More evidence that 1080i vs 1080p is no big deal

[Ken Ross]

In a new review on the Samsung Blu-Ray player, CNET tested one of the Blu-Ray movies and compared 1080i output to 1080p output on a 1080p HDTV. They found there was virtually no difference. Both blind-folded tests and 'eyes-on' test revealed both versions looked the same. As I've said before, I think some put far too much emphasis on the importance of 1080p....especially for movies. :)

[zglass2]

[QUOTE=Ken Ross]In a new review on the Samsung Blu-Ray player, CNET tested one of the Blu-Ray movies and compared 1080i output to 1080p output on a 1080p HDTV. They found there was virtually no difference. Both blind-folded tests and 'eyes-on' test revealed both versions looked the same. As I've said before, I think some put far too much emphasis on the importance of 1080p....especially for movies. :)[/QUOTE]
It may well be true FOR NOW - I'm not taking any chances though, reminds me of the EDTV fans saying that's as good as HDTV. My neighbor has an EDTV - I have a HDTV and I and my friends can see the difference - he can't.

[PhantomOG]

blind-folded tests for TVs...

I have no idea what that means but it just sounds really funny to me :p

[falser]

That's more a function of the television. Cnet used a DLP rear projection which do not have the resolving power to duplicate the pixel-perfectness of an LCD. 1080i vs 1080p on an LCD is very noticable during fast motion, regardless of the naysayers who pull out calculators and tell me I can't see what I'm seeing.

[R11]

[QUOTE=Ken Ross]In a new review on the Samsung Blu-Ray player, CNET tested one of the Blu-Ray movies and compared 1080i output to 1080p output on a 1080p HDTV. They found there was virtually no difference. Both blind-folded tests and 'eyes-on' test revealed both versions looked the same. As I've said before, I think some put far too much emphasis on the importance of 1080p....especially for movies. :)[/QUOTE]But Ken, I think the majority of people wanting "1080p" are looking at it more for the extra spatial resolution of "1080" rather than the progressive aspect. All this points out is exactly what many of us have been saying all along, there's PLENTY of content RIGHT NOW that will benefit from 1080p sets. It's all about getting away from "720"....


ron

[mule65]

[QUOTE=zglass2]It may well be true FOR NOW - I'm not taking any chances though, reminds me of the EDTV fans saying that's as good as HDTV. My neighbor has an EDTV - I have a HDTV and I and my friends can see the difference - he can't.[/QUOTE]
Some EDTV's look better than HDTV's. (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7713592&&#post7713592) :)

[bpmurr]

Give them a Westy 37w3 and they'll see the difference right away.

[Revolutionary]

[QUOTE=bpmurr]Give them a Westy 37w3 and they'll see the difference right away.[/QUOTE]

You people aren't paying attention.

Ken can't be saying that 1080p isn't important in a display. He can only be saying that "not having 1080p sources" is not a big deal, because CNET finally got a source capable of 1080p, and found it indistinguishable from 1080i. This can only be stated because CNET was using a 1080p display. This means that, for all intents and purposes, a good 1080p display doesn't need a 1080p source to look good.

Giving them a Westy won't make a difference: they have a 1080p display (and might I add, a magnificent one). If they can actually see the difference between 1080i content and 1080p content on the Westy, it can only be because it's not doing as good a job deinterlacing as the Samsung... ;)

[PooperScooper]

How was the movie encoded on disc? 1080/24pfs or 1080i? (I don't pay much attention to hidef discs yet). Either way I wouldn't expect to see a difference at either 1080i or 1080p output.

larry

[contaygious]

cnet is worthless

[chmilar]

If the source material is from 24fps film, and the display can detect and perform a reverse 3:2 pulldown, then the 1080i60 feed will yield exactly the same result as 1080p (at 24, 30, or 60 fps).

When the display detects the 3:2 pulldown, it can reconstruct the exact 1080p24 frames from the film source, out of the 1080i60 that it receives.

[SteveCallas]

If it's true that they were using a DLP that "achieves" 1080p through wobulation, they weren't truely 1080p capable. Before making any rash judgements on a semi 1080p set with first generation blue ray players and early HD transfers :rolleyes: just let things play out. I'm not a mathematician, but twice the picture information is a lot.

[DelJ]

I am not surprised that they could not tell the difference, given that they were blindfolded! hehe

I think you meant with and without prior knowledge.

DelJ




[QUOTE=Ken Ross]In a new review on the Samsung Blu-Ray player, CNET tested one of the Blu-Ray movies and compared 1080i output to 1080p output on a 1080p HDTV. They found there was virtually no difference. Both blind-folded tests and 'eyes-on' test revealed both versions looked the same. As I've said before, I think some put far too much emphasis on the importance of 1080p....especially for movies. :)[/QUOTE]

[mkoesel]

[QUOTE=chmilar]If the source material is from 24fps film, and the display can detect and perform a reverse 3:2 pulldown, then the 1080i60 feed will yield exactly the same result as 1080p (at 24, 30, or 60 fps).

When the display detects the 3:2 pulldown, it can reconstruct the exact 1080p24 frames from the film source, out of the 1080i60 that it receives.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, so it is no surprise that they saw no difference.

The thing is, we are still talking about a 1920x1080 panel here. A big part of the 1080p debate is the supposition that, "nevermind 1080p input, we don't even need the stinkin' 1920x1080 panel". So this test by CNet does nothing for that side of the argument. And to me that is really the crux of the issue where 1080p content is concerned. I.e is the extra resolution noticeable, or is it just not necessary?

(And as a corolary, if you indeed do agree the 1920x1080 panel is worth the trouble, then why wouldn't you want the 1080p input to go with it? The ability to accept native rate is very useful for HTPCs, consoles, and external scalers. IOW - it just makes sense for the display to accept its native rate, even if you don't need it for HD movie viewing.)

[kylebisme]

[QUOTE=SteveCallas]If it's true that they were using a DLP that "achieves" 1080p through wobulation, they weren't truely 1080p capable. Before making any rash judgements on a semi 1080p set with first generation blue ray players and early HD transfers :rolleyes: just let things play out. I'm not a mathematician, but twice the picture information is a lot.[/QUOTE]
Like others have said, it is the same picture information either way. And 1080p DLPs wobulate perpendicular to the interlacing anyway.

[Raistlin_HT]

Isn't the Samsung BluRay player the one that was found to not actually be running in true 1080p?




Regardless, the difference between a 1080p60 and 1080i60 source will definitly be noticeable.

[kylebisme]

Not when its still sending the same 24fps film.


And on a side note, a lot of people don't even notice the difference between 30fps and 60fps in video games either, and that is a situation where one has to pay particular attention to the movement of things across the screen.

[lymzy]

[QUOTE=Raistlin_HT]

Regardless, the difference between a 1080p60 and 1080i60 source will definitly be noticeable.[/QUOTE]

There will be no 1080p60 film source in the consumer market for the next decade. CGI maybe.
Next generation disc is designed for 1080p24 film and 1080i60 video. If you want 1080p60, you need a whole new medium.

When talking about 1080i/p, there are two layers. One is the transmission, the other is the source resolution. Both Bluray and HD DVD store film as 1080p24 on disc (1080i60 for video). 1G HD DVD player uses 1080i60 to losslessly transmit
the 1080p24 film content to the display. 1G Bluray uses 1080i/p60 or 1080p24 to transmit the same 1080p24 to the display. In the end, a good display will show the same 1080p resolution on screen no matter how the signal is transmited.






But since 1080p60 output for 1080p24 film will lock in judder, the best output for 1080p24 film is of course...1080p24. :)

[Raistlin_HT]

[QUOTE=kylebisme]Not when its still sending the same 24fps film.
[/quote]

Are you refering to my comment? I meant 60fps for video games and PC.



And on a side note, a lot of people don't even notice the difference between 30fps and 60fps in video games either, and that is a situation where one has to pay particular attention to the movement of things across the screen.

Unless you hardly ever play, I honestly do not see how that would be possible for at least a good portion of games out there.

[Raistlin_HT]

[QUOTE=lymzy]There will be no 1080p60 film source in the consumer market for the next decade. CGI maybe.
Next generation disc is designed for 1080p24 film and 1080i60 video. If you want 1080p60, you need a whole new medium.
[/QUOTE]

I am refering to video games and PCs.


As far as for movies, I would prefer that TV's accept 1080p24 and triple it to 72 fps.

[kylebisme]

There is no point in tripling the framerate on plasmas or LCDs, refreshing the same frame multiple times doesn't change anything.

[avjeff]

[QUOTE=zglass2]It may well be true FOR NOW - I'm not taking any chances though, reminds me of the EDTV fans saying that's as good as HDTV. My neighbor has an EDTV - I have a HDTV and I and my friends can see the difference - he can't.[/QUOTE]

My wife and I were just talking about this last night. We just recently replaced a Sony KP46WT500 RPTV with a Panasonic 42PD60U EDTV. We are hard pressed to tell the difference between the HD and ED picture. I'm not trying to rehash the endless debate here, I'm just saying that for us, we cannot tell the difference. In fact, we both thought the ED looked better than the HD, which is a scientific impossibility.

