Is 720P format dead?

[E-Stat]

Yep, and added in.

Yes and no. The spinning lights on the Bussard collector were slightly enhanced and more color was added to the intro.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You should be an expert on cartoons

Yeah, I have to read your post every day. That is a real cartoon in and of itself.

That is not why 1080i was created at all.
HDTV first got its started in the late 80's, and was pushed by ZENITH,
and was a response to the Japanese.
Might not be obvious now, but the JAPANESE WERE ON TOP IN THE LATE EIGHTIES,
and already had a analog HD system broadcast from satelite.
The US HDTV ATSC standard was a response to that.
Being largely political, they actually came up with seventeen standards, 1080i being one of them.
But the whole thing got started because economic domination by the Japanese was
feared.

Major history rewrite here Pixeltotallyout. First, it was NHK the introduced Muse system of analog HD in Japan, and it was first developed in 1969, not the early eighties. It was introduced to the US in 1981. While everyone was impressed by it(it could transmit 30mbps worth of information instead of ATSC's 19mbps), the bandwidth requirements of Muse was too high for the American market, as the FCC wanted(and received) a much more efficient system for HDTV. The Muse system require four times the bandwidth of NTSC broadcast, and despite NHK's attempts to pare the bit rate down, it was not adopted anywhere.

It was the Grand Alliance Consortium that brought our current ATSC system into fruition. While Zenith was one of the sponsors on the board of the Grand Alliance, it was one of six companies involved. AT&T, Philips, MIT, and Thomson Consumer Electronics(RCA) were also huge players within the Grand Alliance.

There was no fear that the Japanese would take over, as the Muse system has too many drawbacks that hindered its adoption. First, it could only be delivered by satellite, and second its infrastructure was cost prohibitive.

I am reminded of what SAM CLEMENS said about lies, there are lies, Damn lies, and statistics.
same applies to "tests" which are rigged from the start .
THE RIGGED TEST that talky the seperate pixels in a panel, and the way they open and close,
and a screen resolution is extrapolated using a rigged formula and rigged software.
How does a pixels response time affect screen resolution?
IT DOESNT.
THE WHOLE THING comes from a site called "display data" which is a arm of the PANASONIC
marketing dept.
The whole thing was designed to make LCD look bad, why?
Panasonic has a brand new plasma panel factory, and if plasma keeps dying, its gonna be a white
elephant, a 300 million dollar white elephant

This kind of argument is exactly what deniers come up with when they don't want to face the truth. Everything is rigged(to support their denial of the testing methodology which is widely accepted within the industry), so there is no way to test for anything. Convenient when you don't want a weakness uncovered.

Continued claims of affiliation when they cannot be supported by any facts whatsoever. Displaydata is not owned by Panasonic, and never has been. It is not a website, it is a legitimate stand alone testing lab with a website.

Plasma is not dying as not only is Panasonic in the market, but so is Samsung. It turns out that Plasma televisions are excellent at 3D, and a couple of the majors CE(and several marketing concerns) are sticking with it for just that purpose. Everyone already knows its superiority with 2D as well.

The testing methodology is not rigged. It cannot be because its concept is so simple. Just take high resolution, ultra quick snapshots of a screen showing a moving object. It is just that simple, and each television is tested exactly the same way with no exceptions. Every television has to stand up to the testing equally, and the performance is strictly on its ability to maintain its full image resolution whether a image is stable, or moving. It just so happens that Plasma televisions, CRT televisions, LYCOS based panels have better results than most LCD panels. Of the LCD panels, Samsung and Sony panels performed perfectly, while Vizio's were always at the bottom of the pack. If Samsung and Sony LCD panels where able to maintain a full 1080 lines of information while objects are moving, then there is no way this test could be rigged against LCD panels.

Panasonic's new factory was actually Pioneers new factory before they got out of the business of Plasma manufacturing. It was designed to make more Kuro's panels as Pioneer was going to expand the Kuro's line. Panasonic paid quite a bit less for the site than it cost to build, so your $300 million dollar figure is quite a bit higher than reality.

So much for your spin.

A perfect description of your "perspective"

So, are you going to throw your ball and jacks at me too?

[Rich-n-Texas]

Major history rewrite here Pixeltotallyout.

I can't compete with that. I give up. You win.

So, are you going to throw your ball and jacks at me too?

He can't. Nurse Ratchett took them away.

[recoveryone]

[quote=Sir Terrence the Terrible]Now you know you cannot make these kinds of evaluations without using the same programming for each set. Cartoon A cannot be compared to a different cartoon B for reasons that are pretty obvious. Each has unique characteristics the other does not always have.

The cartoons where the same ones, but thanks for point out that for a real comparison you need the same content.


First, 480p is not HD by any measure. Secondly, 1080i is not a marketing failure as it was not created for marketing purposes. It was where we were technologically, as there were no 1080p sets even close to being invented at the time. Thirdly, the whole purpose of the switch to digital television(and HD as well) was to reduce the broadcasting footprint, as to give more room to wireless technology. Even after the introduction of 1080p sets, there still is no benefit in broadcasting in 1080p, when all of the information you need is already in 1080i. Your television could interlace, and you have 1080p after the process is done. The bandwidth required to transmit 1080p is twice that of 1080i, which means if television stations broadcast it, their electricity bills would go through the roof, not to mention the infrastructure costs to create and store content before broadcasting(it would be off the charts). 1080i made(and makes) perfect sense, and still does from a technological perspective.

It was 720p was a failure not 1080i, I brought my first HD set back in 2000 anticipating the switch in 01 then push back to 03 and then 06-07 time frame. 1080i was the first standard I ever heard of back in the late nineties and the other formats came along a few years later.


Real information(as opposed to what people make up when while in denial) come from lab tests. Without lab tests, people like pix would get away with telling folks their VIZIO LCD panel retains full resolution when images move. Tests proved that to be the opposite. Testing proves the frequency response of a loudspeaker, actual watts per channel full bandwidth instead of 1khz measurements with one channel, reveals accurate color decoders, and tell whether a panel blurs, or does not via its true response time.(instead of fake factory measurements). Actual testing keeps people like pix in check, which makes testing vital to sites just like this where people can lie or twist the facts, instead of dealing with the fact that they purchased something based solely on its price, completely bypassing its performance.

the reason I'm not a big fan of testing lab/reports, because many are back by companies which tints the results to favor those companies. The same has happen in the audio industry, so its hard to really believe what is posted/published. I know Sir T of your access and value your opinion due to that access, for you rarely quote lab results but more often state what you have seen in the industry. (state what you seen/done)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The cartoons where the same ones, but thanks for point out that for a real comparison you need the same content.

