# 1080P — Time for a Reality Check!



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Thinking about buying a new 1080p rear-projection TV, front projector, or LCD TV?
You might want to put your credit card back in your wallet after you read this.

HDTVexpert


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I wish people (not you Nick, but the guy who wrote that article) wouldn't post things as if he were some kind of expert, when he says things in that article that clearly show his lack of understanding in some areas.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

HDMe said:


> I wish people (not you Nick, but the guy who wrote that article) wouldn't post things as if he were some kind of expert, when he says things in that article that clearly show his lack of understanding in some areas.


I just read the article, and think it was also in print somewhere. Just out of curiousity, just what is it that shows his lack of understanding? 
He is, after all, correct in saying that there is no 1080p broadcasting going on now or in the near future. Until Blu-Ray/HDDVD players capable of 1080p become available, there won't be anything to be shown in 1080p.:nono:


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HDMe said:


> I wish people (not you Nick, but the guy who wrote that article) wouldn't post things as if he were some kind of expert, when he says things in that article that clearly show his lack of understanding in some areas.


He does bring up some important points:

1. No content
2. No support at the consumer level

I'll play devil's advocate and ask: Why should one consider any of the current crop of "1080p" systems?

The only reason that I can think of is the additional advanced technology (filters, motion processing, iris systems) unique to the higher end models.

It is obvious from reading the disclaimers on the television manufacturer's websites that a number of people are very upset about the idea that the current crop of 1080p consumer gear cannot handle a 1080p source.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

The guy in the article makes the all-too-common-and-increasing mistake of referring to 1080i as 540p and implying that it does not contain as many scanlines as 720p.

He is correct in some of what he says about 1080p. Many things are recorded today in 1080p because it is easiest to convert to either 1080i or 720p from a 1080p master... and I have read various things that seem to indicate that 1080p is not that likely to be used as a broadcast standard, if for no other reason than it would require more bandwidth than they currently have available using today's MPEG2 compression OTA.

He also seems to think that no one can display 1080i or even 720p on current TVs, and while he may be right in some of his statements about particular DLP models, I know he isn't correct across the board about all TVs... as there are most certainly 720p and 1080i capable HDTVs on the market today and if you compare them you can see the difference on a large screen.

It doesn't seem like he has a firm grasp on just what 1080i or 720p is for the rest of the article, even though the end result of the conclusion that 1080p is a long ways off if ever is perhaps true.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HDMe said:


> The guy in the article makes the all-too-common-and-increasing mistake of referring to 1080i as 540p and implying that it does not contain as many scanlines as 720p.


540p was presented as one of the methods of converting 1080i for display on CRT. This is probably an accurate statement and I wouldn't doubt that it is used on many older "HD Ready" and maybe some ED televisions.


----------



## RF 2 HiDef (Feb 9, 2006)

It really makes me laugh when there are people that pretend to be so called "experts" on HDTV that publish these "tutorials" on the internet.

This person needs to do his research better. By the the way, the "Wobulation" technique is currently being used by HP in their DLP HDTVs. No other manufacturer that I am aware of is using this technique. So, he can not state
that this is true for ALL 1080P DLP Tvs.

Just my two cents...:nono2:


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

most 1080p sets upconvert signals to 1080i and the set then converts to 1080p. It seems that the mapping of 1080i signal would be better on a 1080p set than a 720p set. The only disclaimer I've heard about 1080p is that sets smaller than 40inch diagonal may offer no benefit because of the human eye's inability to see pixels smaller than a certain size. I think there is an article in Business Week (I haven't read it) about 1080p, this week.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HDMe said:


> He also seems to think that no one can display 1080i or even 720p on current TVs, and while he may be right in some of his statements about particular DLP models, I know he isn't correct across the board about all TVs... as there are most certainly 720p and 1080i capable HDTVs on the market today and if you compare them you can see the difference on a large screen.


Again, I didn't read the same thing you did. He didn't make enough of a fuss about the fact that a very large percentage of the HDTV's sold prior to 2006 were actually 1280x720 (or very close). Many of those televisions were labelled as 1080i.

