Does that mean we will soon be able to read Amy's tattoo?
Tim
-- Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk. Website @
step 1) get a clue at what ghosting is
When you've done this then you'll understand why ghosting is impossible with digital transmission.
Yes, although it's also dependent on the intended transmission path -- getting video to a cell phone in, e.g., someone's moving car is a worse environment than just getting it to a stationary TV antenna with decenet gain.
Where I work the way we choose the amount of error correction is to take a prototype with no error correction, transmit known test patterns, collect error statistics while operating the receiver in the intended environment (e.g., at someone's home, driving around in a car, etc.), and then play around with the amount of error correction to try to balance data rates with robustness.
If you're looking at "well known" over-the-air standards, it's probably a safe assumption that someone came up with a model of the environment and did plenty of simulations before committing anything to silicon -- for high data rate or highi volume devices, that's where the error correction is implemented (whereas, at least to date, everything we've done has been slow enough to do it in software).
Well, it's supposed to be, but I don't personally have enough familiarity with them to say.
---Joel
Joerg is just going to be using it for over-the-air and DVDs, I believe, in which case...
-- DVDs are 720x480 -- no problem
-- No one but no one is planning on transmitting 1080p over-the-air at this point; everyone is 720p or 1080i... and to many people 1080i actually looks a skosh worse than 720p in typical TV scenes. Granted, it *can* look better, but the point is effectively there's "nothing to lose" by displaying 1080i on a 1366x768 display.
I suspect that Joerg is going to be pretty happy..
Some people like to refer to this as "true" HDTV. :-) 1366x768 is generally referred to as "EDTV" (enchanced...) vs. the 720x480 of "SDTV" (standard...). The names are all pretty meaningless by the time the marketing guys get through with them... something like "near CD quality" can still mean a compressed 32kbps bitstream it seems!
The only "true" HDTV source material you'll see any time soon is BlueRay and HD DVDs... something I expect you'll probably adopt much quicker than Joerg will. :-)
Wal*Mart did have those Toshiba HD-DVD players for $99 last month... but I really think it's going to be next Xmas that's the year of the cheap BluRay/HD-DVD player.
---Joel
On a sunny day (Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:47:28 -0600) it happened "Tim Williams" wrote in :
Probably, not, probably made with filt pen, and long gone.
The high resultion will cause plenty problems with makeup and props. But wait a few years, and all actors will be simulations :-) Well, perhaps....
Sure there is a problem. It will look like shit as most DVDs do.
Step up to the pump and get an HD disc format.
I have many discs that clearly show how sad the encoding of the original DVD format is.
Full Metal Jacket is a good example of a piss poor telecine session at the time the master was made. The new Blu Ray remaster is great!
Others I have respond to up-conversion beautifully.
"All of Me" looks great as a std DVD through an up-converting player.
Your player upconverting a DVD output is NOT the same as your display up-scaling was it gets fed.
On a sunny day (Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:07:07 -0800) it happened StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt wrote in :
Not exactly, there are 2 'terms' that can be used:
An updated spec of the standard was introduced in summer 2007. For a display to bear the HD Ready 1080p logo it must:
Not all Full HD tv sets qualify for this logo.
Additionally, devices that carry the HDTV 1080p logo must be able to decode compressed 1080p video.
Even then, they will be low end. Likely NOT capable of the Audio capacity that the discs they playback will contain.
The bottom line players will concentrate on delivering 1080p video to grab the dopes that want to enter the market. Best bet is to get a PS3 for BluRay, because you get so much more than a fully capable BR disc player (great value for one thing), and the high end Toshiba players for HD DVD because you will truly get the best audio processing with them as well as the video. The low end will always have full res video, but many will have decreased capacity in the audio dept.
One gets what one pays for.
bear the HD Ready 1080p logo it must:
Read what you just wrote, idiot. It has to be 1080p to state that it is
1080p. NO SHIT, SHERLOCK. However, what I SAID is what the industry has stated, and that is that the HD format BEGINS at 720, and THAT is a fact. Why would a 720 display have ANYTHING related to 1080 written on it, you idiot?
@24,50 and 60 hz
Yeah, and they get the HDTV logo, NOT the "HD Ready 1080p" logo. There is a difference, but BOTH are HD, dingledorf.
compressed 1080p video.
Jeez, you're a dope. Nearly ALL 720 sets will downconvert 1080i and p signal content. Mine is 3 years old, and can do so.
wiki is not always right on the mark.
Just one example of a site that got it right.
the
only
once
what
signal
in
original
third-generation
aget
you
usually
locations
Sharp Aquos Full HD for me.
Drugaddict made a noise:
Na, you have no clue.
There 2 'terms' that can be used:
An updated spec of the standard was introduced in summer 2007. For a display to bear the HD Ready 1080p logo it must:
Not all Full HD tv sets qualify for this logo.
Additionally, devices that carry the HDTV 1080p logo must be able to decode compressed 1080p video.
Sure, but keep in mind that someone upgrading from a $49 DVD player to a $49 BluRay or HD-DVD player is still going to see a huge improvement. Some of those uber-cheap DVD players (I've seen them as low as $19!) have quite crappy DACs in them anyway, but I don't see people complaining.
snipped retarded WRONG wiki reference.