Strangely, even with our progressive scan DVD player which is hooked up by component video cables (Monster), the HD channels look noticably better than the DVDs. The pictures should look the same, right?

So for people like my wife and I, who both have excellent vision, and who view from 11 feet distance, the difference between 1080i and 1080p would be completely lost.

[Raistlin_HT]

[QUOTE=kylebisme]There is no point in tripling the framerate on plasmas or LCDs, refreshing the same frame multiple times doesn't change anything.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's true - good point.


I suppose the only reason to ever do that is if someone starts introducing some sort of motion interpolation like Phillips does.

It would be a while before there's processing speed to handle that at 1080p resolution though.

[lymzy]

[QUOTE=kylebisme]There is no point in tripling the framerate on plasmas or LCDs, refreshing the same frame multiple times doesn't change anything.[/QUOTE]


Increase the refresh rate might lower the holding effect for LCD. This will increase the perceive resolution for moving objects. 120Hz is already in the pipeline for Sharp LCD debut next year.

Also, 72Hz help remove the judder when displaying 24hz content. 120Hz is ideal for both 1080i60 video and 24p film. :)

[Star56]

[QUOTE=avjeff]My wife and I were just talking about this last night. We just recently replaced a Sony KP46WT500 RPTV with a Panasonic 42PD60U EDTV. We are hard pressed to tell the difference between the HD and ED picture. I'm not trying to rehash the endless debate here, I'm just saying that for us, we cannot tell the difference. In fact, we both thought the ED looked better than the HD, which is a scientific impossibility.

Strangely, even with our progressive scan DVD player which is hooked up by component video cables (Monster), the HD channels look noticably better than the DVDs. The pictures should look the same, right?

So for people like my wife and I, who both have excellent vision, and who view from 11 feet distance, the difference between 1080i and 1080p would be completely lost.[/QUOTE]

The Panny EDTV panels have superior PQ to many HD sets.

[1920x1080]

If the movies are stored on the HD DVD's at 1080/24p to begin with and the player performs 2:3 pulldown (to output at 1080/60i) and the TV simply does the inverse properly, it stands to reason that the results could be indistinguishable from just sending over the 1080/24p to begin with.

3:3 pullup to 72 Hz would only reduce judder with displays that can actually display at that rate--otherwise the judder is just exacerbated as the display pulls the rate back down to something it can display. Just because a display can accept a given rate doesn't mean it can display the resultant image at that rate.

Now I would imagine original 1080p video should look dramatically better on a true 1080p display than original 1080i video that has been deinterlaced...

[Raistlin_HT]

In my case at least ... I was refering to TV's with a 72Hz mode.

[anger]

[QUOTE=contaygious]cnet is worthless[/QUOTE]


/agree


in regards to 1080i/p for me 1080i is cool. maybe in 8 years i'll get a 2020p monitor

[lymzy]

[QUOTE=1920x1080]If the movies are stored on the HD DVD's at 1080/24p to begin with and the player performs 2:3 pulldown (to output at 1080/60i)[/QUOTE]

There is no if here. Both HD DVD/bluray stored film as 1080p24 on disc. HD DVD has 3:2 flags/sequence header while bluray doesn't.

[QUOTE=1920x1080]the TV simply does the inverse properly, it stands to reason that the results could be indistinguishable from just sending over the 1080/24p to begin with.
[/QUOTE]

If the IVTC engine in the display/video processor is better than the one inside the player, 1080i60 input should generate better results than a 1080p60 input.

People spend extra to get digitial 480i60 from DVD player. Why? Because they want to bypass the internal video processor.

[greenland]

If they are doing "blind-fold" tests shouldn't they be known as We can not CNET? :cool:

Now, will someone please hand me my white cane. I have got to go apply for a video display tester position with You don't have to be able to CNET. :eek:

[kylebisme]

[QUOTE=avjeff]My wife and I were just talking about this last night. We just recently replaced a Sony KP46WT500 RPTV with a Panasonic 42PD60U EDTV. We are hard pressed to tell the difference between the HD and ED picture. I'm not trying to rehash the endless debate here, I'm just saying that for us, we cannot tell the difference. In fact, we both thought the ED looked better than the HD, which is a scientific impossibility. [/QUOTE]
When you consider the limited dot-pitch of rear CRTs, the difference between viewing the phosphors directly on a plasma verse indirectly though rear projection, and all the other factors in image quality beside resolution; that isn't scientifically impossible at all. All else being equal, HDTVs are better than EDTVs assuming you are sitting close enough to perceive the difference in resolution; but since all else isn't necessarily anywhere near equal, HDTVs are not inherently superior to EDTVs.

[Ken Ross]

What avjeff is probably referring to are the many other factors involved in PQ. A test conducted not that long ago by one of the leading AV mags (can't recall which), pitted a 42" HD plasma against a Panasonic 42" ED plasma. Most people, not knowing which was which, preferred the PQ of the ED plasma. The reason was that the Panny did so many things better than the HD plasma by a different manufacturer.

Yes, if ALL other things are equal, the higher rez panel will produce the better picture if you sit at the proper viewing distance. But more often than not, we find that in the real world, all other things are NOT equal. ;)

[Artwood]

Once the Video Display manufacturing companies quit producing 1080i sets and only produce 1080p sets will threads like the one here cease?

[westa6969]

Why don't we do this as a test.

Take an SXRD at CC being fed via the Sony HD Box with Hawaii and then try and feed the SXRD with the same Hawaii feed on an upscale DVD Player or another source that is not an HD Box and place two of them side-by-side - I'd be willing to bet there would be a huge difference with two sets side-by-side. They are welcome to run the same test on a Qualia 006. This test would blow their analysis out of the water since Hawaii is fed via an HD Box and I've yet to see anything better where the store has the panel calibrated properly.

Anyone who has seen Hawaii on the SXRD via an HD Drive Feed despite the SXRD troubles can attest it's hard to find anything better and you could stick your eyeballs up to the panel and see no pixels and flaws. CNET could have done this test. Or better yet use a Toshiba HD DVD and 90% say they seen a helluva an improvement even those with high end upscalers and many have sold their upscalers on Ebay as a result.

I would suggest CNET's evaluation is full of holes for those that have observed 1080P on a native 1080P display. another less than justification thread. ;)

[Jrain]

[QUOTE=Star56]The Panny EDTV panels have superior PQ to many HD sets.[/QUOTE]

There are very few 1080 panels (flat panels I assume you're referring to?) actually on the market yet; so'd be curious to know which ones the EDTVs are besting? Or are you comparing EDTV panels (plasma or LCD) to Rear projection models of which there are more 1080p sets, but still not tons of them...
'

[assJack1]

[QUOTE=Jrain]There are very few 1080 panels (flat panels I assume you're referring to?) actually on the market yet; so'd be curious to know which ones the EDTVs are besting? Or are you comparing EDTV panels (plasma or LCD) to Rear projection models of which there are more 1080p sets, but still not tons of them...
'[/QUOTE]

Remember HD doesnt only mean 1080 vertical lines, if a set has atleast 720 , it's considered HD. Got it?

Cheers.

[Billdemart]

[QUOTE=zglass2]It may well be true FOR NOW - I'm not taking any chances though, reminds me of the EDTV fans saying that's as good as HDTV. My neighbor has an EDTV - I have a HDTV and I and my friends can see the difference - he can't.[/QUOTE]

I was just in BB and I was looking at a 42 or 50 inch plasma and it looked terrible (worse than my Toshiba 65h81). I don't know if it was the feed or what... I looked at the price tag and it was really cheap. Then I saw that it was an EDTV. I don't know if this was why it looked so different like I said it might have been the feed but that was the first EDTV I have ever seen and it wasn't flattering.

Then I went to CC and they had a couple of (I believe Samsung) 1080p sets running the Eagles concert and it was absolutely STUNNING. Better looking than any 1080i plasmas I saw the whole day of looking through different stores.

[Jrain]

[QUOTE=assJack1]Remember HD doesnt only mean 1080 vertical lines, if a set has atleast 720 , it's considered HD. Got it?

Cheers.[/QUOTE]

"considered HD" perhaps by some...

ED = 1/2 the pixels of 720; 720 = 1/2 the pixels of 1080; and what's the title of this thread?

[kylebisme]

[QUOTE=westa6969]Why don't we do this as a test.

Take an SXRD at CC being fed via the Sony HD Box with Hawaii and then try and feed the SXRD with the same Hawaii feed on an upscale DVD Player or another source that is not an HD Box and place two of them side-by-side - I'd be willing to bet there would be a huge difference with two sets side-by-side. They are welcome to run the same test on a Qualia 006. This test would blow their analysis out of the water since Hawaii is fed via an HD Box and I've yet to see anything better where the store has the panel calibrated properly.

