Like it says. New set is capable of 1080p and offers brighter, broader range of color response than the old one. 15,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio.
So, I experimented with the Shuttle Launch, yesterday. Shooting about 10 feet from the set at 1/25th second to be certain the image – even when frozen in replay – was thoroughly painted on the screen.
Here are three steps in the launch: lift-off, airborne and on-the-way.
The only photoshopping of the images is to get the digital image as close as possible to true colors from the telecast.
There’s a lot of blue tint to the pictures. Is this something that you could see while seeing it live?
Great photos! I never imagined that watching this on a wide screen could look so fantastic!
#1 – yes. HDNet [as best I recall] is shooting through long lenses about 3 miles away from launch. All I did was match the image color. You can see it changed as they increased the angle upwards. Plus, their own cameras had to deal with flare from the rocket exhaust.
Hard to say whether the visible pixelation is a result of your picture being a JPG, or if the TV looks that way. The pixelation of LCD/DLP sets is precisely why I don’t like them. Personally, I would prefer a Sony KD-34XBR960 CRT HDTV model. I don’t care how svelte or groovy the cabinet looks – picture quality is of utmost importance to me. OTOH, I just got a Pinnacle HDTV PCI card for my PC, so I’ll just use my 21″ Trinitron for football games at home.
Having been exposed to digital Cable/TV and DirectTV for going on 4 years now (at friends’ places), I’m stilll quite a fan of analog. I especially liked the Vikings games last year during snow storms. Watching on DirectTV, and a great play is happening – then, digital freeze. Since there was 1 centimeter of snow on the dish, the tuner lost track of the digital stream, and no picture/sound was the result.
We quickly moved to the kitchen, and powered up the good ol’ reliable 13″ color analog while he went up on the roof to sweep off the dish (he conveniently had a ladder propped against the house in preparation for the game, there’s commentary somewhere in that action). Sure, the analog had a ‘snowflake’ here and there, we didn’t get the “I’m at the game” Dolby THX super-deafening surround sound – but at least we could WATCH THE FRIGGIN’ GAME!
Another buddy had a better solution… he re-modeled his house, and during his initial research, asked for suggestions from friends. I half-jokingly suggested a projector and screen. He ran with it: 100″ screen, and high-def projector wired to his PC running Windows Media Center. Now, THAT setup has GLORIOUS PICTURES! He uses terrestrial HDTV (HD antenna in the attic, not satellite), DVDs, and the occasional video acquired ‘elsewhere’. Everything looks great, no pixelation, sound is wonderful. The black in the picture isn’t really “true black”, it’s “lack of light” — but I kind of prefer his 100″ projected pictures in a living room completely wired for in-wall surround sound, to my other friends’ sub-50″ LCD/DLP sets.
Well, I’ve rambled long enough…
Best photos off a TV screen that I’ve ever seen.
I’ve seen two Shuttle launches in person. The fire is definitely bright – when it’s only 3 miles away just clearing the tower, that fire is nearly as bright as the sun.
Just a random, off-topic, sneer:
Among my group of, admittedly poor, friends; none has an HDTV and most scoff at television ownership. I am leaning their way.
So many homes I come across, in my line of work ,are being dominated by huge entertainment complexes. I notice a common thread to those who chose to follow that route. Their homes suffer from a complete lack of books or musical instruments. In many of the larger residences, libraries with custom woodwork are being gutted for home theaters. This saddens me.
Of course, this is not the place to say such things, in a “tech” blog.
I just wish more people would realize this fetish for clearer pictures is a byproduct and contributor to lack of imagination and intellectual curiosity.
Give me a piano and my books and the vistas experienced will far surpass megapixel clarity.
Sorry.
Back on topic: Plasma or LCD?
I ask because I’m starting to reject any LCD over 30″. No matter how hard they try, I still see blur in the images.
