Toshiba fights back......well kind of

[Rich-n-Texas]

Dear Mismatch:

I have read your question and have formulated an action plan to get your speakers "back together".

You need to make sure that they are EXACTLY 12' apart. It doens't matter how you achieve this goal. One member resorted to moving a speaker to the porch, (but it was later stolen ) with great results.

The 12' gives both speakers the proper breathing room, and also allows them to more fully realize their potential.

As your speakers grow and mature, you may be tempted to move them closer together. Do not allow yourself to fall for this ruse. Even if your speakers weigh 300lbs, 12' is optimal.

Good luck, and many years of happy listening.

Yeah, with great results.

[Groundbeef]

OK, I will give it a try. But I do have a few follow-up questions.

My room is only 14 feet wide. With the speakers at 12 feet, that only leaves 1 foot on each side. Will I not have problems with the wall reflections?
Also,
This is a 7.1 system. Please map out how I can have all 8 of these speakers 12 feet from every other? Should I be putting some of them in my basement and attic?


Befuddled in Biffaway.

Dear Befuddled:

I'm just an advice writer, not a miracle worker. And I'm sorry if you are unable to do the complex equation. 8 speakers, 12' apart. Seems to me you need a room 96' wide in order to meet minimum placement parameters.

Perhaps you need to work a second job to pay for any necessary improvments to your home. Perhaps you can break out a window or 2 and then suspend plastic sheeting to make a temporary "room" until you can complete the upgrade.

[GMichael]

To tell ya the truth, I don't read much of his posts

I have no clue what he's talkin' about half the time.

Neither does he. You're not missing much. Here, let me recap.

LCD rules.
DLP drools.
Blu-Ray is the best.
You don't need 1080p. 720p is better anyhow.
Downloads are better than Blu-ray.
The world is ending.
We should all put our heads between our legs and kiss our butts goodbye.
With 401k's, the k stands for crap.
He knows everything.
We know nothing.
TI is a nothing company and doesn't count.
Mark his words. Years from now we'll be thinking back at how we should have listened to him.

Got that? Good. There'll be a quiz tomorrow at 3:50 AM.

[GMichael]

Dear Befuddled:

I'm just an advice writer, not a miracle worker. And I'm sorry if you are unable to do the complex equation. 8 speakers, 12' apart. Seems to me you need a room 96' wide in order to meet minimum placement parameters.

Perhaps you need to work a second job to pay for any necessary improvments to your home. Perhaps you can break out a window or 2 and then suspend plastic sheeting to make a temporary "room" until you can complete the upgrade.

Dear Beef,

I do not like your answer.
I will now curse you out.
@$%#! $#%^ you #$%^ son of a #$%% @@#$%& may your %%^%&$ rot in $$%#& with %%%#$ and %%*@@!

If you don't have anything helpful to add, then I will continue to ingore your posts just as I have here. Oh, and I DON'T CARE WHO YOU ARE. Be nice from now on.

[Groundbeef]

Neither does he. You're not missing much. Here, let me recap.

LCD rules.
DLP drools.
Blu-Ray is the best.
You don't need 1080p. 720p is better anyhow.
Downloads are better than Blu-ray.
The world is ending.
We should all put our heads between our legs and kiss our butts goodbye.
With 401k's, the k stands for crap.
He knows everything.
We know nothing.
TI is a nothing company and doesn't count.
Mark his words. Years from now we'll be thinking back at how we should have listened to him.

Got that? Good. There'll be a quiz tomorrow at 3:50 AM.

Wow, now your ghostwriting for Pixel? And I thought you were above the fray. I'll pass a greenie to you when I'm recharged!

[GMichael]

Wow, now your ghostwriting for Pixel? And I thought you were above the fray. I'll pass a greenie to you when I'm recharged!

I am above nothing sir.

[Groundbeef]

Dear Beef,

I do not like your answer.
I will now curse you out.
@$%#! $#%^ you #$%^ son of a #$%% @@#$%& may your %%^%&$ rot in $$%#& with %%%#$ and %%*@@!

If you don't have anything helpful to add, then I will continue to ingore your posts just as I have here. Oh, and I DON'T CARE WHO YOU ARE. Be nice from now on.

Well, I've never seen a AV board that allows such filth. What kind of mods allow @ or $%! or worst of all $$%#&? If you don't want my advice in the future don't ask stupiid questens!

[GMichael]

Well, I've never seen a AV board that allows such filth. What kind of mods allow @ or $%! or worst of all $$%#&? If you don't want my advice in the future don't ask stupiid questens!

I see no reason for you to become rude. These personal attacks you are making do not do anyone any good. You young people have no respect.
I don't not know who you or, are even care. Just stick to the topic.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Neither does he. You're not missing much. Here, let me recap.

LCD rules.
DLP drools.
Blu-Ray is the best.
You don't need 1080p. 720p is better anyhow.
Downloads are better than Blu-ray.
The world is ending.
We should all put our heads between our legs and kiss our butts goodbye.
With 401k's, the k stands for crap.
He knows everything.
We know nothing.
TI is a nothing company and doesn't count.
Mark his words. Years from now we'll be thinking back at how we should have listened to him.

Got that? Good. There'll be a quiz tomorrow at 3:50 AM.

<=== These winkies just don't do this post the justice it deserves!!!

[Rich-n-Texas]

I don't not know who you or, are even care. Just stick to the topic.

Dammit! Now I'm confused again. Or who? Are what?

[L.J.]

What was this thread about again

[Rich-n-Texas]

Alright let's get back to serious discussion here okay? Y'all are making me look silly.

[bobsticks]

Sleep with a woman who was more beautiful on the inside than the outside?.

I am extremely self-aware, but I find that life is easier if I avoid this. True talk.

[Smokey]

Your TV will play 1080i, after its upconverted to 720p, which is your sets native resolution. Which is a good thing, unlike what sir talky will tell you, 720p is higher rez than 1080i, which being an interlaced format loses half of its resolution everytime theres movement.

And I trust the likes of Joe Kane guru who was instrumental in creating several monitors and calibration discs. This is where I get my info from.

Sorry Pixelthis, but this is completely false. It is just like saying 480p have twice resolution of 480i since 480i loses half of its resolution every time there is movement-which is not true. 480p will show a SMOOTHER picture, not higher resolution.

Same goes for 720p since the only advantage it have is its refresh rate, not resolution. Since pixel determine resolution not refreshing rate, then 720 have close to 1 million pixels (720 x 1280), while 1080i have twice that amount (1080 x 1920). So I don’t see how one million pixels display can have more resolution than 2 million pixels display panel!

Even if we go by your assumption that 1080i loses half of its resolution due to being interlaced, still 1080i show more pixels even if still showing half the picture......

1080i / 2 = 520 (1 field), 520 x 1920 = 1.03 million pixels are shown every 1/30th of a second.
720p (1 frame), 720 x 1280 = 0.92 million pixels are shown every 1/30th of a second.

So as you can see above, even at half frame 1080i still show more pixels than 720p full frame.

Now who did you say you get your information from

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sorry Pixelthis, but this is completely false. It is just like saying 480p have twice resolution of 480i since 480i loses half of its resolution every time there is movement-which is not true. 480p will show a SMOOTHER picture, not higher resolution.

Same goes for 720p since the only advantage it have is its refresh rate, not resolution. Since pixel determine resolution not refreshing rate, then 720 have close to 1 million pixels (720 x 1280), while 1080i have twice that amount (1080 x 1920). So I don’t see how one million pixels display can have more resolution than 2 million pixels display panel!

Even if we go by your assumption that 1080i loses half of its resolution due to being interlaced, still 1080i show more pixels even if still showing half the picture......

1080i / 2 = 520 (1 field), 520 x 1920 = 1.03 million pixels are shown every 1/30th of a second.
720p (1 frame), 720 x 1280 = 0.92 million pixels are shown every 1/30th of a second.

So as you can see above, even at half frame 1080i still show more pixels than 720p full frame.

Now who did you say you get your information from

Great post Smoke. This is the latest example of how a person can speak like they know something, but in actuality, they know nothing.

[Mr Peabody]

Neither does he. You're not missing much. Here, let me recap.

LCD rules.
DLP drools.
Blu-Ray is the best.
You don't need 1080p. 720p is better anyhow.
Downloads are better than Blu-ray.
The world is ending.
We should all put our heads between our legs and kiss our butts goodbye.
With 401k's, the k stands for crap.
He knows everything.
We know nothing.
TI is a nothing company and doesn't count.
Mark his words. Years from now we'll be thinking back at how we should have listened to him.

