Quote:
Originally Posted by pinniped
Although the set top boxes may have fairly slow processors, they have dedicated hardware decoders so they can give you very good playback. It depends how well the decoder is implemented of course; I can say that the Samsung decoder in their LCD televisions does an awful job of interpolating SDTV to an HDTV screen while the Nextwave HDTV tuner does a good job of it.
Have fun poking about.  |
Thanks pinniped. I plan to have fun doing just that.
I currently don't know much about the encoders / decoders so have alot to learn. But that is part of the fun.
I read with interests about the codecs available in the open source community that run on Gnu/Linux of course. Seems a couple of companies were attempting to lock up all the codec licenses so anyone who wanted to do anything with video (
recording and playback) would have to pay them a license fee to do it. Fortunately for all of us the codecs in the open source domain were NOT for sale and they were thwarted from forming either an oligopoly or monopoly.
I was real impressed with the following three HDTVs: Sony, Samsung and LG. I was comparing 42" LCD models. From a simple look (
and I understand that the showroom is not the best place to compare) visually, it was difficult to tell the models apart. The Sony, IMO, looked just a little bit better than the Samsung and LG, however the prices on the LG (it was on sale for around $1,000 - circa Xmas 2007) blew the others away. Seems it normally retailed for between $1,400 - $1,800 depending on where you went at that time, yet the Sony retailed for over $2,000, $2,200 - $2,400 if memory serves - which sometimes it does not, lol) I remember thinking that for $800 more it was not enough of a difference to justify the extra cost for me. And I absolutely love Sony products.
I remember being very impressed with the LG's stats, refresh rate, resolution, etc... 1920 x 1080p resolution(<I>24fps non interlaced, not interpolated</I>); 178 x 178 degree viewing (<I>I can see a really clear image from the side</I>); 10000:1 Contrast Ratio; 4:3, 16:9, Horizon and two zoom levels Aspect Correction Ratio (ARC); Inputs: Antenna/Cable of course, HDMI, HDMI/DVI, RGB, RGB/DVI, RS-232C, S-Video; even an Optical output port (<I>I hope to play with that one day to see what it can do</I>);
Here is a 7 min YouTube Video about the LCD from Tiger Direct that talks about the XD Engine, more than I knew before:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?...um=7&ct=title#
The only difference I could tell after watching the video between the 42LC7D and the 42LB5D (
Video link above) was an extra
third HDMI connector and the USB connector on the side are both on the 42LB5D. I kind of wish I had the USB connection on my 42LC7D. I know I can work around this easily enough once I configure and get running my own Gnu/Linux DVD recorder / player.
You probably know more about this than I do right now (but I will learn) the LG has
Quote:
|
24p Real Cinema and TruMotion120Hz video processing
|
and
Quote:
|
An XD Engine™, that is. This LG-exclusive technology uses advanced video processing to optimize black levels and panel brightness, to enhance color, and to reduce image noise and artifacts
|
I copied that from a brochure about the LG as I have not look at the processing chips internal to the LG and at this time have no idea if the XD Engine is one of the better ones or not.
I remember reading that it could play the Blu-Ray disc technology flawlessly, however I don't own a Blu-Ray player. I did not want to get caught standing still as many did with the old VHS / Beta Max standard war with VCRs years ago. The Hybrid HD / Blu Ray DVD players were still very expensive as of Dec 2007, so I held off. As it is I saved up for almost a full year to get the 42 HD TV, once I had the money saved I waited over two months for a sale before buying.
