HDTV

THE JEW (RaVeN) · Post by **THE JEW (RaVeN)** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:28 pm

An essential guide for figuring out the differences between 720p, 720i, 1020i, 1020p, etc.

http://editorials.teamxbox.com/xbox/154 ... -1080p/p1/

THE JEW (RaVeN) · Post by **THE JEW (RaVeN)** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:41 pm

OTA reception for Ontario:

http://209.171.61.216/forum/forumdispla ... 47c3&f=129

THE JEW (RaVeN) · Post by **THE JEW (RaVeN)** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:50 pm

Dvico tuner comparison:

http://www.fusionhdtv.co.kr/ENG/product ... Table.aspx

THE JEW (RaVeN) · Post by **THE JEW (RaVeN)** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:54 pm

FTA satellite equipment and guides:

http://www.digiwavetechnologies.com/ind ... tion=34:34

HDTV primer:

http://www.hdtvprimer.com/

THE JEW (RaVeN) · Post by **THE JEW (RaVeN)** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 4:40 pm

Good Canadian forum of stickies on OTA:

http://www.digitalhomecanada.com/forum/index.php

Paragon · Post by **Paragon** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:34 pm

I'm gonna be a sad panda when I have to put away the 80s RCA behemoth I have.

THE JEW (RaVeN) · Post by **THE JEW (RaVeN)** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:51 pm

Explaining the human eye:

http://www.audioholics.com/education/di ... man-vision

720 is all we need?

The resolution of our eyes is 12 vertical lines per arc angle (one line per arcminute for 20/20 acuity) times 2. Now 28 degrees x 12 lines x 2 = 672. This means we really can't see a display component (pixel) smaller than 1/672 x image width. Our minimum resolvable element size is about 0.065", or about twice the size of the pixels of the WXGA image! Put bluntly, from 8 feet away while watching a 50 inch plasma TV, the human eye is generally incapable of reliably distinguishing any detail finer than that shown on a true 720p display!

[PX]IronFist · Post by **[PX]IronFist** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:39 pm

This article is money in the bank.

THE JEW (RaVeN) · Post by **THE JEW (RaVeN)** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:04 am

It is a good article, but I don't fully agree with it. It also doesn't seem to take into account the actual motion of the screen (they mention it, but kinda just poo-poo it). I agree with it for the most part, but feel that they're not covering everything. Also, I have a bit of a problem quantifying the human eye as it greatly varies between people, it's analog and subject to variance, and we're just now learning things about it we didn't know before (check out Scientific America's article on the "new" construction of the eye and what the retina discards before sending the info to the brain). Overall, it's an excellent article but I think they need to do a bit more studying.

That way I can post the next article

This picture is a summary of tv's and viewing distance as commonly accepted:

http://kalnet.kalshadowtech.com/php/php ... ic_id=2019

None of this really matters for me anyways as I'm 1/2 blind

[PX]IronFist · Post by **[PX]IronFist** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:01 pm

THE JEW (RaVeN) wrote:It is a good article, but I don't fully agree with it. It also doesn't seem to take into account the actual motion of the screen (they mention it, but kinda just poo-poo it). I agree with it for the most part, but feel that they're not covering everything. Also, I have a bit of a problem quantifying the human eye as it greatly varies between people, it's analog and subject to variance, and we're just now learning things about it we didn't know before (check out Scientific America's article on the "new" construction of the eye and what the retina discards before sending the info to the brain). Overall, it's an excellent article but I think they need to do a bit more studying.

That way I can post the next article

This picture is a summary of tv's and viewing distance as commonly accepted:

http://kalnet.kalshadowtech.com/php/php ... ic_id=2019

None of this really matters for me anyways as I'm 1/2 blind

Next you'll be telling us how important it is to have 5.1 surround sound

THE JEW (RaVeN) · Post by **THE JEW (RaVeN)** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 2:04 pm

Nah.

13.1

[PX]IronFist · Post by **[PX]IronFist** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 2:43 pm

What was that? You'll have to speak up.

THE JEW (RaVeN) · Post by **THE JEW (RaVeN)** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 9:30 am

What with UHF going the way of the dodo soon and being replaced with digital channels, this is a nice summary of what's going on:

http://icrontic.com/news/uhf_future_internet_you

[Fallen]Thanatos · Post by **[Fallen]Thanatos** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:06 pm

quote: UHF has a particularly long wavelength

ELF has a very long wavelength( you need a antenna around 5000km long, used for subs and shit) , UHF has a particularly short wavelength when your talking analog signals.

For the Radio spectrum UHF is 3rd from the top for shortest wavelength.

common people, i do this shit for a living.

THE JEW (RaVeN) · Post by **THE JEW (RaVeN)** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:21 pm

Yeah, somebody else caught him on that in the comments:

Qeldroma said on August 23, 2007 at 9:35 pm (ET)

Originally posted by Thrax

1. Known as the "Decimeter band," UHF has a particularly long wavelength and can easily penetrate the walls of homes and obstructions (Buildings, trees, freeways, etc).

I understand what you are saying, but it's the shorter wavelength (higher frequency) signals that have more energy and penetration capability. UHF was a big improvement over the old standard TV range and it was (revealing my age ), once-upon-a-time, a special feature on a TV set.