Demystifying 1080p
Tags: HDTV, LCD, Plasma
Pete Putnam, also known as the HDTVexpert has a great article noting the lack of 1080p programming in today's high-definition TV market, and the challenges associated with actually getting any TV to display a 1080p signal without it getting compromised along the way. My favorite quote:
The article is definitely worth reading. But I think it misses an essential point: 1080p is a marketing tool as well as a technology description, and a lot of consumers think it is worth paying a premium for "future-proof" technology. Even if they can never use it, they may be willing to buy it to avoid buyer's remorse in the future. And with today's HDTV scalers, extra pixels won't go to waste, even if they can't be used to their full advantage.
If nothing else, this all proves that free markets and consumers are better equipped to judge what technologies are worth than regulatory agencies. After all, the HDTV spec says nothing about 1080p -- this specification is entirely a product of innovation and the willingness of companies to speculate on technology. Unlike in the Federal Communications Commission, every consumer has the right to vote with their wallets -- and that's a good thing.
Pete Putnam, also known as the HDTVexpert has a great article noting the lack of 1080p programming in today's high-definition TV market, and the challenges associated with actually getting any TV to display a 1080p signal without it getting compromised along the way. My favorite quote:
First off, there is no 1080p HDTV transmission format. There is a 1080p/24 production format in wide use for prime time TV shows and some feature films. But these programs must be converted to 1080i/30 (that'’s interlaced, not progressive scan) before airing on any terrestrial, satellite, or cable TV network.
What'’s that, you say? Those 1080p/24 could be broadcast as a digital signal? That's true, except that none of the consumer HDTV sets out there would support the non-standard horizontal scan rate required. And you sure wouldn'’t want to watch 24Hz video for any length of time; the flicker would drive you crazy after a few seconds.
The article is definitely worth reading. But I think it misses an essential point: 1080p is a marketing tool as well as a technology description, and a lot of consumers think it is worth paying a premium for "future-proof" technology. Even if they can never use it, they may be willing to buy it to avoid buyer's remorse in the future. And with today's HDTV scalers, extra pixels won't go to waste, even if they can't be used to their full advantage.
If nothing else, this all proves that free markets and consumers are better equipped to judge what technologies are worth than regulatory agencies. After all, the HDTV spec says nothing about 1080p -- this specification is entirely a product of innovation and the willingness of companies to speculate on technology. Unlike in the Federal Communications Commission, every consumer has the right to vote with their wallets -- and that's a good thing.
posted by Carl Howe at
6:52 PM
| View blog reactions
| 