What would have really been beneficial is if you could have somehow sync'd the two displays side by side to get a real comparison. Our visual memory is not that good(neither is our audio memory) so it is hard to detect real difference outside that kind of comparison.

the reason I'm not a big fan of testing lab/reports, because many are back by companies which tints the results to favor those companies. The same has happen in the audio industry, so its hard to really believe what is posted/published. I know Sir T of your access and value your opinion due to that access, for you rarely quote lab results but more often state what you have seen in the industry. (state what you seen/done)

Displaydata is a private standalone firm that takes no money from the industry, and is not owned by any company within the industry. The test all televisions, and you pay for the testing report. That is how they make money along with creating testing methodology, creating testing material, and setting standards within the post production community for displays and projection systems. They gain absolutely nothing for loading tests, so they don't have to do it. The CE pay big money to get the testing results so they can improve their displays.

I usually buttress my arguments with both test results, and my experience. I think having both gives an opinion credibility, rather than just relying on the biases and opinions of other individuals. Pix is the prime reason why testing is needed, as he would let folks believe that a low performing panel was the greatest thing every introduced to the market.

[audio amateur]

What this refers to as the ability of the televisions pixels to mechanically twist and update to its correct brightness frame by frame. LCD panels use a backlight, and the pixels determine how much light is supposed to be on the screen with each frame by twisting themselves at varying degrees to allow light through(called rise and fall). With static images, there is no movement between frames, so there is no need for the pixels or move or flex to their correct positions. Once there is movement, the pixels have to twist and update very quickly, especially when 120 and 240hz refresh rates are deployed, hence the difference between resolution when images are static, and when they are moving. The refresh rate may be high, but the pixel response is slow, which mitigates the speed of the refresh rate. Once you get the response rate of the pixels and the refresh rate in sync(like Samsung and Sony have in their higher end models), this effect becomes unnoticeable. The ability of LCD panels to do this well is measured by its motion resolution, as it tells how quickly either the processing, or pixels are doing at correctly updating frame by frame with moving objects.

Samsung and Sony's upper line of televisions maintain their full resolution with moving images. Vizio's televisions across their entire line where all 400 lines of resolution(with their 1080p models) or less during motion, the slowest and worse of all televisions tested. The results where the same when they moved to the XVT line of televisions, and higher refresh rates. The response of the pixels cannot keep up with the refresh rate, so the resolution goes down until they can fully update and twist into position.

Thanks dude.

[pixelthis]

[QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible]Yeah, I have to read your post every day. That is a real cartoon in and of itself.

Major history rewrite here Pixeltotallyout. First, it was NHK the introduced Muse system of analog HD in Japan, and it was first developed in 1969, not the early eighties. It was introduced to the US in 1981. While everyone was impressed by it(it could transmit 30mbps worth of information instead of ATSC's 19mbps), the bandwidth requirements of Muse was too high for the American market, as the FCC wanted(and received) a much more efficient system for HDTV. The Muse system require four times the bandwidth of NTSC broadcast, and despite NHK's attempts to pare the bit rate down, it was not adopted anywhere.

Not telling me anything I don't know.
The Japanese standard required TWO channels for all of its content, and there were
wories about it taking over in the late eighties, dont tell me what I WITNESSED
didnt happen.
Actually, most think the threat of the JAPANESE HDTV system was just a scarecrow
that Zenith used to get HDTV started in this country, it never really was much of a threat.
If it had been up to the broadcasters we still wouldnt have HD

It was the Grand Alliance Consortium that brought our current ATSC system into fruition. While Zenith was one of the sponsors on the board of the Grand Alliance, it was one of six companies involved. AT&T, Philips, MIT, and Thomson Consumer Electronics(RCA) were also huge players within the Grand Alliance.

But Zenith was a big influence.
In any group there is one that really pushes things, and Zenith was a major influence in
creating ATSC

There was no fear that the Japanese would take over, as the Muse system has too many drawbacks that hindered its adoption. First, it could only be delivered by satellite, and second its infrastructure was cost prohibitive.

bUT IT WAS A START.
In the eighties there was a great fear of the Japanese, this was before their collapse.
Their gear was the best on the planet.
Worries about them dominating broadcast TV on the engineering side was used to help get HDTV started, every article I READ AT THE TIME MENTIONED THEM

This kind of argument is exactly what deniers come up with when they don't want to face the truth. Everything is rigged(to support their denial of the testing methodology which is widely accepted within the industry), so there is no way to test for anything. Convenient when you don't want a weakness uncovered.

the truth is the truth, no matter how much anyone tries to lawyer it out of exsistence
with made up "tests" that extrapolate instead of prove anything

Continued claims of affiliation when they cannot be supported by any facts whatsoever. Displaydata is not owned by Panasonic, and never has been. It is not a website, it is a legitimate stand alone testing lab with a website.

Supported by PANASONIC I bet.
Just like the guy Wooch quoted until I was able to prove that he worked for 20 years for Panasonic

Plasma is not dying as not only is Panasonic in the market, but so is Samsung. It turns out that Plasma televisions are excellent at 3D, and a couple of the majors CE(and several marketing concerns) are sticking with it for just that purpose. Everyone already knows its superiority with 2D as well.

Unless you want to watch it in a lit room.
Making the phospers small enough to fit on a 1080P screen lowers the surface area of each, limiting the brightness a great deal.
Not to mention that a Plasma panel is just a squished CRT, a relic of the past.
LCD is already its better, as the market shows, another five years or less and plasma will be gone, no amount of rigged tests will change that

The testing methodology is not rigged. It cannot be because its concept is so simple. Just take high resolution, ultra quick snapshots of a screen showing a moving object. It is just that simple, and each television is tested exactly the same way with no exceptions. Every television has to stand up to the testing equally, and the performance is strictly on its ability to maintain its full image resolution whether a image is stable, or moving. It just so happens that Plasma televisions, CRT televisions, LYCOS based panels have better results than most LCD panels. Of the LCD panels, Samsung and Sony panels performed perfectly, while Vizio's were always at the bottom of the pack. If Samsung and Sony LCD panels where able to maintain a full 1080 lines of information while objects are moving, then there is no way this test could be rigged against LCD panels.