Got that? Good. There'll be a quiz tomorrow at 3:50 AM.

Darn it! Some one give GM a greenie for me, he pegged Pix.

The trouble with Pix, we post correct information to his babble yet he remains steadfast in his stupidity, can't show one ioda of evidence to back his position. Great effort by Smokey but it was wasted on Pix. His reference to frequency was something I tried to teach him to no avail. The topic was sound cancellation, I posted several articles explaining how noise cancelling headphones work and that same frequencies increase when coming together NOT cancel, same frequencies cancel when they are 180 degrees out of phase. I don't know where he took "Electronic 101" but he is clueless and fancies himself some kind of engineer. He was ranting some kind of tuner information at me that didn't apply IF he had it correct but even that, he had all twisted. There are too many here who actually want help and appreciate sound advice to waste anymore time on Pix.

[Smokey]

Great post Smoke. This is the latest example of how a person can speak like they know something, but in actuality, they know nothing.

Thanks Sir T. Coming from you it means alot.

I know you (and probably couple of others) already have discussed 720p vs 1080i with him couple of times, and this is my second time discussing it with him. But he seem just to ignore it and keep saying 720p is higher resolution.

I like Pixelthis and read most of his no-holds-barred style posting, but he need to give more thoughts to his postings

The trouble with Pix, we post correct information to his babble yet he remains steadfast in his stupidity, can't show one ioda of evidence to back his position.

The worst part is that he said he get his information from Joe Kane. Getting information is one thing, but understanding it is another

Not really.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Hey, you were the one who promised to "sidestep the name calling." Obviously you didn't, but I should expect no less from you lil't. You're small, your reality is small, and your understanding of what is happening in the world is small. That is why I've dubbed you "lil't" without the capital "L" because you couldn't even hold that up if it was there.

Do you see me complaining like a baby like you have? No, I can take it, and I can dish it out as well. I do not care what you call me, you cannot insult me, harm me, or make me angry.

Well it just so happens that I emailed some of your posts to a real psychologist acquaintance of mine. And guess what, I was right, you are full of yourself, you think you are more than you are and this is likely stemming from some humiliating event in your past life. Now that's not name-calling, nor is it inaccurate, it's what you keep asking for: detailed analysis. You really should have your head examined. It was even recommended I ease up on you. Well, you don't deserve a respite - you're too vain for that. You can throw all the insults you want, in the end, it only shows how sad you really are.

Right, more lying nightliar. I would send your lying post to a psychologist, but it would be a waste of time. Ray Charles can see a compulsive liar. You didn't do any of this, your analysis sucks, and you just cannot stop all of the lying. So what I see here is deflection. If you just say this stupid **** enough, maybe it will take attention off the fact that you lie everytime you post.

Yes, you've said that already, but a cavalier is also "one having the spirit or bearing of a knight; a courtly gentleman; gallant; a man escorting a woman or acting as her partner in dancing" (dictionary.com).

You are beyond pathetic. You are trying to do analysis off a name of a drum corps. You are mentally bankrupt. If you have half a brain cell left, I would be completely surprised.

And to anyone who didn't know you were a band-nerd, what else would be the conclusion? After all, doesn't "cavalier" also fit so poignantly with "Sir Terrence, The Terrible," and your former avatar of a green plume, and your current one of a musketeer? Well my dear little Cyrano, I call you Pinocchio.

Stupid, you kid must be going to work for you. Drum Corps is not band, but I would not expect a lying idiot to know the difference. And please don't mention Pinocchio. Your noise is already in Tokyo behind all of the lies you have told here.

First of all, you can't talk about the HD-DVD and BR format war without discussing what else could overtake those formats. I believe, like many others do, that the format war took long enough to allow other technologies such as downloading to become a major factor that could fill the void left by HD-DVD's demise and DVDs sales slump. My primary reason for believing this is that most titles that appeared on HD-DVD and/or BR were new releases and these typically cater to the renters not the collectors (more on that below). In any case, computers and the internet are a factor not just because they are the primary vehicle for downloading but also because they are the primary method for purchasing HD-DVD and BR disks, not to mention DVDs. You may want to ignore computers and the internet in this equation, but that isn't realistic.

You really should keep your computer analysis out of the film and video business. The movie studio control the content. That's a fact. They choose their avenue of distributions, not you. They have chosen to support Bluray because they know the infrastructure of movie downloads for own just is not there
http://www.videobusiness.com/article...dustryid=47214

Also, this site is not just about HT. I know that is what you're an "expert" about and feel comfy-cozy discussing, but as I recall, there are sections here that are only remotely, if at all, talk about HT. You know, ones called Analog Room, Rave Recordings, Vintage Gear, Speakers, and guess what, also one called Digital Domain, and even one called Computer Audio. Get your facts straight, lil't, this world is not your oyster.

This site is about audio, not computers. There is a section for you computer geeks, but it is not in the audio section. Downloads are part of the computer culture since you cannot download movies to bluray, HD DVD or DVD players. You get your facts straight.

No I have not lied. You have been trying to make this falsehood stick and it hasn't. I have not lied, I had no reason to lie, and all you've been able to show is conjectures and insinuations about it. If anyone is a pathological liar, it is you with your incessant lies about it. By the way, psychologically speaking, this obsession with wanting to vilify others like this speaks volumes about your..., oh we'll just call them "issues" so as not to hurt your feelings too much.

Pathological liars lie and just do not realize it. Its apart of who they are. I have pointed out your lies, but you just twist that into "I was confused". You are transparent, and we see through you.

You know, for someone throwing around the race card indiscriminately, you really should back off of the insinuations about women before you piss off even more people.

Throwing around the race card?? Have I insulted anyones race, or did someone insult mine? You must live in Pix's world where everything is completely opposite of reality. Women know themselves. But a man that complains like a woman is just plain weird.

As I explained before. "Downloaders" in your narrow world view is only those people who have purchased a downloaded movie. The reality is that "downloaders" is all people who download video, whether they pay for it or not. Let's keep those facts straight. You are so hell-bent on limitting your criteria to just what suits your argument that you are completely missing the point of what the rest of us are talking about: all downloaders. Stop dismissing the more accurate definition.

A studio executive is only interested in HIS studio's bottom line. Not peoples surfing activities on the net. They are interested in what you BUY, and where you BUY it from. A studio is not going to use your loose model to decide if downloading is where the studio emphasis is going to be. THEY USE NUMBERS, THEY USE SALES FIGURES, THE USE INDUSTRY EXPERTS ANALYSIS, they do not use the same criteria as computer geeks use. Thick headed people are amusing, and nothing else.

I think you seek to dismiss it because the studios can't make money off of it. How narrow of a view is that? I recall that same kind of narrow-mindedness from the RIAA when they were trying to downplay the impact of Napster. Yes, that made those nasty downloads go away, huh? Or is it because you can't quantify it? .

The studio(just like your company) are interested in making money. That is it(just like it is with your company). The RIAA does not govern the movie industry, and the movie industry isn't the music industry. I think you non thinkers tend to mix the two together like they operate the same way, because it is easier for your tiny brains to get around.

This is oversimplifying things a bit, isn't it? Funny how you resort to that when you are such a stickler for specifics. Purchasers will download when the content isn't worth owning. Pixel's Talladega Nights example is a perfect case-in-point - people who collect movies aren't likely to want to own that one.

Talladega Nights sold pretty well on both HD DVD and Bluray, and lets not even mention DVD. So that blows a hole in this comment.

What's so poignant about this is that the vast majority of the HD-DVD/BR catalog is Talladega fare. Yes, selection is growing but it's got quite a ways to go to have the depth of the DVD catalog. And one is left to wonder if it will ever have the same titles. Isn't that one of the reasons laserdisks people hold onto their players and disks because DVD never made a superior copy of some of their favorite flicks, right? How many of us still have a VHS or two we haven't been able to find on DVD?

How would you know what the catalog of either format is, you own neither. You call planet earth Talladega fair? Do you call Forgotten Planet Talladega fair? Blade Runner is Talladega fair? Close Encounters is Talladega fair? You know less than my dog about video, and less than my two cats about either HD format. Once again, the DVD did not have classic titles this early in its life, downloading doesn't either. As Bluray matures as a format, they will release the same content they released on DVD. If you are trying to advance the theory that download services will have more content than bluray, you are totally off base. That is computer guy analysis on the film world. Adoption rates to Bluray are already past download to rent and sale. Follow the money.

