"If you can't see it, then something is wrong somewhere."
Perhaps. It's not as though there are many sources for 1080p video. I have seen a PS3 game and movie which were supposed to be 1080p. The movie didn't look all that much better than movies on our HDTV TV stations (which are in 1080i). Maybe it depends on the video, TV, size of TV, distance from TV, etc... Heck, ordinary DVD's are "just" 480p and they look fine to me. I guess I am just not as discerning as some. Same with audio for that matter. I do think that the vast majority of people don't care about 1080p and all the higher end audio for that matter. The Mac has always had good but not great audio/video and it's been fine for most users. I think the same applies to audio/video which is why it is more important to have a smooth streaming of video at lower resolutions that choppy and/or long downloads of 8 gig files.
philip
Whether thay care is a different story.
But to know about seating distance, screen size, resolution, and more, go here:
If you're using Word for small documents is ok, but don't keep several programs open for any length of time, or too many windows.
Sorry, but that is plain wrong. When XP home came out in 2001, the typical home computer it ran on was an 800MHz Pentium III with 256 MB or RAM and a 20 GB hard drive. XP performs reasonably well on such machines. I have XP on a 512 MB virtual machine running single processor on my 1.6 GHz MBP. It performs very well with a powerpoint presentation, a Word document with the entire text of the bible (don't ask) 4 windows on Internet Explorer and about 10 pictures opened in MSPaint. With that many windows open, it was still useable.
A 1GHz Atom with 1 GB of memory will run XP just fine. It would also run Vista usefully, but not nice.
We're getting off the point. Mac mini update (I'd speculate Mac Pro as well) might come with WWDC to replace the MacBook updates which would in turn be pushed to the desktop update time of last year (The August event). Probably not, but it's possible. This is the last opening in Apple's product launch calendar before August unless they surprise us by introing one at a hitherto unimagined time...Can't see where it would fit though.
"A 1GHz Atom with 1 GB of memory will run XP just fine."
I agree. I run it on my EEE PC with 512megs and it's just fine. In fact the cpu is generally doing nothing. I also run it on my Mac Mini using Fusion and it's perfect. I think the gamers and similar power users are having trouble seeing where the bottlenecks might be for most users.
As for Vista, you can turn off a lot of the eye candy to make it run fine under Fusion/Parallels so I assume it would run on the EEE Box.
I do hope this EEE PC is silent, like the Mini. I also think Apple has to take this seriously. Given the choice between a Mini and a $270 EEE Box I know what most users would do. Heck, I know what I'd do. Perhaps the issue of an optical drive is important to more people than I think...
Next week will be interesting. Apple does not need a more powerful Mini. The 3100 graphics are essentially the same as the 950. We do need a less expensive Mini. Two or three times the price of the EEE Box is unreasonable. OSX is really nice, but it's not that nice....
Very interesting. We have a 52" LCD and view it from about 12' (had a 55" RPTV before and the distance was the same - can't really change). I've always "complained" about being too far away. Have to keep a copy of these links
Nevertheless, in the context of the Mini it would seem to me that 1080p is just not a priority. As I said before there are almost no 1080p video sources. Unless Blue Ray takes off in a big way the need won't be there. Apart from PS3/Xbox gaming and Blue Ray what else comes in 1080p?
I just feel this full HD marketing thing is questionable.
What I'd like to know is where resolution independence went in OSX? I thought Leopard was going to bring us that.
Next week will be interesting. Apple does not need a more powerful Mini. The 3100 graphics are essentially the same as the 950. We do need a less expensive Mini. Two or three times the price of the EEE Box is unreasonable. OSX is really nice, but it's not that nice....
philip
I do not agree here. Apple absolutely needs a more powerfull Mini. 950 Graphics are absolete. The Mini was NOT expensive when it came out, now it is because of the outdated specifications. A slight update would make it priceworthy again. This is my opinion of course, not "fact" like you seem to put it, but I think many may agree with me.
And... even more may agree with OSX is really nice, YES, it's even THAT NICE!
But then again, even the current Mini is much more than the EEE Box...
I do not agree here. Apple absolutely needs a more powerfull Mini. 950 Graphics are absolete. The Mini was NOT expensive when it came out, now it is because of the outdated specifications. A slight update would make it priceworthy again. This is my opinion of course, not "fact" like you seem to put it, but I think many may agree with me.
And... even more may agree with OSX is really nice, YES, it's even THAT NICE!