Know what you're measuring when you're "measuring" a "snapshot"?
A still image.'
Samsung and Sony passed the "test" for a simple reason, both are five hundred pound gorillas, and any dispersions on their sets would have led to a lawsuit, and since this idiotic "test" wouldnt hold up in a court of law, surprize!
They passed the "test"!

Panasonic's new factory was actually Pioneers new factory before they got out of the business of Plasma manufacturing. It was designed to make more Kuro's panels as Pioneer was going to expand the Kuro's line. Panasonic paid quite a bit less for the site than it cost to build, so your $300 million dollar figure is quite a bit higher than reality.

PANASONIC STILL HAS QUITE an investment in PLASMA.
Not that I CARE, plasma is DEAD

So much for your spin.

Only thing spinning is your head

So, are you going to throw your ball and jacks at me too?

Somebody has to be the grownup around here.

[bobsticks]

...and the donkey still has the goods on resolution.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Not telling me anything I don't know.
The Japanese standard required TWO channels for all of its content, and there were
wories about it taking over in the late eighties, dont tell me what I WITNESSED
didnt happen.

What you witnessed, and reality are often headed in two divergent directions. For example, you say that Muse requied two channels for all of its content. That is patently false, Muse required just one channel that had huge bandwidth requirements. (4 times the bandwidth of SD television of which they managed to get down to two times). It was never at any point in its developement or implementation was a two channel system.

Actually, most think the threat of the JAPANESE HDTV system was just a scarecrow
that Zenith used to get HDTV started in this country, it never really was much of a threat.
If it had been up to the broadcasters we still wouldnt have HD

This is also false. The FCC put the Grand Alliance together, and though Zenith was a major player, it was not the only major player in the game. The Muse system was not just a threat, it could have very well been a reality here if it didn't have several drawbacks. First it was not designed for a country the size of US, it was much more suitable to smaller countries that relied on satellite for signal distribution of all TV signals. The second would be its bandwidth requirements.

Me thinks you have been watching too much of the boogey man.

But Zenith was a big influence.
In any group there is one that really pushes things, and Zenith was a major influence in
creating ATSC

Zenith countributed VSB to the ATSC standard, and was basically first to create a workable digital broadcast system. The FCC created ATSC, not Zenith. Dolby and MIT as well as AT&T were as big a player in the game as Zenith was. Zenith was big in getting stereo audio incorporated into the analog broadcast system via MTS stereo system.

I think you are overselling Zenith's position in all of this, or you are mixing MTS stereo introduction with HDTV. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt for your obvious lack of correct information being thrown out here.

bUT IT WAS A START.
In the eighties there was a great fear of the Japanese, this was before their collapse.
Their gear was the best on the planet.
Worries about them dominating broadcast TV on the engineering side was used to help get HDTV started, every article I READ AT THE TIME MENTIONED THEM

Yes I do remember the panic and concern that Japanese technology was going to overtake us, but it wasn't because of the Muse system that is for sure. The Muse system while great for Japan, would never work in the US, and everyone knew it. It was analog, and the US really wanted a digital system, and what drove them was the US wanted to be the first to adopt a digitally based HDTV system. They got what they wanted, and it was not because of Zenith only.

the truth is the truth, no matter how much anyone tries to lawyer it out of exsistence
with made up "tests" that extrapolate instead of prove anything

Your truth is really just plain good ole fashion denial, and nothing more. Tests reveal the truth that people like you hate to see.

Supported by PANASONIC I bet.
Just like the guy Wooch quoted until I was able to prove that he worked for 20 years for Panasonic

Datadisplay's testing is not supported by anyone but Displaydata. Your constant harping on conspiracy theories does not erase that. What Wooch used to do, and what he does today has not marred his ability to tell the truth one bit. I have known him for a long time, and he has never exibited a Panasonic bias like you exibit a Vizio one.

Unless you want to watch it in a lit room.
Making the phospers small enough to fit on a 1080P screen lowers the surface area of each, limiting the brightness a great deal.

This is why three 9" CRT guns are used in projection system. Since one tubes surface area is 3 times the size of a single CRT gun in a direct view, it puts out much more light than a single gun CRT can. That is why you have never seen a 1080p CRT television, but there are dozens of CRT based projection systems that can easily do 1080p.

Movies are compressed, transferred, authored, and designed for exibition in dark rooms, not lit room. Its funny, you quote Joe Kane to bolster a point, but you never quote him when it doesn't fit your argument. Joe Kane has always said that movies are to be watched in a darkened room, just like you do in the theater.

Not to mention that a Plasma panel is just a squished CRT, a relic of the past.
LCD is already its better, as the market shows, another five years or less and plasma will be gone, no amount of rigged tests will change that

The only thing the market has shown is the cheaper technology usually wins the race. Beta was better than VHS, but lost. Dts sounded better than DD, but it lost out on DVD. Film projection is better than Digital Cinema, but it is being replaced by it. Plasma beat out LCD is just about every area except ulitmate brighness(which is hardly necessary when it is properly calibrated). Both CRT and Plasma are better technologies than LCD, but LCD is cheaper to produce, and cheaper in the market place. People are not looking for performance, they are looking for value these days. That is the reason why a companies like Westinghouse, Vizio, Apex, Colby are thriving, and high performance monitors by Pioneer are gone. Nobody wants to pay for performance except us(yes that's me) who put that before price.

Know what you're measuring when you're "measuring" a "snapshot"?
A still image.'

While the image is a still, what is on the television is a moving image. That camera catches the blur, and the computer measures the resolution of the capture. Nothing rigged about that, Vizio is just a plain failure in this area(as well as several more).

