Can someone explain to me, and I am asking a question here, not looking for an argument.

Why do most folks agree that 480p looks better than 480i, but many argue that 1080i looks exactly the same as 1080p ??

--- Cain

Can someone explain to me, and I am asking a question here, not looking for an argument.

Why do most folks agree that 480p looks better than 480i, but many argue that 1080i looks exactly the same as 1080p ??

--- Cain
Because its true, given quality source content and image projection equipment for both 1080i and 1080p. There comes a point where the ROI diminishes alot, and that's the border line IMHO. I've seen both side by side using solid source and projectors on the same screen - the difference doesn't begin to warrant the change or cost, again IMHO. That's just one vote.

Actually, this is WRONG.

480p looks better than 480i because most traditional video material is encoded at 480i and designed to be displayed on 480i devices. 480p only looks better when it is properly deinterlaced with the proper "pull-down" and then displayed on a 480p display device.

I guess it is better to say that 480p display devices look better than 480i display devices as they actually do show you twice the apparent resolution at any given moment due to these techniques.

Now, this falls apart with 1080i and 1080p as we are basically all using progressive (p) display devices. This is true even if your device only takes in a 1080i signal. All current technologies (with the exception of CRT) actually display a progressive signal (DLP, LCD, SXRD, DiLA, Plasma, etc.) Since this is true, they must be grabbing an interlaced signal, holding one field, combining it with the next field prior to display (this is what any progressive output device previously did before outputting the image).

The issue here is that the technology is EXTREMELY robust and that for very little cost almost all displays can do this perfectly. For film, it is trivial as there is no "time offset" between two interlaced Fields - they come from the same Frame so putting them back together is extremely simple.

You can view it as follows:

A Progressive Signal is sent as
Line 1
Line 2
Line 3
Line 4
etc.
Display

An Interlaced Signal is sent:
Line 1
Line 3
Line 5
etc.
Line 2
Line 4
Line 6
etc.
Display

In the end run the same information is in the Frame Buffer prior to display - ergo no difference.

Another point is that people continually confuse the subject when talking about 1080i and 1080p. You MUST distinguish between TRANSMISSION and DISPLAY. In your context you are talking about how the signal is TRANSMITTED as almost all of the 1080 monitors, etc. DISPLAY 1080p and can not DISPLAY in an interlaced fashion anyway.

Hope this helps.

Film is shot (traditionally) at 24 frames per second.

Most digital displays, lets call it a 1080p display, show video at 60 frames per second (60hz).

With HD discs, if film is sent to the display at 1080i, it is actually 24 frames per second, that is broken in half (48 interlaced fields) then one field is repeated to get up to 60 fields (no longer called frames) per second. Now, a 1080p display ONLY can display at 1080p, so it must deinterlace the fields and get it back to 1080p/60. If done correctly, this will properly put the 24 frames back into a progressive format that should look darn near the original on the disc.

Now, if you have a film that is shot at 60 frames per second, progressive. Than that should NEVER be interlaced because you would lose film data.

As well, if you have a display that can properly show a 24hz source at 24hz (frames per second) then you probably shouldn't interlace that either. But, even if it was interlaced, as long as proper deinterlacing takes place, the original 24fps with full resolution should be able to be restored.

The hard part, is that properly identifying interlaced vs. progressive frame sequences can be difficult for some displays to do on their own, so it is typically better for the processing to be handled by the disc player.

This information is an 'as far as I know' and some generalizations were made - additional info/corrections is appreciated.

Some corrections:

Now, if you have a film that is shot at 60 frames per second, progressive. Than that should NEVER be interlaced because you would lose film data.

No film is ever shot at 60 Frames per second - and most likely never will be. There is no benefit for more than 2x cost and this is a significant cost.

As well, if you have a display that can properly show a 24hz source at 24hz (frames per second) then you probably shouldn't interlace that either. But, even if it was interlaced, as long as proper deinterlacing takes place, the original 24fps with full resolution should be able to be restored.

Really, with film there is NO DIFFERENCE, as it is simply how you are transmitting the signal. All the data is the same - PERIOD.

The hard part, is that properly identifying interlaced vs. progressive frame sequences can be difficult for some displays to do on their own, so it is typically better for the processing to be handled by the disc player.

Actually, it is extremely easy for the display to know if it is receiving an interlaced or progressive SIGNAL. The problem occurs with bad deinterlacing in a player outputting a progressive SIGNAL - thus turning off any processing in the display. If this is done improperly to an INTERLACED VIDEO signal, then there could be problems. If the source is FILM and either the source or display can not put this back together properly - then you have a BROKEN device.

Actually, it is extremely easy for the display to know if it is receiving an interlaced or progressive SIGNAL.
He was saying that it's difficult for a display to identify progressive frame sequences that are being sent in an interlaced signal.

Can someone explain to me, and I am asking a question here, not looking for an argument.

Why do most folks agree that 480p looks better than 480i, but many argue that 1080i looks exactly the same as 1080p ??

--- Cain

In both cases it depends on the source material, display being used and DVD player. It is not a given (unless we are talking about native 480p and native 1080p to a progressive display, that should be better or at least as good).

People are confused with past displays that did no deinterlacing of their own. When progressive players came out, the results were apparent, because the tv was now being fed a progressive signal. Today with all modern tvs having internal deinterlacers, they are always showing the progressive image, regardless of what you are feeding it. Every time people spazz on about how the player or game system ONLY puts out 1080i or 480i , it doesn't matter. As long as the display has a proper deinterlacer, you are losing NO INFORMATION.

Either you are letting your player deinterlace, or you are letting your display deinterlace. The end result is the same, assuming the electronics are competent in doing so.

Either you are letting your player deinterlace, or you are letting your display deinterlace. The end result is the same, assuming the electronics are competent in doing so.

This is really the crux right here and the point was also made further up in more detail. The deinterlacing will happen regardless and as long as there isn't a significant disparity in the capabilities (i.e. your model television is horrendous at deinterlacing and you have a disc player that is much better) it just doesn't matter.

As long as the display has a proper deinterlacer, you are losing NO INFORMATION.
Whether your display has a "proper" deinterlacer is a valid question sometimes. Most recent displays do a great job of deinterlacing. My three year old Aquos isn't one of those. 1080i looks better when my cable box is set to 720p (which probably does simple bob deinterlacing) than whatever my display is doing to deinterlace 1080i. I was very surprised by this.

Some corrections:



No film is ever shot at 60 Frames per second - and most likely never will be. There is no benefit for more than 2x cost and this is a significant cost.



Really, with film there is NO DIFFERENCE, as it is simply how you are transmitting the signal. All the data is the same - PERIOD.



Actually, it is extremely easy for the display to know if it is receiving an interlaced or progressive SIGNAL. The problem occurs with bad deinterlacing in a player outputting a progressive SIGNAL - thus turning off any processing in the display. If this is done improperly to an INTERLACED VIDEO signal, then there could be problems. If the source is FILM and either the source or display can not put this back together properly - then you have a BROKEN device.
Very well put, thanks. :)

P is always better than I and Big numbers are always better than little numbers. It's a FACT!

P is always better than I and Big numbers are always better than little numbers. It's a FACT!

Not an informative statement. Read the posts above to get a better idea of what is going on. Sorry, but it's these generalizations that cause the questioning in the first place.

Maybe Artwood was joking? It kind of seems like it, but forums sometimes don't convey that.

Half joking half serious.

Look perfect interlaced displayed doesn't look as good as perfect progressive displayed--just like dots on a CRT don't look as good as paint on the paper of a magazine.

Who's going to say that less perfect dots or pixels will look better that A LARGER NUMBER of perfect dots or pixels?

Of course the operative word is perfect. Since the things aren't perfect--yes interlaced with lesser pixels could be better.

The bottom line of all of this though is that as one gets closer and closer to perfection the closer and closer my generalization will be to universal truth!

Of course some of the discerning videophile fans here of classic AVS prose knew that already!

To clarify this for myself a 1080i cable/ota signal when going to my 1080P fixed panel for all intensive purposes is 1080P?

That said that shows me that there is just a wee difference in noticeable quality between 720P and 1080i/1080P with video myself. 1080i for all intensive purposes today is 1080P, the whole "i" difference was due to CRT's. The difference of 720 and 1080 is definitely something many people wouldn't be in general all that excited about. That is why HD is not only about rez but bit rate and color bits. My main reason I want 1080P is for my HTPC so my desktop and games can run at 1080P resolutions and well that is about it.

So that being said the A1 with 1080i output is nothing to hold against because it is the same as 1080P output because all 1080P devices will take care of the conversion itself and there isn't any resolution or anything lost. There is no reason to wait for a 1080P outputted HD DVD. It's a sales gimmick. All correct?

No! Only TRUE 1080p is the REAL way!

Below is Evan Powell's (Projector Central) appraisal of the 1080i vs 1080p controversy.

