34 posts in this topic

Am what?

Screen burn-IN

http://en.wikipedia..../Screen_burn-in

We are talking about this on OLEDs

YEs, and OLED's technically burn out. on other technologies, you get bright spots from the brights spots burning into the phosphor. LCD burn in is not the same of course(I'm talking actual LCD burn in, not image retention, which acts the same)

OLED Burn-in, whihc is technically a burn out, work the opposite way. bright pixels die faster fade out. So that bright annoying TV logo in the corner. when you show a all white picture on the screen, it will actually appear as a faded ghost, on a grey screen, it will also appear slightly darker than the rest. on a black screen, where all the OLED pixels are off, it will naturally not appear at all.

Hence, they technically burn out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is also the matter of bandwidth requirements - how is a greater-than-1080p picture going to get to you? Satellite has issues with merely 720p - while fiber optics CAN deliver 1080p by the trainload, it's expensive to deploy. (Ask Verizon OR Google - better yet, ask their bondholders.) The demand will appear in computer displays WELL before it arrives in terms of TVs simply because of the shortness of the delivery path - for a computer, it's just feet, if not inches. Even if OLED solves the burn-in and scaling problems, why would it be needed if the bandwidth to take advantage of it isn't there?

Uh, no it doesn't, downlink satellite has extremely good bandwidth, maybe your provided has really bad old satellites, but there's no truth to that.

Terrestrial however does have issues with 720, they have limited frequencies and bandwidth, and have to run few HD channels max 720, and at high compressions.

Over here we have two satellite companies, Canal Digital which I believe has their own satellites, they run 1080, at very high image quality and great audio, they score highest on both, and they have enough bandwidth to run as many HD Channels as they want. and we get new ones all the time as the tv channels upgrade. The other one, Viasat, I'm not sure if they have their own satellites or if they rent space, but while they run full HD, they have far lower image quality, even on SD, they use much higher compression on the image, and comparably crappy audio.

Cable of course offers comparable quality to that of satellite, because they use satellite as a source.

Also, you're assuming bandwidth requirements scale linearly with picture size. which it doesn't. Compression actually gets better on bigger images, since there's bigger surfaces of identical colors and shades and shapes and patterns to compress in the same space. so you can get 200% the picture, and as little or lower than 150% the size/bandwidth.

And then we haven't even accounted for the new super effective compression technology they're demonstrating now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our TV networks aren't broadcasting much HD because they're cheap, we have 5 stations, 1 is government funded, and 2 are near bankrupt. And the HD content they do have is compressed to hell and back.

That said, TV stations not broadcasting in the latest format isn't a reason to avoid that format, broadcasters are always going to lag behind technology (You're not going to be able to watch a 4K video feed on a 1080p TV, but a 4K screen can show a 1080p feed, etc.)

Edit: Oh yeah, I'm in Australia. And personally I don't consider 1080i to be actual HD, since it only adds more horizontal data, the vertical is 540. That said my opinion on that doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: Oh yeah, I'm in Australia. And personally I don't consider 1080i to be actual HD, since it only adds more horizontal data, the vertical is 540. That said my opinion on that doesn't matter.

Not entirely true

in general a 1080i picture is the same as a 1080p picture. the clue is in the fact that the 1080i picture is 1080i60, created from a 1080p30 source. Your tv or tuner, depending on, will re-assemble the 1080i60 picture into the correct 1080p30 picture.

If what you said was true, then a 720p tv picture would be better than the 1080i. which it is not. the terrestrial TV guy that visits us at the store occasionally tries to tell us it is. Then I switch to the terrestrial source, and have crappy 720p picture, not nearly as sharp, and contrary to his claim, the movements aren't better. switch back to the satellite feed, and beautiful 1080i, that's just as sharp as a 1080p BD, sure it has more compression, but that's not even detectable in regular viewing.

Your information, is however correct if you're talking about older home HD video camerasthat shot in 1080i. but thta's because these shot the video in interlaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, I assumed they would have just used the normal framerate, but they apparently broadcast at 50hz (So 25fps progressive)

I kinda just assumed, considering how bad in general the quality of the HD channels actually is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i thought the original selling point of OLED is brighter more vibrant colors with less cost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give better cameras to the film producers :)

Without it, Ultra HD is just Marketing, until then...

Plenty of films shot with great cameras in UHD. The Red cameras...the Arri Alexa's....

i'd love to see an OLED, UHD, glasses-free 3D tv... that is the next big thing :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, I assumed they would have just used the normal framerate, but they apparently broadcast at 50hz (So 25fps progressive)

I kinda just assumed, considering how bad in general the quality of the HD channels actually is.

That's just terrible compression. it's worse than SD in fact. The satellite HD channels I have are all as crisp as a BluRay.

your provider either has access to very little bandwidth/frequency band, or they're cheap ******** who don't want to pay for it, while they expect you to pay for it, find another quality satellite provider if possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't have many satellite providers here, that's our free to air stations (They have enough bandwidth, but they choose to spend it on multiple channels vs. quality)

We have like 3 dedicated shopping channels, and the rest are filled with repeats. They're doing it for extra ad revenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.