DVD Forum / NO Full Bandwidth HD over Component Analog Video - Page 8 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #211 of 233 Old 08-13-2005, 09:39 PM
 
merc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deep in the Woodlands of Texas
Posts: 3,008
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
So I know it has been on the market for less than three years.
And... technology wise, the DVI or HDMI digital input is ONLY an advance for digital HDTVs.... for CRT based HDTVs, DVI and HDMI inputs are a downgrade versus our analog component video and RGB inputs.

Hollywood REALLY doesn't give a rat's ass about improving our home theater enjoyment or performance...... all they want is YOUR MONEY and personal INFORMATION which makes them even more money....... WAKE UP FOLKS... HOLLYWOOD DESPISES YOU, but they do LOVE your MONEY!
merc is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #212 of 233 Old 08-14-2005, 04:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dale Adams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Anchor Bay, CA
Posts: 1,886
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by merc
Well Dale, if I am so wrong about you and your knowledge of AV stuff and the industry, why not tell us all again what industry you work in???
Where did I ever say anything about what industry I worked in? You used an argument that said because you lived in the sticks that you couldn't know about this stuff, and that because I lived in the highly cosmopolitan city of Anchor Bay (yes, I'm paraphrasing here) I do. I just showed that argument was wrong. You make a lot of assumptions. Many of them have been demonstrated to be wrong. That might lead someone else to question other of his assumptions. . .

Quote:
All your other comments have already been used repeatedly by defenders of Hollywood in order to rationalize their misleading with regard to what HDTVs are supposed to support. On the surface, my guess was that high definition TVs were made to show high definition sourced images. DOH!!! Now I know better as do we all.
Sigh. . . I'm not defending Hollywood. I don't like what they're doing. They have every right to do it, however. What I can't defend is your assumption (there's that word again) that just because the HDTV you bought 4 years ago worked with the HDTV sources present at the time, that it would always work with all HDTV sources forever. That's not even true for the majority of upsampling DVD players, which have been on the market for a while. Why did you ever think it would be true for HD DVD players (which aren't even shipping yet)? More assumptions?

I'll ask this again: Did your display suddenly stop working with analog 720p (Does it even work with this? Many don't . . .) and 1080i signals? If not, then your HDTV is still doing what it was designed and advertised to do. If the industry comes out with a new delivery format that didn't even exist when you bought your TV, why do you assume it's guaranteed to be compatible? Would you like it to be? Sure. Should you expect it to be? Well . . .

Quote:
If my HDTV truly supported HD-DVD at high definition image display rez, then I have no problem.
Your HDTV doesn't support HD-SDI, either. There are lots of things it won't work with, and there's sure to be more in the future.

Quote:
If the new format was called HDCP-DVD, then, I too would understand that Hollywood had moved to a new non-HD format with regard to their new discs and feel less insult too. If Hollywood would publish their new players and formats as Phone Home, AAC-AAC, HDCP-DVD players and discs... then and only then would they be approaching something like real truth in advertising. ;)
There's another assumption on your part - i.e., that "HD" means only analog 720p or 1080i. That's not true now and has never been true. You're also assuming that HD-resolution optical disc players will be required to have a phone or internet connection. You don't know that either. (It might turn out to be true, but then again, it might not.)

Please show me where 'Hollywood' has said that HD optical disc players would put out an analog HD signal. And no assumptions, please. Where is an official statement from 'Hollywood, Inc.' that says this? If you can't do that, or can't show where it was at least very strongly implied, then you don't have a case.

You know, Merc, if you spent a fraction of the time you spend posting on this board learning about the field you seem to care so much about, you wouldn't have been caught by surprise.

- Dale Adams
Dale Adams is offline  
post #213 of 233 Old 08-14-2005, 04:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dale Adams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Anchor Bay, CA
Posts: 1,886
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Desmond
DVI hasn't been around that long, let alone HDMI.