"The truth is this: The Toshiba HD-DVD player outputs 1080i, and the Samsung Blu-ray player outputs both 1080i and 1080p. What they fail to mention is that it makes absolutely no difference which transmission format you use—feeding 1080i or 1080p into your projector or HDTV will give you the exact same picture. Why? Both disc formats encode film material in progressive scan 1080p at 24 frames per second. It does not matter whether you output this data in 1080i or 1080p since all 1080 lines of information on the disc are fed into your video display either way. The only difference is the order in which they are transmitted. If they are fed in progressive order (1080p), the video display will process them in that order. If they are fed in interlaced format (1080i), the video display simply reassembles them into their original progressive scan order. Either way all 1080 lines per frame that are on the disc make it into the projector or TV. The fact is, if you happen to have the Samsung Blu-ray player and a video display that takes both 1080i and 1080p, you can switch the player back and forth between 1080i and 1080p output and see absolutely no difference in the picture. So this notion that the Blu-ray player is worth more money due to 1080p output is nonsense."

Right so stations that transmit 1080i HD really are transmitting 1080P to us for all intensive purposes.

Right so stations that transmit 1080i HD really are transmitting 1080P to us for all intensive purposes.
Stations that transmit film-based content as *telecined* 1080i are essentially transmitting 1080p if your display or video processor can perform IVTC on 1080i.

Otherwise it is not the same.

That's not what he said at all. HD DVD discs are encoded at 1080p the same as BD. It doesn't matter if this data isTRANSMITTED to the display as 1080i or 1080p. The display still gets ALL the data, and if you have a 1080p display it will obviously easily reassemble ALL that data to its native resolution.

Clarification:

First you MUST differentiate between TRANSMISSION and DISPLAY.

Second, if your display is DIGITAL (DLP, LCD, DiLA, SXRD, Plasma, etc.) then it is PROGRESSIVE in its display regardless of the signal it receives.

Now:

PROGRESSIVE SOURCE --------->Native 1080p------------->Native 1080p DISPLAY (Perfect 1080p Image)
PROGRESSIVE SOURCE --------->Interlaced 1080i---------->Deinterlaced 1080p DISPLAY (Perfect 1080p Image)

INTERLACED SOURCE ----------->Native 1080i------------->Deinterlaced and Processed to 1080p

The difference is only in that the job in going from a PROGRESSIVE SOURCE to final 1080p DISPLAY is in putting the image back together simply by recombining the fields.

If the source is INTERLACED then you also have to account for the fact that the fields are offset in time. This is where the quality of the processing is important as this is not trivial (though well-established on how to do well).

PROGRESSIVE SOURCE --------->Interlaced 1080i---------->Deinterlaced 1080p DISPLAY (Perfect 1080p Image)


And this is exactly what HD DVD does when contected to a 1080p Display.
(Perfect 1080p image)

Very true -

In fact, the 1080i output of the Toshiba HD-DVD is significantly better than the 1080p output of the Samsung BD-DVD.

This is because the Samsung actually converts 1080p stored on the disc to 1080i and then using a very cheap and inexpensive chip, converts it back to 1080p (also with some additional filtering which destroys the image). This was done because when the player was first designed, it was designed to output 1080i. MARKETING showed them that people did not understand and 1080p was a BIG selling point (even though it makes little difference). Well, instead of properly taking the signal from the disc, they simply threw another part into the mix to output 1080p.

Try it - if you use the Samsung BDP-1000 and a good set, change the output to 1080i and the picture will improve!!! This is why some early reports mentioned that the image looked better over component than HDMI - this is only because the component outputs only go to 1080i!

If the source material is 1080p and you have a 1080p display it is inconsequental if the data is transmitted as 1080i or 1080p. The significance of transmitting 1080p over HDMI is a marketing ploy.

This is because the Samsung actually converts 1080p stored on the disc to 1080i and then using a very cheap and inexpensive chip, converts it back to 1080p
Well I wouldn't necessarily call the Faroudja chip very cheap and inexpensive, but it does seem like their 1080p deinterlacers are working from a dated design.

Compared to the $7K I paid for my first external Faroudja, I would say EXTREMELY inexpensive :)

Really, with film there is NO DIFFERENCE, as it is simply how you are transmitting the signal. All the data is the same - PERIOD.
Ever heard about "interlace flicker"?

Only applicable on an interlaced display where the persistance of phosphor is used to generate an image. It is caused as the one field is decaying while the other is being drawn.

Not relevant here.

Nope,
"interlace flicker" occours when one pixel high detail is shown on interlaced display. That's because it is drawn only every second field. Even progressive display with bad deinterlacer can show the flicker if it just changes one field to one frame (60i->60p). The detail is then in every other frame.
This flickering is avoided in 1080i with low pass filtering witch blurs the picture so that there are no one pixel high details.
So how this is relevant?
There's lots of people over there in US having 1080i displays and they want to watch 1080i signal without any flickering with their über expensive tubes.
If all 1080i displays does not have internal low pass filtering, it has to be done before transmission and therefore 1080i signal has less real vertical resolution than what 1080p could have. Even with progressive source material.

Your example requires:

1) A BAD Deinterlacer - which few if any 1080p digital displays are likely to have. If you know of one, please point it out as I am unaware of any currently shipping.

2) That there is filtering going on which reduces the quality of the signal (which is currently only going on in broadcast - and generally not for the reason you mentioned, but to lighten the load on the encoding process). Since the max resolution of broadcast is only 1080i anyway, and we are talking about HD-DVD and BD-DVD, this is not relevant here.

Peter

1) A BAD Deinterlacer - which few if any 1080p digital displays are likely to have. If you know of one, please point it out as I am unaware of any currently shipping.
You are mixing and matching 1080i vs 1080p transmission and 1080p displays. When specifying BAD deinterlacer you shouldn't limit yourself to only 1080p displays.

You might choose to use 1080i transmission because your player (HD-A1) is incapable of 1080p output and 720p output is horrible. This is irrespective of whether you have a 1080p display. There are plenty of non-1080p displays out there that do not perform IVTC on 1080i and instead do some variant of bob deinterlacing.

Bottom line, if
1) film-based 24p source is telecined onto 1080i
2) your display can perform IVTC on 1080i

You will be able to recover the original 24p source.

Otherwise you'll get something of lesser quality.

True, however, I am restricting my comments to 1080p displays.

So guys, did you get my point:
1080i transmission has to be low pass filtered, because otherwise it would flicker with 1080i display?
Then 1080i transmission isn't equal to 1080p source.

EXACTLY! 1080i FILTERING is what makes 1080i by definition INFERIOR!

EXACTLY! 1080i IVTC is what makes 1080i by definition 1080p!

IVTC does not sharpen the blurred low pass filtered details.

1080i transmission has to be low pass filtered, because otherwise it would flicker with 1080i display?Sorry, but this is so wrong. The reason that filtering WAS applied to NTSC sources is because the gaps between the scan lines are wide enough that the line twitter, which is caused by instabilities in the scanning circuitry and power supplies was visible on older low resolution displays.

Since the scan lines on modern 1080I analog displays (which, by the way, are almost completely absent from large screen displays being sold today) are so close together that any instabilities would seriously degrade the resolution of the display, line twitter is virtually invisible and no filtering for 1080I is required. Commercial HDTV broadcasts, however are filtered to save bandwidth in transmission. Since there are no 1080P broadcasts (and no bandwidth available to do 1080P in the ATSC standard) however, a 1080P ATSC image is not currently available to yield an improved image.

Vern

Vern,
do you know why there are vertical detail settings (thin/thick/etc) in hd cameras if there is no need for it?
"Interlace flicker" does not come from bad circuitry, but from the fact that if there is a one pixel high detail in 1080i picture, it is drawn only every second field.

I know that 1080i displays are quite absent in the stores but not from homes. How many are sold and still used today? One million?

Btw, ATSC is now considering to standardize 1080p50 & 1080p60. I'd guess that US is also switching to mp4 sometime in the future, so after that those will fit in 6MHz band if you still want to keep that raster.

THERE ARE NO PLANS BY ANYONE TO BROADCAST 1080p!!!!!!!

I am sorry, but if Vertical Filtering is applied to a 1080i signal then it is a poor signal.

Neither BD-DVD nor HD-DVD should ever vertically filter 1080i!!! There is no reason at all EVER to do so. Simple IVTC is more than enough to take 1080i and turn it back into perfect 1080p!

End of discussion!!!!

There's lots of plans to broadcast 1080p in Europe.
If somebody wants to watch brd/hd-dvd with 1080i display there has to be filtering somewhere along the line.
And that's why it is much easier to output 1080p to 1080p displays, like many players will do.
Then there's no need for filtering 1080p and 1080i output can be filtered.
Continue discussion!!!

EXACTLY! 1080i IVTC is what makes 1080i by definition 1080p!
I should have said:
EXACTLY! 1080i IVTC is what makes telecined 1080i by definition 1080p!

If 1080p was broadcast in this country would the 1080i it's good enough worshipers kill themselves?

If 1080p was broadcast in this country would the 1080i it's good enough worshipers kill themselves?
I have no problems if they broadcast 1080p/60 *assuming the source is 1080p/60*.

I think it is a total waste bandwidth for them to broadcast 1080p/60 when the source is 1080p/24 or 1080i/60

As it stands I can't even get them to use the 19Mbps available to them in 6MHz for HD material and my local stations keep adding new multicasting options. Like I need 4 branded weather channels in my area.

There worse case scenario for the digital transition is you might not get *any* HD channels, just multicasted SD. There is no requirement to transition to HD, just transition to digital, which can just as easily be multiple SD channels.