Samsung and Sony passed the "test" for a simple reason, both are five hundred pound gorillas, and any dispersions on their sets would have led to a lawsuit, and since this idiotic "test" wouldnt hold up in a court of law, surprize!
They passed the "test"!

Sony and Samsung wouldn't have a case because the entire industry has accepted the testing protocol that Displaydata developed. Their televisions are just plain better than Vizio's, and only the most ardent of fanboys for Vizio would deny it Mr. Viziofanboy.

Since the testing methodology has been accepted by the industry, no lawsuit could happen. More conspiracy theories, but no truth.

PANASONIC STILL HAS QUITE an investment in PLASMA.
Not that I CARE, plasma is DEAD

You wouldn't make this statement of you didn't care. It wouldn't have been necessary.

Only thing spinning is your head

It is spinning along with your lies, conspiracy theories and endless misinformation. Anyone would be dizzy from that!

Somebody has to be the grownup around here.

You are right, who will baby sit you when your mother goes to work.

[E-Stat]

Joe Kane has always said that movies are to be watched in a darkened room, just like you do in the theater.

To me, that is a no brainer not requiring *expert* commentary. My wife used to think it was strange that I always switched out all the lights in the room (and those visible in the adjoining kitchen as well) when we watched a movie. Now I find her doing the same when she is watching the big TV alone.

Sony and Samsung wouldn't have a case because the entire industry has accepted the testing protocol that Displaydata developed. Their televisions are just plain better than Vizio's, and only the most ardent of fanboys for Vizio would deny it Mr. Viziofanboy.

Having models from all three, I would have to agree. The Vizios, however, are inexpensive and work just fine in the office and bedroom. They deliver mid-fi receiver quality in the video sense and are noticeably better than the standard CRTs they replaced when viewing HD content. Good enough for most folks / applications.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

To me, that is a no brainer not requiring *expert* commentary. My wife used to think it was strange that I always switched out all the lights in the room (and those visible in the adjoining kitchen as well) when we watched a movie. Now I find her doing the same when she is watching the big TV alone.

This is also a no brainer for me, but obviously not for Pix. He is constantly touting the maximum high brightness that LCD can deliver. The problem with that argument is that you don't need the maximum brightness of LCD when it is properly calibrated, and when sources view on it are in the right environment.

It seems to me that when people learn that having the lights on destroys the purity of the color gamut(you paid for that), washes out the light levels on the screen thereby reducing the contrast levels(an Achilles heel with LCD's anyway), destroys shadow detail(also a problem with LCD panels), and drops the perceived(not actual) resolution lower(something that you also paid for), you would think they would turn out the lights. Not Pix though, it seems that the light levels emanating from his Vizio has burnt out his eyes, and his brain.

Having models from all three, I would have to agree. The Vizios, however, are inexpensive and work just fine in the office and bedroom. They deliver mid-fi receiver quality in the video sense and are noticeably better than the standard CRTs they replaced when viewing HD content. Good enough for most folks / applications.

rw

Your last words are a perfect description of the Vizio. "Good enough" for most folks/applications,(but I add) but not for critical viewing or for high performance applications such as gaming. I am not knocking Vizio at all, I just realize it has certain built in performance weaknesses much like Colby, Magnavox, Apex, Dynex, Insignia brands have. Vizio does no in house research and development, so what do you expect. They don't even design their own sets!(and neither does these other third tier brands).

Just like most things, you get what you pay for.

[Smokey]

It seems to me that when people learn that having the lights on destroys the purity of the color gamut(you paid for that), washes out the light levels on the screen thereby reducing the contrast levels(an Achilles heel with LCD's anyway), destroys shadow detail(also a problem with LCD panels), and drops the perceived(not actual) resolution lower(something that you also paid for), you would think they would turn out the lights.

What about the light (ambient) behind the [non projection] TV?

I always thought that professionals recommended putting a low light (6500 k degree) behind TV to enhance viewing. And it does. I could not watching my CRT TV without the ambinet light behind it in dark room, or it will give me eye ache especially if there is alot of action on screen.

Also have an ambinet light behind computer monitor also

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

What about the light (ambient) behind the [non projection] TV?

I always thought that professionals recommended putting a low light (6500 k degree) behind TV to enhance viewing. And it does. I could not watching my CRT TV without the ambinet light behind it in dark room, or it will give me eye ache especially if there is alot of action on screen.

Also have an ambinet light behind computer monitor also

If you screen takes up your field of vision, you don't need a backlight. This recommendation was made when the average screen size was more like 32 and 40", and people sat far away from the set. Now that it is approaching 50", a backlight is not necessary for most folks. If you get eyestrain these days, it is from having your monitor too bright(or not calibrated), or you are not sitting close enough to it for it to cover your field of vision. I sit exactly 7 feet from my smallest television(a 52" XBR), and I don't need a backlight(its properly calibrated as well). My computer screens are 26 and 30", and I don't need a backlight there either(they are also calibrated believe it or not). Now when my computer screens were 17 and 19", I absolutely needed a backlight. When my largest TV was 40", I most definitely had a backlight. A properly calibrated set viewed from the proper distance needs no ambient lighting in the room(it also has to be a certain size as well).

Keep in mind, ambient light is designed for placement in back of the set - a place that should not change any viewing perimeters. Unfortunately the light does not stay exactly behind the television, and can splay on walls to the sides of the set. That will reduce the contrast of the set.

[pixelthis]

What you witnessed, and reality are often headed in two divergent directions. For example, you say that Muse requied two channels for all of its content. That is patently false, Muse required just one channel that had huge bandwidth requirements. (4 times the bandwidth of SD television of which they managed to get down to two times). It was never at any point in its developement or implementation was a two channel system.

Right, two times the bandwidth, which was broadcast on TWO CHANNELS.
Every article I READ SAID THAT IT REQUIRED TWO CHANNELS.
YOU said it required TWO channels!!!
What is the argument?
Oh, right, the troll argues just to argue

This is also false. The FCC put the Grand Alliance together, and though Zenith was a major player, it was not the only major player in the game. The Muse system was not just a threat, it could have very well been a reality here if it didn't have several drawbacks. First it was not designed for a country the size of US, it was much more suitable to smaller countries that relied on satellite for signal distribution of all TV signals. The second would be its bandwidth requirements.