In early 2002 I was working at a company that was involved in designing portions of the semiconductors that would be used in DVI systems. As I recall, at that point in time, nothing was on the market from anyone, although DVI was being talked about as the "next big thing"

So I know it has been on the market for less than three years.
DVI has been around a lot longer than 3 years. It first appeared in PC displays (which is what it was initially created for) over 5 years ago. For that matter, 5 years ago DVI with HDCP existed, although there weren't any products on the market yet. It wasn't a big secret, though. 4 years ago the company I worked for was developing a video processor with a DVI output, and more than 3 years ago we went to a Fry's electronics store to test out that product with several TVs they had on display which had DVI inputs. HDMI chips were in development 4 years ago and the concept was being actively marketed to the consumer electronics industry. There were numerous press releases and mentions in home theater magazines about the coming of HDMI.

Yes, if you weren't paying attention you might have missed all this. It's not like it wasn't there, however. For that matter, you can't go into a store today and look at an HD DVD player either. That doesn't mean you don't know about them or haven't been hearing about them for some time. (And that is what this discussion is about, right?)

- Dale Adams
Dale Adams is offline  
post #214 of 233 Old 08-14-2005, 04:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dale Adams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Anchor Bay, CA
Posts: 1,886
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by merc
And... technology wise, the DVI or HDMI digital input is ONLY an advance for digital HDTVs.... for CRT based HDTVs, DVI and HDMI inputs are a downgrade versus our analog component video and RGB inputs.
Yet another assumption that's not necessarily true. All common forms of HD source material are digital. Most (all?) delivery methods are digital. True, at some point that digital signal must get converted to analog if you're using an analog TV. It's generally an advantage to keep the signal in digital form as long as possible, so it may actually be better for your analog TV to have a digital input. For example, if you have a CRT RPTV which can't natively display 720p (which most don't), then something has to convert a 1080i-resolution source image to 720p. What you don't want to do is feed your TV an analog 720p signal, have it digitize it, convert it to 1080i, and then convert it back to analog for display on your CRT-based TV.

Quote:
Hollywood REALLY doesn't give a rat's ass about improving our home theater enjoyment or performance...... all they want is YOUR MONEY and personal INFORMATION which makes them even more money....... WAKE UP FOLKS... HOLLYWOOD DESPISES YOU, but they do LOVE your MONEY!
You're just learning this now? After all the crap that's gone on over the years with VCRs, and then Macrovision for composite video, and then Macrovision for progressive DVD player outputs? Hmmm. . .

- Dale Adams
Dale Adams is offline  
post #215 of 233 Old 08-14-2005, 07:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mikey p's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sealy, TX!
Posts: 1,904
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Adams
Yet another assumption that's not necessarily true.
- Dale Adams
I still fail to see your point (other than trolling this thread)? As I remember DVI output (NO HDCP ROFLOL) was first on some high end computer video cards, maybe still is, I know my three ATI cards have both? However there were not too many computer displays that took DVI in, this might still be true (and I'd not know about ultra high end work stations)?

So how do you do a jump of faith that HDTV from the start had this all mapped out, not many even had firewire in, then (seems some Mit's and the Sony XBR's)? Never the less it really does not matter I'll need new displays in 5 years anyway.

BTW; This does not mean I go along with Hollywood at all, nor do I have a problem paying a fair price for the software I watch. YMMV :D

It is "WOW" TV!
mikey p is offline  
post #216 of 233 Old 08-14-2005, 08:55 AM
 
merc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deep in the Woodlands of Texas
Posts: 3,008
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Where did I ever say anything about what industry I worked in? You used an argument that said because you lived in the sticks that you couldn't know about this stuff, and that because I lived in the highly cosmopolitan city of Anchor Bay (yes, I'm paraphrasing here) I do. I just showed that argument was wrong. You make a lot of assumptions. Many of them have been demonstrated to be wrong. That might lead someone else to question other of his assumptions. . .
Well, maybe it is because of answers like yours that folks make those assumptions??? I hope that you do realize that instead of answering my question(not assumption), you tried to evade it by posting this drivel... LOL.... ;)