And you think that we are going to have titles available to downloads, that we will not see on HD? Can you tell my why a studio would withhold a titles

Because they are not making any money selling them as downloads. Easy answer. Apple is the largest download to rent site by a long shot, and last year they had 7 million downloads of movies. Paramount moved that many Transformer copies in a single day on disc.(DVD), and another 50,000 on HD DVD in a single day. Pirates of the Carribean moved twice that many(apples numbers) over a week time. Sony's spiderman box set sold a little less than twice the number of apple totaly downloads in a single week. When a studio executive sees this, he is not going to come to the same conclusion you do.

Also, renters and gamers aren't an isolated group of weirdos by themselves, as you like to paint them with your liberal brush. The fact is that almost every collector also rents. After all, how is s/he going to know what is worth owning? And gamers? I don't know a single one who does not own movies. The fact is you can't just divide people into little categories that have no overlap - childish and simple-minded, lil't, sophomoric at best.

When a collectors rents, it is the disc, not the download. Can you tell me how a collector will be able know what quality the disc is based on the internet download? A collector will rent the bluray disc, look at it, and decide if the QUALITY is up to purchasing(that goes for both the movie and the data on disc). A gamer and a download renter do not care about original aspect ratios, high data rates to keep video quality up, sound quality, uncompressed audio,micro blocking, colorbanding, edge enhancement(which is all over downloads to make them sharper), and picture aliasing. The movie collect will. These are two different markets, with completely different priorities.

You have a clear disdain for computer enthusiasts, downloaders, and gamers. That is obvious all over your posts. It's almost as if you have this world-view that somehow you belong to a higher class of movie watchers and the rest of us are the simpleton hoi-polloi who should believe everything you belch out as the gospel truth.

If you are too dumb to realize that the priority of the videophile and the priorites of the download to renter are completely different, then there is no use in continuing to respond to you. You are demonstrating how much a fool you are. I do not belong to a higher class of viewers, I belong to a different class of viewing from the gamer and download to renter. My priorities are completely difference from theirs. I choose a source optimized for video watching, not a computer screen who maximum resolution is 768p. I choose to get what is on the disc in its native form(1080p at 24fps for film, and 1080p 60 for video or animation), that is not the end all for the casual viewer. They don't care about that. I do not watch movies on computer speakers, they are crappy for this type of purpose because that is not what they are optimized for. I watch my movies in a room that is acoustically treated, with speakers that are time and phase corrected, with controls on reverberation time and early reflections. I use bass traps, a RTA, checkpoint alignment tools to get and keep my system meticulously calibrated. Do you really think the gamer or computer geeks do this? No way in hell.

The second problem with your generalization is that you cannot speak for all people when you say they "want to own disk." You can't know this for everyone. You may think that your sales data allows you to generalize so much, but that doesn't hold water when you consider the impact of non-sale downloaded content.[/quote]

Can you tell me why a studio executive with a eye on maximizing profits and ROI would worry about non-sale downloaded content? What does that offer him or her? Non commerce internet traffic is a computer geeks worry, getting a high ROI is the worry of a Film studio executive. A computer geeks analysis for the film industry, and round hole with a square peg.

You are so stuck on "economic data" and that is why you are so myopic. Economic data has two fatal flaws: (1) it is always old; it is what was sold, not what is or will be sold and (2) it ignores what isn't sold, not just pirated content, but also what is paid for with ads or as part of a monthly fee.

Tell this to the stockholders nightliar. What is SOLD is all they want to hear about. Stockholders want ROI, not information that is not relevant to that end. You obviously do not work with financial reports do you? A industry driven by sales of media is not going to worry about what isn't sold. What ISN'T sold(and not even relevant) does not belong on a financial statement of a company driven by sales. Movie studios do not get revenue from ads, the cable and download rental services do. Movie studio create the content that is SOLD to the cable companies and download services. In order to create revenue streams to cover their costs, the cable and download services use advertising. You do not even have a basic understanding of how anything works, and you look foolish because of it. If studio received ad revenue, you bet your best pair of ballet slippers they would be interested in this revenue stream. They don't, this is left for the cable and download services.

Now you've done your best to try and convince everyone how these flaws are insignificant, but the fact is they aren't, no matter how much you wish it weren't so.

Can you tell me why studio executives do not pay attention to it then? I directly report to one, so why doesn't he mention these things you deem important? Its because it is irrelevant to him.

Finally, you are stuck on this comfort level thing about saving files on disk. This is your own prejudice and based in your own fears about the medium.

I work at a film studio idiot. We move files all over the place here. This has nothing to do with my comfort level, it has more to do with joesixpacks comfort level. Based on disc sales vs downloads, the public is not comfortable with movie files, and that is a fact. If they were, then we would all be downloading, and wouldn't be having this discussion. It is VERY clear based on disc sales versus downloads that the public is not ready to download their collection of movies. Rentals in the future? Most definately, we are already headed that way slowly. But digital sale through is a diaster financially, and anything that is a diaster financially is not going to be the direction a studio will pursue.

Music files are downloaded by the millions everyday and only a fraction of those are restored to a physical disk. Most are stored on hard drives. These people have no qualms about it. You know why? Because they back them up. Most people who have an iPod have a complete copy of their music collection on their hard drives.

Clearly based on sales of disc versus downloading of music, downloading is growing, but is a small fraction of disc sales even in decline. Once again for the thick headed, I can put 200 songs on a 1GB stick, I cannot get a fraction of a music soundtrack in 5.1 on a 1GB movie stick, let alone the video portion as well. I can get thousands of songs on 80 GB ipod. But you could only fit maybe two movies at 1080p at the same data rate it is presented on HD disc, along with the soundtrack. If you think for even a second that 720p encoded in quicktime at a data rate of 4mbps(a apple HD download) looks anything like a 720p at a data rate of 20-25mbps, then you do not understand video at all. Not all HD is created equal.

And as far as music being different from movies, I'll address that further down.

More ignorance to wade through.

Again with the dollars-only examples. It's not the whole picture, lil't. Just because you're not comfortable with that fact, won't make it go away.

Do not run a business. I am sure your stockholders would want you computer based analysis in a room full of folks that invested in a movie studio. Money, money, money nightidiot, that is all studio heads and stockholders want to hear about. A film studio does not have any need to look at non film internet traffic, especially if there is no profit to be made from it. That is a job for internet providers and computer company heads, not the film industry.

As Ajani and others have been trying to point out to you, this is shortsighted on the part of the studios. Because Napster happened, people came to expect new things from their music:
(1) Free music
(2) Larger catalogs than what was available in the stores
(3) Music by the single song (which devastated the one cash cow of the music studios: the bundling of music into a complete album)

This has nothing to do with movies. And just because Ajani tried to point this out means nothing more than at least three people here (you, pixel brain, and Ajani) do not understand the film or video industry, nor how they operate. At least Ajani is bright enough to understand that the push in video is larger screens and better sound. Downloads are not for larger screens, they are for smaller ones. On larger screens all the warts of a 4mbps download show up like your ignorance on this issue. Music has a much shorter profit life than film on disc. It is not likely you could sell a new release today on a different disc based audio format tomorrow. It is clear you can sell video over multiple successive formats. Look at Close encounters. YOu see it on DVD AND bluray. Did you ever see much rap music on SACD or DVD-A along with CD? No.

Now iTunes didn't give the music for free, but it did give people enough freedom to where enough consumers were willing to settle for it and grow Apple's business model. Now I don't need to remind you that the music studios fought these freedoms tooth & nail every step of the way. What people want now is DRM-free music. Yes, I know sales of the DRM-free versions aren't great, but that is because it is easy enough to strip the DRM off of non-DRM files right now - that's right, piracy is alive an well. What happened with music is a pretty damning example of what many people think will is already happening and will continue to happen with movies.

Since when is a pig a dog? Or a dog a cat? Since when is a horse a elephant? They are not. And the movie industry is not the music industry. A movie file is not the same as a music only files. And the equipment you watch a movie on is not the same as music( I do not watch music on my television). Apples business model for music and movies is very different. Their model for music is doing very well. Their model for digital sell through is not. I have already provided a link that stats such. People who cannot think their way out of a paper bag with a arrow pointing toward exit mix music and movies together. Not critical thinkers. I notice you do not argue with Wooch when he points out that you are incorrect. I guess you know who your daddy is huh.

