Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds15637.html
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds15637.html
Digital Spy - EBU back 720p50 for HD in Europe
- Thread starter Guest
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Digital TV HD Home Theatre Video
- Status
Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)
manitou910 wrote:
>
> http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds15637.html
>
A terrible decision.
As proved by the recent Olympics HDTV broadcast fiasco,
50 Hz is a major disaster when converted to 60HZ ...
Europe should go 60HZ for HDTV. The only significant
current players, the USA, Japan, and South Korea, are
all 60 HZ. If Europe remains 50HZ, they will never
be able to sell programming outside their ghetto.
Doug McDonald
manitou910 wrote:
>
> http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds15637.html
>
A terrible decision.
As proved by the recent Olympics HDTV broadcast fiasco,
50 Hz is a major disaster when converted to 60HZ ...
Europe should go 60HZ for HDTV. The only significant
current players, the USA, Japan, and South Korea, are
all 60 HZ. If Europe remains 50HZ, they will never
be able to sell programming outside their ghetto.
Doug McDonald
Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)
Gegroet,
Doug McDonald schreef:
>> http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds15637.html
> A terrible decision.
> As proved by the recent Olympics HDTV broadcast fiasco,
> 50 Hz is a major disaster when converted to 60HZ ...
> Europe should go 60HZ for HDTV. The only significant
> current players, the USA, Japan, and South Korea, are
> all 60 HZ. If Europe remains 50HZ, they will never
> be able to sell programming outside their ghetto.
grin.
I'm sorry Doug, but IMHO, the descision to buy a certain program is
purely based on the content of the program. Things like 50Hz, 60Hz,
1080i or 720p is of no important at all.
Do you really think that broadcasters around the world will not buy
(say) "walking with <whatever>" anymore from the BBC because the norm
for HDTV in Europe is 720i/50?
> Doug McDonald
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
--
Kristoff Bonne, Bredene, BEL
H323 VoIP: callto://krbonne.homelinux.net/
[nl] [fr] [en] [de]
Gegroet,
Doug McDonald schreef:
>> http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds15637.html
> A terrible decision.
> As proved by the recent Olympics HDTV broadcast fiasco,
> 50 Hz is a major disaster when converted to 60HZ ...
> Europe should go 60HZ for HDTV. The only significant
> current players, the USA, Japan, and South Korea, are
> all 60 HZ. If Europe remains 50HZ, they will never
> be able to sell programming outside their ghetto.
grin.
I'm sorry Doug, but IMHO, the descision to buy a certain program is
purely based on the content of the program. Things like 50Hz, 60Hz,
1080i or 720p is of no important at all.
Do you really think that broadcasters around the world will not buy
(say) "walking with <whatever>" anymore from the BBC because the norm
for HDTV in Europe is 720i/50?
> Doug McDonald
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
--
Kristoff Bonne, Bredene, BEL
H323 VoIP: callto://krbonne.homelinux.net/
[nl] [fr] [en] [de]
Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)
Kristoff Bonne wrote:
>
>
> Do you think a broadcaster will not buy the olympic games because they
> are in 50 Hz? You pay to much attention to technology! TV-technology is
> only there to get content to the viewer so that they can sell advertising.
No .... because of the prestige value, they will demand that
the Olympics be shot in HD in a non-inferior format ... i.e.
60 HZ.
Why should we people in the US have to endure inferior products
because of the inability of Europeans to do it right?
The next Olympics should at a MINIMUM be done with HD 60HZ cameras
.... or, better for you Europeans, simultaneously done in 60HZ HD and
50 HZ SD.
You know, I just realized that the lighting argument is a
total red herring: our cameras are NOT 60 Hz!!! They are 59.94,
and there is absolutely no problem from the difference. There
is no color or intensity drift across the screen as the
two frequencies beat.
Doug McDonald
Kristoff Bonne wrote:
>
>
> Do you think a broadcaster will not buy the olympic games because they
> are in 50 Hz? You pay to much attention to technology! TV-technology is
> only there to get content to the viewer so that they can sell advertising.