I think it is a total waste bandwidth for them to broadcast 1080p/60 when the source is 1080p/24 or 1080i/60.
It is also total waste of bandwitdth to broadcast 1080p24 movie in 1080i60.
Interlaced signal compresses much less efficiently.
If it would be broadcasted 1080p24 with frame based compression (rather than field based), you'd get much more higher quality.
Isn't all ATSC tuners capable of decoding 24p signal?

I should have said:
EXACTLY! 1080i IVTC is what makes telecined 1080i by definition 1080p!
No you shouln't. If 1080i is filtered, it is not equal to 1080p.

It is also total waste of bandwitdth to broadcast 1080p24 movie in 1080i60.
Interlaced signal compresses much less efficiently.
If it would be broadcasted 1080p24 with frame based compression (rather than field based), you'd get much more higher quality.
Isn't all ATSC tuners capable of decoding 24p signal?
In that case it may be a waste, but there is at least a practical reason to do it as we know all HD equipment supports 1080i in the US. ATSC includes 24p support as mandatory but since it likely is not used often we don't know how well tested it is.

Even in the 1080i case, I'm actually not sure if they are wasting the bandwidth. The could still potentially do frame based compression and use field "repeat" flags RFF&TFF in the mpg stream. That's what they do on the DVDs. There are probably examples of 24p being sent as 1080i/60 and 24p being sent 1080i/60 (but compressed as 24p and using repeat flags to have equipment perform pulldown after it is received) It probably depends on the equipment at the stations. I'm just guessing here.

No you shouln't. If 1080i is filtered, it is not equal to 1080p.
I don't think you are understanding IVTC and 24p telecined onto 1080i.

It is also total waste of bandwitdth to broadcast 1080p24 movie in 1080i60.
Interlaced signal compresses much less efficiently.
If it would be broadcasted 1080p24 with frame based compression (rather than field based), you'd get much more higher quality.
Isn't all ATSC tuners capable of decoding 24p signal?

As far as I know, all MPEG-2 decoders support frame based compression. Sending 24p as 60i does not waste any bits; it's just a matter of setting the field repeat flag.

So although ATSC does theoretically support 24p (and 30p), it's not likely to ever be used, and would not save any bits.

Blu-ray, incidentally, supports true blue 1080/24.0p. HD-DVD supports only 1080/59.94i. Neither supports 1080/60p.

I don't think you are understanding IVTC and 24p telecined onto 1080i.
I do understand those, but have you understood why 1080i is filtered?

As far as I know, all MPEG-2 decoders support frame based compression. Sending 24p as 60i does not waste any bits; it's just a matter of setting the field repeat flag.
So even if 1080i signal consists of separate fields, it can have frame based compression?
I've always thought that you can use frame based compression only with progressive signal.
So sending 24p as 60i is exactly the same than sending 24p = 24 progressive frames sent as 48 fields and compressed as frame based, missing pull-down fields are not transmitted, just a flag that tells to repeat previous field?

I do understand those, but have you understood why 1080i is filtered?
I do not see why it would be filtered for plasma or LCD display if it is applying IVTC.

If you are qualifying your statement to a specific display technology maybe.

However we are discussion 1080i vs 1080p transmission. The filtering is not happening in the transmission from the source. Or are you saying the 1080i output of the Toshiba HD-A1 HD-DVD player is filtered? I don't think you are saying that.

Thus if Toshiba HD-A1 HD-DVD player (or any other source) is sending telecined 1080i, the recipient has all the data necessary to reassemble the original 1080p/24 with no filtering or loss of detail. All that needs to happen is proper support for IVTC on 1080i.

So even if 1080i signal consists of separate fields, it can have frame based compression?
I've always thought that you can use frame based compression only with progressive signal.
So sending 24p as 60i is exactly the same than sending 24p = 24 progressive frames sent as 48 fields and compressed as frame based, missing pull-down fields are not transmitted, just a flag that tells to repeat previous field?
I know that is what they do on DVDs (RFF and TFF flags) and Luke M is confirming that is what they do on broadcast. As with any equipment, I suspect you can configure the encoder incorrectly and get undesired behavior.

Blu-ray, incidentally, supports true blue 1080/24.0p. HD-DVD supports only 1080/59.94i. Neither supports 1080/60p.
According to Amir and others HD-DVD movies to date are encoded 1080p/24 and pulldown is performed by the player. I guess it is possible we are saying the same thing and this is just tom-a-toe/tom-ah-toe.

Neither support 1080p/60 source encoding, as you mentioned, but both can support 1080p/60 output of the player's internal deinterlacers.

I do not see why it would be filtered for plasma or LCD display if it is applying IVTC.
How could a broadcaster or brd/hd-dvd player know what kind of display is used?

I have tried to ask if there's a filter within every 1080i display sold in US.
Nobody seems to know.
If there is, then filtering the broadcast signal isn't mandatory, because filtering is done inside the television if needed.
If there isn't, then broadcast signal must be filtered before transmission.

Question isn't very essential, because Vern knew that 1080i signal is filtered anyway to achieve more efficient compression.

Anyway, this stuffing progressive and 24fps to 1080i60 seems a bit weird. Why all the effort?
Why brd/hd-dvd players can't just output plain 1080p24?
Why all the (new) displays couldn't input 1080p24/25/30/50/60?
All hdmi-chipsets that have came to market this year already support 1080p.

Why (new) hd-dvd players and displays use old chipsets that does not support 1080p? To save $10 with $500 player or $2500 display?
This is simply crazy...
I'm not buying anything that does not support 1080p, regardless what kind tweaks can be made to 1080i to make it more or less equal to 1080p.
We all want 1080p, so why try to desperately hang with 1080i?

Could you please explain yourself?

When you refer to 1080i displays are you talking about sets which can only DISPLAY 1080i or can only accept a 1080i signal? These are two very different issues which you have sort of smeared together in your conversation.

Sets which are 1920x1080 and are DIGITAL (LCD, Plasma, SXRD, DiLA, DLP, etc) and can only accept a 1080i signal in, are still 1080p at the display. For these sets, unless there is a truly crappy 1080i signal being provided (just as likely that there would be a crappy 1080p signal provided) there is NO DIFFERENCE between sending these sets a 1080i signal vs. a 1080p signal. The set itself should NEVER filter the incoming signal.

No set currently sold in the US that I am aware of does this!

I have tried to ask if there's a filter within every 1080i display sold in US.

Please explain your filter operation. Are you talking about averaging fields. Are you talking about line doubling.

You seem to be indicating that once you select 1080i transport everything must go through this "filter" operation and I just don't believe that. I understand that you believe that and that is affecting all your comments as to why you feel 24p telecined onto 1080i then IVTC'd back to 24p in not equivalent.

If someone wants to filter stuff to get more compression to fit on a 25GB BD that is an entirely different issue than telecined 1080i transport.

I think you are making assumptions of what is happening which are not necessarily applicable, but it isn't clear to me what you are describing so I can't say for sure.

do you know why there are vertical detail settings (thin/thick/etc) in hd cameras if there is no need for it? My Canon HD camera has a single vertical/horizontal resolution slider which sharpens/softens and no independent control for vertical detail. It's a Canon XLH1.

This thread has gotten way off track, IMHO. We are in the BD Player forum, and broadcast TV progressive / interlaced discussions have no place in this thread.

The facts are simple: the fact that both HD Disc formats are encoded with a 24P 1080 frame means that no vertical filtering need be applied in the telecine/mastering process.

The players do not filter the video before sending the interlaced fields to the display.

Properly designed (almost all current) displays know how to do deinterlacing and IVTC properly. I happen to own a Sony Qualia that won't accept 1080P as an input, yet the display panel is 1080P.

I can and have displayed alternating black/white line patterns generated from a PC at 1080 60I on my Qualia with perfect results on the screen, each and every line is visible, both in the horizontal and vertical dimensions. This proves there is no filtering being done in the display.

Since both fields come from the same frame, there can be no temporal differences between the even/odd fields as displayed on the screen, therefore no filtering is required.

Broadcast TV is a whole 'nother can of worms, and should not be part of this discussion in this forum.

Vern

Well said Vern.

Could you please explain yourself?

When you refer to 1080i displays are you talking about sets which can only DISPLAY 1080i or can only accept a 1080i signal? These are two very different issues which you have sort of smeared together in your conversation.

Sets which are 1920x1080 and are DIGITAL (LCD, Plasma, SXRD, DiLA, DLP, etc) and can only accept a 1080i signal in, are still 1080p at the display. For these sets, unless there is a truly crappy 1080i signal being provided (just as likely that there would be a crappy 1080p signal provided) there is NO DIFFERENCE between sending these sets a 1080i signal vs. a 1080p signal. The set itself should NEVER filter the incoming signal.

No set currently sold in the US that I am aware of does this!
With "1080i display" I mean display that really displays 1080i signal like crt or IIRC some alis plasmas.
If true interlaced display receives 1080p signal or 1080i signal that is constructed from 1080p signal without low pass filtering to avoid "interlace flicker", the picture will flicker. You can check this out in your local professional post production company that has broadcast level hd-crt's.
To avoid this interlce flicker the interlaced display set has to do filtering internally or it has to be done before broadcasting and then it will affect also the picture watched from progressive displays, since they receive the same signal.

Please explain your filter operation. Are you talking about averaging fields. Are you talking about line doubling.

No and no. I've explained it before in this thread, but here it's again for you:
Interlced display can't show 1080i picture with one pixel (=horizontal line) high details, because this would lead that detail to be displayed only every second field and tehrefore the detail would flicker.