The Slingbox is about freedom of choice, and that is what matters. And guess what? The studios are doing their darnedest to try and squash that too - they forced significant changes to customer freedoms enjoyed in the older models and that is one of the main reason sales have slumped. Anyhow, 35,000 players may not be much, but that is an empty statistic for comparison because some of those owners are also HD-DVD, BR, or PS3 owners. How do you include that statistic into your sales figures? And What about the thousands of people who use something else to do the same thing, like oh, I don't know, a computer? And how many BR owners also own a computer? Well, logically, every BR owner on this forum. Your statistics only sound impressive when you strip out all the overlap, and the fact is, there is too much of it. You can't make generalizations like this without accounting for overlap.

This claim you made about some of the owners being HD DVD, bluray owners is just another lie. Another one!!!!! When will it stop? Do you hear anyone here talking about the slimbox. Nobody talks about the slimbox at Bluray.com, HTF, AVS, or any other VIDEO based AV website. It is clear that you find them at television stations, I have seen them at at least two. I do not include lies in my stats. If there was even a little buzz from AV based websites on this, you would have a point. But anyone who surfs around, does not see that as part of any hometheaters owners equipment. And what stats can you post for all of us to see that supports your notions that some BR and HD DVD owners bought ANY of those 35,000. I am sure you will say you do not have to show anything, that your word is good enough. To me, you word is the worst thing you can offer. Show me the stats, you lie way too much.

Boy, reading your post, you'd think Tivo is one sad company (perhaps even sader than you). The fact is that all your info is old. See? You're living in the past with your sales figures. That's actually funny because Tivo certainly rebounded from those doldrums once the series 3 HD units ramped up (which by the way, these have OTA digital tuners that should be one very attractive option for people this coming year as the analog-shutoff approaches). In case you missed the rally (I'm sure you did), the stock jumped over 70% before the x-mas holiday, a lot better than a lot of other companies did (yes, they are back down a bit like everyone else, but it's still above where they were in October, which is a lot better than many other companies today). Your information, as usual is stale and certainly not indicative of future potential.

There is one tool I have that you do not. NDP figures compliled weekly, monthly, quarterly, and yearly. If they are so stale, then why do companies all over the world paying millions and millions for the data? If you think my stats are so stale, what stats do you have to trump them? None. That is clear.
Tivo are not movie playback devices. Tivos are not selling as well as bluray players are at this moment. TIVO sales have slowed in the last two quarters, while sales of bluray players are up 20%. Last month Bluray players total 40k in units world wide. That is greater than slimbox since inception, and a little more than Tivo did in the same period. It looks to me like the new kid has already passed the old kid in getting the consumers money. When I go into BB, I see three displays of Bluray players, but I see no displays of TIVO. Do you know why? Retailers give shelf space to the stuff that is currently selling, not stuff that once sold. Amazon has a HD DVD store, and a Bluray store, but they do not have a TIVO store even though Amazon uses TIVO for their downloads. That ought to tell you where the emphasis of that particular retailer. If someone just held you comments up for critical thought, it would have a thread count of zero.

That's because, lil't, what you "see" in your own little sandbox, isn't a whole lot. Your living room isn't even remotely indicative of what's happening in the market. Again, delusions of grandeur, my friend - look it up if you don't know what that means. Oh, and by the way, if you think USB is adequate for video, you may want to read up on some newer technologies like Firewire-800 and SATA. You really shouldn't throw sand in neighboring sandboxes you're not familiar with, lil't.

This is were you need to learn a thing or two. Neither firewire-800 or SATA have provision for the video standard HDCP protocol. Neither of the two allow for clocking data passing through the connector to combat audio jitter. Neither of the two are developed for ANY A/V based product. Unfortunately for you the video industry has already chosen HDMI. The CE industry has already chosen HDMI, so these emerging technologies are too late for video based products because the standard has already been set. If there is going to be ANY video based products being used, the HDMI standard is the only standard that both studios and CE have agreed on because of its robust copy protection, and because it was built from the ground up to serve the video and audio transfer of films from player to receiver. Mention this may show that you are keeping up with computer based products, but shows you do not know the standards set up by the movie industry and the CE that support them. Nice try night liar.

Your lack of understanding about computers is why you aren't able to get your little mind around the concept of downloading over the Internet. Computers and HT are converging faster than you are comfortable with and that scares you. It threatens your livelihood and you don't know how to cope. As I said before, this isn't exclusively a home theater site, and even if it was, ignoring the impact of computer technology on this industry is shortsighted (kind of like the music studios wanted to ignore downloads in the late 90s). You are so obsessed with wanting to group everything and everyone into little categories that you can isolate enough to comprehend them. The problem with this is that your arbitrary categories are no longer realistic - just as this site isn't just about HT, so too is the world of video not just about BR disks. You're the one who's trying to wedge square pegs into round holes, lil't.

You do not know my understanding of computers nightliar, do we use computers as bluray players? Are computer widely used as movie players?. Do we surf the net with our DVD players? The answer to this is a resounding no, which is why this has not relevance in this thread. You are using the example of a few to define the many.
So if there are no groups of anything, and everyone is the same any logical person would agree that the language of hometheater is completely different from computers no matter how converge you say we are. The fact that you treat the music industry exactly the same as the movie industry shows that you know little to nothing about both. The music industry has to fight piracy because of their own doing. The prices of CD has changed little over the years, but the quality of the product has taken a definately step downward. To most, the product as its presented is not a value to them. No body is saying that about DVD or bluray. If they do not like the movie, they don't buy it. You cannot buy a portion of a movie that is good and skip the parts you don't like. You can buy songs you like, and skip an album. A simple download of a movie even losslessly is still a much smaller file size than a movie. Ripped music(as opposed to downloads) can be loaded into a verity of products, downloaded movies are locked into standards(the apple download will not play on zune, and visa versa). I can play a disc on any bluray player, but I cannot play my download with carting my hard drive with me. There is a movement in music for lesser quality, there is no such move in video. Music has not had much success pushing hi rez, video has had much success with HD. These are just a few comparison that set your little stupid thoeries into orbit.

Nonsense. Again, this only makes sense in your narrow little world where movie people are only movie people and have no interest in music. Just about everyone here has both movies and music in their collections. And most everyone here has a digital music player so the transition to downloading digital movies using the same methods will be evolutionary for them. And as they see how other people cope with issues that plague your little mind so much like "DRM-infestations" and "hard drive crashes," they will transition to a comfort level about owning video on disk. Many people will still own disks, but they will also own less pertinent video digitally. The two are not mutually exclusive, as you so would like everyone to believe. And the acceptance factor is already taking place.

People have grown acustom, and have made the decision that portability in music is better than quality. That is why the audio industry has had no success with SACD and DVD-A, and plenty of success with music at 320kbps lossy. I do not expect the performace I get from listening to SACD on my home system to be the same as either of my ipods. When a person loses his music collection, the only thing he can go back to is his ripped music to put his collection back together again. Yes physical media. Good luck in going back to Apple and telling them your hard drive crashed, and you want another free copy to replace your purchased one.
There is no move towards lower quality movies. Television shows are a different animal. Screens sizes are getting larger and larger, and resolution is going higher and higher. All of the downloading business are proprietory, and not open system like disc based systems. DVD and Bluray are plug and play systems, and downloading is not. You cannot find a download that is true 1080p with the necessary bitrate to present a product that is better than disc. HD DVD and Bluray let the quality jeanie out of the bag, and now downloading and VOD have to meet that standard. A file has to be backed up, and that adds cost to the experience. A disc has to be cleaned.
When one looks at the same data as the studio heads look at, there is nothing that supports even a fraction of what you say.

Now I've read all the arguments about HD not fitting on hard drives and all that nonsense, but the fact is that people won't be using 160gb hard drives for this - they'll be using multi-terabite drives the size of a small book (and if you don't think so, we are already using them to store video in our company). Anyhow, what people will be storing digitally will not be the stuff they want on disk, so the quality or the extras aren't crucial to this. Yes, there will be HD content that will use up a lot of space, but it will only be a portion of everything people download. Most of the video that people will download will be DRM-free time-shifted TV shows from their cable or dish providers.

You have just describe a complete different person than the videophile and the collector. This supports what I say when I tell you there are different market segments that meet the priorites of different types of consumer. No one size fits all here.

Finally I want to address this whole business about internet bandwidth, since that seems to be the one thing everyone here seems to stuck on. Basically it does not matter, because as I explained before, people will queue things up to download over time (in the background, at night, and during the middle of the day when they are at work) so the thought of having to wait for content will be forgotten. Even a slow connection will suffice in such a scenario. So what if it takes a whole day to download something? If your box is continuously downloading, then you always have something to watch.

