Any TVs currently on market that accept a 1080p signal? (1 Viewer)

[ChrisWiggles]

It depends on how you define "significant" but certainly HD-DVD and BRD are 1080p content. It's not a huge library yet, but certainly will fast eclipse D-theater content(has it already? haven't followed that closely the last few weeks). And D-theater wasn't 1080p native.

 

[RAF]

I wasn't counting HD-DVD in the 1080p mix since as of yet the players don't pass the 1080p signal through even though the material on the discs is 1080p. My Toshiba XA1 only outputs up to 1080i. I also realize that the day will come when HD-DVD players tap the full 1080p resolution of the source so I'm willing to concede that HD-DVD is a 1080p medium. You just can't see it natively yet but that day will come. And I'm not arguing that there is no 1080p content (in fact I wish there were more at this point) but I was stressing that there are devices out there (the HP and Brillian RPMs as well as the Sony "Ruby" FP that already accept 1080p natively so the claim that there are no 1080p sets, merely sets that upscale 1080i to 1080p is not correct. Just because a lot of the 1080p displays out there limit the input resolution to 1080i doesn't mean that all of them do this "virtual 1080p" presentation, as he called it. As the new sets roll out there will be more and more sets that accept 1080p native input and then, of course, I will welcome additional 1080p source material.

Right now I'm waiting on Blu-ray until the Sony (and more importantly to me, the Pioneer) units comes out. Then my access to 1080p source material will increase. Presently, the 1080p native content in my home is limited to a bunch of WMVHD titles played through my HTPC at 1080p. I never got seriously involved with D-Theater since I didn't want to return to the days of serial access (tape) once I got used to random access (disc). But I have passed 1080p sources into my 1080p HP MD5880n and can verify, through actual use, that the set accepts 1080p and displays 1080p. it's definitely not 1080i upscaled to 1080p (although I can do that as well).

As much as most other people I welcome any and all 1080p source material to the mix. That's one reason I chose a display with 1080p input capability. The HP even does 1080p/24/30/60.

The claim that "all TVs on the market are definitely NOT 1080p" is just plain wrong. I've already listed several that are, as with the new model rollouts more will be joining the 1080p fold, from input to display.

 

[Sami Kallio]

I think upscaled would be incorrect term as there is no data added to the source (assuming the source is 1080p24) by deinterlacing 1080i to 1080p.

 

[ChrisWiggles]

Yes, but your understanding here is a bit short of the full picture, because while the player is limited to 1080i60 output, with proper IVT a processor can fully reconstruct the original 1080p24 source. It is true that many processors don't do this right, they may bob it to 1080p for instance, but some do. For the processors (including the processing in displays under that broad umbrella) that DO do IVT correctly, you can absolutely view the native 1080p24 content correctly. For outboard processors that do this correctly, you can then pass this on to a display that takes a 1080p24 or p48 input and you are getting EXACTLY the 1080p24 frames that are encoded on the disc.

Note how this isn't any different than DVD for instance. Where DVD is encoded as 480i, the content itself is 480p24, and proper deinterlacint (either in the player or later on) can fully restore native 24p frames without any loss. This can happen even if you are outputting 480i to an outboard processor, with proper IVT the original 480p frames are fully maintained.

The above all applies for film-rate content of course.

So despite the fact that the toshiba HD-DVD player only outputs 1080i at this point, it's still accurate to call it a full 1080p24 source because while in mny instances it's true that it's not reconstructed to full 1080p properly, in some cases it certainly is. In fact, some of the BRD players go to 1080i internally before going back to 1080p for output. In any case, there is some remaining confusion that HD-DVD is only 1080i while blue-ray is 1080p, and that's not true at all, both sources are 1080p native, and you CAN get full 1080p native from both at this time.

 

[tom milton]

>The bottom line, if we are going to look for the best possible monitor for the future formats (within a reasonable time frame) would be to try to get a monitor that accepts native 1080p at frames rates of 24, 30 and 60. That will cover most of the signals that will be available and result in the best of all worlds in digital display.<

that statement goes a long way towards helping me understand what is a very confusing issue.

how does one tell which new sets coming out this fall, or any new set for that matter, accept native 1080p at frames rates of 24, 30 and 60? i'll be darned if i can figure it out from specs that i have seen.


thanks!

