mr. me, i don't mean to give you a nasty smackdown, i understand the constraints and 'standards' and infrastructure challenges that broadcast television works with. however, i think one should start to be aware that your 'average' g5 mac is getting quite capable, and quite powerful, and much more flexible in terms of creating and receiving various digital video content, including "HDTV" as well, particularly over the next several years.
.........
Thank you for your concern. It happens that I own a 2.0 GHz dual G5 with 23" Cinema Displaya at home and use a brand new 2.7 GHz dual G5 with aluminum 23" Cinema Display at work. As I write this, I am also watching my 1366 x 768 HDTV. The TV cost more than either Mac and the Macs weren't cheap. One would be correct to assume that I know a bit of what my Macs can do. Truth to tell, the TV would suck as a replacement for my Cinema Displays. And, you know what? I really don't want to watch Sunday Night Baseball on my Mac. Although the picture looks like a moving photograph, it is kinda small.
The constraints and standards that you so blithely dismiss are not an inconvenience. They are an essentially element to the adoption of HDTV by producers, distributers, and the buying public which eventually pays the bill. OTOH, a personal computer is contrained only by the physical limitations of the hardware and software. However, I would bet dollars against donuts that 20th Century Fox will never produce a Blu-ray disk especially designed for viewing Star Wars III in high definition on computer monitors.
Flame deleted - JLThe great 1080i vs. 720p debate is a prime example. The ATSC standard requires more data for 1080i transmission than it requires for 720p transmission. It is only about 10% more, but it is more. However, broadcasters don't like to devote the bandwidth required of ATSC-compliant 1080i video streams. So, what do they do? They cheat. They compress their 1080i streams more than is allowed by the ATSC standard. This extra compression often reduces the data in their 1080i streams to less than that in ATSC-standard 720p. This is not to say that ATSC-standard 720p doesn't have its strong points compared to ATSC-standard 1080i. 720p is well-suited for sporting events and other events with fast-motion objects.
Now, what are the implications for 1080p60 as a distribution format? If the format is developed, it would be ideal for IMAX films on Blu-ray disks. However, you will never see the Super Bowl or the World Cup in the format on broadcast TV. Broadcasters hate standards-compliant 1080i60. 1080p60 would send them to the Moon and that ain't happening.
"Thank you for your concern. It happens that I own a 2.0 GHz dual G5 with 23" Cinema Displaya at home and use a brand new 2.7 GHz dual G5 with aluminum 23" Cinema Display at work. As I write this, I am also watching my 1366 x 768 HDTV. The TV cost more than either Mac and the Macs weren't cheap. One would be correct to assume that I know a bit of what my Macs can do. Truth to tell, the TV would suck as a replacement for my Cinema Displays. And, you know what? I really don't want to watch Sunday Night Baseball on my Mac. Although the picture looks like a moving photograph, it is kinda small."
i would f8cking love right now an affordable hybrid solution of the two: eg. a Mac Mini g5 hooked up to a 30" full-720-spec capable plasma, with elgato eyeTV-HDTV recording, etc... through satellite/cable 720p -abc, espn, fox, etc... i would totally dig watching the NBA finals on that -- like a moving photograph, and 30" upwards is a pretty decent size
"The constraints and standards that you so blithely dismiss are not an inconvenience. They are an essentially element to the adoption of HDTV by producers, distributers, and the buying public which eventually pays the bill. OTOH, a personal computer is contrained only by the physical limitations of the hardware and software. However, I would bet dollars against donuts that 20th Century Fox will never produce a Blu-ray disk especially designed for viewing Star Wars III in high definition on computer monitors."
well, perhaps i have been rather blithely dismissive. i have a stand now though, that is, i am right now a proponent of h.264-delivered 720 (24,30 or 60)p and 1080 (24,30,60)p as the "common platform" for all. the high-def display, be it a computer monitor or plasma TV, for example, will decide how best to handle those signals. Fox for example, would just have to aim for a 'reference' level 1080(24p) star wars 3, for example, and the end-user-displays will decide how best to handle contrast, brightness, color, etc, etc, also to cater to different lighting conditions, room size, individual tastes.
i think this strategy will benefit studios in the long run
1. h.264 mpeg 4 :: save bandwidth, offer more channels, offer video-on-demand
2. aiming for a 'reference' level 1080(24p) and 720(24p) for MOVIES ~ studios save money by just standardising on two delivery formats for delivering their HDTV movies and television shows (24, Alias, etc). broadcasters carrying just 24 frames per second, save on bandwidth by not having to do 30p or 60p or 60i
"Now, what are the implications for 1080p60 as a distribution format? If the format is developed, it would be ideal for IMAX films on Blu-ray disks. However, you will never see the Super Bowl or the World Cup in the format on broadcast TV. Broadcasters hate standards-compliant 1080i60. 1080p60 would send them to the Moon and that ain't happening. "
i guess this is where you could say my bias is very much towards progressive frame content.yeah, some sports transmissions and live events and news and studio delivery at 1080p is a bit much for now, hence 1080i ...
but this is where i applaud someone like ABC that has gone for 720p instead of 1080i... choosing progressive frames over a higher resolution that most HDTVs today can't display anyway... and 1080i will eventually be outdated in a few years, so 720p would have seemed to be a wise decision, until 1080p is fully in play then they can upgrade to that.
