# 1080P receiver coming soon ?



## ken310 (Feb 25, 2006)

I've talked with so many people at e* now they'd never know who said this but I was told to "watch for 1080p in the near future." Now I'm wondering if they have a new 1080p receiver their going to roll out soon after all these mpeg 2 /4 issues die down? Something to think about ?

___________________

942
2x 510's
2x 4700's
3x 3700's
etc, etc, etc
5th dish 3/8/06
Sony 34" XBR
Sony STR-DE898+
Dish© 9+yrs


----------



## jsanders (Jan 21, 2004)

I will give you something to think about that might answer your question a bit....

Right now E* gives us HD lite, not even the full 1080i or 720p resolution. What point would it be to have 1080p if we don't even get 1080i?


----------



## ken310 (Feb 25, 2006)

Well, As we all know things change over night. 

Mpeg 4 has been around since 1998 and made a standard in 1999.


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

Assuming the HDMI is the right spec, there's a chance the receiver could output true 1080p with a software update.


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

By standards adapted in 2003, 1080i does not have to be 1920x1080. There is nothing currently broadcast in 1080p. All but 1 1080p sets convert anything the sets receive either up down or sideways to 1080i and then to the display size of the screen (1920X1080).


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

ken310 said:


> Well, As we all know things change over night.
> 
> Mpeg 4 has been around since 1998 and made a standard in 1999.


And in 2006 is just beginning to be offered as a display technology.


----------



## ken310 (Feb 25, 2006)

Apple has been using mpeg4 since 2002.

If e* wanted they could upgrade the 942/21 to mpeg4.

___________________

942
2x 510's
2x 4700's
3x 3700's
etc, etc, etc
5th dish 3/8/06
Sony 34" XBR
Sony STR-DE898+
Dish© 9+yrs


----------



## joebird (Sep 15, 2003)

The original MPEG4 and MPEG4-part 10 (a.k.a. H.264) are two separate things. The latter has only recently started to be used, either by Apple or satellite encoders (particularly for high def).

If they offer 1080p out, it'll be the same stuff we have now, scaled inside the Dish STB. I seriously doubt that they'll be compressing 1080p source. Personally, I wish that they'd just offer pass-through of the content's resolution instead of forcing us to switch between 720p output and 1080i output.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ken310 said:


> If e* wanted they could upgrade the 942/21 to mpeg4.


Yep. Give them $299 and E* will gladly upgrade any receiver to a leased MPEG4 ViP-622 DVR.
Wait a month and give E* $99 and your 942/21 and they'll gladly do that upgrade as well.


----------



## DP1 (Sep 16, 2002)

Yeah I dont see any source material that would be sent out over sat ever being true 1080p content to begin with. Networks and cable channels wont likely ever be using that.

The only possible thing, at least in my mind would be PPV movies.. not unlike if HD DVD uses 1080p.. but who ever pays 6 bucks a pop for HD PPV movies anyway.


----------



## ken310 (Feb 25, 2006)

Well thanks for making that clear.
Some of us may have actually got a raw deal in this deal. Obviously you weren't and that's great for you but your not blowing any new tunes so what's your point? Your happy, great. You didn't get screwed but a lot of us did. I've been a Dish customer for 9+ years and until now I was happy to.


----------



## ken310 (Feb 25, 2006)

DP1 said:


> Yeah I dont see any source material that would be sent out over sat ever being true 1080p content to begin with. Networks and cable channels wont likely ever be using that.
> 
> The only possible thing, at least in my mind would be PPV movies.. not unlike if HD DVD uses 1080p.. but who ever pays 6 bucks a pop for HD PPV movies anyway.


Hummm, well maybe I got it from Sony also? but I don't think so. There was a lot of tech from the sales man, info with my new Sony tv that lead me to believe I would actually be ably to take advantage of the 1080p hd because of the 34" CTR or is it CRT? anyway with this very fine dot pitch quality screen I notice more imperfection in sdtv. In other words sd actually looked better on my old hdtv but HD is unbelievable on this tv. It's a spectacular picture in hd but sd could look better.


----------



## Jerry G (Jul 12, 2003)

ken310 said:


> Well, As we all know things change over night.
> 
> Mpeg 4 has been around since 1998 and made a standard in 1999.


You could be correct. You should definitely wait for a Dish receiver that outputs 1080p before making any more equipment purchases. As you say, this new 1080p receiver could be announced any day now.


----------



## ken310 (Feb 25, 2006)

I'm not sure I'm saying that?, but I am relaying and requesting info on 1080p?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

And making false statements about the 921/942 ... 

It's possible that the 622 can output 1080p with a software update.


----------



## Paradox-sj (Dec 15, 2004)

Having a TV that displays 1080p - and even one with 1080p inputs is pointless at this time as there are NO devices (excpet HTPC) that can output 1080p/60... 

Not even the upcoming BD or HDDVD do 1080p/60


----------



## ken310 (Feb 25, 2006)

Paradox-sj said:


> Having a TV that displays 1080p - and even one with 1080p inputs is pointless at this time as there are NO devices (excpet HTPC) that can output 1080p/60...
> 
> Not even the upcoming BD or HDDVD do 1080p/60


Cool, Thank You! One less thing to worry about. 
It seems odd to me that the tv's seem to be ahead of the broadcasting by such a large margin. The hdtv I bought almost 3 years ago seems to match better to todays equipment and the one I have today as long as tech doesn't change should last years to come. I don't live in all this tech until times like now come along and I try to match tech and to the lay person it can get pretty deep. There's also so much mis-info out it's hard to see through at times unless you do invest the time to become educated.


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

Because of bandwidth considerations, I would never expect to see anything broadcast in 1080p ever. 

However I do expect that Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, or its compromise format if there ever is one, to provide material in 1080p eventually, and the initial release of this hardware probably won't do it.


----------



## ken310 (Feb 25, 2006)

normang said:


> Because of bandwidth considerations, I would never expect to see anything broadcast in 1080p ever.
> 
> However I do expect that Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, or its compromise format if there ever is one, to provide material in 1080p eventually, and the initial release of this hardware probably won't do it.


