My thought - 1080i is dying

Kevin Dooley · June 3rd, 2005, 10:29 PM

Wow, there were a lot assumptions while I was away for the evening...

Yes, like me, most of my friends are married and with kids no less. And no, I'm not talking $4K+ TV's. I'm talking about a competitive price market. The gap between CRTs and everything else is closing everyday. It's not going to take 10-15 years for 19"-30" LCD (or some other tech) WS HDTV's to get to the $350 price range. I seriously doubt it will take 5. That's why I'm saying people are considering their alternatives when they have to get a new set (and yes, most people look at it as a "have to get" when the set goes out).

Oh, and believe me, all those people out there have other things to worry about... but TV is the new opiate for the masses... TV tells people what to think, feel, do and buy... of course they're gonna want to see it on the nicest screen possible.

This is a capatilist country, don't discount the power of materialism in this country. Or for that matter the porn industry. It seems all technology these days is driven by one or the other... What a screwy world we live in...

Duane Smith · June 4th, 2005, 07:55 AM

LOL! Yup, you hit the nail directly on the head, Kevin!

I agree with you -- and for that matter, David, who started this thread -- that EVENTUALLY all of the CRT based tv sets will disapear, but it's not anywhere near close to happening yet. We've got a couple of years to go before it's economically feasable on the low end sets, and then a couple more before the total death of the CRT as a new product, and then many more before the installed base of users isn't totally dominated by CRTs as it is now. Now obviously I can't tell the future, but it seems highly unlikely that all of the things will occur in any timeframe quicker than 5 years.

David Kennett · June 10th, 2005, 02:24 PM

Thanks all for responding, and even more for taking the time to think about the process of getting this new-fangled digital video into our living rooms.

Actually, I have some even wierder thoughts. Maybe all this discussion regarding interlaced vs. progressive scanning is kinda like arguing about the merits of various types of horseshoes after the automobile appeared.

It seems to me that all this GOP, DCT, motion prediction stuff is just a bump in the road to something far more advanced. How about updating individual pixels to provide temporal resolution and spacial resolution as needed. We could then dynamically balance the needs of motion and resolution. There would then be only a maximum framerate and a maximum resolution.

How have people coped with the lower effective frame rate (30) of the HD-1, HD-10? By using lower shutter speed to lower the resolution of objects in motion.

The future will not be like the past.

Thanks again all!

Joe Carney · June 10th, 2005, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radek Svoboda

The camera signals Panasonic will deliver 1080p even on larger cameras. They mentioned at NAB they can use the 10 bit D5 format with MPEG4 encoder to deliver super quality 1080p camera. It's about time.

Radek

Yes, but mainly for live broadcast not editing. They are talking about h.264 I think, mpeg4 level 7 (or 10 I forget) which everyone hopes will take off and be accepted. That would make 1080p broadcast possible over existing infrastructure without giving up anything. More likely it will make more advertising filled reality based 1080i streams available. It's also when the trulyu smart TV will take off since the format allows for embedded information like web links. (Minority report, here we come).

Radek Svoboda · June 11th, 2005, 10:33 AM

I vote for 3D 1080p HDTV. Technology to make it without glasses is getting there. If 3D 1080p was good enough for Spy Kids 3D, it's good enough for TV set.

Radek

Douglas Spotted Eagle · June 11th, 2005, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radek Svoboda

I vote for 3D 1080p HDTV. Technology to make it without glasses is getting there. If 3D 1080p was good enough for Spy Kids 3D, it's good enough for TV set.

Radek

I'm totally with you. Every box of cereal can come with free 3D glasses. Sony can offer professional 3D glasses complete with medulla-enhanced subsonics for that "really-there" feeling.

Steve Crisdale · June 11th, 2005, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

I'm totally with you. Every box of cereal can come with free 3D glasses. Sony can offer professional 3D glasses complete with medulla-enhanced subsonics for that "really-there" feeling.

Cool.... Then we can enjoy the posts discussing the merits or otherwise of 3D glasses from the different cereal manufacturers...

Douglas Spotted Eagle · June 11th, 2005, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Crisdale

Cool.... Then we can enjoy the posts discussing the merits or otherwise of 3D glasses from the different cereal manufacturers...

:-) It's more or less about as relevant as this thread to a great extent.
1080p isn't going anywhere, Thomson/Grass Valley is gambling heavily on it, so is Sony. I don't have enough inside information to know about Panny or JVC, but I suspect they won't have much good to say about that. But, Sony and Philips/Thomson/Grass Valley (whatever their name is this week) have by far the greatest number of cams, media servers, storage devices, and switchers out there. They have a lot of influence.
Further...we never know what's gonna happen. A few months back, several suggested the DTV initiative would die based on economic demands of the common man.
Well....just last week, Congress moved UP their mandate for digital-ready television by 5 months! NAB is turning handsprings. In fact, everyone except consumer watchdog groups seem to be thrilled with what is pretty much a foregone conclusion; we're gonna make the DTV deadline. Now, if we could just get everyone to buy 1080 capable displays....:-)

But I DID hear that Lucky Charms will have the best 3D glasses.

