1080i vs 720p
|
|
aabbccdd
Suspended permanently
|
10. November 2006 @ 21:25 |
Link to this message
|
eatsushi and Ced your right i set my new Oppo OPDV-971H upconverting DVD player to 1080i and it looks better than the 720p on my Sony SXRD 60" BTW it looks amazing!!!! WOW Oppo did a great job with this DVD player
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
peteUk230
Newbie
|
11. November 2006 @ 18:35 |
Link to this message
|
All I want to add is that once you see real HD television that has been shot in HD 1080i or p
and is shown at 1080i/p then you would not want to go back to anything else as it looks
poor in comparison.
Think in terms of mega pixles rather than pixel structure blah blah et etc.
Standard deff: 1 mp
720: 2mp
1080: 3 mp
Film: 4mp
Then, once you realise the greater bandwidth of colour, brightness and contrast, you start to
see that HD 1080 really is 'worth it'.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. November 2006 @ 18:36
|
aabbccdd
Suspended permanently
|
11. November 2006 @ 18:39 |
Link to this message
|
so whats next after 1080p lol , can it get better
|
peteUk230
Newbie
|
11. November 2006 @ 18:48 |
Link to this message
|
A top guy at the BBC told me that in Japan they had trialed Ultra-HD and people had got motion sickness from it.... i dread to think!
|
HD_nut
Member
|
11. November 2006 @ 18:51 |
Link to this message
|
Find out how big it was and how close they were to it!
Marketing promos! I saw that too!
Always compare these promos to what you would buy as a normal size screen in your home and how far would sit from the screen!!
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. November 2006 @ 18:54
|
aabbccdd
Suspended permanently
|
11. November 2006 @ 19:19 |
Link to this message
|
i think we are pretty close to topping out , but we have laser sets coming soon
|
HD_nut
Member
|
12. November 2006 @ 00:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
HD_nut
Member
|
12. November 2006 @ 01:42 |
Link to this message
|
Also, the ultra HD was a little bit of a marketing trick, they showed a film of a roller coaster, and those of us who remember the old Brady Bunch film at Kings Island remember how sick we were from watching the roller coaster. The feeling they thought was from the reality of ultra HD, really was their depth perception. You will get motion sickness looking at a roller coaster on any standard set.
To the other post about the blah....
720p has better contrast than 1080i, and the reason 720p will not look as good is when you watch 720p on a 1080i or p set.
The math has been done by more than one source.
&
"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."
http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/Progressive_FAQ.htm
720p is #1
Fastest and best temporal resolution and the max resolution for the human eye at the average distance.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. November 2006 @ 01:48
|
error5
Senior Member
|
12. November 2006 @ 02:10 |
Link to this message
|
I have a 1080p TV and NO WAY am I going back to 720p. When 1080p/60 sources become more common (PS3, BluRay etc) I want to be ready to diplay at those pixels.
Panasonic PT-AE3000 1080p Projector//Carada 110" Criterion High Contrast Grey 16:9 Screen//Oppo BDP-83SE//Toshiba HD-XA2
Classe SSP800 Processor//Classe CA-5200 5 Channel Amplifier//Classe CA-2200 2 Channel Amplifier
Bowers & Wilkins 802D L-R/HTM 1D Center/SCMS Surrounds/JL Audio Fathom f113 x 2
|
HD_nut
Member
|
12. November 2006 @ 03:36 |
Link to this message
|
Well pull your chair about 3 feet away from your set becaue that is the only way you'll be able to see those pixels with the lower frame rate! Wasted resolution for a slower frame rate!
Do people read the entire thread here or just the last post?
You get more pixles per second with 720p
Continued denials of logic and math.
1080p/24 49766400 pixels per second
720p/60 55296000 pixels per second.
720p on 1366x768 62945280 pixels per second
"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
"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
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. November 2006 @ 03:51
|
HD_nut
Member
|
12. November 2006 @ 04:31 |
Link to this message
|
Also error5,
You have one of the many 1080p sets that only scale to 1080p.