Quote:
Sigh. . . I'm not defending Hollywood. I don't like what they're doing. They have every right to do it, however. What I can't defend is your assumption (there's that word again) that just because the HDTV you bought 4 years ago worked with the HDTV sources present at the time, that it would always work with all HDTV sources forever. That's not even true for the majority of upsampling DVD players, which have been on the market for a while. Why did you ever think it would be true for HD DVD players (which aren't even shipping yet)? More assumptions?
If I was you, I could start talking about your assumptions without answering your questions... but that's not my style. :)
Instead, YES, Pioneer and my retailer did tell me that my HDTV would work and display all high definition images available from sources until I upgraded to a 1080p TV. When I bought a brand new Pioneer 59avi upconverting player to go with my relatively new Pioneer HDTV, and found it did not work with my HDTV, I called Pioneer. Jim from Pioneer told me not to worry about it since upconverted DVD ISN'T real high definition. At that time, he said that my Pioneer HDTV(still the latest and greatest Pioneer CRT HDTV model) would work and display true high definition DVD when it was availailable.

As for your BS on DVI being available for 3 years.... so what? As long as HDCP isn't required, DVI and HDMI is just fine with me too.

Quote:
Your HDTV doesn't support HD-SDI, either. There are lots of things it won't work with, and there's sure to be more in the future.
Err... yes, it worked fine with my iScan HD-SDI, thank you..... but, that unit's HDCP requirement messed up that idea so I sold my piece of crap iScan HD-SDI to some other fool, for the industry co-conspirator that it was.... ROTFL.....

Quote:
Yet another assumption that's not necessarily true. All common forms of HD source material are digital. Most (all?) delivery methods are digital.
Err, Dale, your employer is being exposed, more and more with each of your posts.... I am not making an assumption in this case but you are...
You might be better served in the future to actually check out my HDTV model before you look like a fool. MY CRT HDTV accepts and displays natively an analog 1080i HD signal.

Quote:
Please show me where 'Hollywood' has said that HD optical disc players would put out an analog HD signal. And no assumptions, please. Where is an official statement from 'Hollywood, Inc.' that says this? If you can't do that, or can't show where it was at least very strongly implied, then you don't have a case.
Huh? I thought that they were calling their players high definition DVD players??? Once they change the name to HDCP-DVD players, I will have no complaints. Otherwise, a high definition DVD should display a HD image just fine on my HDTV.

Quote:
You know, Merc, if you spent a fraction of the time you spend posting on this board learning about the field you seem to care so much about, you wouldn't have been caught by surprise.
The key here.... is to make sure that no one else is ever trusting enough of Hollywood or their co-conspirator manufacturers to ever get suprised again.....

Quote:
You're just learning this now? After all the crap that's gone on over the years with VCRs, and then Macrovision for composite video, and then Macrovision for progressive DVD player outputs? Hmmm. . .
Sorry Dale, but none of that ever purposefully obsoleted any of my gear. You made the same mistake as does Hollywood by assuming that we are all pirates and thieves.... and that is sad. :(

And... Dale, BTW, you never told us if you worked in the industry, or not? ;)
merc is offline  
post #217 of 233 Old 08-14-2005, 09:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dale Adams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Anchor Bay, CA
Posts: 1,886
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey p
I still fail to see your point (other than trolling this thread)?
The point is that what Merc posted as 'fact' is no such thing. The statement made was that a DVI or HDMI input would be a downgrade in signal quality vs. the traditional analog inputs. While that could be true in some instances of an exceptionally good analog implementation and a poor digital one, the reverse is also true.

Also, could you please explain exactly how it is that I'm 'trolling'? This thread is riddled with assertions which are factually incorrect, as has been repeatedly pointed out by others besides myself. Other statements rely on vaguely referenced specifications, which never materialize when the poster is asked for clarification or detail. Some are simply made up. How is it 'trolling' to correct or attempt to clarify this?

Quote:
As I remember DVI output (NO HDCP ROFLOL) was first on some high end computer video cards, maybe still is, I know my three ATI cards have both? However there were not too many computer displays that took DVI in, this might still be true (and I'd not know about ultra high end work stations)?
DVI was invented as a digital interface from computers to computer monitors. I think I first had a DVI monitor and video card about 6 years ago. This was on a fairly high-end machine. DVI has since migrated to much lower-end hardware and has become quite inexpensive to implement. A digital link from computer to fixed-pixel displays such as LCD makes a lot of sense. After all, why introduce 2 needless conversions? Since most video sources are becoming digital, it also starts to make a lot of sense for a link between video source devices and displays, particularly when those are fixed-pixel displays (but certainly not limited to that).