The question he shouldn't have raised without answering was whether wobbulated DLP gives an accurate 1920x1080 matrix.

Of course much of this is like burning a hole in your wallet to get more than 60fps playing Quake. Blessed are they for it is they who subsidize the development of reasonably priced equipment for the rest of us.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

RF 2 HiDef said:


> This person needs to do his research better. By the the way, the "Wobulation" technique is currently being used by HP in their DLP HDTVs. No other manufacturer that I am aware of is using this technique. So, he can not state
> that this is true for ALL 1080P DLP Tvs.


All 1080p DLP setups are wobbulated. TI is very careful not to admit it, but that's the way it is. Know also that DLP is a registered trademark of Texas Instruments.


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

harsh said:


> All 1080p DLP setups are wobbulated. TI is very careful not to admit it, but that's the way it is. Know also that DLP is a registered trademark of Texas Instruments.


Including 3chip DLPs?


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

harsh said:


> 540p was presented as one of the methods of converting 1080i for display on CRT. This is probably an accurate statement and I wouldn't doubt that it is used on many older "HD Ready" and maybe some ED televisions.


HD CRTs are interlaced displays. The confusion over "540p" is apples and oranges. 1080i refers to fields. At any one time on TV are displayed 60 fields consisting of 1080 lines. The odd/ even painting is not separate, but cumulative. We see 1080 lines displayed in interlaced fields. The other 1080 standards for HD, already mentioned by HDMe as not bandwidth friendly, are 1080p/24 and 1080p/30 (24 and 30 referring to frames instead of fields).


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

olgeezer said:


> The only disclaimer I've heard about 1080p is that sets smaller than 40inch diagonal may offer no benefit because of the human eye's inability to see pixels smaller than a certain size.


I'll grant you that. I have a 65" CRT HDTV in my main room, and a 31" SDTV in my bedroom. Dish looks great on my 31" TV, but many of those same channels don't look so good (SD channels) on my 65" TV when its all "blowed up good" 

I also have a standalone HD receiver hooked to my 31" SDTV, and the downconvert to 480 still looks really nice on that TV, sharper than the SD... but not by nearly as wide a margin as the HD on my 65" TV looks.

I think folks with 40" screens or smaller are not going to be nearly as impressed with HD as they would be with the 57"+ sets on the market.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

olgeezer said:


> Including 3chip DLPs?


Yes, even the 3 chip DLP. This is one answer to using a color wheel with the B/W DLP chips. The chips are still the same but this time they are set up more like an old CRT Red-Green-Blue tubes and mirrors (prism?) projector. Sony is using a 3 chip LCoS in their top-line SXRD 1920x1080 setup. The picture is breathtaking.

I think their also trying to borrow some of the thunder associated with 3 chip (CCD) video cameras among the prosumers.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

olgeezer said:


> HD CRTs are interlaced displays.


This is silly. Most "modern" CRTs in computer applications do at least 1024 lines non-interlaced. I perceive a distinct difference on my Dish HD34-310 between interlaced (480i) and non-interlaced. I'm not sure if it actually does 720p or some scaling when in that mode, but there are still no lines. 1080i mode on the 921 goes overscan on the HD34. I use 480P as it looks best to me.


----------



## KKlare (Sep 24, 2004)

Samsung is to have one model in 4 sizes of wobulated DLP 1080p out in April, possibly $2900. Another model in June? Speculation on non-wob sets from them is just that for now.

A deal caught my eye for the Hitachi "The New VirtualHD™ 1080p II Video Processor" on the 50V720. Turns out to be 1280x720, which explains why it was about $2200. Fake out had me excited.

-Ken


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

harsh said:


> This is silly. Most "modern" CRTs in computer applications do at least 1024 lines non-interlaced. I perceive a distinct difference on my Dish HD34-310 between interlaced (480i) and non-interlaced. I'm not sure if it actually does 720p or some scaling when in that mode, but there are still no lines. 1080i mode on the 921 goes overscan on the HD34. I use 480P as it looks best to me.


