| Author |
Thread: Question about upscaling to 1920x1080 with SXRD |
    
New member Username: Atmcube
Post Number: 1
Registered: Jan-07
|
| Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2007 - 01:17 pm: |
|
I recently bought the 60" Sony SXRD (KDS60a2000) and it is beautiful. I was under the impression that all programming would be upconverted to "FullHD" 1920x1080 as long as I had an HDMI connection. I notice on my screen display that when I watch my shows they all say 1080i. Is that because my Set Top Box is at 1080i? My service is through Verizon FiOS and I read somewhere that my box is doing the converting, thus preventing my TV from upconverting. Is this true? If so, what are my options to get 1920x1080 content if my STB doesn't have pass through mode? I would much rather use the $3000 dollar scaler in my Sony than the one in my crappy Motorola STB. Also, not sure if it's called upscaling or upconverting. I appreciate any and all feedback. |
|
Relevant Product Info
|
|
Silver Member Username: Tapeman
Post Number: 453
Registered: Oct-06
|
| Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 05:01 pm: |
|
No broadcast higher than 1080i at present time
It is for future application |
Silver Member Username: Formerly_fx
Dallas,
Tx
Post Number: 221
Registered: Mar-06
|
| Posted on Saturday, February 03, 2007 - 10:12 pm: |
|
Alan,
All Sony's display the incoming signal data, your display is upconverting to 1080p, do not fret. As King wrote their is no 1080p broadcast transmission, never will be in my lifetime either.
The scalers on most STB's are ore than adequate anthought your SXRD likely has a better scaling chip. You can always manually change the stb output to the native channel resolution every time you change channels if it is freaking you out that much.
xvxvxvx |
Silver Member Username: Tapeman
Post Number: 479
Registered: Oct-06
|
| Posted on Sunday, February 04, 2007 - 03:55 pm: |
|
Not yet
I expect 1440p as well as 1880p
It is memory capacity at this time |
Silver Member Username: Formerly_fx
Dallas,
Tx
Post Number: 226
Registered: Mar-06
|
| Posted on Sunday, February 04, 2007 - 06:21 pm: |
|
King,
Am not sure what you mean by memory capacity. The reasons that 1080p is not on the horizon are basically twofold:
1. All the current broadcast gear owned by the networks except for a handfull of 1080p handheld HD cameras are built and designed to operate only at 1080i or 720p.
2. The available spectrum bandwidth is limited. Sat transponders, cable company optical transmission lines and all the related equipment required to retransmit the HD data, all are currently near overload and designed for the lower resolutiuons.
It will take billions of dollars to replace all the associated gear in order to transmit 1080p, therefore if I live 20 more years I may be fortunate to get a glimpse of the potential. Naturally by then 3D holographs will be the next big thing. 
xvxvxvx |
Silver Member Username: Tapeman
Post Number: 482
Registered: Oct-06
|
| Posted on Monday, February 05, 2007 - 12:05 pm: |
|
- Memory is bandwidth
Memory capacity, bandwidth transmission, processing speed, all limiting one another.
When transmit analog frequency in G Hz that contains digital video broadcast it is sampled in form of digital binary e.g. Memory storage
and memory is on going Capacity that is tremendously growing as you and I speak.
20 years ago computers were only 1, 4, 5M cycles per seconds and memory went from 64k and 256k byte to 1,2,4,8 GByte.
I think you see my point by now.
You maybe right about taking long to develop, but it will get there
Cameras already in 1880p, 1440p, 1080p.
Also I do think competition may speed it up beyond a dream.
I guess we have to wait and see.
Once it takes shape from this transition, the sky is the limit. |
Silver Member Username: Formerly_fx
Dallas,
Tx
Post Number: 227
Registered: Mar-06
|
| Posted on Monday, February 05, 2007 - 03:47 pm: |
|
King,
Memory is entirely unrelated to bandwidth capacity in regards to HD transmission, or in regards to any data transmission medium for that matter.
xvxvxvx |
Silver Member Username: Tapeman
Post Number: 501
Registered: Oct-06
|
| Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2007 - 03:59 pm: |
|
Does this mean that there is no encoding involved?
HD is encoded in MPEG-4 by all standard broadcast providers. MPEG is digital and that is binary representation to video signal indeed is memory
But they do transmit in an invisible high beam in a form of Analog Carrier in GHz measured in DBW.
In a simple explanation it is a digital wave within an analog carier wave. You can research so on your own if you don't believe me. |
Silver Member Username: Formerly_fx
Dallas,
Tx
Post Number: 229
Registered: Mar-06
|
| Posted on Friday, February 09, 2007 - 11:38 am: |
|
"MPEG is digital and that is binary representation to video signal indeed is memory."
Stating this is about as relevant as me stating that bananas are yellow, it has nothing to do with the topic either. Give up, face the truth, memory capacity has nothing to do with why 1080p will not be transmitted in the near future.
xvxvxvx |
|
|
Silver Member Username: Tapeman
Post Number: 517
Registered: Oct-06
|
| Posted on Friday, February 09, 2007 - 11:53 am: |
|
So resolution has nothing to do with memory capacity?
Not only it does during encoding compression is another factor
I'll give you an example:
Your photo camera if it says (1-frame) 5 MPixel or 6 Mpixel this is JPEG with 2 different sizes
1080p is pixel
1080i is interlaced (means enhanced) |
Silver Member Username: Formerly_fx
Dallas,
Tx
Post Number: 230
Registered: Mar-06
|
| Posted on Friday, February 09, 2007 - 02:42 pm: |
|
"So resolution has nothing to do with memory capacity?"
Correct, you really should cry uncle.
1080p stands for progressive not pixel. Compression is done to decrease bandwidth usage, this is correct but it has no bearing on whether or not 1080p will ever be broadcast, those limitations are set as I wrote above by the equipment owned and operated by the broadcast stations (FOX, NBC, CBS, ABC, ESPN, HDNET, INHD and so on. None of them are capabable or transmitting in 1080p no matter how well the compression is performed or even if you had infinite memory capacity.
xvxvxvx |
Silver Member Username: Tapeman
Post Number: 528
Registered: Oct-06
|
| Posted on Friday, February 09, 2007 - 04:37 pm: |
|
You got the progressive right
HD format is 1080x720 in pixels in NTSC
pixels is memory
Define to me Progressive? if you know anything about progressive!!!
I do this for a living I encode in both MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 it is Digital Memory. Stored in Memory cells transmitted in Analog waves. You are 40 years behind buddy
This is like telling Paul McCatrney someone else sings "yesterday" and "Hey Jude" songs
You explain to me what compression, you know nothing about neither memory nor compression or digital in genral.
Stick with Scooby Doo that is on Cartoon Network |
Silver Member Username: Formerly_fx
Dallas,
Tx
Post Number: 231
Registered: Mar-06
|
| Posted on Friday, February 09, 2007 - 05:50 pm: |
|
Considering everything I have posted in this thread is correct and everything you have posted has been either incorrect or irrelevant to the discussion at hand I hereby place you on ignore.
PS: There is zero chance you know the first thing about electronics as evidenced by your posting history.
xvxvxvx |
Silver Member Username: Tapeman
Post Number: 530
Registered: Oct-06
|
| Posted on Saturday, February 10, 2007 - 02:44 pm: |
|
Actually I just found out that bandwidth is measured in Giga bananas per second according to your electronics
go read about bandwidth you might learn something
You are in the wrong forum.
I teach Electronics for 15 years perhaps before you were born.
Arn't you the same one who challenged LK about satellites. now I know who you are |