In the future I could see myself wanting / attempting to stream and record two signals while watching a third via the internet. However if the Cable and DSL companies do not upgrade their infrastructure I am sure they would throttle me down after I started streaming the second signal. What I would not give to have Bi Directional 100 / 100 Mbps for $24 - $35 per month as they have had in many parts of Japan since 2003. (
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...801990_pf.html ) I have heard on CSPAN from a Japanese telco (NTT I believe) executive state that it costs them less than $5.00 per month to provide the fiber service. (
The two American industry executives on the stage with him looked a bit uncomfortable IMO.) It makes me laugh when well meaning people attempt to defend the cable, DSL and telecommunications companies. They villain-ize P2P, BitTorrent, etc... trying to falsely claim that there is no legitimate reason for the software to exist. While some people might not be honest, that does not make everyone who utilizes a PC to PC communication program evil and a thief. There are legitimate uses for P2P software even BitTorrent software. If the telcos had spent the billions updating their infrastructure to fiber as they promised ([URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/28/AR2007082801990_pf.html[/URL] ) to do instead of lobbying against the 1996 Telecommunications Act we might have had Hi Speed access as early as 1998, definitely by 2000.
How many people reading this understand the FCC's definition of hi speed access and that even the current fiber offerings by the ISPs will not and can not offer the 45 Mbps bidirectional service that almost all the telecommunications companies promised they would deliver to Americans by 2000. Just one of the many lies told while lobbying our elected politicians and defeating the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
As I type this, well it makes me mad as I learn the truth and you should be upset as well.
Quote:
|
If you do not care about Net Neutrality, the history behind why we have low speed internet access instead of high speed internet access than you can stop reading now...
|
After Comcast was found guilty by the FCC for blocking internet traffic
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071003327.html the FCC Chairman stated that they should be fined. Comcast is currently appealing the ruling, to offset consumer frustration some ISPs have announced 250 GB caps. However in many areas of the country there are caps of 50GB, 40GB, 30GB and even as low as 5 GB
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/...ap5634847.html.
Please keep in mind that the caps are the maximum amount that 1 consumer will be allowed to download via the internet, they do not promise the same amount of bandwidth upstream. Regardless of your cap, you probably do NOT get more than 700Kbps upstream and sometimes not even that.
More useful information on this topic:
http://www.fcc.gov/telecom.html - The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the first major overhaul of the telecommunications law in almost 62 years. Sadly through industry lobbying, it was watered down and resulted in something that does not help consumers.
Quote:
|
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Section 706 defined Advanced Networks as networks with high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology. 200 Kbps CAN NOT handle video.
|
(
see the FCC definition of broadband below)
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index....&askthisid=186 - telcos received $200 billion since early 1990s in tax breaks, increased service fees and funding in return for a promise to building bidirectional 45 Mbps (45 Mbps / 45 Mbps) bidirectional services across the U.S. AS OF 2008, no consumer has access to 45 Mbps / 45 Mbps service through to the last mile. Not one of the current fiber build outs have enough bandwidth to give us even this amount of bandwidth. By 2006, telcos promised to have 86 million customers receiving 45 Mpbs bidirectional broadband. Only the FCC's definition of broadband (see next link) allows them to claim that they have fulfilled their promises.
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Ca...D/hspd0705.pdf - Released in July 7, 2005 after much lobbying by the telcos, the FCC defines anything above 200 Kbps as broadband, i.e. High Speed internet. Based on this definition the telcos claim that Americnas have broadband access.
FCC report released in 2000, Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability: Second Report (
shows which telcos promised what back in 2000:
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Ca.../nrcc0040.html - html version.
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Ca...0/fcc00290.pdf - pdf version.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2269835,00.asp - What is Net Neutrality Anyway? 2/25/08 by John C. Dvorak
http://blogs.globalcrossing.com/net-neutrality?from=30 - industry expert stating that $1 per 2 GB according to this expert is too much (
.50 cents per Gig) 1 GB is equal to 1000 MB.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...801990_pf.html - Japan's Warp-speed Ride to Internet Future; 8/29/07; by Blaine Harden; In Japan they have had, thanks to forced government de-regulation, 100MB / 100MB
bi-directional internet access since 2000 for around $25 per month.
Quote:
|
Obviously, without the competition, we would not have done all this at this pace, Said Hideki Ohmichi, NTT's senior manager for public relations
|
http://www.pcworld.com/article/151562/.html?tk=rss_news - Japan's KDDI to Offer 1 G Bps Internet Connections to Homes for around $52.00 per month. (
1GB downstream/ 1GB upstream di-directional internet access.)