 

[Henry Gale]

Maybe this one...
BERLIN - Panasonic said on Thursday it would start selling the world's largest television set, featuring a 103-inch screen, for $80,000.

"That's before installation cost," said a Panasonic spokesman at the IFA consumer electronics fair here.

Panasonic is the main brand name for products of Japanese electronics giant Matsushita. The set is five inches thick.

 

[Lee-c]

Well, the Westinghouse t.v. in this review below (see link) is supposed to be able to accept 1080p signals over high-quality component cables and display them natively at 1080p. Which is what we really want.

What do you guys think of this t.v., are those specs they are claiming correct? If so, I think this is the first time I've seen a t.v. that confirmed a capability to handle a 1080p picture over the component input and display it natively at 1080p. The only question is will the high definition DVD players send a 1080p signal over component?

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/equ...v-monitor.html

 

[Roger Mathus]

The local Best Buy has Samsung (I think 32 inch) that is 1080p. It is shown with the Blu-ray player as a demo. It is about $ 3k. They also have a new model Samsung DLP projection set (I think 61 inch) that is labeled 1080p. The sets went on the floor in early August as I re-call. These are on the Best Buy web site. Sharp is als advertising 1080p LCD sets.

 

[RAF]

No, Chris, it wasn't my understanding that was " a bit short of the full picture" but an oversight on my part in not mentioning the use of an external processor to do deinterlacing of 1080i film sources back to 1080p/24. I was talking generally regarding the "out of the box" (i.e. no external processing) nature of the current HD-DVD machines vs. the promise of at least the Pioneer BRD to provide 1080p/24/48/72 at the outputs. While the average HT consumer will probably not use an external processor (thus my generalization that I don't consider the Toshiba 1st generation units 1080p "sources" for the basic user) the HT "prosumer" probably will use such devices so your point is well taken up to a point. I, myself, currently use a DVDO iScan VP30 and I already have on order a VP50 which, besides accepting native 1080p for passthrough to my 1080p HP DLP display, incorporates the latest 1080i deinterlacing technology which, by all preliminary reports, does for 1080i what the 102 module on the VP30 (which I retrofitted) does for 480i. I'm looking forward to exactly what you stated - taking 1080i film source material and deinterlacing it to 1080p/24 for my display. While the fact that the Toshiba doesn't output 1080i/24 (like the Pioneer will) the fact that it does output 1080i/60 means that with good IVT the resulting 1080p/24 should look quite nice with film sources. But I expect better results with the 1080p/24 output from the Pioneer film source material (assuming that no other "video voodoo" is applied internally - we won't know for sure until the boxes actually ship - ) and the lfact that the Toshiba's 1080i/60 output requires IVT actually tempers my enthusiasm a bit, even with external processing, for calling that unit a 1080p "source."

I do understand IVT, deinterlacing, and why film at 24fps or multiples thereof can provide a completely accurate 1080p display from 1080i source material without the need for 2:3 processing if the display handles 24/48/72 fps. I have a good friend who is a noted telecine operator in Hollywood and he schooled me on the basics years ago so I'm not just talking off the top of my head. While technically you can make a case for the current HD-DVDs having some 1080p capabilities whereby film sources will be close to the original, I would agree with you more if those units took the 1080p information directly from the HD-DVDs and passed it through to its outputs. Ideally, for film source material, this would mean taking 1080p/24 data directly from disc to output. Right now, going from 1080p to 1080i/60 introduces additional processing that invites some level, albeit small if good external equipment is employed, of distortion of the original image. It's these additional steps that stops me from calling the current HD-DVD players "1080p native" sources at this point. I'm fairly certain that future generations of HD-DVD players will tap the 1080p source material in a purer fashion than my current XA1.

 

[RAF]

That, Tom, is the result of the current Electronic Tower of Babble.



Not only don't all manufacturers list these specifications in their promotional materials, but sometimes even when listed the information is incorrect! And don't try to ask a lot of salespeople for help with this. While some are knowledgeable, a large number have misconceptions about the whole 1080i/p 24/30/60 etc. scenario. Sometimes you can get some help if you can get access to a complete manual - especially a technical manual - by doing some searching on the web, but at other times these materials aren't generally available to non-service personnel.