Anyone who has seen Hawaii on the SXRD via an HD Drive Feed despite the SXRD troubles can attest it's hard to find anything better and you could stick your eyeballs up to the panel and see no pixels and flaws. CNET could have done this test. Or better yet use a Toshiba HD DVD and 90% say they seen a helluva an improvement even those with high end upscalers and many have sold their upscalers on Ebay as a result.

I would suggest CNET's evaluation is full of holes for those that have observed 1080P on a native 1080P display. another less than justification thread. ;)[/QUOTE]

The 'test' you propose doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand and your attempt at logic is full of holes. Best I can tell, the only reason you are suggesting otherwise is that you have mistakenly taken offence to the information being discussed here and are unnecessarily attempting to justify your purchase in contest to your misunderstanding of the subject of this thread.

[1920x1080]

[QUOTE=lymzy]There is no if here. Both HD DVD/bluray stored film as 1080p24 on disc. HD DVD has 3:2 flags/sequence header while bluray doesn't.



If the IVTC engine in the display/video processor is better than the one inside the player, 1080i60 input should generate better results than a 1080p60 input.[/QUOTE]Huh? Why inverse telecine in the player if you're already 1080/24p to begin with?People spend extra to get digitial 480i60 from DVD player. Why? Because they want to bypass the internal video processor.The crucial difference here is everything is stored on DVD in interlaced format; again, if on HD-DVD you're already 1080/24p to begin with, other than input limitations, why would you interlace only to deinterlace somewhere else?

[assJack1]

[QUOTE=Jrain]"considered HD" perhaps by some...
[/QUOTE]

Neewbies. :rolleyes:

720p is HDTV as is 1080i whether you like it or not.

[1920x1080]

...and bobbed 1080i video really isn't... (flame suit ON :D)

[assJack1]

HA!

1920x1080 have you seen that super HDTV from Japan? It's something like 4k. Whoa.

[1920x1080]

Haven't seen it personally, but read about it. I think I read someone is doing a similar demo in Europe somewhere--Germany for the World Cup perhaps? The bandwidth requirements are fantastic...but then again 10 Gbit/s wide-area networks and multi-GHz processors were just a fantasy 10 years ago...

[lymzy]

[QUOTE=1920x1080]Huh? Why inverse telecine in the player if you're already 1080/24p to begin with?[/QUOTE]

It is simple. You will get mixed material. 1080i60 output keeps everything consistent/sync in an easy manner. For example, you have 480i60 director commentary PiP overlay the 1080p24 main feature (Bourne Supremacy "In movie" experience), if you output as 1080p24, what will happen to the 480i60 video source? :)

[QUOTE=1920x1080]
The crucial difference here is everything is stored on DVD in interlaced format; again, if on HD-DVD you're already 1080/24p to begin with, other than input limitations, why would you interlace only to deinterlace somewhere else?[/QUOTE]

The more accurate description would be everything out of the MPEG2 decoder is interlaced. DVD master is 480i60 due to SDI and is IVTC to 480p24 before the MPEG2 encoder. The MPEG2 480p24 stream with the 3:2 flag is stored as 480i48 on the disc. The MPEG2 decoder sees the flag, performs 3:2 pulldown on the 480p24 stream, and output as 480i60. There are some MPEG2 decoders which could ignore the flag and directly output DVD as 480p24.

For HD DVD, everything is the same except the masters are now in 1080p24. So, no IVTC is needed before encoding/compression. HD DVD stream also has the 3:2 flag. According to some experts, the decoder couldn't ignore the flag. Therefore, everything would be 1080i60 out of the decoder.

That's my understanding. Correct me if I am wrong. I am willing to learn.

[tdavis21484]

[QUOTE=Ken Ross]In a new review on the Samsung Blu-Ray player, CNET tested one of the Blu-Ray movies and compared 1080i output to 1080p output on a 1080p HDTV. They found there was virtually no difference. Both blind-folded tests and 'eyes-on' test revealed both versions looked the same. As I've said before, I think some put far too much emphasis on the importance of 1080p....especially for movies. :)[/QUOTE]

I would think this would depend completely on the quality of the deinterlacer in the set. If it's a quality deinterlacer, no, there's absolutely no difference. If it's a bad one, there will be a noticable difference.

[1920x1080]

[QUOTE=lymzy]...The MPEG2 480p24 stream with the 3:2 flag is stored as 480i48 on the disc...[/QUOTE]Interesting...sounds like "480/24psF"...I did not know that. Why do you suppose they store it this way?The MPEG2 decoder sees the flag, performs 3:2 pulldown on the 480p24 stream, and output as 480i60.Wouldn't there have to be a 2:2 pulldown back to 24p then a 2:3 pullup to 60i?There are some MPEG2 decoders which could ignore the flag and directly output DVD as 480p24...Sounds interesting--never heard of that either, but if you could get to it, would there be an audio sync challenge to overcome here as well?

[ravichander]

[QUOTE=Ken Ross]I Both blind-folded tests and 'eyes-on' test revealed both versions looked the same. [/QUOTE]

Do you mean double blind testing - where the examiners and subjects do not know what display is tested until all the tests are completed and the results are in

[Ken Ross]

[QUOTE=tdavis21484]I would think this would depend completely on the quality of the deinterlacer in the set. If it's a quality deinterlacer, no, there's absolutely no difference. If it's a bad one, there will be a noticable difference.[/QUOTE]

You are absolutely correct. Most of the high-end displays 'should' have a quality deinterlacer and therefore the difference with film would be minimal to non-existent.

[Ken Ross]

[QUOTE=ravichander]Do you mean double blind testing - where the examiners and subjects do not know what display is tested until all the tests are completed and the results are in[/QUOTE]

Sorry, no I meant that the subjects didn't know which was which. :)

[optivity]

[QUOTE=Ken Ross]You are absolutely correct. Most of the high-end displays 'should' have a quality deinterlacer and therefore the difference with film would be minimal to non-existent.[/QUOTE]Why should PDP makers bother equipping their monitors with a superior deinterlacer when most buyers will be hooking it up to a SA8300 anyway?

[assJack1]

[QUOTE=optivity]Why should PDP makers bother equipping their monitors with a superior deinterlacer when most buyers will be hooking it up to a SA8300 anyway?[/QUOTE]

For the folks who get screwed on the down-res'd satellite content and use OTA as a compliment to thier setups. :D

[Ken Ross]

Or use the satellite/cable box set @1080i like I do.

[DelJ]

You are in fact wrong. At a given frame rate, it is impossible for any deinterlacer to work as well as a progressive signal on a moving picture. I can clearly see a drop in clarity on anything that moves on a 1080 screen with a 1080i source. What is more likely true is that it is next to impossible to see 1080 lines from a typical television viewing distance, and that is why there is no discernible difference for real life situations.

If what you said is true, then the whole industry would not be wasting twice the bandwidth and additional costs on progressive material.

DelJ



[QUOTE=Ken Ross]You are absolutely correct. Most of the high-end displays 'should' have a quality deinterlacer and therefore the difference with film would be minimal to non-existent.[/QUOTE]

[kylebisme]

DelJ, you don't understand what Ken is talking about.

[assJack1]

[QUOTE=DelJ]You are in fact wrong. At a given frame rate, it is impossible for any deinterlacer to work as well as a progressive signal on a moving picture. I can clearly see a drop in clarity on anything that moves on a 1080 screen with a 1080i source. What is more likely true is that it is next to impossible to see 1080 lines from a typical television viewing distance, and that is why there is no discernible difference for real life situations.

If what you said is true, then the whole industry would not be wasting twice the bandwidth and additional costs on progressive material.

DelJ[/QUOTE]

It's wrong to say someone is wrong especially to Ken. You should apologize. Please read this to better understand :

http://www.avdeals.ca/classroom/Proscanexplained.htm

See, you can create an exact 1080p frame from a 1080i source if to was film based. Also you may want to readup on 1080p24sf.

Hope this helps!

[optivity]

[QUOTE=assJack1]For the folks who get screwed on the down-res'd satellite content and use OTA as a compliment to thier setups. :D[/QUOTE]Until the Broadcast Flag is implemented, which IMO is only a matter of time.

[mule65]

[QUOTE=avjeff]Strangely, even with our progressive scan DVD player which is hooked up by component video cables (Monster), the HD channels look noticably better than the DVDs. The pictures should look the same, right?[/QUOTE]
Nope. Down-converted HD usually looks better than DVD because of DVD compression. But, all source content really varies -- Finding Nemo on DVD looks better than a lot of yesterdays U.S. Open on NBC HD.

[kylebisme]

HD broadcasts have compression that shows up far nastier in fast motion than any DVD I have ever seen. But aside from compression; when downsampling from HD on an ED you get the benefit of subpixel control, where as with DVD you don't as you are actually upsampling 720x480 to 852x480.