James, I’m right on the edge with a 32″ Panasonic LCD. Love it. We watch a lot of hockey and when it is offered in HD it is spectacular.
#4 – the actual tiffs I shot are over 14mb each. With comparable increase in resolution. 1080p image on the screen has 2 million pixels. The images I make available for the web are quite compressed.
Your other criticisms sadly are out-of-date, subjective. I’ve worked on outdoor projection systems that were up to 16′ x 9′ – obviously folks with unlimited budgets. If you’re happy with sports on a 34″ [or 19″!] screen – fine. Some folks still use monochrome monitors, too.
The more data I have available for these old eyes and brain to absorb and interpret, the better.
#8 – James – 46″ LCD. I agree with Robert Heron that perhaps – a few years down the road when true 120hz 1080p LCD’s appear there may be a difference. From what I’ve seen – from proper football to motorsports – I have no diminished appreciation of action on the screen.
The quality of mpg4 rendition – and no more HD-lite with the advent of adequate satellite bandwidth – is absolutely good enough for me. And I’ve tried it out with downloaded full 1080p content from the web.
Oh, and just to add, James – while the basic menu of image adjustments on this LCD mirror my older DLP, I haven’t yet attempted all the finer tweaks now available. I’d guess about four times more detail adjustment available for color perfection, dark and light balances, etc..
I’ll get to it, sooner or later. I can’t help fiddling with geek technology.
As a professional photographer, all I can say is that the photos look like photos of a TV screen, obviously from a source that is less than 2 Megapixels in resolution. Add to that the problems from the compression prior to transmission (visible everywhere in the photos), plus the horrendous oversharpening that TV adds to make things look real sharp for the consumer, and you end up with something not pleasant at all. As seen in the thumbnail that introduces the article, when compared to the larger photos, the photos are basically usable as thumbnails but not much more. You might be able to produce a decent 4×6 print, but not much more.
Regardless of the size of the TIFFs, you are limited by the resolution of the screen that you photographed. You can’t get a higher resolution out of the camera than the image that is being projected on the camera sensor. It’s the same principle as putting a crappy kit lens on an expensive camera and then claiming that the camera is blurry.
The only thing that saves HDTV from showing it’s true low resolution is that it is meant for moving images, and you do not need very high resolution for moving images since they are naturally blurred by motion.
The true test is to do a screen capture of the digital feed, right before it gets put on the display. There are devices that can do that experimentally. The results are disappointing… a less than 2MP image, oversharpened, blocky by MPEG compression, that is not all that useful for anything.
There is a reason why in printed ads for televisions the screen image is ALWAYS simulated.
Well, you got the part right about 1080i being less than 2mp. Not too much else. But, then, you don’t watch any television.
Which is why I imagine Eideard noted he tested it with 1080p downloads – which are 2mp. But, then, you don’t watch television.
Probably don’t shoot color either.
What about hair shirts?
Hey Bryan,
We have both.
In a small 4-bedroom house we’ve got three girls sharing one bedroom, two boys in another while my wife and I have the large one.
The other has a 55″ panel on the wall with a PC, Sony/PS, Sony receiver w/ turntable – mixer & 5 way speakers, DVD/R and VCRs connected.
There are also four acoustic guitars, an electric piano and organ, a 7piece drum set, a trumpet, sax, flute and clarinet, a set of congas and bongos, a fender guitar and bass with two fender amps, a violin and mandolin and a box of records and kazoos. There is a wall full of books, Vgames, CDs, DVDs, LPs and 45s. Most of the video games were gifts and remain unopened.
Many nights I come home to one, tow or three of the kids playing an instrument, sometimes the wife too, she’s learning piano.
Moss,
After compression and resampling, the images are actually well under 1MP quality. Just because you have 2 Million pixels on a screen does not mean that you get 2 million pixels worth of ‘quality’.
There is actually a measurement term in photography called “image quality” (IQ), and it is utterly independent of pixel count. It is how good does a photo look when processed to a specific size. And the linked images in the article look just awful.
