Confused - I am !!

Posted by: Don Atkinson on 02 March 2007

Confused - I am !!

I have put off buying into the AV market for three or four years. OK, I have a Pioneer DV-717 and a Sony 28" crt Trinitron colour telly. I feed the audio signal to both the Sony and the Naim 52. The picture is good and the sound is good. The quality of the source material, as always, is critical. Naim's dvd of Antonio sounds superb and the picture is very good.

Nevertheless, I would like a nice 42" or 50 " plasma to replace the Sony and I would like a jolly good projector to beam an 8' cinema-like picture onto a screen with the sound being fed via a 5.1 or 7.1 system with superb LFE dynamics for both action-movies and music-movies.

The AV industry has finally published some standards.

HD means almost anything over 540i. But lets face it, REAL HD means 1080p.

Why can't the industry admit this? 720p might be good, but I want 1080p and I want to be told CLEARLY what I am being offered.

At Bristol (I was only able to spend about 4 hours there), several plasma companies were demonstrating 1080 screens.

Fujitsu had a truly excellent array of screens from 42" up to 63". However, trying to get the guy on the stand to explain the difference between 1024 x 1024 and 1386 x 768 pixel and how these might relate to 1920 x 1080 was like pulling out back teeth. The teeth are still firmly in place!

The projector teams were a little better. The Sim2 team had several models on display with plenty of talk about their 1920 x 1080 projectors. But you had to be careful not to mix these with the price of their 1280 x 720 jobbies. Mind you, the 720p models at £2,500 (show price) gave the £6k models a good run for their money in the subjective viewing department..

But Sim were quick to point out that pixel specs weren't the be-all and end-all of projectors. The optics are also important (well - yes !), as was the 10-bit processor. So why were they not using custom-made lenses like Projection Design and the six-colour wheels like Projection Design also?? Well, to be fair, the guy did say that they would be introducing the six-colour wheel later this year. But this was only after a lot of pushing. Back teeth still firmly in place.

All the manufacturers emphasised their scalers could scale virtually anything. From a lowly terestial BBC1 to 1080p or from 1080i to 1080p. Sort of implying that if you hooked their display up to anything that could spin a dvd or capture BBC 1, they could turn it into glorious 70mm Technicolour or better

But my biggest bug-bear………..I put a simple, straightforward question to several manufacturers.

"What source material are you using to produce these fantastic images ? and what source retrieval equipment are you using to retrieve this source material ?"

Most readily stated that it was 1080p……….

OK, "so is it on dvd, and played back via Blu-ray or HD DVD or what?"
With the back teeth half out, most stated that it was stored was on a hard drive and retrieved by some sort of computer system.

And finally, "where can I buy or procure this sort of 1080p material to put onto a hard drive ?" - "you can't sir. At least not for another couple of years, or until the film industry has figured out a copyright protection system that is foolproof"

Back teeth firmly in place again.

I tell you, its like pulling back teeth out trying to get straight answers to simple questions about what is available and what is on offer and what is just around the corner.

Informed choice - no chance!

So the money stays firmly in the pocket

I was informed by a usually reliable source, that his company felt the industry might well by-pass Blu-ray and HD DVD and move directly to down-loading to hard drives, presumably at 1080p. But I might have mis-understood this information.

Anybody out there any more confident than me as to where we are and where we are going?

Cheers

Don
Posted on: 03 March 2007 by Frank Abela
I don't know what you're complaining about Don. Seems to me you got a pretty straight answer on the 1080p source stuff! As to not giving you straight answers, the Sim man went too far I reckon coz you're the type who'll start whining about the fact they haven't got a 6-colour wheel in a D35 (it's 7-segment in a D80 btw)!

It's not what you've got but how you use it that counts. Sim use excellent optics which are made specifically for them as far as I know, but that wouldn't impress you either would it? Sim make such good products they don't need to have Nikkor/Canon/Leica festooned on the lens to make it work properly. If that's not good enough for you, I suggest you don't forget to wear all your clothes inside out to show off the labels...next you'll be asking Naim for the brands of components they use...