That's my next class  
Until a few months ago I was doing the blockbuster thing and dubbing them to DVD using my iBook G4/1.2. Which by the way for those that want to jump is perfectly legal. 
When I bought my new tv, audio system, and 942 that was all I could take in plus I just didn't see a DVD player that matched my new system. That I figured could wait but it may be time to migrate back in that direction? 
Problem there is 4.7 gb isn't going to hold a hd movie so that has to be upgraded. 
That's where the blu-ray will come in I expect. 
I'm not sure why but my current dvd player didn't like my other upgrades so I haven't even bothered with it yet? 
The pocket dish is interesting but my main reason for buying it would be so I could finally back up my video from 
sat and I'm just not convinced that's the way to go. 
What we need is a few terabytes worth of space in a storage unit and a firewire to it. Add a Mac  and some editing software and we're done, at least I would be for a good while.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

normang said:


> Because of bandwidth considerations, I would never expect to see anything broadcast in 1080p ever.
> 
> However I do expect that Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, or its compromise format if there ever is one, to provide material in 1080p eventually, and the initial release of this hardware probably won't do it.


I agree... 1080p video capture equipment is likely to be used by studios to record programs for distribution as either 1080i or 720p... but I doubt we will see 1080p UNLESS we are talking 10-20 years down the road and maybe we have something higher than 1920x1080 as a new HD resolution... in which case, I could see 1080p coming into play at that pont.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

ken310 said:


> Until a few months ago I was doing the blockbuster thing and dubbing them to DVD using my iBook G4/1.2. Which by the way for those that want to jump is perfectly legal.


Ummm... no it isn't. I would love to see the portion of law cited that makes that legal. It is sometimes debatable about making "backup" copies of things you own... but I can't fathom any reality where it would be legal to backup something you don't own!


----------



## ken310 (Feb 25, 2006)

HDMe said:


> I agree... 1080p video capture equipment is likely to be used by studios to record programs for distribution as either 1080i or 720p... but I doubt we will see 1080p UNLESS we are talking 10-20 years down the road and maybe we have something higher than 1920x1080 as a new HD resolution... in which case, I could see 1080p coming into play at that pont.


I guess I need to go read tv manual and maybe visit Sony or ? but are you saying that Sony is using the 1080p for promo and I'll not see it on my tv? If so why did they bother?


----------



## ken310 (Feb 25, 2006)

HDMe said:


> Ummm... no it isn't. I would love to see the portion of law cited that makes that legal. It is sometimes debatable about making "backup" copies of things you own... but I can't fathom any reality where it would be legal to backup something you don't own!


I'll be glad to go find it for you later but if you rent a movie the law allows you to copy it to view it later, ONLY.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I believe the point is that it will be a long time until you have anything in 1080p to watch on any 1080p TV set - regardless of brand. The market seems to have settled on 1080i/30 and 720p/60.

I would like to see movies in 1080p/24 to match the frame rate of the original film ... but as long as the satellite receivers output 1080i it would just shift the burden of filling the extra frames from the encoder to the receiver.

1080p/24 would actually be less data than 1080i/30 and easier to compress as one would have sequential lines to work with. But with all transmissions the trick is making it look good on every TV the picture is likely to grace.

BTW: It will be interesting for you to find a law that allows one to copy a rental to view later. Good luck on that one. One might also take a look at the rental contract when you borrowed the movie and see if it allows copying.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

1080p displays are not really that hard a concept  

1080/60p displays will become common because the technology they are provided by (LCD, Plasma, etc.) work at a 60 fps speed. All a 1080/60p set is, is the electronics of a 720p set(also 60p) upgraded to display 1080. The other basic parts would be the same, such as how long individual pixels stay lit etc. When a 720p signal comes in, it'll upconvert all frames to 1080p. When 1080i comes in, a 1080p set will take in the whole frame, draw it twice (since there are only 30 frames) and this should eliminate the streaking some people see with interlaced displays. 

And, in the future, a PS3/XB360 type device may well do 1080p native, but no reason to expect TV's/movies to ever do 1080/60p. They are 24p for a reason, mostly cost. If they suddenly started recording at 60p, every movie projector would need to be replaced to view the movie properly. And even in a digital world, imagine the extra HD space or Bandwidth needed for a 60p recording versus a 24p one? 

Movie companies are looking at digital distibution of movies, and 24p will cost them a lot less money than 60 (well over half the bandwidth per movie), not likely they'll cough that up. and TV is the same, most non sports use the same cameras, or at best us a 30p camera. At some point, using a 1080/60p "camera" might make fiscal sense, but it's still likely they'll "produce" it down to 24p. At some distant future point (15-20 yrs might be reasonable) maybe the fiscal costs are so slight as to not be worth the effort. But technologically, there's no reason to ever change, as there isn't any benefit to the viewer of having 60 frames except in high speed programming like sports. The brain simply can't see the extra frames, so they'd be wasted space.


----------



## ken310 (Feb 25, 2006)

Rogueone, 

Thanks for making this relatively simple and saving me hours in class


----------



## Allen Noland (Apr 23, 2002)

1080p receivers were kind of talked about at the CES press conference. I don't remember what they said, but you can view the press conference Q&A here.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

All digital displays take any interlaced content received and and transcode it to progressive.

DLP, LCD, and plasma are natively progressive displays.

Only CRT displays actually display 1080i as an interlaced image.


----------



## ken310 (Feb 25, 2006)

Jim5506 said:


> All digital displays take any interlaced content received and and transcode it to progressive.
> 
> DLP, LCD, and plasma are natively progressive displays.
> 
> Only CRT displays actually display 1080i as an interlaced image.


So I'm guessing the DLP, LCD, and plasma that are natively progressive displays actually display in 720p? 
After researching it I've found that my 196 lb Sony CRT is actually 1080i, 720p, 480p, and 480i.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

ken310 said:


> So I'm guessing the DLP, LCD, and plasma that are natively progressive displays actually display in 720p?
> After researching it I've found that my 196 lb Sony CRT is actually 1080i, 720p, 480p, and 480i.


currently, for the most part, yes. Until the past year, the digital technologies have simply been too costly for mainstream 1080p displays. But you should be able to find a few under $10000 now.

digital displays are natively 60p since they do not run interlaced. 720 versus 1080 is a matter how many "pixels" are on the panel in question. it costs much more to make a 1080 panel in any of the digital displays because the difficutlies in manfacturing. Digital displays don't have to be any set resolution, just look at laptop displays, they are all sorts of sizes. It just depends on what the intended end use is which determines panel size and pixel count.

as for the Sony CRT, to be able to do 720p and 1080i, the tube has to be built closer to PC monitor quality levels than standard TV quality. It takes a lot more expense to design a CRT to operate at both 30 and 60 fps. This is why so few CRT sets do 720p without upscaling it to 1080i.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

ken310 said:


> Mpeg 4 has been around since 1998 and made a standard in 1999.


