AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
191 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I am looking to buy a fixed pixel display for my family room. Why is there no consumer 1920x1080 plasma or dlp. We are in our 6th year of hdtv(since cbs started broadcasting football) and it seems like these things should be available.



-Is it technologically unfeasible or cost prohibative?

-Are the companies trying to milk all the money they can get from 1366x768 or 1280x720 so they can charge us another $5k-$10k in a few years?

-is there no market for such a tv?


I know some of you say there are broadcast limitations to the picture so why do we need such a thing, but I can definitely see differences on my 9in crt front projector in my theater and on my 21in computer monitor(2048x1536 resolution capability). The 1080i feeds are consistently better than the 720 feeds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
831 Posts
Not many people have even SVGA resolutions yet. Why would they wanna jump to 1920 x 1080 resolution all of a sudden? Besides that, there are technical reasons that make this transition to 1920 x 1080 res a bit difficult. Although there has been some announcements by a few manufacturers of 1080P resolution flat panels, you probably wont see them until next year at the earliest. I've seen rogo mention that one manufacturer has a white paper describing the feasibility of a 1920 x 1080 res on a 42" plasma panel. So I guess your wish may come true in a few years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,172 Posts
The one with the white paper is Samsung and they explain -- in vague but sufficient terms -- how they will get there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
476 Posts
docajay

Quote:
Is it technologically unfeasible or cost prohibative?
I am sure that many manufacturers are working towards that pixel count, but it will be several more years until we see plasma products in the 50" to 60" range.

I strongly suspect that minimum cell size is an issue with plasma displays. Samsung has shown a plasma-set prototype with full HD pixel count, but it has a 70" panel!

This Web page http://www.audiosound.com/saps70flpapl.html claims to know the price and delivery date, but I am not sure we should believe it.

However, it matches my guess of $50,000 list price.

Quote:
Are the companies trying to milk all the money they can get from 1366x768 or 1280x720 so they can charge us another $5k-$10k in a few years?
TI refused to comment on any speculation of a high-res DLP chip, because they need to recoup money spent on development of the current DLP chip.

Quote:
is there no market for such a tv?
Yes, I want one!!!


Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,921 Posts
There were no 1920x1080 displays until now because there

was no technology to build them economically.


This will be changing next year as there will be coming

both plasma and LCD displays of this resolution.


Samsung for example has Q2 2004 release for plasma.


It seems certain that one year from now you will see

such displays in shops and there will be several competitors

both from plasma and LCD camps.


DLP technology is enitrely in the hands of Texas Instruments,

they are not pushing for 1920x1080 since there was no need

for them. This may also change when 1920x1080 becomes

major advertising ploy.
 

·
AVS Forum Special Member
Joined
·
11,139 Posts
What would a 1920X1080 plasma/LCD-panel display, or what are current 1920X1080 LCoS sets displaying? If broadcasters are delivering resolvable horizontal resolution at less than ~1400 pixels, it seems what you see depends on the video processing and scaling, either built in or external. Like docajay and others I also see better (crisper) 1080i with my 9-inch CRT set (RPTV) than with 720p.


A three-CRT display should be able to display the full 1920X1080i format, even though most models might only be able to resolve , say, 1200-1300 horizontal pixels. That is, even though one scan line can present only details requiring ~1300-pixel resolution, all 1920 pixels should be displayed. If the HD signal didn't contain 1920-pixel resolvable detail, or inadequate set electronic bandwidth, too-wide electron beams, or poor optics filtered details, a scan line would display continuous tones instead of resolvable (contrasting) detail.


So, with 1920 pixels available for each row of a fixed-pixel display (with 1080i), but only 1366, 1280, etc. pixels horizontally to illuminate, the scaling algorithms seem to be calling the shots. Video processing has to determine which of the 1920 pixels to leave out. (An oddball exception might be JVC's unique progressive/interlace technique for its DILA projectors, which 'stuffs' leftover pixels into one 1/60-sec TV field.)


Can a 1920 fixed-pixel display present such resolution? Believe there's a fine point involved. The limiting horizontal resolution of 1080i is about 1700 pixels, not 1920, because when digitally sampled images (cameras, telecines) are converted and filtered for display, that's about the current limiting resolution (Nyquist limits).


But, what happens if you feed a 1920-resolvable image into a 1920 DLP chip that maintains digital processing without filtering and conversion to analog? Suspect experts might say it would be a mess of aliasing artifacts. Oversampling, capturing more pixels horizontally so that filtering still delivers high resolution, is the usual cure recommended for achieving actual 1920 resolution (aside from generator or computer-graphics test images).


