We just had a tv station here do a bit on buying new HD tv's and they said to look out for sets with the 1080p setups because you would only be paying more money for something that wouldn't work due to that no station is broadcasting in that mode. Is that true?
1080p Televisions
Read-only archive
You won't see anything broadcast in 1080p for some time. You can, however, take advantage of your TV's 1080p if:
1) You plan on purchasing a BlueRay or HD-DVD player soon
2) You plan on purchasing a Sony PS3 soon
Experts, correct me if I am wrong.
Also, any idea when we might see 1080p thru cable/satellite?
1) You plan on purchasing a BlueRay or HD-DVD player soon
2) You plan on purchasing a Sony PS3 soon
Experts, correct me if I am wrong.
Also, any idea when we might see 1080p thru cable/satellite?
I bought a sony 1080p for 2k. Not cheap but not bad either. Now I am set for the next 10 years. 
In the early days of DVD, 480i was played only as 480i on regular NTSC TVs, and we all know that although that was an improvement from other 480i material, it was inferior to its 480p version.
Since 1998 most HDTVs purchased by early adopters were sold to play the same 480i DVDs as 480p doubling the lines as progressive, a feature that only the DTVs could do, in addition of showing 1080i (or on some exceptions as native 720p, the non-panel era).
The improvement of viewing a progressive version of 480i drove the adoption of HDTV considerably. Simultaneously, DVD players started to appear as 480p deinterlacing 480i as well, giving the option to the owner of both (DTV and 480p player) to let the best piece to do the job better, but the TV had to have 480p inputs to make that happen.
Even though HDTV broadcast, cable, satellite, are mostly 1080i, a similar case than above applies for an "improvement of a already high resolution format to a higher pixel count, temporal (frame rate) or spatial (pixels on each frame) or both", and that is a benefit that can only happen if the display can properly deinterlace to non-1080p material, video and film, which is most of the consumer content out there.
1080p display is particularly important on large screens (we know that larger sizes are gradually being adopted by more people, people that were used to have a 27" set now looks for larger, but the benefit could only be appreciated if the viewing distance is short enough, viewing from the kitchen 20 feet away from a 50" panel would certainly be overkill to pursue it as 1080p.
In other words, large 1080p displays that properly upconvert non-1080p content bring a visual benefit that is not limited to content from 1080p hi def DVD or video games, and that benefit should not be overlooked, and should not be degraded as many articles of various magazines have done lately.
Anyone who remembers 10 years ago the visual improvement of 480i DVD viewed as 480p could get the feeling of the potential of a similar benefit translated to the world of 1080i/720p viewed as 1080p, again, when the deinterlacing is properly done.
I am saying that because many first generation HDTVs in 98/99 were suited with disappointing deinterlacers, even the famous Pioneer Elites RPTV were disappointing on their first line, but that was dramatically improved throughout the years.
The same evolution of the deinterlacing/upconversion/scaling ability (but faster) is happening to 1080p HDTVs, thanks now to the large competition, experience, and availability of chips from various signal processing companies, some only dedicated to professional products before, now at the feet of consumers.
Another benefit of a 1080p display (with 1080p input) is the potential to have a good quality external video processor to upconvert the non-1080p content to 1080p and feed that signal to the TV, which brings the potential of yet another piece on the signal chain to perform that role, not just the player, not just the TV, increasing the choices for handling image improvement without replacing legacy equipment (player, STB, or TV).
So it is important that a 1080p set have 1080p inputs for the Hi-def DVD but also for the function of 1080p upconversion of non-1080p content done out if the TV as alternative.
You might benefit by doing a short reading of a few 1080p articles I wrote recently for this magazine.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
Since 1998 most HDTVs purchased by early adopters were sold to play the same 480i DVDs as 480p doubling the lines as progressive, a feature that only the DTVs could do, in addition of showing 1080i (or on some exceptions as native 720p, the non-panel era).
The improvement of viewing a progressive version of 480i drove the adoption of HDTV considerably. Simultaneously, DVD players started to appear as 480p deinterlacing 480i as well, giving the option to the owner of both (DTV and 480p player) to let the best piece to do the job better, but the TV had to have 480p inputs to make that happen.