[bitemymac]

It's still too early to make any kind of judgement on 1080p performance. Samsung BD player doesn't passthru 1080p24, you have to read bid more on the player spec to figure not all 1080p players will handle the 1080p movies the same, and sammy isn't doing it right. Just like having a bad 1080i deinterlacing can ruin or make no diffence on the 1080p displays from 720p, I think bad 1080p signal handling via player would also ruin PQ or make no better PQ than lesser resolution. If you want correct 1080p BD player, sammy ain't it at the moment. I think Sony and Pioneer BD players will passthru 1080p24, though, and we can definately revisit this topic when the right tools are available to expose all benefits of 1080p24 movies on 1080p native displays.

[Ntruder]

1080i is clearer than about half of the world's eyesight. I don't see the switch to 1080p as paramount.

[DelJ]

Actually, I do. He is saying that if one runs in interlaced at at least twice the frame rate of the original source, then it can be deinterlaced to an equivalent slower progressive video. This is true. My key point was "at a given frame rate".

Unfortunately, running 1080i at a fast rate requires more bandwidth, and so it is more likely that 1080i will go out at a slower bandwidth with all the motion artifacts present.

DelJ





[QUOTE=kylebisme]DelJ, you don't understand what Ken is talking about.[/QUOTE]

[kylebisme]

Nope, you still don't get it.

[kleinwl]

[QUOTE=kylebisme]Not when its still sending the same 24fps film.


And on a side note, a lot of people don't even notice the difference between 30fps and 60fps in video games either, and that is a situation where one has to pay particular attention to the movement of things across the screen.[/QUOTE]

That is because in most every game, except shooters, the scenry doesn't change fast enough for it to make a difference. The monitor is still being refreshed at 60fps... it's just a little more jerky when looking around.

The real problems occur when the frame rate slows down to 15fps or lower due to some massive explosion or something.

[Raistlin_HT]

[QUOTE=Ntruder]1080i is clearer than about half of the world's eyesight. I don't see the switch to 1080p as paramount.[/QUOTE]

1080p60 has twice the real resolution of 1080i60, so the source material becomes important here.


As for 1080i be clearer than half the worlds' eyesight - what does that even mean?

[Supermans]

[QUOTE=Revolutionary]You people aren't paying attention.

Ken can't be saying that 1080p isn't important in a display. He can only be saying that "not having 1080p sources" is not a big deal, because CNET finally got a source capable of 1080p, and found it indistinguishable from 1080i. This can only be stated because CNET was using a 1080p display. This means that, for all intents and purposes, a good 1080p display doesn't need a 1080p source to look good.

Giving them a Westy won't make a difference: they have a 1080p display (and might I add, a magnificent one). If they can actually see the difference between 1080i content and 1080p content on the Westy, it can only be because it's not doing as good a job deinterlacing as the Samsung... ;)[/QUOTE]

Exactly what it implies. If Cnet had a TV that was 1080i next to the 1080p TV and fed the exact same movie with two BR players and respective signals to match...they would be telling a different story.

[kylebisme]

[QUOTE=kleinwl]That is because in most every game, except shooters, the scenry doesn't change fast enough for it to make a difference. The monitor is still being refreshed at 60fps... it's just a little more jerky when looking around.

The real problems occur when the frame rate slows down to 15fps or lower due to some massive explosion or something.[/QUOTE]
The refresh is 60hz which is different from 60fps. Bur my point there is that just as many people don't noice a benift from more framerate than 30fps in a video game, those results also apply to film.

[QUOTE=Raistlin_HT]1080p60 has twice the real resolution of 1080i60, so the source material becomes important here.[/QUOTE]
1080p60 and 1080i60 have the same 1920x1080 resolution per-frame, the difference is simply between being refreshed a field at a time or a frame at time at the same refresh rate alows the progressive singal to carry twice the framerate. But again, this isn't an issue when speaking of movies as they are filmed at 24fps which fits in a 1080i60 signal just as well as it does a 1080p60 signal.

[Trunorth]

I dont think p vs i is such a big deal BUT 1920 by 1080 pixels is a HUGE deal. I am watching the Stanley Cup in 1080i on a 42PX500U looks fantastic but would look better if the pixel count of what 1024 x 768 got cranked up to a full 1920 x 1080, that's what I'll be looking at in the new 65 Panny and 50 Pioneer with Full HD. Improved Resolution Full HD is the future like comparing ED to light HD today, no comparison, you will be assimilated !

[Raistlin_HT]

[QUOTE=kylebisme]The refresh is 60hz which is different from 60fps. Bur my point there is that just as many people don't noice a benift from more framerate than 30fps in a video game, those results also apply to film.
[/quote]

Can you tell me where you're getting this information that not many people notice the difference between 30fps and 60fps?

I know plenty of avid players, and we all seem to find the difference quite obvious. The only time it is generally difficult is with games that are actively using effects to try and hide their framerate.

For example, Project Gotham Racing 3 on the X-box 360 uses motion blur to make an assessment of the framerate difficult. For games that don't employ such techniques, it is usually quite easy to tell.


1080p60 and 1080i60 have the same 1920x1080 resolution per-frame, the difference is simply between being refreshed a field at a time or a frame at time at the same refresh rate alows the progressive singal to carry twice the framerate. But again, this isn't an issue when speaking of movies as they are filmed at 24fps which fits in a 1080i60 signal just as well as it does a 1080p60 signal.

And again, I'm talking about source material at above 24fps - such as games and PC's.

[contaygious]

The refresh is 60hz which is different from 60fps. Bur my point there is that just as many people don't noice a benift from more framerate than 30fps in a video game, those results also apply to film.

not true, have u played burnout 3??????????

[kylebisme]

[QUOTE=Raistlin_HT]Can you tell me where you're getting this information that not many people notice the difference between 30fps and 60fps?[/QUOTE]
Many of us do notice the difference, but plenty of others don't.

[QUOTE=Raistlin_HT]I know plenty of avid players, and we all seem to find the difference quite obvious. [/QUOTE]
And I've seen plenty of people claiming various games have silky smooth framerates when in fact those games drop into the 20s regularly.

[QUOTE=Raistlin_HT]The only time it is generally difficult is with games that are actively using effects to try and hide their framerate.

For example, Project Gotham Racing 3 on the X-box 360 uses motion blur to make an assessment of the framerate difficult. For games that don't employ such techniques, it is usually quite easy to tell. [/QUOTE]
And film has motion blur as well.

[QUOTE=Raistlin_HT]And again, I'm talking about source material at above 24fps - such as games and PC's.[/QUOTE]
And again, that is off topic in this thread as what is being discussed here is Blu-Ray movies and compared 1080i output to 1080p, and those movies are 24fps.

[Raistlin_HT]

And again, that is off topic in this thread as what is being discussed here is Blu-Ray movies and compared 1080i output to 1080p, and those movies are 24fps.

Really? Based on the topic post for this thread - I'm don't see how this OT at all.

[kylebisme]

Ken's topic title is presented in respect to the fact that many people worry about getting 1080p inputs on their display when in fact in fact 1080i inputs will suit their usage just as well. Us HTPC gamers and future PS3 gamers are a small chunk of the HDTV market and an even smaller chunk yet appreciate the difference that having framerate above what 1080i offers; hence the reason that what does matter to us few is 'no big deal' for most peoples purposes.

[sfhub]

[QUOTE=DelJ]Actually, I do. He is saying that if one runs in interlaced at at least twice the frame rate of the original source, then it can be deinterlaced to an equivalent slower progressive video. This is true. My key point was "at a given frame rate".[/QUOTE]
As pointed out earlier, you don't understand what Ken is talking about.

Specifically you do not understand how telecine and inverse telecine are implemented.

When a 24p *film source* is telecined (3:2 pulldown) onto 1080i, the inverse telecine process in a reasonable deinterlacer will *exactly* recover the original 24p file source with *no artifacts*, assuming there are no cadence irregularities, which is a reasonable assumption with HD/BD-DVD being stored at 1080p/24

[sfhub]

[QUOTE=kylebisme]And I've seen plenty of people claiming various games have silky smooth framerates when in fact those games drop into the 20s regularly.
...
And again, that is off topic in this thread as what is being discussed here is Blu-Ray movies and compared 1080i output to 1080p, and those movies are 24fps.[/QUOTE]
I don't know what games you are talking about but nobody plays first person shooter games at 20fps. First you will likely get a headache and second if you played online you wouldn't last more than 30seconds. You would be shot before your screen registers your next action.

I don't see how any of this is off topic. Ken's subject makes no mention of this being a discussion on inputs only, it is posted in the display forum, not the HD/BD forums.

If it was truly only about 1080i vs 1080p inputs then I question why the post was even necessary since for movies, telecined 1080i/60 fed into a display or processor which can apply inverse telecine to 1080i is exactly the same as 1080p/24 so it should be no surprise there is no big deal.

As pointed out a few times in this thread, much of the previous discussion regarding 1080p displays related to comparing 1920x1080 pixel display against displays with fewer pixels. The inputs are only part of the equation so focusing only on that makes this whole thread almost irrelevant if you consider inverse telecine.