Joe Kane, really(!) favoring 720p, often writes about minimal differences between current 720p and 1080i horizontal resolution. This thread mentions some testing indicating a ~$75k pro tape recorder, Panasonic's HD D5 used in broadcasting, delivers less than 1300-pixel resolvable detail from telecine movie films (not test patterns). So, while I'd like to have access to 1920 or 1700 resolvable detail, it appears having access to Philips D6 tapes, storing uncompressed video, is about the only way of achieving it. -- John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
692 Posts
There are 1920x1200 16:10 LCDs already. Of course, they are computer displays, but they are available. Dell sells a 15.4" widescreen notebook at that resolution, which must be for people with 20/5 vision. There is nothing technologically impossible about delivering 1920x1080, at least in LCD at the moment. I've seen 1920x1080 LCD, plasma, and LCOS at trade shows. As you can imagine, they look pretty darned good. I think the major hurdles now are cost and demand. The former will come down as the latter increases. Hold on a year or two.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
476 Posts
John,


Interesting post.


Many people will keep their displays for many years to come.

It would be great if the displays could handle future improvements in image quality.

I hope, there will be something like 1080p HD DVD in not too distant future.

If used as computer displays, high pixel counts are very desirable.


Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,172 Posts
Scoby, it's not for people with 20/5... It's for Steve Austin, with his telescopic, bionic eye. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,172 Posts
Scoby, it's not for people with 20/5... It's for Steve Austin, with his telescopic, bionic eye. :)
 

·
AVS Forum Special Member
Joined
·
11,139 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by MikeSer
John,


Interesting post.


Many people will keep their displays for many years to come.

It would be great if the displays could handle future improvements in image quality.

I hope, there will be something like 1080p HD DVD in not too distant future.

If used as computer displays, high pixel counts are very desirable.
Thanks. Enjoyed yours, too. I've had mine, a 9-inch-CRT RPTV supposedly capable of displaying at least the limiting resolution of 1080i (mentioned above), for 3 years now. Hope to confirm it's displaying that one of these days--if I can latch onto a known source of such 1080i, beyond test patterns.


And I've also mentioned upcoming HD DVDs from time to time as being a source of 'real' HDTV. Hope I never said HD DVDs will be delivering 1920X1080-resolvable HDTV. Because, if a $75k pro recorder used in broadcasting, also mentioned above, is now delivering
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,921 Posts
Full 1920x1080 resolution is entirely possible today due

to HD cameras with CCD sensors with such resolution. So one can

easily imagine videos shot with such camera and transferred

to HD-DVD discs with no other processing involved than

compression which should produce no perceptual artifacts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
476 Posts
John


Looks like you and I (and few others) would love to have the "real thing," the highest quality of whatever (sound, video, etc.) possible.


You sound like a smart guy, so I'm sure you know the ATSC "standard" is a huge compromise. From the get-go it had overriding practical concerns of limited bandwith and low-cost implementation. I don't see any desire anywhere to create something grand that would last for a generation of two. I am very unhappy about it, but there's nothing I can do. ATSC had public demonstrations (with carefully chosen material) and it happily found that the 1080i format was good enough for "ordinary public."

The source video undergoes tremendoues "compression" (data reduction + compression) and the final bit rate is not guaranteed. The ATSC standard only sets the max. rate so broadcasters can reduce that rate (they try to sell remaining bits "on a side" to broadcast non-related data). The only good thing about ATSC standard is that it allows 1080p format.


It seems, the "real resolution" will always be lower than the theoretical pixel count of the displayed image (I try to use the pixel count term as much as possible to reduce confusion).


I am still hoping for a decent DVD HD, not some havily compressed fake one.


Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,884 Posts
Quote:
And I've also mentioned upcoming HD DVDs from time to time as being a source of 'real' HDTV. Hope I never said HD DVDs will be delivering 1920X1080-resolvable HDTV. Because, if a $75k pro recorder used in broadcasting, also mentioned above, is now delivering
 

·
AVS Forum Special Member
Joined
·
11,139 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by MikeSer

It seems, the "real resolution" will always be lower than the theoretical pixel count of the displayed image (I try to use the pixel count term as much as possible to reduce confusion).


I am still hoping for a decent DVD HD, not some havily compressed fake one.
Going back to what upcoming 1920X1080 plasmas and DLPs (or current LCD/LCoS) might be displaying, agree it sure seems it'll be less than 1920X1080 resolvable pixels for some time.


Considering the horizontal pixel count, all 1920 of them in the 1080i format could be displayed. (Same with current 3-CRT displays, except typically there's 3% or so overscan eliminating that many pixels at both edges.)