You're certainly correct that the DVI implementations of those early times did not have HDCP. There was no need for this in computer-only applications. HDCP was invented by Intel, I believe, who was also somewhat involved with DVI, as a way to create a digital source-to-display interface which would satisfy the (admittedly paranoid) concerns of the video content providers. It was promoted to the content providers by Intel (and other chip suppliers such as Silicon Image) as a means of providing a secure digital link to displays for their content. Apparently they bought this argument, as it has effectively become the standard for this.

Quote:
So how do you do a jump of faith that HDTV from the start had this all mapped out, not many even had firewire in, then (seems some Mit's and the Sony XBR's)?
I never said anything like that. DVI certainly wasn't in the minds of the ATSC committee which drew up the US HD broadcast specifications 10 or more years ago. For all practical purposes, DVI didn't exist at that time. It also wasn't likely in the minds of those who implemented the first consumer HD displays. There wasn't really a viable, protected digital interface (1394 possibly excepted) available at that time.

What I did say, was that it should come as no surprise that the industry later adopted HDMI (which can be looked at as DVI with HDCP in a slightly different form factor). The content providers have always been looking for ways to protect their content. DVI with HDCP was heavily promoted as just such a thing, and did indeed end up being the adopted method. The signs for this were becoming quite visible several years ago, and should have been truly obvious once STBs and DVD players started including DVI outputs (particularly with HDCP which was required by the DVD Forum). There were no viable copy protection schemes for analog HDTV signals, at least that I'm aware of. It was a virtual certainty that some form of protection would be required - all you have to do is look at DVD, which has always had this, first in the form of Macrovision, both for interlaced and progressive analog outputs, and then in the form of HDCP.

That's all I'm saying, really - that you could see this coming years ago. Whether it's reasonable or not, and whether we as consumers like it, are completely different issues. It's just not at all surprising that it's happened.

- Dale Adams
Dale Adams is offline  
post #218 of 233 Old 08-14-2005, 09:20 AM
Advanced Member
 
Stacy Huff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Halan, KY, USA
Posts: 664
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
yes, it worked fine with my iScan HD-SDI, thank you
You didn't have HD-SDI. You had SDI. Different things.

"Being unable to assume an initial premise with any tolerable degree of accuracy, I am loathe to assert a conclusion fearful lest I should err."
Stacy Huff is offline  
post #219 of 233 Old 08-14-2005, 09:26 AM
 
merc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deep in the Woodlands of Texas
Posts: 3,008
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
You didn't have HD-SDI. You had SDI. Different things.
Hi Stacy!
Are you going to jump on the defending Hollywood(the industry) bandwagon too? ;)

As for my SDI DVD to iscan HD-SDI setup... for some reason I thought that my display showed it was receiving a 33K (HDTV rez) signal from the iScan HD-SDI? :D
merc is offline  
post #220 of 233 Old 08-14-2005, 09:28 AM
 
merc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deep in the Woodlands of Texas
Posts: 3,008
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
That's all I'm saying, really - that you could see this coming years ago. Whether it's reasonable or not, and whether we as consumers like it, are completely different issues. It's just not at all surprising that it's happened.
And then, based on that hose-tery, no one should assume that their brand new HDCP-HDTV will work with the second generation HDCP-DVD players either....

At least it is good to see an industry member admit that we just can't trust Hollywood or the manufacturers anymore....
merc is offline  
post #221 of 233 Old 08-14-2005, 09:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mikey p's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sealy, TX!
Posts: 1,904
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Adams
You're certainly correct that the DVI implementations of those early times did not have HDCP. There was no need for this in computer-only applications. HDCP was invented by Intel, I believe, who was also somewhat involved with DVI, as a way to create a digital source-to-display interface which would satisfy the (admittedly paranoid) concerns of the video content providers. It was promoted to the content providers by Intel (and other chip suppliers such as Silicon Image) as a means of providing a secure digital link to displays for their content. Apparently they bought this argument, as it has effectively become the standard for this. ..........

