VOOM-Lite ----Why Worry?

[JoeSp]

I have been thinking about this for awhile and decided to throw this out here. How many of you know the actually resolution of your HD set?

The reason I asked is that very few of you actually own a 1920x1080i set. Most of you probably have a 1200 by 1080i set and do not know it. There are very few 1920x1080i sets on the market and they are very expensive to own. Most all of the sets under 50" are 1200 x 1080i.

Here is my point. Even to reach these numbers manufacturers are using line doublers. Even the brand new DLPs that are boasting 1920x1080 are actually 960x1080 then doubled. There are HD units that do 1920x1080 but the masses will not be getting there hands on them so why all the crying about D* or E* showing 1200x1080i or even 1440 x 1080I (This is the resolution used by most of the manufactures for their best line of sets)?

Your set will not be able to show the complete picture in a 1920x1080i format. I believe that when HD goes to MPEG4 you will see a marked decrease in picture anomilies and then you will start to see a very clear picture and you will be very pleased with your HD viewing.

When Voom was showing 1440x1080i the picture was very sharp and very clear. Even now, some of the things I watch on Voom's channels is remarkably clear. Especially those shot in HD. This is where the problem really is. Upconverting is what most of us watch on these HD channels and that is why the pictures are not as sharp as OTA HD. And by the way, most OTA HD is not 1920x1080i. If your digital station has multiple channels and is showing different programs on each channel at the same time then you are not receiving 1920x1080i. You are probably watching 1440x1080i or even 1280x768p. You need the whole digital signal to broadcast 1920x1080i.

I hope that my next set will be able to do 1920x1080i without a line doubler -- but that will not be soon. I will have to be happy with my Pioneer Elite 58" till I can afford a real 1920x1080i set. As for my wife, it looks like she wants a 32" LCD for the bedroom. Now try and find one of those in a 1280x768p format!

 

[DarrellP]

What you say is true, but even though my LCD projector is native 1280 x 720, I can see a difference in the sharpness and clarity between full HD and HD Lite. All of the HD Lite channels seem on the soft side, while the full HD channels retain detail, sharpness and clarity. They look as good as my OTA HD channels.

 

[goaliebob99]

my tv's native resution is 1920 * 1080I (Sanyo CRT) you can dramatically tell a diffrence.. between HD lite and HD!

 

[riffjim4069]

I have enjoyed full bitrate 1920x1080 on my Mitsubishi Diamond CRT RPTV for 3 years. I know it doesn't fully resolve all 1920x1080, but it comes pretty darn close. I really like my Sony LCD RPTV (native 768) and even the Samsung too, but these sets can't touch the properly calibrated Mits when fed 1920x1080.

I may not be able to tell the difference between 1920x1080, 1440x1080 or 1280x1080 on my 26 Sammy, but the differences are clear on my 50" Sony GWIV, and even more obvious on my Mits. Give me fully bitrate or give me death. Ok, perhaps that's a bit too drastic, but the difference between 1920x1080 and HD-Lite are Night and Day IMO.

 

[Cyclone]

I have a ED plasma and symbolically protest HD Lite despite my technical limitations. Why should I accept less just because I can't tell the difference?

 

[digiblur]

You can easily tell the difference between HD and HDLite. You can also have subchannels and a full 1920x1080i signal on a ATSC stream.

 

[gammadude]

1080p TVs

There are two types of 1080p TVs on the market at this point DLP and LCOS. DLP sets are using a 960x1080 DLP chip to display 1080p via a process called wobulation. Wobulation creates a 1920x1080 picture by displaying an alternating field of 960 vertical pixels in 1/120 of a second. You get a full 1920x1080 field every 1/60 of a second. 1080p LCOS chips have 1920x1080 pixels on each panel. A reduction in resolution from 1920x1080 would be noticeable on these sets since they do display nearly all the pixels from a 1080i source. Whether the average consumer will notice this is another issue. I will stick with the provider that gives me the highest resolution and bitrate (this is why I switched from Directv).

 

[OoTLink]

Aren't you guys forgetting the LCD sets out there that can do 1920x1080 natively? 1080P? yep

I have a friend who still insists his 1360(ish)x768 TV is "1080i" hehe. Oh well..

 

[Sarang]

Aren't you guys forgetting the LCD sets out there that can do 1920x1080 natively? 1080P? yep

I have a friend who still insists his 1360(ish)x768 TV is "1080i" hehe. Oh well..

I remember back in the day looking for an EXTREMELY high res CRT and came across something like 3000x1808 or some crap. Turns out it's for use in the medical field. This was a flat screen monitor. We're talking $6000-7000 here and it was IBM.

 

[JoeSp]

First, if you do not have 9" crts in your RPTV then your set can not possibly do 1920x1080i. Even at that it is still using a line doubler. That is not the same as 1920x1080i native. Also, if someone has seen an HD LCD that can do 1920x 1080i please post here. I do not believe that a native 1920x1080i LCD currently exists. Also the new DLPs that are claiming 1920x1080p are 960x1080p chip sets that use line doubling technology to reach 1920x1080P -- that is not a native 1920x1080 picture.

As for better picture quality. Once you go below 1440x1080i on an HD signal the picture quality using MPEG2 greatly suffers. Lots of mosquito noise and macroblocking in the picture. MPEG4 will reduce that problem greatly if not remove it completely. Your picture will look great.

