DVDs spur the need for HDTV...

[llbbl]

I just thought I would do my part and post a thread where we all can discuss this topic. :)

http://www.designtechnica.com/article.php?sid=2131

I thought it was interesting and couldn't find any current thread that related exactly to what we might describe in this thread.

What is the Max res of DVD? What is the Min / Max res of most TV's with HDTV ? Does the need for Digital television have anything to do with a totally unrelated video recording format?

It is clear that the MPIAA doesn't want anyone recording TV to DVD. While the existance of DVD's has changed the lowest resolution of TV's in the past couple of years, it will not play a essential role for the push towards a HDTV standard.

[Ioman]

My understanding is that currently the max resolution for DVD is a 480P progressive signal. While the resolution is not the highest (regular S-Video is about the same if not a little higher) its the "progressive" signal which would cause the sales of HDTVs to increase. To me, I think an interlaced signal of this resolution looks better than a progressive scan signal. I have an HDTV at home (Mitsubishi 16:9 55" HDTV) and I think the TV does an excellent job converting my regular DVD player (non-progressive) to a progressive scan signal. I await the day when DVD's are in 720P format...

[llbbl]

One problem that I am having is that I am getting progressive scan as you talk about it confused with progressive scan DVD players. I will have to look into it more. Time for a nap ;)

[ruri]

What is the Max res of DVD?

It's 480p, and only 480p. I don't believe you can make a DVD with any other resolution, at least I haven't been able to figure out how. I mean, with ProCoder, I can transcode to any MPEG2 resolution I want, but only 480p will be recognized by a DVD player. For comparison, VCD is 240i (and I'm using interlaced liberally here)



What is the Min / Max res of most TV's with HDTV ?

That's rather subjective, as there are many different variety of HDTV formats, including 480p, which IMHO, is NOT HDTV. Many believed that to be called HDTV, a monitor must handle at least 720p and preferably 1080p as well.

Does the need for Digital television have anything to do with a totally unrelated video recording format?

No. Digital TV is as much a technological solution in search of a problem as it is a political one. Currently, analog TV consumes a huge amount of bandwidth (I mean, you can get from channel 2 all the way to UHF channel 83). The wireless industry is salivating at all those bandwidth; the FCC is salivating at all those billion $$$ auction. Well, put 2 & 2 together...

[Ioman]

After thinking about this more, I kind of find it hard to beleive that DVDs can spur this much HDTV adoption. I honestly think people don't know what they are buying. It is very hard to tell the difference between a DVD player with progressive scan capabilites versus a DVD player without when they are both played on an HDTV television which will convert either signal to DVD anyways. Unless you are a videophile that know what to do, you are being sold a something where you cannot tell the difference.

[llbbl]

Thanks ruri for the info :)

"It's 480p, and only 480p."

It makes sense that they made it only one resoultion. That is the problem they are having with HDTV, deciding on a standard resolution. Maybe they came out with it too soon, before all the homes were ready capable of getting that kind of bandwidth. I'm not sure what the issue is, with why they couldn't decide on a standard right off. Maybe they are in the process of that now. DVD's had a intro phase also when not very many companies made the players and their was a considerable price difference compared to now. In marketing they teach you about a product life cycle and in comparison the DVD introduction followed that model alot closer than the HDTV introduction has

No. Digital TV is as much a technological solution in search of a problem as it is a political one. Currently, analog TV consumes a huge amount of bandwidth (I mean, you can get from channel 2 all the way to UHF channel 83). The wireless industry is salivating at all those bandwidth; the FCC is salivating at all those billion $$$ auction. Well, put 2 & 2 together...

Interesting. It is my hope that the FCC decides that some of that extra bandwidth should be devoted to a new breed of wireless devices. I think that will al the 2.4 GHz devices on the market that spectrum has become over used and unreliable. It would be nice if they could say that only this range can be used by wireless routers for the home and only this range by wireless telephone for the home. (just to name a few)

What kind of bandwidth do they need in the home to broadcast HDTV? It seems if they could get fiber to the sidewalk and gigabit to the home the latency when you switch the channels would be alot less. That is the big thing with satellite, flipping through channels just isn't the same as with the old 1-72 channel basic setup through the cable company.

Maybe they could mandate or buyout local service for everyone in the nation with all that money they would make from selling wireless. What a concept! An good way to spend our money...

[llbbl]

Here is the link to a quick explaination of the product life cycle.

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072410752/student_view0/chapter11/learning_objectives.html

[ruri]

I'm not sure what the issue is, with why they couldn't decide on a standard right off.

For the same reason why they can't agree on one DVD format, one memory format, one video format: intellectual property. No company wants to be dependent upon (and pay patent royalties to) another company; hence, each company wanted to push their own solutions. Eventually, somebody (usually the government) step in and mandate a solution. That, of course, takes time. We ARE talking about the government here.

It is my hope that the FCC decides that some of that extra bandwidth should be devoted to a new breed of wireless devices.

That's a given. The wireless companies are the one with enough deep pocket to bid for those bandwidth. I mean, few companies would want to take on the not-so-baby Baby Bell and ATT.

. I think that will al the 2.4 GHz devices on the market that spectrum has become over used and unreliable.

Absolutely. The new consumer spectrum is 5 GHz. Of course, it's simply a matter of time until that spectrum gets overused.



What kind of bandwidth do they need in the home to broadcast HDTV?

I don't know what kind of bandwidth is needed (which is dependent on what kind of HDTV format is used), but the FCC has given broadcaster 6MHz per channel. By comparison, analog TV takes up 4.2MHz per channel. The difference is that there are 82 analog channels!

Maybe they could mandate or buyout local service for everyone in the nation with all that money they would make from selling wireless. What a concept! An good way to spend our money...

That would never fly. Big Businesses that owned the US Government will never allow it. For those who think I'm being facetious, I have 4 letters for you (no, not that 4 letter): DMCA.

[Ioman]

Want to know what I find ironic? My 900MHz phone with Digital Spread Spectrum actually is more clear and has better range than any 2.4GHz phone I have used. I think it is because the 2.4 GHz spectrum is overused like you guys say. There is no reason for me to update my phone for a while.