Looking at the D* website regarding MPEG4 technology from back in October 2005, it would appear that they were touting it as a breakthrough new technology.

I guess until someone implements it in hardware, it is just so much theory.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Rogueone said:


> currently, for the most part, yes. Until the past year, the digital technologies have simply been too costly for mainstream 1080p displays. But you should be able to find a few under $10000 now.


You can now buy 1080p LCD and LCoS televisions for well under $5000. The best picture I've seen recently was a 60" Sony Grand Wega SRXD television for under $4000. The 50" model goes for under $2900.

Two reasons not to bother with a 1080p receiver:

1. Too few devices accept 1080p content
2. Most all 1080p devices already handle the deinterlacing internally as part of their noise reduction systems


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

harsh said:


> You can now buy 1080p LCD and LCoS televisions for well under $5000. The best picture I've seen recently was a 60" Sony Grand Wega SRXD television for under $4000. The 50" model goes for under $2900.
> 
> Two reasons not to bother with a 1080p receiver:
> 
> ...


the 37 inch Westinghouse is 1080P for $1800


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

ken310 said:


> That's my next class.  Until a few months ago I was doing the blockbuster thing and dubbing them to DVD using my iBook G4/1.2. Which by the way for those that want to jump is perfectly legal.


Actually, its not.. if it were up to Hollywood, even movies you bought could not be backed up. And if you damage the disc, tough, buy a new one. No warranty on DVD's..



ken310 said:


> When I bought my new tv, audio system, and 942 that was all I could take in plus I just didn't see a DVD player that matched my new system. That I figured could wait but it may be time to migrate back in that direction? Problem there is 4.7 gb isn't going to hold a hd movie so that has to be upgraded. That's where the blu-ray will come in I expect. I'm not sure why but my current dvd player didn't like my other upgrades so I haven't even bothered with it yet?


Most DVD's now are Dual Layer, which is about 9gb, however in actual data, its more like a little over 8gb. Even at that, you might get 30 minutes of uncompressed HD on one of those. Then even if you placed HD data on one, you don't have anything other than a computer that might play it, and your TV would have to support the resolution of the computer to watch it.



ken310 said:


> The pocket dish is interesting but my main reason for buying it would be so I could finally back up my video from sat and I'm just not convinced that's the way to go. What we need is a few terabytes worth of space in a storage unit and a firewire to it. Add a Mac  and some editing software and we're done, at least I would be for a good while.


Pocket Dish is merely a portable means of storing programming for watching on-the-go, during those times when watching TV isn't an option. Its not a means of archiving or storing your favorite shows for any length of time..

A terabyte is a 1000gb. At the cheapest, your looking at a couple 500gb drives which will cost you about $600 and up. If you wanted to have any level of redundancy, you would have to raid or mirror it, which adds more drives increasing your costs not only for hard drives, but perhaps the I/O cards or software needed to mirror or raid those devices, so should one die, you reduce the chances of losing everything you've stored.


----------



## ken310 (Feb 25, 2006)

If Hollywood had their way a VCR with record would have never been allowed. Can we PLEASE if necessary debate this on another post? I'm getting a headache just trying to understand 1080i vs p let alone an issue that's the courts are still TRYING to define and they are selling 2 models of the pocket dish that are supposed to allow archiving? Personally I don't care I'm not going that way but that can be another post also.

From what I understand the following is true?

1080i ~ one field is 540 lines even line numbers scanned and then one field of 540 odd line numbers scanned. 60 fps 540 lines scanned in 1/60th of a second.

1080p ~ all 1080 lines scanned together 30 fps (field or frames)

With 1080p all 1080 lines odd and even are refreshed but in order top to bottom at once. No even then odd thing going on like i.

What seems to me to be equal? 540 at 60 fps would equal 1080 at 30fps?

Then there is the compression which is another important variable.

:grin:


----------



## ApK (Mar 6, 2006)

ken310 said:


> What seems to me to be equal? 540 at 60 fps would equal 1080 at 30fps?


A single progressive scan frame looks much clearer than two interlaced fields, and progressive scan images show motion better (in general), What is even better is 720p/60, or if they could squeeze it in, 1080p/60 which would show a complete progressive scan frame 60 times a second, making motion even smoother.

here's an interesting article:
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_10_4/feature-article-hdtv-time-to-buy-part-one-10-2003.html


----------



## ken310 (Feb 25, 2006)

ApK said:


> A single progressive scan frame looks much clearer than two interlaced fields, and progressive scan images show motion better (in general)


That's my understanding as well. One thing that still has me a little confused is the "super fine dot pitch" (dpi) I believe that's right ? I's been a while but I do remember some of this from my computer search (best laptop) a year or so ago. If a screen has more (finer) pixels wouldn't that translate in the end re: the refresh rate?

Next is the original format and compression used before it is uncompressed at the receiver/tv?


----------



## jcrobso (Mar 30, 2005)

1080p takes a lot of band width!!!!!!! For OTA the band width for 1080i/60 and 720p/30 is around 45mb/sec. To get 1080p/30 you will need about 90mb/sec and to get 108p/60 the bit rate is over 124mb/sec. This is with MPG2 encoding.
Even with MPG4 encoding it will be hard to get 1080p.
If you TV only does 720p then you gain very little from 1080p.
Video camers do do 1080p/60 but only 1080p/30 and and 1080p/24. From what I have heard so far HD-DVDs wil be 1080p/24, the same as film.


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

Paradox-sj said:


> Having a TV that displays 1080p - and even one with 1080p inputs is pointless at this time as there are NO devices (excpet HTPC) that can output 1080p/60...
> 
> Not even the upcoming BD or HDDVD do 1080p/60


Only 1080p/24 and 1080p/30 are formats.


