Will HDTV be a Joke here like Laser Disk

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by XP, Nov 8, 2005.

  1. XP

    XP Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. XP

    steve Guest

    XP wrote:

    >http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2005/tc20051107_733923.htm


    I use my big computer screen to watch DVDs and HDTV downloads.

    Makes normal TV look like crap as computer screens are capable of much
    higher resolution than NTSC/PAL TV screens.

    An 45 minute, add-free downloaded HDTV program rendred on a PC from a
    350-ish MB AVI file - with dolby 5.1 surround sound - is pretty good.

    Better than anything broadcast.

    The content 'vendors' need to meet the market and feel the force....instead
    of dictating to it.

    Disruptive tech is here.
    steve, Nov 8, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. XP

    GraB Guest

    On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 22:33:33 +1300, steve <>
    wrote:

    >XP wrote:
    >
    >>http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2005/tc20051107_733923.htm

    >
    >I use my big computer screen to watch DVDs and HDTV downloads.
    >
    >Makes normal TV look like crap as computer screens are capable of much
    >higher resolution than NTSC/PAL TV screens.
    >

    I agree. Once I was watching a DVD on my PC and the drive choked on a
    scratch so I had to switch it to the standalone player on the TV. The
    quality was about a quarter of what I saw on the PC monitor.

    This article also confirms what I have through about most large plasma
    screens I have seen, with their ½meg resolution, - the picture quality
    isn't as good as I get on my 19" PC monitor.
    GraB, Nov 8, 2005
    #3
  4. XP

    Mutlley Guest

    steve <> wrote:

    >XP wrote:
    >
    >>http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2005/tc20051107_733923.htm

    >
    >I use my big computer screen to watch DVDs and HDTV downloads.
    >
    >Makes normal TV look like crap as computer screens are capable of much
    >higher resolution than NTSC/PAL TV screens.
    >
    >An 45 minute, add-free downloaded HDTV program rendred on a PC from a
    >350-ish MB AVI file - with dolby 5.1 surround sound - is pretty good.
    >
    >Better than anything broadcast.
    >
    >The content 'vendors' need to meet the market and feel the force....instead
    >of dictating to it.
    >
    >Disruptive tech is here.
    >

    If these HDTV downloads are in Xvid or Divx then they are frame size
    reductions of the HDTV originals and not a good gauge of what HDTV is
    really like. I do admit that they are nice compared to the NTSC/PAL
    to Divx encodes..

    Don't expect HDTV here in NZ any time soon.
    Mutlley, Nov 8, 2005
    #4
  5. XP

    steve Guest

    Mutlley wrote:

    > If these HDTV downloads are in Xvid or Divx  then they are frame size
    > reductions of the HDTV originals and not a good gauge of what HDTV is
    > really like.  I do admit that they are nice compared to the NTSC/PAL
    > to Divx encodes..
    >
    > Don't expect HDTV here in NZ any time soon.


    No....particularly as it is an extension of NTSC (as I undertsand it).

    Normal NTSC is 525 scanning lines...and HDTV (last time I heard - I may be
    wrong) was 1050 scanning lines.....(double NTSC basic).

    PAL is 625 scanning lines....and we do get a better picture here for shows
    RECORDED in PAL format.

    NTSC to PAL conversions don't give the same level of quality.
    steve, Nov 8, 2005
    #5
  6. XP

    Richard Guest

    steve wrote:
    > Mutlley wrote:
    >
    >
    >>If these HDTV downloads are in Xvid or Divx then they are frame size
    >>reductions of the HDTV originals and not a good gauge of what HDTV is
    >>really like. I do admit that they are nice compared to the NTSC/PAL
    >>to Divx encodes..
    >>
    >>Don't expect HDTV here in NZ any time soon.

    >
    >
    > No....particularly as it is an extension of NTSC (as I undertsand it).
    >
    > Normal NTSC is 525 scanning lines...and HDTV (last time I heard - I may be
    > wrong) was 1050 scanning lines.....(double NTSC basic).
    >
    > PAL is 625 scanning lines....and we do get a better picture here for shows
    > RECORDED in PAL format.
    >
    > NTSC to PAL conversions don't give the same level of quality.


    NTSC HD is either 720 progressive or 1080 interlaced at 30 and 60 fields per sec
    respectivly.

