HD Cinema Display

[turdburglar]

I am thinking of getting the Apple 23-inch cinema display and read that it connects through a DVI cable, does anyone know if it prevents you watching your backed up movies? or if anyone else has one are they happy with it?
thank you.

[terryj]

We have several at work, and no it doesn't restrict you
from watching backed up movies, or any movies for that matter.

The extra FW port on the back is nice, but having to buy
Apple's ADC to DVI converter ( even for G5's) was a pain
( and unexpected cash outlay---$99 each!)

[rotuts]

Look carefully at Samsungs syncmaster 243 with or without the T

its the same as apples, 1" bigger but same # pixels, cheaper and sometimes has rebates.

samsung prices are falling and if you can wait a month or so will all mmore. the T version tilts and is a little more $.

I have the Sam 24 and 21 T. I don't need the 24 T but did not know it at the tmie and would have saved a little

they both though have two connectors One for screen to comp and one for power. I like the black

but the real reason I got it is that Sam has a no nonsence no dead pixel garauntee and I got it at Fry's which has a 30 day money back no questions.

so consider it. I love the two I have.

Cheers you will love either

rotut

[edDV]

I am thinking of getting the Apple 23-inch cinema display and read that it connects through a DVI cable, does anyone know if it prevents you watching your backed up movies? or if anyone else has one are they happy with it?
thank you.

If you intend to watch future commercial HD-DVD material, the monitor must have DVI+HDCP or HDMI+HDCP support. Otherwise the DVD will not play.

These monitors are for HDTV production but are incapable of commercial HDTV DVD playback. Be warned.

[Lobe]

check the HP f2304, it's $900 now and uses the same panel as the Apple 23" it's kinda ugly but a lot less. grabbed a deal on it a couple months ago for $775, not sure if that will happen again so it's $900 now AR:
http://www.shopping.hp.com

[turdburglar]

Thank you all for your input, I think I will go for the apple 23. Lobe, I did look at the HP but I am in Australia and everything over here that is 23" is about the same price $2,299.00. It doesn't match the currency rate, but what can you do?? Also edDV I think these monitors in Australia have a DVI input?

[edDV]

Thank you all for your input, I think I will go for the apple 23. Lobe, I did look at the HP but I am in Australia and everything over here that is 23" is about the same price $2,299.00. It doesn't match the currency rate, but what can you do?? Also edDV I think these monitors in Australia have a DVI input?

They have DVI input but not HDCP encryption-decryption which means you will NEVER be able to play a high definition DVD to them unless Apple offers an upgrade.

They are fine only if you are producing and watching your own HDTV material.

[turdburglar]

Thank you all for your input, I think I will go for the apple 23. Lobe, I did look at the HP but I am in Australia and everything over here that is 23" is about the same price $2,299.00. It doesn't match the currency rate, but what can you do?? Also edDV I think these monitors in Australia have a DVI input?

They have DVI input but not HDCP encryption-decryption which means you will NEVER be able to play a high definition DVD to them unless Apple offers an upgrade.

They are fine only if you are producing and watching your own HDTV material.

Thanks mate, Now I understand what you mean and I wouldnt hold my breath on an apple upgrade?

[edDV]

Now I understand what you mean and I wouldnt hold my breath on an apple upgrade?

I wouldn't.

[the future]

The Dell, Samsung etc. don't have HDCP, either. AFAIK there are no computer displays sold yet with HDCP.

[willrob]

Check this article for HDCP and monitors

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,122738,tk,dn100405X,00.asp

[edDV]

Check this article for HDCP and monitors

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,122738,tk,dn100405X,00.asp

To make matters even worse in the USA, Hollywood is still determined to push the "broadcast flag" which would also require HDCP in order to view protected digital HDTV broadcasts. So far their efforts have been blocked by the courts but the bill has been reintroduced in Congress.

If the "broadcast flag" is approved, HDTV tuners similar to the ATI HD Wonder will be forced to reduce resolution to 720x480 for flagged programs.