Even though HDTV broadcast, cable, satellite, are mostly 1080i, a similar case than above applies for an "improvement of a already high resolution format to a higher pixel count, temporal (frame rate) or spatial (pixels on each frame) or both", and that is a benefit that can only happen if the display can properly deinterlace to non-1080p material, video and film, which is most of the consumer content out there.
1080p display is particularly important on large screens (we know that larger sizes are gradually being adopted by more people, people that were used to have a 27" set now looks for larger, but the benefit could only be appreciated if the viewing distance is short enough, viewing from the kitchen 20 feet away from a 50" panel would certainly be overkill to pursue it as 1080p.
In other words, large 1080p displays that properly upconvert non-1080p content bring a visual benefit that is not limited to content from 1080p hi def DVD or video games, and that benefit should not be overlooked, and should not be degraded as many articles of various magazines have done lately.
Anyone who remembers 10 years ago the visual improvement of 480i DVD viewed as 480p could get the feeling of the potential of a similar benefit translated to the world of 1080i/720p viewed as 1080p, again, when the deinterlacing is properly done.
I am saying that because many first generation HDTVs in 98/99 were suited with disappointing deinterlacers, even the famous Pioneer Elites RPTV were disappointing on their first line, but that was dramatically improved throughout the years.
The same evolution of the deinterlacing/upconversion/scaling ability (but faster) is happening to 1080p HDTVs, thanks now to the large competition, experience, and availability of chips from various signal processing companies, some only dedicated to professional products before, now at the feet of consumers.
Another benefit of a 1080p display (with 1080p input) is the potential to have a good quality external video processor to upconvert the non-1080p content to 1080p and feed that signal to the TV, which brings the potential of yet another piece on the signal chain to perform that role, not just the player, not just the TV, increasing the choices for handling image improvement without replacing legacy equipment (player, STB, or TV).
So it is important that a 1080p set have 1080p inputs for the Hi-def DVD but also for the function of 1080p upconversion of non-1080p content done out if the TV as alternative.
You might benefit by doing a short reading of a few 1080p articles I wrote recently for this magazine.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
Thanks again for your insight Rudolfo. I have been a subscriber for a few years your knowledge and efforts to promote HDTV are to be commended. I will always come to you guys for the "correct" answer.....
Thanks for the insight, Rodolfo.
When do you foresee cable/satelite actually broadcasting a 1080p signal? 2 years? 5 years? Feb '09?
When do you foresee cable/satelite actually broadcasting a 1080p signal? 2 years? 5 years? Feb '09?
They are already struggling with MPEG-4 conversions for more HDTV channels at 1080i so I do not see a 1080p (60fps of course) happening in the near future.
The current standard of 1080p broadcast is 24 and 30fps and although a over-the-air STB should have the ability to tune to any of the 18 formats, those included, the formats cannot be viewed as is without objectionable flicker, so they are expected to be displayed at higher frame rate (48 and 60 minimum).
The same would apply to satellite and cable STBs if they decide to repeat broadcast would broadcast jump to 1080p, not happening anytime soon either.
The benefit of 1080p 60 frames per second is temporal resolution (over the 1080i). Both have the 1920 spatial horizontal resolution, but the progressive would capture and transmit full 1080x1920 snap "different" shots of images 60 times x second, rather than 540 lines (x1920) and then another 540 lines on the next 60th of a second, of the 1080i.
In other words, the benefit of 720p 60fps with the benefit of the 1920 spatial resolution of the 1080 systems (720 has only 1280 spatial horizontal resolution).
The negative side of 1080p 60 fps is that it requires the double of bandwidth than 1080i 30 fps interlaced, and that would impose a tremendous demand for distribution systems, any system.
I see 1080p as a benefit for quality pre-recorded media such as 24fps of Hi-def DVD, both formats, because the capacity is there is only one movie (not 20 1080p channels sharing the already limited capacity), no I do not see it happening under the current model of quantity rather than quality.
The reason satellite went to MPEG-4 compression for HD is not for the potential of offering better quality (like going to 1080p), but for more channels, more revenue, and more economic survival.
In order to change that approach there has to be a tremendous pressure from other competitor distribution systems going to 1080p, not from pre-recorded media alone, and no one is capable to do the first move in the near future.
But more powerful compression algorithms would come by, better than MPEG-4, and, with time, the decision of using the higher capacity for quality vs. quantity would come again into question, guess what the decision would be.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
The current standard of 1080p broadcast is 24 and 30fps and although a over-the-air STB should have the ability to tune to any of the 18 formats, those included, the formats cannot be viewed as is without objectionable flicker, so they are expected to be displayed at higher frame rate (48 and 60 minimum).
