|
1080i vs 720p
|
|
|
dblbogey7
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
9. November 2006 @ 04:02 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by HD_nut:
As far as the 1080p/24... agian you just want to talk about movies, I'm really comparing the 1080p/24 signal to the 720p/60 one, not a movie. The 720p/60 signal delivers more fresh pixels per second.
1080p/24 49766400 pixels per second
720p/60 55296000 pixels per second.
720p on 1366x768 62945280 pixels per second
More frames more info... snap 24 picture of something in a second, and let me snap 60... what set of pictures is going to show more information?
I think you have the mistaken assumption that all 1080p sets display at only 24 fps. Actually very few sets (example Sony Ruby PJ) can accept 1080p/24. Even then the 24 fps is usually doubled or even tripled to eliminate flicker. Practically all 1080p sets do 3:2 pulldown to convert any signal to 60 fps and display any incoming signal at 1080p/60. Also the current BluRay (and next gen HD-DVD) players output at 1080p/60. So if we apply your math:
1080p/60 = 124416000 pixels per second.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 9. November 2006 @ 04:15
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
HD_nut
Member
|
9. November 2006 @ 04:56 |
Link to this message
|
Anyone who compares a rare projected image that is blown up from the size of a stamp to the flat panel series is just pumping sunshine up their own set. Get photo the size of a stamp and blow it up to 60 inches. With the flat panel you're not blowing anything up or projecting it. As far as the signals itself, it is not me who wrote the articles about the average distance and the resolution of the eye. I can show articles upon end how 720p set display 480i signals better than 1080p sets.
I'm sure your set looks great, and there is no way you can show picture quality from a digital camera and compare sets that way. When I took my photo it was to show how well you can freeze a Progressive image compared to an interlaced 1080i signal on a 1080i set.
As always, the bigger the picture... the more you stretch pixels, the worse it gets. don't care if it LCD RP, front projection etc.
That is just common knowledge. Read some articles about stretching pixels.
I'm sure the RP sets look great, I had them... but
If you want to talk apples with apples 1080p to 1080p... get a real monitor that shows you a big image before it is pojected and magnified and put in the same room with 90 inch projected image, and then see.
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-rIfkLbAqcfG...sp?i=13365PX600
It is not me who posted these statments
"In a 50-inch plasma display with an array of 1366x768 pixels, the pitch of individual pixels is typically less than 1 mm (about 0.9 mm), which equals 0.039 inches. Do the math, and you'll see that standing 10 feet from a 50-inch plasma means you can barely perceive the HD pixel structure, and that's only if you have 20-20 vision."
http://proav.pubdyn.com/2005_January/13-...arallaxview.htm
720p better than 1080p the clear winner!!
But humans can perceive 60 frames per second which makes 720p the clear winner over 1080p
Proff
60 frames is better than 24
"humans can perceive up to 60+ fps".
http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_3.html
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 9. November 2006 @ 17:57
|
|
HD_nut
Member
|
9. November 2006 @ 04:59 |
Link to this message
|
Yes the pull down helps just like you said it does, no doubt.
Also that is not a real 1080p/60
AGAIN....My comparison was with a real 720p/60 signal. Not so much the monitors. If I had a 720p signal like Lost or Monday Night Football with a 1080p TV with a box that put out in 1080p, I would keep the box in 720p and let the set upconvert to 1080p without changing the frame rate to 24 and using the pull down.
The disks are 1080p/24....
again not a real 60 fps...
If I throw a juggler 2 balls, he still has 2 balls no matter how fast his hands are moving.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 9. November 2006 @ 07:37
|
|
HD_nut
Member
|
9. November 2006 @ 05:14 |
Link to this message
|
1080p/60 = 124416000 pixels per second.
Wrong....
The pixels are not in a different position for all those frames, just 2x or 3x.
A real 720p signal... the pixels are different position for each frame...
AGAIN.... my point is the broadcast signals of a real 720/60
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 9. November 2006 @ 05:31
|
|
eatsushi
Senior Member
3 product reviews
|
9. November 2006 @ 05:53 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
1080p/60 = 124416000 pixels per second.
