QUOTE(minimize @ Jan 2 2010, 01:16 PM)
Most HDTV production is 1080p, it's just transmission that is 1080i as it uses less bandwidth.
Right now, the majority of pro HD cameras on sale to be used for news coverage or concert are in 1080p only because the price difference is minimal (the bigger cost is in storage media). But back before BD, the majority of those cameras are in 1080i only since that was the standard in HD broadcasting. Look at some of the earlier concert recordings on BD and you'll see that they are only 1080i. These are the shot-on-video productions.
Back before the RED, TV shows are shot using film then telecined to 1080i with EFX also in 1080i. With the RED (and other pro digital cameras) they can shoot at 2Kwhile still maintaining the film look and ask for VFX work at 2K as well. The final cut for archive will be at 2K then they deliver a downconverted 1080i. Some shows are still using 35mm and some are using 16mm (BBC dramas).
Astro/RTM can start investing in 1080p cameras only if they want to archive or sell their RTM concerts and shows on BD. If it's just for news coverage, they can get a whole bunch of 1080i cameras since that's the broadcast standard.
With B.yond, Astro has pushed (not like other's didn't try before) the HD bandwagon further for Malaysia. I think that in the next couple of years, the pro HD camera and post pro businesses will boom because of the amount of shows that production companies need to deliver to Astro in HD. If RTM says they are going to HD soon, that will cause a bigger boom. The HD expansion will also cause make-up artists to be extra careful with their work, and the same thing is true for set designers and gaffers.
Added on January 2, 2010, 3:13 pmQUOTE(sciencefreak @ Jan 2 2010, 02:34 PM)
well...i'm not the only one saying there is diffrence my whole family says got diffrence...and i nvr told them that i switched my hdmi cable....

Here's a simple analogy: Think of the HDMI cable as an intranet e-mail system (intranet is internal network system as opposed to external ie internet). It's job is to ensure that each e-mail and its attachment are sent perfectly and timely.
Now say using the "Astro provided" intranet, e-mails received look exactly the same as they did when they were sent. But using the "Monster" intranet, the e-mails received seem to look brighter, with more crispness and cute backgrounds then they did before they were sent. The rational reasoning could only be two: 1) The Monster intranet is adding things to the signal that you didn't ask it to do; or 2) it's all in your head aka placebo effect.
The same argument is used when people talk about DTS HDMA and Dolby TrueHD on BD players. The sound should sound the same whether you let the player bitstream it to a HD receiver or if the player decodes it and sends the MPCM to the HD receiver. If it sounds better decoded by the HD receiver, then the receiver is sweetening the audio without you asking it to. For purists, that's a no-no.
fuad
This post has been edited by writesimply: Jan 2 2010, 03:14 PM