LCD, plasma, HDTV, home theatre, the works
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: BRISTOL!
Age: 39
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, the PC was running Win 2K, not XP. I am not sure if they are available yet, but there will be HD-DVD and BlueRay Drives for PC's, Sony will ship its higher-end Vaios with BlueRay drives next year. There are going to be four types of disk though.
1) Pre-recorded Video Only, copy protected, discs only available to industry recorders and not on public sale. (ROM)
2) Data Only Recordable
3) Data Only Re-recordable
4) HD DVD TV Recordable.
I am lead to belive that in the first instance only 2 and 3 will be usable in a PC and it will only allow data to be recorded. Video can be recorded in data mode but this will not be viewable on a HD-DVD or Blue Ray player, This is to stop downloads of movies to be burnt onto a disc and sold to be played on a stand-alone player
1 is designed just for industry/movie company use, wont be sold to you or I. These can only be played back on a stand-alone player
4, Again can only be used on a stand-alone player, cant be read by a data drive. This is for stand-alone player usage to record TV, etc.
Stand-alone cant read data, and data drives cant read movie. I am guessing that when some one cracks it, that data drives will be able to read video.
In not time there will be a HD format of DivX if there isn't already, and then people will put the codec on a stand-alone dvd player and then HD can be downloaded and played back once they have been de-crypted.
BlueRay will be higher storage than HD-DVD. 50Gig Vs 30 gig, but HD-DVD is going to be cheaper per disc and per player. Oh i think BlueRay has a higher transfer speed.
Oh and JVC has a BlueRay-DVD. Dual Layer DVD one side and Dual Layer BlueRay the other, so its cross compatable with new and old players. JVC are mounting there Blue laser on the top i was told so you will have to put a blueray in upsidedown.
1) Pre-recorded Video Only, copy protected, discs only available to industry recorders and not on public sale. (ROM)
2) Data Only Recordable
3) Data Only Re-recordable
4) HD DVD TV Recordable.
I am lead to belive that in the first instance only 2 and 3 will be usable in a PC and it will only allow data to be recorded. Video can be recorded in data mode but this will not be viewable on a HD-DVD or Blue Ray player, This is to stop downloads of movies to be burnt onto a disc and sold to be played on a stand-alone player
1 is designed just for industry/movie company use, wont be sold to you or I. These can only be played back on a stand-alone player
4, Again can only be used on a stand-alone player, cant be read by a data drive. This is for stand-alone player usage to record TV, etc.
Stand-alone cant read data, and data drives cant read movie. I am guessing that when some one cracks it, that data drives will be able to read video.
In not time there will be a HD format of DivX if there isn't already, and then people will put the codec on a stand-alone dvd player and then HD can be downloaded and played back once they have been de-crypted.
BlueRay will be higher storage than HD-DVD. 50Gig Vs 30 gig, but HD-DVD is going to be cheaper per disc and per player. Oh i think BlueRay has a higher transfer speed.
Oh and JVC has a BlueRay-DVD. Dual Layer DVD one side and Dual Layer BlueRay the other, so its cross compatable with new and old players. JVC are mounting there Blue laser on the top i was told so you will have to put a blueray in upsidedown.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds very plausible.
But there must be a 5th type: ROM, non-writable, copy protected, for public sale/rental through all the usual outlets. Surely High Street video shops will carry HD DVDs.
I am sure this type will not play in any PC HD-DVD drive, unless either
a) the decryption is done in the DVD drive and the data is analog after that, or
b) the decryption is done in the DVD drive and the data is digital after that but at a reduced resolution (not 1080), or
c) it is all part of a system where the data is encrypted all the way to the display hardware
I wonder what will happen in the "media enabled laptops". Any of the three is possible; nobody will see the difference on a typical laptop, or a desktop PC screen for that matter. It is already virtually impossible, in the normal desktop PC context, to see the difference between a normal RGB analogue display of say 1600x1200, and the same display driven via the standard digital link.
But there must be a 5th type: ROM, non-writable, copy protected, for public sale/rental through all the usual outlets. Surely High Street video shops will carry HD DVDs.