You seem to be indicating that once you select 1080i transport everything must go through this "filter" operation and I just don't believe that. I understand that you believe that and that is affecting all your comments as to why you feel 24p telecined onto 1080i then IVTC'd back to 24p in not equivalent.

If interlaced hd displays does not have internal filtering, you can't watch 1080i with 1080p's vertical details with them. Have you heard that somebody with interlaced hd display can't watch 1080i broadcasts or brd/hd-dvd movies with it?
Is this because the set does have internal filter or because the signal is filtered before it enters the set?

If someone wants to filter stuff to get more compression to fit on a 25GB BD that is an entirely different issue than telecined 1080i transport.

Actually it's the same. Both broadcasts and bd needs a lot of compression and more blur picture gives better efficiency to compression.

My Canon HD camera has a single vertical/horizontal resolution slider which sharpens/softens and no independent control for vertical detail. It's a Canon XLH1.

Xlh1 like all hdv camera's are quite low end of hd cameras and not designed for broadcasting. Anyway you should check from your manual what HDF and DHV means.

This thread has gotten way off track, IMHO. We are in the BD Player forum, and broadcast TV progressive / interlaced discussions have no place in this thread.

I don't agree. The subject of this thread is still 1080i vs. 1080p and same things affect both broadcasted or disc based material.

The facts are simple: the fact that both HD Disc formats are encoded with a 24P 1080 frame means that no vertical filtering need be applied in the telecine/mastering process.

The players do not filter the video before sending the interlaced fields to the display.

So you are saying that all interlaced display do have internal filtering, so that they do not flicker with 1080i content that has 1080p vertical resolution?

I can and have displayed alternating black/white line patterns generated from a PC at 1080 60I on my Qualia with perfect results on the screen, each and every line is visible, both in the horizontal and vertical dimensions. This proves there is no filtering being done in the display.

This proves that your pc or qualia does not do any filtering.
This does not prove that do interlaced displays have internal filtering or do bd/hd-dvd players do filtering.
Somewhere there _HAS_ to be filtering, because otherwise you couldn't watch 1080p source material from broadcast or from disc with hd-crt.

What we would now need is someone who has 1080i-crt to hook that with pc and check if there's no filtering with line patterns.

And someboy should burn some line patterns @1080p to dvd and play it back with bd/hd-dvd player hooked up to display with 1080i and see if there's no filtering.

Before somebody has real facts about these or somebody really makes these tests, there's no proof that 1080i quality equals with 1080p quality even with disc based source and that was AFAIK the whole point of this thread.

STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP

This has gone TOO FAR!!!!!

Please ignore the posts from "toke" at this point. His posts are well-intentioned, but it is clear now that he is speaking ONLY about 1080i DISPLAYS!!!!!!!

People, unless you have a CRT you are not using a 1080i DISPLAY!!! If your set is anything other than a CRT and says it accepts 1080i or 1080p then your DISPLAY is only ever displaying 1080p!!!

Nothing mentioned in this thread about 1080i and filtering should ever apply to you at all!!!! Your set does not do it - will never do it!!!!! If the content you are using is filtered in anyway - then you have BAD CONTENT!!!!!

I am sorry, but threads like this, filled with mis-information and mis-use of terminology get me quite angry. This is not rocket science!!! This is actually quite simpe to understand. It is also the total lack of understanding which leads to "Bonehead" marketing decisions (1080p is BETTER than 1080i) and other such crap as you hear from the average Best Buy salesgoon.

So, for now, please......

STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP

People, unless you have a CRT you are not using a 1080i DISPLAY!!! If your set is anything other than a CRT and says it accepts 1080i or 1080p then your DISPLAY is only ever displaying 1080p!!!


PeterS, i own a sanyo Z3 LCD projector. I know its actual, native resolution is 1280x720, so when i watch HD-DVD movies on it they are being "downconverted" from 1080i to 720p.

My prime HT interest at this point is in getting a display device that has a native resolution of 1920x1080, so that i can see the full resolution of HD-DVD.

Because of all the confusing marketing out there (e.g., just about every mass-market electronic stores such as CC and BB say that all of the "HDTVs" they sell display 1080i when they really don't), and on forums (e.g., on another forum, a respected member said "the only display devices that are native 1080i are CRTs with 9" guns". I did not know what the 9-inch guns part means, or if it's true), i wanted to know if you could tell me what display devices - either TVs or Projectors - have 1920x1080 native resolution.



So please, what devices have this resolution property, and are any available for say less than $3500 ?

Thanks much...

Steve Jaros

Sure,

First - they will almost all take in 1080i signals - it is what they do with it which you are interested in.

Second - as long as the set is digital (non-CRT) and claims it can DISPLAY 1080, then you should be fine. WARNING - Stay Aware from the "Wobulator". The Wobulator is PURE EVIL :) and can be found in most DLP sets claiming to display 1080p. Wobulation is a serious disease and should be avoided at all costs (gives me the "heebee-jeebees").

As far as display devices:

Samsung and Westinghouse both have 1080p LCD displays. The Westinghouse units are a great value at both 42" and 47" in size. Sony should be releasing theirs by Fall. While they should be good quality, do not expect them to be a good value - after all Sony has to pay for all of that PS3 goodness somehow :eek:

In the Projector camp - Sony makes the Ruby and the Big-Brother Qualia 004. If you can afford the Qualia it is truly an amazing piece (however, if you can afford the Qualia - you should have your butler and driver figure this out for you as you have more important things to do - like sitting by the pool with TheBland and I :cool: )

In other news, there are Sony SXRD rear-projection and JVC DiLA rear-projection sets which will also display 1080 natively. By the way SXRD in English means DiLA - look it up on Berlitz.

Lastly, Pioneer is about to jump into the fray with true 1080 Plasma sets. Since they must be made with Future Technology and transported here via T.A.R.D.I.S. expect them to be pricey - rumor is that the 50" version will sell for almost $10,000 - oh, right, Pioneer sets are ELITE only :eek: Explains a lot.

Hope this helps.

Now I am off to watch Serenity in HD-DVD on my Qualia 004 while sipping some of the fancy wine which only people like TheBland and I are even aware of...

WHAT - TheBland has been "leaking" this information in his SIG? How "Republican" of him :rolleyes:

Later

PeterS, i own a sanyo Z3 LCD projector. I know its actual, native resolution is 1280x720, so when i watch HD-DVD movies on it they are being "downconverted" from 1080i to 720p.

My prime HT interest at this point is in getting a display device that has a native resolution of 1920x1080, so that i can see the full resolution of HD-DVD.

Because of all the confusing marketing out there (e.g., just about every mass-market electronic stores such as CC and BB say that all of the "HDTVs" they sell display 1080i when they really don't), and on forums (e.g., on another forum, a respected member said "the only display devices that are native 1080i are CRTs with 9" guns". I did not know what the 9-inch guns part means, or if it's true), i wanted to know if you could tell me what display devices - either TVs or Projectors - have 1920x1080 native resolution.



So please, what devices have this resolution property, and are any available for say less than $3500 ?

Thanks much...

Steve Jaros


Steve,

A few (very few) CRT projectors can fully resolve a 1080X1920 picture. These are very expensive devices ($20-40K typically). A couple of digital front projectors (Sony, Runco, dreamvision) with LCos or DLP technology can produce a 1080X1920 picture as well. Some LCD units are also capable of fully reproducing the full 1080X1920 picture.

I am not sure why you feel the need to have a full 1080X1920 capable unit. A mature 720X1280 unit can produce a beautiful picture and cost significantly less.

All of these technologies will take the 1080X1920 data and convert it for use at the native pixel and scan rate for the unit. Let your eyes decide for you, not the hype of having the latest and greatest device.........

PeterS and AV Doogie - thanks for your replies, much appreciated. :)

Steve

PS - AV, i'm *thrilled* with the way the HD-DVDs look on my Z3, so i'm just wondering if i'd be even more thrilled if i had a native 1080i display device !

PeterS and AV Doogie - thanks for your replies, much appreciated. :)

Steve

PS - AV, i'm *thrilled* with the way the HD-DVDs look on my Z3, so i'm just wondering if i'd be even more thrilled if i had a native 1080i display device !

Personally a bit more yes, but not a ton much smaller gap between 720 and 1080 as cmopared to SD to 720 much smaller difference in the prior. I'm excited because I use a HTPC and that will be nice setting the desktop rez to 1080.

So, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Please ignore the posts from "toke" at this point. His posts are well-intentioned, but it is clear now that he is speaking ONLY about 1080i DISPLAYS!!!!!!!
Ok, I'll stop after this post if there's no positive feedback.
Obviously you don't understand what I'm after and nobody else here in this thread has answers either.

Just one more time:
I'm not just talking about 1080i displays.
I'm talking about 1080i signal and how it must be low pass filtered, if it is used with 1080i display without internal filter.
These are the facts:
1) if picture has 1080p vertical resolution and it is showed unfiltered in 1080i display, there will be flicker.
2) broadcaster of disc player do not know what kind of display it is feeding. So 1080i signal must be suitable (and same) for all kind of displays.

