Philips explains why 1080p.....isn't
In the "oh no you didn't" of the week, Philips has tried to talk their way out of the whole "1080p
TV's don't accept a 1080p signal" mess. Our friends across the pond at HDTV UK
have the full response but the gist of it is Philips thinks that it is not worth it to put in the chips necessary to
receive a 1080p signal, since very few devices can output at that level right now.Did they really think we were going to fall for that? I'm not even going to say that their statement is not true, in that there isn't any 1080p content to watch right now, but what about when there is? I think their stance doesn't hold water one bit for several reasons.
- They claim including the necessary equipment to process a 1080p signal would increase the cost of the set, I say so what? Anyone buying a 1080p TV is willing to pay a premium, and is paying a premium to have the technology. If current so-called 1080p TV's only cost the same amount as existing 1080i sets, no one would complain.
- If they think 1080i is good enough HD, could they tell their friends over at Sony to stop calling 1080p the "only true HD"?
- Speaking of Sony, what about the PS3 coming next year which will be able to output at 1080p, (whether that content will be rendered internally at that resolution is doubtful, but if the PS3 puts it out at 1080p, I want my TV to be able to take it)
- If it's not a big deal, then why aren't TV manufacturers upfront about the current limitations of the technology.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jeff Johnson @ Dec 24th 2005 8:08PM
Good one- i rant about this alot.
1080i is 540 lines interlaced, and LCD TV type stuff does not display interlaced... meaning that an LCD 1080 TV will have to assemble the image from 540 lines even, then odd, 30 times a second, delivering 1080x1920 each time. So the processing has to be nice. When it is DCDi by Faroudja doing that job, you will love it, especially if it is tuned to the latency and refresh of the specific display/montior because it is built in.
Personally i like the new LCD stuff, looks great to me.
for some reason the plasmas just arent as nice in the edges of things to my eye anyhow.
1080p arriving to my screen will be nice also, but i expect that to be from whatever new HD-BD hwatever disc finally comes my way, i do not expect much 1080p from broadcast sources.
bigos @ Dec 24th 2005 11:31PM
I read Philip's statement on the matter and I am confused. It sounds as if they are saying that the physical screen is capable of displaying 1080p but that there is no way to get a 1080p signal to the screen and there is no way for the display to create a 1080p signal inside the set. If that is what they are saying then how can they call them 1080p sets. This is completely stupid. So who else makes a "1080p" set that can't output a 1080p signal?
What about the Westinghouse 37inch and 42inch sets and the Sharp Aquos 45 inchers?
Richard Lawler @ Dec 25th 2005 1:47AM
Philips' statement is the screen displays an upconverted 1080p image, not matter what signal you feed to it.
however, it cannot accept a 1080p input signal.
Luke @ Dec 25th 2005 2:15AM
Given the (comparatively) very cheap price of the Sceptre 37" and the Westinghouse 37" which do, in fact, accept and display 1080p, I don't understand what all the whining from manufacturers is about, what with respect to added cost to sets or any other argument.
I mean, we're talking about something PC monitors have been doing for years. It's in low-cost sets. What is Philips, et al doing?
John @ Dec 25th 2005 1:49PM
Is Phillips talking about receiving 1080p over the air or through HDMI inputs? I agree with Jeff. We probably don't need, or want to pay for 1080p broadcast reception, but we definately want 1080p inputs through HDMI, Firewire, or something. (Not component because HD-DVD already said analog res would be limited, thanks for nothing DRM.) I also agree that others have done it, so what gives? Won't these sets last until Blu-Ray and PS3?
bigos @ Dec 26th 2005 4:25AM
"Given the (comparatively) very cheap price of the Sceptre 37" and the Westinghouse 37" which do, in fact, accept and display 1080p, I don't understand what all the whining from manufacturers is about, what with respect to added cost to sets or any other argument."
To be fair, the Westinghouse 37 incher is not regarded as having great processing, which is probably why it is so inexpensive. That is not a such a concern when you are outputting a clean digital 1080p signal from your computer. The Westy 37 basically operates best as purely a monitor. If you give it a good signal it will look great. If you give it a bad signal it will look bad, just like a computer monitor. The thing that many of todays HDTV's have though is a built in processor, which computer monitors don't have, and this processor can take a crappy analog input and upsample it for a 1080p output. The Westy 37 does this but not very well. I think Philips is arguing that it is not worth it to put a great upsampling processor in their TV's, but why they don't let you put in your own 1080p signal is baffling.
By the way Westinghouse has recently partnered with Genesis Microchip and will be putting DCDi Faroudja processors in their 1080p 37 inch and announced 42 inch LCD's. The 42 incher should be out around the first of the year. If it is priced reasonably I think it may be the best value for a 1080p set.
Dave @ Dec 26th 2005 9:59AM
Phillips needs to stop drinking whatever it's drinking and get with the program.
R Gibson @ Dec 28th 2005 9:50PM
Some more background on the subject
http://hdtvexpert.com/pages/pipes_sanyo.htm
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/hdtvreal.htm#Grades
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/hdtvreal.htm#Grades
Sean @ Dec 30th 2005 5:28AM
crybaby