No .... because of the prestige value, they will demand that
the Olympics be shot in HD in a non-inferior format ... i.e.
60 HZ.
Why should we people in the US have to endure inferior products
because of the inability of Europeans to do it right?
The next Olympics should at a MINIMUM be done with HD 60HZ cameras
.... or, better for you Europeans, simultaneously done in 60HZ HD and
50 HZ SD.
You know, I just realized that the lighting argument is a
total red herring: our cameras are NOT 60 Hz!!! They are 59.94,
and there is absolutely no problem from the difference. There
is no color or intensity drift across the screen as the
two frequencies beat.
Doug McDonald
Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)
Gegroet,
Doug McDonald schreef:
>> Do you think a broadcaster will not buy the olympic games because they
>> are in 50 Hz? You pay to much attention to technology! TV-technology
>> is only there to get content to the viewer so that they can sell
>> advertising.
> No .... because of the prestige value, they will demand that
> the Olympics be shot in HD in a non-inferior format ... i.e.
> 60 HZ.
The olympics wasn't even in 16/9 overhere. So much for the "demand for
prestige value".
> Why should we people in the US have to endure inferior products
> because of the inability of Europeans to do it right?
Because we who controls the content, controls it all. As simple as that.
If you want to have this content in 60 Hz, then the question is simple.
Are you willing to pay the extra costs for this? If not, you'll get it
in 50 Hz or you get nothing at all.
> Doug McDonald
Cheerio! r. Bonne.
--
Kristoff Bonne, Bredene, BEL
H323 VoIP: callto://krbonne.homelinux.net/
[nl] [fr] [en] [de]
Gegroet,
Doug McDonald schreef:
>> Do you think a broadcaster will not buy the olympic games because they
>> are in 50 Hz? You pay to much attention to technology! TV-technology
>> is only there to get content to the viewer so that they can sell
>> advertising.
> No .... because of the prestige value, they will demand that
> the Olympics be shot in HD in a non-inferior format ... i.e.
> 60 HZ.
The olympics wasn't even in 16/9 overhere. So much for the "demand for
prestige value".
> Why should we people in the US have to endure inferior products
> because of the inability of Europeans to do it right?
Because we who controls the content, controls it all. As simple as that.
If you want to have this content in 60 Hz, then the question is simple.
Are you willing to pay the extra costs for this? If not, you'll get it
in 50 Hz or you get nothing at all.
> Doug McDonald
Cheerio! r. Bonne.
--
Kristoff Bonne, Bredene, BEL
H323 VoIP: callto://krbonne.homelinux.net/
[nl] [fr] [en] [de]
Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)
Kristoff Bonne wrote:
>
>> Why should we people in the US have to endure inferior products
>> because of the inability of Europeans to do it right?
>
> Because we who controls the content, controls it all. As simple as that.
>
> If you want to have this content in 60 Hz, then the question is simple.
> Are you willing to pay the extra costs for this? If not, you'll get it
> in 50 Hz or you get nothing at all.
At least the Euro proposal is for progressive scan (though 720 lines
isn't a huge increase over PAL's 576), which means it will be
comparatively easy to manufacture displays running at 75hz -- which will
eliminate the flicker associated with 50hz displays.
I wasn't impressed with the PAL 100hz TVs I saw in Milan two months ago
-- terrible interlace artifacts, effectively trading one shortcoming for
another.
C.
Kristoff Bonne wrote:
>
>> Why should we people in the US have to endure inferior products
>> because of the inability of Europeans to do it right?
>
> Because we who controls the content, controls it all. As simple as that.
>
> If you want to have this content in 60 Hz, then the question is simple.
> Are you willing to pay the extra costs for this? If not, you'll get it
> in 50 Hz or you get nothing at all.