If considering 1080i/1080p inputs only, we would have to wait until there were video-based BD sources before this thread became relevant.

[kylebisme]

[QUOTE=sfhub]I don't know what games you are talking about but nobody plays first person shooter games at 20fps.[/QUOTE]

Heh, you clearly don't know what I'm talking about, but lots of people play FPS with their framerate dropping down to 20. When I play CoD2 on my 360 I turn it down to 480p specifically to avoid that, yet plenty of other people play with high resolution output while proclaiming unfaltering framerate. Some of us simply notice such things more than others.

Anyway, the topic here is inputs as clearly stated in the first line of the thread:

[QUOTE=Ken Ross]In a new review on the Samsung Blu-Ray player, CNET tested one of the Blu-Ray movies and compared 1080i output to 1080p output on a 1080p HDTV.[/QUOTE]

As for the resuts not being a surprise, not to you obviously and not to me either, I doubt it is a surprise to Ken for that matter; but many people don't have the understanding we do and get caught up looking for 1080p inputs when 1080i would suit their needs just as well.

As for video-based BD sources, the only way a 1080i limit becomes an issue is with sources that over 30fps along with being over 720p, and I doubt we will be seeing much of anything like that any time soon.

[sfhub]

[QUOTE=kylebisme]As for video-based BD sources, the only way a 1080i limit becomes an issue is with sources that over 30fps along with being over 720p, and I doubt we will be seeing much of anything like that any time soon.[/QUOTE]
Are you expecting video-based releases to be 720p?

I'm expecting stuff like Smallville season 1 to be 1080i just like in the broadcast. Maybe the ABC stuff will be 720p.

With 1080i video sources you will basically be comparing your players video deinterlacing capabilities against your TVs video deinterlacing capabilities. At that point, some innovating company could decide to market and design a high-end BD player with excellent deinterlacing capabilities vs a low-end display which might just switch to bob whenever motion is detected.

People still may not notice the difference, but the point is, for 1080i and 1080p film-based sources telecined onto 1080i, there is *no* difference in the frames for someone to notice, assuming inverse telecine of 1080i.

With video-based 1080i there could at least be some difference for someone to try to notice.

[wtr_wkr]

No need for 1080p input if you get an HDTV with HQV and you will not dual use with a PC. And, no need for 1080p if EDTV is right for your situation. Is J6P viewing from 15' considered 'evidence?'

[Artwood]

With trillions of posts here saying that there is no need for 1080p versus 1080i and with trillions of posts stating stating there is no 1080p content and trillions of posts saying that you really don't need 1080p input support--here at the premier video enthusiast site in the world there are still trillions of enthusiasts who say 1080p IS NEEDED.

Is there ANY chance that manufacturers who aren't producing TRUE 1080p sets might wish that all those trillions of people that say 1080p is needed would shut up so they could sell their 1080i products?

[Raistlin_HT]

kylebisme,

There appears to be no point in arguing whether a majority of people can detect framerates ...

... Regardless, what does that have to do with the fact that something actually running at 1080i60 would have half the resolution of something running at 1080p60?

[kylebisme]

[QUOTE=Artwood]With trillions of posts here saying that there is no need for 1080p versus 1080i and with trillions of posts stating stating there is no 1080p content and trillions of posts saying that you really don't need 1080p input support--here at the premier video enthusiast site in the world there are still trillions of enthusiasts who say 1080p IS NEEDED.[/QUOTE]
What yo are overlooking here is the fact that many enthusiasts DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. ;)
[QUOTE=Raistlin_HT]kylebisme,

There appears to be no point in arguing whether a majority of people can detect framerates ...[/QUOTE]
There is absolutely no point in that as I never went so far as to claim a majority.
[QUOTE=Raistlin_HT]... Regardless, what does that have to do with the fact that something actually running at 1080i60 would have half the resolution of something running at 1080p60?[/QUOTE]
The problem here is what you claim as fact is actually misunderstanding, and one I have already adressed in this thread.

[wtr_wkr]

[QUOTE=Raistlin_HT]kylebisme,
... Regardless, what does that have to do with the fact that something actually running at 1080i60 would have half the resolution of something running at 1080p60?[/QUOTE]

This "fact" is wrong. For a still (no motion) image, 1080i and 1080p have exactly the same res. And, with a good VP and film content, 1080p and 1080i can extract the exact same 1080p/24 material and convert it to the TV's native res.

[Artwood]

You should always try to buy a trillion p to be assured that you will get something that may be a hair better than SD!

[Raistlin_HT]

[QUOTE=kylebisme]
The problem here is what you claim as fact is actually misunderstanding, and one I have already adressed in this thread.[/QUOTE]

Can you point me to that post?


[QUOTE=wtr_wkr]This "fact" is wrong. For a still (no motion) image, 1080i and 1080p have exactly the same res. And, with a good VP and film content, 1080p and 1080i can extract the exact same 1080p/24 material and convert it to the TV's native res.[/QUOTE]

As I have stated countless times ... I am referring to video that is natively at 60 fps. Please explain how 1080i60 is not half the resolution versus 1080p in that case?

[A4Short]

[QUOTE=Ken Ross]In a new review on the Samsung Blu-Ray player, CNET tested one of the Blu-Ray movies and compared 1080i output to 1080p output on a 1080p HDTV. They found there was virtually no difference. Both blind-folded tests and 'eyes-on' test revealed both versions looked the same. As I've said before, I think some put far too much emphasis on the importance of 1080p....especially for movies. :)[/QUOTE]

I'm posting this response after quite a few fat tires and being too lazy to read all the responses on the following three pages.

I think on a big screen 8 ft dispaly one could see the differnece - but on if one were hyper critical. I have seen Blue Ray by Sony on a 8ft screen front projection. I watched Blue ray on a 60" SXRD [which converted the 1080i to 1080p] and it was stunning.

Reggie

[jksgvb]

[QUOTE=assJack1]It's wrong to say someone is wrong especially to Ken. You should apologize. Please read this to better understand :

http://www.avdeals.ca/classroom/Proscanexplained.htm

See, you can create an exact 1080p frame from a 1080i source if to was film based. Also you may want to readup on 1080p24sf.

Hope this helps![/QUOTE]

Thanks for the excellent link!

[PeterS]

1080p or 1080i matters not at all - in most cases (for content delivery).

First ALMOST ALL 1080 CAPABLE DIGITAL DISPLAYS - DISPLAY IN PROGRESSIVE MODE!!!!

This is true of LCD, DLP, LCoS, PLASMA, etc. This is that they draw from the upper lines to the lower lines, skipping none in between.

Alright, now we have the sources (US):

FILM - Progressive Source - 24fps.
VIDEO - Interlaced at 1080, Progressive at 720 - 30fps.

With any Film Source sent to any of these displays at 1080i, the set MUST put the image back together before display. Since the "fields" in this case come from the same exact moment in time, this is trivial to do - ergo the final result is indeed a 1080p display - regardless if the source was 1080i or 1080p.

With Interlaced Video Source material, YOU DO NOT WANT TO SHOW IT IN 1080p as this has temporal issues of resolving the data which comes 1/60th of a second off in time. In this case 1080p is a BAD, BAD, BAD solution to the problem as the source material is compromised.

1080p vs. 1080i is a "silly arguement" as unless there is something being done horribly wrong, it won't make a damn bit of difference.

A much more significant issue is the ability to show 24 fps properly without having to munge it into 30 fps - causing cadence and other issues.

(BTW: You may want to know that the current Samsung BD-DVD player was designed to output 1080i - not 1080p - it was a MARKETING DECISION to add another chip downstream to take the 1080i and merge it back together - thus providing a 1080p output. Picture quality does not suffer from this process - unless it is done wrong or additional filtering is applied).

[JET99]

blind-folded meaning they didn't know the identity of the target display - howver they really need double-blind tests where both the testers and the test subjects - dont' know the identities ( tests setup by 3rd parties and only revealed to testers after test is complete)

[Hothersale]

[QUOTE=A4Short]I'm posting this response after quite a few fat tires[/QUOTE]
Ha! I just got back from a business trip to Lake Tahoe about 30 minutes ago, so I actually know what a Fat Tire is!

[kylebisme]

[QUOTE=Raistlin_HT]Can you point me to that post?[/QUOTE]
I could, but since you already responded to it once and I responded to your response, linking you back to it again would only serve to run us in circles.

[QUOTE=Raistlin_HT]As I have stated countless times ... I am referring to video that is natively at 60 fps. Please explain how 1080i60 is not half the resolution versus 1080p in that case?[/QUOTE]
Better yet, how about you explain how you came to hold this misconception?

[flynbw01]

Here is something I haven't seen answered yet.