I am sure this type will not play in any PC HD-DVD drive, unless either
a) the decryption is done in the DVD drive and the data is analog after that, or
b) the decryption is done in the DVD drive and the data is digital after that but at a reduced resolution (not 1080), or
c) it is all part of a system where the data is encrypted all the way to the display hardware
I wonder what will happen in the "media enabled laptops". Any of the three is possible; nobody will see the difference on a typical laptop, or a desktop PC screen for that matter. It is already virtually impossible, in the normal desktop PC context, to see the difference between a normal RGB analogue display of say 1600x1200, and the same display driven via the standard digital link.
Gawd - I remember when we just had a single channel Bush 405-line TV in the 1950s. Then came the miracle of ITV in about 1962, followed by a 405/625 line TV for BBC2 in 1965-ish, then finally a 625-line UHF-only colour TV (ITT/KB - it was very nice indeed!) in 1970....
Of all these, it was the colour TV which made the most impression. Even though I'd seen NTSC colour at Expo 58, this was far better. But it had a significant failing - it was limited by the studio source material quality...
Eventually I bought a BSB D-MAC satellite receiver and Nokia RGB TV. The pictures were stunningly good. Not because of the signal quality, but the high standards at BSB's gallery.
You only have to look at how Sky has squeezed down the satellite bandwidth (to accommodate rubbish shopping and yoof-music channels) to see how poor digital TV can be. In theory, all Sky channels can be broadcast in DVD quality, yet very few are. Is this simply a ruse to persuade people to throw money at HDTV?
Personally I don't like the picture quality of either LCD or Plasm right now. Nor the sound/vision synch problems. Manufacturers are falling over themselves to persuade people to buy these monster screen TVs, yet the smudgy images they show are really quite poor. As I had no hesitation in telling the Sky TV people at a recent exhibition.
I've had a Panasonic 16:9 CRT TV for several years now and I have yet to see a LCD or plasma TV with as good a picture quality. Quite simply, I think that people should wait until the quality of such large screen picture TVs improves substantially. Right now, they're simply not good enough.
Sometimes technology is self-defeating. Remember 'teletext'? Wasn't it so simple and easy to use, compared to the 'Press the red' rubbish we now have?
Of all these, it was the colour TV which made the most impression. Even though I'd seen NTSC colour at Expo 58, this was far better. But it had a significant failing - it was limited by the studio source material quality...
Eventually I bought a BSB D-MAC satellite receiver and Nokia RGB TV. The pictures were stunningly good. Not because of the signal quality, but the high standards at BSB's gallery.
You only have to look at how Sky has squeezed down the satellite bandwidth (to accommodate rubbish shopping and yoof-music channels) to see how poor digital TV can be. In theory, all Sky channels can be broadcast in DVD quality, yet very few are. Is this simply a ruse to persuade people to throw money at HDTV?
Personally I don't like the picture quality of either LCD or Plasm right now. Nor the sound/vision synch problems. Manufacturers are falling over themselves to persuade people to buy these monster screen TVs, yet the smudgy images they show are really quite poor. As I had no hesitation in telling the Sky TV people at a recent exhibition.
I've had a Panasonic 16:9 CRT TV for several years now and I have yet to see a LCD or plasma TV with as good a picture quality. Quite simply, I think that people should wait until the quality of such large screen picture TVs improves substantially. Right now, they're simply not good enough.
Sometimes technology is self-defeating. Remember 'teletext'? Wasn't it so simple and easy to use, compared to the 'Press the red' rubbish we now have?
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't it ever!
We bought a 16:9 "conventional" television about 3 years ago - not that I watch more than an hour or so a week. The bloke selling them did us a very good price, and reckoned everything would be 16:9 in a couple of years. He was wrong (not that I mind). It's very rare indeed for it to click out of 4:3. We don't do satellite or cable, and there's not much on digital that M or I want to watch.
I looked at plasma and LCD televisions a couple of weeks ago. Most were displaying videos which I suspect were designed to show them in their best light. The picture on "normal" TV wasn't that impressive on either.