Wrong....
The pixels are not in a different position for all those frames, just 2x or 3x.
A real 720p signal... the pixels are different position for each frame...
AGAIN.... my point is the broadcast signals of a real 720/60
dblbogey7's math is correct if your source is a BluRay player outputting 1080p/60.
"The emergence of a single, high-definition format is cause for consumers, as well as the entire entertainment industry, to celebrate."
-Craig Kornblau, president of Universal Home Entertainment Feb 19, 2008
|
|
HD_nut
Member
|
9. November 2006 @ 06:02 |
Link to this message
|
The disks..... are 1080p/24.... the disk is like a broadcast signal... it not a real 60 frame signal from the source. The players and monitors can pump 24 fps as fast as they want it is just 2x 3x of the 24.
The ATSC broadcast format for 1080p goes as high as 30 fps.
A real 720p signal is 60 real frames and the set pumps 60 real frames. Each picture with a 720p/60 signal contains fresh pixels for every frame. If you get a 1080p/24 source, you're more than doubling the frames rates. The sets 60 fps mode does not provide a fresh set of pixels in a different position for each frame as a real 720p signal does.
Yes pull downs help for flickering and all like said above. They are not real 60 frame images.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 9. November 2006 @ 07:22
|
|
eatsushi
Senior Member
3 product reviews
|
9. November 2006 @ 06:13 |
Link to this message
|
So the best image would be from the PS3 putting out a 1080p game at 60 fps displayed on a 1080p/60 set. That would be REAL 124416000 pixels per second.
"The emergence of a single, high-definition format is cause for consumers, as well as the entire entertainment industry, to celebrate."
-Craig Kornblau, president of Universal Home Entertainment Feb 19, 2008
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 9. November 2006 @ 06:14
|
|
HD_nut
Member
|
9. November 2006 @ 07:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 9. November 2006 @ 07:24
|
|
HD_nut
Member
|
9. November 2006 @ 07:11 |
Link to this message
|
"Summary: It is not the pixels in a still frame that counts - still video is boring. It is the pixels per second delivered to viewers that matters."
http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/Naming_Proposal.htm
With 720p/60 signal it is 720p/60 55296000 pixels per second being DELIVERED by the signal, and not augmented pixels of exsisting frames.
I rest my case!
|
|
eatsushi
Senior Member
3 product reviews
|
9. November 2006 @ 08:21 |
Link to this message
|
All your arguments are good on paper but my question on the first page of this thread still stands: Why does 720p (either from HD cable, upconverting DVD player or HD-DVD player - movies, video, sports, animation) look worse on my HDTV than 1080i??? No matter what I do even with calibration with DVE it's still the same - 720p sources don't look as good as 1080i.
"The emergence of a single, high-definition format is cause for consumers, as well as the entire entertainment industry, to celebrate."
-Craig Kornblau, president of Universal Home Entertainment Feb 19, 2008
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 9. November 2006 @ 08:23
|
|
HD_nut
Member
|
9. November 2006 @ 08:38 |
Link to this message
|
Because you have an SXRD 1080p,
That set scales 1080i to p very well.
That set is tailor made for the 1080i signal, to weave together the odd & even of fields of 540i to 1080p, 1080i matches the Horizontal pixel lines of your set . (1920)
If you had a 768p set you would see a different result. Then converting to 720p would look better.
You can't compare the 720p signal to 1080i or p on the same set.
I done this with the best 1080i set with a 1080i signal and that same signal cross converted on a 768p set.
A real test is get a 720p/60 signal on a 768p/60 set
get a 1080i/30 signal on a 1080i set.
1080i looks better on 1080i set then 720p on a 1080i set.
Also, a lot of cable companies convert 720p to 1080i over the line, so it's better keeping the box in 1080i if that is the case.
Matter of fact the Old Voom sat system also sent out the 720p ESPN in 1080i.
|
|
error5
Senior Member
|
9. November 2006 @ 09:07 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by eatsushi:
All your arguments are good on paper but my question on the first page of this thread still stands: Why does 720p (either from HD cable, upconverting DVD player or HD-DVD player - movies, video, sports, animation) look worse on my HDTV than 1080i??? No matter what I do even with calibration with DVE it's still the same - 720p sources don't look as good as 1080i.