1080P @24fps is equivalent to 1920 x 1080 x 24 = 49,766,400 upps (unique pixels per second, not a real measurement that I am aware of, but something I've come up with)

1080i @ 60Hz is equivalent to 1920 x 540 x 60 = 62,208,000 upps

- so regardless of the display, the source material for 1080i has more information. Taking into account that you can only get out what you put in, (yes 1080p will be converted to 30fps or 60fps by the player and or TV, but you are in effect 'making up information' or copying existing information) isn't a 1080i signal better than a 1080p?

- Additionally anytime you scale or convert a signal you always add artefacts, and upscaling should be worse than downscaling since in upscaling you 'creating' information that isn't there, and with downscaling you are simply picking which information you have to throw away. (a simplistic view) With this argument isn't it better to have a 768p display instead of a 1080p? 1080p will always have to upconvert 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p @ 24fps, 1080p @ 30fps. A 768p screen will upconvert 480i, 480p, 720p (close), and downscale 1080i. Also, a 1080p @ 24fps disc (HDDVD or Blu Ray) in my understanding the player will convert 24 fps to 30fps, then the TV will convert 30fps to 60fps. So, the signal gets converted twice by two different products. How can 1080p look better than 1080i?

Please someone answer me with more than "my Westy looks awesome" and "1080p is more info (its not)"

[martyj19]

[QUOTE=flynbw01]Here is something I haven't seen answered yet.

1080P @24fps is equivalent to 1920 x 1080 x 24 = 49,766,400 upps (unique pixels per second, not a real measurement that I am aware of, but something I've come up with)

1080i @ 60Hz is equivalent to 1920 x 540 x 60 = 62,208,000 upps

- so regardless of the display, the source material for 1080i has more information. Taking into account that you can only get out what you put in, (yes 1080p will be converted to 30fps or 60fps by the player and or TV, but you are in effect 'making up information' or copying existing information) isn't a 1080i signal better than a 1080p?

- Additionally anytime you scale or convert a signal you always add artefacts, and upscaling should be worse than downscaling since in upscaling you 'creating' information that isn't there, and with downscaling you are simply picking which information you have to throw away. (a simplistic view) With this argument isn't it better to have a 768p display instead of a 1080p? 1080p will always have to upconvert 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p @ 24fps, 1080p @ 30fps. A 768p screen will upconvert 480i, 480p, 720p (close), and downscale 1080i. Also, a 1080p @ 24fps disc (HDDVD or Blu Ray) in my understanding the player will convert 24 fps to 30fps, then the TV will convert 30fps to 60fps. So, the signal gets converted twice by two different products. How can 1080p look better than 1080i?

Please someone answer me with more than "my Westy looks awesome" and "1080p is more info (its not)"[/QUOTE]

As I understand your analysis, it's slightly apples and oranges. Film is traditionally shot at 24fps, so if you choose to rasterize that at 1920x1080p24, you've got all the information you're ever going to have about that film.

Therefore, an analysis that looks just at the fact that there are more pixels in 1080i60 compared to 1080p24 and that information would have to be interpolated to get from 1080p24 to 1080i60 isn't considering the fact that there's no more source material to be had.

This is why people would like to have the display capable of 1080p72, so that we wouldn't have to do 3:2 pulldown to rate match the p24 to p60.

All of this, of course, goes out the window the moment you have material shot using cameras that are capturing at 1080p60, or even 1080i60, and you're then able to observe that 1080i60 is a higher data rate than 1080p24 would have been.

[Raistlin_HT]

[QUOTE=kylebisme]I could, but since you already responded to it once and I responded to your response, linking you back to it again would only serve to run us in circles.


Better yet, how about you explain how you came to hold this misconception?[/QUOTE]


I’m asking you to please explain this further - as what has been stated here contradicts my understanding of 60fps source material.



For a display receiving a 1080i signal that is actively refreshing at 60fps, it will receive an interlaced image every 1/60th of a second - alternating between all even and all odd scanlines. Unlike a TV show that is actually filmed at 30fps - two consecutive fields do NOT combine to generate a complete frame. Instead, each consecutive field is actually interlaced (even or odd scanlines) from a completely separate frame.

Therefore, for every given frame of source material – you are only ever displaying half it’s resolution. Either all even scanlines, or all odd scanlines.

[PeterS]

First - you are confusing encoding with displaying. Just because the image is ENCODED in interlaced, does not mean it is DISPLAYED in interlaced format.

Second - you have to agree on a time format - are we comparing these images every 30th of a second? This would be the only proper way to do it since it is only at this point that we can compare a complete presentation of the image.

In your comments you seem to imply that the screen is only 540 pixels and is refreshed at 540 pixels (ergo half the resolution of 1080). This is of course not true.

What is true is that every other line is "off-set" from the previous by 1/60th of a second. When taken at the standard 1/30th of a second for a complete FRAME, the resolution is identical to a progressive signal.

In other words, your comment Therefore, for every given frame of source material – you are only ever displaying half it’s resolution. Either all even scanlines, or all odd scanlines. is inaccurate. In an interlaced display (CRT) long persistance phosphors are used to show both FIELDS together as a FRAME. In a digital device, memory is used to hold one FIELD and then combine it with the subsequent FIELD to produce a single FRAME.

If the two FIELDs come from the same temporal moment in time (such as from FILM) then they are perfectly mated back together and presented as they would be from a true PROGRESSIVE source. The only difference being were the lines sent [1,2,3,4,5,6,7 etc] or [1,3,5,7, then 2,4,6, etc] before they were displayed.

I hope this helps explain it a bit better.

[kylebisme]

[QUOTE=Raistlin_HT]I’m asking you to please explain this further - as what has been stated here contradicts my understanding of 60fps source material.



For a display receiving a 1080i signal that is actively refreshing at 60fps, it will receive an interlaced image every 1/60th of a second - alternating between all even and all odd scanlines. Unlike a TV show that is actually filmed at 30fps - two consecutive fields do NOT combine to generate a complete frame. Instead, each consecutive field is actually interlaced (even or odd scanlines) from a completely separate frame.

Therefore, for every given frame of source material – you are only ever displaying half it’s resolution. Either all even scanlines, or all odd scanlines.[/QUOTE]
You are failing to differentiate between frames and fields. Peter explanation shows respect to that difference.

[orogogus]

Just to add to what PeterS was saying (which is correct)- well, really saying the same thing in a different way, is that Raistlin_HT you are confusing temporal resolution with spacial resolution.

1080i and 1080p both have the same number of pixels (1920x1080 = 2073600), they only differ in the amount of time required to deliver that full spacial resolution (ie they have different temporal resolution). But since as PeterS points out, we only watch full frames rather than individual fields, this ends up only really mattering in two cases- when adjacent fields have different sources (eg- you see deinterlacing artifacts) and when you have to broadcast these pixels moving in time (since the data rate becomes important). The latter being the whole reason interlacing was ever brought into existence in the first place, and why we are talking about it now. :p

[chavel]

"The latter being the whole reason interlacing was ever brought into existence in the first place, and why we are talking about it now"

If scanning crt technology hadn't been invented with the problems of phosphor decay there would have been even less of an impetus to invent interlacing.

[Artwood]

This would be a better world if interlacing was permanently against the law and all displays ever built were 1920X1080p/120 and all compression was also against the law.

[orogogus]

[QUOTE=Artwood]This would be a better world if interlacing was permanently against the law and all displays ever built were 1920X1080p/120 and all compression was also against the law.[/QUOTE]

I'm thinking that maybe I should make this sentance my signature. :p

[Raistlin_HT]

PeterS, kylebisme, orogogus


I am still not following what is being stated here.

Are you stating that there are no TV's that can display something that is actually coming in at 1080p60? What I mean by that is a full, progressive 1920x1080 image that is at a FRAME-rate of 60 per second.

[PeterS]

The Frame rate is 30 frames/sec. the Field rate is 60 fields/sec for an interlaced signal. When you say 1080p you are saying 1080p30 (at least as it regards HDTV). Now computer monitors can have much higher frequencies - but this does not necessarily mean that they are displaying more information, just that they refresh more quickly. However if the computer can update the information more quickly - then it will be reflected.

Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with HD.

[Raistlin_HT]

[QUOTE=PeterS]The Frame rate is 30 frames/sec. the Field rate is 60 fields/sec for an interlaced signal. When you say 1080p you are saying 1080p30 (at least as it regards HDTV). Now computer monitors can have much higher frequencies - but this does not necessarily mean that they are displaying more information, just that they refresh more quickly. However if the computer can update the information more quickly - then it will be reflected.

Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with HD.[/QUOTE]

That actually IS exactly what I'm talking about here. I'm saying if you do have a source that actually updates a full 60frames/s - such as a PC or game system - then there is a difference.

If I am correct in that - I apologize, I should have been clearer in my point. I am referring to the fact there is a difference in 1080p TVs that can only input 1080i60 IF you are using a source that can actually output 60frames/s.

