It is currently Thu Oct 30, 2025 7:25 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
Sanjay
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2003 10:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 1:14 pm
Posts: 2256
Location: National Capital Region (India)
ali wrote:
Another area of confusion is what is commonly referred to as HDTV, especially in America. HDTV by specification is 16:9 - always a widescreen screen.

That is true and the reason for this confusion stems from the fact that Digital TV is not neccesarily 16:9 (widescreen). The US screwed up in that they have allowed Digital TV to be in 4:3 standard or 16:9 widescreen.
Top
 Profile  
 
spike86
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2003 4:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2002 4:29 pm
Posts: 672
Location: NY
Quote:
Of the two TV sets spike86 posted - only the Toshiba is a true HDTV, the Samsung is referred to HDTV-ready - as it can accept some of the features of HDTV but not a true HDTV spec.


Actually they are both referred to as HDTV-ready because neither one of them have a HD tuner built-in.
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2003 4:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6146
Quick comment:

28" Widescreen is possible but I don't think there is any 16:9 Picture tube or LCD screen of this particular size.

My preferrence is for a 24" Sony Widescreen monitor. SONY, GDM-FW900 24". It is 1.6:1 (screen aspect ratio) though. Close enough to 16:9. I like this over any other widescreen TV as this is the only one, that I have seen in CRT tubes with actual 1920 RGB (1920 red, 1920 green and 1920 blue) stripes capable of actual 1920 x 1440 points. Also, it's capable of 72 Hz refresh rate at 1920 x 1080, an improvement over 2-3 film frame display sequence @ 60 Hz changing to 3-3 @ 72 Hz for smooth film viewing. (Plasmas and other monitors can do 72 Hz as well, but not real 1920 x 1080)

It's pricy though, as compared to what a 21" 4:3 monitor but a lot cheaper and better than a 32" plasma (max avail pixels at present is 1366 x 768 or 1024 x 1024; compare it with 1920 x 1440 of Sony CRT).

Rana



Edited By rana on 1048518472
Top
 Profile  
 
bhaskar
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2003 7:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2001 3:26 pm
Posts: 2253
Location: Birmingham
sknath wrote:

Quote:
Bhaskar I am certain, that a 28" TV here in North America doesnt constutute a Widescreen TV.

There are two types of WS Tv's.


Here is a description of widescreen TVs - ripped from hkfanatic.com:

Widescreen TV's are display devices that have an aspect ratio of 16:9 (1.78:1). There is a good reason for this aspect ratio. TV shows have a ratio of 1.33:1 and Cinemascope movies have a ratio of 2.35:1. These are the extreme values usually found in a movie/TV show. 16:9 maximizes the display area of both of these extreme values and that is where the 1.78:1 ratio comes from.

Widescreen TV's have 3 major methods for viewing different video sources: Normal, Zoom (aka: Theaterwide [Toshiba]), Stretch (aka: Full [Toshiba], 16x9).


Quote:
Try playing a progressively encoded HDDCS (DEI) and a pathetic interlaced DVD (or even pseudo-progressive one) from ur DVD player.


I've never doubted the fact that DEI make/made the best Indian DVDs on the market, and I have bought several DEi DVDs even if I didn't really think much of the movie (stupid of me I know). And I accept the problems you have mentioned with interlaced DVDs. But, would you rather have an anamorphic interlaced DVD with proper 5.1 sound (eg similar to what Ayngaran are making), or a cropped, non-anamorphic progressive DVD with pseudo 5.1 (similar to what Super Digital put out in their early days?)
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2003 7:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
I humbly/respectfully DISAGREE!with Nath etc!! on Widescreen TV!

Widescreen is just sCREEN SIZE/Orientation related term, even a 17 inch, Tube/LCD/etc can be WIDESCREEN...TV, DISPLAY!!

You can ARGUE! on HDTV...that if NOT WIDESCREEN or if does not have TUNER(HDTV) built in is NOT HDTV, but WIDESCREEN is DIFFERENT from HDTV..Imho, Bhaskar's tv if in 16x9 size is WIDESCREEN>>
Top
 Profile  
 
sknath
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 4:17 pm
Posts: 2853
Location: Canada
Okay folks is this what you are trying to define that

A widescreen Tv is one that if a movie is encoded with an aspect ration of 16 x 9 anmorphic, it will display the entire image on ur TV screen , without the horizontal black bars ?

Please clarify !

Bhaskar I would still prefer a progressively encoded DVD and as for Ayngaran, they have wisely decided to switch to progressively encoding their DVDs ! (Unlike the other pathetic companies like EROS, VS etc.)...
The reason is simple. I want to hold onto my DVDs for a long time. I dont want to invest money on them if and when a High-Def version appears. Instead I would like to enjoy my DVD on a widescreen HDTV, as their prices will continue to drop drastically in the near future ! (give or take 1-2 years)..

Present day Interlaced TVs would become obselete like the ubiquitous VHS !
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2003 3:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6146
bhaskar wrote:

would you rather have an anamorphic interlaced DVD with proper 5.1 sound (eg similar to what Ayngaran are making), or a cropped, non-anamorphic progressive DVD with pseudo 5.1 (similar to what Super Digital put out in their early days?)