Don't forget that ALL HD broadcasts are in 720p and unlikely to go higher any time soon due to lack of bandwidth. Those hard drives will have been showing HD broadcasts made in the US (i.e. 720p) as was stated clearly in the Meridian demo. There are only 100 titles announced for HD-DVD so far, and a handful for BluRay. This is the only source of 1080p material, so that's all you've got.

Informed choice pah! You just want to tick boxes. Try looking at the performance, compare with the rest and choose your favourite.
Posted on: 03 March 2007 by SimonJ
quote:

Don't forget that ALL HD broadcasts are in 720p

Sky HD broadcasts are sent in 1080i I think, higher bandwidth than 720p, but obviously needs deinterlacing.
Posted on: 03 March 2007 by Jay
quote:
Originally posted by SimonJ:
quote:

Don't forget that ALL HD broadcasts are in 720p

Sky HD broadcasts are sent in 1080i I think, higher bandwidth than 720p, but obviously needs deinterlacing.


At 720p it's 720 lines per cycle.

At 1080i it's 540 lines per cycle. Alternating obviously. So wouldn't that be lower bandwidth than 720p?

Is that correct? I'm not sure.

Jay
Posted on: 03 March 2007 by Jay
quote:
Originally posted by SimonJ:
quote:

Don't forget that ALL HD broadcasts are in 720p

Sky HD broadcasts are sent in 1080i I think, higher bandwidth than 720p, but obviously needs deinterlacing.


Sorry forgot to say that with Telewest you get the choice between 1080i and 720p. My projector is native 720p and that looks far better than the 1080i feed.
Posted on: 03 March 2007 by SimonJ
Sky you get the coice of what it outputs, but HD stuff is broadcast at 1080i. The Sky box can deinterlace i to d and then downscale 1080 to 720, but I'd think that that job is probably best left for a high end TV/projector or even better and external Scaler to do rather than a cheap Sky box. Sky definately broadcasts at HD 1080i. Not sure if that's better or higher/lower bandwidth than 720p, but no ammount of cheap conversion technology in a £100-150 Sky HD box will make a broadcast signal better at any other resolution.
Posted on: 03 March 2007 by Don Atkinson
Frank,

I am appaled at your vitriolic attack above. I wondered what on earth could possibly have justified such an outrage. Then I realised.

The organisation for whom you work, sponsors, or runs the Bristol show and for some pathetic reason you feel a need to defend the equally pathetic (mis) information peddled by some of the exhibitors.

I will respond to each of your nasty little insinuations at a time that is more convenient to me, but I feel it important to warn others that your misguided little remarks above are almost certainly prejudiced, despite your routine claim to the contrary.

Pathetic

Cheers

Don
Posted on: 03 March 2007 by Allan Probin
quote:
At 720p it's 720 lines per cycle.

At 1080i it's 540 lines per cycle. Alternating obviously. So wouldn't that be lower bandwidth than 720p?


No. If we're talking about a literal pixel count you need to take into account that each 'line' of the 1080i signal has 1920 pixels whereas a 720p 'line' only has 1280 pixels. So on that basis, 1080i is still slightly higher

It's moot anyway because no-one transmits the raw data, it's compressed using MPEG, VC1 (or whatever) to fit whatever bandwidth is being made available. So depending on the amount of compression used, a 1080i broadcast can be lower, higher or just the same as a 720p one on the next channel.

Allan
Posted on: 03 March 2007 by Allan Probin
Don,

A few comments about your original post:

HD Downloads - not going to happen in this country without a major infrastructure upgrade. I worked out that a 20GB HD download would take about 4 or 5 days on my broadband connection. Hardly practical. I can't see this becoming mainstream for at least five years. I'd also be worried about providers reducing download times by offering a highly compressed and inferior product compared to optical disk.

BluRay vs HD-DVD - In my opinion, neither format is going to deliver a knock out blow to the other. They'll both be around as co-existing formats for quite a few years to come. Anyone waiting for a 'winner' to emerge will have rather a long wait.

