I just saw a local chain advertising a 25" MSI 1920x1080 IPS 100Hz monitor for 109 Canadian dollars. That's abou the price of a reasonably fancy full course meal + wine for 2 people here.

For comparison, the cheapest 15" reasonable dot pitch CRT monitor I could get in early 1996 was a 500 CAN$ Daewoo CMC-1502B (sharp at 1024x768, but very dim and low contrast for a CRT).

So that 25" monitor would be about 50$ in 1996 Canadian dollars. This is mind blowing, IMHO.

darry wrote on 2024-05-18, 16:41:

I just saw a local chain advertising a 25" MSI 1920x1080 IPS 100Hz monitor for 109 Canadian dollars. That's abou the price of a reasonably fancy full course meal + wine for 2 people here.

For comparison, the cheapest 15" reasonable dot pitch CRT monitor I could get in early 1996 was a 500 CAN$ Daewoo CMC-1502B (sharp at 1024x768, but very dim and low contrast for a CRT).

So that 25" monitor would be about 50$ in 1996 Canadian dollars. This is mind blowing, IMHO.

FHD is extremely obsolete at this point (26+ year old standard)
so the tooling and standardization is long since paid off.

Your 1996 screen comparatively was a max of 10 year old tech (likely 7 year old if it was non-interlaced)

Back in the day I loved the biggest crt monitor possible, now days I am extremely dissappointed that most FHD screens are 25”+ Let alone 4k.

I honestly would love 18-22” screens with. 4k, multisync, tuner and good response and brightness.

Sadly most smaller LCDs are total garbage all around dim, poor response and lack of multiple inputs.

I miss smaller high quality screens as pretty much all mass produced screens are just too big. Local SAMS had FHD freesync 32” curved monitors for a super cheap price but it’s just not a very useful size for me as I don’t really have the desk space and even if I did Curved FHD looks bad above 24/25” on a desk

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2024-05-18, 16:16:

Its Happening.
This was unthinkable and unaffordable just a few years ago.

Good to see "affordable" laptops with OLED screens. Two huge problems, however:
Screen isn't 4:3 yet
Won't boot DOS bare metal, because of no legacy BIOS and having a walled garden UEFI system.

Wonder if these issues will ever be addressed. Probably never, sadly.

zyzzle wrote on 2024-05-22, 01:57:

Wonder if these issues will ever be addressed. Probably never, sadly.

Never, because these things aren't being sold as actual computers for people who like computers to use as computers. They're sold as Boxes of Magic for dumb or non-technical people who are forced to use them by the technologification of society, or to "bingewatch" TV shows. In the mass market, everything is reduced to the lowest common denominator. In the words of your friends who don't "get it", "why do you even care, dude? Let's watch the game."

rmay635703 wrote on 2024-05-19, 23:15:

FHD is extremely obsolete at this point (26+ year old standard) so the tooling and standardization is long since paid off. […]
Show full quote

darry wrote on 2024-05-18, 16:41:

I just saw a local chain advertising a 25" MSI 1920x1080 IPS 100Hz monitor for 109 Canadian dollars. That's abou the price of a reasonably fancy full course meal + wine for 2 people here.

For comparison, the cheapest 15" reasonable dot pitch CRT monitor I could get in early 1996 was a 500 CAN$ Daewoo CMC-1502B (sharp at 1024x768, but very dim and low contrast for a CRT).

So that 25" monitor would be about 50$ in 1996 Canadian dollars. This is mind blowing, IMHO.

FHD is extremely obsolete at this point (26+ year old standard)
so the tooling and standardization is long since paid off.

Your 1996 screen comparatively was a max of 10 year old tech (likely 7 year old if it was non-interlaced)

Back in the day I loved the biggest crt monitor possible, now days I am extremely dissappointed that most FHD screens are 25”+ Let alone 4k.

I honestly would love 18-22” screens with. 4k, multisync, tuner and good response and brightness.

Sadly most smaller LCDs are total garbage all around dim, poor response and lack of multiple inputs.

I miss smaller high quality screens as pretty much all mass produced screens are just too big. Local SAMS had FHD freesync 32” curved monitors for a super cheap price but it’s just not a very useful size for me as I don’t really have the desk space and even if I did Curved FHD looks bad above 24/25” on a desk

I'm glad that many films are available in 1080p by now, at least.

In my home country, the federal TV stations (public service broadcasting) refuse to air in full 1080p to this day.

It's either 720p or 1080i, as far as I know. And SD/ED (PAL) resolution.