The same would apply to satellite and cable STBs if they decide to repeat broadcast would broadcast jump to 1080p, not happening anytime soon either.
The benefit of 1080p 60 frames per second is temporal resolution (over the 1080i). Both have the 1920 spatial horizontal resolution, but the progressive would capture and transmit full 1080x1920 snap "different" shots of images 60 times x second, rather than 540 lines (x1920) and then another 540 lines on the next 60th of a second, of the 1080i.
In other words, the benefit of 720p 60fps with the benefit of the 1920 spatial resolution of the 1080 systems (720 has only 1280 spatial horizontal resolution).
The negative side of 1080p 60 fps is that it requires the double of bandwidth than 1080i 30 fps interlaced, and that would impose a tremendous demand for distribution systems, any system.
I see 1080p as a benefit for quality pre-recorded media such as 24fps of Hi-def DVD, both formats, because the capacity is there is only one movie (not 20 1080p channels sharing the already limited capacity), no I do not see it happening under the current model of quantity rather than quality.
The reason satellite went to MPEG-4 compression for HD is not for the potential of offering better quality (like going to 1080p), but for more channels, more revenue, and more economic survival.
In order to change that approach there has to be a tremendous pressure from other competitor distribution systems going to 1080p, not from pre-recorded media alone, and no one is capable to do the first move in the near future.
But more powerful compression algorithms would come by, better than MPEG-4, and, with time, the decision of using the higher capacity for quality vs. quantity would come again into question, guess what the decision would be.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
I believe terrestrial broadcasts will never be in 1080p60. Satellite someday could broadcast 1080p60, but they are historically bandwidth stingy and old habits are hard to break. That leaves DVD. Virtually all DVDs are 24 frames per second.
It is technically possible for a monitor to accept 1080i as input and internally convert it to 1080p72 when the source is film. Presently such sets are rare. I would prefer such a set over one that accepts 1080p60 as input. When a good DLP comes on the market that does this I might finally replace my 6-year-old HDTV.
In theory, I see no benefit at all to a set that accepts 1080p60 at its interface. The only reason I see to buy such a set is that someday Motion Compensated Processing might reach the marketplace. In this process the receiver converts 1080i into 1080p60, creating the missing frames by using the MPEG motion vectors. I haven
It is technically possible for a monitor to accept 1080i as input and internally convert it to 1080p72 when the source is film. Presently such sets are rare. I would prefer such a set over one that accepts 1080p60 as input. When a good DLP comes on the market that does this I might finally replace my 6-year-old HDTV.
In theory, I see no benefit at all to a set that accepts 1080p60 at its interface. The only reason I see to buy such a set is that someday Motion Compensated Processing might reach the marketplace. In this process the receiver converts 1080i into 1080p60, creating the missing frames by using the MPEG motion vectors. I haven
n theory, I see no benefit at all to a set that accepts 1080p60 at its interface. The only reason I see to buy such a set is that someday Motion Compensated Processing might reach the marketplace.
Hold up a moment...
Let's not forget PC gamers!
And what about the internet...? there is another source for 1080P60...
OK, maybe I should have said,
Actually I was of the same opinion of Ken, that the spec was something that would not change in the near future, that was until Dolby Digital Plus was welcomed as audio codec for broadcast over a year ago.
While it was approved they also made clear that some converter box would be needed for current STBs to been able to decode the new audio codec and convert to DD for the legacy STB to recognize, adding one more box to avoid legacy STBs to become obsolete.
Dolby Digital Plus was adopted because of its ability to maintain quality audio with considerable compression (compared with Dolby Digital), more detail on my HDTV Terms Glossary of the magazine.
In other words, some enhancements seem possible of official acceptance as long as legacy equipment, already in the hands of millions of consumers, is not rendered obsolete.
That was an audio codec, with a separate adaptor box. A video codec using the similar approach could also become to life, although who wants more boxes and adaptors, especially when the FCC has mandated integrated tuners to avoid more boxes to avoid adding complexity of consumer understanding of the technology.
