| AndrewT |
Hi,
everyone is offering HDTV screens/receivers, but most have only 768 lines.
The old UHF (UK) standard terrestial tv were based on 625 line transmission.
Will 768 line give much improvement?
Why are the retailers offering so few screens/monitors that meet the 1080 line standard? and the few that do at such inflated cost.
What's the story? |
|
|
| Stocker |
| Welcome to America a couple of years ago. After 2009 when the mandated switch to HD comes, prices the world over will likely plummet and the higher resolution will become more common where it is the local standard. |
|
|
| hermanv |
The UK standard of 625 lines was based on an interlaced picture at 50Hz no less.
The HDTV sets you're speaking of are 780p (progressive not interlaced) a small increase in line count but a large increase in information content. Since the entire screen, not just half is updated 50/60 times per second the information content is about double.
HDTV also has 1920 (maximum) horizontal pixels, I think that calculates to a maximum bandwidth of 88MHz whereas the British PAL standard was limited to 4.25MHz bandwidth.
So the total amount of maximum available information (video detail) has increased by about 40 times. I keep using the word maximum because the HDTV standards do not require providers to use all the available bandwidth, but even if only half is used the eye is presented with roughly 10 times the information.
The TV has to scan at least twice as fast to keep up with the information flow and almost 3 times for 1080p, cost was a problem with CRTs, now with microdisplays, scan rate and information rate can be different if the designer so chooses. |
|
|
| dnsey |
Why not ask your local dealer for a demonstration?
Even at 768, the improvement is impressive; at 1080, it's breathtaking! |
|
|
| AndrewT |
Hi,
I'm still a bit lost here. So I might be reaching incorrect conclusions.
| quote: | | 780p (progressive not interlaced) a small increase in line count but a large increase in information content. Since the entire screen, not just half is updated 50/60 times per second the information content is about double. |
the difference between progressive and interlaced is not about information content. It is about preventing apparent flicker.
A progressive display at 100Hz contains the same detail as an interlaced screen that inserts the alternate line information on the first half and then fills in the other lines in the other half and the whole screen is refreshed at an effective 50Hz. but each half picture is displayed at an effective 100Hz. Thus avoiding flicker.| quote: | | 1920 (maximum) horizontal pixels |
I am asking about vertical resolution. I accept that 4/3 format contains less hroizontal information than 16/9 format.| quote: | | Why not ask your local dealer for a demonstration? |
where does the demonstrator obtain the 625 line display?
From terrestial transmission or a doctored DVD that is intended to SELL the advantages of HDTV?
Would the comparison be legitimate?
Would the demonstrator know if the signal was 768 or 1080 lines?
I note the use of 780p in a response but the HDTVs are being sold as 768. Are they compatible? |
|
|
| dnsey |
| quote: | | where does the demonstrator obtain the 625 line display? |
Most are using DVD; a few are now showing Sky.| quote: | | Would the comparison be legitimate? |
I think so. Of course, the material is designed to 'show off' the system, which is fair enough. Ask to see it in LD too for comparison.| quote: | | Would the demonstrator know if the signal was 768 or 1080 lines? |
I'd hope so:eek: If not, go somewhere else!| quote: | | I note the use of 780p in a response but the HDTVs are being sold as 768. Are they compatible? |
UK transmissions use 720 lines, so either of those will be capable of displaying the picture. |
|
|
| AndrewT |
so we are buying lower grade HDTV to display 720 lines rather than transmitting/receiving 625 lines.
Please help me overcome my (somewhat biassed) prejudice.
Expensive technology for the sake of lining the pockets of the manufacturers/retailers. Convince me. |
|
|
| pinkmouse |
| Higher res screens are more expensive, due to the high pixel failure rate in manufacture. Lower res screens cater for the budget end of the market. Buyer beware. ;) |
|
|
| D!g!TaL |
I'm not sure where the 780p came from ...
The only High Definition formats that I am aware of are based on 1080 lines (picture height) or 720 lines.
The 720p standard is actually 1280 pixels horizontal by 720 pixels vertical. The p stands for progressive scanning, which I think most people understand. I think this system has had some take up in the USA.
The 1080 system is 1920 pixels horizontal by 1080 pixels vertical, and can, depending on delivery requirements, be configured to be 24p, 25p, 50i, 30p, 60i, etc. This is the system currently implemented by, for example, Sky HD.