Future tuners would allow HD resolutions for flagged content only if the monitor is HDCP encrypted.

http://www.eff.org/broadcastflag/

[AntnyMD]

Not all HD DVDs will be encrytped, just like not all current standard definition DVDs are. Most from film studios will be, but you all know good and well that encryption will be broken within weeks of discs appearing. You cant future-proof everything ... Enjoy what you can today.

[DeadLily]

Y'know... what do you wanna bet that the public just won't go for HD-DVD? I'm guessing that it'll be so high end with almost no appreciable difference from what we have now that only the "must haves" will be buying this thing, and it'll all go the way of Betamax, Superbit, and DTS laserdisc.

I mean, I'm willing to downgrade the quality of my DVD backups through DTOX, where I can see a slight difference, but not enough to make me pine for the original resolution. All HD-DVD releases will be accompanied with a standard release from the start, and that will suit most of us just fine. It doesn't seem worth it to me to worry about a monitor that must be HD-DVD compliant. My current display is sufficient.

I just can't see the general public will be so jaded by standard DVD once a higher resolution is available. Standard DVD looks pretty darn good.

[AntnyMD]

Yeah, I tend to agree. I get plenty high definition content now through cable, so much that the dramactic impact of high definition DVD is already being minimized.

[willrob]

There's also the issue of cost. Even if one is willing to accept the quality of current DVD (which for the majority of folks is just fine as is), the dual format HD-DVD will require at least a new format DVD player (unl;ess Blueray anf the HD format can play as normal DVD's in current hardware). So even when this type of fisk comes on the market, it will take a few years for most pople to make the switch, if they make it at all. I think that the current DVD format will still be the norm for years to come.

A lot depends on how awful the experience of next year's switch to digital "broadcast" goes. Since most of America hasn't opted to spend a thousand+ dollars on digital sets, the convertor box option may be the only expense most people will want. And of course those with satilite or cable won't need to even get the convertor box.

I think the electronic industry is overreaching; too many people still remember when TV was free.

[rotuts]

Ant and Will

this might be OT but Id like your opinion: I have an HDTV card (DIVCO) with autralian mac drivers (iTele) it works reasonably well now taht iTele is v 0.6+
I live in the S part fot eh SF bay area and at the fringe of over the air reception. Only on one PBS channel at 8 pm to 11 PM do you get what I call full scpectrum HDTV : a prue digital program start to finish and transmitted in full size: 1920 x 1200. all the other "HD" are much samller with blacked out sides and a total ares of about 1/3 of the above.

NFL football, the 'premier' TV event for most networks is best on CBS with about a 25% decrese in area. Fox is about 50 % same for ABC.

so on digital cable, Im betting they compress the signal even more.

any thoughts?

Rotuts

[the future]

To the folks claiming next gen disks will not catch on, a few points to consider. The quality will be a lot better than broadcast HD (more bandwith, newer codecs, pristine source). And the PS3 will be a BR player as well, meaning a much bigger installed base much sooner than with standalone BD players/recorders alone. Plus a gigantic marketing hype, of course...

[edDV]

To the folks claiming next gen disks will not catch on, a few points to consider. The quality will be a lot better than broadcast HD (more bandwith, newer codecs, pristine source). And the PS3 will be a BR player as well, meaning a much bigger installed base much sooner than with standalone BD players/recorders alone. Plus a gigantic marketing hype, of course...

But, you will need a HDCP equipped HDTV to view that BR DVD. About half the installed base of "HD Ready" HDTV sets don't support HDCP. That half of owners are the tech savvy early adopters who will be very angry.

[the future]

But, you will need a HDCP equipped HDTV to view that BR DVD. About half the installed base of "HD Ready" HDTV sets don't support HDCP. That half of owners are the tech savvy early adopters who will be very angry.

That's not quite correct. You will be able to watch BR (or HD-DVD) discs on sets without HDCP (i.e. HDMI/DVI). The question – and this has not been decided yet exactly because of that potential anger you describe – is if you'll have max. resolution (1920x1080) or some kind of downscaled resolution (which would still be better than SD in any case).