Assumptions:
A) All 1080i displays have internal filter, so 1080i signal does not have to be filtered and it can have as much vertical resolution as 1080p picture.
OR
B) All 1080i does not have internal filter, because originally 1080i signal wasn't designed to be used for 1080p picture. Therefore 1080i signal either from broadcaster or from disc player has to be filtered, because otherwise all 1080i displays could not be used with 1080i signal. In this case 1080i signal cannot have same vertical resolution than 1080p.
(Manufacturers can't just say to all of those who have bought 1080i display within last five years, that "we have now new 1080i, your old 1080i just isn't good anymore". 1080i signalling is supposed to be standard. When standards get changed they also change their name.)

Can anybody prove either one of these?
If not, the question remains unanswered and nobody can say that 1080i's vertical resolution equals 1080p.

PS. My real name is Toke, so you can leave the quotations away...

These are the facts:
1) if picture has 1080p vertical resolution and it is showed unfiltered in 1080i display, there will be flicker.
2) broadcaster of disc player do not know what kind of display it is feeding. So 1080i signal must be suitable (and same) for all kind of displays.
The above facts don't apply here. Unless you have a CRT display, you are not going to get flicker (please see more below). An LCD pixel for example, can hold its value forever and does not go dark like it does on a CRT. So it will not flicker even if you send it 1 frame a second. Or in this case, single pixel lines.

I speak for HD DVD and say that NO filtering is done in the creation of the disc.

Assumptions:
A) All 1080i displays have internal filter
Most definitely not. Digital displays have no filtering for 1080i.

, so 1080i signal does not have to be filtered and it can have as much vertical resolution as 1080p picture.
True for HD DVD.

B) All 1080i does not have internal filter, because originally 1080i signal wasn't designed to be used for 1080p picture. Therefore 1080i signal either from broadcaster or from disc player has to be filtered, because otherwise all 1080i displays could not be used with 1080i signal. In this case 1080i signal cannot have same vertical resolution than 1080p.
Again, the case is different for HD DVD where no filtering is done.

(Manufacturers can't just say to all of those who have bought 1080i display within last five years, that "we have now new 1080i, your old 1080i just isn't good anymore". 1080i signalling is supposed to be standard. When standards get changed they also change their name.)
1080i "standard" does not say anything about filtering. Filtering is optionally applied to reduce flicker on a CRT display. The content owner can choose to filter, and optimize for the CRT at the expense of everyone else. Or not filter which is the case for HD DVD.

Note that if your CRT does not fully resolve the 1080i signal vertically, you are not going to see a lot of flicker anyway as the lines overlap, providing poor man's vertical filter. This was NOT true of 480i/480p because every CRT could resolve that, and hence flicker without pre-filtering.

Can anybody prove either one of these?
If not, the question remains unanswered and nobody can say that 1080i's vertical resolution equals 1080p.
I don't know what proof you are looking for other that knowledge of people like us who work with HD DVD studios/post houses in a daily basis :). The bottom line is that 1080i and 1080p pictures have identical resolution in HD DVD. I suspect the same is also true of BD but I don't want to speak for them.

PS. My real name is Toke, so you can leave the quotations away...
Nice to meet you Toke :). My name is below...

Damn - Amir beat me to it.

Good answers.

Can't we all just get along? Group hug everyone.

Then I come in here for the conclusive layman part of all of this...

1080i outputted content to a Fixed 1080 Panel = equals 1080P
The 1080P panel gets the data from 1080i and rids the “I” and makes it a “P” because it has to display it's full rez at once, call it a perk of a fixed panel, magic if that makes you feel better.

In this case 1080i=1080P the rest is marketing trickery. Yes? So the A1's 1080i to your 1080P display is 1080P, no need to wait for a 1080P outputted HD DVD player. Your Sammy starting with 1080P going to 1080i then out still in the end becomes 1080P on your 1080P display. Correct?

And to get deep into this (when talking to J6P) the only benefit of 1080P coming out of the player would be the player doing the progressive work and not the display. But with that said no one has any example of equipment where by having the player do this instead of the display results in a better picture? Correct? The part the display is doing now taking "I" and making it "P" is standard and all of them do this. Correct?

I'm pretty sure that is what this whole thread boils down to. Same goes for a broadcast HD coming in 1080i to my 1080 fixed panel. I might as well just drop the “I” and say I have 1080 P(eriod) going to my display because it is full 1900x1080. Not 1900x540, not a fuzzy picture, no a flickering picture just pure unadulterated 1080 to my display. Correct?

1080i content=1080p content when you use a 1080 fixed panel display

Toke,

I have encoded single pixel tests on BD and played back in the Samsung BD player. If I plug into a display that is a CRT or a digital display using Bob deinterlacing, it does flicker. If I plug into a display that performs inverse telecine, then the flicker is gone.

This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no filter in the player. (actually players as I have done the same thing with the HD DVD player)

Ok,
thank you, all of you.
Amir, I know that progressive displays do not suffer from interlace flicker.
And because of your good answers I now know that both bd and hd-dvd players can deliver full 1080p vertical resolution. So it's up to author to decide whether or not the content can be watched with 1080i crt. And there are crt's that can resolve 1080 lines. Amir, you have to be familiar with very expensive broadcast quality crt's that we use in post production companies.
I have also been under impression that those big consumer hd crt's have been able to resolve full 1080 lines, but I may have been wrong.

If I still may ask a one question offtopic:
are some hd broadcasts in US also unfiltered these days?
So that people with 1080p displays can have full vertical resolution, but people with old hd crt's can't watch that?

Thank you again everybody for your information.
These things kind of crosses the consumer and professional equipment info usually available, so it's hard to get this info when you are in Europe and can't test everything on your own...

Here's more info about this Here (http://www.edn.com/blog/400000040/post/1390003139.html)

If 1080i = 1080p content when you use a 1080 fixed panel display

WOULD

480i = 480p content if you used a 480p fixed panel display?

IF THAT IS TRUE then why not broadcast

960i content since it would use less bandwidth AND build 960p fixed panel displays

AND you'd have 960i = 960p AND you'd also have perfect line doubled SD from 480i = 480p?

Tell everyone out there the flaw in these EQUIVALENCES oh 1080i worshipers!

So, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

2,073,600

If 1080i = 1080p content when you use a 1080 fixed panel display

WOULD

480i = 480p content if you used a 480p fixed panel display?

IF THAT IS TRUE then why not broadcast

960i content since it would use less bandwidth AND build 960p fixed panel displays

AND you'd have 960i = 960p AND you'd also have perfect line doubled SD from 480i = 480p?

Tell everyone out there the flaw in these EQUIVALENCES oh 1080i worshipers!


One answer is that we would then be back to the old 4:3 television frame. We want to move forward and not backward.

So let me get this straight--it's impossible to still have rectangular TV at 960--who believes that?

Can someone explain to me, and I am asking a question here, not looking for an argument.

Why do most folks agree that 480p looks better than 480i, but many argue that 1080i looks exactly the same as 1080p ??

--- Cain

i think the reason why 480p looks so much better than 480i isn't because it's progressive instead of interlaced, but because you're seeing the difference between component and composite cables. component cables give a more vibrant picture, and it's noticable over composite.

i think the reason why people say 1080i looks the same as 1080p is because most likely the user is using the same cable (component or HDMI) for both resolutions.

i'm a newbie to these forums, but that's just my theory.

If 1080i = 1080p content when you use a 1080 fixed panel display

WOULD

480i = 480p content if you used a 480p fixed panel display?

IF THAT IS TRUE then why not broadcast

960i content since it would use less bandwidth AND build 960p fixed panel displays

AND you'd have 960i = 960p AND you'd also have perfect line doubled SD from 480i = 480p?

Tell everyone out there the flaw in these EQUIVALENCES oh 1080i worshipers!
I'm not worshiping 1080i, what I'm trying to get across is that 1080p data can be TRANSMITTED as 1080i to a 1080p display and still be 1080p data.

i think the reason why 480p looks so much better than 480i isn't because it's progressive instead of interlaced, but because you're seeing the difference between component and composite cables. component cables give a more vibrant picture, and it's noticable over composite.

Plus you were using CRT TV's with 480i so there was a win when the player made it progressive because the CRT would not it would keep it interlaced. But with the new fixed panels it seems that is old school thinking. But then again I didn't get any reaction to my questions to see if I am comprehending right, I'll just go on my merry way assuming so.

So let me get this straight--it's impossible to still have rectangular TV at 960--who believes that?


If I understand your post correctly...All you are wanting to do is double the number of lines from 480 to 960. I understand you to mean that we would then keep the existing 4:3 aspect ratio and not move to the new 16:9 aspect ratio.

I'm not worshiping 1080i, what I'm trying to get across is that 1080p data can be TRANSMITTED as 1080i to a 1080p display and still be 1080p data.

My understanding is that if you try to say this in public, you can be shot on site. If it happens in front of a Sony kiosk (or inside any Best Buy) you will be publically flogged and then shot on site (by a Geek Squad representative if transgression occurs within Best Buy). "1080p" is the new marketing buzzword that is going to sell a ton of new televisions and video components - don't you think they have plans for dealing with people who can get their heads around fairly basic processes and try to help others not be deluded by dumb marketing.

^ That's exactly why I want a definitive answer so I can go make those guys head explode!

New here, but it occurs to me that it is not ALL marketing hype that a TV supporting 1080p input is superior. You seem to assume that video is the only source material. There are many bold statements in this thread that seem narrow minded. For instance wouldn't this input allow for the acceptance of 1080p source material? Remember there are folks using HTPCs where frame rate does matter above 30 Hertz. Shouldn't these folks be looking for 1080p60 accross the board? Hopefully a video card that support more...