[kylebisme]

[QUOTE=Raistlin_HT]
Are you stating that there are no TV's that can display something that is actually coming in at 1080p60? What I mean by that is a full, progressive 1920x1080 image that is at a FRAME-rate of 60 per second.[/QUOTE]
We already talked about this back here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7861635&&#post7861635).

[Hadji]

[QUOTE=Artwood]This would be a better world if interlacing was permanently against the law and all displays ever built were 1920X1080p/120 and all compression was also against the law.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=orogogus]I'm thinking that maybe I should make this sentance my signature. :p[/QUOTE]Heh - I was thinking that the quote reminded me of the guy who was enraged that the airlines didn't build their jets out of the same material as the indestructible black boxes. The many engineering reasons I offered only convinced him how deep the conspiracy went. :p

- Hadji

[SIZE=1]"Can anyone explain why these types are ALWAYS demonstrate chronic fulminating logorrhea? Are there no succinct kooks? Why does no one just come out with something like 'It's space aliens. That's all. Over and out'. It's always manifestos. Vast lumbering endless manifestos.
- Cary Kittrell[/SIZE]

[kylebisme]

Why stop at 1080p? People sitting very close to very large displays could benift from a lot more resolution than that. ;)

[PeterS]

No - you still misunderstand!!!

1080p on an HDTV is 1080p30!!!!

Only a computer display with variable frequency input can accept a signal which would update at 60 FRAMES a second or higher!!!

[martyj19]

For an example of a display that handles 1080p60 one need look only as far as the Westinghouse 37, 42, etc. There are several others.

1080p60 is perfectly well defined in HDMI but is an optional timing (Section 6.3.2).

Part of the confusion is that ATSC doesn't use it (only going up to 1080p30 due to the bandwidth constraint of an ATSC channel.) This is quite different than claiming "1080p support in HDTVs is limited to only 1080p30", which is just not correct.

[Raistlin_HT]

[QUOTE=PeterS]No - you still misunderstand!!!

1080p on an HDTV is 1080p30!!!!

Only a computer display with variable frequency input can accept a signal which would update at 60 FRAMES a second or higher!!![/QUOTE]

To my knowledge, 1080p60 is supported via HDMI (depending on manufacturer) - and there are TV's available that will accept and display it. Several more are on their way this year.




[EDIT] - Thanks martyj19!!!

[kylebisme]

Sure enough, I put 1080p/60 input to good use on on my ED plasma; but I'm pretty sure that Peter simply means that, at least other than the niche market of gameing, there really isn't any content where the extra framerate alowed though 1080p/60 over 1080i/60 is put to use.

[Raistlin_HT]

kylebisme,

I agree - I've been asking specifically in regards to PC and gamng content.

I understand movies and current broadcasts do not support anything beyond 1080p30 ... I was simply trying to determine if I was nuts as far as 'other' sources.

[kylebisme]

Well, by explanding to PC use beyind gaming I think you are reaching a bit, it hardly matters if your mouse ponter and such moves at 30fps or 60fps. ;)

[PeterS]

PC and gaming content is a much different issue, since in general the framerate is not locked to the display rate where the display rate is only the maximum displayable rate.

In other words, you can have a game where the following occurs:

Game Logic Rate: 120 fps
Frequency of Display: 60fps
Actualy Unique Displayable Frames (frame rate): 30fps

This is not uncommon - it is also not uncommon for all the Game Rate and Frame Rate to fluctuate during gameplay.

[Raistlin_HT]

kylebisme,

Obviously it would mostly be for gaming (though there are other things, such as modeling, etc. that could benefit) on a PC.

I differentiated PC and video games since there are also gaming consoles (Playstation 3).

[Raistlin_HT]

[QUOTE=PeterS]PC and gaming content is a much different issue, since in general the framerate is not locked to the display rate where the display rate is only the maximum displayable rate.

In other words, you can have a game where the following occurs:

Game Logic Rate: 120 fps
Frequency of Display: 60fps
Actualy Unique Displayable Frames (frame rate): 30fps
[/quote]


I'm not sure how that is relevant, since games actually displaying at 60fps do/will exist as well.


This is not uncommon - it is also not uncommon for all the Game Rate and Frame Rate to fluctuate during gameplay.

Also, how is fluctuating framerates relevant if a given game is 60fps a majority of the time?

[Richard Paul]

[QUOTE=PeterS]No - you still misunderstand!!!

1080p on an HDTV is 1080p30!!!!

Only a computer display with variable frequency input can accept a signal which would update at 60 FRAMES a second or higher!!![/QUOTE]Actually 1080p60 has been an official HDTV standard for many years and can even be seen in the HDMI 1.0 specs. The exact details for timing information can be found in the CEA-861-B document and modern video cards are capable of 1080p60 output over DVI using this standard.

[Ybarra]

So after reading through this thread. Am I correct to assume that it's not really 1080p that is important as much as it is having a display device that can display 1080 vertical pixels? In other words, I have a plasma...no matter what signal I give it, it's internal scaler always spits out 768p (even if fed 1080i). If I had a plasma that had 1080 vertical pixels but was only 1080i next to a 1080p the output would be identical because the internal scaler takes the 1080i and buffers it into 1080p so there is absolutely no advantage to 1080p itself other than the scaler is bypassed. The reason a 1080p display looks better than a 768p is not because of the format itself (1080p), but rather the fact that there are more physical pixels. However, based on normal recommended viewing distances is it truly possible to discern between a 1080p and a 768p display from 10-12 feet away?

[kylebisme]

That depends on how big the display is, at 50" your 1366x768 display is acutally more than 20/20 vision can resolve at 10'; but if you had a 76" or larger display, then you'd be able to fully resolve 1080p at that same distance.

[Raistlin_HT]

[QUOTE=Ybarra]So after reading through this thread. Am I correct to assume that it's not really 1080p that is important as much as it is having a display device that can display 1080 vertical pixels? In other words, I have a plasma...no matter what signal I give it, it's internal scaler always spits out 768p (even if fed 1080i). If I had a plasma that had 1080 vertical pixels but was only 1080i next to a 1080p the output would be identical because the internal scaler takes the 1080i and buffers it into 1080p so there is absolutely no advantage to 1080p itself other than the scaler is bypassed.[/quote]

If I am understanding everything correctly, all things being equal (your TV's de-interlacer is perfect, etc.) then you should not see a difference in your scenario for current HD movie and HD broadcast content. Gaming and PC's could be a different story.



The reason a 1080p display looks better than a 768p is not because of the format itself (1080p), but rather the fact that there are more physical pixels. However, based on normal recommended viewing distances is it truly possible to discern between a 1080p and a 768p display from 10-12 feet away?

The size of the screen must also be specified (besides the viewing distance) to make such a determination.

Also, note that the 'calculators' used for such determinations are based on a certain level of eyesight. To be honest, I don't even know what sightedness they use - is it 20/20? Regardless, I have better vision than 20/20 - so I'm screwed :D

[kylebisme]

20/20 is what they base it on. I've got better than 20/20 as well but any human's eyesight is still a long way from being able to fully resolve 1080p on a 50" display at 10'.

Oh, and it's not really a matter if "your TV's de-interlacer is perfect" but rather if it inverse-telecine of 1080i signals or not, with the not on a 1080p display meaning you didn't pay much attention to image quality choosing your HDTV.

[Artwood]

In any event the same old advice always holds true--get 1080p--get it as big as you can get it--get HDMI 1.3 and sit close.

All the rest of us will compromise in one way or the other--some of us will have no problem and can admit to ourselves that we've compromised--others will try to delude themselves and everyone else into thinking that 1080i is just as good. It never was and it never will be!

[PeterS]

When you are mentioning 1080i vs. 1080p please specify if you are discussing signal or display.

1080i Signal vs. 1080p Signal on a 1080p display - FILM SOURCE - NO DIFFERENCE
1080i Signal vs. 1080p Signal on a 1080p display - VIDEO SOURCE - POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE

Ergo on a 1080p display, there is NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER in the Display of FILM material with even a severlly mediocre line doubler since there is no temporal distortion to deal with.

With Video material on a 1080p display - WITHOUT A GOOD DEINTERLACER - a 1080i display will LOOK BETTER!!!!

[sfhub]

[QUOTE=Richard Paul]Actually 1080p60 has been an official HDTV standard for many years and can even be seen in the HDMI 1.0 specs. The exact details for timing information can be found in the CEA-861-B document and modern video cards are capable of 1080p60 output over DVI using this standard.[/QUOTE]
1080p24 and 1080p30 are part of 18 ATSC video formats. 1080p60 is not.

1080p60 is in HDMI 1.0 specs but it is an optional video format which many displays do not support. There are some that do, but to date there are more 1920x1080 panels which don't support 1080p inputs than there are ones that do. As stuff matures more displays will support 1080p.

[Raistlin_HT]

[QUOTE=sfhub]
1080p60 is in HDMI 1.0 specs but it is an optional video format which many displays do not support. There are some that do, but to date there are more 1920x1080 panels which don't support 1080p inputs than there are ones that do. As stuff matures more displays will support 1080p.[/QUOTE]

Does anyone know approximately what percentage of TV's that accept 1080p of any type, also accept 1080p60?