----------



## ken310 (Feb 25, 2006)

olgeezer said:


> Only 1080p/24 and 1080p/30 are formats.


So I guess? the Bue-ray is 1080p/30? 
I don't see the fps specs included with a lot of the tech info available.


----------



## ApK (Mar 6, 2006)

olgeezer said:


> Only 1080p/24 and 1080p/30 are formats.


Yeah, but wouldn't 1080p/60 be SWEET!?!

Honestly, while I knew that even 1080p/30 was defined as part of the standard, I didn't realize it was being implemented already. At the beginning because of bandwidth limitations there was no channel allocation for it, and nothing that could display it even if there was.

Before I'm ready to buy my first HDTV, I'd love to see a head-to-head comparison of 720p/60 and 1080p/30. Higher temporal resolution is supposed to be more immersive.


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

ken310 said:


> So I guess? the Bue-ray is 1080p/30?
> I don't see the fps specs included with a lot of the tech info available.


Hardware specs for impending Blu-Ray or HD-DVD hardware is probably not going to include anything for 1080P, because the initial players probably do not support it..

I would not expect anything viewable in 1080p until later in 2007, and that might optimistic


----------



## ken310 (Feb 25, 2006)

ApK said:


> Yeah, but wouldn't 1080p/60 be SWEET!?!
> 
> Honestly, while I knew that even 1080p/30 was defined as part of the standard, I didn't realize it was being implemented already. At the beginning because of bandwidth limitations there was no channel allocation for it, and nothing that could display it even if there was.
> 
> Before I'm ready to buy my first HDTV, I'd love to see a head-to-head comparison of 720p/60 and 1080p/30. Higher temporal resolution is supposed to be more immersive.


Not having seen it I'm not sure? Some say that the human eye can't see it or the brain can't process it? I'm not sure what to think there?

I'm not willing to wait that long. My hd picture is absolutely awesome! I'd like more content but the quality of the picture is good enough for me. 
The sd isn't so great anymore after viewing hd so beware.

I'd like to know what we're receiving now? Someone said hd lite and I forget the #'s?

I do know it's only going to be real high end tech like Blu-ray to begin with so for the time being my tv is again way (2nd hdtv) ahead of the broadcasting standards which I consider a good thing. I'd be very happy with 720p which from what I understand we are still a ways away from?? I think it's said for what ever reason that dbs seems to have such a learning curve, mpeg4 has been a standard since 1999.

How long did they sell the 921? and it's software, is it right yet?


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

ken310 said:


> ...From what I understand the following is true?
> 
> 1080i ~ one field is 540 lines even line numbers scanned and then one field of 540 odd line numbers scanned. 60 fps 540 lines scanned in 1/60th of a second.


um, not exactly. 1080i is 30 fps display technology.

The camera would be a 1080/30p recorder, or a 1080/24p converted to 30 frames. Regardless how the digital signal is sent, once inside the tv, it becomes an analog 1080i. Your TV then takes each of the 60 half-frames and displays them in an odd/even fashion as you noted. But remember, it's half a frame, not a full frame, every 1/60th second. Also, this is only on CRT's, as it's due to the way the brain and phosphurs work that allows you to "see" all 1,080 lines lit at the same time, even though they might not be actually lit the entire 1/30th of a second. (digital tvs like lcd's don't have phosphurs which can stay lit by their nature, hence why they are not sold interlaced)

You really need to understand the difference in i and p so you don't fall into the trap of thinking 1080i is only 540. 1080i is a 60 cycle, 60 half frames, display method. It is also a 30 full frames per second method. 720p and 1080p are 60 frames per second methods, ONLY for programming recorded in 60p. For movies and normal TV, recorded with 1080/24 or 30p cameras, 720p/1080p is only a 30 fps method even though it's drawing 60 frames (since it can only receive 30 unique frames, it has to show each twice). TV is only a 30 fps medium. Movies are a 24 fps medium (converted to 30 for tv viewing). Don't get hung up on the 60 fps number, as it doesn't offer anything other than a possibly smoother image for fast motion (not everyone will notice the difference if not "prompted" to). Even if a TV could do 120fps, you'd get no benefits as the eye/brain combo can not process those changes. It's just like in audio, your ear/brain can not hear changes of less than 3db in level. Theoretical frames are nice, but your brain can still only process 30 a second. Progressive displays simply make sure all the pixels are lit, where interlaced displays rely on phosphurs to stay lit a predetermined amount of time based on the strength of the electron beam that excited them into action. Hence, especially on older CRT's, interlaced done poorly will not look as good as progressive. But done right, the vast majority of people won't be able to tell.



> 1080p ~ all 1080 lines scanned together 30 fps (field or frames)


actually, it's a 60 fps display technology, but there are no sources of 60p material as yet. The most likely source soon would be something like a gaming console which would benefit from a 60 fps display ability. And fields only apply to interlacing, as a field is the half frame drawn each 1/60th a second when using interlacing. 2 fields = 1 frame, not field = frame.



> What seems to me to be equal? 540 at 60 fps would equal 1080 at 30fps?


 well, not exactly again. 540 at 60 would still be only a 540 display. 1080 doesn't display 540 lines of data. It displays a full 1,080 lines of information, over 2 passes of 540, onto a phosphur medium designed to cause the human brain to "see" all 1,080 lines at the same time. There is no such thing as [email protected], as there are no 540 line displays anywhere.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

ken310 said:


> Not having seen it I'm not sure? Some say that the human eye can't see it or the brain can't process it? I'm not sure what to think there?


it's not some saying this, there is no disagreement on this issue amoung scientists whom study such things. Here's a good explanation that should help you understand how it all works. pages 2 and 3 talk about the eye, but I'd recommend the entire article if you really want to understand the basics behind TV (and there are links to explain digital TV as well)



> How long did they sell the 921? and it's software, is it right yet?


wasn't it about 1 year? and no, it still have issues now and then. Like right now it keeps only grabbing a 2 day guide. I would not recommend anyone buy a used 921 unless you don't mind a box that doesn't perform as expected 99% of the time. I'd say mine only acts as expected about 75% of the time at points, and up to 90% of the time at others.


----------



## ken310 (Feb 25, 2006)

Do you know what we are receiving now 540i, p ?? and what's expected if know for the immediate future?