But then again, even the current Mini is much more than the EEE Box...
I would much rather a cheaper Mini than a more powerful one. The graphics capability in respect of my scientific application, for which no other Mac would be suitable, is almost irrelevant, as are all the continual, tiresome complaints. I do agree however, that OS X is THAT nice.
I do not agree here. Apple absolutely needs a more powerfull Mini. 950 Graphics are absolete. The Mini was NOT expensive when it came out, now it is because of the outdated specifications. A slight update would make it priceworthy again. This is my opinion of course, not "fact" like you seem to put it, but I think many may agree with me.
And... even more may agree with OSX is really nice, YES, it's even THAT NICE!
But then again, even the current Mini is much more than the EEE Box...
The 3100 Intel graphics are essentially the same as the 950 and yet they were just put into updated MacBooks. I am not sure what you can expect in a small powerful Mini. The cpu is plenty fast and so they could add more ram,pre-n wifi, larger drive, perhaps e-sata (but I doubt that). Blu-Ray is not in the cards. So what exactly would a more powerful Mini be?
The Mini is over-priced badly compared to the Asus Box. I have been using OSX since the start of NeXT and have 3 Minis. I will not pay 2 or 3 times the price of the Asus box just to get OSX. I want a Mini that can hook up to my TV, surf the web, run video/music from a NAS, run LyX and check my mail. The Asus can do that just fine. If the Mini does not come down in price I will not be getting another one (unless something really unusual were to appear).
The world is moving towards digital video downloading/streaming and so that lowers the need for an optical drive. Perhaps Blu-Ray will be a hit but it wouldn\\t be cost effective in a Mini. There's a reason for not including optical drives in the AirBook and the EEE PC. They aren't used that much.
Perhaps the Apple TV is the future of the Mini but I would rather see a smaller Mini with no optical drive, flexible video out, built in power supply and easily controlled by an iPod Touch/Phone. It would make for a great presentation tool, nice TV addition and a cost effective entry Mac.
I am not presenting any of this as a fact. It's just my opinion. Lower price will appeal more than high price and more powerful.
Very interesting. We have a 52" LCD and view it from about 12' (had a 55" RPTV before and the distance was the same - can't really change). I've always "complained" about being too far away. Have to keep a copy of these links
Nevertheless, in the context of the Mini it would seem to me that 1080p is just not a priority. As I said before there are almost no 1080p video sources. Unless Blue Ray takes off in a big way the need won't be there. Apart from PS3/Xbox gaming and Blue Ray what else comes in 1080p?
I just feel this full HD marketing thing is questionable.
What I'd like to know is where resolution independence went in OSX? I thought Leopard was going to bring us that.
philip
Just as 480i looks better when shown as progressive 480p, 1080i looks better on a set that can show it as 1080p.
If you have cable with hi def channels, go between the SD versions of the channels and the same ones on their hi def channel. When they aren't showing hi def, but SD, on the hi def channel it will be at 480p, rather than 480i on the SD channel. You will notice, assuming you're close enough, that the 480p version looks better.
Just as 480i looks better when shown as progressive 480p, 1080i looks better on a set that can show it as 1080p.
If you have cable with hi def channels, go between the SD versions of the channels and the same ones on their hi def channel. When they aren't showing hi def, but SD, on the hi def channel it will be at 480p, rather than 480i on the SD channel. You will notice, assuming you're close enough, that the 480p version looks better.
On an HD set, which are typically much larger than an SD set, both 480i and 480p look essentially the same to me. There seem to be greater differences between the sources than between the formats.
More important, I evaluated HD sets for a long time (as in weeks) and I had to get within about three feet of the screen to discern any real difference between 768p and 1080p (even on Blu-Ray or HD-DVD sources). What I found to almost always be the case is the difference between networks in digital broadcast quality. For instance, CBS I found to be likely the best and NBC always the worst despite both broadcasting in 1080i. In between were Fox and ABC, both broadcasting in 720P. For sports, the 720P format I found to often be best as it can take advantage of true 60HZ capability. 1080i is effectively only 30HZ since each line is drawn every other cycle.
On an HD set, which are typically much larger than an SD set, both 480i and 480p look essentially the same to me.
That's not uncommon. A lot of TVs can do pretty good pulldown removal such that 480i can be almost identical to 480p in many cases. I think even more TVs don't have pulldown removal though.