Steve Crisdale · June 11th, 2005, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

:-) It's more or less about as relevant as this thread to a great extent.

But I DID hear that Lucky Charms will have the best 3D glasses.

And there was me thinking the 3D glasses most likely to get the desired effect would be those found in laxative type cereal packs...

Joe Carney · June 11th, 2005, 08:45 PM

Hmmm....Jenna Jameson in 3D? Could we handle it?

Kevin Dooley · June 11th, 2005, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Carney

Hmmm....Jenna Jameson in 3D? Could we handle it?

Well, I'd certainly be willing to volunteer if they need guinea pigs.

Radek Svoboda · June 12th, 2005, 05:47 PM

You know, you can polazize film projection for excellent 3D effect. You can't do it with TV. You'll need some WiFi LCD shutter glasses. mass produced should 10 USD or something. We have 5 channel sound and two ears. Why not have stereo picture? Video technology is so behind audio.

Radek

June 3rd, 2005, 10:29 PM	#31
Kevin Dooley Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 414	Wow, there were a lot assumptions while I was away for the evening... Yes, like me, most of my friends are married and with kids no less. And no, I'm not talking $4K+ TV's. I'm talking about a competitive price market. The gap between CRTs and everything else is closing everyday. It's not going to take 10-15 years for 19"-30" LCD (or some other tech) WS HDTV's to get to the $350 price range. I seriously doubt it will take 5. That's why I'm saying people are considering their alternatives when they have to get a new set (and yes, most people look at it as a "have to get" when the set goes out). Oh, and believe me, all those people out there have other things to worry about... but TV is the new opiate for the masses... TV tells people what to think, feel, do and buy... of course they're gonna want to see it on the nicest screen possible. This is a capatilist country, don't discount the power of materialism in this country. Or for that matter the porn industry. It seems all technology these days is driven by one or the other... What a screwy world we live in... __________________ Kevin Dooley Media Director, Pantego Bible Church

June 10th, 2005, 02:24 PM	#33
David Kennett Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Ridgeville, Ohio Posts: 407	Thanks all for responding, and even more for taking the time to think about the process of getting this new-fangled digital video into our living rooms. Actually, I have some even wierder thoughts. Maybe all this discussion regarding interlaced vs. progressive scanning is kinda like arguing about the merits of various types of horseshoes after the automobile appeared. It seems to me that all this GOP, DCT, motion prediction stuff is just a bump in the road to something far more advanced. How about updating individual pixels to provide temporal resolution and spacial resolution as needed. We could then dynamically balance the needs of motion and resolution. There would then be only a maximum framerate and a maximum resolution. How have people coped with the lower effective frame rate (30) of the HD-1, HD-10? By using lower shutter speed to lower the resolution of objects in motion. The future will not be like the past. Thanks again all! __________________ Dave

June 4th, 2005, 07:55 AM	#32
Duane Smith Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 234	LOL! Yup, you hit the nail directly on the head, Kevin! I agree with you -- and for that matter, David, who started this thread -- that EVENTUALLY all of the CRT based tv sets will disapear, but it's not anywhere near close to happening yet. We've got a couple of years to go before it's economically feasable on the low end sets, and then a couple more before the total death of the CRT as a new product, and then many more before the installed base of users isn't totally dominated by CRTs as it is now. Now obviously I can't tell the future, but it seems highly unlikely that all of the things will occur in any timeframe quicker than 5 years.

June 11th, 2005, 10:33 AM	#35
Radek Svoboda Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Prague, Czech Republic Posts: 500	I vote for 3D 1080p HDTV. Technology to make it without glasses is getting there. If 3D 1080p was good enough for Spy Kids 3D, it's good enough for TV set. Radek

June 11th, 2005, 08:45 PM	#40
Joe Carney Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centreville Va Posts: 1,828	Hmmm....Jenna Jameson in 3D? Could we handle it?

June 12th, 2005, 05:47 PM	#42
Radek Svoboda Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Prague, Czech Republic Posts: 500	You know, you can polazize film projection for excellent 3D effect. You can't do it with TV. You'll need some WiFi LCD shutter glasses. mass produced should 10 USD or something. We have 5 channel sound and two ears. Why not have stereo picture? Video technology is so behind audio. Radek