I know the 942 has been out for about a year but the 921 has been out since I believe late 03.


----------



## Rick_R (Sep 1, 2004)

ken310 said:


> Well, As we all know things change over night.
> 
> Mpeg 4 has been around since 1998 and made a standard in 1999.


The MPEG4 AVC (aka H.264) which is the current MPEG4 that is being implemented was made an ANSI standard late in 2004. Since that time the chipmakers have been going crazy trying to make combined MPEG2/MPEG4 chips using this standard. (The other versions of MPEG4 were considered at best to be marginal improvements over MPEG2).

Now the chipmakers are delivering MPEG4 chips and everyone is starting to put those chips into products. That is why Dish, DirecTV, and Hi Def DVDs are coming out with these.

Rick R


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

Rogueone said:


> I would not recommend anyone buy a used 921 unless you don't mind a box that doesn't perform as expected 99% of the time. I'd say mine only acts as expected about 75% of the time at points, and up to 90% of the time at others.


Actually, I didn't have any major problems with mine until recently. The new software that they sent out yesterday seems to be a good fix. I have the full guide, and everything seems to be more stable. I guess time will tell.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

ken310 said:


> Do you know what we are receiving now 540i, p ?? and what's expected if know for the immediate future?
> 
> I know the 942 has been out for about a year but the 921 has been out since I believe late 03.


no such thing as 540i. 480i would be the old norm. 480p is the new Standard Def resolution for digital broadcasts. HD channels are either 720p or 1080i, depending on what the broadcaster chose.

921 hit right about the last week of 03


----------



## Alpaca Bill (Jun 17, 2005)

Rogueone said:


> 921 hit right about the last week of 03


A little before that since I had my first one activated on Dec 13th, 2003. I bought it from a retailer in AZ (I was in IL) on eBay. So he actually had it a few days prior to that. I had also been bidding on sevral others for the preceding week so maybe as early as Dec 1, 2003 for people to actually have them in hand (to flip on eBay for a pretty good markup at that).


----------



## ken310 (Feb 25, 2006)

Alpaca Bill said:


> A little before that since I had my first one activated on Dec 13th, 2003. I bought it from a retailer in AZ (I was in IL) on eBay. So he actually had it a few days prior to that. I had also been bidding on sevral others for the preceding week so maybe as early as Dec 1, 2003 for people to actually have them in hand (to flip on eBay for a pretty good markup at that).


I never did pin it down that far but knew it was a lot longer then a year. I think maybe Rogueone had confused it with the 942?


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

no, it was late Dec when I noticed all the chatter and people placing orders thru dishdepot here. Based on all those comments it seemed it must have just hit the market. I guess I just came in about a month late  

I bought mine like Feb 4th or so 2004 from a local dealer by sheer luck. Everyone else was waiting on lists, and I didn't want to wait 3 months like some were being told they'd have to wait, so i started calling around and 1 shop said they'd have more in a week. None of the others expected to have any. Got it a week later  thought i was happy until I couldn't get my OTA stations to stay locked in half the time  hahaha


----------



## ApK (Mar 6, 2006)

Rogueone said:


> Even if a TV could do 120fps, you'd get no benefits as the eye/brain combo can not process those changes. It's just like in audio, your ear/brain can not hear changes of less than 3db in level. Theoretical frames are nice, but your brain can still only process 30 a second.


Rogue, from what I understand, this is not quite accurate.

If you have any sources, please point me to them. I last read about this stuff many years ago and truthfully, I could be wildly mistaken.

First, in biology, no numbers are absolutes. Everything is really a range and numbers are just approximation or an avergage.

Second, the studies done for the Showscan (??? whatever that 60fps movie technology was called) a while back made it clear that 60fps was closer to the eye's actualy motion rate, and even if the details of motions may not normally be decernable beyond 30fps, the effect is very real...more immersive, more "realistic feel" and less eye strain.

Also 3db is (in the range of) what most people people would describe as "noticiably louder" but that's not the same as "perceptable." I think the actual just-noticible-difference is down around 1db. Just like when a room get SLOWLY darker, if you make a sound SLOWLY louder without telling someone, by the time there's a 3db change , the avergage person will go like go "hey that music got louder!" But that doesn't mean that if you carefully A/Bed a 1 or 2 db change that they wouldn't notice a difference. They probably would, and that has an effect on their perception of the sound.

EDIT: Some links...
http://www.pechorin.com/m/2002/03/0..._TV_veterans_who_dont_understan-112870-2.html

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/dB.html


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

the best test case for fps is video gaming. Every consensus is that you need a minimum of 30 fps for a smooth picture while gaming. Drop below 30, and in many game types, it's very obvious. At the same time, many games are visually better if your video card can display 60+ fps. But it's not because there are 60 fps, it's because the video card itself has limits to how much it can draw per second, and there are times in a game with lots of explosions, smoke, reflections and the like where a card that is capable of 90 fps normally might only be able to draw 35fps.

There are video cards out today that can draw some games at 300fps, the only reason to get those cards if you are playing an older game it can run that fast is, it'll never ever get below 30 fps. There are NO visual improvements to having a 30, 60 90, 120 fps capable video card. It's strictly the need to keep the fps above 30 or you'll notice the stutter.

I've been gaming since before 3d cards, and the fps being 30 or 100 doesn't change how the scenes look. dropping below 30 though, that makes a difference, and many times makes a game unplayable.

as to the question of 3db, here is a snipet from this longer paper: 


> A tenth of a Bel?
> 
> The decibel (abbreviated dB) must be the most misunderstood measurement since the cubit. Although the term decibel always means the same thing, decibels may be calculated in several ways, and there are many confusing explanations of what they are.
> 
> ...


----------



## Oompah (Feb 8, 2006)

That's a good explanation of deciBels (dB). The easiest way to remember what's capitalized and what is not is that the Bel is named after Alexander Graham Bell, so it's a proper name, while the prefix, deci (1/10), is not. Bell noted that 10 times the power about doubled the perceived volume of sound (1 Bel), but multiplying that number by 10 made the quantity easier to work with (10 tenths of Bels, or 10 deciBels) doubles the volume . It's dB, not DB or Db or db.

More information than you wanted...