What if they do not want to wait. What if it takes a shorter time to drive to BB and get the disc than it takes to wait for the download. People now days are LESS patient, not more.

The music industry wasn't just fighting piracy, they were fighting choice. People also wanted to buy their music one song at a time and this pissed off the music industry. If you doubt that, check your precious stats for how many people actually download a whole CD's worth of music today, rather than just selections from that whole album. Even greatest hits CDs aren't being downloaded in their entirety, if the option is there.[/quote]

You know, my stats do tell this. However when you look at CD sales versus downloading, downloading is less than 10% of CD sales in terms of revenue. And if you look at total download as a unit, versus disc sales as a unit, disc sales still outsell downloads when the BIG picture is taken into consideration. Downloading is fracturing the business that is for sure, but in the long term, this is not healthy for the industry itself. And what is not healthy for the industry will soon trickly down to the individual artist. Without the money that CD sales bring record companies, fewer artists music will be published, fewer will be recorded, and artists will have to do FAR more concerts to support to support song sales. Some talent will never be developed because their are no A/R departments, and no up front money to do this. Studio will have to depend on lower budgets and alot more projects to make revenue, the good studios will close (already happening in NYC) and the push for even lower quality will take place, because creating music in your basement will not have the finished sound that a studio recording will have. Once again quality will suffer even further than it has. It probably won't matter all that much to the public, they have already gotten used to low quality music anyway.

And again, you are looking at revenue. I'm also going to guess only revenue from music download sites that are tracked by your industry bean-counters, right? And what about subscription and free sites that allow one to listen to music collections without allowing downloads? What about add-supported sites? What about the thousands of songs that people can download for free as a sample of an artist's work? Speaking of artists, what about those sites that artists run themselves, do they appear in your precious stats? Your figures completely miss how much music is actually being listened to. Of course the revenue stream for all these isn't one to bank on, but it's not about revenue, lil't, it's about choice.

Well, lets see how you run a studio or record company on choice. I am sure choice is more than adequate to pay your employees. I am sure choice is going to be an excellent ROI to your stockholders.

Ads supported sites buy their content, and use ads to make up for the price of operating. That content that is sold to ad supported sites shows up on financials.

If a artist is running their own site, I am sure they have financial advisor telling them how the site is doing. If the site cost more to run than the amount of revenue from song sales, then I am sure any competent(which leaves you out) would recommend the site be closed, or the artist will sustain financial losses. This is not reported in my stats, but also a miniscule market when you look at the big picture. Your pespective on this comment is not from a studio head, but from a consumer. Different perspectives, and different views of the market. Apples and oranges. Artist don't run studios, and studio exec don't create music.

By the way, CDs aren't flying off the shelves at Best Buy, in case you haven't noticed - their non-sale prices aren't competitive at all and the selection quite frankly sucks, especially for those of us who buy jazz, classical, and hi-res audio formats. BB is the last place you'll see collectors buy a CD unless they have one amazing sale. I can't remember the last time I paid full-price for a CD at BB, if ever.

In 2007 BB was the largest retailer of both music AND video. Unfortunately jazz, classical and high rez are all niche, nobody will make much money only supporting these genres. The best selling music is rap, rock and country. This you can find plenty of at BB. Your buying habits are not everyone buying habits right?

Computer geek? Please do tell us what that is. And let's see if you can do that without offending everyone again. You say I'm a computer geek because I make my money from this industry?

And I believe you called me a shill? A computer geek lives in a world of computers. When they talk quality, they are talking motherboards, drives, drivers, cards, and other computer related things. They will compromise films to watch them on computers, and video and sound quality are the last thing they think of, unless once again, you are talking computer hardware and software.

What do you really know about what I do?

I have already stated that I am not interested in you personally. So I will tell you again so we do not have to go here again. I do not care about what you do, or about you personally. You are just words on my screen, nothing more, nothing less. At this point you are not even a person to me. Is this clear?

I also collect movies, but according to your twisted logic that still doesn't make me a collector or videophile. I guess no one can be as true of a collector as you. Oh, I'm sorry, you mentioned before that one has to buy as many movies as you do in a week to be a collector? So it's about money, now? Well, what is it, lil't?

You collect movies? Riiiight. What ten? Anyone can say they collect online. The proof is in the pudding.

Why don't you tell all of us what distinguishes a computer geek from an audiophile and from a videophile? I doubt you can do this without insulting just about everyone here. But you're used to doing that. So let's have it, lil't. What are these definitions all about?

easy peasy.

Computer geek= doesn't care about the quality of the movie, just that they can get it to watch on their computers.
Video/audiophile= PQ and SQ is everything.

Computer geek= spends thousand of dollars to keep their computer up to date, or ahead of the curve.

Video/audiophile= spends thousand of dollars on players, speakers, acoustics, wire, cables, amps, preamps, screens, projectors, and are at the cutting edge of audio video products.

Computer geek=cares absolutely nothing about the effect of data rates on PQ and AQ
Audio/videohile= understands that bit rates have a profound effect on both PQ and AQ and want it as high as their ears and eyes can hear and see a result.

Computer geeks=watches video on lower resolution screens great for data, but not high enough to get 1080p pixel for pixel
Audio/videophile=will choose a screen that get the highest resolution of the media(in this case 1080p), tends to go for the larger screen, and audiophiles do not even want a screen in their listening rooms.

computer geeks= have the savvy to download and set up auto backup systems for their low quality collection of television and movies. They do not mind taking the time to maintain a main drive, a back up drive, and can live with the limitation of non portable movie product.(apples only compatible with apple, Microsoft only compatible with microsoft etc)

Audio/videophile= have lived the plug and play simplicity for so long, that the extra effort of maintaining a all of the periphrals that go with downloading seem tedious. You buy the player, plug it in to your receiver, preamp and television, insert disc, and play. That easy. No backups, no time limits, no DRM that prevents mobility, no low quality AQ and SQ. Amazon has made it so easy to get discs, you don't even have to go to BB to get it. You have it mailed to your home or job. Their collections are expensive, and they are not ready to trust any microsoft software( which is prone to crashing and freezing) to run their stuff.


I could go on, but this ought to define enough difference for anyone to see that the priorities of the two are quite different, and where they spend their money is quite different.

See, if you can't get your head around the fact that your HT processor is a computer and that your computer is also a music/video playing medium, you really are lost. It is you who has no balance - your world of computers is entirely separate from your world of HT, and that is complete lunacy. This is why you can't comprehend how this year's CES was different from previous years.

Hmmm, last time I checked, I could do neither a spreadsheet or a powerpoint presentation on my bluray player. Oh, and I could not get my printer hooked up to my HD DVD player either. Damn, I cannot get this USB cable into my DVD player. Regardless of the fact that the enternals of todays players are computers, they do not function like a PC, and cannot do what a PC does. Stupid comment, on par for you.

As I said before, this is the first year that computer technology has reached a level of parity where consumers will be able to use it to supplement their HT experience in a meaningful way. I base that on the following:
(1) Hard drive sizes are large enough to store the video content people want

So what. Until there is a hard drive that can support all 2600 of my DVD's, all 151 of my HD DVD's, all 247 of my blurays, all 1500 of my CD's, all 300 of my vinyl records, all 50 of my master recording tapes(without loss of quality), without worry of crashing, and not costing me an additional penny over the way they are stored now, they are not big enough. Plus, this will matter only when it is clear that the buying public is more comfortable with files than disc. We are not their yet when it comes to movies. Music, almost, but not movies.

(2) External storage connectivity has reached a point where it is both fast enough and simple enough for video

Until we finds this in everyone homes, it is irrelevant at this point. Until the studios move their business models to downloading, this means nothing. You can make it, but it doesn't mean they'll buy it right?

(3) Downloadable audio culture is now similar enough to video to allow an easy transition

Oh really. I can play my downloaded movies anywhere? I get the best quality sound and video from downloads? I can watch my downloaded movies on my big 130" screen? The answer to all of this is no.

(4) Internet conveniences such as queueing-up movies with Netflix is now transferable to PVRs in a way that is both convenient and simple enough for people to use it

But it cannot be transferred anywhere else once its on your TIVO. The DRM on downloads prevents such an act, and it will be like that for the foreseeable future with the studio so paranoid about piracy. Netflix downloads are limited to 720p at 4.5mbps. You put that kind of quality on a screen larger than 50", and your are going to see all kinds of artifacting going on. Keep in mind, the trend in video is larger screens and higher resolutions, and that is a trend that has been going on for more than a decade. With the amount of compression that a 4.5mbps video would have to go through, it wouldn't have the spatial detail of DVD which has a data transfer rate of 10mbps. Wow, even if I were joeblow, that would not be good enough for me.