In this respect, I'm glad that 1080p is around.
And that panels exist which can display it lossless, in native resolution.

One of my HD cam corders can't do full 1920x1080, even. It uses CCD sensor and tops out at 1440x1080.

Jo22 wrote on 2024-05-22, 19:17:

In my home country, the federal TV stations (public service broadcasting) refuse to air in full 1080p to this day.

is there a cost implication for doing so? if there was then i'd be happy enough there are still broadcasts at least

gerry wrote on 2024-05-24, 09:12:

Jo22 wrote on 2024-05-22, 19:17:

In my home country, the federal TV stations (public service broadcasting) refuse to air in full 1080p to this day.

is there a cost implication for doing so? if there was then i'd be happy enough there are still broadcasts at least

I'm not sure. Maybe it's unwillingness to upgrade equipment much past the previous PAL level.

Taxes for TV+Radio reception are still a thing here, too.
Citizens must pay a fee per household, to support state-owned TV/Radio stations (public broadcasting) and their productions (films, shows, documentaries etc).

In return, the public service broadcasting has an educational mandate and obligation to provide information to citizens.

Hm. There might be bandwidth considerations, too, because of cable and terrestrial broadcast, not sure.

Via satellite (DVB-S2), however, 4K/UHD would be no problem.
The popular Astra satellite network has 4K demo programme on the test channels, I remember.

Or maybe they're waiting for 8K until the TV broadcast stations will upgrade again?
I vaguely remember that it had been told that 4K had been skipped intentionally in favor of 8K.
Unfortunately, it's questionable whether or not 8K will every materialize. It's as uncertain as an 8K Blu-ray disc.

But personally, I think it's just that they're living in the past a bit.
Real full HD (1080p), 2K (1440p) or 4K is apparently too much work to them, also.

Let's just think of the national TV shows that are being made in-house.
Make-up artists would need to work much harder on the actors and the sets would need more work, too.
All the little quirks can be hidden much better in PAL or 720p.

Last time before they invested into something into, before HD-ready resolution (720p) was introduced in the 2000s,
was stereo audio via terrestrial broadcast (A2) and then PAL Plus in early 90s (wide-screen TV etc).

And this won't change until 2028, at least.
Currently, many of the few 1080p programme available via satellite are merely being upscaled from a PAL or 720p source, also.
Source: https://www.4kfilme.de/ard-zdf-und-arte ... ultra-hd/

Hm. Or maybe they think their 60+ audience just doesn't care about an increased resolution, not sure.

Which either way is sad for the various documentaries they make (ocean life, rainforest, history etc), which are usually being quite good.

The primary programme that young people still care about are such quality documentaries, rather than folks music, crime films or cabaret.

So I hope that the documentaries are at least shot in 1080p or higher resolutions.
Even if they can't be watched in that resolution within next 20 years or so.

Edit: That being said, the private TV stations do air in HD, but the signal is often being encrypted (requires users to buy a card for TV's or receiver's CI slot to unlock).
One or two do also air in UHD/4K already..

Edit: So I'm really glad for 4K/UHD Blu-ray discs and I'm looking forward to an 8K incarnation, as well.
If our infrastructure here in my country remains so "poor" (by comparison), then video rental stores might have a chance for a revival. 😁
Would be cool if that would happen. Watching movies together on the weekends used to be fun. 😄

Hm. There might be bandwidth considerations, too, because of cable and terrestrial broadcast, not sure.

For sure it plays a role. For TV content, 1080p needs to be 1080p50, which requires more bandwidth than 720p or 1080i. Plus the majority of DVB receivers might not be compatible with 1080p50.
Both cable and terrestrial could handle it, but nowadays they try to cram as many channels as possible in a transponder.

Kalle wrote on 2024-05-24, 13:58:

Hm. There might be bandwidth considerations, too, because of cable and terrestrial broadcast, not sure.

For sure it plays a role. For TV content, 1080p needs to be 1080p50, which requires more bandwidth than 720p or 1080i. Plus the majority of DVB receivers might not be compatible with 1080p50.
Both cable and terrestrial could handle it, but nowadays they try to cram as many channels as possible in a transponder.

I remember DVB-T.. I've bought a TV dongle for PC once.
Picture quality was horrible, artifacts often were visible.
No comparison to DVB-S or DVB-S2.

DVB-T was so bad that back then I had wished digital TV via terrestrial had been put to rest instead.

The frequencies could have been put to better use, such as internet connections, cell phones or setting them free for ham radio.