Then I come in here for the conclusive layman part of all of this...

1080i outputted content to a Fixed 1080 Panel = equals 1080P
The 1080P panel gets the data from 1080i and rids the “I” and makes it a “P” because it has to display it's full rez at once, call it a perk of a fixed panel, magic if that makes you feel better.

In this case 1080i=1080P the rest is marketing trickery. Yes? So the A1's 1080i to your 1080P display is 1080P, no need to wait for a 1080P outputted HD DVD player. Your Sammy starting with 1080P going to 1080i then out still in the end becomes 1080P on your 1080P display. Correct?

And to get deep into this (when talking to J6P) the only benefit of 1080P coming out of the player would be the player doing the progressive work and not the display. But with that said no one has any example of equipment where by having the player do this instead of the display results in a better picture? Correct? The part the display is doing now taking "I" and making it "P" is standard and all of them do this. Correct?

I'm pretty sure that is what this whole thread boils down to. Same goes for a broadcast HD coming in 1080i to my 1080 fixed panel. I might as well just drop the “I” and say I have 1080 P(eriod) going to my display because it is full 1900x1080. Not 1900x540, not a fuzzy picture, no a flickering picture just pure unadulterated 1080 to my display. Correct?

1080i content=1080p content when you use a 1080 fixed panel display
I don't think you are correct... Easy to see why people get so confused on this topic. :)

First off, 1080i as a standard only has one resolution and that is 1920 x 1080 pixels and that is exactly the same as 1080p.

Obviously, 1080i sends the picture in two halves, one half at a time. 1080p sends the whole picture in one hit.

Let's assume that the rate we're sending 1080i at is 60Hz, this means that 1080i can transmit 30 whole frames in one second. Where a frame is composed of two halves.

Now, movies shot on film have a native frame rate of 24 frames per second. Using other processes this gets upped to 30 frames per second for 'easier' display. This can therefore be transmitted over 1080i at 60Hz by sending each half of each frame consecutively.

The key point here is that as the picture you are sending is 30 fps, the two halves of the picture sent in interlaced format are two halves of the same frame, that frame having been recorded at one moment in time...

A good de-interlacer will recognise that in this instance you can put the two halves of the picture back together to build a full frame with virtually no loss of information or resolution. This only applies to sources recorded at 30fps or lower and in one whole frame at a time mode which is exactly what film does.

However, much broadcast HDTV at 1080i is captured by the camera in 1080i. What this means is that the camera captures 60 half frames per second, it never captures whole frames. This is very important as unlike from a film source where halves 1 and 2 will make up whole frame 1, which was captured at the same instant in time, frames 1 and 2 in an interlaced capture represent only half of a whole picture captured in two different instants in time...

To try and explain that better, the first half frame represents half of what the camera saw at 1/60th of a second and the second frame represents one half of what the camera saw at 2/60th of a second. If the object the camera was looking at has moved between 1/60th of a second and 2/60th's of a second then you can't simply put the two halves together to make one complete frame as you get funny lines known as 'combing' because they look like a comb.

So, when faced with this type of 1080i signal, the de-interlacer has a very different job to do to create a full frame to display. It then potentially gets very complicated.

Clearly if you capture the same scene using 1080p at 60Hz, you get 60 full frames per second containing all the information. However this generates twice the data and therefore requires much more bandwidth to transmit and therefore no-one uses it.

So, 1080i definitely does not equal 1080p. However in those instances where the full frame rate of the source can be spilt in two and transmitted within the half-frame rate of 1080i, then it is possible to get virtually indistinguishable picture quality from 1080i as you would from 1080p... providing whatever does the de-interlacing recognises the incoming signal properly. Not always the case...

I have to disagree with Toke on his assertion that 1080p broadcast will be in Europe soon. Standards bodies have looked at it and done tests, but that doesn't mean it will happen anytime soon as the bandwidth doesn't yet exist and none of the HDTV infrastructure that the likes of BSybB in the UK are investing in could handle it, and they only started rolling out the service a few months ago...

Again -

If the source is VIDEO shot at 1080i - then you are best looking at this on a 1080i (INTERLACED) display (generally - unless you have a good quality deinterlacer).

If the source is FILM shot at 24fps - then you are equal in looking at this transmitted in 1080i or 1080p to a DIGITAL DISPLAY. There will be no difference.

Since the primary focus of this forum is next-generation optical disc formats which are primarily FILM and stored on disc as 24fps - then there is no difference between 1080i or 1080p as a TRANSMISSION format.

Again -

If the source is VIDEO shot at 1080i - then you are best looking at this on a 1080i (INTERLACED) display (generally - unless you have a good quality deinterlacer).

If the source is FILM shot at 24fps - then you are equal in looking at this transmitted in 1080i or 1080p to a DIGITAL DISPLAY. There will be no difference.

Since the primary focus of this forum is next-generation optical disc formats which are primarily FILM and stored on disc as 24fps - then there is no difference between 1080i or 1080p as a TRANSMISSION format.
And these same optical formats will undoubtedly be expected to deliver content recorded in 1080i to consumers in much the same way that DVD delivers interlaced content today. TV programmes, sports events, etc that many people buy and will want to buy in HD once available...

So it is an important distinction that 1080i only = 1080p in certain circumstances one of which is film. In other areas people are likely to purchase discs in then this may not hold true.

I do however agree that for movies, 1080p offers no significant advantage.

But wait, don't some people here have "golden eyes" so they can see the difference, just like those people with golden ears that can tell the difference between 48khz and 96khz audio? :P

Ok, so what if the set, namely the upcoming Hitachi 42HDX99 Director's Series, displays 1080 V lines and also has a great internals as well? Does that change things at all? Will the difference between p and i become less obvious?

I don't think you are correct... Easy to see why people get so confused on this topic. :)

First off, 1080i as a standard only has one resolution and that is 1920 x 1080 pixels and that is exactly the same as 1080p.

Obviously, 1080i sends the picture in two halves, one half at a time. 1080p sends the whole picture in one hit.

Let's assume that the rate we're sending 1080i at is 60Hz, this means that 1080i can transmit 30 whole frames in one second. Where a frame is composed of two halves.

Now, movies shot on film have a native frame rate of 24 frames per second. Using other processes this gets upped to 30 frames per second for 'easier' display. This can therefore be transmitted over 1080i at 60Hz by sending each half of each frame consecutively.

The key point here is that as the picture you are sending is 30 fps, the two halves of the picture sent in interlaced format are two halves of the same frame, that frame having been recorded at one moment in time...

A good de-interlacer will recognise that in this instance you can put the two halves of the picture back together to build a full frame with virtually no loss of information or resolution. This only applies to sources recorded at 30fps or lower and in one whole frame at a time mode which is exactly what film does.

However, much broadcast HDTV at 1080i is captured by the camera in 1080i. What this means is that the camera captures 60 half frames per second, it never captures whole frames. This is very important as unlike from a film source where halves 1 and 2 will make up whole frame 1, which was captured at the same instant in time, frames 1 and 2 in an interlaced capture represent only half of a whole picture captured in two different instants in time...

To try and explain that better, the first half frame represents half of what the camera saw at 1/60th of a second and the second frame represents one half of what the camera saw at 2/60th of a second. If the object the camera was looking at has moved between 1/60th of a second and 2/60th's of a second then you can't simply put the two halves together to make one complete frame as you get funny lines known as 'combing' because they look like a comb.

So, when faced with this type of 1080i signal, the de-interlacer has a very different job to do to create a full frame to display. It then potentially gets very complicated.

Clearly if you capture the same scene using 1080p at 60Hz, you get 60 full frames per second containing all the information. However this generates twice the data and therefore requires much more bandwidth to transmit and therefore no-one uses it.

So, 1080i definitely does not equal 1080p. However in those instances where the full frame rate of the source can be spilt in two and transmitted within the half-frame rate of 1080i, then it is possible to get virtually indistinguishable picture quality from 1080i as you would from 1080p... providing whatever does the de-interlacing recognises the incoming signal properly. Not always the case...

I have to disagree with Toke on his assertion that 1080p broadcast will be in Europe soon. Standards bodies have looked at it and done tests, but that doesn't mean it will happen anytime soon as the bandwidth doesn't yet exist and none of the HDTV infrastructure that the likes of BSybB in the UK are investing in could handle it, and they only started rolling out the service a few months ago...


Well what I'm hearing now is that I am correct when I'm using Optical Movies and possibly not correct when talking about broadcasted 1080i. No?

2,073,600

Actually it's 2,073,600j or 1,036,800s depending on whether they are standing or half are in mid-jump at any given time. :)

....So, 1080i definitely does not equal 1080p. However in those instances where the full frame rate of the source can be spilt in two and transmitted within the half-frame rate of 1080i, then it is possible to get virtually indistinguishable picture quality from 1080i as you would from 1080p... providing whatever does the de-interlacing recognises the incoming signal properly. Not always the case...

The method of deinterlacing a 1080i signal would be different for a native 1080i source than for a 1080p source that was interlaced to 1080i.

When your set recieves a 1080i signal, how exactly does it recognize whether the original source was native 1080i or 1080p which was interlaced?