Quote:
More important, I evaluated HD sets for a long time (as in weeks) and I had to get within about three feet of the screen to discern any real difference between 768p and 1080p (even on Blu-Ray or HD-DVD sources).
I think that's about right, maybe one needs to be within one screen width from the screen. I think it's a good excuse to get a front projector.
On an HD set, which are typically much larger than an SD set, both 480i and 480p look essentially the same to me. There seem to be greater differences between the sources than between the formats.
More important, I evaluated HD sets for a long time (as in weeks) and I had to get within about three feet of the screen to discern any real difference between 768p and 1080p (even on Blu-Ray or HD-DVD sources). What I found to almost always be the case is the difference between networks in digital broadcast quality. For instance, CBS I found to be likely the best and NBC always the worst despite both broadcasting in 1080i. In between were Fox and ABC, both broadcasting in 720P. For sports, the 720P format I found to often be best as it can take advantage of true 60HZ capability. 1080i is effectively only 30HZ since each line is drawn every other cycle.
As in most everything, it's more complex than the simple numbers themselves.
For example, 1080p is often recorded in 24 fps, to equalize with movie formats (which are actually double 24 fps, because they show each frame twice at 48 fps). If the pulldown isn't done well on a set, then 1080p 24 will look poorly.
Many new sets also run at 120 for Tv broadcast, which gives a denser image, which does look better.
If you can't see a difference between 480i and 480p, then something is wrong, because the difference IS quite noticeable at the propr distance, as noted on those charts.
I find that I agree the CBS has the best signal, but I can see the softer signals being broadcast by the 720p channels. That's obvious to me on my 61" set from about 6 feet. From my too far distance from the couch of 13 feet, I can't see the difference. Blu-Ray does look smoother, with better color though, because it's coming through the HDMI 1.3 inputs with "Deep Color" which no other HD or SD format offers now.
A set that converts 1080i to 1080p, again, gives a better signal, and the ones such as mine that also converts that to 120 Hz give an even better signal, particularly for fast moving video such as sports.
That's not uncommon. A lot of TVs can do pretty good pulldown removal such that 480i can be almost identical to 480p in many cases.
What pulldown removal? That isn't a problem for broadcast 480 either way. The only difference between 480 "i" or "p" interlaced or progressive nature of the screen drawing. The "p" process simply turns the "i" drawing into "p".
Quote:
I think that's about right, maybe one needs to be within one screen width from the screen. I think it's a good excuse to get a front projector.
Check the charts, distance is simply related to resolution. The distance varies, depending on that resolution. Anything else is meaningless, no matter how someone "feels" about it.
What pulldown removal? That isn't a problem for broadcast 480 either way. The only difference between 480 "i" or "p" interlaced or progressive nature of the screen drawing. The "p" process simply turns the "i" drawing into "p".
To do a good job is not a simple process. The concept is simple but the execution is hard. There are several different algorithms to do so, some TVs just bob the lines (easy & crappy), others figure out what fields are duplicates, nix them and reassemble the fields to reconstruct the original fame. This really only applies to progressive sourced video, but there is quite a bit of that even if it's broadcast as interlaced.
To do a good job is not a simple process. The concept is simple but the execution is hard. There are several different algorithms to do so, some TVs just bob the lines (easy & crappy), others figure out what fields are duplicates, nix them and reassemble the fields to reconstruct the original fame. This really only applies to progressive sourced video, but there is quite a bit of that even if it's broadcast as interlaced.
Tv's don't do pulldown on 480 broadcasts. There can be a frame added to make up for the difference between the Tv scan of 59.97 Hz, and the computer scan of 60 Hz, but that's different, and sometimes isn't even bothered with, because people won't notice the tiny difference in speed it represents.
Pulldown is the difference between the 24 fps of movies coming from disk (when they do it that way, which is not always), and the 30 Hz scan.
Tv's don't do pulldown on 480 broadcasts. There can be a frame added to make up for the difference between the Tv scan of 59.97 Hz, and the computer scan of 60 Hz, but that's different, and sometimes isn't even bothered with, because people won't notice the tiny difference in speed it represents.
Pulldown is the difference between the 24 fps of movies coming from disk (when they do it that way, which is not always), and the 30 Hz scan.
There is no pulldown between 480i and 480p.
Yes there is.
I'm not convinced that you know what you are talking about or are misunderstanding what I'm saying.