Alas the "propaganda" (advertisement, really) for terrestrial TV was big at the time.
It had been advertised as "everywhere TV" and I think ads with young people holding a portable DVB-T TV in their hands had been around at the time, too.

The reality of DVB-T was different, though. Lots of reception problems if signal was too weak.
Which it usually was, because output power had been reduced after analogue switch-off. To save power, err, money. Sigh. :(

The technology of DVB-T was very poor, too. Or rather, made to be low-end and cheap.
Bandwidth between programme had been shared,
so say a news programme with little motion got fewer fps and more compression than an action movie.

Despite a news programme being more relevant/valuable and of higher priority, thus.
Or so someone should think.

Okay, maybe it also was because we had the older DVB-T based on MPEG-2, so these tricks had been necessary.

At least if the intention was to cram as many TV programme on the broadcast signal of a single transmitter station.

2017 or so was the switch over to DVB-T2 and H.265, I think.
But at this point, I personally nolonger really cared about the development.

The shows being produced for linear TV aren't being worth the investment (DVB-S2 can be received, anyway). Except the documentaries, I mean.

When DVB-T was new, computer shows and experiment shows still were being produced. But that's another story, I guess. I don't mean to spam this thread.

Cable via DVB-C was (or is) similar to DVB-S, I assume.
I don't know much about cable TV, to be honest. Never saw the point if there was satellite TV.

Over the air broadcasts here in the states had very good picture quality and with the roll out of ATSC 3.0 1080p and 4k OTA broadcasts are on the horizon. I installed a TV antenna on my roof in 2017 and haven't looked back.

For AV, I prefer to use the correct aspect ratio if possible. Because of this, I have two TV in my living room, one is 4:3 and one is 16:9. The only issue I have found is any BD of a 4:3 broadcast (such as Star Trek TNG) is actually matted on 16:9 and will not display properly on a 4:3 display without cropping it through a computer... which is more work than I'm willing to do.

For computers, it doesn't particularly matter. It really comes down to a modern use system aka using the internet. Normal internet I need either 16:9 or 16:10 display. Any of those (now) weird intermediate widescreen aspect ratios that existed before 16:10 became common, such as what you see on some notebooks and portables like an eeePC are not ideal at all.

Tripredacus wrote on 2024-05-24, 19:48:

For AV, I prefer to use the correct aspect ratio if possible. Because of this, I have two TV in my living room, one is 4:3 and one is 16:9. The only issue I have found is any BD of a 4:3 broadcast (such as Star Trek TNG) is actually matted on 16:9 and will not display properly on a 4:3 display without cropping it through a computer... which is more work than I'm willing to do.

For computers, it doesn't particularly matter. It really comes down to a modern use system aka using the internet. Normal internet I need either 16:9 or 16:10 display. Any of those (now) weird intermediate widescreen aspect ratios that existed before 16:10 became common, such as what you see on some notebooks and portables like an eeePC are not ideal at all.

My 4:3 screens allowed you to zoom “matted “ content

The worst were 480i signals that matted 16:9 content, thankfully 480i can be sent in native 16:9 without stretch or zoom now

I sort of miss one of my devices that would allow a minor zoom and stretch, result was smaller black bars and less lost content

I remember DVB-T.. I've bought a TV dongle for PC once.
Picture quality was horrible, artifacts often were visible.
No comparison to DVB-S or DVB-S2.

Oh yes, I remember it, too. We had a standalone DVB-T receiver for my mom's TV, which was a 15" CRT. Picture quality was meh at best, though on the CRT still ok if your expectations weren't too high. But that's also a prime example for cramming too many channels on the transponder. If I remember correctly DVB-T offered something around 12mbps per frequency, and they crammed like 4 or even 5 channels on it. With only 2 channels or maybe 3, DVB-T would have been on par with DVB-S regarding the picture quality.
Indeed for those bitrates they shouldn't have used MPEG-2, the blockiness was too visible with low bitrates. It also showed that resolution is not everything, it has to be combined with a bitrate that's adequate. I think early Blu-ray discs also suffered from that problem, as they used MPEG-2 but showed blockiness in fast-paced action scenes.

Alas the "propaganda" (advertisement, really) for terrestrial TV was big at the time.
It had been advertised as "everywhere TV" and I think ads with young people holding a portable DVB-T TV in their hands had been around at the time, too.

Yes, I remember that, too. Big advertisement, but if you lived a bit far from the big cities then it was over with "everywhere", and a terrestrial antenna on the roof was needed. A satellite dish was the better option, if it was possible to put one up.
Having lived close to Frankfurt a little indoor antenna was enough for my mom's TV.