From what I've seen, a decent amount appear to - this bodes well for upcoming TV's.

[Raistlin_HT]

[QUOTE=PeterS]
With Video material on a 1080p display - WITHOUT A GOOD DEINTERLACER - a 1080i display will LOOK BETTER!!!![/QUOTE]

Why is that anyway (serious question)?

I know video-based de-interlacing is many times porblematic, but I don't understand why. Isn't it 30fps?

[Ken Ross]

[QUOTE=Ybarra]So after reading through this thread. Am I correct to assume that it's not really 1080p that is important as much as it is having a display device that can display 1080 vertical pixels? In other words, I have a plasma...no matter what signal I give it, it's internal scaler always spits out 768p (even if fed 1080i). If I had a plasma that had 1080 vertical pixels but was only 1080i next to a 1080p the output would be identical because the internal scaler takes the 1080i and buffers it into 1080p so there is absolutely no advantage to 1080p itself other than the scaler is bypassed. The reason a 1080p display looks better than a 768p is not because of the format itself (1080p), but rather the fact that there are more physical pixels. However, based on normal recommended viewing distances is it truly possible to discern between a 1080p and a 768p display from 10-12 feet away?[/QUOTE]

Yes you are correct. Assuming you have a source device that puts out more resolution than your current panel is capable of displaying, then a 1080 panel will benefit you IF you sit close enough to take advantage of that additional resolution. And since virtually all FPs are progressive devices to begin with, the fact that a source is 1080i or 1080p has far less significance than the difference between your 768p panel and a 1080p panel. Also keep in mind that horizontal resolution seems to be forgotten about too much and its importance can't be overemphasized. Going from a 768 panel to a 1080 panel gives you a jump from 1366 to 1920. So you are actually getting a bigger increase in horizontal resolution than vertical resolution!

But again, unless the source can take advantage of this additional resolution, you won't be gaining much. Sources such as D*, some of Dish's channels (not all) and some cable systems won't derive much benefit from the jump. But a good calbe system or a source like HD DVD surely will. ;)

In terms of your last question, sitting 10-12' away, the difference may not be so great. That's the other thing that many people just don't understand, viewing distance. How many people are going to rearrange their living environments to sit closer to the new display so that they CAN see the difference? I don't know the answer to that, but I'd bet many won't. So if you have no intention of moving closer, you really have to ask yourself honestly am I doing this to 'have the latest & greatest' or am I doing this because I 'really' will be able to see the difference.

[DelJ]

kylebisme - Your juvenile one-liner does not add to the discusion.


For everyone else:

The 1080i/1080p topic is nicely discussed on Wikipedia at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p

and at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080i


Basically, a 1080i broadcast at 60 fps has enough time to reassemble the two interlaced half-frames from a 24 fps source back into the algebraic equivalent of a 24 fps progressive display. This is NOT because 1080i is the same as 1080p, but because film rates are so SLOW.

This is just simple arithmetic; no rocket science here.

DelJ






[QUOTE=kylebisme]Nope, you still don't get it.[/QUOTE]

[PeterS]

PLEASE STOP USING FPS!!!

THIS IS A GREAT DEAL OF THE CONFUSION!!!!

The post above uses it once when it means Fields Per Second and another when it means Frames Per Second. These are not the same thing!!!

[kylebisme]

[QUOTE=DelJ]kylebisme - Your juvenile one-liner does not add to the discusion.[/QUOTE]
My one line you quote there is a simple statement of fact, your hostile response to it is what is juvenile here.

[andy sullivan]

Something I wonder about is in say 2009 will we even be able to buy a 720p micro-display? By then will there be a manufacturing cost advantage for 720p? Possibly RPLCD will still be relegated to 720P. Even 50" plasmas are moving towards 1080p.

[Raistlin_HT]

[QUOTE=kylebisme]My one line you quote there is a simple statement of fact, your hostile response to it is what is juvenile here.[/QUOTE]

I would contend that reiterating 'you are wrong', while neither pointing out the specific errant points, nor attempting to state corrections, is in itself juvenile.

[Raistlin_HT]

[QUOTE=andy sullivan]Something I wonder about is in say 2009 will we even be able to buy a 720p micro-display? By then will there be a manufacturing cost advantage for 720p? Possibly RPLCD will still be relegated to 720P. Even 50" plasmas are moving towards 1080p.[/QUOTE]

It's possible that small-sized displays may not reach a manufacturing cost advanatage at that point to move above ~720p.

I would think larger displays will probably be all 1080p though - or at least the vast majority will.

[Artwood]

The 1080p train is coming and nothing can stop it--oh yes in 2020 you'll still be able to buy 13-inch 240i crt.

[kylebisme]

[QUOTE=Raistlin_HT]I would contend that reiterating 'you are wrong', while neither pointing out the specific errant points, nor attempting to state corrections, is in itself juvenile.[/QUOTE]
I contend that it would have been juvenile for me to try to explain something to someone who isn't asking for help but rather simply and mistakenly telling someone else "You are in fact wrong." Why Ken's statement in question is in fact correct had already been explained in this thread at that point; and though the experience of my years, I've learned that it generally isn't worth spending my time trying to correct people who show such pride in their misconceptions. Instead, I simply put forth a statment of turth to help aviod others being misslead by DelJ's missunderstandings.

[Artwood]

For the record I want it to be known that I'm more juvenile than either one of you but as always I do respect both of your opinions!

[Ken Ross]

Art, we know, we know! ;)

[wtr_wkr]

This is turning into a bad read. If anyone is still confused (or tied) of converting content to display, just get an HDTV with HQV (it includes: The Realta has the ability to do many different film cadences. While many other comparable processors can do 2:3 and 2:2, the Realta can do both of the above as well as all other cadences (such as 72Hz, 3:3; Animation, Anime, and broadcast movies).

That takes care of all the i/p bs. If you want to dual use with a PC, the answer is simple - get a HDTV with 1080p/60 input.

As far as evidence goes - get an HDTV WITHOUT 1080p input and try to run it with your PC. Imagine paying for an HDTV with 1080p native res and running it at 720/768p.

[kylebisme]

That would be silly when you can always use 1080i, and that is just find for pretty much anything you'd do with a HTPC besides gaming.

If you do plan to do PC gaming then you are really best off getting a TV that can handle not only 1080p/60 and other standard HDTV resolutions, but also custom resolutions 1600x900 and such so have lots of options to get the best compromise between image quality and framerate with whatever games you play.

[Ybarra]

[QUOTE=Ken Ross]Yes you are correct. Assuming you have a source device that puts out more resolution than your current panel is capable of displaying, then a 1080 panel will benefit you IF you sit close enough to take advantage of that additional resolution. And since virtually all FPs are progressive devices to begin with, the fact that a source is 1080i or 1080p has far less significance than the difference between your 768p panel and a 1080p panel. Also keep in mind that horizontal resolution seems to be forgotten about too much and its importance can't be overemphasized. Going from a 768 panel to a 1080 panel gives you a jump from 1366 to 1920. So you are actually getting a bigger increase in horizontal resolution than vertical resolution!

But again, unless the source can take advantage of this additional resolution, you won't be gaining much. Sources such as D*, some of Dish's channels (not all) and some cable systems won't derive much benefit from the jump. But a good calbe system or a source like HD DVD surely will. ;)

In terms of your last question, sitting 10-12' away, the difference may not be so great. That's the other thing that many people just don't understand, viewing distance. How many people are going to rearrange their living environments to sit closer to the new display so that they CAN see the difference? I don't know the answer to that, but I'd bet many won't. So if you have no intention of moving closer, you really have to ask yourself honestly am I doing this to 'have the latest & greatest' or am I doing this because I 'really' will be able to see the difference.[/QUOTE]

I figured as much. I left out the horizontal resolution for the sake of simplicity, but you are correct. For me it was an easy choice. I almost went with a 65" DLP and talked myself into accepting a 50" plasma because of the angle/brightness/contrast factors. Sure I could have waited and spent an extra $1500 for a 1080p plasma just to brag I had the latest toy, but like you said...I'm not moving my couch any closer (as it is I have to pan my eyes side-to-side when watching a movie at 10' away). Maybe 2-3 years when Blue-ray recorders are actually affordable, I'll move my 50 into the bedroom and buy a 65+ inch 1080p set for the den (assuming prices keep dropping like they have been and I have room to move my couch back further), but right now I'm still falling into the "1080p/HDMI 1.3 = so what?" crowd.

[DelJ]

Thank you, Raistlin.

I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me, that is why we have this discussion board. But if one does disagree, then they should explain their position clearly.

DelJ




[QUOTE=Raistlin_HT]I would contend that reiterating 'you are wrong', while neither pointing out the specific errant points, nor attempting to state corrections, is in itself juvenile.[/QUOTE]