- Dale Adams
Thank You! At least we getting the time line correct. :cool:

It is "WOW" TV!
mikey p is offline  
post #222 of 233 Old 08-14-2005, 09:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dale Adams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Anchor Bay, CA
Posts: 1,886
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by merc
Well, maybe it is because of answers like yours that folks make those assumptions??? I hope that you do realize that instead of answering my question(not assumption), you tried to evade it by posting this drivel...
I directly answered the assertion you made. You were wrong. Now, as usual, you try to evade by changing the topic.

Quote:
If I was you, I could start talking about your assumptions without answering your questions... but that's not my style. :)
No, your style is to post factually incorrect statements, reference non-existent specs, to make up (undefined) terms when they fit your need, not to reply to direct questions or requests for details, and to change the subject when you're called out on your errors.

Quote:
Instead, YES, Pioneer and my retailer did tell me that my HDTV would work and display all high definition images available from sources until I upgraded to a 1080p TV. When I bought a brand new Pioneer 59avi upconverting player to go with my relatively new Pioneer HDTV, and found it did not work with my HDTV, I called Pioneer. Jim from Pioneer told me not to worry about it since upconverted DVD ISN'T real high definition. At that time, he said that my Pioneer HDTV(still the latest and greatest Pioneer CRT HDTV model) would work and display true high definition DVD when it was availailable.
Then you have a legal issue with your retailer and Pioneer.

I also notice that you've changed your story again. You originally said that your were told your TV would be compatible with HD-DVD when you first bought it. Of course HD-DVD didn't exist back then, but why let reality get in the way?

Quote:
Err... yes, it worked fine with my iScan HD-SDI, thank you..... but, that unit's HDCP requirement messed up that idea so I sold my piece of crap iScan HD-SDI to some other fool, for the industry co-conspirator that it was.
You really have no clue what HD-SDI is, do you? It's a high-definition version of the Serial Digital Interface (SDI) and is commonly used in the broadcast industry. And FYI - the iScan HD doesn't have an HD-SDI input.

I'll explain my point since it seems to have escaped you entirely. HD-SDI is yet another high definition interface standard. Your TV doesn't support it, just like it doesn't support DVI or HDMI. There are lots of things your TV doesn't support. That's not going to change and it's only going to get worse in the future.

Quote:
You might be better served in the future to actually check out my HDTV model before you look like a fool. MY CRT HDTV accepts and displays natively an analog 1080i HD signal.
What does your model of HDTV have to do with it? That doesn't affect the fact that most HD delivery methods are in fact digital. OTA HD transmissions are digital. HD satellite is digital. Most (all?) HD cable is digital. HD-DVD is/will be digital. You really need to start learning what some of the industry terminology means or you'll continue to misunderstand what others are posting.

Quote:
I thought that they were calling their players high definition DVD players??? Once they change the name to HDCP-DVD players, I will have no complaints. Otherwise, a high definition DVD should display a HD image just fine on my HDTV.
There's no guarantee from anyone what the term "high definition" means, particularly with respect to source-to-display interfaces or content protection schemes. You're assuming it means something specific. That assumption is wrong. Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it so.

Quote:
Sorry Dale, but none of that ever purposefully obsoleted any of my gear. You made the same mistake as does Hollywood by assuming that we are all pirates and thieves.... and that is sad.
You assume that because you didn't have compatibility problems doesn't mean no one else did. You seem to be remarkably self centered. Those copy protection methods caused issues for lots of folks. And baseless, unproven allegations don't do your cause any good. All you do is alienate the knowledgeable people on this forum.

Quote:
And... Dale, BTW, you never told us if you worked in the industry, or not?
Of course I do. Why is that germane? You think I like HDCP just because I work in the consumer electronics industry? You think my company likes HDCP? You really are remarkably ignorant when it comes to developing consumer electronics products. HDCP is a royal pain to deal with. Nobody likes doing it. It adds complexity and cost to a product, sucks engineering resources which could be better spent on adding true value to products, and causes those products to ship months later than they would otherwise. It also results in tons of customer support overhead due to the variations in implementation that result from an incompletely specified interface.