Yeah - same with me. 720p signals look soft and sometimes washed out on my set.
HDnut: If I understand you correctly - you're saying then that 720p is not always the best choice right?
|
|
HD_nut
Member
|
9. November 2006 @ 09:18 |
Link to this message
|
I'm saying that 720p/60 is the best ATSC signal.
If you have a 1080i native set go with the 1080i signal.
720p is not the best choice for all sets, yes.
But again 720p/60 signal on a 768/60 set (up to 50 inches) will provide the best viewing from a ATSC broadcast at a normal distance.
|
|
dblbogey7
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
9. November 2006 @ 09:21 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by HD_nut:
720p is not the best choice for all sets, yes.
There you go folks.
|
|
HD_nut
Member
|
9. November 2006 @ 09:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
If that is what you were looking for why didn't you clarify?
I said earlier
"My comparison was with a real 720p/60 signal. Not so much the monitors."
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 9. November 2006 @ 11:04
|
|
HD_nut
Member
|
9. November 2006 @ 10:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 9. November 2006 @ 11:12
|
|
diabolos
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
9. November 2006 @ 19:29 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
* Flat Panel Plasma and LCD vs. Projection Televisions which is better?
Flat Panels have a better picture quality far in this category. Projection TV's are cheaper and larger so if that is what you need then go for it. If you are concerned with picture sharpness and color saturation then go with the higher priced Plasma or LCD flat panels. LCD's flat panels have come a long way from being used solely as computer displays and many of the factors that used to curse them have been fixed such as viewing angles and pixelation with picture motion.
Some Projection TV owners claim of a rainbow effect especially with the DLP models and most projection TV's experience a fading effect at the edges and corners of the screen. On most of the Projections that I have seen and reviewed I also noticed pixelation occurring when viewing too close to the display. At the recommended distance this pixelation was reduced if even noticeable. Although the DLP and LCD projections have advanced a lot in the recent year they are still far behind the flat screens.
Wrong
One, your source is flatscreenbuyersguide.com which tells me they have a bias toward flat panel sets.
Two, don't look for a source that promotes your opinion. Find several reputable sources and compare information.
Three, what tells me this site is full of it is their disregard for peoples life styles. By that I mean everything I said in my first post and more.
I beg you to search my threads. I have done my research and have dealt with mis-information lovers many times. Just pick a topic and include my name in a Google search I know you will find several threads and allot of good info.
Quote:
I'm saying that 720p/60 is the best ATSC signal.
No. Just no. Regardless of frame rate...
720p = 1280x720 pixels per frame
1080i = 1920x1080 pixels per frame
1080p = 1920x1080 pixels per frame
Your comparing the sensation of motion to picture resolution. You feel 720p@60 is better than 1080i@30 because it handles motion better? Well here I must say its all personal preference. I enjoy having as much detail as I can. I don't like the soft picture of 720p. I rather have a more detailed 1080i signal (which is be de-interlaced on 1080p sets to create 1080p@60). It comes down to video processing more than anything. If a 720p tv set makes the signal 540i before changing it to 720p then there will be a loss in detail. But if the tv does it right 1080i will look better than 720p (at least during low motion scenes).
I also feel that the best signal ATSC signal is 1080p@30 not 720p@60 or 1080i@30.
Wikipedia on ATSC resolution...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC#Resolution
Ced
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 9. November 2006 @ 19:52
|
|
HD_nut
Member
|
10. November 2006 @ 02:45 |
Link to this message
|
If you think your set is showing you a real 108op/60 you are delusional as some would say their DVD upconverter is giving them a real 1080i.
Did you read what I said
"The disks..... are 1080p/24.... the disk is like a broadcast signal... it not a real 60 frame signal from the source. The players and monitors can pump 24 fps as fast as they want it is just 2x 3x of the 24.
The ATSC broadcast format for 1080p goes as high as 30 fps.