At least the Euro proposal is for progressive scan (though 720 lines
isn't a huge increase over PAL's 576), which means it will be
comparatively easy to manufacture displays running at 75hz -- which will
eliminate the flicker associated with 50hz displays.
I wasn't impressed with the PAL 100hz TVs I saw in Milan two months ago
-- terrible interlace artifacts, effectively trading one shortcoming for
another.
C.
Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)
Kristoff Bonne wrote:
> If you want to have this content in 60 Hz, then the question is simple.
> Are you willing to pay the extra costs for this?
Yes .... of course! NBC has already said that all of the 2006
Winter Olympics will be in HD. Virtually ALL of HD transmissions
are in 60HZ countries. Ergo, use a 60HZ system.
The Australians can either use the 60Hz feed or pay for the
50 HZ.
Europe, of course, is sufficiently backwards not to need
an HD feed.
Doug McDonald
Kristoff Bonne wrote:
> If you want to have this content in 60 Hz, then the question is simple.
> Are you willing to pay the extra costs for this?
Yes .... of course! NBC has already said that all of the 2006
Winter Olympics will be in HD. Virtually ALL of HD transmissions
are in 60HZ countries. Ergo, use a 60HZ system.
The Australians can either use the 60Hz feed or pay for the
50 HZ.
Europe, of course, is sufficiently backwards not to need
an HD feed.
Doug McDonald
Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)
Gegroet,
Doug McDonald schreef:
>> If you want to have this content in 60 Hz, then the question is
>> simple. Are you willing to pay the extra costs for this?
> Yes .... of course! NBC has already said that all of the 2006
> Winter Olympics will be in HD.
Sure, but 720p/50Hz is HD too, isn't it?
The 2006 wintergames are in Italy, so a 50Hz country.
> ... Virtually ALL of HD transmissions are in 60HZ countries.
> Ergo, use a 60HZ system.
Wrong attitude. You are the buyer, and -in a monopoly-based business-
you're on the wrong side of the counter.
We who controls the content, controls it all.
> Europe, of course, is sufficiently backwards not to need
> an HD feed.
Never mind. I might be watching it as a datacast on my mobile phone.
People are much more "on the move" then they are at home watching TV.
> Doug McDonald
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
--
Kristoff Bonne, Bredene, BEL
H323 VoIP: callto://krbonne.homelinux.net/
[nl] [fr] [en] [de]
Gegroet,
Doug McDonald schreef:
>> If you want to have this content in 60 Hz, then the question is
>> simple. Are you willing to pay the extra costs for this?
> Yes .... of course! NBC has already said that all of the 2006
> Winter Olympics will be in HD.
Sure, but 720p/50Hz is HD too, isn't it?
The 2006 wintergames are in Italy, so a 50Hz country.
> ... Virtually ALL of HD transmissions are in 60HZ countries.
> Ergo, use a 60HZ system.
Wrong attitude. You are the buyer, and -in a monopoly-based business-
you're on the wrong side of the counter.
We who controls the content, controls it all.
> Europe, of course, is sufficiently backwards not to need
> an HD feed.
Never mind. I might be watching it as a datacast on my mobile phone.
People are much more "on the move" then they are at home watching TV.
> Doug McDonald
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
--
Kristoff Bonne, Bredene, BEL
H323 VoIP: callto://krbonne.homelinux.net/
[nl] [fr] [en] [de]
Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)
Kristoff Bonne wrote:
> Gegroet,
>
> Doug McDonald schreef:
>
>>> If you want to have this content in 60 Hz, then the question is
>>> simple. Are you willing to pay the extra costs for this?
>
>
>> Yes .... of course! NBC has already said that all of the 2006
>> Winter Olympics will be in HD.
>
> Sure, but 720p/50Hz is HD too, isn't it?
Not in the US it is not. It would be "ED" officially. In practice,
FOR STATIC STUFF like talking heads, of course it is HD.
