OT: Mitsubishi HD 1080p TVs in SoCal stores

Coursedesign wrote on 7/6/2005, 9:04 PM
From Broadcast Engineering:

"Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America announced the delivery of its HD 1080p television based on DLP technology from Texas Instruments.

Mitsubishi delivered the TV to select retailers in Southern California last week. National distribution of the 52in WC-526271080p rear-projection DLP television is scheduled over the next few weeks.

The company also plans to roll out three 73in 1080p DLP models this year. The sets use Mitsubishi’s Plush1080p to upconvert signals to 1080p.

For more information, visit Mitsubishi."

Comments

Spot|DSE wrote on 7/6/2005, 9:08 PM
Pretty sexy, eh? Just was a few weeks ago someone was saying we'd not see 1080p anytime soon.
AFAIC, this is another reason for 1080i acquisition vs 720p acquisition. However, Vegas does upscale 720p to 1080p reasonably well.
farss wrote on 7/6/2005, 9:38 PM
And I hear a rumour a big network down here is looking at HDCAM-SR, damn now I'll have to replace that BMD card, I knew SD 4.2.2 wasn't going to cut it for long but it was all I could afford.
Now how much will a SR deck cost me again?
Spot|DSE wrote on 7/6/2005, 9:47 PM
C'mon Farss! You can afford 60K US.
Send me the cash, I'll bring it with me when I hit Sydney in August. :-)
Quryous wrote on 7/7/2005, 9:53 AM
Coming of age. That is why I was so disappointed when Sony and others came out with the cut down HDV instead of full 1920 x 1080.
Coursedesign wrote on 7/7/2005, 10:14 AM
<i?I was so disappointed when Sony and others came out with the cut down HDV instead of full 1920 x 1080

Too bad for you.

I was going go give you my $90,000 Sony F900 HD camera, but since it is not 1920x1080 either, you wouldn't want it anyway....

:O]

Spot|DSE wrote on 7/7/2005, 10:17 AM
Might as well give up that Varicam, or even the Viper too.
Quryous, very few cams have CCDs that are 1920 x 1080, so I'm not sure what your point is. Pixel stretching/anamorphic pixels are part of several formats, including DV. it doesn't have to be a bad thing, but it's sure something that naysayers like to grab on to.
JJKizak wrote on 7/7/2005, 10:20 AM
I personally can't tell the difference between what the networks broadcast and what I view on my Sony TV from the Sony Z1. Even after processing the Z1 stuff and PTT or viewing it from M2t files I still can't see any difference. I suppose if you are going to splt hairs another $15k for the camera would help. As of right now I am totally satisfied with the Z1. The auto-focus is exceptional, the touch of the zoom control is exceptional and all of the other performances are very good. The only exception is the built in sound mic. The optical stabilization is very good when on "hard" but not as good as the Canon XL1s but not by much. The position of the controls suit me just fine. I have yet to see an artifact on anything shot with this camera. I am very happy with this camera.

JJK
p@mast3rs wrote on 7/7/2005, 10:27 AM
Heck, I would just be happy to own a Z1. I have had experience with the FX1 and loved it. Can only imagine how awesome the Z1 truly is. Hell, Id be happy to have a decent camera at this point. (firewire on my JVC 520U blew so no way to get video from my cam now.)
John_Cline wrote on 7/7/2005, 11:33 AM
Speaking of Z1's.... NBC has just bought a boatload of them for their upcoming Olympics coverage and they're also using them (along with Vegas) for some of the feature pieces on their HiDef NASCAR broadcasts.

John

Spot|DSE wrote on 7/7/2005, 11:38 AM
I didn't realize that was public knowledge yet. Glad to hear they've let folks know!
John, I'd sent you a couple mails re; Z1, didja get them, or just busy?
John_Cline wrote on 7/7/2005, 11:47 AM
Spot,

I heard it through the "grapevine" and perhaps I'm passing on a "secret" of some sort. Oh well... :)

re; the Z1 messages, no, I have been insanely busy, but I have been checking my e-mail and don't remember seeing them. I'll look again.

John
Quryous wrote on 7/7/2005, 12:59 PM
The point was made that it took a lot shorter time for the nicer TV sets to show up with top resolution that the writer or others expected. It was only a matter of a SHORT time.

My point was that it could also have been done with the CCDs, if there had been interest in them. Now, with HDV short-curcuiting it, interest is not so keen, FOR NOW. Soon, though, it will be available. Just not as soon because of HDV. They have to "Recoup their R&D," as they say in the business world. More like advertising dollars than R&D.

When Standard DV was invented they aimed squarely at the best TV sets could offer. However, with HDV they did NOT. THAT is my point, and a few months delay doesn't change it.
Coursedesign wrote on 7/7/2005, 1:23 PM
It's trickier on the camera end than on the TV end.

The CCDs would cost quite a bit more, and then you have to deal with a much higher data rate which also costs significant money.

I'm not talking about data rate on the tape, but about the performance needed for the in-camera compression circuits to sift through more data.

Yes, it would be nice to have more and more pixels.

Yes, there are other factors that can have a much bigger impact on the picture quality. I have seen 720p TVs that blow away other 1080i sets.

Let's all get 4:4:4 also, as used for Sin City. HDCAM SR to the people (not 25 Mbps but 1500 Mbps, ie. a data rate that is 60 times higher)!

This discussion reminds me of when DV first came out, and many Beta SP shooters were saying, "this is not pro video," "this will never amount to anything," etc.

It turned out that DV had limitations of course, but by understanding those limitations you could get great footage at a lower cost and with less aggravation.