A real 720p signal is 60 real frames and the set pumps 60 real frames. Each picture with a 720p/60 signal contains fresh pixels for every frame. If you get a 1080p/24 source, you're more than doubling the frames rates. The sets 60 fps mode does not provide a fresh set of pixels in a different position for each frame as a real 720p signal does.
Yes pull downs help for flickering and all like said above. They are not real 60 frame images."
1080i is not more detailed
" In the time it takes 720p to paint 720 lines, 1080i paints only 540 lines. And, by the time 1080i does paint 1080 lines, 720p has painted 1440 lines.
Contrast and brightness have a greater impact on the human visual system than does resolution. The 720p picture is brighter and has greater contrast than the 1080i picture.
In side-by-side subjective testing performed by the Advanced Television Test Center under the auspices of the FCC?s Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Services (ACATS), it was shown that 720p had "no artifacts" under a variety of conditions, while 1080i, under the same conditions, showed "increasing quantization noise and blockiness?" Nevertheless, these distinctions are slight, and the ACATS took pains to note that there was no substantive difference in picture quality between the two formats. "
http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/Progressive_FAQ.htm
"1080/30i is defined to be 1080 lines of 1920 pixels each delivered every 1/30th of a second (540 of them at a time), but it is implemented by its practitioners as 1035 lines of 1440 pixels each"
http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/DTV_Bandwidths.htm
AGAIN my point was that the 720p/60 signal is the best because it delivers the most pixels per second, nothing to do with cheap sets that don't de interlace 1080i properly.
The max resolution of the eye AT A NORMAL DISTANCE maxes out at around 768px1366 for a single frame, which makes your 1080p case invalid
"Talk TV, Smart Guy
The average 42-inch-diagonal, 1,280-by-720 plasma or LCD display has pixels that are roughly 0.029 inches wide. (Of course, each model has different inter-pixel spacing, but, for now, we'll assume they don't.) If the same size display had a resolution of 1,920 by 1,080, the pixels would be 0.019 inches wide. As you can see, in a 42-inch display at a distance of 10 feet, your eye can't discern the resolution available even with 720p. Even more resolution is "wasted" at 1,920 by 1,080.
Now, assuming that you're not going to move your couch but you want a bigger TV, how does this work with a 50-inch set? The pixels in a 1,280-by-720 display are 0.034 inches wide, which is almost exactly what your eye can discern at 10 feet. A 1,920-by-1,080 display has 0.023-inch-wide pixels, smaller than your eye can resolve. A 1,920-by-1,080 display would have to measure more than 70 inches diagonally before you start testing your eyes' limits on the display's resolution (at least at 10 feet). Scan lines are the pixels of the CRT world and, in this case, function similarly. The pixels in some displays are not square, in which case you'll also need to check pixel height. "
http://blog.hometheatermag.com/geoffreymorrison/
"In a 50-inch plasma display with an array of 1366x768 pixels, the pitch of individual pixels is typically less than 1 mm (about 0.9 mm), which equals 0.039 inches. Do the math, and you'll see that standing 10 feet from a 50-inch plasma means you can barely perceive the HD pixel structure, and that's only if you have 20-20 vision."
http://proav.pubdyn.com/2005_January/13-...arallaxview.htm
So if your wasting resolution at a normal distance common sense should tell you that you're better off with the signal that will give you the max resolution that your eye can see at a normal distance with THE FRAME RATE YOUR EYE CAN PERCEIVE AND DELIVERS MORE PIXELS PER SECOND.
"humans can perceive up to 60+ fps".
http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_3.html
I had this debate before, and it came down to the guy telling me he was going to pull his chair 2 feet away from the set ... yea that will be good at the next superbowl party.
See, I done all this research long before I got into this and spent over 15,000 on equipment.
People go in a store and see 1080p, without even taking into consideration what temporal resolution is or mathematics of what their eye can perceive at a normal distance.
As far as the flat panel vs RP???, buddy I'm not even going to waste much of my time...
Get yourself a real monitor like this one
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pna/v3...6753543,00.html
Rather than watching blown up postage stamps, and then see.
