Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Da Dego, 9 Jan 2007.
I don't think $4000 is that bad actually, you would have to spend at least £1500 to get a good quality 40" panel...
$4000 is a steal, hell even £4000 isn't bad. Its about time 1080p projectors came equipped with sensible price tags. Just a year ago you would be lucky to spend less than 5 figures on one.
Must be depressing for the people who did though. For instance, the Sony Qualia 004 projector that was considered the balls a couple years ago and put a $25000 dent in your wallet (and still sells for that, oddly enough) is now matched/minced by these new ones for a few grand - noice
My tv-watching habits are perfect for a projector - limited to films, big sporting events and a select programs a week. So it is nice to know that by the time I'm ready to replace my TV, I can do so with a beast like that panasonic
Surly getting 1080p isnt all that great now, seeing as no one films stuff in 1080p nor have the standards for it been finalised yet
$4000 is nothing provided it's of good quality. That with an HD player and some nice speakers and chairs, and you have a full-spec personal movie theatre.
Luckily it's one more thing I'd love that I stand no chance of affording anytime soon.
$4000 is pretty good, considering the price of some of the higher-end projectors that only do 1024x768 in the UK... I'd be sold on this if I could find a wall big enough to do it justice.
Not finalised? I'm pretty sure it's in use right now, the 360 can do 1080i and now has the upscaler chip activated so it now kinda does 1080p. PS3 can also upscale to 1080p but lacks an actual specialised chip for it, so might not be quite as good as the 360s. Pretty sure BD and HD-DVD do 1080p as well, as so does possibly stuff like sky HD.
It is starting to get here, slowly admittedly, but theres a lot more HD content than before.
lets say i have a big white wall.... theoretically it can be a big ass screen with this baby..... "noice", i think i just found my future tv
That is what I have with the AE700 got a nice 73" scree fron abot 2m ish
The 700 can do upto 300" which is mamoth and have done that at a village hall playing halo on that was well creamy goodness
Ever since Sony came out with the F900 and F950 HD cameras (and earlier elsewhere in esotheric situations) people have been capable of and have been shooting 1080P. I shot 1080P last night at CBS Studio Center.
The Sony cameras capture 1,920 x 1,080 pixels, which represents a 16:9 widescreen image with 1920 pixels across each of 1080 interlaced OR progressive scan lines. The Panasonic AJ-HDC27 Varicam shoots 1,280 x 720 pixels, 720 lines progressively scanned with a widescreen 16:9 aspect ratio. Panasonic had no interest in an developing an interlaced camera. These are the only two High Definition formats defined by the HDTV standard. All network broadcasters use one or the other for their HD programs. For instance, ABC and Fox broadcast in 720p, while CBS, NBC, and PBS use 1080i.
The Sony's are programable to shoot either progressive or interlaced by menu setting. We shoot 24Psf (segmented frame) 1920X1080 pixels.
Thus, if we set for progessive we are shooting 24P 1080 lines which IS 1080P. We just don't call it that.
Why interlaced you may ask? Two reasons at least. 1) It cuts bandwidth in half as each frame is painted in two separate odd or even "fields". 2) It inherently doubles the flicker rate of a display to 48Hz. This replicates the flicker rate of film projection, where the projector has a two-bladed half-speed shutter. That is to say, every movie you have ever seen in a theater projected from a positive print has flashed each frame twice on the screen before advacing the next frame to double the flicker rate to 48Hz.
So-1080P is shot every day out here and around the world, is just is not broadcast in 1080P-yet. Remember how interlaced cuts bandwidth in half? That is the hurdle and it can be done, they just don't want to yet. But-like the old dog joke-they will, because they can.
Separate names with a comma.