If a TV station does a 480i broadcast of a movie or any show shot in 24p, they pretty much have to add 3:2 pulldown in order to broadcast it. Some TVs and displays can remove that. If it's video sourced, like the local news, then true, there is no pulldown.
I'm not convinced that you know what you are talking about or are misunderstanding what I'm saying.
If a TV station does a 480i broadcast of a movie or any show shot in 24p, they pretty much have to add 3:2 pulldown in order to broadcast it. Some TVs and displays can remove that. If it's video sourced, like the local news, then true, there is no pulldown.
A Tv doesn't revert a signal broadcast at either 59.97 analog SD, or 60 Hz digital back down to 24p.
I do know what I'm talking about Jeff. This has been part of my business for decades. There is no advantage in doing that. Once it's pulled up, pulling it down simply adds more problems.
If you insist in this being the case, then you will have to show some evidence that it's being done, because I've never heard of it.
Certainly, with analog SD there would be no way to even tell the Tv that the signal was originally in 24p, because there was never any standard developed for the overscan line information to encode it, and it couldn't project the signal that way if it were a CRT model. Only front projectors of the analog type could do that, so what would have been the point? digital Tv's can do it, but to what point?
Some DVD players could have a 24p movie, but they would have to use pull-up up for very Tv other than the front projectors, or the Tv would have to do it (very rare).
Unfortunately, I have to leave shortly, so I won't be able to get back to you until late tonight, or tomorrow.
Certainly, with analog SD there would be no way to even tell the Tv that the signal was originally in 24p, because there was never any standard developed for the overscan line information to encode it, and it couldn't project the signal that way if it were a CRT model. Only front projectors of the analog type could do that, so what would have been the point? digital Tv's can do it, but to what point?
The TV doesn't even need to know. It wasn't necessary for standard tube TVs, but it really helps with HDTVs.
The deinterlacer chip analyzes the picture, if it detects that it's a film source, then it does all that work to correct the video. Sending incorrectly flagged or unflagged video is one of the torture tests that can be applied to such a chip. I don't know what they cost now, but a good chip was $30 a few years ago. A Vizio and such probably won't have anything like it at all, but the more established brands are more likely to.
Comments
"If you can't see it, then something is wrong somewhere."
Perhaps. It's not as though there are many sources for 1080p video. I have seen a PS3 game and movie which were supposed to be 1080p. The movie didn't look all that much better than movies on our HDTV TV stations (which are in 1080i). Maybe it depends on the video, TV, size of TV, distance from TV, etc... Heck, ordinary DVD's are "just" 480p and they look fine to me. I guess I am just not as discerning as some. Same with audio for that matter. I do think that the vast majority of people don't care about 1080p and all the higher end audio for that matter. The Mac has always had good but not great audio/video and it's been fine for most users. I think the same applies to audio/video which is why it is more important to have a smooth streaming of video at lower resolutions that choppy and/or long downloads of 8 gig files.
philip
Whether thay care is a different story.
But to know about seating distance, screen size, resolution, and more, go here:
http://www.carltonbale.com/
The specific page for your questions on this, from his site, is here:
http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/
If you're using Word for small documents is ok, but don't keep several programs open for any length of time, or too many windows.
Sorry, but that is plain wrong. When XP home came out in 2001, the typical home computer it ran on was an 800MHz Pentium III with 256 MB or RAM and a 20 GB hard drive. XP performs reasonably well on such machines. I have XP on a 512 MB virtual machine running single processor on my 1.6 GHz MBP. It performs very well with a powerpoint presentation, a Word document with the entire text of the bible (don't ask) 4 windows on Internet Explorer and about 10 pictures opened in MSPaint. With that many windows open, it was still useable.
A 1GHz Atom with 1 GB of memory will run XP just fine. It would also run Vista usefully, but not nice.
I agree. I run it on my EEE PC with 512megs and it's just fine. In fact the cpu is generally doing nothing. I also run it on my Mac Mini using Fusion and it's perfect. I think the gamers and similar power users are having trouble seeing where the bottlenecks might be for most users.
As for Vista, you can turn off a lot of the eye candy to make it run fine under Fusion/Parallels so I assume it would run on the EEE Box.
I do hope this EEE PC is silent, like the Mini. I also think Apple has to take this seriously. Given the choice between a Mini and a $270 EEE Box I know what most users would do. Heck, I know what I'd do. Perhaps the issue of an optical drive is important to more people than I think...