In any event, within the very near future all new 1080p displays will accept 1080p input; and all BD and/or HD-DVD players will output 1080p. Whether or not it actually makes a difference, the "as long as your display deinterlaces properly" concern will be limited to the 1080p displays sold in the short time before 1080p inputs were available.

So it is an important distinction that 1080i only = 1080p in certain circumstances one of which is film. In other areas people are likely to purchase discs in then this may not hold true.
Right, for video-based 1080i, 1080p transmission doesn't mean it is better or worse than 1080i. It just allows you to decide whether you like the deinterlacer in the player or your display better. In some cases you may like the player's deinterlacer better. In other cases you may like the one in your display better. It will depend on the equipment.

1080p rules!

1080p rules!

Can you contribute something other than being a shmuck?

I have to disagree with Toke on his assertion that 1080p broadcast will be in Europe soon. Standards bodies have looked at it and done tests, but that doesn't mean it will happen anytime soon as the bandwidth doesn't yet exist and none of the HDTV infrastructure that the likes of BSybB in the UK are investing in could handle it, and they only started rolling out the service a few months ago...
My "soon" guess is that we will have 1080p transmissions from next olympics.
And if you're talking about broadcasting bandwidth, it's already there.
Both sky and bbs are already using mp4 compression and we use here in Europe 8MHz channels, which can easily carry 22Mbps. With that kind of bitrate and mp4 there's no problem to transmit 1080p24/25/50/60.

When your set recieves a 1080i signal, how exactly does it recognize whether the original source was native 1080i or 1080p which was interlaced?
It analyses the image to see if it can detect the pattern from progressive source (i.e. repeated fields). If it can, it switches to "film" mode and you get 1080p.

In any event, within the very near future all new 1080p displays will accept 1080p input; and all BD and/or HD-DVD players will output 1080p. Whether or not it actually makes a difference, the "as long as your display deinterlaces properly" concern will be limited to the 1080p displays sold in the short time before 1080p inputs were available.
I'll bet next year every new fullHD model has 1080p input.

Btw, does bd or hd-dvd have 1080p50/60 in their specs?

Amir,

"It puts the lotion in the basket?" :)

Interesting read. :) Ok, here's my question: does the Home Theater Hifi Secrets article on progressive scan (http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_4/dvd-benchmark-part-5-progressive-10-2000.html) apply when discussing 1080i vs 1080p? I'm thinking it does, unless I'm mistaken, since the general concept is the same. If this article does apply, it might be worth reading by some since it gives a great explanation of what's going on (even though it focuses on 480i/p) and it even has neat animated GIFs. :)

Peace...

Btw, does bd or hd-dvd have 1080p50/60 in their specs?
Not as a storage form but players are free to output after processing.

Btw, does bd or hd-dvd have 1080p50/60 in their specs?

See post #49 (no).

Interesting read. :) Ok, here's my question: does the Home Theater Hifi Secrets article on progressive scan (http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_4/dvd-benchmark-part-5-progressive-10-2000.html) apply when discussing 1080i vs 1080p? I'm thinking it does, unless I'm mistaken, since the general concept is the same. If this article does apply, it might be worth reading by some since it gives a great explanation of what's going on (even though it focuses on 480i/p) and it even has neat animated GIFs. :)

Peace...


That link was good and is basically what I've been asking/suggesting. You could have some judder but then again if no one is reporting it and I don't see many reporting it with HD DVD then the formula I've been using seems correct.

I guess the only other issue people would have with your point is it isn't quite accurate to say "interlaced = progressive" (which is basically what the 1080i=1080p is saying) but more accurate to say "1080i when displayed on a 1080p display is the equivalent of a 1080p signal sent to a 1080p display". Of course, we're talking about HD-DVD/Blu-Ray only. :)

Peace...

My "soon" guess is that we will have 1080p transmissions from next olympics.I assume you're talking about 1080p50 (or 60) because sports transmissions captured at 1080p25 (or p30) would be horrible to watch.
Even if such signal could be broadcasted, there's a major problem :
As far as I know, there's (actually) no way to shoot, switch, process, record or even encode live at 1080p50.
Only one studio camera from Sony can output a signal @ 1080p50 but no hardware to connect to. No controller, no switcher, nothing.
Sony has demonstrate a few month ago, a modified HDCAM-SR studio recorder that could record at 1080p50. It was, and still is, a prototype.
Sony stated that this technology is marketed for slow-motion purpose only. It's not intended to be broadcasted as is.

When I connect my computer to the LCD-TV - the TV menu screen shows resolution 1920x1080.

However, when I connect my cable box (from Comcast booooo) and watch Hi-Def television, the LCD screen menu shows resolution 1920x540.

The computer sends a 1920x1080 progressive signal, and the cable box sends 1920x1080 interlaced over component.

My LCD screen does not treat the 1080i and 1080p signals the same. Therefore there seems to be some difference between 1080p and 1080i. How do you explain that?

When I connect my computer to the LCD-TV - the TV menu screen shows resolution 1920x1080.

However, when I connect my cable box (from Comcast booooo) and watch Hi-Def television, the LCD screen menu shows resolution 1920x540.

The computer sends a 1920x1080 progressive signal, and the cable box sends 1920x1080 interlaced over component.

My LCD screen does not treat the 1080i and 1080p signals the same. Therefore there seems to be some difference between 1080p and 1080i. How do you explain that?


If you are saying that the computer is sending a 1080P signal to your screen then I assume you have a display that can recieve 1080P?

I assume you're talking about 1080p50 (or 60) because sports transmissions captured at 1080p25 (or p30) would be horrible to watch.
Even if such signal could be broadcasted, there's a major problem :
As far as I know, there's (actually) no way to shoot, switch, process, record or even encode live at 1080p50.
Only one studio camera from Sony can output a signal @ 1080p50 but no hardware to connect to. No controller, no switcher, nothing.
Sony has demonstrate a few month ago, a modified HDCAM-SR studio recorder that could record at 1080p50. It was, and still is, a prototype.
Sony stated that this technology is marketed for slow-motion purpose only. It's not intended to be broadcasted as is.
1080p50/60 camera's are now meant to be used with slow motion, because there are no 1080p50/60 broadcasts. When there will be, they can be used as a regular live camera. Soccer world cup had 6 OB-vans with 4 1080p50 camera's (from GrassValleyThomson, not Sony) in each. So there are starting to be a lot of camera's capable of 1080p50/60 and even from different manufacturers.
And of course slow motion camera's signal is recorded, because you can't show slow motion realtime (unless you can alter time:).

One reason to shoot next olympics in 1080p50 or 1080p60 is that it is much easier to make high quality conversion from 1080p50/60 source to 1080i50/60 broadcasting. Converting from 1080i50<->1080i60 in HQ is really hard.
And since there then is 1080p source, why not to broadcast it to those who have mp4 receivers?

Not as a storage form but players are free to output after processing.
So my guess is that it won't take long after we get upgraded version2 of the specs that include 1080p50/60.

1080p50/60 camera's are now meant to be used with slow motion, because there are no 1080p50/60 broadcasts. When there will be, they can be used as a regular live camera. Soccer world cup had 6 OB-vans with 4 1080p50 camera's (from GrassValleyThomson, not Sony) in each. So there are starting to be a lot of camera's capable of 1080p50/60 and even from different manufacturers.
And of course slow motion camera's signal is recorded, because you can't show slow motion realtime (unless you can alter time:).As far as I know, Thomson's cameras (LDK6000) used on the world cup only support 720p or 1080i @ 50 or 60Hz. Not 1080p50, neither 1080p25.
The Slo-mo cameras used there, are only capable of capturing at double speed : 1080i100. The signal is directly output to an hard-drive and then streamed at 1080i50 to be manipulated.


And since there then is 1080p source, why not to broadcast it to those who have mp4 receivers?Maybe because there's no MP4 receiver on this planet capable of handling such a stream of data ?

I guess the only other issue people would have with your point is it isn't quite accurate to say "interlaced = progressive" (which is basically what the 1080i=1080p is saying) but more accurate to say "1080i when displayed on a 1080p display is the equivalent of a 1080p signal sent to a 1080p display". Of course, we're talking about HD-DVD/Blu-Ray only. :)

Peace...

Got ya, I never said it or I said it so many times the other way that I took it as synonymous if I did shorten it. Basically I have been using: 1080i content=1080p content when you use a 1080 fixed panel display (And yes I could have put in HD/BD) still a bit fuzzy with broadcast however.

IMO why I care about this is because somewhere down the line a friend will ask and I would like to save them money if they have a scenario like this and if they are being sold they have to have a 1080P output device I can tell them save the money lets got to the T T bar instead or something like that. And well for myself in the case I ever have a 1080P fixed panel. :)

So my guess is that it won't take long after we get upgraded version2 of the specs that include 1080p50/60.
Historically in the states there is a lot of inertia to change unless you can justify the expense.

If you are saying that the computer is sending a 1080P signal to your screen then I assume you have a display that can recieve 1080P?


My display has a resolution: 1920*1080. I connect my computer to it by using a DVI cable. The LCD is a Westinghouse.

As far as I know, Thomson's cameras (LDK6000) used on the world cup only support 720p or 1080i @ 50 or 60Hz. Not 1080p50, neither 1080p25.
The Slo-mo cameras used there, are only capable of capturing at double speed : 1080i100. The signal is directly output to an hard-drive and then streamed at 1080i50 to be manipulated.
Ok,
actually they were LDK 6200's, but yes only 1080i100/120.
But it uses the regular triax or fiber to connect and tapeless recording is coming so recording to hdd will be mainstream thing also.
When the imagers and the camera have sufficient bandwidth for 100/120i it will be minor modifications for converting that to 50/60p.