    Some bright spark made the PAL HD equivilents the same res but 25 and 50 f/s -
    most likly to make transcode down to SD PAL easier.

    and most PAL derivitives of US shows now are converted from the HD source, so
    look better then they would in NTSC resolution wise. Since a lot are film
    sourced they just do an inverse telecyne on it and then up the frame rate like
    you get on movies that are made PAL.
    Richard, Nov 9, 2005
    #6
  7. XP

    steve Guest

    Richard wrote:

    > steve wrote:
    >> Mutlley wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>If these HDTV downloads are in Xvid or Divx then they are frame size
    >>>reductions of the HDTV originals and not a good gauge of what HDTV is
    >>>really like. I do admit that they are nice compared to the NTSC/PAL
    >>>to Divx encodes..
    >>>
    >>>Don't expect HDTV here in NZ any time soon.

    >>
    >>
    >> No....particularly as it is an extension of NTSC (as I undertsand it).
    >>
    >> Normal NTSC is 525 scanning lines...and HDTV (last time I heard - I may
    >> be wrong) was 1050 scanning lines.....(double NTSC basic).
    >>
    >> PAL is 625 scanning lines....and we do get a better picture here for
    >> shows RECORDED in PAL format.
    >>
    >> NTSC to PAL conversions don't give the same level of quality.

    >
    > NTSC HD is either 720 progressive or 1080 interlaced at 30 and 60 fields
    > per sec respectivly.
    >
    > Some bright spark made the PAL HD equivilents the same res but 25 and 50
    > f/s - most likly to make transcode down to SD PAL easier.
    >
    > and most PAL derivitives of US shows now are converted from the HD source,
    > so look better then they would in NTSC resolution wise. Since a lot are
    > film sourced they just do an inverse telecyne on it and then up the frame
    > rate like you get on movies that are made PAL.


    Ta.

    It's been a while since I read up on it. Conceptually in the ballpark but
    almost all wrong on precise technical detail. Often the way. :)

    With tech stuff, if you didn't read about it yesterday, you're probably out
    of date. :)
    steve, Nov 9, 2005
    #7
  8. Hi there,

    steve wrote:
    > XP wrote:
    >
    >
    >>http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2005/tc20051107_733923.htm

    >
    >
    > I use my big computer screen to watch DVDs and HDTV downloads.
    >
    > Makes normal TV look like crap as computer screens are capable of much
    > higher resolution than NTSC/PAL TV screens.
    >
    > An 45 minute, add-free downloaded HDTV program rendred on a PC from a
    > 350-ish MB AVI file - with dolby 5.1 surround sound - is pretty good.
    >
    > Better than anything broadcast.


    Totally. I don't bother downloading much HD stuff, but it really does
    make broadcast TV look crap, and high-bitrate DVD looks pretty chunky
    next to nice HD stuff too...

    Biggest problem will be convincing people to spend the currently high
    amount of dollars to purchase an HD ready TV...most of those will only
    play 720p at most, not the 1080i and 1080p stuff...

    --
    Kind regards,

    Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
    Anyone wishing to email me directly can remove the obvious
    spamblocker, and replace it with t p g <dot> c o m <dot> a u
    Chris Wilkinson, Nov 9, 2005
    #8
  9. "Chris Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
    news:4371531b$...
    > Hi there,
    >
    > steve wrote:
    >> XP wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2005/tc20051107_733923.htm

    >>
    >>
    >> I use my big computer screen to watch DVDs and HDTV downloads. Makes
    >> normal TV look like crap as computer screens are capable of much
    >> higher resolution than NTSC/PAL TV screens. An 45 minute, add-free
    >> downloaded HDTV program rendred on a PC from a
    >> 350-ish MB AVI file - with dolby 5.1 surround sound - is pretty good.
    >> Better than anything broadcast.

    >
    > Totally. I don't bother downloading much HD stuff, but it really does
    > make broadcast TV look crap, and high-bitrate DVD looks pretty chunky
    > next to nice HD stuff too...
    >
    > Biggest problem will be convincing people to spend the currently high
    > amount of dollars to purchase an HD ready TV...most of those will only
    > play 720p at most, not the 1080i and 1080p stuff...
    >
    > --
    > Kind regards,
    >
    > Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
    > Anyone wishing to email me directly can remove the obvious
    > spamblocker, and replace it with t p g <dot> c o m <dot> a u
    >
    >


    In the terminator 2 HD preview (on the web), it is so clear that you can
    easily see it is not arnie on that motorbike.