I would hope that this will sort itself out over the next couple of years as more people become aware of the need to provide these specs to the informed consumer. But I'm not holding my breath. For now it's

Caveat Emptor!

 

[ChrisWiggles]

Yes, but IVT is not limited to external processors. A number of displays do this properly on their own. A whole bunch don't do this properly which is unfortunate, but some do. That's why I don't think it's fair to characterize HD-DVD or BR as something other than 1080p sources. There are quite a number of people watching 1080p from these sources without issue.

It's not an issue of whether it's "purer" or not, rather just more convoluted. Right now it's an irrationally convoluted mess, but if you have a system that is doing IVT properly, you are getting full 1080p without difficulties. If there is a future player that outputs 1080p24/48 and your display takes that and displays it at film rate you're getting the same thing as right now, nothing more pure about it.

 

[RAF]

Chris,

You're preaching to the choir here and I don't see why you continue to challenge my position. I'm entitled to my opinion as you are entitled to yours on this whole "1080p" situation. While I agree completely with your statements regarding the fact that some displays do IVT correctly without the need for external processing and others fall a bit short (or a lot short, depending) I think we are basically engaged in a bit of semantic jousting here. Yes, HD-DVD can deliver 1080p for film sources competently if a person's system is "doing IVT properly" (to quote you) but, as you also admit, the whole process can be a bit of a "convoluted mess" (your words, again) for many others. For those people, the current HD-DVD sources are not 1080p sources since simply having a display that accepts 1080p source material doesn't guarantee a properly deinterlaced picture if the player is outputting 1080i. My position remains that if the current generation of HD-DVD players don't output 1080p then they are not 1080p sources. The fact that a segment of the viewing audience has the capability of taking the 1080i source and properly change it to 1080p based on the equipment they use doesn't change the fact that a significant number of people don't have the resources at this point to make that conversion. If the current HD-DVD players were capable of outputting 1080p then I would call them 1080p sources. Perhaps you would like me to amend my original comment to read: "Current HD-DVD players are not 1080p sources for many HT consumers." In my opinion, if you have to jump through a series of hoops to achieve 1080p output from a device - even if the resulting 1080p image is equivalent to the original film source - then that device is not a native 1080p source. Like I said, your interpretation of this may be different and while I can see your point, I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this issue. It has nothing to do with being "fair" or not in characterizing something as a 1080p source - it's just a matter of opinion.

And in a related matter - I'm also not saying that when devices that deliver 1080p output arrive in large numbers that this will guarantee that this will be "pure" 1080p output. As you noted, some of the new devices may actually convert the 1080p source to 1080i somewhere in the chain before outputting 1080p so this might compromise the "purity" of the 1080p image provided by the player. And yes, some external processors and even some displays will be able to reconstruct the film source properly so it won't be a big deal to most people but this is something we can't really comment on until the products hit the shelves.

 

[ChrisWiggles]

I don't mean to be argumentative, it's just that it's not accurate to characterize HD-DVD or BR as anything but native 1080p source content.

We can say the same thing with DVD, I don't think it's accurate to characterize film-based dvd content as anything other than 480p24, which is what it is. There are the same jumps to reconstruct the native 480p24 content that is on a film-based DVD, and I'm willing to be the vast majority of DVD users out there are watching 480i still and are not getting the full capability from DVD, however that does not mean that it's the most accurate to characterize DVD as a native 480i source because that's not the whole picture.

The reason perhaps, that I take issue with characterizing DVD/BR as anything other than 1080p native source content is also because there has been and still is some great confusion between the two as well in terms of the output capabilities of the players themselves, and at the start folks were very confused and where characterizing HD-DVD as 1080i and BR as 1080p based on the output capability rather than the actual source encode, which in both cases is 1080p24 for film content. In both cases one can get full 1080p when done correctly, and even with 1080p output, there are definitely still a lot of people who won't be getting 1080p because their displays don't accept 1080p inputs.

When dealing with a description of what is actually encoded on the disc, both sources are native 1080p24 at least for film content (obviously other content varies). I don't think there is a legitimate argument that the source content can be described as anything other than what it is, which is 1080p24.