Zenith was a major player, indeed, the push that got the FCC off of its a**.
You gonna keep quoting stuff that I said?

Me thinks you have been watching too much of the boogey man.

And methinks you've been eating too many boogers!

Zenith countributed VSB to the ATSC standard, and was basically first to create a workable digital broadcast system. The FCC created ATSC, not Zenith. Dolby and MIT as well as AT&T were as big a player in the game as Zenith was. Zenith was big in getting stereo audio incorporated into the analog broadcast system via MTS stereo system.

Like I said.
And GENERAL INSTRUMENTS WAS key in developing codecs.
And without a campaign for it, we never wouold have had MTS stereo

I think you are overselling Zenith's position in all of this, or you are mixing MTS stereo introduction with HDTV. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt for your obvious lack of correct information being thrown out here.

And I AM GIVING YOU a handicap for having an IQ that matches your hat size.
Zenith was a major player in developing HDTV...and MTS.
If I am incorrect then every magazine of the day was incorrect, every article I READ tied
Zenith closely to HDTV.
Didnt do them any good, they still went outta business

Yes I do remember the panic and concern that Japanese technology was going to overtake us, but it wasn't because of the Muse system that is for sure. The Muse system while great for Japan, would never work in the US, and everyone knew it. It was analog, and the US really wanted a digital system, and what drove them was the US wanted to be the first to adopt a digitally based HDTV system. They got what they wanted, and it was not because of Zenith only.

No, mostly because of GENERAL iNSTRUMENTS and their work on codecs.
But Zenith was a major player, and without breakthroughs in codecs we would have wound up with an analog system, it was just fate that we did'nt

Your truth is really just plain good ole fashion denial, and nothing more. Tests reveal the truth that people like you hate to see.

A "test" will show anything you rig it to show.
Only truely independent testers will come up with accurate results , and then only
with time honored proceedures, not extrapolated crap that goes against
everything anybody knows about the way TV sets display pictures

Datadisplay's testing is not supported by anyone but Displaydata. Your constant harping on conspiracy theories does not erase that. What Wooch used to do, and what he does today has not marred his ability to tell the truth one bit. I have known him for a long time, and he has never exibited a Panasonic bias like you exibit a Vizio one.

Oh please, he was practically building a shirne in his back yard.
And Display datas "data" ISN'T SUPPORTED BY ANYONE ELSE.
Finally got one right

This is why three 9" CRT guns are used in projection system. Since one tubes surface area is 3 times the size of a single CRT gun in a direct view, it puts out much more light than a single gun CRT can. That is why you have never seen a 1080p CRT television, but there are dozens of CRT based projection systems that can easily do 1080p.

Three guns are used to show red, green, and blue, has nothing to do with light production.
And the reason you will never see a direct view CRT1080p(your words) is the same
reason you will never see a 2000p CRT PROJECTION SET.
Its at the end of the road, old man, time to get with the future.

Movies are compressed, transferred, authored, and designed for exibition in dark rooms, not lit room. Its funny, you quote Joe Kane to bolster a point, but you never quote him when it doesn't fit your argument. Joe Kane has always said that movies are to be watched in a darkened room, just like you do in the theater.

Even theaters keep some light going.
AND A THEATER EXPERIENCE IS NOT THE SAME as a home experience.
A theater experience is two to three hours., sometimes a home experience can last for hours, even days.
AND WATCHING a screen in a darkened room causes eye fatigue, as your retina open and closes in response to varying degrees of light.
You need a backlight to even things out and save your eyesight.
But dont worry, a CRT setup (or a plasma) will be so dim it probably wont cause too much damage

The only thing the market has shown is the cheaper technology usually wins the race. Beta was better than VHS, but lost. Dts sounded better than DD, but it lost out on DVD. Film projection is better than Digital Cinema, but it is being replaced by it. Plasma beat out LCD is just about every area except ulitmate brighness(which is hardly necessary when it is properly calibrated). Both CRT and Plasma are better technologies than LCD, but LCD is cheaper to produce, and cheaper in the market place. People are not looking for performance, they are looking for value these days. That is the reason why a companies like Westinghouse, Vizio, Apex, Colby are thriving, and high performance monitors by Pioneer are gone. Nobody wants to pay for performance except us(yes that's me) who put that before price.

Nobody can afford it.
You snobs are all the same, youo dont get that everybody having a system that is 95%
IS BETTER THAN A FEW RICH BUTTWIPES having a 98% system.
People live in the real world, which is getting more real with that incompetent boob
at the helm every day.
PEOPLE HAVE KIDS, wives who dont want the one entertainment area to be covered up with crap from a Frankenstein movie.
And the marginal results you cite are not all that obvious, and usually not worth the cost,
as that cost puts them outta reach of most, which in turn removes them from the market.
AND PRICE DIDNT KILL BETAMAX, it was the arrogance of SONY, who, secure in having a better system, refused to put out a two hour cassette.
Only too late did they realize their error, BUT COST WAS only a minor factor

While the image is a still, what is on the television is a moving image. That camera catches the blur, and the computer measures the resolution of the capture. Nothing rigged about that, Vizio is just a plain failure in this area(as well as several more).

BALONY.
There IS no "moving" picture on a TV, just a series of 60 frames.
On a progressive set a complete frame is painted one after another.
Only on a interlaced picture does resolution fall apart.
On 120hz sets every other frame is extrapolated, the set has time to create new frames and paint them, just showing the 60 frames it gets from its source is childs play by comparision, the only thing "blurry" is your reasoning.
And measuring the "blurriness" is impossible, if indeed there is any, taking a picture with
a CCD off of an LCD is going to be problematic at best.
All this "test" is is a slander

Since the testing methodology has been accepted by the industry, no lawsuit could happen. More conspiracy theories, but no truth.

I doubt it, but if so it will only lead to embarrassment in the future

You wouldn't make this statement of you didn't care. It wouldn't have been necessary.

Trolls and industry whores arent nessesary either, but we have them

It is spinning along with your lies, conspiracy theories and endless misinformation. Anyone would be dizzy from that!

Dont blame me for what seems a cronic condition

You are right, who will baby sit you when your mother goes to work.