(5) Home installers are noticing a marked increase in hard drive sales and installations

This is only at the high end, not at the mass market level. I subscribe to a mag called Residential Electronics. They report on the trends of residential house wide installation of hometheaters and house wide sound systems. The largest installation consortium in this country (which supports bluray by the way) reported that the biggest jump in hard drive installs have come from the upper 5% of their client base. That is even small by their standards. Its growing, but its not growning at the pace that their installs that include a Bluray or HD DVD player have. This is great for music and DVD collections, but is useless for bluray since you cannot store it.

(6) Computer companies such as Apple, Cisco/LinkSys, WesternDigital, and Creative are successfully transitioning their product lines to digital content storage and management for consumer entertainment
And there are lots of other indicators as well, but I'll keep it to a number you can actually count to, lil't.

Maybe this is so, but the content providers, and the infrastucture guys(cable and internet providers) are not transitioning quite as quickly. So all of this is meaningless until they do.

Stop beating that dead horse, lil't - it's as flat as pancake.

Follow your own advice.

You can't consider one technology absent from the other. It's just plain unrealistic. I know you want to because it's the only way your simple mind can understand it, but it's completely unlike the way things actually are, lil't. Sorry.

Until the two technologies become one technology, they are absent from one another. There is still no interface(outside of apple and microsoft) that gets the video from my computer to my television. HDMI is not on computers or laptops. When the bridge is so well define that we don't have to discuss it, you have a point. When we come to audioreview and the main topic is downloading movies, then you have a point. I do not see anyone here but you, pixelbrain, and Ajani talking about downloading anything. You don't see it at HTF or AVS(where they are VERY anti download) Until this computer vocabulary is the same as HT vocabulary, they are completely different.

Well as long as you keep coming up with arbitrary definitions, unrealistic segregations, and outdated examples, you don't sound so smart at all, lil't. The fact is your simplistic and narrow view of things only works in that fantasy world you've created in your own little head. You know, the one where your are the pinnacle of knowledge and the rest of us peons are just in awe of your great mind....

I do not look at you as a peon. I look at you as one of the most ignorant people on this website when it comes to understanding the film and video industry. You are clearly trying to erase a mark(prematurely at that) that has seperated the two for years. The computer industry tried to get the refresh rates of computers and televisions to match, it didn't happen. The computer industry tried WebTV to get to folks television with internet streaming, didn't work. Now all of this buzz about internet to television is cropping up again. Well see if it works, but survey after survey conducted on the habits of people viewing habits do not bode well this time either. Internet surfing is a singular activity. Watching television is more a family activity amoung families.

"Through the core of this earth?" Yeah, that sounds real mature, lil't. And so much violence... wasn't beating the dead horses enough for you? Look, no one wants to read 20 more pages of your self-aggrandizing bs. I have shown time and time again that your facts and figures don't hold up when scrutinized. You want to see the world through your own rose-colored glasses and the world just isn't pink, as much as you want to believe that it is. Let's talk about things as they are, lil't, not as you want them to be.
And all that violence you keep insinuating, from beating me down to coming to my house to pick fights with my 2-yr old and have your dogs maul me, that's textbook inferiority complex, just like you're amp being bigger, better, or more expensive than mine - look it up if you don't believe me. You really do have issues....

Once again, I do not care about you, you two year old, your pet snake reggie, or any other personal thing about you. I do not want to care.

Secondly, if you have figures and stats that dispute mind, great, post it where everyone can see them. I have already posted enough links, given enough current stats( I do get stats once a week from the worlds largest data collection source which is NDP). I have seen the numbers with my own eyes, and have watch the trends in my industry just like I am sure you have with yours. But your lying word is useless this time. If you say my figures are outdated, prove it, or shove your words up your bum.

Anyone that can turn pages into physical violence is either an idiot of epic proportions, or piss on themself coward.

You can shove your psycho analysis up your bum as well. I do not see how a compulsive liar has the high ground to judge anyone.

[pixelthis]

Sorry Pixelthis, but this is completely false. It is just like saying 480p have twice resolution of 480i since 480i loses half of its resolution every time there is movement-which is not true. 480p will show a SMOOTHER picture, not higher resolution.

Same goes for 720p since the only advantage it have is its refresh rate, not resolution. Since pixel determine resolution not refreshing rate, then 720 have close to 1 million pixels (720 x 1280), while 1080i have twice that amount (1080 x 1920). So I don’t see how one million pixels display can have more resolution than 2 million pixels display panel!

Even if we go by your assumption that 1080i loses half of its resolution due to being interlaced, still 1080i show more pixels even if still showing half the picture......

1080i / 2 = 520 (1 field), 520 x 1920 = 1.03 million pixels are shown every 1/30th of a second.
720p (1 frame), 720 x 1280 = 0.92 million pixels are shown every 1/30th of a second.

So as you can see above, even at half frame 1080i still show more pixels than 720p full frame.

Now who did you say you get your information from

joe kane, a constant columist at widescreen review.
the last thing he did that I heard of was a calibration disc for HD.
But hes not the only one saying 720p is better than 1080i.
THE TRUTH IS THAT I AM NOT MAKING AN "ASSUMPTION", this is a fact.
Sometimes a 480i picture has as little as 250 lines.
I have heard this over and over, whenever an interlaced picture has movement the resolution collapses, when CRT and 1080i ruled most sets were rated at 700 to 800
lines of resolution.
Progressive scan is ALWAYS better than interlaced.
The computer world went progressive because you couldnt make out the text on an interlaced computer screen.
progressive is always better because you dont have interlace artifacts and the resolution stays constant. The real world rez of a 1080i picture is little better than 600 lines.
And interlaced is SO good that the entire industry is abandoning it in favor of progressive.
1080P is "the top of the world" , then 720p , then 480.
When networks were going HD joe kane started a "progressive" movement, trying to tout the advantages of progressive. He got ABC to broadcast their fare in 720p (which they still do).
Most computer based monitors have a fixed resolution, and most still are 720p, 1080p is new and while popular they still sell 720p, and will for awhile.
But wheres 1080i? Except for plasma, where is this "superiour" format?
btw your math is faulty, its 540 times two, and your argument is based on the phenom
of a 1080i pic NOT losing half of its resolution most of the time. But this does happen.

And when you figure that most LCD sets are 1366 by 766, well, thats more than a single frame at 540, without the interlace artifacts.
WhenI was learning about TV, we were too busy to mess with rez rates, etc, and they were'nt that important really, but every repairman and knowlegable person has the same figure, a 480i ntsc pic over a really good set will yeild around 320 lines of resolution.
You're only talking about a field of 240 lines, after all.
You're not getting "extra " resolution when you deinterlace a 480 pic, you are weaving two fields together to yeild a 480p frame, you're just getting the max amount of rez
possible by getting rid of interlacing
I AM NOT AN EXPERT on the arcane world of resolution of television monitors, but I have been reading widescreen review and several web sites and everywhere I go I READ ABOUT INTERLACE ARTIFACTS , AND HOW you cant get a free lunch, how the rez drops whenever there is movement.
I dont know why people on this board are having trouble with this, but the bizarre rules of the electronics world confound most, including me sometimes, but this isn't hidden info, its on the web.
While I have your ear you need to explain the principle of hetrodyning to MR. P.
He thinks I am making it up. Explain how two frequencies mixed produce the difference between the two, and when they match they cancel out.
He really got his panties in a wad over that one.
Also explain that Bose didnt invent this, but their phones are based on it?
This is another "assumption" thats in every electronics book on the planet that I got into trouble mentioning to a closed mind

[pixelthis]

Alright let's get back to serious discussion here okay? Y'all are making me look silly.

I am slamming my hand in a refrigerator door trying my best not to take advantage of THAT one

[pixelthis]

Pix,

Do you even know what model Mr P. has? Some of the DLP's do in fact output 1080i. Some even input 1080i and output 1080p. These have a much nicer picture than 720p.