Next week will be interesting. Apple does not need a more powerful Mini. The 3100 graphics are essentially the same as the 950. We do need a less expensive Mini. Two or three times the price of the EEE Box is unreasonable. OSX is really nice, but it's not that nice....
philip
http://www.carltonbale.com/
The specific page for your questions on this, from his site, is here:
http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/ "
Very interesting. We have a 52" LCD and view it from about 12' (had a 55" RPTV before and the distance was the same - can't really change). I've always "complained" about being too far away. Have to keep a copy of these links
Nevertheless, in the context of the Mini it would seem to me that 1080p is just not a priority. As I said before there are almost no 1080p video sources. Unless Blue Ray takes off in a big way the need won't be there. Apart from PS3/Xbox gaming and Blue Ray what else comes in 1080p?
I just feel this full HD marketing thing is questionable.
What I'd like to know is where resolution independence went in OSX? I thought Leopard was going to bring us that.
philip
Next week will be interesting. Apple does not need a more powerful Mini. The 3100 graphics are essentially the same as the 950. We do need a less expensive Mini. Two or three times the price of the EEE Box is unreasonable. OSX is really nice, but it's not that nice....
philip
I do not agree here. Apple absolutely needs a more powerfull Mini. 950 Graphics are absolete. The Mini was NOT expensive when it came out, now it is because of the outdated specifications. A slight update would make it priceworthy again. This is my opinion of course, not "fact" like you seem to put it, but I think many may agree with me.
And... even more may agree with OSX is really nice, YES, it's even THAT NICE!
But then again, even the current Mini is much more than the EEE Box...
I do not agree here. Apple absolutely needs a more powerfull Mini. 950 Graphics are absolete. The Mini was NOT expensive when it came out, now it is because of the outdated specifications. A slight update would make it priceworthy again. This is my opinion of course, not "fact" like you seem to put it, but I think many may agree with me.
And... even more may agree with OSX is really nice, YES, it's even THAT NICE!
But then again, even the current Mini is much more than the EEE Box...
I would much rather a cheaper Mini than a more powerful one. The graphics capability in respect of my scientific application, for which no other Mac would be suitable, is almost irrelevant, as are all the continual, tiresome complaints. I do agree however, that OS X is THAT nice.
All the best.
I would much rather a cheaper Mini than a more powerful one.
Is it too much to ask for both?
Is it too much to ask for both?
No, of course not. I ask for all sorts of things - that might as well be one!
Keep asking these tricky questions!
I do not agree here. Apple absolutely needs a more powerfull Mini. 950 Graphics are absolete. The Mini was NOT expensive when it came out, now it is because of the outdated specifications. A slight update would make it priceworthy again. This is my opinion of course, not "fact" like you seem to put it, but I think many may agree with me.
And... even more may agree with OSX is really nice, YES, it's even THAT NICE!
But then again, even the current Mini is much more than the EEE Box...
The 3100 Intel graphics are essentially the same as the 950 and yet they were just put into updated MacBooks. I am not sure what you can expect in a small powerful Mini. The cpu is plenty fast and so they could add more ram,pre-n wifi, larger drive, perhaps e-sata (but I doubt that). Blu-Ray is not in the cards. So what exactly would a more powerful Mini be?
The Mini is over-priced badly compared to the Asus Box. I have been using OSX since the start of NeXT and have 3 Minis. I will not pay 2 or 3 times the price of the Asus box just to get OSX. I want a Mini that can hook up to my TV, surf the web, run video/music from a NAS, run LyX and check my mail. The Asus can do that just fine. If the Mini does not come down in price I will not be getting another one (unless something really unusual were to appear).
The world is moving towards digital video downloading/streaming and so that lowers the need for an optical drive. Perhaps Blu-Ray will be a hit but it wouldn\\t be cost effective in a Mini. There's a reason for not including optical drives in the AirBook and the EEE PC. They aren't used that much.
Perhaps the Apple TV is the future of the Mini but I would rather see a smaller Mini with no optical drive, flexible video out, built in power supply and easily controlled by an iPod Touch/Phone. It would make for a great presentation tool, nice TV addition and a cost effective entry Mac.