Yeah, keep to the low road talky

[pixelthis]

Yet another point, how can Display Datas "test" tell the difference from blurriness
caused by natural motion, that is an intended part of the material, and blurriness injected by the TV?
and if a set is removing blurriness that is part of the material, how could that produce a better picture?
Such a "test" would favor fake looking images that look computer generated.
And what do you want to bet that Display Data uses cartoons for
its "testing?
Wouldnt surprize me.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Right, two times the bandwidth, which was broadcast on TWO CHANNELS.
Every article I READ SAID THAT IT REQUIRED TWO CHANNELS.
YOU said it required TWO channels!!!
What is the argument?
Oh, right, the troll argues just to argue

Your are right troll. It never required two channels, and admit it, you just can't read very well. Bandwidth and channels are two different things, only an idiot would try and mux the two together.

I never said that MUSE required two channels liar. Pix, you lie just the sake of it. I said MUSE this:

(4 times the bandwidth of SD television of which they managed to get down to two times). It was never at any point in its developement or implementation was a two channel system.

How you got me saying it required two channels after reading this shows that you can't read PERIOD!

Zenith was a major player, indeed, the push that got the FCC off of its a**.
You gonna keep quoting stuff that I said?

Another false statement. Zenith never pushed the FCC off their butts, it was the Grand Alliance that did that. Zenith is not the Grand Alliance. The Grand Alliance was made up of 7 very large players. YOu act like Zenith was the entire GA, but it was just one of many big players in the game. You never said that, and nobody was quoting your lame remarks anyway.

And methinks you've been eating too many boogers!

Is this your trip back into childhood, or did you every leave?

Like I said.
And GENERAL INSTRUMENTS WAS key in developing codecs.
And without a campaign for it, we never wouold have had MTS stereo

Zenith developed the codec, General Instruments provided the wrapper. Still can't get your facts straight. MTS stereo was a lousy carrier of stereo by the way.

And I AM GIVING YOU a handicap for having an IQ that matches your hat size.
Zenith was a major player in developing HDTV...and MTS.
If I am incorrect then every magazine of the day was incorrect, every article I READ tied
Zenith closely to HDTV.
Didnt do them any good, they still went outta business

One can only gather one thing from your comment. The magazines were not incorrect, you just can't read. Zenith was one of many players on the GA, and one of many contributers to the ATSC standards.

No, mostly because of GENERAL iNSTRUMENTS and their work on codecs.
But Zenith was a major player, and without breakthroughs in codecs we would have wound up with an analog system, it was just fate that we did'nt

GI does not do audio codecs, and they never have. We would have never ended up with an analog system because the FCC didn't want it. They wanted an all digital system that would fit in the same broadcast spectrum they currently had.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Instrument

AT&T was a major player, MIT was a major player, Thomson Consumer Electronics was a major player, General Instrument Corporation was on the committee(they were not a major player though), and Philips Consumer Electronics, David Sarnoff Research Center were also major players. Zenith was the least powerful amoung these companies because it was basically a failing company in deep financial trouble. LG bought a stake in Zenith just to keep it alive(and gain access to their patents), and ended up buying Zenith whole.

A "test" will show anything you rig it to show.
Only truely independent testers will come up with accurate results , and then only
with time honored proceedures, not extrapolated crap that goes against
everything anybody knows about the way TV sets display pictures

You sound desperate as hell, grasping every straw you can. Displaydata is a truely independent tester, and just because you don't like the results of their testing does not change that fact one bit. If Displaydata testing was not "accurate", then Vizio would have a lawsuit victory in the bag. Have you heard any news that Vizio was suing Displaydata? Nope, because they can't, the industry has approved DD method of testing, and so does Joe Kane by the way. Joe Kane had a projector he worked with Samsung to produce tested by Displaydata. The results he got back helped him to tweak the performance of that projector, and it ended being one of the finest on the market.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10352083-1.html

Oh please, he was practically building a shirne in his back yard.
And Display datas "data" ISN'T SUPPORTED BY ANYONE ELSE.
Finally got one right

Pix everyone knows that you have never left your trailer park except to run from a tornado, so how do you know what Wooch has in his backyard?

Displaydata is a standalone company not owned or supported by any CE company. Its testing criteria and methodology are accepted by every CE company, and the Hollywood studios as well. None of your spin can deny this, and none of your lies will change it either.

Three guns are used to show red, green, and blue, has nothing to do with light production.

Oh really, and just how does color get on the screen if there is no light? LOL. It just so happens idiot that peak white is a combination of all three guns at full bore.

And the reason you will never see a direct view CRT1080p(your words) is the same
reason you will never see a 2000p CRT PROJECTION SET.
Its at the end of the road, old man, time to get with the future.

Irrelevant to the issue at hand dumbell

Even theaters keep some light going.
AND A THEATER EXPERIENCE IS NOT THE SAME as a home experience.
A theater experience is two to three hours., sometimes a home experience can last for hours, even days.

Sheesh, the only light you see in a theater comes from the exit signs, guide lights, and projector light spill coming from the view hole in the booth. Because of the large space that light is very dim, and when compared to the amount of light on the screen, it is nothing. It certainly does not compare to watching television in full light at home.

Movies are the same length of time whether played at home, or in the movie theater. Only you would sit in front of a television for days, everyone else goes to sleep and to work. Regardless, movies are edited in the dark, authored and compressed in the dark, QC in the dark, and should be played back in the dark whether in the theater, or at home. Joe Kane's words in a hometheater magazine that you often quote from.

AND WATCHING a screen in a darkened room causes eye fatigue, as your retina open and closes in response to varying degrees of light.
You need a backlight to even things out and save your eyesight.
But dont worry, a CRT setup (or a plasma) will be so dim it probably wont cause too much damage

Eye fatigue is only a problem when the display does not take up a significant portion of your field of view, or when the brightness of the set is too high. If you calibrate your set, and sit the proper distance away from it, eye fatigue will not happen.

A properly calibrated set whether it be LYCOS, LCD, Plasma, or CRT will not cause eyestrain, and will not display peak white anywhere near the top of its range.

The only thing that is dim is you.