Maybe some do, but I HAVE ONLY SEEN progressive models of the few thats left.
And the "1080p" is caused by a process called "wobulation", dont understand quite how it works, but like the spinney color wheel its a fake out designed to fix the myriad shortcomings of DLP.
aND SURE THEY INPUT 1080I AND OUTPUT 1080P, THIS is called deinterlacing,
and its the ONLY way you can see a 1080p pic on last years sets, NONE (HARDLY) WOULD INPUT 1080P.
So for the sake of argument lets say he has 1080i, big whoop, he STILL cant get the max advantage of Blu ray, because he himself said that when he choose 1080p on his player the pic went out.
So he is paying for capability that he isnt using.
Now he might say that the pic is "better" but he also says that a power cord improves
the sound of his amp. He needs to stick with his 1930s era tubes .
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS when gramophone types try to play with modern 21st century electronics

[pixelthis]

Great post Smoke. This is the latest example of how a person can speak like they know something, but in actuality, they know nothing.

Your statement is basically correct, but I was trying to be a little more polite to smokey,
he actually does know something about electronics, if not resolution of modern display devices

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

joe kane, a constant columist at widescreen review.
the last thing he did that I heard of was a calibration disc for HD.
But hes not the only one saying 720p is better than 1080i.
THE TRUTH IS THAT I AM NOT MAKING AN "ASSUMPTION", this is a fact.

I have attended many of Kane's workshops, and basically your information is just plain incorrect on so many levels.

There is twice the pixel count in 1080i than 720p. You are going to have more information on the screen at in 1080i than 720p.

Sometimes a 480i picture has as little as 250 lines.
I have heard this over and over, whenever an interlaced picture has movement the resolution collapses, when CRT and 1080i ruled most sets were rated at 700 to 800
lines of resolution.

The last CRT sets brought to the market especially Toshiba, Mitsubishi, Pioneer, and Sony sets could process over 1000 lines.

The only way resolution would collaspe is if you were able to fast forward slow enough to be able to see scanning going on. We do not watch televsion or movies in a slow forward motion, so this just becomes theory and not practice.

However if the source is 1080p, and all that is being done is deinterlacing, then this is a non issue. Your eyes would have to blink faster than the refresh rate of the television itself to notice any loss of resolution. We don't blink that fast, or that frequently.

Progressive scan is ALWAYS better than interlaced.

Not when the source itself is 1080p. 720p would discard half the information, and 1080i would process all of the information. Because you are already starting with a progressive image, artifacts are minimal with a 1080i display, and at normal viewing distances any advantage that a LCD has with painting the entire picture on the screen at any given moment, is completely lost in slow panel response time. The only benefit you get from 720p is it is better for sporting events, because it (in theory) there is less blur. However that benefit gets erased when you look at most fixed panels smearing during fast motion because their response times are alot slower than CRT. Its not as clear cut as you are trying to make it.

The computer world went progressive because you couldnt make out the text on an interlaced computer screen.

This is true. However we are looking at images on film and video, and that changes the ball game quite a bit.

progressive is always better because you dont have interlace artifacts and the resolution stays constant. The real world rez of a 1080i picture is little better than 600 lines.

With progressive sources, interlaced artifacts are minimal, and at normal viewing distances not even visible. It is only when you start with lower resolutions(like 480i) that this becomes a problem. Once again, the response times of panels is so slow that inspite of the fact the resolution stays constant in the panel, the blurring motion we see with our eyes erases that advantage. Secondly SMALL CRT's that are 1080i have little better than 600 lines. Larger CRT based RPTV however can process up to 1100 lines. When I bought my Toshiba before the upgrade, it was able to clearly show 1100 lines of resolution. You are trying to create an absolute, when there are variables to consider.

And interlaced is SO good that the entire industry is abandoning it in favor of progressive.
1080P is "the top of the world" , then 720p , then 480.

Because the processing power in televisions have not gotten powerful enough to deliver 1080p, not some inherent issues with 1080i specifically. 720p is half the information than 1080i, so your standings are a little off. When our eyes can blink faster than a television can refresh, then you may have an arguement. It can't. We don't blink 30 or 60 times a second do we?

[quote]When networks were going HD joe kane started a "progressive" movement, trying to tout the advantages of progressive. He got ABC to broadcast their fare in 720p (which they still do).[/quote}

Since ABC main programming is sports events, it was natural for them to choose 720p. However this choice does not consider the response times of most panels. Also, 720p panels have a hard time with short transitions in the greyscale. They can do black to white fairly well, but transitions WITHIN the greyscale are not handle without smearing, or the total enablility to finely render them.

Most computer based monitors have a fixed resolution, and most still are 720p, 1080p is new and while popular they still sell 720p, and will for awhile.
But wheres 1080i? Except for plasma, where is this "superiour" format?
btw your math is faulty, its 540 times two, and your argument is based on the phenom
of a 1080i pic NOT losing half of its resolution most of the time. But this does happen.

And when you figure that most LCD sets are 1366 by 766, well, thats more than a single frame at 540, without the interlace artifacts.

We don't look at films frame by frame do we? Interlace artifacts are only a problem from low rez interlaced sources. Since HD on disc is progressive by nature, artifacting is minimal when deinterlacing is well done. 1080i is not necessary anymore because we now have the processing power to do 1080p. There is nothing inherently wrong with 1080i when well done. However this same processing power issue is why most panels sold in 2005 where 720p. That along with the fact that manufacturing techniques did not allow packing pixels any closer without losing substantial brightness. Once again, we do not look at single frames, and we cannot blink faster than the refresh rate. A 1080i television can paint each field faster than we can discern it. That is why the image does NOT lose resolution during movement during NORMAL viewing. You have to create a special circumstance to make what you say correct.

WhenI was learning about TV, we were too busy to mess with rez rates, etc, and they were'nt that important really, but every repairman and knowlegable person has the same figure, a 480i ntsc pic over a really good set will yeild around 320 lines of resolution.

480i is no longer a referenced source for imaging. In the area of HD for broadcast its 720p or 1080i. 720p is perfect for sports, 1080i is better for everything else. When 1080p is brought into the picture 1080i represents all of the information, and 720p is half.

You're only talking about a field of 240 lines, after all.
You're not getting "extra " resolution when you deinterlace a 480 pic, you are weaving two fields together to yeild a 480p frame, you're just getting the max amount of rez
possible by getting rid of interlacing

And by upscaling a 480p source to 1080i, with good deinterlacing artifacts are minimal or non existant.

I AM NOT AN EXPERT on the arcane world of resolution of television monitors, but I have been reading widescreen review and several web sites and everywhere I go I READ ABOUT INTERLACE ARTIFACTS , AND HOW you cant get a free lunch, how the rez drops whenever there is movement.

You are obviously not understanding what you are reading. Resolution only drops if we move the picture slowly(we don't watch anything like that), or we blink faster than the refresh rate(we cannot physically do). Most examples of interlace artifacts come from the transition of 480i to 1080i. Since most DVD players progressively scan the image before it leaves the player, this kinds of artifacts are reduced as well. When you talk about sources such as bluray(1080p native) then this is not an issues at all from normal viewing distances.

I dont know why people on this board are having trouble with this, but the bizarre rules of the electronics world confound most, including me sometimes, but this isn't hidden info, its on the web.

You have to be able to keep this information in context and with caveates intact. It is not as cut and dry as you have tried to make it. We have not even bought scanning rates or 3:2 pulldown into the picture either.

While I have your ear you need to explain the principle of hetrodyning to MR. P.
He thinks I am making it up. Explain how two frequencies mixed produce the difference between the two, and when they match they cancel out.

Not correct. When two signals of match amplitude and frequency are combined, they are in phase and that increases volume. When the two signals are equal in amplitude, but out of phase, they cancel each other out. When two waves crash together in phase, the wave gets higher. When two waves crash together out of phase, the wave loses height. When two identical signals arrive at a microphone at two different times, this creates a cancellation. When the two signals arrive at the mike in phase, they become additive. Your explaination without the detail is incomplete.

He really got his panties in a wad over that one.
Also explain that Bose didnt invent this, but their phones are based on it?
This is another "assumption" thats in every electronics book on the planet that I got into trouble mentioning to a closed mind

Noise cancellation is based on the theory of antiphase signals cancelling out each other. So you have your headphones that are emiting a signal from the speaker, and you have a microphone outside of the ear piece analyzing the ambient information around the headphone. It generates a signal of equal amplitude, but out of phase with the main signal, and that cancels out the ambient signal. It is VERY important that the antiphase signal is of equal amplitude to the in phase main signal or the effect will be lessened in effectiveness.

It is clear that you are not completely understand what you are reading because you are missing all of the detail. The devil is in the details.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Your statement is basically correct, but I was trying to be a little more polite to smokey,
he actually does know something about electronics, if not resolution of modern display devices

Actually he was being polite to you.....