What about vertical pixel count? They'll be at least 1080 rows, unlike CRTs, which rarely provide 1080 scan lines. But of course we see video presented by these rows and scan lines, not the lines themselves--unless there's a blank raster. And interlaced video is deliberately 'smeared' in the vertical direction, as outlined here , including optical prefiltering in TV cameras. As a result, vertical resolution--as opposed to scan-line/row count--measured 800 lines (static) and 400 lines (dynamic) during mid-'90s 1080i approval tests . As this test table shows, 720p progressive test patterns (static) provided 550 lines of vertical resolution or roughly the same reduction (26% versus 24%). Yup, 720p's dynamic vertical resolution was 'better'--down 42% versus the line count compared to 1080i's 63% reduction.


Looking forward to good HD DVDs, too, although comparisons of the anticipated bitrate versus that of very costly professional recording gear, and what resolvable HD it delivers, isn't that encouraging. Believe the current blue-laser Sony machine provides about 36 million bits per second (Mbps). JVC's D-Theater tape machine provides 23 Mbps actual video (see here ), and over-the-air HD provides about 17 Mbps video, although new MPEG-2 encoders shrink this bitrate considerably. And, to repeat from above, Panasonic's ~$75k HD D5, 220-Mbps (video) tape machine, according to spectrum analyzer tests of telecined films (not test patterns) mentioned by Joe Kane and confirmed by sspears here , deliver less than 1300 pixels resolvable horizontal resolution. (BTW, it'll be great to locate online info that'll negate such conclusions, or outlines how even live 1080i approaches its 1700-pixel limiting resolution.) -- John
 

·
AVS Forum Special Member
Joined
·
11,139 Posts
Quote:
It's not just newer compression algorithms needed, though those will arrive too. But newer telecine machines & practices may greatly increase the resolution achievable from current film negatives. If the newer machines can sample at a 4K horizontal resolution (from negatives) and go straight to lightly compressed digital hard drive data then it seems 1920 from film might not be impossible. So it maybe depends upon doing massive oversampling and having even more massive cheap storage, both of which will probably be available soon.


And of course HD-DVD's are not bound by ATSC limitations.
Yes, the recording medium seems to be a hang-up. As Glimmie points out, current telecines can capture 1920X1080. I've always assumed that, like TV cameras, there's vertical filtering going on to minimize aliasing. So if that current telecine is stored, uncompressed, on a $600 Philips cassette tape, suspect that recording could approach 1080i's 1700-pixel limiting horizontal resolution on an upcoming giant 1920X1080 plasma or LCD panel (thread topic). But as he's also mentioned, even broadcasters generally can't afford the Philips decks or tapes. Oversampling might indeed bump up the limiting resolvable resolution closer to 1920.


But, as mentioned above, going to even Panasonic's HD D5 (not MPEG-2) compression of 1.2 Gbps (video) down to 220 Mbps (video) appears to 'toss out' detail from 1300 resolvable pixels on up to achieve compression. Hard-disk drives, one reads, can capture very high bit rates without as much compression (e-cinema applications)--or even full uncompressed 1.2 Gbps video. That's commercial storage.


But what remains of the resolvable HD detail from a 36-Mbps blue-laser HD DVD, with any compression algorithm, remains to be seen. (Who's come across a home-PC spectrum-analyzer card?) What's needed, it appears, is both huge storage capacity and very high data rate transfer ability: NASA and the military have been using multiple-track optical discs to achieve this for decades. -- John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,921 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by John Mason
Find it hard to imagine how, irkuck. Yes, the 1920X1080 format can be put on HD DVDs, as it is on current tape recorders. But if a $75k pro VCR only delivers
 

·
AVS Forum Special Member
Joined
·
11,139 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by irkuck
Digital technology can provide as much resolution as required. The

loss of resolution appears mostly in sensors and prefiltering.

Let's say you have HD camera with 1920x1080 sensors or you generate

computer animation with 1920x1080 pixels. In both cases you can take

the pictures to a 1920x1080 display with DVI input and you will

get full resolution pictures.


Now, DVD uses compression. But compression is optimized in such

a way that perceptually it will preserve full resolution (meaning

that static scenes where resolution can be seen most are compressed

less).
Good points about computer imaging, irkuck. I agree that with computer (or signal generator) images you can achieve actual 1920 horizontal resolution. A review of the 1920X1080 57-inch RPTV LCoS from Toshiba (discontinued) with an AccuPel pattern generator demonstrated that.


But most current HD images are sampled initially (cameras, telecines), and as Greg Rogers outlines in this article on FP requirements, the limiting resolution of 1080i is about 1700 pixels horizontally. (The text describing his resolution tables is most relevant.)


Full rez with a DVI input? That'll be an interesting experiment. Since, as outlined above, it appears a $75k pro recorder is limited to
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top