The purpose of non interlace CRT computer moniters has too do with close viewing over a long period of time, ie. office environments. As CRT is analog it displays the electronic wave forms in sequence instead of odd even. This reduces eye strain. Kinda like the color wheel on DLP, moniter flicker isn't usually visable to the human eye, but over long periods of time it can cause eyestrain and headaches. I wasn't aware of any 3 chip DLPs under 50K. The one that I had seen was awesome. Besides SED LED backlighting, 3 color LED backlighting should improve cost and image quality of future microdisplays. Just glanced at a review on LCOS. While it was comparing LCOS models, there was an over all test on all current tecnologies. The ratings I thought were odd as the SXRD Sony was not one of the test models. The total results LCOS-1 CRT-2 DLP3chip 3+ DLPsingle chip3- LCD,Plasma, LCD microdisplay 4.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

KKlare said:


> A deal caught my eye for the Hitachi "The New VirtualHD™


...where "virtual" = NOT!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

olgeezer said:


> Kinda like the color wheel on DLP, moniter flicker isn't usually visable to the human eye, but over long periods of time it can cause eyestrain and headaches.


Some people are sensitive to flourescent light flicker at 60Hz. I had a teacher that used to wear sunglasses in class. As for the DLP color wheel, some see it (even at 4X) but most don't. Like the Trinitron "wires", more people think they might see them when they know about their existence.


> I wasn't aware of any 3 chip DLPs under 50K.


Don't confuse "DLP Cinema" with three standard DLP chips.


> Besides SED LED backlighting, 3 color LED backlighting should improve cost and image quality of future microdisplays.


What could be cheaper and more uniform than a filtered white light? Tilting *and* "wobbulated" mirrors and flickering arrays of LEDs may be too much to synchronize.


> Just glanced at a review on LCOS. While it was comparing LCOS models, there was an over all test on all current tecnologies. The ratings I thought were odd as the SXRD Sony was not one of the test models. The total results LCOS-1 CRT-2 DLP3chip 3+ DLPsingle chip3- LCD,Plasma, LCD microdisplay 4.


SXRD has been available in consumer level products for only about six months (it was announced three years ago) and the price is about 30% more than a JVC. It is worth the difference. LCoS is the current darling where cost is a marginal issue. Sony's implementation offers 3000:1 contrast versus JVC's 600:1.


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

harsh said:


> Some people are sensitive to flourescent light flicker at 60Hz. I had a teacher that used to wear sunglasses in class. As for the DLP color wheel, some see it (even at 4X) but most don't. Like the Trinitron "wires", more people think they might see them when they know about their existence.Don't confuse "DLP Cinema" with three standard DLP chips.What could be cheaper and more uniform than a filtered white light? Tilting *and* "wobbulated" mirrors and flickering arrays of LEDs may be too much to synchronize.SXRD has been available in consumer level products for only about six months (it was announced three years ago) and the price is about 30% more than a JVC. It is worth the difference. LCoS is the current darling where cost is a marginal issue. Sony's implementation offers 3000:1 contrast versus JVC's 600:1.


Actually, the editors of the publication asked for a sample of the SXRD too test, but Sony declined. I'm sorry I didn't mention why it wasn't included in the LCOS shootout. The 3 chip I'd seen was the "Alice" can't remember who made it. It was a high end consumer piece, the first year TI started demoing HD DLP at CES. It was stunning. The fella that's the chief engineer for the DLP development to TV's (since 1996) dad lives in town and came in the store to see one of those DLP TVs a couple of years ago. It was the first time he'd seen one


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

This technology seemed to me to be the best for rainbow effect on DLP and using LED backlight seemed the best for LCOS and LCD. What am I missing? Article from PC Magazine

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1909039,00.asp


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

olgeezer said:


> This technology seemed to me to be the best for rainbow effect on DLP and using LED backlight seemed the best for LCOS and LCD. What am I missing?


If they can pull it off, more power to them. It seems like a pretty difficult task though. Imagine trying to create a point source of light out of an array of LEDs. Think about the new LED traffic signals and how you can actually see the matrix. My understanding of high power conventional LEDs is that each one takes a significant amount of cooling because the surface area is so small for the amount of power they can digest (up to 1 watt). I'm betting that laser might be a better solution if they can come up with a suitable combination of colors.


----------