Deci is from the Latin decimus, meaning 10. In modern usage, Latin prefixes (deci [10], centi [100], milli [1,000], micro [1,000,000], nano [1,000,000,000], pico, etc.) are fractions, while Greek prefixes (deca [10], hecto [100], kilo [1,000], mega [1,000,000], giga [1,000,000,000], etc.) are multiples. Think microseconds (1/1,000,000 second), millimeter (1/1,000 meter), centimeter (1/100 meter), cent (1/100 dollar), and decimal (1/10), but decade (10 years), hectares (100 meters squared), kilometer (1,000 meters) and megaHertz (mHz = 10 ^ 6 Hz). Don't forget mile (mille passuum = 1,000 paces; a pace [double step] is about 5 feet), and centuries (100 years), ... hey, they thought those up before "modern" usage.

Still more useless information...

Since computers work most efficiently in the binary system (powers of two rather than powers of ten), and, coincidentally, two to the tenth power (1,024) is close to 1,000 (ten to the third power), we see Kilo (2 ^ 10 = 1,024), Mega (2 ^ 20 = 1024 * 1024 = 1,048,576, about a million), Giga (2 ^ 30 = 1,073,741,824, about a billion), etc. in the computer world. Notice the capitalization (the power-of-two values are bigger than the similar power-of-ten). We've got Megabytes (2 ^ 20 bytes) and Gigabytes (2 ^ 30 bytes).


----------



## ken310 (Feb 25, 2006)

Now can you break the video down as well?

Seriously, Very Cool !


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

:s_welcome oompah, nice one  

what more do you want to learn ken? as specifically as you can state it


----------



## ken310 (Feb 25, 2006)

Rogueone said:


> :s_welcome oompah, nice one
> 
> what more do you want to learn ken? as specifically as you can state it


24, 30, 60, 120 fps ?? 

Thanks!
Ken


----------



## Oompah (Feb 8, 2006)

24 frames/sec is a standard dating almost from the beginning of movie making that probably was a compromise between smooth motion on one side, and quantity of film consumed, exposure time, and the mechanical contraptions used to shoot and project film on the other. With a 24 fps video standard, making the conversion from film to video is much simpler, and requires 4/5 the storage and bandwidh of 30 fps.

30 frames/sec (60 interlaced fields/sec) kept power-supply ripple - a problem in the early days of TV - from making television images "squirm" since frames keep a fixed phase relationship to the 60 Hz power-line cycles (in the USA). The PAL TV standard uses 25 fps (50 interlaced fields) in Europe and other parts of the world where the power-line frequency is 50 Hz. For a reason I've forgotten, NTSC video is really 29.97 frames/sec (actually 30 X 1000/1001... why?) I hope that the new "30" and "60" digital standards are exactly 30.000 & 60.000 fps!


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

ken310 said:


> 24, 30, 60, 120 fps ??
> 
> Thanks!
> Ken


oh hehe. when i went on to talk about 60 and 120, I was doing so in relation to video gaming. in video gaming, the cpu and gpu (video card) have to be able to draw the scene fast enough for it to seem smooth.

Ever since 3D cards came out for computers, the magic number has always been 30fps for smooth video. But when online gaming like Quake and Half-Life became big, people notice that if they were only getting 35 or 40 fps during single player gaming (just you and the scripted events for the game), that during multiplayer (using a game map and putting 8 to 16 real people on there shooting rockets, bullets rayguns etc.) the fps would often drop in half during heavy firefights. You see, in SP, the numbers of items to track and draw were controlled, but in MP, things like bullets from a gatlin gun, or smoke trails and explosions from multiple rocket launchers would cripple the GPU. So it was quickly realized you needed at least 60 fps to keep the video above 30 during most fire fights.

But as the games became more and more graphically intense, more and more speed was needed. Today it is very typical for a GPU to be able to run over 100 fps during normal play, and still in the 60 or higher range during firefights. But my point, in our consideration of video is, these 60, 90, 120 fps don't improve the picture. they allow the GPU to not become overwhelmed. But the images seen by the gamer are the same whether they are looking at 60 fps or 30 fps.

Now, to some, it's possible to notice less blurriness if you swing around quickly in a 180 with the higher frame rates, which is similar to those who mention seeing sports appear to be smoother when viewed in 720p/60. The thing is, those "moments" you'll see or not see that motion blur are probably no more than 1 or 2% of the time your watching a sport. We just aren't shown camera angles that allow that effect to be prevelant very much. and, if you aren't getting the biggest of displays, it's harder still to see these effects. smaller, under 40" displays are going to make seeing imperfections harder, especially if it's a 1080i image on a 1080p display (not many people buying crt projectors/tubes anymore, which are the 1080i displays).


----------



## ken310 (Feb 25, 2006)

I seem to see a relationship between fps and 60 Hz being the power cycle in the US but when 24 and 30 are used I lose it. 30 maybe but 24 fps? 

"since frames keep a fixed phase relationship to the 60 Hz power-line cycles"
and one hertz is defined as one cycle per second.

In my thinking the rpm of the 'machine' running the film would be what changes fps but obviously it's not that simple.

When speaking resolution is that per screen or a measured area like a inch or ?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

ken310 said:


> I seem to see a relationship between fps and 60 Hz being the power cycle in the US but when 24 and 30 are used I lose it. 30 maybe but 24 fps?


24fps is the standard for celluloid film and they had to figure out how to make it look good at a different frame rate without making the movie run fast.


> In my thinking the rpm of the 'machine' running the film would be what changes fps but obviously it's not that simple.


Do a web search about 3:2 pulldown. It involves "combining" parts of successive frames. Make sure you understand the difference between fields and frames.


> When speaking resolution is that per screen or a measured area like a inch or ?


Television resolution is an analog term. It doesn't have anything to do with pixels or matrices. "480 lines of horizontal resolution" is related to how many complete transitions from dark to light could be seen on a single (horizontal) scan line. Analog technology cannot turn on a dime but as the resolution increases it can make more full transitions in a single pass across the screen.

On the other side of the fence we have digital technology which is incapable of doing grays. Digital must simulate grays by flickering.

