HDTV LCD's question

[smtkr]

I hate interlacing. Also, there are more HDTV standards than you can shake a stick at; the two mentioned above are the most common. I saw a commercial last month advertising the world's first 1080p set, which has to be absolutely worthless (too expensive for the standard to take off).

[chrestomanci]

In order to show the 'HD Ready' logo the TV must be able to receve a 1080i signal. It does not have to have that native resolution (most can only do 720p), but if it receves a higher res signal the TV must be able to down sample it, rather than just give up.

there is some debate as to whether 1080 will *ever* take off. broadcasters are favouring the lower bandwidth requirements of 720p, and the sets are lots lots cheaper - there are very very few 1080 sets around at the moment.

As many people know, Sky are planing to lauch a HD service next year. They are currently broadcasting test transmitions, most of which are in 1080i.

Remeber that 720p is at 50 or 60fps, but 1080i is at only 25 or 30fps, so the increased bandwith is not as much as you might think. Also, all this stuff is broadcast digitaly using advanced codecs such as MPEG4 or H264, so the bandwith requirements are more complex than just counting the number of pixels per seccond.

[steve threlfall]

1080i and 1080p will be pretty much limited to pre-recorded media (blu-ray, hd-dvd), or pc connectivity.

You might get the odd satellite channel with 1080i (Euro1080 is one such channel), but they'll be few and far between until there are high-bandwidth VOD lines available (like Japan for example as a single uncompressed 1080 video stream will require a minimum of a 50mbit line).

and yes steve, they can be hooked up to a pc and used as another monitor - the quality isn't an issue if you tweak the settings (if you're connecting via a vga connector), or hook it up via a dvi/hdmi connector.

So would you say it may be worth considering (when prices come down) a decent hdtv set to use as a tv and monitor?

Gaming is going widescreen and if its a viable option it may be worth considering.

[Stoo]

TV and second monitor, but not as your primary (the resolution isn't there with the 720p sets) but for pumping out HD video and the occasional game it's great

btw, the best software I've found yet for scaling video up is WinDVD 7, but you're stuck with WMP if you want to play HDTV transport streams (windvd judders, and vlc isn't as good either).

[directhex]

In order to show the 'HD Ready' logo the TV must be able to receve a 1080i signal. It does not have to have that native resolution (most can only do 720p), but if it receves a higher res signal the TV must be able to down sample it, rather than just give up.


As many people know, Sky are planing to lauch a HD service next year. They are currently broadcasting test transmitions, most of which are in 1080i.

Remeber that 720p is at 50 or 60fps, but 1080i is at only 25 or 30fps, so the increased bandwith is not as much as you might think. Also, all this stuff is broadcast digitaly using advanced codecs such as MPEG4 or H264, so the bandwith requirements are more complex than just counting the number of pixels per seccond.

actually, whilst test transmissions might be in 1080i, hd.sky.com suggests it's pretty pointless & they'll be using 720p almost exclusively

[eloquence]

There is another aspect to consider with the HD resolutions - the difference between progressive and interlace. The transmissions being trialled are 720p and 1080i. Fast-moving images would work better at 720p because the whole frame is refreshed each time, so its preferable for sports, and probably also general-purpose TV.
Additionally, the recording equipment for 720p is significantly more affordable than 1080i - there are even consumer-level cameras reaching the market that can handle 720p. 1080i is fine for film-to-digital transfer and rendered imagery, but otherwise would require even more expensive digital film equipment. You'd expect to see roving news teams using 720p rather than 1080i because of the availability of prosumer-level 720p camcorders.
From what I've read, insiders are expecting movies and sports to be some of the main driving factors for HDTV, so 1080i isn't the preferable solution for the majority of the primary content they're looking at, so combined with the higher production and consumer equipment costs, 720p looks to be the dominant format for the next few years at least.

[Rave]

I saw a commercial last month advertising the world's first 1080p set, which has to be absolutely worthless (too expensive for the standard to take off).

Actually I was reading a magazine about a week ago that reckoned that 1080p sets were all over the latest trade show in the states. TI's latest DLP chip (called the HD3 or something) is 1080p capable, so now pretty much any projector/ RPTV manufacturer can produce 1080p equiptment (for a price, of course).

http://www.dlp.com/

If you click on 'televisions' you can search for 1080p resolution televisions- so far lots of models from Mitsubishi, Samsung and Toshiba are listed.

Edit: the 1080p chip is the HD3+.

[Kaizen]

I hate interlacing. Also, there are more HDTV standards than you can shake a stick at; the two mentioned above are the most common. I saw a commercial last month advertising the world's first 1080p set, which has to be absolutely worthless (too expensive for the standard to take off).

This reminds me of the VHS / Betamax clash. The Betamax format was the better one, but the VHS format triumphed because it was the more accessible.

Similarly, wide gauge railway tracks were better than narrow gauge tracks, but narrow gauge won due to there being more of it at the time the decision was made to go with just one or the other.

So, let's just hope that things remain flexible enough so that better resolutions (1080p in this case) can still be successful when the market is more favourable.