    ripped off .
    news.xtra.co.nz, Nov 9, 2005
    #9
  10. XP

    Philip Guest

    steve wrote:
    > Richard wrote:
    >
    >> steve wrote:
    >>> Mutlley wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> If these HDTV downloads are in Xvid or Divx then they are frame size
    >>>> reductions of the HDTV originals and not a good gauge of what HDTV is
    >>>> really like. I do admit that they are nice compared to the NTSC/PAL
    >>>> to Divx encodes..
    >>>>
    >>>> Don't expect HDTV here in NZ any time soon.
    >>>
    >>> No....particularly as it is an extension of NTSC (as I undertsand it).
    >>>
    >>> Normal NTSC is 525 scanning lines...and HDTV (last time I heard - I may
    >>> be wrong) was 1050 scanning lines.....(double NTSC basic).
    >>>
    >>> PAL is 625 scanning lines....and we do get a better picture here for
    >>> shows RECORDED in PAL format.
    >>>
    >>> NTSC to PAL conversions don't give the same level of quality.

    >> NTSC HD is either 720 progressive or 1080 interlaced at 30 and 60 fields
    >> per sec respectivly.
    >>
    >> Some bright spark made the PAL HD equivilents the same res but 25 and 50
    >> f/s - most likly to make transcode down to SD PAL easier.
    >>
    >> and most PAL derivitives of US shows now are converted from the HD source,
    >> so look better then they would in NTSC resolution wise. Since a lot are
    >> film sourced they just do an inverse telecyne on it and then up the frame
    >> rate like you get on movies that are made PAL.

    >
    > Ta.
    >
    > It's been a while since I read up on it. Conceptually in the ballpark but
    > almost all wrong on precise technical detail. Often the way. :)
    >
    > With tech stuff, if you didn't read about it yesterday, you're probably out
    > of date. :)
    >
    >

    The big threat with HDTV isn't the quality, it's the inbuilt DRM,
    designed to stop you doing what you like with the product.

    Hollywood (the MPAA) is still pushing for controls that will let them
    charge you extra for recording, time-shifting, fast-forwarding, scene
    review, pause, multiple language, on-screen sub-titles, copying (mostly
    forbidden) and watching anything you got off the Internet or bought abroad.

    Microsoft and Intel have already agreed to incorporate DRM controls into
    HDTV product due to ship in the next year. And the MPAA has now come up
    with a real show-stopper - they want to ban US sale of any A-D
    converters unless they are locked down, proprietary and incorporating
    all the controls they want and more. It's their way of dealing with what
    they call the "analog hole".

    Jack Valenti (head of MPAA, the Motion Picture Association of America))
    is the leader of the Lizard Army, and we don't need HDTV here until his
    BS is done away with.

    Hollywood needs to understand that if they sell the movies like
    paperbacks, nobody will bother to pirate them. So long as they keep the
    price inflated like hardback books, the incentive is there to make
    rip-off copies. The issue is whether it's better to sell 1 million
    copies at $39 or 20 million copies at $10 or $15. Business choice. Do
    the math.

    If I were me, I'd go with the mass-market model. And if it's a half-way
    decent flick I'll still pay to sit in the Cathay Cinema and watch it on
    the big screen.

    Philip
    Philip, Nov 9, 2005
    #10
  11. XP

    Mutlley Guest

    Philip <> wrote:


    >>
    >> It's been a while since I read up on it. Conceptually in the ballpark but


    >>

    >The big threat with HDTV isn't the quality, it's the inbuilt DRM,
    >designed to stop you doing what you like with the product.
    >
    >Hollywood (the MPAA) is still pushing for controls that will let them
    >charge you extra for recording, time-shifting, fast-forwarding, scene
    >review, pause, multiple language, on-screen sub-titles, copying (mostly
    >forbidden) and watching anything you got off the Internet or bought abroad.
    >
    >Microsoft and Intel have already agreed to incorporate DRM controls into
    >HDTV product due to ship in the next year. And the MPAA has now come up
    >with a real show-stopper - they want to ban US sale of any A-D
    >converters unless they are locked down, proprietary and incorporating
    >all the controls they want and more. It's their way of dealing with what
    >they call the "analog hole".
    >
    >Jack Valenti (head of MPAA, the Motion Picture Association of America))
    >is the leader of the Lizard Army, and we don't need HDTV here until his
    >BS is done away with.
    >
    >Hollywood needs to understand that if they sell the movies like
    >paperbacks, nobody will bother to pirate them. So long as they keep the
    >price inflated like hardback books, the incentive is there to make
    >rip-off copies. The issue is whether it's better to sell 1 million
    >copies at $39 or 20 million copies at $10 or $15. Business choice. Do
    >the math.
    >
    >If I were me, I'd go with the mass-market model. And if it's a half-way
    >decent flick I'll still pay to sit in the Cathay Cinema and watch it on
    >the big screen.
    >
    >Philip


    Agreed. I suspect that the next thing the MPAA will want is that you
    are not able to remember what you just saw an hour ago and you have to
    pay to see it again. Built in alzheimer chip..
    Mutlley, Nov 9, 2005
    #11
  12. XP

    Mark Remfrey Guest

    "steve" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Mutlley wrote:
    >
    >> If these HDTV downloads are in Xvid or Divx then they are frame size
    >> reductions of the HDTV originals and not a good gauge of what HDTV is
    >> really like. I do admit that they are nice compared to the NTSC/PAL
    >> to Divx encodes..
    >>
    >> Don't expect HDTV here in NZ any time soon.