The 768 which Andrew queries arises because most 'HD Ready' screens are actually repackaged WXGA panels with a native resolution of 1366 x 768 pixels. Any video that has to be displayed on these screens has to be up-rezed from 720 x 576 (normal PAL) or down rezed from 1920 x 1080 HD. This, naturally has quite an impact on the quality.
These panels are also, I believe, by definition (no pun intended), progressively scanned - usually at a frequency between 70Hz to 80 Hz. This also requires, as part of the transcoding 'engine', a method of reformatting the motion information, to take account of a) interlace, and b) the difference in scanning frequency: e.g. 50i to 75p. This again, can have quite an impact on quality. The pixel response time on these screens can also sometimes be quite slow.
Some screens with a native resolution of 1920 x 1080 are becoming available in the UK. The difference in quality between these, and the inferior 1366 x 768 panels would make you choke!
Regards,
Ian. |
|
|
| philpoole |
Hi,
There is a lot of confusion with HDTV.
Firstly, you must bear in mind that with standard definition, of those 625 horizontal lines, 50 are not visible. These are used during the Vertical Blanking Interval, or VBI, to sync the TV to the top of the field/frame. Its also used to contain teletext and other things, if present.
So, SD is actually only 575i, if you like (its typical resolution is 720x576).
With progressive scan (and this is were I have been confused) you gain vertical resolution, and it is especially apparent with movement. Imagine a football being kicked and moving up the screen fast enough that the image between field is different (a field is and interlace field, a 50th of a second in the UK). If this happens, you lose detail.
Progressive scan improves this. I can't remember the figures, but its about an equivalent 20-30% improvement in 'apparent vertical resolution' - if you like.
So if you take these two factors into account, you're effectively comparing 575i to 864i.
Also, you must be aware that HDTV has a far greater colour resolution as well. So the colours are more realistic, and the higher pixel resolution makes colour graduation smoother.
I believe that even progressive scan is still 25 fps, but the refresh rate can change.
MPEG4/h264 compression is scalable, so the decoder in the HDSTB or HDDVD can target its output to either 720 or 1080 lines. There is no upscaling/downscaling required afterwards.
The improvement from 625 lines to 720p is great. It really looks good. But I have also seen 1080i as well, and the jump in quality is the same again.
1080 line broadcasts are already occuring, its just the TVs are too expensive to market in the UK at the moment.
Cheers,
Phil |
|
|
| AndrewT |
Hi,
thanks Digi & Phil.
Your explanations are making the picture clearer.
So 768 screens are a waste of money. Is that the correct conclusion?
575line to 720line is a significant improvement. right/wrong?
720line to 1080line is a significant improvement. right/wrong?
p is better than i for fast moving images. right/wrong?
HDTV transmissions will be viewable at best resolution on either 768screens or 1080screens since the compression is scaleable. right/wrong?
Why is it necessary to up rez a 720line image to 768line image?
Can this be over-ridden to display @ 720 and just leave 24blank lines at top & bottom. I want circular objects to remain circular.
I am sure there is more to add.
Keep it coming. |
|
|
| D!g!TaL |
| quote: | | So 768 screens are a waste of money. Is that the correct conclusion? |
You pay your money .....
Current price for a Sony KDL 46X2000 (1920x1080) is approx GBP3400
Current price for a Sony KDL 46S2010 (1366x768) is approx GBP2000
Personally I'm waiting for 1920x1080 to stabilise at a reasonable price.
Regards,
Ian |
|
|
| philpoole |
Personally, I'm waiting for all of it to stabilise in price :-)
There is a big difference between SD (625i) and 720p. There is also a big difference between 720p and 1080i, and of course (although you can't buy them cheaply) 1080p is cracking!
I don't think you'd miss the 48 missing lines. I think they'll end up under the cabinet work as overscan lines. They're not upscaled.
We have a 720p and a 1080i side by side at work, and the difference is stunning.
I think the best thing to do is expose yourself to some HD, this is getting easier in show rooms now. Bear in mind you'll need to be happy with SD performance too, HD can be quite revealing in that sense. HDTV kit is far from commodity, so there are huge differences between setups and needs a lot of reviewing.
Also beware, this is digital telly, even with HD, the compression ratios used greatly affect quality. I have seen some stunning pictures, but I have also seen some disappointing, highly compressed stuff too. Show room stuff might be better quality than what you might receive (but the Sky and BBC stuff to date looks good so far).