I'm sticking with the old CRT job for now.
We bought a 16:9 "conventional" television about 3 years ago - not that I watch more than an hour or so a week. The bloke selling them did us a very good price, and reckoned everything would be 16:9 in a couple of years. He was wrong (not that I mind). It's very rare indeed for it to click out of 4:3. We don't do satellite or cable, and there's not much on digital that M or I want to watch.
I looked at plasma and LCD televisions a couple of weeks ago. Most were displaying videos which I suspect were designed to show them in their best light. The picture on "normal" TV wasn't that impressive on either.
I'm sticking with the old CRT job for now.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540 Microsoft are already offering HD WMV on DVD, for example "Terminator 2 Extreme" that plays in standard DVD drive.
So why don't they just publish a load of films in this format and just get on with it....$$$$$
Would be interested to know if they play in standard DVD player.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...tshowcase.aspx
So why don't they just publish a load of films in this format and just get on with it....$$$$$
Would be interested to know if they play in standard DVD player.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...tshowcase.aspx
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Euroville
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm in the market for a new telly, and am not a total teshnophobe, and all this has baffled me a little, but let me get this straight.
The "HD ready" screens on sale in the high street mostly aren't really HD screens, they are 720 line TVs. The True HD screens with 1080 lines cant actually display in HD off terestrial, they just stretch what they are being fed with, which in the case of big screens results in a jerky flickery picture being displayed. 1080P, which is the highest quality, feed does not exist anywhere in Europe. If I did fork out for SKY HD, and pay 300 STG(Yes, thats three hundred quid) for the SKY hD box, plus extra for the subscription a month, I will be able to watch a genuine HD picture on about 8 of the 700 channels?
The "Hd Ready" screens that stretch to fit my current first generation DVD player?
On top of that I might spend 1500-2000 on this TV and in a year or two when Blu Ray/HD-DVDs hit the mainstream, and after one knocks the other off the top spot like VHS Vs. Betamax, my TV will be obsolete because it does not contain the in display decoder to decrypt the signal from the Next generation DVD player?
I have to be honest people, the more I read about HD in its present form, I think the marketing people are taking the piss out of peoples desire/need to have the latest flash bang gizmo.
I think it makes a lot more sense right now to buy a 720 line LCD if one must have a flat panel, or as Keef says stick to what looks more like the sensible option of a CRT for a fraction of the price.
Or am I reading this all wrong!?
The "HD ready" screens on sale in the high street mostly aren't really HD screens, they are 720 line TVs. The True HD screens with 1080 lines cant actually display in HD off terestrial, they just stretch what they are being fed with, which in the case of big screens results in a jerky flickery picture being displayed. 1080P, which is the highest quality, feed does not exist anywhere in Europe. If I did fork out for SKY HD, and pay 300 STG(Yes, thats three hundred quid) for the SKY hD box, plus extra for the subscription a month, I will be able to watch a genuine HD picture on about 8 of the 700 channels?
The "Hd Ready" screens that stretch to fit my current first generation DVD player?
On top of that I might spend 1500-2000 on this TV and in a year or two when Blu Ray/HD-DVDs hit the mainstream, and after one knocks the other off the top spot like VHS Vs. Betamax, my TV will be obsolete because it does not contain the in display decoder to decrypt the signal from the Next generation DVD player?
I have to be honest people, the more I read about HD in its present form, I think the marketing people are taking the piss out of peoples desire/need to have the latest flash bang gizmo.
I think it makes a lot more sense right now to buy a 720 line LCD if one must have a flat panel, or as Keef says stick to what looks more like the sensible option of a CRT for a fraction of the price.
Or am I reading this all wrong!?
Psychophysiological entity
I am in Texas at the moment, but I doubt there is any difference -- apart from the 625 line for ‘normal' viewing.
The new Sony...and I mean the NEW one just out, is 6 Mp here 60 Hz NON-INTERLACED. Ie progressive scan. There is not the slightest resemblance to the older system, and that was good.