I can see now why Alex has quit responding to you. Facts are unimportant, only your ignorant preconceptions matter to you. So be it. I'll just follow Alex's lead. . .

- Dale Adams
Dale Adams is offline  
post #223 of 233 Old 08-14-2005, 10:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dale Adams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Anchor Bay, CA
Posts: 1,886
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by merc
Hi Stacy!
Are you going to jump on the defending Hollywood(the industry) bandwagon too?
Correcting your errors is not an indication of support for anyone or anything, outside, perhaps, of the truth.

Quote:
As for my SDI DVD to iscan HD-SDI setup... for some reason I thought that my display showed it was receiving a 33K (HDTV rez) signal from the iScan HD-SDI?
One last time I'll explain your error as I'm in a unique position to do so. Your iScan HD with an SDI add-on card was receiving an SD-resolution (probably 480i as you're in the US) input on the SDI input port. The iScan deinterlaced and scaled that signal to an analog 1080i output (at least I assume this as you TV only accepts 1080i and that's consistent with an ~33 kHz horizontal line rate). Your TV reported that it was receiving an HD-resolution signal and gave you one of the timing parameters for the upconverted signal.

None of that has anything to do with HD-SDI, of course. HD-SDI isn't analog, which is what your TV was receiving. The iScan HD doesn't accept and HD-SDI signal, nor does it produce one.

Please at least try and read and understand other's corrections before you publicly display your ignorance again.

- Dale Adams
Dale Adams is offline  
post #224 of 233 Old 08-14-2005, 10:25 AM
Advanced Member
 
Stacy Huff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Halan, KY, USA
Posts: 664
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Hi Stacy!
Are you going to jump on the defending Hollywood(the industry) bandwagon too?

As for my SDI DVD to iscan HD-SDI setup... for some reason I thought that my display showed it was receiving a 33K (HDTV rez) signal from the iScan HD-SDI?
I don't have enough money to defend Hollywood or keep changing displays and sources to keep up with the requirements for HD. I console myself by actually watching what's out now, which led me to the realization that whether HD or SD, most of the stuff is complete crap to begin with.

As for HD-SDI, I think if you want that, you'll need to forego DVDO products and look to T * A *W.

"Being unable to assume an initial premise with any tolerable degree of accuracy, I am loathe to assert a conclusion fearful lest I should err."
Stacy Huff is offline  
post #225 of 233 Old 08-14-2005, 10:28 AM
 
merc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deep in the Woodlands of Texas
Posts: 3,008
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Dale...First, relax. This stuff isn't life or death... although you do make your living from pushing Hollywood's stuff on us? ;)

Quote:
I also notice that you've changed your story again. You originally said that your were told your TV would be compatible with HD-DVD when you first bought it. Of course HD-DVD didn't exist back then, but why let reality get in the way?
What story? I guess you are talking about my life... right? All I know is that when I bought my HDTV I was told by my retailer and by Pioneer that it would display high definition images from all sources. I guess that that does include so called HD-DVD but not HDCP-DVD.

Quote:
You really have no clue what HD-SDI is, do you? It's a high-definition version of the Serial Digital Interface (SDI) and is commonly used in the broadcast industry. And FYI - the iScan HD doesn't have an HD-SDI input. I'll explain my point since it seems to have escaped you entirely. HD-SDI is yet another high definition interface standard. Your TV doesn't support it, just like it doesn't support DVI or HDMI. There are lots of things your TV doesn't support. That's not going to change and it's only going to get worse in the future.
You mentioned HD-SDI, not me. I mentioned I owned an iScan HD-SDI and you went off on the HD-SDI path, not me. I really don't care about HD-SDI since my HDTV doesn't have any SDI inputs at all. Seems like you are just trying, like other industry supporters, to obscure what we are discussing in order to try to hide that you may also be a co-conspirator in those who are screwing the early adopting HDTV owner?