Proves my point that more people got into 1080p without any research from the frame rates, mathematics of the eye, or the 1080p sets they bought.
If your last comment was about your KDS-R50XBR1 that you have listed in your signature, I hate to inform you that your HDMI inputs are 1080i and 720p.
If you put a 1080p signal on that HDMI cable it gets broken down to 1080i as soon as the signal hits the TV.
In other words, no different that your 1080i signal from CBS.
If your Blu Ray player is in 1080p it gets converted
to 1080i when it hits the set
and the set will scale it to 1080p like it does all 1080i signals.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. November 2006 @ 05:46
|
error5
Senior Member
|
12. November 2006 @ 04:55 |
Link to this message
|
OK people - you heard him.
Get rid of all your 1080p sets and switch to 720p.
Panasonic PT-AE3000 1080p Projector//Carada 110" Criterion High Contrast Grey 16:9 Screen//Oppo BDP-83SE//Toshiba HD-XA2
Classe SSP800 Processor//Classe CA-5200 5 Channel Amplifier//Classe CA-2200 2 Channel Amplifier
Bowers & Wilkins 802D L-R/HTM 1D Center/SCMS Surrounds/JL Audio Fathom f113 x 2
|
HD_nut
Member
|
12. November 2006 @ 05:45 |
Link to this message
|
That wasn't my point, I have done a lot of research before I bought my sets and I was just pointing out a fact... you were the one that brought up the 1080p Blu Ray.
I looked at your profile and I remember the set, would you have been happier if I said nothing and let you go on to believe that your set has a 1080p input when you get your Blu Ray player?
|
error5
Senior Member
|
12. November 2006 @ 06:14 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by HD_nut: That wasn't my point, I have done a lot of research before I bought my sets and I was just pointing out a fact... you were the one that brought up the 1080p Blu Ray.
I looked at your profile and I remember the set, would you have been happier if I said nothing and let you go on to believe that your set has a 1080p input when you get your Blu Ray player?
From your own article:
http://blog.hometheatermag.com/geoffreymorrison/
Quote:
1080i v. 1080p
Posted Mon Aug 7, 2006, 1:57 PM ET
There has been a lot of concern and confusion over the difference between 1080i and 1080p. This stems from the inability of many TVs to accept 1080p. To make matters worse, the help lines at many of the TV manufacturers (that means you, Sony), are telling people that their newly-bought 1080p displays are really 1080i. They are idiots, so let me say this in big bold print, as far as movies are concerned THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 1080i AND 1080p. See, I did it in caps too, so it must be true. Let me explain (if your eyes glaze over, the short version is at the end).
For clarification, let me start by saying that there are essentially no 1080i TVs anymore. Unless you bought a CRT based TV, every modern TV is Progressive scan (as in LCD, Plasma, LCOS, DLP). They are incapable of displaying a 1080i signal as 1080i. So what we?re talking about here mostly applies to people with 1080p native displays.
Movies and almost all TV shows are shot at 24 frames-per-second (either on film or on 24fps HD cameras). All TVs have a refresh rate of 60Hz. What this means is that the screen refreshes 60 times a second. In order to display something that is 24fps on something that is essentially 60fps, you need to make up, or create new frames. This is done using a method called 3:2 pulldown (or more accurately 2:3 pulldown). The first frame of film is doubled, the second frame of film is tripled, the third frame of film is doubled and so on, creating a 2,3,2,3,2,3,2 sequence. It basically looks like this: 1a,1b,2a,2b,2c,3a,3b,4a? Each number is the original film frame. This lovely piece of math allows the 24fps film to be converted to be displayed on 60Hz products (nearly every TV in the US, ever).
This can be done in a number of places. With DVDs, it was all done in the player. With HD DVD, it is done in the player to output 1080i. With Blu-ray, there are a few options. The first player, the Samsung, added the 3:2 to the signal, interlaced it, and then output that (1080i) or de-interlaced the same signal and output that (1080p). In this case, the only difference between 1080i and 1080p is where the de-interlacing is done. If you send 1080i, the TV de-interlaces it to 1080p. If you send your TV the 1080p signal, the player is de-interlacing the signal. As long as your TV is de-interlacing the 1080i correctly, then there is no difference. Check out this article for more info on that.