Cheers,
Phil |
|
|
| philpoole |
Sorry, forgot to add.
I don't think 720p is a waste of money.
I've seen some reasonable LG 42" plasmas reach the £1500 mark recently and, one day, that might be an affordable path to HD for me for instance (and then the next TV might be an affordable 1080i/p in a few years time).
I think I prefer a Sony or Panicsonic reach that sort of price though.
Again, its a waste of money to you if you buy one and you don;t think its much better than SD, but you have to assess that yourself by testing. |
|
|
| D!g!TaL |
Phil is absolutely correct when he states:
| quote: | | Also beware, this is digital telly, even with HD, the compression ratios used greatly affect quality. I have seen some stunning pictures, but I have also seen some disappointing, highly compressed stuff too. Show room stuff might be better quality than what you might receive (but the Sky and BBC stuff to date looks good so far). |
I agree that both Sky HD and BBC HD transmissions look very impressive on a 'proper' 1920x1080 screen - but BlueRay or HD DVD will be the highest quality HD that you'll see in the home. When these units become freely available, then comparative demos will become more valid in the retail situation.
Regards,
Ian |
|
|
| AndrewT |
Thankyou all, for your time and information.
I have a handle on the issues and will probably come back when I've watched the market settle in a bit. ;)
Bye for now. |
|
|
| Stocker |
| quote: | Originally posted by AndrewT
Expensive technology for the sake of lining the pockets of the manufacturers/retailers. Convince me. |
It also benefits whoever owns the airwaves. Digital HD broadcasts contain more data but take less bandwidth to broadcast than analog signals. In the USA, our heroes in Congress are probably salivating thinking of who will get the biggest bribe to be able to buy that broadcast bandwidth. |
|
|
| philpoole |
I agree there is a lot of money in digital TV, I see very little of it indeed, but at least it gives me a job I suppose.
At least this pocket lining can't last forever. For instance, standard definition STBs are now commodity, just like DVD players. The margins are terrible.
This will happen to HD in 10 years time - when the next big thing is talked about. |
|
|
| AndrewT |
Hi,
if my new (now one year old) TV has to wait ten years to be replaced I will probably not be able to see the improvement that HDTV can bring. |
|
|
| Guy Grotke |
Be careful when you just compare "resolution" of NTSC/PAL versus HDTV formats. The number of lines & horizontal pixels being quoted for the Standard Definition (SD) formats are the luminance resolution (IE. white versus black). The number of color pixels that can be encoded on a single scan line are MUCH MUCH lower! (Do a little web searching and you will be stunned at just how low they are.)
I think the HD formats can have the color resolution at either 1/2 or 1/4 the luminance resolution. That is a vast improvement over SD, and the effect is stunning even with 720p.
I have a $700 US Vizio 32" LCD and a good UHF antenna & preamp. I am getting 32 different subchannels from Los Angeles (about 85 miles away) and the results are terrific. Some of the stations use 1080i and some use 720p, but even on the secondary subchannels where they center 480i 4:3 material between black side bars and scale it up to fit their equipment format I can still read the finest text fonts. That would be impossible with an SDTV. |
|
|
| D!g!TaL |
I understand what you're saying, Guy, regarding the 'resolution' of colour information within the PAL/NTSC system. These systems used the truncation of colour information as a sort of analogue video compression. All the digital video systems also use some form of sub-sampling for the colour information - 4:2:2 (Y:U:V) being the generally accepted standard, but 4:1:1 and 4:2:0 being adopted through the DV format - this is, after all, a form of data compression. The 'compression' or reduced bandwidth of the colour information has been implemented for a reason - the human perception of colour information, relative to the luminance information, is poor, and bandwidth savings which reflect this can be implemented.
The huge jump in visual quality, for me, is achieved through increased luminance resolution for HDTV - in the UK this is focussed on the 1920x1080i standard. The subjective quality when viewed on a native 1920x1080 screen is breathtaking, even with quite highly compressed footage.
Regards,
Ian |
|
|
| Guy Grotke |
I wasn't talking about the color depth. I was talking about the spatial resolution of screen areas being rendered into different colors.
I know the PAL color encoding is better than NTSC, but not much better. In NTSC, the color information is encoded using a 3.58 MHz carrier. The color saturation is represented by the amplitude and the color hue is represented by the phase relative to the initial color burst for each line. Since there are only around 140 carrier cycles per visible line, this limits the very best color resolution to 140 "color pixels" per line.