Nobody can afford it.
You snobs are all the same, youo dont get that everybody having a system that is 95%
IS BETTER THAN A FEW RICH BUTTWIPES having a 98% system.
People live in the real world, which is getting more real with that incompetent boob
at the helm every day.

Nobody can afford it? Right.

If you think for a moment your Vizio is 95% or the performance of a Kuro's, you really are stupid as hell. It ain't even close to that performace level, try 60%. That 38% performance premium is well worth the money, but you wouldn't really know because you need a job to pay for that kind of performance.

Pix, you have got to be one of those stupid tea party types that vote against their own best interests. You are unemployed, which means you probably don't have health insurance. He got you health insurance, so rather calling him a boob, you should thank him ungrateful twit. Buy a clue stupid...ooops you need a job to do that.

PEOPLE HAVE KIDS, wives who dont want the one entertainment area to be covered up with crap from a Frankenstein movie. And the marginal results you cite are not all that obvious, and usually not worth the cost,
as that cost puts them outta reach of most, which in turn removes them from the market.
AND PRICE DIDNT KILL BETAMAX, it was the arrogance of SONY, who, secure in having a better system, refused to put out a two hour cassette.
Only too late did they realize their error, BUT COST WAS only a minor factor

How would you know buying a performance based television has only marginal improvements over your low performing Vizio? You have never owned a performance based set!

Beta III mode could do five hours of recording, so much for your two hour comment.

BALONY.
There IS no "moving" picture on a TV, just a series of 60 frames.

The frames are not stationary are they? What a stupid statement!

On a progressive set a complete frame is painted one after another.
Only on a interlaced picture does resolution fall apart.
On 120hz sets every other frame is extrapolated, the set has time to create new frames and paint them, just showing the 60 frames it gets from its source is childs play by comparision, the only thing "blurry" is your reasoning.
And measuring the "blurriness" is impossible, if indeed there is any, taking a picture with
a CCD off of an LCD is going to be problematic at best.
All this "test" is is a slander

So objects do not move at all on a professive set? Since I have already explained the testing there is no need to go into that again.

Since the industry has already accepted and approved Displaydata testing procedure, your denial and dismissal of this test is meaningless. You are the lone ignorant dissenter on this issue.

I doubt it, but if so it will only lead to embarrassment in the future

You cannot predict the future can you?

Trolls and industry whores arent nessesary either, but we have them

Glad you know who you are!

Dont blame me for what seems a cronic condition

The only chronic condition we have around here is your lies and denials.

Yeah, keep to the low road talky

I can't, you leave me no room.

[pixelthis]

Your are right troll. It never required two channels, and admit it, you just can't read very well. Bandwidth and channels are two different things, only an idiot would try and mux the two together.

So it required the bandwidth of two channels, but they never used two channels
to broadcast, guess they just broadcast half a signal.
What a maroon


[QUOTE]I never said that MUSE required two channels liar. Pix, you lie just the sake of it. I said MUSE this:[b](4 times the bandwidth of SD television of which they managed to get down to two times). It was never at any point in its developement or implementation was a two channel system.
How you got me saying it required two channels after reading this shows that you can't read PERIOD!

No, you said it required twice the bandwidth, I SAID THAT IT REQUIRED TWO CHANNELS, AND WAS PRIMARILY BROADCAST BY SATTELITE,
which was the case.
You'll argue with the devil when he comes for your soul

Another false statement. Zenith never pushed the FCC off their butts, it was the Grand Alliance that did that. Zenith is not the Grand Alliance. The Grand Alliance was made up of 7 very large players. YOu act like Zenith was the entire GA, but it was just one of many big players in the game. You never said that, and nobody was quoting your lame remarks anyway.

Zenith was the prime mover behind the grand alliance, p[ractically everything I READ ABOUT the grand alliance cited Zenith as a major player

Is this your trip back into childhood, or did you every leave?

You ever graduate from JR high?

Zenith developed the codec, General Instruments provided the wrapper. Still can't get your facts straight. MTS stereo was a lousy carrier of stereo by the way.

GENERAL INSTRUMENTS developed mpeg, never said they developed MTS, you just inferred that.
A lot of GI work on codecs helped develope digital TV

One can only gather one thing from your comment. The magazines were not incorrect, you just can't read. Zenith was one of many players on the GA, and one of many contributers to the ATSC standards.

I CAN READ, YOU JUST DIDNT.

GI does not do audio codecs, and they never have. We would have never ended up with an analog system because the FCC didn't want it. They wanted an all digital system that would fit in the same broadcast spectrum they currently had.

dIDNT SAY THEY DID, SAID THEY WORKED ON video CODECS, which they did


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Instrument

AT&T was a major player, MIT was a major player, Thomson Consumer Electronics was a major player, General Instrument Corporation was on the committee(they were not a major player though), and Philips Consumer Electronics, David Sarnoff Research Center were also major players. Zenith was the least powerful amoung these companies because it was basically a failing company in deep financial trouble. LG bought a stake in Zenith just to keep it alive(and gain access to their patents), and ended up buying Zenith whole.

Their push for HDTV was the last major thing this company ever did, but they did do it

You sound desperate as hell, grasping every straw you can. Displaydata is a truely independent tester, and just because you don't like the results of their testing does not change that fact one bit. If Displaydata testing was not "accurate", then Vizio would have a lawsuit victory in the bag. Have you heard any news that Vizio was suing Displaydata? Nope, because they can't, the industry has approved DD method of testing, and so does Joe Kane by the way. Joe Kane had a projector he worked with Samsung to produce tested by Displaydata. The results he got back helped him to tweak the performance of that projector, and it ended being one of the finest on the market.

Dont care whos behind what, that "test" as you described it is BOGUS

Pix everyone knows that you have never left your trailer park except to run from a tornado, so how do you know what Wooch has in his backyard?

SATCOM CHECKED IT OUT, after astronauts complained about the light

Displaydata is a standalone company not owned or supported by any CE company. Its testing criteria and methodology are accepted by every CE company, and the Hollywood studios as well. None of your spin can deny this, and none of your lies will change it either.

There is no such thing as "motion" resolution, nothing will evere change that

Oh really, and just how does color get on the screen if there is no light? LOL. It just so happens idiot that peak white is a combination of all three guns at full bore.