The next Blu-ray players (from Pioneer and the like) will have an additional option. They will be able to output the 1080p/24 from the disc directly. At first you may think that if your TV doesn't accept 1080p, you'll miss out on being able to see the "unmolested" 1080p/24 from the disc. Well even if your TV could accept the 1080p/24, your TV would still have to add the 3:2 pulldown itself (the TV is still 60Hz). So you're not seeing the 1080p/24 regardless.
The only exception to that rule is if you can change the refresh on the TV. Pioneer's plasmas can be set to refresh at 72 Hz. These will take the 1080p/24, and do a simple 3:3 pull down (repeating each frame 3 times).
Short Version
What this all means is this:
? When it comes to movies (as in HD DVD and Blu-ray) there will be no visible difference between the 1080i signal and the 1080p signal, as long as your TV correctly de-interlaces 1080i. So even if you could input 1080p, you wouldn't see a difference (because there is none).
? There is no additional or new information in a 1080p signal from movie based content.
? The only time you would see a difference is if you have native 1080p/60 content, which at this point would only come from a PC and maybe the PS3. 1080p/60 does have more information than 1080i/30, but unless you're a gamer you will probably never see native 1080p/60 content. It is incredibly unlikely that they will ever broadcast 1080p (too much bandwidth) or that 1080p/60 content will show up on discs (too much storage space and no one is using it to record/film).
So all of you people who bought 1080p displays only to be told by the companies that you had bought 1080i TVs, relax. The TV will convert everything to 1080p. Now if you bought a TV that doesn't de-interlace 1080i correctly, well, that's a whole other story.
So there is NO DIFFERENCE if you have a good deinterlacer like the Sony.
Panasonic PT-AE3000 1080p Projector//Carada 110" Criterion High Contrast Grey 16:9 Screen//Oppo BDP-83SE//Toshiba HD-XA2
Classe SSP800 Processor//Classe CA-5200 5 Channel Amplifier//Classe CA-2200 2 Channel Amplifier
Bowers & Wilkins 802D L-R/HTM 1D Center/SCMS Surrounds/JL Audio Fathom f113 x 2
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. November 2006 @ 06:16
|
HD_nut
Member
|
12. November 2006 @ 06:39 |
Link to this message
|
OK... but, your set is not getting the 1080p signal... all I was pointing out because it appeared that you thought it was.
It would be no difference for you to have HD DVD 1080i or Blue Ray 1080p with that set.
As far as the pull down like I said before!
720p signal is better than the 1080p one
Like you posted... not native 1080p60
"you need to make up, or create new frames"
or
" (repeating each frame 3 times)"
The disks or the signal..... 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 pull down 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 12. November 2006 @ 07:24
|
HD_nut
Member
|
12. November 2006 @ 07:21 |
Link to this message
|
At the end of the day, there is more pixels per second with the ATSC signal of 720p/60.
If you have a 1080p set and a 768 set the 768 set will look better at a distance of 10 feet, what is about average distance for a set that size (50). You can go around it all you want and try to ignore that math, the size of the pixels etc.
A lot of people couldn't believe that such a case could be made to debate 1080p vs 720p, but as you see to the 1080p camps surprise, there is a good case for 720p to be considered the #1 signal of the ATSC as well as the 720p or 768 set to provide the best resolution under the average conditions, not even to mention how much better they display the standard signal.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. November 2006 @ 07:25
|
dblbogey7
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
13. November 2006 @ 03:36 |
Link to this message
|
@HD-nut:
This is my take on the whole 720p vs 1080p thing.