Quote:
All you do is alienate the knowledgeable people on this forum.
The problem is that the majority of the the knowledgeable people on this forum are industry insiders and defenders who benefit from Hollywood's actions. For those folks like you, no alienation is required....

Quote:
Of course I do. Why is that germane? You think I like HDCP just because I work in the consumer electronics industry? You think my company likes HDCP? You really are remarkably ignorant when it comes to developing consumer electronics products. HDCP is a royal pain to deal with. Nobody likes doing it. It adds complexity and cost to a product, sucks engineering resources which could be better spent on adding true value to products, and causes those products to ship months later than they would otherwise. It also results in tons of customer support overhead due to the variations in implementation that result from an incompletely specified interface.
Then, if all you said is true... why are you here defending Hollywood??? Your words and actions seem to be in opposition here?

Quote:
I can see now why Alex has quit responding to you. Facts are unimportant, only your ignorant preconceptions matter to you. So be it. I'll just follow Alex's lead. . .
That's probably a good idea.
merc is offline  
post #226 of 233 Old 08-14-2005, 10:35 AM
 
merc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deep in the Woodlands of Texas
Posts: 3,008
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
One last time I'll explain your error as I'm in a unique position to do so. Your iScan HD with an SDI add-on card was receiving an SD-resolution (probably 480i as you're in the US) input on the SDI input port. The iScan deinterlaced and scaled that signal to an analog 1080i output (at least I assume this as you TV only accepts 1080i and that's consistent with an ~33 kHz horizontal line rate). Your TV reported that it was receiving an HD-resolution signal and gave you one of the timing parameters for the upconverted signal.
None of that has anything to do with HD-SDI, of course. HD-SDI isn't analog, which is what your TV was receiving. The iScan HD doesn't accept and HD-SDI signal, nor does it produce one.Please at least try and read and understand other's corrections before you publicly display your ignorance again.
Err, I NEVER said anything about HD-SDI... you did. I said I had an iScan HD-SDI unit(I think you know what that is?). You are off on a tangent which is all your own and you are argueing with yourself on this issue. Call yourself ignorant all you want in the meantime... DOH!

Quote:
As for HD-SDI, I think if you want that, you'll need to forego DVDO products and look to T * A *W.
Stacy,

Dale was talking about HD-SDI, not me. I mentioned I had an iScan HD-SDI unit... but calling it an HD-SDI unit was Dale's idea, not mine. Probably calling it an HD unit, is a stretch too since it should properly be called an HDCP unit. (jk to piss off Dale :D)
merc is offline  
post #227 of 233 Old 08-14-2005, 10:48 AM
Advanced Member
 
Stacy Huff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Halan, KY, USA
Posts: 664
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm certainly not here to defend Hollywood. I've also been affected by the HDCP requirements, but more than that, the fact that the powers that be seem intent on a war that is going to make consumers either choose between two incompatible formats or buy both is enough to keep me on the sidelines.

But is this really necessary?

Quote:
Seems like you are just trying, like others, to obscure what we are discussing in order to try to hide that you may also be a co-conspirator in those who are screwing the early adopting HDTV owner?
Just how is it that Dale is a co-conspirator in anything other than an attempt to give us consumers an avenue for producing better SD images on our HD displays? If you think that the fact that his company complies with licensing agreements required to obtain the chips and parts necessary for their products makes him different than us, then perhaps you'd like to help with the legal costs associated with breaking those agreements.

Quote:
you might piss off more of your current and future customers by your toeing of Hollywood's line.
So what is the alternative that you propose? Make a box that doesn't comply with the licensing requirements, with the associated risks, or simply close up shop in righteous indignation?

Quote:
The problem is that the majority of the the knowledgeable people on this forum are industry insiders and defenders who benefit from Hollywood's actions.
I don't understand how DVDO or ABT, or anybody else, for that matter, benefits from Hollywood's actions. It seems that the copy protection schemes make matters more difficult from both a design and support perspective.

Regardless, I remember when this board was full of people in the industry, knowledgable folks who helped me quite a bit, and more than a few did so even when it didn't benefit them or their company. At least not directly. But it seems that too many got tired of being called shills, so I don't see so many of them around the boards anymore, and in my opinion, the forum is worse off because of it.