 

[riffjim4069]

I have 9" CRTs and I am wanting to pick up a new Sony XSRD that fully supports 1920x1080 resolution. Besides the cost of the set, I would have to knock out of wall of custom cabinets in the bedroom that the previous owners installed (I hate them since the entertainment center portion only support a 26" HDTV...and at 16ft. away it sucks!) in order to relocated my 50" Sony GWIV. So after dropping several K on the XSRD and a few more keeping the wife happy, you had better believe that I will not be happy with anything less than 1920x1080. There are quite a few folks picking up a new XSRD and just as many, if not more, picking up a 1080p DLP (Mits, Sammy) wobulation and all.

 

[OoTLink]

First, if you do not have 9" crts in your RPTV then your set can not possibly do 1920x1080i. Even at that it is still using a line doubler. That is not the same as 1920x1080i native. Also, if someone has seen an HD LCD that can do 1920x 1080i please post here. I do not believe that a native 1920x1080i LCD currently exists. Also the new DLPs that are claiming 1920x1080p are 960x1080p chip sets that use line doubling technology to reach 1920x1080P -- that is not a native 1920x1080 picture.

I think either you're too much into Voom's marketing or you just want to justify HD lite man

The 1080P capable LCDs have been around quite a while, we have a 23"er here that does 1920x1200 (though it's a computer monitor NOT a TV), and I know of LCDs that do well past 2560x1600 (30" cinema display there)..

Granted that, if you want a cheap and easy 1080P LCD, there's always those dell 24"ers -- they don't do HDCP (thank goodness haha), and don't have a remote for the power button, but they will function just fine with most DVI signals I'm sure..

As for LCD TVs in the 1920x1080 res, they do exist:

http://www.sharpusa.com/products/TypeLanding/0,1056,s67,00.html
http://www.jr.com/JRProductPage.process?Product_Id=4032614&JRSource=google.datafeed.WET+LVM37W1

[as far as the monitors, apple, samsung, NEC, and dell make 1920x1200 ones that can do 1920x1080 just fine]....

 

[goaliebob99]

witch is the better contrast ratio ? 800:1 or 3000:1

 

[JoeSp]

I am just passing out info. You can chose to believe or not. Hd sets that have a native 1280x720p or 1366x768p resolution have a pixel for every pixle of resolution. That does not mean that they do not receive the 1920x1080i signal -- just that they downrez them to the native resolution of their 720p or 768p output.

Now there are some LcOS screens boasting of 1080i(p) on the market. Sony's new SXRD screen is one but those are 5 digit screens ($10000 and up). Also if you do the math you will see that it is extreemly hard to squeez a 1920x1080i native resolution under 50". This is one of the reasons why most manufacturers use line doublers. Very few will actually print the actual number of lines a HD set puts out.

As for computer monitors, there are some whose resolution is in the strastophere. But we are talking about HD TV/Monitors not computer monitors. And there are no -- I repeat no DLP chips currently on the market that do 1920x1080i(p) natively. The newest chip does 960x1080p and uses a form of line doubling (they call it wobbling) to get to 1920x1080. This is not a native 1920x1080 pixel for pixel output.

Just so that everyone understands -- native in a tv or monitor means that there is a pixel for every picture pixel sent -- no linedoublers, no wobbeling , no majic tricks. The set that I have is a Pioneer Elite 58". This set produces 1400x1080 lines of resolution. The Pioneer Elite 65" did 1650x1080 lines and that was with 9" crts. I had a Sony XRB 57" that I found out had 1000x1080i lines of resolution. Mitsubishi's, Hitachi's and Panasonics were running at 1200x1080 lines on there 7" CRTS. Toshiba's had 800 lines on their 7" CRTs and boasted of 1600 lines of resolution! I believe that on Mits' and Hitachi's top of the line 9" CRTS they are now at 1920x1080i but they are not cheap! It is all numbers game and so far in order to get a real 1920x1080 HD TV/monitor you are going to have to shell out more money the the average consumer is willing to. HD to the masses is not going to be 1920x1080i. Not at least for the next 5 to 6 years.

My original input was that with MPEG4 you will get a much better picture than you have been getting with MPEG2. There will be more bandwith and less picture loss with the new alogorithms. Your HD sets reguardless of native resolution will shine with more bandwith even if they do not go to a full 1920x1080i picture. Here in Raleigh, NC the highest resolution OTA is CBS at 1440x1080I. Why would the E* or D* have to show more resolution than that? And with Fox and ABC at a 720p resolution why would you want to degrade that signal by uprezzing to 1080i(p)?

At the last HDNET symposim on OTA HD most of the individuals participating agreed that in order to send out a 1920x1080i picture -- must less a 1920x1080p picture that all of the stations broadcasting with multi-cast (more then one program on a digital channel, ie. 5.1, 5.2, 5.3) OTA HD would have to move to MPEG4 too. This would include us having to have MPEG4 OTA receivers. Don't believe there are any of those on the horizon yet.

 

[gammadude]

Aren't you guys forgetting the LCD sets out there that can do 1920x1080 natively? 1080P? yep

Yep, I forgot LCDs. Sharp and others have 1080p LCDs out now. Plasmas will follow in 2006.

BTW, all 1080p displays are progressive and refresh at 60 Hz. All 1080i content must be "line doubled" for display on these sets. There is no way around that. The quality of the scaling depends on the chipset in the TV. This is true with the variety of DVD players that do 480i to 480p conversion.

Also, the quality of wobulated DLP vs. "native" 1080p LCOS and LCD is under great debate. Sound and Vision just reviewed the new HP 65" DLP using a wobulated chip and found it resolved nearly all of the detail of their 1080p test pattern. Sony SXRDs are more reasonably priced than the five figure Qualia 006 released earlier this year. The 60" SXRD can be found at $5,000 and under.

 

[OoTLink]

*shrug* blame the broadcasters for being too cheap and wanting too much profit