The images shown in this article show exactly what I am talking about. They look like bad 1MP photos. Look at the sky, the edges of sharp objects, etc. If you can’t see the problems with those photos then you probably need an new monitor or new glasses.
If you understand MPEG or JPEG compression, you know that a lot of the data is thrown away in order to produce increase compression. SO if you are throwing away a lot of your original 2MP image, how can you possible end up with an image that recreates the original 2MP accurately. You just make it up… but the fact is that your image is no longer 2 MP, it is much much less.
So yes, the screen may be showing an image on 2 Million pixels, but the image quality in itself is (in the case of these photos), more like a 1MP photo.
I see compression squigglies around the text in the lower-right quadrant. This would bother me if I owned the set. Or are these from the JPEG compression the picture suffered?
#10/11 – My point of view differs slightly, but I think we agree on the same points.
To me, the overarching issue isn’t HD-lite (though the new D* channels on my HR20 and H20 are looking great), it’s that the stuff we’re currently watching isn’t mastered as well as it can be. I think content has a ways to go before we can really say all of the issues we’re talking about are user-end only.
On the 120 Hz front, I’m waiting to see those sets at 4 ms instead of 6 ms. The current batch are nice, but aren’t plasma killers.
Personally, I’m using 50″ and 37″ plasmas where I’m sitting at the recommended distance (family room, living room), and 26″ and 20″ LCDs where I’m not (bedroom, bathroom). When I sit at the recommended distance when watching larger LCDs, even 32″, I can blocking and/or fade.
I’ll consent that it doesn’t degrade my viewing experience either, but for the price these toys cost I have a hard time putting up with any error.
Speaking of which, any interest in a Westinghouse 42″ LCD that’s developed black vertical lines? 🙂
#15 – you still don’t get it about TV. The basic premise of 1080i – which is the best we get in broadcast TV, whatever the distribution – is 1mp. We already know that.
Babbling on, trying to explain that to anyone who knows a bit about HDTV – is like trying to explain RAM to a computer geek with 20 years experience.
We all know that.
The point of 1080p and 2mp potential – so far – is sources other than broadcast, like the overpriced and warring platter formats or online downloads. There is content already available at that level; but, not broadcast OTA, cable or sat.
I don’t need all the oomph in my pickup truck all year round either. But, when I cut firewood to heat my home [that silly renewable resource thing that offends Republikans], and I’m loading 1500 lbs. and driving back to paved roads over 20 miles of dirt – I need the capacity and capability.
Moss,
It is you that just doesn’t get it.
We are talking about the quality of theses particular photos, not the ‘potential’ of the screen.
Babbling on, trying to ignore the fact that these photos look like a 1 MP camera photos, badly processed, is missing the point outright.
The original post is basically a ‘look how pretty theses pictures are’, when the reality is that they don’t look that great.
Awake,
I agree with you. The problem is, as my wife always reminds me, I (or any serious photographer) am my worst enemy. We see flaws that others don’t. Or, if they see them, don’t care.
My first impression was “gee, that is very pixilated and contrasty”. However, it seems no one else noticed or cares. When I showed my wife the picture she didn’t notice. When I pointed out the problems, she gave one of those “ya, so?” shrugs.
I maybe wrong, but I think Nasa TV now has some HD cameras as of the last shuttle mission. I know they are digital mode on the satellite.
Oh with 12 visits to the Cape, I have seen 5 liftoffs, 2 on KSC grounds and 3 on US 1 near state rd 50 it is directly across from Pad 39. I strongly suggest seeing one in person! It is such a site to behold!
I’m no expert, so maybe I’m wrong. But my experience with using various popular image formats, showed that PNG was the best at retaining color and clarity, while still compressing size. And yet, I rarely see it used. Why?
Try suppling a HD snap in both JPG and PNG formats, and let’s compare.