Don't even get started about combining flickering with wobbulation; the current technology behind consumer class 1080p DLP.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

i like that last line harsh  

Ken, the relationship between ac 60hz and tv 30 is simple. TV is interlaced, so each 1hz it draws a field. Each 2 fields completes a frame. So 30 frames are drawn per second. When you start talking 720p or 1080p, the signal would ideally be 60 hz or frames. If the 720/1080p is reproducing 1080i or 480i, then it has to draw each full frame twice. thankfully the brain can not detect this, it all happens too quickly. 

as to movies and 24 frames, back in the day, it was likely done because of cost. 24 frames per second of film saves a lot of money over 30 frames, and since it is film on a continuous reel passing by a light which is projecting the image onto a large screen, there was no need for the system to be defined by AC. And I say 'defined by" for a reason. PAL is a 50 hz system, or 25 frames of interlaced video. so their TV's are based on their electrical system being only 50 hz. I suppose film is just transmitted normally over there, with maybe 1 frame repeating or such. but here, they transmit a 5th frame for every 4 real frames of film. not sure how they build the 5th frame, but I guess that is why it's called "edited for tv"  (besides the cropping down to 4:3 and cutting out the occassional scene or language).


----------



## Oompah (Feb 8, 2006)

Rogueone said:


> here, they transmit a 5th frame for every 4 real frames of film. not sure how they build the 5th frame, but I guess that is why it's called "edited for tv"  (besides the cropping down to 4:3 and cutting out the occassional scene or language).


"Edited for TV", I think, has more to do with content, 4:3 formatting, and/or fitting into a time slot (sometimes leaving time for commercials).

Getting 5 frames from 4 uses a technique called "3:2 pulldown".

3:2 pulldown takes advantage of the fact that interlaced video is made up of fields that change 60 times a second. Call each frame on film a 'cel' to avoid confusing film frames with video frames. Since 60 fields represent almost* exactly the same time as 24 cels (1 second) means that 10 fields (5 frames) represent the same time as 4 cels, and 5 fields represent the same time as 2 cels (60/24 = 10/4 = 5/2). Telecine (TM) machines do the conversion by projecting sequential film cels onto a video imager for times that alternate between 3 fields and 2 fields. That is:

Cel A -> Field 1 (Frame 1 odd lines)
Cel A -> Field 2 (Frame 1 even lines)
Cel A -> Field 3 (Frame 2 odd lines)
Cel B -> Field 4 (Frame 2 even lines)
Cel B -> Field 5 (Frame 3 odd lines) [5 fields, 2 Cels]
Cel C -> Field 6 (Frame 3 even lines)
Cel C -> Field 7 (Frame 4 odd lines)
Cel C -> Field 8 (Frame 4 even lines)
Cel D -> Field 9 (Frame 5 odd lines)
Cel D -> Field 10 (Frame 5 even lines) [5 more fields, 2 more Cels]

Cels A and C are shown longer than Cels B and D. Note also that Frame 2 is part Cel A and part Cel B, and and Frame 3 is part B and part C. When shown on an old-fashoned CRT those "mixed frames" (2 & 3) are of little consequence since each field is entirely independent of the one before and after; in fact, as far as NTSC is concerned, I don't think there is really any definition of whether a frame "starts" with an even or an odd field - they just get drawn sequentially with a subtle timing difference determining whether a field is odd or even, and any pair of fields could be considered a frame (except for scene changes, I suppose). Frame grabbers and digital equipment do care which is which, but the old analog equipment didn't.

Here's a good explanation of the process, some artifacts generated, and what can be done to improve playback on modern equipment: http://www.dvdfile.com/news/special_report/production_a_z/3_2_pulldown.htm.

* With NTSC, the frame rate is really 29.97 fps, not 30, but that 0.1% difference just gets lost in the noise.

24p transfer and playback would make all this go away .


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

so wouldn't that still be "edited for TV" ?  it's no longer in the original format, even if it is left in Letterbox  hehe all of those changes make a tv movie "edited" from the theatrical version yes?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If we followed that standard everything we see would be 'edited for satellite'. 

What that label generally applies to is content. Removing a portion of each side of the screen is altering content. Removing scenes too racy or shocking for your network is altering content. Replacing words with silence, tones or dubbed alternatives is altering content.

Spreading four cells of image to fit five frames of a television image isn't altering the content of the picture.

BTW: Frame 2 and 3 in the example above are the ones I keep getting when I pause a movie. If you catch this during a fast action scene on frame advance the picture looks a little jittery.


----------



## voripteth (Oct 25, 2005)

Monitors are said to be "flicker free" when they have a refresh of over 70 frames a second. Personally I have find movies often distracting at 24 frames a second because the flicker is so obvious. Then again I'm one of those weird people who can see the refresh on DLP sets. (Rainbows)

If they can ever get the data to refresh at 70+ frames a second then I'd be happy!


----------



## ken310 (Feb 25, 2006)

[/QUOTE] Frames keep a fixed phase relationship to the 60 Hz power-line cycles (in the USA). [/QUOTE]

If speed is somehow 'regulated' by the 60 Hz in the 110vac we use it seems I/we have go back to our electrical current to understand ! ??
A frame is broadcast by every 'pulse', a pulse being 1 Hz or cycle ?

Analog (physical film) would be controlled by the rpm of the projector. The 24 fps started as analog right? still used by digital today? If so how do we regulate digital 24 fps using 60 Hz power? I'm still missing the relationship of 60 Hz to 24fps defined by 60 Hz power?

My hdtv is 16:9, 1080i, 720p, 480p, 480i.
What it displays is dependent on what's broadcast, hd being 1080i or 720p and it would seem 2 other factors. One being the receiver, the other being the tv itself ? 
HD signal is up-linked and down-linked via sat, compressed right?
Then decompressed by the receiver at a max of 1080i or 720p ?

Then we have this "upconversion".
An example of upconversion would be 1080i to 720p, the later being better right?
To "up-convert" to me sounds like using 5mb (random) data to make 7mb? The very word sounds like a oxymoron. Now to convert something to a different format which 'can' cost data, or downvert I understand but to add data from where ? sounds hummm well, wrong ?


----------



## ken310 (Feb 25, 2006)

I read the page+ on 3:2 pulldown and have decided this and other data is giving me a head ache. :grin: 
http://www.dvdfile.com/news/special_...2_pulldown.htm.

Hdtv or just sd is way more complicated then I have time to learn but I do believe I've got some of the basics. Complicated enough that I'll have to bow to the experts summations. Kudos to the brains that make this tech available to the end user!