Comments
Originally posted by ZO
well, this fun discussion has updated some of my knowledge of HD (which I thought I knew well enough already... guess not)...
Originally posted by sunilraman
....
mr. me, i don't mean to give you a nasty smackdown, i understand the constraints and 'standards' and infrastructure challenges that broadcast television works with. however, i think one should start to be aware that your 'average' g5 mac is getting quite capable, and quite powerful, and much more flexible in terms of creating and receiving various digital video content, including "HDTV" as well, particularly over the next several years.
.........
Thank you for your concern. It happens that I own a 2.0 GHz dual G5 with 23" Cinema Displaya at home and use a brand new 2.7 GHz dual G5 with aluminum 23" Cinema Display at work. As I write this, I am also watching my 1366 x 768 HDTV. The TV cost more than either Mac and the Macs weren't cheap. One would be correct to assume that I know a bit of what my Macs can do. Truth to tell, the TV would suck as a replacement for my Cinema Displays. And, you know what? I really don't want to watch Sunday Night Baseball on my Mac. Although the picture looks like a moving photograph, it is kinda small.
The constraints and standards that you so blithely dismiss are not an inconvenience. They are an essentially element to the adoption of HDTV by producers, distributers, and the buying public which eventually pays the bill. OTOH, a personal computer is contrained only by the physical limitations of the hardware and software. However, I would bet dollars against donuts that 20th Century Fox will never produce a Blu-ray disk especially designed for viewing Star Wars III in high definition on computer monitors.
Flame deleted - JLThe great 1080i vs. 720p debate is a prime example. The ATSC standard requires more data for 1080i transmission than it requires for 720p transmission. It is only about 10% more, but it is more. However, broadcasters don't like to devote the bandwidth required of ATSC-compliant 1080i video streams. So, what do they do? They cheat. They compress their 1080i streams more than is allowed by the ATSC standard. This extra compression often reduces the data in their 1080i streams to less than that in ATSC-standard 720p. This is not to say that ATSC-standard 720p doesn't have its strong points compared to ATSC-standard 1080i. 720p is well-suited for sporting events and other events with fast-motion objects.
Now, what are the implications for 1080p60 as a distribution format? If the format is developed, it would be ideal for IMAX films on Blu-ray disks. However, you will never see the Super Bowl or the World Cup in the format on broadcast TV. Broadcasters hate standards-compliant 1080i60. 1080p60 would send them to the Moon and that ain't happening.
i would f8cking love right now an affordable hybrid solution of the two: eg. a Mac Mini g5 hooked up to a 30" full-720-spec capable plasma, with elgato eyeTV-HDTV recording, etc... through satellite/cable 720p -abc, espn, fox, etc... i would totally dig watching the NBA finals on that -- like a moving photograph, and 30" upwards is a pretty decent size
"The constraints and standards that you so blithely dismiss are not an inconvenience. They are an essentially element to the adoption of HDTV by producers, distributers, and the buying public which eventually pays the bill. OTOH, a personal computer is contrained only by the physical limitations of the hardware and software. However, I would bet dollars against donuts that 20th Century Fox will never produce a Blu-ray disk especially designed for viewing Star Wars III in high definition on computer monitors."
well, perhaps i have been rather blithely dismissive. i have a stand now though, that is, i am right now a proponent of h.264-delivered 720 (24,30 or 60)p and 1080 (24,30,60)p as the "common platform" for all. the high-def display, be it a computer monitor or plasma TV, for example, will decide how best to handle those signals. Fox for example, would just have to aim for a 'reference' level 1080(24p) star wars 3, for example, and the end-user-displays will decide how best to handle contrast, brightness, color, etc, etc, also to cater to different lighting conditions, room size, individual tastes.
i think this strategy will benefit studios in the long run
1. h.264 mpeg 4 :: save bandwidth, offer more channels, offer video-on-demand
2. aiming for a 'reference' level 1080(24p) and 720(24p) for MOVIES ~ studios save money by just standardising on two delivery formats for delivering their HDTV movies and television shows (24, Alias, etc). broadcasters carrying just 24 frames per second, save on bandwidth by not having to do 30p or 60p or 60i
"Now, what are the implications for 1080p60 as a distribution format? If the format is developed, it would be ideal for IMAX films on Blu-ray disks. However, you will never see the Super Bowl or the World Cup in the format on broadcast TV. Broadcasters hate standards-compliant 1080i60. 1080p60 would send them to the Moon and that ain't happening. "
i guess this is where you could say my bias is very much towards progressive frame content.yeah, some sports transmissions and live events and news and studio delivery at 1080p is a bit much for now, hence 1080i ...
but this is where i applaud someone like ABC that has gone for 720p instead of 1080i... choosing progressive frames over a higher resolution that most HDTVs today can't display anyway... and 1080i will eventually be outdated in a few years, so 720p would have seemed to be a wise decision, until 1080p is fully in play then they can upgrade to that.