$10-$15 a month plus a movie rental fee? It wil never succeed. Not when I can buy many HD DVD's and BD's for 20 bucks and keep them.
new satellite service to offer 1080p DD7.1
- Thread starter TheForce
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 34
- Views 6K
-
WELCOME TO THE NEW SERVER!
If you are seeing this you are on our new server WELCOME HOME!
While the new server is online Scott is still working on the backend including the cachine. But the site is usable while the work is being completes!
Thank you for your patience and again WELCOME HOME!
CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE
If they are going to offer the same movies that are released on HD DVD or Blue-ray, they are doomed. They can't compete with Netflix.
On the other hand, if they can strike deals with studios and offer titles that are not yet released, then they might have a chance. Though I do agree that this price (that I saw in a Washington Post interview) seems rather high.
On the other hand, if they can strike deals with studios and offer titles that are not yet released, then they might have a chance. Though I do agree that this price (that I saw in a Washington Post interview) seems rather high.
Poke- Might I remind everyone that the original ATSC standards for HDTV consisted of two formats for broadcast- 720p x1280 and 1080i x 1920. These two were specifically designed to accomodate two different types of display devices- 1080i for CRT displays as the format and display is analog scanline based. 720p for digital progressive scan monitors. Both signals are set for similar channel width in the broadcast band. A 1080P is an update to the 1080i standard where the interlaced scan is replaced by the progressive standard for digital monitors capable of resolving the additional resolution at progressive scan rates.
Additionally, people need to be constantly reminded of the difference between native display resolution and signal resolution. In a digital display all images are seen at display resolution regardless in input signal. In other words, people can feed some monitors a 1080p x 1920 pixel signal and it may be down converted to the display native such as 720x1350 pixels of an oddball pixel aspect ratio. This was very common confusion with Plasma screens. Digital offers lots of opportunity to fool viewers with all sorts of conversions, both accessible and hidden.
The way I see this is that in the broadcast channels, the FCC has restricted signals to that which will fit in the channel spectrum, based on the MPG 2 standard. In order for us to ever get beyond the 720p x 1280 or 1080i x 1920 standard, two things must happen, a new FCC standard must be designed and written, and the stations must switch to all new equipment that can broadcast this. Thats a lot to ask considering the trouble stations have had with traditional HDTV add-on to their digital transmission.
The alternative is to look to new niche transmissions that are not limited to terrestrial broadcast or even satellite broadcast, although expensive the channel width restrictions are far more amenable to 1080p in MPG4 than traditional earth bound stations. So dbs is much better able to adapt a few special channels at a much lower cost and considering the production equipment is available but limited in quantity (Red One) the idea of a DBS 1080p channel could happen in the not too distant future. Additionally, the idea of a 1080p movie channel has great possibility but all these things right now are niche money losing propositions.
One of the holdbacks is your first statement, that there is hardly any difference between 1080i and 1080p. First off I would have to disagree since finding a true compression free 1080i x 1920 signal is near impossible these days. Maybe if you had access to CBS 45Mbs uplink or a D5 Panasonic HDTV recorder you'd see true HDTV at 1080i x 1920 but not from the stations or any dbs. They may say they are transmitting it but according to the studies done by Christie, these so called 1920 H res signals were barely over 1200 after broadcast. And, if using a digital monitor more artifacting is generated in the conversion to native for display. So, we're back to the 720p x 1280 signal which can be held to that standard with careful signal transmission and a good 720p x 1280 monitor, which most are in the industry anyway.
But today, many people have gotten into the 1080P displays and only those few DVD designed for this are delivering what you think you should be getting. HD DVD and BluRay
Besides these new upstart companies like Xstream, there is also this idea that IPTV and the internet will come to the rescue. I'm not holding my breath for that because 1080P will bogg the internet SP's to their knees if the masses begin using this service. Today we have the largest ISP's like Comcast crying about consumers using too much bandwidth watching crappy YouTube videos. Good sling media hasn't caught on or that would be limiting my access. We're just not ready in this country for Video live over the internet. We can barely do VOD in low sub SD resolution. The internet is no answer.