    >
    > No....particularly as it is an extension of NTSC (as I undertsand it).
    >
    > Normal NTSC is 525 scanning lines...and HDTV (last time I heard - I may be
    > wrong) was 1050 scanning lines.....(double NTSC basic).
    >
    > PAL is 625 scanning lines....and we do get a better picture here for shows
    > RECORDED in PAL format.
    >
    > NTSC to PAL conversions don't give the same level of quality.
    >



    NTSC looks crap.... we call it "Never The Same Colour" :)

    --


    Regards,
    Mark Remfrey

    "Two wrongs don't make a right.... it usually takes three or more!"
    Mark Remfrey, Nov 9, 2005
    #12
  13. On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 17:11:47 +1300, "Mark Remfrey"
    <> wrote:
    [msge snipped]
    >
    >NTSC looks crap.... we call it "Never The Same Colour" :)


    Wrong. It's "Never Twice the Same Color"..


    Cath
    texan....usenet@texas...removethisbit...usacom.., Nov 9, 2005
    #13
  14. XP

    Richard Guest

    Chris Wilkinson wrote:

    > Totally. I don't bother downloading much HD stuff, but it really does
    > make broadcast TV look crap, and high-bitrate DVD looks pretty chunky
    > next to nice HD stuff too...
    >
    > Biggest problem will be convincing people to spend the currently high
    > amount of dollars to purchase an HD ready TV...most of those will only
    > play 720p at most, not the 1080i and 1080p stuff...


    My panasonic 29 crt will do 1080i, alas no 720p and the damn thing will always
    vertically sqush 1080i material meaning I cant watch 4:3 stuff off the xbox on
    it like that.
    Richard, Nov 9, 2005
    #14
  15. XP

    Richard Guest

    Philip wrote:
    > Microsoft and Intel have already agreed to incorporate DRM controls into
    > HDTV product due to ship in the next year. And the MPAA has now come up
    > with a real show-stopper - they want to ban US sale of any A-D
    > converters unless they are locked down, proprietary and incorporating
    > all the controls they want and more. It's their way of dealing with what
    > they call the "analog hole".


    Then there is asia, the bringers of the region free sub $100 dvd player, who
    will bring us what we want.
    Richard, Nov 9, 2005
    #15
  16. XP

    Richard Guest

    Mark Remfrey wrote:

    > NTSC looks crap.... we call it "Never The Same Colour" :)


    Thats only for over the air transmissions that are coming in with ghosting etc,
    anything off dvd or even vhs is always alright.
    Richard, Nov 9, 2005
    #16
  17. XP

    Mutlley Guest

    "Mark Remfrey" <> wrote:

    >
    >"steve" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Mutlley wrote:
    >>
    >>> If these HDTV downloads are in Xvid or Divx then they are frame size
    >>> reductions of the HDTV originals and not a good gauge of what HDTV is
    >>> really like. I do admit that they are nice compared to the NTSC/PAL
    >>> to Divx encodes..
    >>>
    >>> Don't expect HDTV here in NZ any time soon.

    >>
    >> No....particularly as it is an extension of NTSC (as I undertsand it).
    >>
    >> Normal NTSC is 525 scanning lines...and HDTV (last time I heard - I may be
    >> wrong) was 1050 scanning lines.....(double NTSC basic).
    >>
    >> PAL is 625 scanning lines....and we do get a better picture here for shows
    >> RECORDED in PAL format.
    >>
    >> NTSC to PAL conversions don't give the same level of quality.
    >>

    >
    >
    >NTSC looks crap.... we call it "Never The Same Colour" :)


    You obviously have not seen a NTSC signal for the past 20 years or
    so??
    Mutlley, Nov 9, 2005
    #17
  18. XP

    Roger_Nickel Guest

    Philip wrote:

    > The big threat with HDTV isn't the quality, it's the inbuilt DRM,
    > designed to stop you doing what you like with the product.
    >
    > Hollywood (the MPAA) is still pushing for controls that will let them
    > charge you extra for recording, time-shifting, fast-forwarding, scene
    > review, pause, multiple language, on-screen sub-titles, copying (mostly
    > forbidden) and watching anything you got off the Internet or bought abroad.
    >
    > Microsoft and Intel have already agreed to incorporate DRM controls into
    > HDTV product due to ship in the next year. And the MPAA has now come up
    > with a real show-stopper - they want to ban US sale of any A-D
    > converters unless they are locked down, proprietary and incorporating
    > all the controls they want and more. It's their way of dealing with what
    > they call the "analog hole".