[pixelthis]

I have attended many of Kane's workshops, and basically your information is just plain incorrect on so many levels.


I guess you were the one in the back asleep.
I swore up and down I wouldnt respond to this moron but here goes...


There is twice the pixel count in 1080i than 720p. You are going to have more information on the screen at in 1080i than 720p.

ACTUALLY, NO.
hALF THE TIME you have one field, which is a mere 540 lines.
However you ALWAYS have 720 on a progresive picture




The last CRT sets brought to the market especially Toshiba, Mitsubishi, Pioneer, and Sony sets could process over 1000 lines.

Yeah, if you had 10 grand

The only way resolution would collaspe is if you were able to fast forward slow enough to be able to see scanning going on. We do not watch televsion or movies in a slow forward motion, so this just becomes theory and not practice.

Its fact , excuse me if I BELEIVE ENGINEERS instead of a corp hack


However if the source is 1080p, and all that is being done is deinterlacing, then this is a non issue. Your eyes would have to blink faster than the refresh rate of the television itself to notice any loss of resolution. We don't blink that fast, or that frequently.

If the source is 1080p THERE IS NO DEINTERLACING.
You dont deinterlace a progressive picture. More nonsense from an idiot that doesnt even know what hes' talking about



Not when the source itself is 1080p. 720p would discard half the information, and 1080i would process all of the information. Because you are already starting with a progressive image, artifacts are minimal with a 1080i display, and at normal viewing distances any advantage that a LCD has with painting the entire picture on the screen at any given moment, is completely lost in slow panel response time. The only benefit you get from 720p is it is better for sporting events, because it (in theory) there is less blur. However that benefit gets erased when you look at most fixed panels smearing during fast motion because their response times are alot slower than CRT. Its not as clear cut as you are trying to make it.

You finally got something right, 1080p IS better than 720p WHICH IS WHAT I SAID.

THEN YOU TURN AROUND AND SCREW UP AGAIN.
DOWNCONVERT a 1080p to 1080i and it WONT display all of the information, its impossible for a 1080i picture to contain as much info as a 1080p, thats why 1080p looks better.
And teh "blur" of LCD APPLIES TO lcd ONLY AND IS VARY RARE THESE DAYS



This is true. However we are looking at images on film and video, and that changes the ball game quite a bit.

Not really. This just says that progressive is better, which is my point, which you missed, as usual



With progressive sources, interlaced artifacts are minimal, and at normal viewing distances not even visible. It is only when you start with lower resolutions(like 480i) that this becomes a problem. Once again, the response times of panels is so slow that inspite of the fact the resolution stays constant in the panel, the blurring motion we see with our eyes erases that advantage. Secondly SMALL CRT's that are 1080i have little better than 600 lines. Larger CRT based RPTV however can process up to 1100 lines. When I bought my Toshiba before the upgrade, it was able to clearly show 1100 lines of resolution. You are trying to create an absolute, when there are variables to consider.

Interlace artifacts are not "minimal" with progressive, THEY DONT EXIST
This is because they are INTERLACE artifacts. GOD, what a maroon.
How do you have interlace artifacts with a PROGRESSIVE image, fool?
And more "blurring" nonsense about panels, which has nothing to do with the topic at hand
And there are no "variables" in the rules of nature. IN 150 YEARS YOU'LL BE DEAD, THATS AN ABSOLUTE ALSO.
And if youi ever think any kind of CRT could show 1100 lines of rez you are delusional



Because the processing power in televisions have not gotten powerful enough to deliver 1080p, not some inherent issues with 1080i specifically. 720p is half the information than 1080i, so your standings are a little off. When our eyes can blink faster than a television can refresh, then you may have an arguement. It can't. We don't blink 30 or 60 times a second do we?

1080i is being abandoned because it is inferiour to progressive formats, and the stores are full of sets that "have the power" to process" 1080p.
Sony has a model that is not only 1080p but 120 hz

When networks were going HD joe kane started a "progressive" movement, trying to tout the advantages of progressive. He got ABC to broadcast their fare in 720p (which they still do).[/quote}

Since ABC main programming is sports events, it was natural for them to choose 720p. However this choice does not consider the response times of most panels. Also, 720p panels have a hard time with short transitions in the greyscale. They can do black to white fairly well, but transitions WITHIN the greyscale are not handle without smearing, or the total enablility to finely render them.

Your opinion, not demostrated in any 720p set I have seen

We don't look at films frame by frame do we? Interlace artifacts are only a problem from low rez interlaced sources. Since HD on disc is progressive by nature, artifacting is minimal when deinterlacing is well done. 1080i is not necessary anymore because we now have the processing power to do 1080p. There is nothing inherently wrong with 1080i when well done. However this same processing power issue is why most panels sold in 2005 where 720p. That along with the fact that manufacturing techniques did not allow packing pixels any closer without losing substantial brightness. Once again, we do not look at single frames, and we cannot blink faster than the refresh rate. A 1080i television can paint each field faster than we can discern it. That is why the image does NOT lose resolution during movement during NORMAL viewing. You have to create a special circumstance to make what you say correct.

Again more talk about deinterlacing progressive.
And we do look at a film a "frame at a time" they just run so fast they give the illusion of movement.
And whats "wrong" with 1080l, LIKE 480I, IS that its a "gimmick, a way to appear to be giving more than you are, sending 540 line fields one at a time and resticing them in the set.
With progressive formats you get an entire frame, you are basically arguing that a 540 line field is MORE than a 720 frame, which is idiotic even for you.
And interlace artifacts do show up, like for instance do you know that you lose half of the res when theres movement? Apparrently not



480i is no longer a referenced source for imaging. In the area of HD for broadcast its 720p or 1080i. 720p is perfect for sports, 1080i is better for everything else. When 1080p is brought into the picture 1080i represents all of the information, and 720p is half.

Total nonsense. 1080i represents all of the information thats sent, which is half the information of a 1080p picture
720p represents all of the information that is sent, the resolution just isnt as high.
And if you go by frame then 1080i is sharper, but you dont send a 1080i frame,
you send two 540 fields that are joined together in the set.
720 is larger than 540, not surprized you dont know that


And by upscaling a 480p source to 1080i, with good deinterlacing artifacts are minimal or non existant.

Again, no



You are obviously not understanding what you are reading. Resolution only drops if we move the picture slowly(we don't watch anything like that), or we blink faster than the refresh rate(we cannot physically do). Most examples of interlace artifacts come from the transition of 480i to 1080i. Since most DVD players progressively scan the image before it leaves the player, this kinds of artifacts are reduced as well. When you talk about sources such as bluray(1080p native) then this is not an issues at all from normal viewing distances.


Of course not because at 1080p blu is progressive, WHICH IS WHAT I AM SAYING



You have to be able to keep this information in context and with caveates intact. It is not as cut and dry as you have tried to make it. We have not even bought scanning rates or 3:2 pulldown into the picture either.

tell a physicist that there are "cavetes" to the laws of nature.
What we know about it changes, BUT IT DOESNT

Not correct. When two signals of match amplitude and frequency are combined, they are in phase and that increases volume. When the two signals are equal in amplitude, but out of phase, they cancel each other out. When two waves crash together in phase, the wave gets higher. When two waves crash together out of phase, the wave loses height. When two identical signals arrive at a microphone at two different times, this creates a cancellation. When the two signals arrive at the mike in phase, they become additive. Your explaination without the detail is incomplete.

Phase might have something to do with sound, but mix two freqs together and you get the difference, if they are identical you get a canceletion.
They built millions of radios that work on this principle , its called hetrodyning



Noise cancellation is based on the theory of antiphase signals cancelling out each other. So you have your headphones that are emiting a signal from the speaker, and you have a microphone outside of the ear piece analyzing the ambient information around the headphone. It generates a signal of equal amplitude, but out of phase with the main signal, and that cancels out the ambient signal. It is VERY important that the antiphase signal is of equal amplitude to the in phase main signal or the effect will be lessened in effectiveness.

Its not a "theory", its a FACT

It is clear that you are not completely understand what you are reading because you are missing all of the detail. The devil is in the details.

I understand what YOU'RE posting, I just cant beleive that anyone can spout such nonsense.
As for the devil being in the details how can you tell with that low rez crap you watch?

And this is my LAST response to your nonsense, its a waste of time to argue with
someone who is so clueless he talks about interlace artifacts from a PROGRESSIVE
signal
Not banging my head into the wall anymore, spread you gibberish all you want, others are going to have to figure out you're full of it.
And I think most have