Have a good day.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 10. November 2006 @ 03:43
|
|
diabolos
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
10. November 2006 @ 05:06 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
If you think your set is showing you a real 108op/60 you are delusional as some would say their DVD upconverter is giving them a real 1080i.
What? No 1080i@30 will never match 1080p@60 if the source is 1080p@60 but it will retain more detail per frame than 720p@60.
FYI: I talk tvs everyday with the people that matter. The people that buy this stuff. And as I said before its personal preference. What makes them happy makes them happy.
Thanks for the sources but I don't understand why you feel that a proper balance can't be met in relation to screen size and viewing distance. Everyone here knows how viewing distance relates to what you see on screen.
You can use all the numbers you want but I'd rather listen to George Lucas (THX) and Joe Krane (one of two ISF founders) as they seem to know what they are talking about.
FYI: I have nothing to prove here my contributions have already been made. You would do better to make some friends before you attempt to debunk Senior Members.
Ced
|
|
HD_nut
Member
|
10. November 2006 @ 05:24 |
Link to this message
|
There is no ATSC signal or DVD Disk that is 1080p/60, stop trying to invent one. All you have is augmented upconversions.
"Everyone here knows how viewing distance relates to what you see on screen."
Just from that statement shows me you don't understand what I posted or you don't want to understand it.
Read it good, they're telling you and 1080p is irrelevant from a normal distance. You can't see that resolution from that distance, yea you're seeing the picture but your eyes are not pulling in 2 million pixels. They're telling you the most your eyes can pull in with those screen sizes from that distance is about 1 million Progressive.
More detail per frame that your eye can't perceive. Wasted resolution my friend for a slower frame rate. It is not me who wrote the articles and did the math, and I showed you more than one source. You have to try to stop bull s..n yourself that you bought the best TV.
The reason why 720p looks softer on your set is because the set was not designed for the signal.
The FCC and the ATSC the holy grail of DTV did the test the way it should have been and 720p won out.
60 Frames can be perceived that is fact, and the math is fact.
You can try to keep going around in circles but facts are strong.
"It is not the pixels in a still frame that counts - still video is boring. It is the pixels per second delivered to viewers that matters"
http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/Naming_Proposal.htm
So, go take it up with these people, the ATSC... the FCC and tell them that they're wrong.... don't take it up with me, these are not my opinions.
From 720 painting 720 in the time 1080i pained 540 to what maxes out the eye resolution.
Ignoring facts or denying them does not change them.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 10. November 2006 @ 06:14
|
|
eatsushi
Senior Member
3 product reviews
|
10. November 2006 @ 06:37 |
Link to this message
|
The FCC and the ATSC have to redo the tests using a 1080p set. LOL!
"The emergence of a single, high-definition format is cause for consumers, as well as the entire entertainment industry, to celebrate."
-Craig Kornblau, president of Universal Home Entertainment Feb 19, 2008
|
|
HD_nut
Member
|
10. November 2006 @ 07:13 |
Link to this message
|
There you go. :)
It would probably be close to even because of max resolution of the eye, but the temporal resolution will probably tip the scale to 720p.
They would probably have different results at different distances.
If it is sports 720p would win by a landslide.
"1080p/24 is totally inappropriate for broadcasting sports. No sports fan would tolerate the motion blur and loss of fine detail in fast-moving objects. Even 1080i/30 would be a better choice."
http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages_b/followup.html
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 10. November 2006 @ 07:18
|
|
eatsushi
Senior Member
3 product reviews
|
10. November 2006 @ 09:02 |
Link to this message
|
720p sports looks like crap on my set. I don't watch sports on ABC-HD, Fox HD or ESPN HD anymore because I get a headache after 5 minutes.
"The emergence of a single, high-definition format is cause for consumers, as well as the entire entertainment industry, to celebrate."
-Craig Kornblau, president of Universal Home Entertainment Feb 19, 2008
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 10. November 2006 @ 09:02
|
Member
|
10. November 2006 @ 17:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
Lol im glad diabolos got into this one. Good luck!
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
error5
Senior Member
|
10. November 2006 @ 17:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
diabolos is THE MAN.
|