I am not presenting any of this as a fact. It's just my opinion. Lower price will appeal more than high price and more powerful.
philip
"But to know about seating distance, screen size, resolution, and more, go here:
http://www.carltonbale.com/
The specific page for your questions on this, from his site, is here:
http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/ "
Very interesting. We have a 52" LCD and view it from about 12' (had a 55" RPTV before and the distance was the same - can't really change). I've always "complained" about being too far away. Have to keep a copy of these links
Nevertheless, in the context of the Mini it would seem to me that 1080p is just not a priority. As I said before there are almost no 1080p video sources. Unless Blue Ray takes off in a big way the need won't be there. Apart from PS3/Xbox gaming and Blue Ray what else comes in 1080p?
I just feel this full HD marketing thing is questionable.
What I'd like to know is where resolution independence went in OSX? I thought Leopard was going to bring us that.
philip
Just as 480i looks better when shown as progressive 480p, 1080i looks better on a set that can show it as 1080p.
If you have cable with hi def channels, go between the SD versions of the channels and the same ones on their hi def channel. When they aren't showing hi def, but SD, on the hi def channel it will be at 480p, rather than 480i on the SD channel. You will notice, assuming you're close enough, that the 480p version looks better.
Just as 480i looks better when shown as progressive 480p, 1080i looks better on a set that can show it as 1080p.
If you have cable with hi def channels, go between the SD versions of the channels and the same ones on their hi def channel. When they aren't showing hi def, but SD, on the hi def channel it will be at 480p, rather than 480i on the SD channel. You will notice, assuming you're close enough, that the 480p version looks better.
On an HD set, which are typically much larger than an SD set, both 480i and 480p look essentially the same to me. There seem to be greater differences between the sources than between the formats.
More important, I evaluated HD sets for a long time (as in weeks) and I had to get within about three feet of the screen to discern any real difference between 768p and 1080p (even on Blu-Ray or HD-DVD sources). What I found to almost always be the case is the difference between networks in digital broadcast quality. For instance, CBS I found to be likely the best and NBC always the worst despite both broadcasting in 1080i. In between were Fox and ABC, both broadcasting in 720P. For sports, the 720P format I found to often be best as it can take advantage of true 60HZ capability. 1080i is effectively only 30HZ since each line is drawn every other cycle.
On an HD set, which are typically much larger than an SD set, both 480i and 480p look essentially the same to me.
That's not uncommon. A lot of TVs can do pretty good pulldown removal such that 480i can be almost identical to 480p in many cases. I think even more TVs don't have pulldown removal though.
More important, I evaluated HD sets for a long time (as in weeks) and I had to get within about three feet of the screen to discern any real difference between 768p and 1080p (even on Blu-Ray or HD-DVD sources).
I think that's about right, maybe one needs to be within one screen width from the screen. I think it's a good excuse to get a front projector.
On an HD set, which are typically much larger than an SD set, both 480i and 480p look essentially the same to me. There seem to be greater differences between the sources than between the formats.
More important, I evaluated HD sets for a long time (as in weeks) and I had to get within about three feet of the screen to discern any real difference between 768p and 1080p (even on Blu-Ray or HD-DVD sources). What I found to almost always be the case is the difference between networks in digital broadcast quality. For instance, CBS I found to be likely the best and NBC always the worst despite both broadcasting in 1080i. In between were Fox and ABC, both broadcasting in 720P. For sports, the 720P format I found to often be best as it can take advantage of true 60HZ capability. 1080i is effectively only 30HZ since each line is drawn every other cycle.
As in most everything, it's more complex than the simple numbers themselves.
For example, 1080p is often recorded in 24 fps, to equalize with movie formats (which are actually double 24 fps, because they show each frame twice at 48 fps). If the pulldown isn't done well on a set, then 1080p 24 will look poorly.
Many new sets also run at 120 for Tv broadcast, which gives a denser image, which does look better.
If you can't see a difference between 480i and 480p, then something is wrong, because the difference IS quite noticeable at the propr distance, as noted on those charts.
I find that I agree the CBS has the best signal, but I can see the softer signals being broadcast by the 720p channels. That's obvious to me on my 61" set from about 6 feet. From my too far distance from the couch of 13 feet, I can't see the difference. Blu-Ray does look smoother, with better color though, because it's coming through the HDMI 1.3 inputs with "Deep Color" which no other HD or SD format offers now.
A set that converts 1080i to 1080p, again, gives a better signal, and the ones such as mine that also converts that to 120 Hz give an even better signal, particularly for fast moving video such as sports.
That's not uncommon. A lot of TVs can do pretty good pulldown removal such that 480i can be almost identical to 480p in many cases.