BUT ... when sports are converted from 50 to 60Hz, it MOST
EMPHATICALLY ceases to be even ED .... not even SD ....
it is simply either mud or vapor. The Olympics were
a great example of this. The 50->60 Hz conversions
of both the HD (it was 1080@50i which is unequivocally HD)
and SD programs were awful. It was just harder to tell on SD
since the SD was analog. The same disastrous breakups
were present.
There were double images, improperly placed interpolations,
edges of things that interpolated to jagged pastiches of
adjacent in time frames, and sometimes, especially in flying logos,
simply large areas of white where stuff should have been. Divers ...
diving and swimming was the worst ... with missing limbs, divers
split in half and superimposed on the wrong part of the background,
etc.
It is clear just from thought that a 50->60 HZ conversion is
an EXCEEDINGLY difficult problem with only one correct solution:
a computer modelling of the entire scene, converting it to
a vector-planar representation of each scene, followed by
a computer simulation of the motion, followed by a full
re-rendering of the scene of each frame. And the information
available for the modelling part would likely have to be
derived from a second or so of data. This would simply not be
possible at the present time in real time.
We regularly get HD sports in the US ... it is commonplace ...
and the results are spectacularly good. Last night I both watched
the football game and looked at the spectral content of the
component output of my STB box's luma channel. The pixel clock is
about 74 MHZ, and I saw real, non-aliased, actually useful,
information out to over 30MHz ... despite the 3 dB point of the STB
being 18 MHz. I know it was real pictorial information because I
could see a difference in the picture if I used cables that changed
the 3 dB point to 12 MHz. There was absolutely ZERO of the
artifacts I saw on the Olympics ... even the flying logos in freeze
frame were excellent, and they could not be encoded as motion
vectors since they move too fast.
Doug McDonald
>
> The 2006 wintergames are in Italy, so a 50Hz country.
>
>
> > ... Virtually ALL of HD transmissions are in 60HZ countries.
> > Ergo, use a 60HZ system.
>
> Wrong attitude. You are the buyer, and -in a monopoly-based business-
> you're on the wrong side of the counter.
>
> We who controls the content, controls it all.
>
>
>> Europe, of course, is sufficiently backwards not to need
>> an HD feed.
>
> Never mind. I might be watching it as a datacast on my mobile phone.
>
>
> People are much more "on the move" then they are at home watching TV.
>
>
>
>
>> Doug McDonald
>
> Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
Kristoff Bonne wrote:
> Gegroet,
>
> Doug McDonald schreef:
>
>>> If you want to have this content in 60 Hz, then the question is
>>> simple. Are you willing to pay the extra costs for this?
>
>
>> Yes .... of course! NBC has already said that all of the 2006
>> Winter Olympics will be in HD.
>
> Sure, but 720p/50Hz is HD too, isn't it?
Not in the US it is not. It would be "ED" officially. In practice,
FOR STATIC STUFF like talking heads, of course it is HD.
BUT ... when sports are converted from 50 to 60Hz, it MOST
EMPHATICALLY ceases to be even ED .... not even SD ....
it is simply either mud or vapor. The Olympics were
a great example of this. The 50->60 Hz conversions
of both the HD (it was 1080@50i which is unequivocally HD)
and SD programs were awful. It was just harder to tell on SD
since the SD was analog. The same disastrous breakups
were present.
There were double images, improperly placed interpolations,
edges of things that interpolated to jagged pastiches of
adjacent in time frames, and sometimes, especially in flying logos,
simply large areas of white where stuff should have been. Divers ...
diving and swimming was the worst ... with missing limbs, divers
split in half and superimposed on the wrong part of the background,
etc.
It is clear just from thought that a 50->60 HZ conversion is
an EXCEEDINGLY difficult problem with only one correct solution:
a computer modelling of the entire scene, converting it to
a vector-planar representation of each scene, followed by
a computer simulation of the motion, followed by a full
re-rendering of the scene of each frame. And the information
available for the modelling part would likely have to be
derived from a second or so of data. This would simply not be
possible at the present time in real time.