The NAB and the ATSC declares what is, not wiki, you retarded f*ck.
HDTV starts at 720 lines. Wake the f*ck up, asswipe.
They won't be $49 for a LONG time. You may see $150 players. The $100 WalMart thing was nothing more than an overstock closeout fluke. Last year's model. There is a difference.
Bullshit. I bought a SHIT COBY player that claimed 5.1, and even had 6 RCA ports on the back for the 5.1 out, BUT the damned thing would stop playing the audio track at random points in the film ALL THE TIME. One would have to stop, and then restart the flic and browse to the point in the film they were at.
I will NEVER buy a no name El Cheapo Chinese-o brand again.
I will ALWAYS buy the name brands, and I don't care if they were made in China as well, at least they utilize some modicum of QA control over their designs and manufacturing processes.
Fuck El Cheapo. You get what you pay for.
Why would someone buy a nice display, and have a nice stereo system and speakers, and then compromise everything on the video playback device just to save $50 to $200 bucks?
The video might be there, but the sound will be 100% utter CRAP.
Very lame. I'll spring for the best in all arenas, thank you.
OK, I guess I should have said that I don't see _many_ people complaining. :-) Coby definitely is the low-end of low, although we have one in the exercise room and it's been fine (it's hooked to some old 19" TV). I'm pretty sure I know the exact model you're discussing up there -- seen'em in stores and once even had one in a motel room -- but I've never used one.
Perfectly understandable.
Well... not everyone will find the better quality worth the extra money, and (more likely) not everyone has a nice display/stereo/etc. to begin with. Or you have situations like a friend of mine, who has another friend who hands-him-down all of his nice A/V equipment but only "piecemeal" so said friend was once out buying a $99 DVD player to hook up to a $3,000 stereo. :-)
Be thanksful that you have that option. :-)
---Joel
With analog video signals, ghosting is caused by mutipath distortion, where a 'second copy' of the signal arrives at the receiver delayed by a small amount of time. That second copy is displayed as a second image, offset on the screen by a distance equal to the path delay times the horizontal scanning rate of the CRT.
With digital video, the broadcast is sent in several types of frames. Each frame is labeled with a sequence number indicating where in time it should be displayed. While mutipath distortion can still interfere with digital signal reception, it does not manifest itself as a second image offset on the screen spatially from the original. The only way to produce a ghost in a digital stream would be to spoof the packet timing data.
-- Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ 668: The Neighbor of the Beast
On Nov 21, 1:57 pm, AZ Nomad wrote: > On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 10:11:28 -0800 (PST), MRW wrote: > >Good morning world! > >I've been reading about the new digital TV standards (8-VSB, DVB- T, > >ISDB-T) and they all mention that the standards are more robust > >compared to the analog standard. For example, all state that > >practically ghosting effects are eliminated with DVB-T and ISDB-T > >providing more robust response to mulitpath effects than 8-VSB. > >How do these standards eliminate ghosting effects? >
Multipath is a large problem in digital transmission though it doesn't manifest itself as trailing edge smears in the picture. It shows up as lumps in the RF response (comb filtering) that make it difficult to impossible to extract the data. There are active equalizers that can correct some pretty bad reflections. The newest chipsets (#6 coming soon) can correct a broader range of errors and do it faster - almost to the point of working in a moving car.
GG
On a sunny day (Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:53:38 -0800) it happened "Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in :
Correct so far, but not delays are in the microsecond rang. Always there is a HORIZONATL shift (ghost), never a vertical one. For exaple in a NTSC 64 uS line 1 uS is about 1/60 of the screen width.
'Frames' are in the millisecond range (one every 40mS for example for
25 fps), at the speed of light the refecting object would have to be about 300 000 000 000 * .04 / 2 meters away = 6 000 000 000 or 6 million kilometers. Not likely, and the signal strength of that reflected signal would be very very low...No, even if you changed the frame time stamp, the frame would be displayed at the same position. But the decoder may well abort.
Digital will simply take the strongest signal in the simplest case.
On a sunny day (Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:31:27 GMT) it happened Jan Panteltje wrote in :
Correction: 'Frames' are in the millisecond range (one every 40mS for example for
25 fps), at the speed of light the refecting object would have to be about 300 000 000 * .04 / 2 meters away = 6 000 000 meter, or 6 thousand kilometers.
Not even then. The packet data, as you call it, is bottled up in the transport stream, and the "frames" you mention are inside that encrypted (usually) stream. so the main broadcast signal packets differ from the packaged up transport stream, which is where any ordering sequence takes place. The FEC is applied to any lost data segments, in the broadcast stream, *then* any missing parts of the transport stream get cast aside, and skipped, as in NOT PROCESSED, therefore it would be impossible to have such an event as a double image as properly decoded frames get applied to the final picture data and cast aside frames do not get any processing as they got shitcanned. So even "spoofed" data would not get processed as the FEC which gets sent would consider it as a bad frame to begin with and cast it out. Rarely, some data of in individual frame gets jumbled and the viewer might see some bit blts that are garbage, but not often. Usually a high bit error rate will cause frames to drop completely, and many "tuners" will not even display the channel at all if said bit error rate is too high. Somewhere around 10% BER.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.