As to the number of disks available, HD-DVD had released about 150 titles by the end of last year. Blu ray has now just about caught up with that number and by the end of this year both formats will have around 300 titles each.

I can't understand why most exhibitors would chose to display material stored on hard drive other than for convenience. A handy selection of Blu ray disks or HD-DVDs is hardly bulky and quality-wise I doubt the hard-drive material would be as good anyway. It would also be more re-assuring for anyone thinking of buying a display, surround system or whatever to know that he/she could go out and buy a HD player and get the same results at home. It's just weird that the exhibitors would do that.

Allan
Posted on: 03 March 2007 by David Dever
quote:
I can't understand why most exhibitors would chose to display material stored on hard drive other than for convenience. A handy selection of Blu ray disks or HD-DVDs is hardly bulky and quality-wise I doubt the hard-drive material would be as good anyway. It would also be more re-assuring for anyone thinking of buying a display, surround system or whatever to know that he/she could go out and buy a HD player and get the same results at home. It's just weird that the exhibitors would do that.


If you're looking to purchase a display to reproduce video signals, your primary concern is performance. However, it may take the sources a long time to catch up....

3840 x 2160 (4K) 16:9 video is already out there on compositors' desktops (and I wouldn't be surprised if we see a mid-priced LCD display soon able to handle this). Ultra-high-end home theatres are already being fitted with commercial 4K and 2K projectors, using dedicated projector rooms with thermal management.

Broadcasters are largely aware of the fact, as they have been for ages, that their primary audience is less concerned with quality than choice. But the means are already in place for commercial digital cinema downloads (distribution to digital theatres), so my guess is that, with the right credentials, you'll soon be able to do this (with a bit of an investment in bandwidth and storage) at home, someday.

The copy-protection scheme will also be cracked, someday, but it is certainly stronger and more robust than the static HDCP currently in use, relying on a network of servers to authenticate the destination device.

P.S. The first time I saw a high-end Sony flat 1920 x 1080 CRT, it was sitting in a Sony Store being driven by an Intel-based SGI machine.
Posted on: 04 March 2007 by Jay
quote:
Originally posted by Allan Probin:
quote:
At 720p it's 720 lines per cycle.

At 1080i it's 540 lines per cycle. Alternating obviously. So wouldn't that be lower bandwidth than 720p?


No. If we're talking about a literal pixel count you need to take into account that each 'line' of the 1080i signal has 1920 pixels whereas a 720p 'line' only has 1280 pixels. So on that basis, 1080i is still slightly higher

It's moot anyway because no-one transmits the raw data, it's compressed using MPEG, VC1 (or whatever) to fit whatever bandwidth is being made available. So depending on the amount of compression used, a 1080i broadcast can be lower, higher or just the same as a 720p one on the next channel.

Allan


Thanks Allan!

Is there any way you can tell the rate of compression from the Sat or Cable box end. That would be interesting...
Posted on: 04 March 2007 by AV@naim
quote:
Originally posted by David Dever:
[QUOTE]

The copy-protection scheme will also be cracked, someday, but it is certainly stronger and more robust than the static HDCP currently in use, relying on a network of servers to authenticate the destination device.


Dave, if your refering to HD-DVD/Blu-ray protection, its alreay been "circumvented".
Posted on: 04 March 2007 by David Dever
No–the authentication key servers for commercial theatre digital deliveries... Eek
Posted on: 08 March 2007 by Rock Steady
I believe hard drives have to be the eventual solution.

If you consider that today you can buy a 1gb memory stick for less than a tenner and a 20gb portable drive for less than £50, its only a matter of time before you buy the latest film (in HD) preloaded onto a memory stick, to shove into the front of your pc/tv, in much the same way we buy DVDs today.

I see Blu ray / HD DVD as a stop gap until the technology makes this possible, albeit a stop gap that might be here for 5 years or more.

Doesnt mean I wont buy HD dvd / Blu Ray though, a £500 unit over 5 years = £100 a year = alot of top quality viewing.