The bottom line is, Ken, that what we thought was "cast in stone" has a precedent that it isn't, and that opens the ball game to anything/any time.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
While it was approved they also made clear that some converter box would be needed for current STBs to been able to decode the new audio codec and convert to DD for the legacy STB to recognize, adding one more box to avoid legacy STBs to become obsolete.
Dolby Digital Plus was adopted because of its ability to maintain quality audio with considerable compression (compared with Dolby Digital), more detail on my HDTV Terms Glossary of the magazine.
In other words, some enhancements seem possible of official acceptance as long as legacy equipment, already in the hands of millions of consumers, is not rendered obsolete.
That was an audio codec, with a separate adaptor box. A video codec using the similar approach could also become to life, although who wants more boxes and adaptors, especially when the FCC has mandated integrated tuners to avoid more boxes to avoid adding complexity of consumer understanding of the technology.
The bottom line is, Ken, that what we thought was "cast in stone" has a precedent that it isn't, and that opens the ball game to anything/any time.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
Since, a 1080p will only cost the position of 2 or 3 1080i then why can't it be done?
I would be happy with 1080P30/24 since that is what most of the sources are and it will compress more efficiently than 1080I30/24. Rodolfo, we have discussed this before... Our boxes can't down convert a 1080P source to 1080I even though that is on the ATSC table?
Hmm, is there even an expensive ATSC generator that provides ATSC 1080P 30/24?
Rodolfo- I hope that you are right and I am wrong, but the odds against ever seeing 1080p60 OTA in the US seem astronomical to me. (Motion Compensated Processing might make it irrelevant. Besides, if 60 frames per second is such a big leap forward, why has Hollywood refused to budge from 24?) -Ken
In theory, I see no benefit at all to a set that accepts 1080p60 at its interface. ...an external rescaler might be better than the set
Richard,
Although to meet the standard any ATSC box should have been designed to receive any of the 18 formats (regardless of what they output), until we actually have such OTA signal we would not be able to propperly verify that, a testing generator of ATSC RF 24/30 could do the job in lieu of no stations doing such broadcast.
The FCC opened the field when they did not force the implementation of the 18 format table-3 of DTV, they let broadcasters and manufacturers pick and choose from those formats, a let the market decide attitude (I would say a "I do not know enough attitude, so do what you want", but I am not sure OTA STBs where left as flexible as well, meaning, a broadcaster could choose 480p, 720p, 1080i or 1080p (and we have cases for the first 3), a display manufacturer could choose to make displays with about the same choices and to complicate it more the CEA a few years ago permitted the HD naming to equipment handling only 810i of a 1080i signal, but a STB is another kind of animal, is the one that should tune any of the given choices to be in business.
Unless we do a test to confirm, even if a broadcaster would transmit 1080p I would not think that those STBs that have a native output to pass thru 1080p, so all the millions of STBs would most probably downconvert to another HD format (720p or 1080i).
Ken,
Hollywood would not need to move out of 24p because that would be a rate they used form the start, enough for storage and transmission of film, the theater film projectors already do 48 out of those 24, and home theaters are already moving in the same direction with scalers, RPTVs, panels, and projectors at 48, 72 and 120, multiples fo the 24.
Even Hi def DVD would not need more than 24 for a film transfer that originates from 24 celluloid or digital (like Lucas).
Video is another story, if shot as 1080p60 progressive it has to be transmitted that way and the reception equipment has to have that kind of input and processing ability as well, that is the part that would be more difficult, since transmitting such signal would double up the requirements of the bandwidth ( not for 24fps 1080p coming from film).
Frankly I would not like a broadcaster sending me a 60fps version of a 24fps film source, because in order to do that they would have to do 2:3 pulldown to convert the 24frames (48 half frames) into 60i fields, and also deinterlace those 60 i fields into 60p frames. I rather receive pure 24fps frames and let my equipment deal with it, I could set an upgrade path to improve my processing but I cannot control what it was broascast to me after two levels of processing.
Wallaua,
The response to your question is : the input of the display must be 1080p 60 (frames ps) if a scaler in front on the TV performs the deinterlacing of 1080i60 (fields).
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
Although to meet the standard any ATSC box should have been designed to receive any of the 18 formats (regardless of what they output), until we actually have such OTA signal we would not be able to propperly verify that, a testing generator of ATSC RF 24/30 could do the job in lieu of no stations doing such broadcast.