You forgot another category.

"Would you rather prefer a copy (not an exact replicate) made from SD early days DVD with a new compressionn at very high bit rate (>7 mbps) but turning interlaced from a low bit rate progressive DVD??"


Lately I have obtained some of those, extremely hard to find, early day SD Progressive DVDs (thanks to my exremely helpful friend) and believe me they are better than the category I listed above. I'm very happy with them. One or two of those titles have been re-released by EROS now, with perhaps proper DD5.1 and anamorphic but interlaced (Yes Boss, ---). I have yet to see those DVDs.

If they are AYN standard anamorphic interlaced proper DD5.1, I will prefer that.
But, if they are EROS standard anamorphic interlaced even if proper DD5.1, they are not for me.

Remember, we are talking of Digital Video Disc (DVD) and not Digital Audio Disc (CD).

Rana



Edited By rana on 1048476196
Top
 Profile  
 
bhaskar
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2003 8:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2001 3:26 pm
Posts: 2253
Location: Birmingham
sknath wrote:
Bhaskar I would still prefer a progressively encoded DVD and as for Ayngaran, they have wisely decided to switch to progressively encoding their DVDs ! (Unlike the other pathetic companies like EROS, VS etc.)...
The reason is simple. I want to hold onto my DVDs for a long time. I dont want to invest money on them if and when a High-Def version appears. Instead I would like to enjoy my DVD on a widescreen HDTV, as their prices will continue to drop drastically in the near future ! (give or take 1-2 years)..

Present day Interlaced TVs would become obselete like the ubiquitous VHS !

I understand that you want your DVDs to last (for when you upgrade your system) - but you haven't really answered my question. I'm not talking about any companies going progressive, and the companies I mentioned were just for example. The main question was - bad progressive DVD or good interlaced DVD?
Top
 Profile  
 
bhaskar
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2003 8:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2001 3:26 pm
Posts: 2253
Location: Birmingham
rana wrote:
You forgot another category.

"Would you rather prefer a copy (not an exact replicate) made from SD early days DVD with a new compressionn at very high bit rate (>7 mbps) but turning interlaced from a low bit rate progressive DVD??"

:rolleyes: :hmm:
Top
 Profile  
 
spike86
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2003 3:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2002 4:29 pm
Posts: 672
Location: NY
Everyone wants to get their money's worth. So when the msrp of most Indian dvds are similar to Hollywood dvds, why wouldn't you hope to get the best bang for your buck.

Most Indian dvds are mastered in USA and there is no sorry ass excuse for producing crappy dvds.

It's all about the picture quality. Given a choice between a crappy progressive dvd or good interlaced dvd, I would choose the dvd with the best quality. But people ask for progressive dvds because they want to get the best picture possible from their dvds. And why settle for a less-quality technology when you can have much better. :rolleyes:
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2003 4:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
Yep, spiky, Bang for ur bucks, is NEGLIGIBLE for HINDI DVD PRODUCTIONS....BE ORIGINAL< BE SAVVY< PROMOTE AND PATRONIZE QUALITY...and ONLY BUY BEI dvds!!! :baaa: My humble suggestion..
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2003 4:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6146
What kind of PRESENT STANDARD interlaced DVDs are better than progressive DVDs:

If a sequence was shot with:
48 frames per sec in the case of I-max
50 video fields per sec (PAL)
60 video fields per sec (NTSC)

Interlaced encoding is fine. Note that you are getting, in case of NTSC, images recorded at 48 to 60 distinct times. You can not and must not combine two fields together to give you 24 to 30 images per second.

Now, if only 24 distinct images were recorded (film) per second, then wouldn't you want double the resolution from same resources. It is possible to reconstruct the original 24 frames of the film from properly done Film to NTSC Cine-tel. Whether flags are set or if flags aren't set but fields are repeated as required, we can reconstruct the original film frames back.

The way Indian DVDs are being released these days are where 24 frames are being equally spread over 50 or 60 fields and then 50 changed to 60, or vice versa, again field averaged (equally spread). You do get your normal NTSC or PAL resolution but nothing extra, despite the fact that originally less than half motion frames existed which have been thoroughly mixed up (Khichdi) in 60 blurry fields.

Rana
Top
 Profile  
 
sknath
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2003 5:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 4:17 pm
Posts: 2853
Location: Canada
spike86 wrote:
Everyone wants to get their money's worth. So when the msrp of most Indian dvds are similar to Hollywood dvds, why wouldn't you hope to get the best bang for your buck.

Most Indian dvds are mastered in USA and there is no sorry ass excuse for producing crappy dvds.

It's all about the picture quality. Given a choice between a crappy progressive dvd or good interlaced dvd, I would choose the dvd with the best quality. But people ask for progressive dvds because they want to get the best picture possible from their dvds. And why settle for a less-quality technology when you can have much better. :rolleyes:

Bhaskar, I think spike has answered your question :)
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group