    Do they even realies how many A/D converters are out there?.
    Surely the medical equipment, avionics and industrial
    instrumentation people will have something to say about this. A
    nuclear reactor meltdown due to DRM failure?, oh happy day.
    Roger_Nickel, Nov 9, 2005
    #18
  19. On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 08:24:26 +1300, Mutlley <>
    wrote:

    >"Mark Remfrey" <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"steve" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> Mutlley wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> If these HDTV downloads are in Xvid or Divx then they are frame size
    >>>> reductions of the HDTV originals and not a good gauge of what HDTV is
    >>>> really like. I do admit that they are nice compared to the NTSC/PAL
    >>>> to Divx encodes..
    >>>>
    >>>> Don't expect HDTV here in NZ any time soon.
    >>>
    >>> No....particularly as it is an extension of NTSC (as I undertsand it).
    >>>
    >>> Normal NTSC is 525 scanning lines...and HDTV (last time I heard - I may be
    >>> wrong) was 1050 scanning lines.....(double NTSC basic).
    >>>
    >>> PAL is 625 scanning lines....and we do get a better picture here for shows
    >>> RECORDED in PAL format.
    >>>
    >>> NTSC to PAL conversions don't give the same level of quality.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >>NTSC looks crap.... we call it "Never The Same Colour" :)

    >
    >You obviously have not seen a NTSC signal for the past 20 years or
    >so??


    Exactly!

    We have a couple of regular television sets and cannot fault the
    picture we receive on either.

    Cath
    texan....usenet@texas...removethisbit...usacom.., Nov 9, 2005
    #19
  20. Hi there,

    news.xtra.co.nz wrote:
    > "Chris Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
    > news:4371531b$...
    >
    >>Hi there,
    >>
    >>steve wrote:
    >>
    >>>XP wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2005/tc20051107_733923.htm
    >>>
    >>>I use my big computer screen to watch DVDs and HDTV downloads. Makes
    >>>normal TV look like crap as computer screens are capable of much
    >>>higher resolution than NTSC/PAL TV screens. An 45 minute, add-free
    >>>downloaded HDTV program rendred on a PC from a
    >>>350-ish MB AVI file - with dolby 5.1 surround sound - is pretty good.
    >>>Better than anything broadcast.

    >>
    >>Totally. I don't bother downloading much HD stuff, but it really does
    >>make broadcast TV look crap, and high-bitrate DVD looks pretty chunky
    >>next to nice HD stuff too...
    >>
    >>Biggest problem will be convincing people to spend the currently high
    >>amount of dollars to purchase an HD ready TV...most of those will only
    >>play 720p at most, not the 1080i and 1080p stuff...

    >
    > In the terminator 2 HD preview (on the web), it is so clear that you can
    > easily see it is not arnie on that motorbike.


    Yes, I wanted to download that clip but MS chose to package those HD
    samples in an exe container, rendering them useless to those without
    Windows. Some guy ripped the wmv data out of a couple of those clips,
    and put the resulting wmv file on his website, which I downloaded and
    played with xine player in Linux quite happily, but he didn't do the
    T2 clip bugger him!

    --
    Kind regards,

    Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
    Anyone wishing to email me directly can remove the obvious
    spamblocker, and replace it with t p g <dot> c o m <dot> a u
    Chris Wilkinson, Nov 10, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Joyce Danielson

    joke-dirty joke

    Joyce Danielson, Feb 8, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    693
    Joyce Danielson
    Feb 8, 2005
  2. Replies:
    30
    Views:
    7,109
    Alpha
    Apr 25, 2005
  3. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    491
    Charlie Pearce
    Jul 15, 2006
  4. Bill Haverberg

    Would like some help with a practical joke

    Bill Haverberg, Feb 18, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    388
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty
    Feb 19, 2006
  5. joevan

    Joke for all big pricks here.

    joevan, Sep 29, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,387
    chuckcar
    Oct 2, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page