We regularly get HD sports in the US ... it is commonplace ...
and the results are spectacularly good. Last night I both watched
the football game and looked at the spectral content of the
component output of my STB box's luma channel. The pixel clock is
about 74 MHZ, and I saw real, non-aliased, actually useful,
information out to over 30MHz ... despite the 3 dB point of the STB
being 18 MHz. I know it was real pictorial information because I
could see a difference in the picture if I used cables that changed
the 3 dB point to 12 MHz. There was absolutely ZERO of the
artifacts I saw on the Olympics ... even the flying logos in freeze
frame were excellent, and they could not be encoded as motion
vectors since they move too fast.
Doug McDonald
>
> The 2006 wintergames are in Italy, so a 50Hz country.
>
>
> > ... Virtually ALL of HD transmissions are in 60HZ countries.
> > Ergo, use a 60HZ system.
>
> Wrong attitude. You are the buyer, and -in a monopoly-based business-
> you're on the wrong side of the counter.
>
> We who controls the content, controls it all.
>
>
>> Europe, of course, is sufficiently backwards not to need
>> an HD feed.
>
> Never mind. I might be watching it as a datacast on my mobile phone.
>
>
> People are much more "on the move" then they are at home watching TV.
>
>
>
>
>> Doug McDonald
>
> Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)
"manitou910" <manitou910@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:TA00d.286052$UTP.146618@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Kristoff Bonne wrote:
>>
>>> Why should we people in the US have to endure inferior products
>>> because of the inability of Europeans to do it right?
>>
>> Because we who controls the content, controls it all. As simple as that.
>>
>> If you want to have this content in 60 Hz, then the question is simple. Are
>> you willing to pay the extra costs for this? If not, you'll get it in 50 Hz
>> or you get nothing at all.
>
> At least the Euro proposal is for progressive scan (though 720 lines isn't a
> huge increase over PAL's 576), which means it will be comparatively easy to
> manufacture displays running at 75hz -- which will eliminate the flicker
> associated with 50hz displays.
Most flat panels/plasmas scan independently of the source, I doubt many people
in Europe would physically tolerate a 42" CRT for HD already given the sales of
flat panel TV's. I don't recall seeing anything above 36" 16:9 using CRT
technology in the shops, there's plenty of large plasmas and lcd's kicking about
though.
> I wasn't impressed with the PAL 100hz TVs I saw in Milan two months ago --
> terrible interlace artifacts, effectively trading one shortcoming for another.
I suppose that's why the EBU are looking to fix the emission format as
progressive and leave any conversion to heavy iron at the broadcasters end.
Az.
"manitou910" <manitou910@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:TA00d.286052$UTP.146618@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Kristoff Bonne wrote:
>>
>>> Why should we people in the US have to endure inferior products
>>> because of the inability of Europeans to do it right?
>>
>> Because we who controls the content, controls it all. As simple as that.
>>
>> If you want to have this content in 60 Hz, then the question is simple. Are
>> you willing to pay the extra costs for this? If not, you'll get it in 50 Hz
>> or you get nothing at all.
>
> At least the Euro proposal is for progressive scan (though 720 lines isn't a
> huge increase over PAL's 576), which means it will be comparatively easy to
> manufacture displays running at 75hz -- which will eliminate the flicker
> associated with 50hz displays.
Most flat panels/plasmas scan independently of the source, I doubt many people
in Europe would physically tolerate a 42" CRT for HD already given the sales of
flat panel TV's. I don't recall seeing anything above 36" 16:9 using CRT
technology in the shops, there's plenty of large plasmas and lcd's kicking about
though.
> I wasn't impressed with the PAL 100hz TVs I saw in Milan two months ago --
> terrible interlace artifacts, effectively trading one shortcoming for another.
I suppose that's why the EBU are looking to fix the emission format as
progressive and leave any conversion to heavy iron at the broadcasters end.
Az.
Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)
Aztech wrote:
>>
>>At least the Euro proposal is for progressive scan (though 720 lines isn't a
>>huge increase over PAL's 576), which means it will be comparatively easy to
>>manufacture displays running at 75hz -- which will eliminate the flicker
>>associated with 50hz displays.
>
> Most flat panels/plasmas scan independently of the source, I doubt many people
> in Europe would physically tolerate a 42" CRT for HD already given the sales of
> flat panel TV's. I don't recall seeing anything above 36" 16:9 using CRT
> technology in the shops, there's plenty of large plasmas and lcd's kicking about
> though.
Loewe produced a 38" (diagonal widescreen TV a few years ago (it was
eventually marketed in America), and Sony has produced a 40" 4x3 AR set.
While increasingly large, clunky TVs don't make for attractive decor
(especially in smaller rooms), I'd like to see Sony produce _just one_
38" or 40" diagonal widescreen CRT set, at least for the US/Canada
markets -- the XBR1000!
If the popularity of Sony's best XBR direct-view TVs over the past
decade (starting with the XBR100 in 1995) is an indicator, such a set
likely would be a hot seller. It would be a lot cheaper than a decent
plasma and likely way better than LCD units to date.
>>I wasn't impressed with the PAL 100hz TVs I saw in Milan two months ago --
>>terrible interlace artifacts, effectively trading one shortcoming for another.
>
> I suppose that's why the EBU are looking to fix the emission format as
> progressive and leave any conversion to heavy iron at the broadcasters end.
It's a lot easier to rescale (up or down) a progressive scan video image
than an interlace one.
C.
Aztech wrote:
>>
>>At least the Euro proposal is for progressive scan (though 720 lines isn't a
>>huge increase over PAL's 576), which means it will be comparatively easy to
>>manufacture displays running at 75hz -- which will eliminate the flicker
>>associated with 50hz displays.
>
> Most flat panels/plasmas scan independently of the source, I doubt many people
> in Europe would physically tolerate a 42" CRT for HD already given the sales of
> flat panel TV's. I don't recall seeing anything above 36" 16:9 using CRT
> technology in the shops, there's plenty of large plasmas and lcd's kicking about
> though.
Loewe produced a 38" (diagonal widescreen TV a few years ago (it was
eventually marketed in America), and Sony has produced a 40" 4x3 AR set.
While increasingly large, clunky TVs don't make for attractive decor
(especially in smaller rooms), I'd like to see Sony produce _just one_
38" or 40" diagonal widescreen CRT set, at least for the US/Canada
markets -- the XBR1000!
If the popularity of Sony's best XBR direct-view TVs over the past
decade (starting with the XBR100 in 1995) is an indicator, such a set
likely would be a hot seller. It would be a lot cheaper than a decent
plasma and likely way better than LCD units to date.
>>I wasn't impressed with the PAL 100hz TVs I saw in Milan two months ago --
>>terrible interlace artifacts, effectively trading one shortcoming for another.
>
> I suppose that's why the EBU are looking to fix the emission format as
> progressive and leave any conversion to heavy iron at the broadcasters end.
It's a lot easier to rescale (up or down) a progressive scan video image
than an interlace one.
C.
Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)
manitou910 wrote:
> While increasingly large, clunky TVs don't make for attractive decor
> (especially in smaller rooms), I'd like to see Sony produce _just one_
> 38" or 40" diagonal widescreen CRT set, at least for the US/Canada
> markets -- the XBR1000!
Wwll, they make a 34 inch dircet view CRT ... and I have seen it
in direct comparison to the 43 to 60 inch RP LCD and DLP sets
from Panasonic, Samsung, and Sony. There is no contest, the
direct view set loses.
>
> If the popularity of Sony's best XBR direct-view TVs over the past
> decade (starting with the XBR100 in 1995) is an indicator, such a set
> likely would be a hot seller. It would be a lot cheaper than a decent
> plasma and likely way better than LCD units to date.