"Being unable to assume an initial premise with any tolerable degree of accuracy, I am loathe to assert a conclusion fearful lest I should err."
Stacy Huff is offline  
post #228 of 233 Old 08-14-2005, 11:01 AM
 
merc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deep in the Woodlands of Texas
Posts: 3,008
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Stacy,

You make some very good points in your last post and I will consider them.
I too appreciate the expertise and advice given by industry insiders here on AVS... but, don't appreciate their rationalization of what Hollywood is doing to their customers.

As for being a co-conspirator with Hollywood, all manufacturers who conform, agree with and publicly defend what they are doing to the public is acting with Hollywood.

If I thought that no one from Hollywood reads the forums, I would simply learn my lesson and enjoy my AV hobby in private... but, my hope is that I can raise the level of public awareness about the Hollywood infringements and BS and about their future plans so that the opposition to Hollywoods actions grows and the predictive future can be avoided.
merc is offline  
post #229 of 233 Old 08-14-2005, 11:03 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by merc
Hi Stacy!
Are you going to jump on the defending Hollywood(the industry) bandwagon too? ;)
There is a difference between defending Hollywood and stating facts.

Dale, Stacy, and others understand this. They also have a high level understanding of the industry and why things are happening they way they are. Perhaps you should try and look at these issues from other perspectives than your own.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #230 of 233 Old 08-14-2005, 11:13 AM
 
merc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deep in the Woodlands of Texas
Posts: 3,008
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
There is a difference between defending Hollywood and stating facts.
So true Ken.
And I think that difference lies between helping a fellow AVS member to correct his facts(via PM) and using those incorrections in order to try to publicly discredit that fellow AVS member's oposing opinions... ;)
merc is offline  
post #231 of 233 Old 08-14-2005, 11:17 AM
 
merc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deep in the Woodlands of Texas
Posts: 3,008
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
They also have a high level understanding of the industry and why things are happening they way they are. Perhaps you should try and look at these issues from other perspectives than your own.
Ken,

Even if I owned a new digital HDCP compliant HDTV, I still would think that what Hollywood is doing is unethical, immoral, and absolutely un-necessary for anything other than increasing future profits via a PPEU scheme.

As I've stated many times, it really doesn't matter what industry is doing this to the public other than the folks who oppose me would side with me if we were talking about the oil or pharma industry. ;)
merc is offline  
post #232 of 233 Old 08-14-2005, 12:04 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by merc
Ken,

Even if I owned a new digital HDCP compliant HDTV, I still would think that what Hollywood is doing is unethical, immoral, and absolutely un-necessary....
Agreed.

For the record, I personally believe it's completely wrong for HD-DVD or Blu-Ray devices to down convert analog HDTV output. Further, I will not buy any such device, unless it delivers analog HDTV output.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #233 of 233 Old 08-14-2005, 04:40 PM
Member
 
Ruidh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 88
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacy Huff
I'm certainly not here to defend Hollywood. I've also been affected by the HDCP requirements, but more than that, the fact that the powers that be seem intent on a war that is going to make consumers either choose between two incompatible formats or buy both is enough to keep me on the sidelines.
The war just guarantees that both DVD formats will be stillborn and neither will attract sufficient market share to survive. It'll be another audio DAT tape fiasco.

The only thing we can do is boycott both sides until appropriately consumer friendly formats are available.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacy Huff
Just how is it that Dale is a co-conspirator in anything other than an attempt to give us consumers an avenue for producing better SD images on our HD displays? If you think that the fact that his company complies with licensing agreements required to obtain the chips and parts necessary for their products makes him an industry supporter and co-conspirator, then perhaps you'd like to help with the legal costs associated with breaking those agreements.
Attempting to give us better SD images on our HD displays is like offering us a better bicycle when all we need is gas for our car.

Hopefully, someone like the EFF will challange these restrictive licensing agreements under the antitrust laws as an illegal horizontal restraint of trade.
Ruidh is offline  
Closed Thread HDTV Recorders

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off