The FCC opened the field when they did not force the implementation of the 18 format table-3 of DTV, they let broadcasters and manufacturers pick and choose from those formats, a let the market decide attitude (I would say a "I do not know enough attitude, so do what you want", but I am not sure OTA STBs where left as flexible as well, meaning, a broadcaster could choose 480p, 720p, 1080i or 1080p (and we have cases for the first 3), a display manufacturer could choose to make displays with about the same choices and to complicate it more the CEA a few years ago permitted the HD naming to equipment handling only 810i of a 1080i signal, but a STB is another kind of animal, is the one that should tune any of the given choices to be in business.
Unless we do a test to confirm, even if a broadcaster would transmit 1080p I would not think that those STBs that have a native output to pass thru 1080p, so all the millions of STBs would most probably downconvert to another HD format (720p or 1080i).
Ken,
Hollywood would not need to move out of 24p because that would be a rate they used form the start, enough for storage and transmission of film, the theater film projectors already do 48 out of those 24, and home theaters are already moving in the same direction with scalers, RPTVs, panels, and projectors at 48, 72 and 120, multiples fo the 24.
Even Hi def DVD would not need more than 24 for a film transfer that originates from 24 celluloid or digital (like Lucas).
Video is another story, if shot as 1080p60 progressive it has to be transmitted that way and the reception equipment has to have that kind of input and processing ability as well, that is the part that would be more difficult, since transmitting such signal would double up the requirements of the bandwidth ( not for 24fps 1080p coming from film).
Frankly I would not like a broadcaster sending me a 60fps version of a 24fps film source, because in order to do that they would have to do 2:3 pulldown to convert the 24frames (48 half frames) into 60i fields, and also deinterlace those 60 i fields into 60p frames. I rather receive pure 24fps frames and let my equipment deal with it, I could set an upgrade path to improve my processing but I cannot control what it was broascast to me after two levels of processing.
Wallaua,
The response to your question is : the input of the display must be 1080p 60 (frames ps) if a scaler in front on the TV performs the deinterlacing of 1080i60 (fields).
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
Rodolfo - The question was intended to be a rhetorical one to KQ6QV, who wrote in his 12/21 post that "I see no benefit at all to a set that accepts 1080p60 at its interface" and then later "an external rescaler might be better than the set
I give up. I am unable to write a statement that cannot be misinterpreted. -Ken
This item really may be buried somewhere in this thread, but I thought that I ought to call attention to it (helps keep a perspective on 1080p).
Today's digital displays are basically progressive in nature - they work best by collecting the entire frame in a buffer and then that frame is transferred to the display. It's been that way with LCDs, Plasmas, and DLPs. The next logical step from the in display development was full resolution - 1080 x 1920 displays. The 720 x1280 technology being used was simply scaled up. And that technology was progressive. Now, suddenly, the display was capable of something that the available signals weren't delivering, and most of last year's 1080p sets weren't capable of accepting these signals. This year, the manufacturers have added (limited) 1080p input capability as 1080p sources were announced.
My point is: 1080i x1920 digital displays don't exist. There is no "step up" from 1080i to 1080p - so the only thing that anyone is paying extra for is the increased resolution.
Today's digital displays are basically progressive in nature - they work best by collecting the entire frame in a buffer and then that frame is transferred to the display. It's been that way with LCDs, Plasmas, and DLPs. The next logical step from the in display development was full resolution - 1080 x 1920 displays. The 720 x1280 technology being used was simply scaled up. And that technology was progressive. Now, suddenly, the display was capable of something that the available signals weren't delivering, and most of last year's 1080p sets weren't capable of accepting these signals. This year, the manufacturers have added (limited) 1080p input capability as 1080p sources were announced.
My point is: 1080i x1920 digital displays don't exist. There is no "step up" from 1080i to 1080p - so the only thing that anyone is paying extra for is the increased resolution.
I just purchased a Sony KDS-R70XBR2 (70", 1080p) which is attached via HDMI to a Cox HD-DVR cable box and a Sony DVP-NS75H DVD player. Both outputs are, supposedly, 1080i, but the specs on the TV say that the HDMI imputs are capable of receiving 1080p. Does that make the TV HDMI 1.3?
Also, should I get a High Def DVD player, or, more likely, my son get a PS3, will I need a different HDMI cable?
