read it.
When did I say anything about digital TV? You are the one who keeps bringing that up. You are saying that digital tv is driven by the broadcast industry. I am saying that the broadcast industry no longer drives video technology like it once did. That's two different things.People are fond of bringing up the fact that there is no 1080p broadcast content in order to justify why it's not necessary to get a 1080p capable display. That's just totally asinine. The simple fact is that advances in display and video technology are stepping ahead of what the broadcast industry can or is willing to offer. Because of that, the broadcast industry now has less to do with advances in video technology (unlike in the past, it's not the driver anymore).
The analog spectrum is not "going away", it's being taken back. Over a decade of kicking and screaming by the broadast industry can't be twisted into "we can't wait to go digital".
Read? That's good advice. And if you would but follow your own advice, you would realize that you are the one who is wrong.
Today Microsoft told the gaming community that a 1080p gaming console is "impossible."So, it's certainly not going to be gaming that drives "advances in video technology." Since HD-DVD and Blu-ray are destined to be mass-market flops, what's left?
Aren't they the ones who said HDMI was responsible for the lack of 1080p inputs? Aren't they the ones who said HDMI was not currently capable of 1080p? As they most often are, wrong on both counts.How much of their BS do you actually believe? Did you believe it when they said they would not offer an external HD drive? Could that lie have been more transparent?
On another point, when I said "gaming" drives video technology, I didn't say "game consoles". You assumed that's what I meant. Did you never play games on a computer?
The PS3 will, however, offer 1080p gaming. How many games will be available and how many people will be able to take advantage of those games doesn't matter. It will once again prove Microsoft wrong, though.
And if you believe the next gen format is going to be a flop, your head is so far up your ass that Rand McNally couldn't map it back out of your hole. The movie studios will not let it flop. Period.
Joe, I have never been anything but polite to you, yet you have repeatedly called me names and made disparaging remarks. It is pointless to continue this discussion because you always revert to personal attacks and invective.
It is pointless to continue this discussion.
You may well be right. But since I have a rather expensive 720p display, I'm not in a big rush to immediately upgrade to 1080p technology. Blu-Ray or HD-DVD's attraction is the possibility of high resolution movies, provided that the player will output 720p via DVI to 720p-native displays. OTOH, 40$ pricetags for a handful of Blu-ray disks will make early adoption problematical.
Where did you see this ($40)? That can't be US dollars, right? The actual street price will be determined soon enough (probably $21.99 - $24.99), but the MSRP will be under $30. Could you be confusing this price ($40) with the MSRP of the hybrid HD-DVD/DVD discs (they'll MSRP around $39.99)?
The deciding factor that made VHS tapes win the format war was the porn industry. I'm not going to jump on the hi-res disc bandwagon there is enough software that I REALLY want, reasonably priced. I'm going to wait untill things ort themselves out.
Jack
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]