So, I agree that for now, purchased media and rentals of these 1080p programs and movies is the only way to get this format but 2nd will be the niche players like Xstream. Now maybe their idea of how to sell and implement will not work businesswise. ( I still wonder about the business model of Netflix on HD DVD and BD) But I feel that a niche business like Xstream will be bringing us good 1080p content before we will see it from D* or E* and way way before terrestrial broadcast
Additionally, people need to be constantly reminded of the difference between native display resolution and signal resolution. In a digital display all images are seen at display resolution regardless in input signal. In other words, people can feed some monitors a 1080p x 1920 pixel signal and it may be down converted to the display native such as 720x1350 pixels of an oddball pixel aspect ratio. This was very common confusion with Plasma screens. Digital offers lots of opportunity to fool viewers with all sorts of conversions, both accessible and hidden.
The way I see this is that in the broadcast channels, the FCC has restricted signals to that which will fit in the channel spectrum, based on the MPG 2 standard. In order for us to ever get beyond the 720p x 1280 or 1080i x 1920 standard, two things must happen, a new FCC standard must be designed and written, and the stations must switch to all new equipment that can broadcast this. Thats a lot to ask considering the trouble stations have had with traditional HDTV add-on to their digital transmission.
The alternative is to look to new niche transmissions that are not limited to terrestrial broadcast or even satellite broadcast, although expensive the channel width restrictions are far more amenable to 1080p in MPG4 than traditional earth bound stations. So dbs is much better able to adapt a few special channels at a much lower cost and considering the production equipment is available but limited in quantity (Red One) the idea of a DBS 1080p channel could happen in the not too distant future. Additionally, the idea of a 1080p movie channel has great possibility but all these things right now are niche money losing propositions.
One of the holdbacks is your first statement, that there is hardly any difference between 1080i and 1080p. First off I would have to disagree since finding a true compression free 1080i x 1920 signal is near impossible these days. Maybe if you had access to CBS 45Mbs uplink or a D5 Panasonic HDTV recorder you'd see true HDTV at 1080i x 1920 but not from the stations or any dbs. They may say they are transmitting it but according to the studies done by Christie, these so called 1920 H res signals were barely over 1200 after broadcast. And, if using a digital monitor more artifacting is generated in the conversion to native for display. So, we're back to the 720p x 1280 signal which can be held to that standard with careful signal transmission and a good 720p x 1280 monitor, which most are in the industry anyway.
But today, many people have gotten into the 1080P displays and only those few DVD designed for this are delivering what you think you should be getting. HD DVD and BluRay
Besides these new upstart companies like Xstream, there is also this idea that IPTV and the internet will come to the rescue. I'm not holding my breath for that because 1080P will bogg the internet SP's to their knees if the masses begin using this service. Today we have the largest ISP's like Comcast crying about consumers using too much bandwidth watching crappy YouTube videos. Good sling media hasn't caught on or that would be limiting my access. We're just not ready in this country for Video live over the internet. We can barely do VOD in low sub SD resolution. The internet is no answer.
So, I agree that for now, purchased media and rentals of these 1080p programs and movies is the only way to get this format but 2nd will be the niche players like Xstream. Now maybe their idea of how to sell and implement will not work businesswise. ( I still wonder about the business model of Netflix on HD DVD and BD) But I feel that a niche business like Xstream will be bringing us good 1080p content before we will see it from D* or E* and way way before terrestrial broadcast
Don, good write-up but I feel you left out frame rates. Most broadcasts are still 24FPS with a 3:3:2 pulldown to get the 32FPS. True HD which refreshes 60 times per second is quite distant as well. I think computer video games might be the first things to hit the latest theoretical possibilities such as resolutions beyond 1600 lines with 120hz refresh rates and 12bit color. Computers also have much greater processing power so they are perfect candidates for driving people beyond 1080.
It's too expensive and won't fly. If they had a flat fee per month for a number of titles then it might have a slim chance of working. Dish and Direct would counteract it with something of their own before they would let a service like that take a big bite out of their business anyways.
The claim for the product is 1080p and 7.1 lossless audio.
I'm trying to schedule a CES briefing to discuss it with them.
Best,
I'm trying to schedule a CES briefing to discuss it with them.
Best,
Thanks, John. Be looking forward to your report.
vegassatellite- Sure frame rates are important. But each format has it's optimum frame rate. Today, the 1080p 24frame rate is still, IMO, in development and quite experimental. I've been working with it for a couple of months now and many of the advantages of ridding the 3:2 pull down to convert film rate to video rates are compromised with other errors due to improper processing. It is still a quagmire to get 24fps from film to your screen without something getting in the way. Many who have reported getting it to work are using the simplest setup and all 24P passthrough.