Whos the idiot?
Sure the light comes from the tubes, but that is not the primary reason you have three.
Each is a primary color that, when mixed on screen, produces a picture.
This provides better sharpness than using one tube, has nothing to do with light production, although I GUESS C RTS need all of the help they can get

Irrelevant to the issue at hand dumbell

You're "irrelevant"

Sheesh, the only light you see in a theater comes from the exit signs, guide lights, and projector light spill coming from the view hole in the booth. Because of the large space that light is very dim, and when compared to the amount of light on the screen, it is nothing. It certainly does not compare to watching television in full light at home.

IT DOES NOT COMPARE TO TELEVISION, which is why tv watching requires a BACKLIGHT.
And if you dont use one it will hurt your eyes, not that you see well enough to tell what a decent picture is anyway

Movies are the same length of time whether played at home, or in the movie theater. Only you would sit in front of a television for days, everyone else goes to sleep and to work. Regardless, movies are edited in the dark, authored and compressed in the dark, QC in the dark, and should be played back in the dark whether in the theater, or at home. Joe Kane's words in a hometheater magazine that you often quote from.

YOU DONT just watch movies on TV, the average for TV watching is four hours a
day.
You need a backlight

Eye fatigue is only a problem when the display does not take up a significant portion of your field of view, or when the brightness of the set is too high. If you calibrate your set, and sit the proper distance away from it, eye fatigue will not happen.

It will if you dont have a backlight, you cant keep your eyes glued to the screen all of the time

A properly calibrated set whether it be LYCOS, LCD, Plasma, or CRT will not cause eyestrain, and will not display peak white anywhere near the top of its range.

DOESNT NEED TO, but bursts of brightness will cause the retina to respond,
this is reduced by a backlight

Nobody can afford it? Right.

GLAD you agree with me

If you think for a moment your Vizio is 95% or the performance of a Kuro's, you really are stupid as hell. It ain't even close to that performace level, try 60%. That 38% performance premium is well worth the money, but you wouldn't really know because you need a job to pay for that kind of performance.

THE PERFORMANCE of a Kuro is zero compared to my Vizio, because they dont make it anymore, which is what you get when you try to sell a 5,000 TV that
maybe is 2 to 3 percent better than the worst on the market.
ANY set will turn out 90%. 90 on up is what you pay for in a premium set,
that and better processing.
Most cant tell the diff between a high end and a low end set, and quite a few who cant just lie, and keep their neses in the air

Pix, you have got to be one of those stupid tea party types that vote against their own best interests. You are unemployed, which means you probably don't have health insurance. He got you health insurance, so rather calling him a boob, you should thank him ungrateful twit. Buy a clue stupid...ooops you need a job to do that.

BEEN WORKING FOR A YEAR, have health insurance and other benefits, in spite of
OBOZO 'S best effort to destroy the economy.
What you liberal twits dont realize is that when you vote in your interest, at the expense of the countries interest, long term you will suffer, as will your children.
But of course if you had any brains you wouldnt be a liberal puke in the first place

How would you know buying a performance based television has only marginal improvements over your low performing Vizio? You have never owned a performance based set!

one to talk, YOUR "SET" IS A COBBLED TOGETHER piece of POS from the last century

Beta III mode could do five hours of recording, so much for your two hour comment.

You dont know anything, do you?
BETA iii WAS WAY DOWN THE ROAD AFTER BETA ceased as a consumer format.
Only pros and pro-ams had any interest in it.
When beta died as a consumer format it had a running time of one and a half hours,
which was why I didnt but one.
A year later ypou couldnt find one outside of the hobbyist area

The frames are not stationary are they? What a stupid statement!

Of course they are stationary, where are they going?
They look like they are moving, but that is just a trick of the eye

So objects do not move at all on a professive set? Since I have already explained the testing there is no need to go into that again.

A "proffessive " set?
Dont know bout those, but on a [I]progressive[I] set there is no resolution loss with movement, the picture doesn "blur" or any other nonsense, and a new 1080p set doesnt
have the resolution of a 1989 EMERSON vcr, OR ANY OTHER DELUSIONS YOU ENTERTAIN in that small cranium of yours

Since the industry has already accepted and approved Displaydata testing procedure, your denial and dismissal of this test is meaningless. You are the lone ignorant dissenter on this issue.

VERDICT IS STILL OUT ON THAT ONE.
Do know that if everybody says the world is flat, doesnt mean its flat

You cannot predict the future can you?

Sure, ruin for this poor country for electing a commie, free gas, just park next to the gulf
with a sipon hose, bad eyesight for those who abuse their eyes, and a scandal involving
some corp back hack outfit that sells dubious "tests" of dubious value

Glad you know who you are!

BE SAD when you figure out [I]who] you "arte", everybody else already knows

The only chronic condition we have around here is your lies and denials.

AND YOUR TROLLING





I can't, you leave me no room.

pUT YOUR FAT ASS ON A DIET

[GMichael]

As a very wise bear once asked, "You two don't really come here for the hunting, do you?"

[E-Stat]

What a maroon

That is funny on multiple levels.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That is funny on multiple levels.

rw

He is funny on multiple levels

[pixelthis]

That is funny on multiple levels.

rw

Its not supposed to be.
When calling someone a moron, spell it like they would(not to mention my hero,
bugs, spells it that way).

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It figures a cartoon would be his hero. A cartoon for a cartoon, how about that!

[pixelthis]

It figures a cartoon would be his hero. A cartoon for a cartoon, how about that!

Its better to have a cartoon hero, than to be a cartoon, at least Bugs is possesed
of some inteligence.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Its better to have a cartoon hero, than to be a cartoon, at least Bugs is possesed
of some inteligence.

Maybe he does, but you don't. I just thought it was fitting that a cartoon admires another cartoon. Or should that be a clown admires a cartoon. Whatever...they both fit.

[E-Stat]

spell it like they would(not to mention my hero, bugs,
spells it that way)

Do a search and you will find four pages of posts that provide the answer. Hint: there's one individual who overwhelmingly dominates the (mis)usage (as opposed to the term being found via quoted text by someone else)

BTW, will you ever figure out when to properly use the carriage return key?

rw