But this performance (if you can call it that!) is only achieved by using a higher resolution source (like digital satellite or DVD) and using S-video output. If you actually encode the signal into a composite NTSC signal, it gets worse. Encoding to RF is even worse than that. (Like around 53 color pixels per line!)
<140 color pixels per line looks okay as long as you have a small screen, sit at some distance, and have no small image objects (like text). These were all reasonable assumptions 40 years ago, but not today. This problem is the reason that color text is so unreadable on SD TVs: The colors bleed and smear into each other and they create false color fringes where the luminance and color area boundaries don't line up.
I do have a digital satellite settop box sending S-video to my TV, so I can see the very best that is possible with NTSC encoding. It looks pretty good, until they put some text on the screen. If I switch to OTA HD to see the same image, the text edges are perfect from 2 feet away from the screen. |
|
|
| hermanv |
I think "Micro" displays are capable of displaying the exact same number of color pixels as they are luminance (they have no black/white pixels).
So if you have a 1920 x 1080 TV you could display that many discrete color pixels. All you need is a source that has that many.
Now whether the video processing (engine) will pass that many pixels is a different question, I was speaking only of the raw display capabilites. |
|
|
| Guy Grotke |
If you drive a good monitor with a VGA signal that matches the native resolution of the monitor, then you will get color resolution identical to luminance resolution. The VGA interface does not even have a luminance signal, just red, green, and blue levels.
With an HDTV that has a native pixel resolution of 1920 by 1080, you might be able to drive it with a VGA signal from a computer or a high density DVD player, and get the same color resolution. But if you drive it with an Over The Air HDTV signal, you will get less. OTA HDTV formats contain one set of color information for each 2 by 2 or 2 by 4 block of luminance pixels. So the total number of color pixels is 1/4 or 1/8 the number of luminance pixels.
So for 1080i format you would get 259,200 or 518,400 color pixels, compared to about 12,720 on an OTA SD NTSC image. That is why HDTV looks so much better: 20 to 40 times as many color pixels on the screen. |
|
|
| AndrewT |
| Well, you are continuing my education, but I am not yet able to take it all in. |
|
|
| D!g!TaL |
| quote: | | So for 1080i format you would get 259,200 or 518,400 color pixels, compared to about 12,720 on an OTA SD NTSC image. That is why HDTV looks so much better: 20 to 40 times as many color pixels on the screen. |
DVB uses MPEG-2 compression, implementing a 4:2:2 chroma subsampling system. There is a good explanation here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4:2:0 |
|
|
| Arunkumar14_th |
Well, HDTV is not all that expensive.
I just bought a Philips Pixel Plus TV for Rs. 23500 (< $500 USD).
This is a 29" CRT that supports 1080p.
Only downside is that you dont get a HDMI or DVI input.
It has a high def Y,Pb,Pr input. But the Quality is just Outstanding.
Amazing Picture Clarity even at 480p standard DVD input.
It rocks at 100Hz or Prgressive Scan for normal SD Signals as well!
Follow this link for the specs:
http://www.consumer.philips.com/con..._94_IN_CONSUMER |
|
|
| D!g!TaL |
If anyone is keen to take the HiDef plunge ... i think the Toshiba 42WLT66, available online at Comet for GBP1299, is a bit of a bargain.
This is a full 1080i LCD screen, and currently cheaper than many inferior specced models.
Regards,
Ian |
|
|
| philpoole |
| quote: |
DVB uses MPEG-2 compression, implementing a 4:2:2 chroma subsampling system. There is a good explanation here:
|
DVB SD uses MPEG2 compression, and it can also be 4:2:0.
DVB HD can be in MPEG2, but typically (in order to save bandwidth) it will be h264 (MPEG4).
I'm not entirely certain what the luma/chroma ratio is, but its probably 4:2:2.
I know the STB chips capable of decoding HD often use 4:4:4 frame buffers for OSD.
But, to me also, one of the greater benefits, which is not marketed much (probably because it is harder to do than greater resolution) is the greater colour resolution. |
|
|
| D!g!TaL |
| quote: | I'm not entirely certain what the luma/chroma ratio is, but its probably 4:2:2.
DVB SD uses MPEG2 compression, and it can also be 4:2:0.