The CE companies are going to promote whatever makes them more money and that at this point is their 1080p line of products. Sadly for them 720p sets have become more affordable for consumers and even with high volume sales likely will not contribute to their profit margin as much as 1080p. You've seen the barrage of 1080p advertising in HT publications and in specialty retailers. Add to this the push for BluRay and HD-DVD by major film studios and CE manufacturers where 1080p is the by-word. Microsoft has gotten into the fray by releasing an HD-DVD add on for the Xbox 360 and a firmware update that allows 1080p gaming thru component and 1080p movie playback thru VGA. Sony counterpunches with the release of the PS3 touting its native 1080p ability with HDMI 1.3.
Your arguments can make sense in some quarters but unfortunatley you could be fighting a losing battle - like Don Quixote jousting at windmills. The windmills being the big CE companies and the big movie studios.
Just my opinion.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. November 2006 @ 04:27
|
HD_nut
Member
|
13. November 2006 @ 05:52 |
Link to this message
|
Thanks for seeing my side, I don't think anyone is fighting a battle because 720p, 480p, & 480i sets are still being made. The camp I come form knows it is a good argument, but to the average consumer, they see a bigger number and automatically think it a hands down case, it is not. The effect is that it became a marketing tool for all manufacturers, and the good news is it lowered the price on the 720p sets.
It's just that people come to these sites looking for information, and they should see the pros and cons of 720 vs 1080p.
Like for instance the up conversion...
If you get a 768x1024 plasma, put a sat box in 720p and that will upconvert the standard 480i signal to almost HD quality, or a very high ED format. Put the box back in 480i, the native signal and then back up to 720p and you'll say .....WOW!
Plasma handles upconversions well, and one with a 1024 resolution, requires a lot less of a climb for 480i/702 to go to 768/1024 than to a set with high resolutions.
This is what I mean that in a lot of cases, bigger numbers are not always better, and consumers should know these things.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. November 2006 @ 10:10
|
Senior Member
|
16. November 2006 @ 07:20 |
Link to this message
|
Oops,already answered, Thanks.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16. November 2006 @ 07:35
|
Telejesus
Newbie
1 product review
|
16. November 2006 @ 17:15 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by BurningAs: yeah what he said noly this important correction. 720p shouldnt be looked at as 1440i, it's just not! while 1080i is 540p because only 540 lines at diplayed at any given time, but 720p displays all 720 line at anygiven time.
so yeha 720p should be better. but getting into how the eye works and tricking it... 1080i looks very good even though its acutally 540 at any given time
Really only 480 lines come to visible, rest are for TXT TV and blank.
Read this.
That was NTSC put you get the point :)
Telejeesus
http://piirit.sytes.net (yleistä tietoa,ei mainos-sivu)
XBOX MODAAJA/KORJAAJA, myös piirit ja UUDET XBOXIT.
SUOMEN HALVIMMAT HINNAT.
|
HD_nut
Member
|
17. November 2006 @ 01:59 |
Link to this message
|
Very good,
But again it's not just the lines it is also the pixels per second.
We're not saying it's 1440, just that at the time it takes 1080i to paint 1080i, 720 painted 1440.
I'm saying that 720p is the best at an average distance considering the mathematics of the eye.
720p/60
The fastest and best resolution format!
|
phillippe
Newbie
|
17. November 2006 @ 18:33 |
Link to this message
|
pls help me ...I bought the sony k50e200 and its only 1280 720 , i could of got the 1080i for 500 $ more did i fuck up
|
HD_nut
Member
|
18. November 2006 @ 02:32 |
Link to this message
|
720p/60
The fastest and best resolution format!
|
Telejesus
Newbie
1 product review
|
18. November 2006 @ 11:11 |
Link to this message
|
Amen brother, 1080i and all i material should be purried 6ft under .lol
Telejeesus
http://piirit.sytes.net (yleistä tietoa,ei mainos-sivu)
XBOX MODAAJA/KORJAAJA, myös piirit ja UUDET XBOXIT.
SUOMEN HALVIMMAT HINNAT.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
HD_nut
Member
|
18. November 2006 @ 11:45 |
Link to this message
|
720p/60
The fastest and best resolution format!
|