No burn-in, no loss of pixals, in fact, no sign of pixals!!!! $2,700 for the 50"
Halving the screen area one can go to the likes of the new Toshiba 40 something inch. It is flat, and has guarantees about the loss, or I should say, lack of loss of pixals. It is again in a new arena of excellence.
DVD players will fill in the missing lines and give a simulated hi def. Not bad.
At home, watching a Phillips, the broadcast pictures were often laughable: compression causing bits of actor's faces to lag behind, then suddenly catch up. Just barmy. It wasn't the T/V's fault, but it just was not a good experience.
As mentioned before, you can save a bundle of money going for the interlaced older systems (still being sold as new) but when you see the new ones...well, just talk nicely to the bank manager.
The new Sony...and I mean the NEW one just out, is 6 Mp here 60 Hz NON-INTERLACED. Ie progressive scan. There is not the slightest resemblance to the older system, and that was good.
No burn-in, no loss of pixals, in fact, no sign of pixals!!!! $2,700 for the 50"
Halving the screen area one can go to the likes of the new Toshiba 40 something inch. It is flat, and has guarantees about the loss, or I should say, lack of loss of pixals. It is again in a new arena of excellence.
DVD players will fill in the missing lines and give a simulated hi def. Not bad.
At home, watching a Phillips, the broadcast pictures were often laughable: compression causing bits of actor's faces to lag behind, then suddenly catch up. Just barmy. It wasn't the T/V's fault, but it just was not a good experience.
As mentioned before, you can save a bundle of money going for the interlaced older systems (still being sold as new) but when you see the new ones...well, just talk nicely to the bank manager.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Middle East
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've a 37 inch Panasonic Viera non-HD plasma, and it has a MUCH tighter picture than my Dad's Sony which is the same size. I've a cheapy Sony DVD player from Tesco that does the job for me, along with Sky+ (couldn't cope without that now - you can watch an hour long show in 40 mins without the ads) and it's all plugged into a four year old Bose Lifestyle 12 home theatre system that I bought from the Bose Outlet in Cheshire and is still going strong. Audiophiles hate Bose but I love it. Incomparably better, punchier and ballsier sound than anything made by Sony, Panasonic, etc. Comes with a CD player and tuner so you can chuck out your stereo too.
Wouldn't get too hung up on HD right now. Clarkson in Top Gear mag this month says if they shot TG in HD it would add about 30% to their budget. In the cost-minded TV world this equates to a tiny number of TV shows made in HD. Until these costs fall you'll be good for a few years at least without an HD telly.
Wouldn't get too hung up on HD right now. Clarkson in Top Gear mag this month says if they shot TG in HD it would add about 30% to their budget. In the cost-minded TV world this equates to a tiny number of TV shows made in HD. Until these costs fall you'll be good for a few years at least without an HD telly.
Psychophysiological entity
This is odd. As I mentioned earlier, the Sony Hi def camera...£1,250 ish. in UK was just so good, I could scarse believe it. I guess it's all to do with bandwidth and promelgation.
The trouble about waiting, is that when you are my age, and you started working with T/Vs over 50 years ago, how long do you wait?
Psychophysiological entity
Good link, but the Sony....and I have no interest in T/v sales I promise...the Sony has 1080 non interlaced.
Some number of years ago they had the 100Hz sets in the UK. they were markedly better for folk like me that are affected by flicker. For some reason I could read the name on my DC3's props while they were turning and I hated cheap tellies with a passion for this reason.
The new generation not only has a COMPLETE picture every scan, but also is making this picture in one mains cycle. so here it's 60. This puzzles me a little, and I am taking the word of the sales guy on this for the moment. What I mean is, is it linked to the mains to stop hum (bars) and other problems like the old days. Just don't know.
Saying 'its all in the pixels' might be valid, but the 6mp of the Sony are arranged in some kind of three dimensional way...it seemed to fill in the gaps.
As I mentioned, the Toshiba 46? was as good, and flat, but not offering the large screen, so that would have made it easier to look good as far as a pixel-less image was concerned.