DVB HD can be in MPEG2, but typically (in order to save bandwidth) it will be h264 (MPEG4).
I'm not entirely certain what the luma/chroma ratio is, but its probably 4:2:2. |
Quite correct, Phil, although I believe both Sky HD and the BBC HD test transmissions are using the MPEG4/H.264 AVC running at 4:2:0.
Full specs for the uninitiated (although it's pretty heavy going) can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264
Regards,
Ian |
|
|
| BlackCatSound |
Isn't most HD still encoded in only 10 bits per colour sample though? Same as SD?
I'll have to check what our HD broadcast encoder uses, I've only dealt with our SD encoders in detail. |
|
|
| AAK |
| Your right HD uses 10b for luminance and each chroma channels. |
|
|
| D!g!TaL |
| quote: | | Isn't most HD still encoded in only 10 bits per colour sample though? Same as SD? |
In the UK, I think it's MPEG4/H.264 'High Profile' (HiP) 4:2:0 at 8 bits ber sample. Same bit depth as SD.
I don't believe anything above 8bit will be implemented for the domestic decoder.
Regards,
Ian |
|
|
| dnsey |
| If you've never seen it, it's very easy to arrange a 'chroma only' display on a standard set. The lack of definition is then very obvious, but when integrated with the luma information an optical illusion takes place which increases the apparent detail (I guess the brain defines the colour boundaries according to the B/W picture, using boundary-seeking algorithms). It's sometimes easy to forget just how much video depends on the brain's expecting to see a 'normal' moving image. HDTV reduces that dependency somewhat, and therein lies its benefit. |
|
|
| Mark A. Gulbrandsen |
| quote: | | The lack of definition is then very obvious, but when integrated with the luma information an optical illusion takes place which increases the apparent detail |
I could characterize NTSC as being somewhat the same... the chroma channels if viewed seperately don't look very detailed but bring in the limunance and it adds the snap to the image.
IMHO so far HDTV has been a step backwards in broadcast image quality. Overall the image looks better on initial viewing but after viewing a while you see how it begins to fall apart. 720P definately wins as the better of the two. They still have a long way to go with this stuff though.... When we actually start broadcasting 1080P then they may be on to something good.... That I'm afraid is a loooong time away.
Mark |
|
|
| D!g!TaL |
| quote: | | The lack of definition is then very obvious, but when integrated with the luma information an optical illusion takes place which increases the apparent detail (I guess the brain defines the colour boundaries according to the B/W picture, using boundary-seeking algorithms). |
This is true. We were always given the rather corny analogy of trying to distinguish the exact colour of thread from a single width of it - quite difficult for the human optical system to discern this. Only when multiple widths are laid side by side (e.g. on a bobbin) does the colour become clear.
This has always been a 'useful' weakness in the human perception of colour for the engineer to exploit. Using the 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 subsampling system provides useful savings in digital data rates. Data compression in the area least noticable to the human eye.
This effect was also exploited in the PAL and NTSC analogue colour systems where the colour bandwidth was severely restricted (to about 1 MHz). Again useful analogue data 'compression'.
Interestingly, I believe the first 'data' compression system introduced in television was the introduction of field interlace - effectively allowing double the frame rate (50Hz UK, 60Hz US) in the same analogue (RF) bandwidth as 25 or 50 fps.
Regards,
Ian |
|
|
| D!g!TaL |
| quote: | | When we actually start broadcasting 1080P then they may be on to something good.... That I'm afraid is a loooong time away. |
Maybe not. Research by the BBC (I think) suggests that better picture quality at lower data rates can be achieved by adopting 1080/50p instead of 1080/50i. It would appear that having to accomodate the interlaced structure within the data compression algorithm is now acting against the very reason it was introduced.
Regards,
Ian |
|
|
| AndrewT |
Hi,
this all seems to be falling into place.
I started out thinking that 1080 must be better than 768 lines.
Then realised that 1080i when divided by 1.6 effectively gives a similar resolution to 768 for moving pictures.
Now that the (software) producers are picking up that 1080p is better than 1080i and that more programming may become available at 768p and 1080p, it looks like waiting for this (new to UK) technology to settle down for a year or two may help make the decision easier, when the HDTV, +software, +my bank account are in synchronisation.
I shall keep in the sidelines meantime.