Also, should I get a High Def DVD player, or, more likely, my son get a PS3, will I need a different HDMI cable?
jboeche,
Having 1080p input capability is not directly related to a specific HDMI version, 1080p was a feature of the HDMI spec since version 1.0 a few years ago.
A handfull of devices currently have 1.3, but they will be more in 2007, your TV does not, but if it is the new model it does accept and display 1080p.
Most of the normal lenght HDMI cables made by responsible manufacturers (over 95%) do 1080p, oversized cables sometimes have difficulty; I just installed a 30 feet HDMI cable between the scaler and my 1080p projector, and it handles very well 1080p at that lenght, you do not want to know the price though, but I consider the cable another piece of equipment on the HT, a piece that could become a bottleneck when bridging otherwise excellent quality equipment.
You should buy the cable with a returning policy that would allow you for the store to supply a replacement that eventually performs well within the period of time you need to install and test the 1080p equipment pieces that would allow you to test the 1080p capability of the entire chain.
Perhaps you should get the PS3 HW and SW first if you are sure you want those anyway.
The added capabilities of 1.3 on a source equipment (like the PS3) would NOT show their full benefit with a display that does not have 1.3 capabilities, and I am not just talking about the entry point HDMI receiver chip on the TV, I am also talking about the rest of the TV handling for deep color, the bandwidth, the video processing, the extra features of 1.3, which is not just in the cable or the receiving HDMI chip.
Check some of articles on this magazine regarding the HDMI subject, they cover the versions, new capabilities, cables, testing programs, etc.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
Having 1080p input capability is not directly related to a specific HDMI version, 1080p was a feature of the HDMI spec since version 1.0 a few years ago.
A handfull of devices currently have 1.3, but they will be more in 2007, your TV does not, but if it is the new model it does accept and display 1080p.
Most of the normal lenght HDMI cables made by responsible manufacturers (over 95%) do 1080p, oversized cables sometimes have difficulty; I just installed a 30 feet HDMI cable between the scaler and my 1080p projector, and it handles very well 1080p at that lenght, you do not want to know the price though, but I consider the cable another piece of equipment on the HT, a piece that could become a bottleneck when bridging otherwise excellent quality equipment.
You should buy the cable with a returning policy that would allow you for the store to supply a replacement that eventually performs well within the period of time you need to install and test the 1080p equipment pieces that would allow you to test the 1080p capability of the entire chain.
Perhaps you should get the PS3 HW and SW first if you are sure you want those anyway.
The added capabilities of 1.3 on a source equipment (like the PS3) would NOT show their full benefit with a display that does not have 1.3 capabilities, and I am not just talking about the entry point HDMI receiver chip on the TV, I am also talking about the rest of the TV handling for deep color, the bandwidth, the video processing, the extra features of 1.3, which is not just in the cable or the receiving HDMI chip.
Check some of articles on this magazine regarding the HDMI subject, they cover the versions, new capabilities, cables, testing programs, etc.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
Yes! No network, satellite, or cable is broadcasting in 1080p--YET!
fpnovak
fpnovak
Most 1080i sets only have 1366x720 pixel resolution while 1080P sets have 1920x1080 resolution. Thus it seems to me that 1080P sets should show a higher quality 1080i picture due at least to the higher horizontal resolution. This is without even considering whether anyone is broadcasting in 1080p. Am I missing something? Why isn't this part of the discussion? It is a separate question of whether people can see this difference in resolution, because it depends on the size of the screen, distance viewing, quality of the source, etc.
I have the same TV, the Sony 70" XBR2. I purchased a Plilips BluRay player from Sams Club, connected with HDMI and the display showed 1080p. From my HD DirecTV box the display showed 1081i. I also have the Sony DVP NS9100ES DVD player which upconverts standard DVD's to 1080i. The Philips player had some problems playing DVD's so I returned it. The picture was not that much better than my Sony standard DVD player so i decided to wait for the second round of BluRay players. I also have a Sony STR DA7100ES Receiver with HDMI switching. It would not pass 1080p, only 1080i.
Just for your information the Sony DVD player that I have got rave reviews and using the Fire Wire connection for sound between the player and the receiver my Super Audio CD's sound awsome.
I love the TV, it has a great picture.
Dave
Just for your information the Sony DVD player that I have got rave reviews and using the Fire Wire connection for sound between the player and the receiver my Super Audio CD's sound awsome.
I love the TV, it has a great picture.
Dave