What pulldown removal? That isn't a problem for broadcast 480 either way. The only difference between 480 "i" or "p" interlaced or progressive nature of the screen drawing. The "p" process simply turns the "i" drawing into "p".
I think that's about right, maybe one needs to be within one screen width from the screen. I think it's a good excuse to get a front projector.
Check the charts, distance is simply related to resolution. The distance varies, depending on that resolution. Anything else is meaningless, no matter how someone "feels" about it.
What pulldown removal? That isn't a problem for broadcast 480 either way. The only difference between 480 "i" or "p" interlaced or progressive nature of the screen drawing. The "p" process simply turns the "i" drawing into "p".
To do a good job is not a simple process. The concept is simple but the execution is hard. There are several different algorithms to do so, some TVs just bob the lines (easy & crappy), others figure out what fields are duplicates, nix them and reassemble the fields to reconstruct the original fame. This really only applies to progressive sourced video, but there is quite a bit of that even if it's broadcast as interlaced.
To do a good job is not a simple process. The concept is simple but the execution is hard. There are several different algorithms to do so, some TVs just bob the lines (easy & crappy), others figure out what fields are duplicates, nix them and reassemble the fields to reconstruct the original fame. This really only applies to progressive sourced video, but there is quite a bit of that even if it's broadcast as interlaced.
Tv's don't do pulldown on 480 broadcasts. There can be a frame added to make up for the difference between the Tv scan of 59.97 Hz, and the computer scan of 60 Hz, but that's different, and sometimes isn't even bothered with, because people won't notice the tiny difference in speed it represents.
Pulldown is the difference between the 24 fps of movies coming from disk (when they do it that way, which is not always), and the 30 Hz scan.
There is no pulldown between 480i and 480p.
Tv's don't do pulldown on 480 broadcasts. There can be a frame added to make up for the difference between the Tv scan of 59.97 Hz, and the computer scan of 60 Hz, but that's different, and sometimes isn't even bothered with, because people won't notice the tiny difference in speed it represents.
Pulldown is the difference between the 24 fps of movies coming from disk (when they do it that way, which is not always), and the 30 Hz scan.
There is no pulldown between 480i and 480p.
Yes there is.
I'm not convinced that you know what you are talking about or are misunderstanding what I'm saying.
If a TV station does a 480i broadcast of a movie or any show shot in 24p, they pretty much have to add 3:2 pulldown in order to broadcast it. Some TVs and displays can remove that. If it's video sourced, like the local news, then true, there is no pulldown.
Yes there is.
I'm not convinced that you know what you are talking about or are misunderstanding what I'm saying.
If a TV station does a 480i broadcast of a movie or any show shot in 24p, they pretty much have to add 3:2 pulldown in order to broadcast it. Some TVs and displays can remove that. If it's video sourced, like the local news, then true, there is no pulldown.
A Tv doesn't revert a signal broadcast at either 59.97 analog SD, or 60 Hz digital back down to 24p.
I do know what I'm talking about Jeff. This has been part of my business for decades. There is no advantage in doing that. Once it's pulled up, pulling it down simply adds more problems.
If you insist in this being the case, then you will have to show some evidence that it's being done, because I've never heard of it.
Certainly, with analog SD there would be no way to even tell the Tv that the signal was originally in 24p, because there was never any standard developed for the overscan line information to encode it, and it couldn't project the signal that way if it were a CRT model. Only front projectors of the analog type could do that, so what would have been the point? digital Tv's can do it, but to what point?
Some DVD players could have a 24p movie, but they would have to use pull-up up for very Tv other than the front projectors, or the Tv would have to do it (very rare).
Unfortunately, I have to leave shortly, so I won't be able to get back to you until late tonight, or tomorrow.
Certainly, with analog SD there would be no way to even tell the Tv that the signal was originally in 24p, because there was never any standard developed for the overscan line information to encode it, and it couldn't project the signal that way if it were a CRT model. Only front projectors of the analog type could do that, so what would have been the point? digital Tv's can do it, but to what point?
The TV doesn't even need to know. It wasn't necessary for standard tube TVs, but it really helps with HDTVs.
The deinterlacer chip analyzes the picture, if it detects that it's a film source, then it does all that work to correct the video. Sending incorrectly flagged or unflagged video is one of the torture tests that can be applied to such a chip. I don't know what they cost now, but a good chip was $30 a few years ago. A Vizio and such probably won't have anything like it at all, but the more established brands are more likely to.