Thankyou all for your expertise and links (even the complicated ones). |
|
|
| BlackCatSound |
IIRC Sky and the beeb are going to use 1080p25 for most HD and 720p50 for sports.
The datarate for raw 1080p50 is just silly!
But in reality its all rather academic as its put through the MPEG grinder and then stuffed down as little bandwidth as they can get away with to maximise profit by cramming in more channels. |
|
|
| Mark A. Gulbrandsen |
| quote: | | I started out thinking that 1080 must be better than 768 lines. |
I did too. Just watch a foot ball game and the difference is immediately obvious. There are good things about each of the formats in use in the U.S. but fast motion 1080I 60 falls apart immediately into a mess of pixelization. The US 720P 60 system is vastly superior to 1080i and does not fall apart into pixelization like the 1080i system does.
If you think the bit rate for 1080p is crazy the bit rate for the 4K Sony digital cinema projector is around 360gb per second!! 2K Digital cinema is a cool 26GB per second max running JPEG 2000. Both use variable bit rates and the rates I posted are the maximum rates. The Sony requires 8- HDSDI interconnect cables while 2K DC requires just two.
Mark |
|
|
| D!g!TaL |
| quote: | | The datarate for raw 1080p50 is just silly! But in reality its all rather academic as its put through the MPEG grinder and then stuffed down as little bandwidth as they can get away with to maximise profit by cramming in more channels. |
Indeed, the eye-watering 3Gbps required for raw 1080/50p acquisition is posing a major technical headache for the industry.
However, the MPEG4/H.264 AVC does produce impressive results at fairly modest bitrates - 40Mbps (BlueRay) 30Mbps (HD-DVD) and around 15Mbps for DVB.
I've viewed many of the HD trailers available on the Apple website. They are encoded at around 10Mbps. Viewed on a 46 inch 1080 Sony LCD at 23.98P, the results are astonishing. All with 5.1 surround thrown in!
Of course the content of these trailers is generally very flattering to the system - the true test for broadcast HD is live sports coverage were fast action coupled with dynamic camera coverage often shows up the weaknesses of the data compression at lower data rates.
Regards,
Ian |
|
|
| AAK |
Hi Mark,
Where I work we have two 4K Sony projectors. I've been working as a video engineer for nearly 15 years developing video compression systems based on Wavelets (similar to JPEG2000), and ultra high resolution cameras for government and commercial applications. Our ultra high resolution cameras have a standard 2K HDSDI view finder output, and two pseudo HDSDI outputs for 4K at 30p bayer pattern. We then use an external display box that interpolates the bayer pattern's two greens, red, and blue to full resolution 3840 x 2160. It's then interleaved and divided into four 1080i HDSDI quadrants as required by the Sony projector. The image as you can imagine is stunning. I guess with DCI nearly complete we may see 4K in theaters in the near future. I know the movie industry is betting big time that digital cinema will get people back in theaters. After seeing what 4K looks like, i agree.
Just wanted to add my two cents. I've been following the audio forums for more than two years now. It's refreshing to discuss some video.
Best regards,
Al |
|
|
| Mark A. Gulbrandsen |
The UHDTV system was demoed in Los Vegas at the NAB convention earlier this year.
Mark |
|
|
| Mark A. Gulbrandsen |
| quote: | | I know the movie industry is betting big time that digital cinema will get people back in theaters. After seeing what 4K looks like, i agree. |
Hi Al,
The majority of the systems deployed in Cinemas will be 2K DLP based systems built by Barco, Christie and NEC. The Sony still is operating in a brightness realm that is to low for very large cinema screens which is what it is intended for... only 15K lumens maximum while the NEC 2K DLP based propjector will do 28,000 continous all day long if needed, its even been put into one Drive Inn so far! Sony has had MAJOR problem getting their 4K projector running consistantly in the field and it has yet to even run at 4K resolution in a cinema! The SXRD chips are VERY heat sensitive and is the main reason JVC pulled out of the D-Cinema market completely...ditto for the Kodak 3K projector which was demoed at Showest about 3 years ago. I was just at Showeast in Orlando and they blew big time a sneak showing of "Happy Feet". Sony's reputation in the cinema industry is already really bad with the poor performance and very early demise of the SDDS digital sound system. Then there are the laptop batteries and all the problems with playstation 2. Sony is really not having a good year this time around..... Plus even on a good day they are an awful company to deal with... very dealer unfriendly!
Mark |
|
|
|