 

[RAF]

Aha! A light just went off in my head, Chris. When I speak about the current generation of HD-DVD players as not being 1080p sources, I am referring to the players themselves, not the HD-DVD media and that appears to be where we disagree. I totally agree with what you stated in the quote above and I'm not disputing that HD-DVD media contains 1080p content. All the comments that I made regarding the current HD-DVD players not being 1080p sources referred to what they output, not the HD-DVD media itself. I thought I made that very clear in many of my posts when I mentioned that although the media contains 1080p content, the players don't output 1080p but 1080i. Not only can I personally vouch for this by measuring the output of my Toshiba XA-1 (1080i is the maximum resolution that it provides at its outputs) but the product specs for both Toshiba models state this very clearly. I'm fully aware that both HD-DVD and BRD are 1080p sources based on their content, but for now the HD-DVD players don't pass the 1080p information directly through so, by my definition, they (the players) are not 1080p sources. And we've completely covered the fact that people with the proper external equipment or displays with proper internal electronics can take that 1080i output from a current generation HD-DVD player and, assuming it's film content, can reconstruct a proper 1080p image that is indistinguishable from the original source on the disc. I'm not disputing that. What I am contending is that the output of the Toshibas is currently 1080i. The fact that 1080p must be reconstructed from this shows that it isn't 1080p when it leaves the player.

The bottom line for me is that I'm defining the resolution of the source as what comes out of the player, not what's on the disc. You have chosen to define the resolution as what's on the disc and not what comes out of the player. And that seems to be our difference of opinion here. To me, if a 1080p source is output as 1080i then it is no longer a 1080p source for the purposes of that player. I think that the mad rush to market by HD-DVD (and cost cutting to come in at a much lower price point than BRD) contributed somewhat to the decision to not tap the 1080p source content in Gen 1 devices. I'm fairly confident that Gen 2 and beyond HD-DVD machines will offer 1080p output and, at that point, I will consider HD-DVD players are being 1080p sources. And, of course, all current HD-DVD discs will be able to provide the 1080p content that's already on the disc but not being delivered by the players at this point in time. But today's HD-DVD players are 1080i sources. If they were 1080p sources you can be darn sure they would tout this in the specs, but the fact that they don't proves my point.

We have heard a lot about the upcoming Pioneer and Sony BRD boxes as providing 1080p output and, as I stated previously, we have to wait and see if this will be the case. And even if it's 1080p there is a chance that it might not be 1080p throughput from the 1080p source media (as you also pointed out).

In summary, we both agree that HD-DVD and BRD contain 1080p material. Current generation HD-DVD do not output 1080p, but 1080i so that's why I don't call the players 1080p sources. I'm not saying that this will be true for future generation HD-DVD players. In fact I think they will output 1080p. I don't see anything I've stated as being misleading or not representing the current state of affairs. It's about the players, not the content when I state that HD-DVD players are not currently 1080p sources.

I can't state my position any clearer than that.

 

[Sami Kallio]

If the content is 1080p24 then I do consider 1080i60 to be a source for 1080p24. So the current players IMO are 1080p sources. I can't be sure but I think that's also what Chris is saying.

 

[ChrisWiggles]

Yes, this is where the difference is.

This is a complex topic, but the most important point is that there is a profound difference between the form something takes, and what it actually represents. When I talk about content, I talk about the native nature of the content ITSELF, and this in some cases may seem slightly confusing. I am not concerned with how the content is represented because identical content can be represented in a variety of ways.

Again, returning to my DVD example, how do we best characterize film-rate DVD content? On the DVD is represented as 480i60. DVD players output at 480i60. Do we characterize the content as being 480i60 content because it is 1) encoded as 480i60, or 2) because it is output at 480i60? No, clearly we do not. The content itself is 480p24. Yet in NEITHER case is it actually encoded as 480p24, nor output at 480p24.

The same applies to both BR and HD-DVD. It's slightly different because the content actually IS encoded as 1080p24, but then is output as 1080i60 or goes through a 1080i60 jump before being re-output as 1080p24. Again though, the CONTENT is 1080p24.