[edDV]

But, you will need a HDCP equipped HDTV to view that BR DVD. About half the installed base of "HD Ready" HDTV sets don't support HDCP. That half of owners are the tech savvy early adopters who will be very angry.

That's not quite correct. You will be able to watch BR (or HD-DVD) discs on sets without HDCP (i.e. HDMI/DVI). The question – and this has not been decided yet exactly because of that potential anger you describe – is if you'll have max. resolution (1920x1080) or some kind of downscaled resolution (which would still be better than SD in any case).

So you are saying that the PS3 will play commercial Blu-Ray DVD in HD resolutions to a HDTV set that does not have HDCP? If that is true it operates differently than a Blu-Ray HD DVD player.

HD DVD players require the HDTV to have HDCP or playback resolutions are limited to 720x480 regardless of output (e.g. Analog Component, DVI). HDMI always has HDCP. 720x480 is the current DVD standard and is considered SD.

Not only must the viewing device be capable of HDCP, it must provide valid keys from valid licensed manufaturers that match the device.

If the PS3 is bypassing HDCP, then everyone will buy one instead of a Blu-Ray player. Sony and the MPAA aren't that stupid. All Blu-Ray players must conform.

BTW: we are talking HD movie DVDs here. Sony is free to do what it wants with BR game discs and they would be crazy to lock out non-HDCP HDTVs.

[the future]

This has nothing to do with PS3 being any different than other BR players. It's just that it has not been decided upon yet for either Blu-ray or HD-DVD what resolution will be allowed over analogue (i.e. non-HDCP) connections. At the moment it looks like 960x540, which is obviously not the same resolution you'll get over HDMI/DVI, but still higher than SD.

IF you're really interested in the technical details, scan the last 30 or so pages of this thread on avs where some very knowledgable folks (and some industry insiders) regularly post: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=5e828a884589010dddac5652dea21a33&t=411...page=422&pp=30

[Lobe]

wow, this thread changed. DVD sucks, as far as quality goes, it's sad that laserdisc looked so much better. hell, 8-track tapes were quad, and then cd came and we went backwards again! it's convenience that sells not quality or features, clearly.
so HD-DVD should take off just like DVD-A and SACD did.

[AntnyMD]

Ant and Will

so on digital cable, Im betting they compress the signal even more.


Rotuts

As far as I can tell, my local cable provider (Comcast in Montgomery County, Maryland) does not additionally compress local broadcast signals. Also theres no downconversion to 720p, for example, of 1080i content (ABC network content is 720p originally). Cable channels like Showtime and Discover HD Theater seem to be full bitrate, full resolution as well. I actually wonder where this additional compression is happening. It seems an awful waste of resources to recompress signals on the fly when you can just pass them through and be done with it.

[rotuts]

Ant

Im not sure what the terms are, but over the air HDTV, PBS in SF bay areas has full sized HD only from 8 p to 11p by this I mean the picture size on my monitor is 1920 x 1200.

NFL football, which has the best comercial HD is as follows: ABC is about 1/3 of thatttttt screen, as is fox. CBS is about 20% less than full sized.

don't know what that really means, but just fr starters the pictures are not the same sized.

does this mean anytingn to anybody?

rotuts

[AntnyMD]

It just seems a bit odd, as the maximum picture size in the ATSC standard is 1920x1080.

[rotuts]

Ant

exactlly. thats what was news to me. almost no one on the comertial site is really using the specturm that they got for free to the full extent. and the broadcast distance for over the air HDTV is maybe less that 30 miles!

rotut

[AntnyMD]

Occasionally MPEG Streamclip will reveal a local broadcaster sending over 1088 lines, but I'm sure the television just sees those extra 8 lines as overscan .. or maybe its closed captioning info. You should write to the HD engineer at this station and ask some questions about this 1200 lines thing.

[rotuts]

Ant

sorry I mean the picture size on my flat panel screen in pixels. only KQED at 8 pm has the full pixel picture. everybody else supstantially smaller excep for CBS HD NFL football.

rotuts