PS:
However, personally, I don't think frame rate has much to do with the success or failure of this service. Ideally, all source HDTV should allow pass through in it's program's native frame rate and resolution so that the equipment to process the program for transport from live to your screen does not affect this.
It would be nice if when a channel shows a movie shot in film, it is transmitted in 24P frames and a documentary shot in HDCAM is sent at 29.97 fps and 1080ix1440. Leave the final I to P conversion to the display device if digital or none if CRT. (Does anyone still view on CRT? )
vegassatellite- Sure frame rates are important. But each format has it's optimum frame rate. Today, the 1080p 24frame rate is still, IMO, in development and quite experimental. I've been working with it for a couple of months now and many of the advantages of ridding the 3:2 pull down to convert film rate to video rates are compromised with other errors due to improper processing. It is still a quagmire to get 24fps from film to your screen without something getting in the way. Many who have reported getting it to work are using the simplest setup and all 24P passthrough.
PS:
You should correct the errors in this statement too.
However, personally, I don't think frame rate has much to do with the success or failure of this service. Ideally, all source HDTV should allow pass through in it's program's native frame rate and resolution so that the equipment to process the program for transport from live to your screen does not affect this. It would be nice if when a channel shows a movie shot in film, it is transmitted in 24P frames and a documentary shot in HDCAM is sent at 29.97 fps and 1080ix1440. Leave the final I to P conversion to the display device if digital or none if CRT. (Does anyone still view on CRT?
)
??? It isn't experimental at all. Do you mean recovering the original cadence from 24p material presented at 60i/p?
It still isn't too difficult if you're willing to pony up for the appropriate hardware.
Well of course, the best processing is no processing at all.
It would be nice if when a channel shows a movie shot in film, it is transmitted in 24P frames and a documentary shot in HDCAM is sent at 29.97 fps and 1080ix1440. Leave the final I to P conversion to the display device if digital or none if CRT. (Does anyone still view on CRT?
The I to P without motion compensation / interpolation for HDCAM is one of the ugliest things you'll see.
It is neither cheap nor easy to do motion adaptive deinterlacing on interlaced high definition content.
...Does anyone still view on CRT?
I think the season on them has been open for quite some time now. Probably get closed soon due to lack of prey, or reduced to bow hunting only.
Translation: Even my late 70s mother in law has decided she wants a flat screen TV, to be rid of her bulky CRT TV!
John Kotches Asked:
In my book anytime most equipment mfg's are having to consistently retool their firmware to get it (1080p 24fps) to work right for video, I'm talking about DVD players and video processors. It is still experimental. Lots of stuff should work according to theory but until they actually get it to work without freezing up or stuttering or causing error codes to display or lip sync to go that away, it is still experimental.
Hmmm... that reminds me I need to go do the complex task of downloading and upgrading my DVDO processor with the latest firmware so I can, hopefully, get that to work properly in 24P. Its complicated as DVDO uses serial port connectivity to upload the firmware.
BTW- John- if you ever studied cinematography you would know that shooting in 24P is quite tricky to do it properly without motion artifacts, and that is assuming it remains in film. There are a whole set of camera movement restrictions specified by SMPTE to maintain motion artifact compliance. It's stuff you learn in a good film school. Its stuff I see novice shooters with 24P video cameras violate all the time and then they want to blame the equipment.
In my book anytime most equipment mfg's are having to consistently retool their firmware to get it (1080p 24fps) to work right for video, I'm talking about DVD players and video processors. It is still experimental. Lots of stuff should work according to theory but until they actually get it to work without freezing up or stuttering or causing error codes to display or lip sync to go that away, it is still experimental.
Hmmm... that reminds me I need to go do the complex task of downloading and upgrading my DVDO processor with the latest firmware so I can, hopefully, get that to work properly in 24P. Its complicated as DVDO uses serial port connectivity to upload the firmware.
BTW- John- if you ever studied cinematography you would know that shooting in 24P is quite tricky to do it properly without motion artifacts, and that is assuming it remains in film. There are a whole set of camera movement restrictions specified by SMPTE to maintain motion artifact compliance. It's stuff you learn in a good film school. Its stuff I see novice shooters with 24P video cameras violate all the time and then they want to blame the equipment.