I'm beginning to think if I understand it it's probably not quite right :nono2: 
as there's a lot of variables in all this tech.

Thanks!
Ken


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

np Ken  

Just don't want you going to the local Best Buy and believing basically anything they say  Keep in mind the age and experience of the person selling you a TV, and the fact they are an hourly person. There isn't any incentive to learn when you are hourly. Commissions places have the headache of the salesman pushing you toward a product, but they are also much more likely to have read up on and understood a technology enough to explain it  

I think the main point in buying HD right now is, buy what you can afford and the size that works for you. Both 720 and 1080 will look great compared to anything you've experienced in TV before, so does it really matter? decide if you want flat panel or slim projector etc., and what seems to work in your room. Preferrably don't buy the "cheapest" product, but don't overpay for a top of the line if you don't need it  

down the road a few years all this talk of 1080p will matter as there will actually be sets everyone can afford. At that point, 720p will be the entry level product line and 1080p will be the higher end set, even though there won't be 1080p sources unless the game consoles go that route. It's gonna take time to roll this out to all of America, gotta remember how big this place is and how many people still use rabbit ears


----------



## Fifty Caliber (Jan 4, 2006)

Rogueone said:


> PAL is a 50 hz system, or 25 frames of interlaced video. so their TV's are based on their electrical system being only 50 hz.


PAL-M which is used in Brazil is a 60 Hz system. Also there is a VCR standard known as PAL-60 which is also 60Hz. PAL-60 is not used for broadcast, and was invented for use by people (read US military) who travel to different nations some of which use PAL and others that use NTSC.


----------



## ApK (Mar 6, 2006)

ken310 said:


> If speed is somehow 'regulated' by the 60 Hz in the 110vac we use it seems I/we have go back to our electrical current to understand ! ??
> A frame is broadcast by every 'pulse', a pulse being 1 Hz or cycle ?
> 
> Analog (physical film) would be controlled by the rpm of the projector. The 24 fps started as analog right? still used by digital today? If so how do we regulate digital 24 fps using 60 Hz power? I'm still missing the relationship of 60 Hz to 24fps defined by 60 Hz power?


It's an historical relic. ORIGINALLY TV refresh were linked to power line frequency, then they were standardized and the numbers stayed though though technology advanced.


----------



## ken310 (Feb 25, 2006)

Rogueone said:


> np Ken
> 
> Just don't want you going to the local Best Buy and believing basically anything they say


The day I went in Best Buy the kid in there was clueless. They have a good selection and good prices but I don't expect much help. I bought a 32 or 34" Toshiba 16:9 hdtv. After viewing it at home I was thinking where's the Ahhhhh ? Like I felt with my first hdtv, a 53" Panasonic 16:9 big screen even in sd. I returned it only to hear " since you paid cash for it we'll have to send you a check in the mail", not allowed to have that much cash on hand. Thankfull I could return it. I went across the street to Circuit City and fell in love with a 34" Sony KD-34XBR960 although the price was higher it did/does give me the Ahhhhh felling. I love it and my new audio system. As usual the Sat receiver is my weakest link. 
Where did I spend the most time researching hdtv? The receiver. Where did I get screwed, the same.

[/QUOTE]
I think the main point in buying HD right now is, buy what you can afford and the size that works for you. Both 720 and 1080 will look great compared to anything you've experienced in TV before, so does it really matter? decide if you want flat panel or slim projector etc., and what seems to work in your room. Preferrably don't buy the "cheapest" product, but don't overpay for a top of the line if you don't need it  
[/QUOTE]

To me a new hdtv is a pretty big investment. I'm the kind that wants the best but give me one with a scratched cabinet or ? so I can buy the best for less. I'd expect this tv to last for the next 4+ years or so. Then I'll give it to on of my children as I did my old (2 yrs) hdtv.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

haha, TV's are suppose to last 10 years minimum  Doh! 

why was the Tv you bought more at CC? just because you picked a more expensive model? CC price matches so if BB has the same set cheaper, CC would match that. I'm guessing you meant you just bought a more expensive unit.


----------



## ken310 (Feb 25, 2006)

Rogueone said:


> haha, TV's are suppose to last 10 years minimum  Doh!


Wouldn't that be nice ? 
If you want to stay on the cutting edge of tech it will cost you! It has cost you/us depending on how long you've had satelitte, Myself, 17+ yrs. E* now Dish. I wanted HDMI to go with my new 942 receiver (the one I haven't received yet) and 720p. This 2nd hdtv is actually a completly different type of hdtv as my first was a big screen and this one is only 34" but the HD quality is amazing.

[/QUOTE]why was the Tv you bought more at CC? just because you picked a more expensive model? CC price matches so if BB has the same set cheaper, CC would match that. I'm guessing you meant you just bought a more expensive unit.[/QUOTE]

BB didn't carry the high end Sony I bought.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I still have a TV I bought in 1984 ... I use it occasionally for dish and antenna pointing (it is a 13" set that fits nicely in a window).

I just decommissioned a 19" set bought in 1987. It was still in regular use until my TVs were shuffled after getting my HD set last year.

I don't expect TVs to last 10 years ... but I'm happy when they last 20.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

haha, I expect nothing less than 10 years minimum operation, or the unit was crappy  That doesn't mean I expect to still be watching it myself though haha

I have a 13" from 1987 i bought on Superbowl Sunday so I could take it to work (Pizza Delivery) and set it up to watch the Redskins/Broncos game while I was picking up the next run  it's starting to flake out, and I haven't used it regularly for 2 years, but it's there and sort of working after 19 years  Then I have a 27" JVC from 1991 that was replaced with my 65" rpHD, and became my kids dvd/vhs unit. Now it's hanging on their bedroom wall (boy I hope those bolts hold). And a 20"er that's probably 5 years old. 

Since the 13" is dieing, and with the 622 coming soon, I've toyed with the idea of a little 15" 4:3 lcd unit at Sam's that accepts HD inputs HDMI and RGB, as well as PC, and has a 1024x768 glass so it looks better than the other 15" units with their 480p glass. It would make a very nice bedroom unit for under $300. Now, being LCD, I don't know, not sure I'd expect 10 years from an LCD TV  hmmm .....


----------