I can assure you that the direct view set was totally annihilated
by both the Panasonic and Sony RPLCD sets. The direct view
CRT set was capable of its best resolution ... which was still
inferior to the projection sets ... only at exceedingly low
brightness levels, which were unwatchable even in the low
level illumination of the TV section of Circuit City. The 34 inch
direct view Sony was only a tiny bit cheaper than 50 inch RPLCD sets
that weigh far far less.
Doug McDonald
manitou910 wrote:
> While increasingly large, clunky TVs don't make for attractive decor
> (especially in smaller rooms), I'd like to see Sony produce _just one_
> 38" or 40" diagonal widescreen CRT set, at least for the US/Canada
> markets -- the XBR1000!
Wwll, they make a 34 inch dircet view CRT ... and I have seen it
in direct comparison to the 43 to 60 inch RP LCD and DLP sets
from Panasonic, Samsung, and Sony. There is no contest, the
direct view set loses.
>
> If the popularity of Sony's best XBR direct-view TVs over the past
> decade (starting with the XBR100 in 1995) is an indicator, such a set
> likely would be a hot seller. It would be a lot cheaper than a decent
> plasma and likely way better than LCD units to date.
I can assure you that the direct view set was totally annihilated
by both the Panasonic and Sony RPLCD sets. The direct view
CRT set was capable of its best resolution ... which was still
inferior to the projection sets ... only at exceedingly low
brightness levels, which were unwatchable even in the low
level illumination of the TV section of Circuit City. The 34 inch
direct view Sony was only a tiny bit cheaper than 50 inch RPLCD sets
that weigh far far less.
Doug McDonald
Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)
"manitou910" <manitou910@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:TA00d.286052$UTP.146618@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Kristoff Bonne wrote:
> >
> >> Why should we people in the US have to endure inferior products
> >> because of the inability of Europeans to do it right?
> >
> > Because we who controls the content, controls it all. As simple as that.
> >
> > If you want to have this content in 60 Hz, then the question is simple.
> > Are you willing to pay the extra costs for this? If not, you'll get it
> > in 50 Hz or you get nothing at all.
>
> At least the Euro proposal is for progressive scan (though 720 lines
> isn't a huge increase over PAL's 576), which means it will be
>
720p is a significant increase over 576i, but also 720p in the US also
implies 1280H, while 576i USUALLY implies only 720H. So, the
improvement of 720p over 576i is significantly greater than is
implied by the unitless numbers of 720 vs. 576.
John
"manitou910" <manitou910@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:TA00d.286052$UTP.146618@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Kristoff Bonne wrote:
> >
> >> Why should we people in the US have to endure inferior products
> >> because of the inability of Europeans to do it right?
> >
> > Because we who controls the content, controls it all. As simple as that.
> >
> > If you want to have this content in 60 Hz, then the question is simple.
> > Are you willing to pay the extra costs for this? If not, you'll get it
> > in 50 Hz or you get nothing at all.
>
> At least the Euro proposal is for progressive scan (though 720 lines
> isn't a huge increase over PAL's 576), which means it will be
>
720p is a significant increase over 576i, but also 720p in the US also
implies 1280H, while 576i USUALLY implies only 720H. So, the
improvement of 720p over 576i is significantly greater than is
implied by the unitless numbers of 720 vs. 576.
John
iphone12007
Distinguished
- Aug 8, 2011
- 1
- 0
- 18,510
With the Copy9 application, you can now locate and activate the microphone away from a free Android phone
You can download the software for free at: http://www.spytic.com
You can download the software for free at: http://www.spytic.com
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
- Locked
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Looking for upgrade.msd for Samsung UE32D5700RSXZG (T-MST5DEUC)
- Started by Sebasstian
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Question Keyboard key presses are very delayed or entirely unresponsive
- Started by Troika
- Replies: 5
-
Question Old text messages not showing up on new android phone
- Started by Weathered95
- Replies: 49
-
Question iPhone 16 | 'stickiness' for wireless connections
- Started by johnny.canuck
- Replies: 3
Facebook
Twitter