So it's quite clear to refer to the CONTENT contained on a film-rate DVD as 4080p24, just as the CONTENT contained on an HD-DVD or BRD is 1080p24. This is the case regardless of whether or not it is encoded in this form, OR output in this form.

The next question is what is meant by a "source." How do we define a "source?" This is, in my opinion something of a silly question because we're not as concerned with what the source is actually doing with the content specifically, but the larger chain which includes any other processing outside the source or in a display. If we naively look at only what is coming out of a source, and it is only outputting 1080i60, does that mean it is a 1080i source because it cannot output 1080p? Well what does that mean? We're outputting 1080p content at 1080i! Well, if we look ONLY at the source, well the source can't output 1080p, so it's confusing to call that a 1080p source. However, if we look at the chain as a whole, there may be processing beyond the source that re-assembles the 1080i60 form to a 1080p form and displays that as 1080p24 which is what the content defines. So now, we would have native 1080p content being viewed on a display AT 1080p, despite the fact that someone might be calling the source device 1080i. Well, that seems strange to define a source that way, because the FORM that is used to represent content is NOT the same as the content.

I understand why it might make sense to say that a player that only outputs 1080i is a "1080i source" but that's really misleading actually, because the source is actually providing full 1080p content, but in a 1080i form. It's not that different from a psf form either, which is obviously 1080p content again in an interlaced form. Would we characterize a source that can output psf but not p as a 1080i source?

I think it's probably to avoid the question of what form the source device "provides" and look more at what CONTENT the source device provides. It is quite informative of course to describe the output formats that a source device provides, but again this is a totally different question from what CONTENT a source provides.

If we look at an HD-DVD player, say the tosh that outputs a 1080i only, what is it providing? Is it providing 1080i content? No. It's providing 1080p content. Do we call the source 1080p or 1080i? What is meant by "source?" Is it the content? Is it the device? Is it the device output form only? Is it what is represtented by the device output form?

It's confusing, but at the end of the day, I think it's most accurate to describe HD-DVD and BR as providing 1080p content, and their respective players as being 1080p sources. That may not always be the case, because it's possible to make a player that does not preserve the 1080p content and does something stupid like bob deinterlacing internally or something, but as it stands now, these players are providing full output of the source, which is 1080p.

The reason I am somewhat strong on this point (admittedly more than perhaps I might say privately) is because of some of the misleading characterizations of HD-DVD and BR. Because the first toshiba players only output in a 1080i form, there is a great deal of confusing precisely BECAUSE some people characterize HD-DVD players as "1080i sources" in comparison to BR which is 1080p. This implies of course that the latter provides superior capability. This is nonsense. Both the content is 1080p, and the recovery of the content can be 1080p.

 

[ChrisWiggles]

They output 1080i. That's all. Obviously they can't be advertised as outputting 1080p becuase they don't. But this has nothing to do with the fact that if you buy an HD-DVD player you can be watching full 1080p that would be EXACTLY the same as if you bought a BR player which outputs 1080p, of a future HD-DVD player which outputs 1080p.

 

[RAF]

Exactly. An while you are choosing to define the source as what the media is capable of (1080p) I choose to define the source as what it provides natively at the output (1080i). The fact that one can, with the proper equipment, reconstruct the 1080p source so that it is indistinguishable from the original content doesn't change the fact that it (the player) is providing 1080i not 1080p for those who wish to simply plug it in to a display to view with no further processing. I understand your position just as, I would hope, you understand mine.

Chris, I think we have both made our points here and at this juncture we are spinning our wheels. There's enough content here in this thread to provide an interested reader with a lot of food for thought regarding this issue. I respectfully request that we move on at this point because we are veering quite a bit off course from the original question asked in this thread and most people have probably heard enough on this sidebar. Current HD-DVD players are not as bad (1080 wise) as some would lead people to believe through some creative wordsmithing and, I suspect, Blu-ray may not be as good as some of those who engage in the 10801/1080p debate may claim. Both formats contain 1080p material on the discs and it's just a question of how one gets to that 1080p format. As time goes by I'm sure access to the native content will become less convoluted. Time to get back to the topic of displays that accept 1080p. I'm sure that CEDIA 2006 will clear this up a bit (just as CEDIA 2005 introduced a lot of the confusion). I'll be there next week.