Maybe because there's no MP4 receiver on this planet capable of handling such a stream of data ?
My guess was that there will be in two years.

Would someone please explain this to me:

A 1080i TV has the same number of pixels as a 1080P TV but can only refresh 1/2 of them per second?

Why is the PC resolution set at 1366x768? and why can I run 1920x1080i on the PC if the number of pixels are the same???

Here is a link (http://www.hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/0506halfrez/) to another article about 1080i and 1080p.
1080p source transported as 1080i to a 1080p display = perfect picture only if the display properly weaves the 1080i.
According to the above article not many sets reassemble the signal properly.

Ok,
actually they were LDK 6200's, but yes only 1080i100/120.
But it uses the regular triax or fiber to connect and tapeless recording is coming so recording to hdd will be mainstream thing also.
When the imagers and the camera have sufficient bandwidth for 100/120i it will be minor modifications for converting that to 50/60p.Technology is evolving, always does.
Nobody said it can't be done. We just say that it won't happen anytime soon to the home.
HD standards have been ratified for the consumers to be 720p60/50, 1080i60/50 and derivatives 1080PsF30/25/24. We'll stick to that for at least the 10 years to come.

We just say that it won't happen anytime soon to the home.
HD standards have been ratified for the consumers to be 720p60/50, 1080i60/50 and derivatives 1080PsF30/25/24. We'll stick to that for at least the 10 years to come.
Those standards were "ratified" by ATSC & SMPTE in US pretty much a decade ago.
It's time to move on!
What's your definition to "soon"?

It's time to move on!

Maybe for picture geeks. A lot of people still don't even have a simple digital TV even yet.

Those standards were "ratified" by ATSC & SMPTE in US pretty much a decade ago.
It's time to move on!To do what ? Ratifying new standards ? They sure will. That's their job.

What's your definition to "soon"?You'd have a pretty good opinion of that by reading my last sentence of my last post.
Maybe we'll see some news products displaying @ 1080p50 in the next years. Gaming devices or else... But not regular broadcasted TV. Not in this decade.
But hey, I may be wrong even if I've a very strong feeling about that. Future will tell.
Don't hold your breath though. :)

Gaming devices or else... But not regular broadcasted TV. Not in this decade.But hey, I may be wrong even if I've a very strong feeling about that. Future will tell.Don't hold your breath though. :)
I won't hold it, but we can always make a traditional bet of one bottle of good cognac. I'll bet that we will have 1080p50 broadcasts in this decade (before 2009-12-31).

I won't hold it, but we can always make a traditional bet of one bottle of good cognac. I'll bet that we will have 1080p50 broadcasts in this decade (before 2009-12-31).Regular broadcast, right ? Not some crappy test's feed with fishes in an aquarium...
You're on toke ! :D

According to the above article not many sets reassemble the signal properly. More than half (28) do. Most of these sets are older models, and there are very few in that list that are true 1080 displays.

Vern

Here is a link (http://www.hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/0506halfrez/) to another article about 1080i and 1080p.
1080p source transported as 1080i to a 1080p display = perfect picture only if the display properly weaves the 1080i.
According to the above article not many sets reassemble the signal properly.
Actually it only equals 1080p if the source was 1080p/24 telecined onto 1080i and your display performs inverse telecine (IVTC) properly on 1080i.

Weave != IVTC and that article was not testing IVTC.

All 1080i worshipers: Name the displays that properly with no error whatsoever perfectly perform inverse telecine properly on 1080i.

All 1080i worshipers: Name the displays that properly with no error whatsoever perfectly perform inverse telecine properly on 1080i.

How about you tell us how the Samsung BD player perfectly and properly performs inverse telecine?

I don't believe it PERFECTLY does it--do you?

OK, I thought I was getting this, but now I have some dumb questions.

1) I've read that all digital displays are progressive scan by nature of design (which makes sense). So, why are we now hearing about "new" 1080P HDTVs? Shouldn't any LCD, DLP or plasma capable of 1080 resolution be considered 1080P (since it deinterlaces any 1080i signal)?

2) If all bluray and HDDVD media is stored as progressive (ie not interlaced), and virtually all HD displays are progressive (if #1 is right), why go to the trouble to interlace the output only to allow the display to deinterlace?

I guess I'm still confused.

1) I've read that all digital displays are progressive scan by nature of design (which makes sense). So, why are we now hearing about "new" 1080P HDTVs? Shouldn't any LCD, DLP or plasma capable of 1080 resolution be considered 1080P (since it deinterlaces any 1080i signal)?

There's a difference between a set's native resolution and the input resolutions it supports. Most 720p HDTVs will accept a 1080i input signal, but they scale that signal down to the native resolution of 720p for display. A digital HDTV has one and only one native resolution, and any signal you feed it will be converted to that resolution.

2) If all bluray and HDDVD media is stored as progressive (ie not interlaced), and virtually all HD displays are progressive (if #1 is right), why go to the trouble to interlace the output only to allow the display to deinterlace?

The problem with the first players for both formats (Toshiba and Samsung) is that the Broadcom decoder chips used in them have a maximum output bandwidth of 1080i. The chip can't support pure 1080p output. It's a hardware limitation. That may change with the second generation of players.

OK, I thought I was getting this, but now I have some dumb questions.

1) I've read that all digital displays are progressive scan by nature of design (which makes sense). So, why are we now hearing about "new" 1080P HDTVs? Shouldn't any LCD, DLP or plasma capable of 1080 resolution be considered 1080P (since it deinterlaces any 1080i signal)?

2) If all bluray and HDDVD media is stored as progressive (ie not interlaced), and virtually all HD displays are progressive (if #1 is right), why go to the trouble to interlace the output only to allow the display to deinterlace?

I guess I'm still confused.

1) Only until recently, LCDs/DLPs/Plasmas were native720p. 1080p in these technologies is fairly new.

2) Someone a lot smarter than I can elaborate, but the data is stored as 1080p24 on disc, and very, very few displays can accept 1080p24. But 1080i can be accepted by virtually every HDTV display, so 1080i becomes the target format if you will. So a lot of "monkey work" is done to get the 1080p24 data into a format compatible with today's displays.

-T

1) I've read that all digital displays are progressive scan by nature of design (which makes sense). So, why are we now hearing about "new" 1080P HDTVs? Shouldn't any LCD, DLP or plasma capable of 1080 resolution be considered 1080P (since it deinterlaces any 1080i signal)?Along with what others have said, there are a couple more issues. One is displays that effectively downscale 1080i to 540p before going back to 1080p, instead of taking 1080i straight to 1080p. Another is the RPTV DLPs that have a kind of diamond shape with a trick where each mirror averages 2 pixels (I think it is called SmoothPicture or something like that by TI). They aren't really 1080i, but don't have all the mirrors that a 1080p with 1:1 for mirrors to pixels you see has.

--Darin

Along with what others have said, there are a couple more issues. One is displays that effectively downscale 1080i to 540p before going back to 1080p, instead of taking 1080i straight to 1080p. Another is the RPTV DLPs that have a kind of diamond shape with a trick where each mirror averages 2 pixels (I think it is called SmoothPicture or something like that by TI). They aren't really 1080i, but don't have all the mirrors that a 1080p with 1:1 for mirrors to pixels you see has.

--Darin


Are you referring to DLP sets that use the XHD5 chip, and uses one mirror to produce two pixels? Is the pixels are being made, and the result is 1920 x 1080, which it is in those RPTV DLP sets, what is wrong with that?

Are you referring to DLP sets that use the XHD5 chip, and uses one mirror to produce two pixels? Is the pixels are being made, and the result is 1920 x 1080, which it is in those RPTV DLP sets, what is wrong with that?Nothing really "wrong" with it other than some people seeing artifacts (like visible diamonds) with some of the early versions of this (I haven't kept track for a while). I think most people would prefer the chips with full 1920x1080p mirrors, like are used in front projectors, all else being equal, but if a person can't see a difference then I wouldn't say there is a problem. TI has never used this 1 for 2 thing for front projectors and I've heard that it was because the issues tend to be more visible (I can't confirm that though). I do think it is another reason that people talk about "new" 1080p sets though, which was affeking's question.

--Darin

Nothing really "wrong" with it other than some people seeing artifacts (like visible diamonds) with some of the early versions of this (I haven't kept track for a while). I think most people would prefer the chips with full 1920x1080p mirrors, like are used in front projectors, all else being equal, but if a person can't see a difference then I wouldn't say there is a problem. TI has never used this 1 for 2 thing for front projectors and I've heard that it was because the issues tend to be more visible (I can't confirm that though). I do think it is another reason that people talk about "new" 1080p sets though, which was affeking's question.

--Darin


Cool enough. I just didn't want people thinking that there were different types of 1080p DLPs. Maybe the confusion is coming from the fact that DLPs are now available in 1080p as well as 720p (the HD5 chip) whereas up untila few generations ago, there were only 720p sets. People may also be confusing it with regular CRT RPTVs, which to may knowlegde are 1080i

later

I know this is off-topic, but since you used the phrase several times, I thought I'd mention that what you are really looking for is "for all intents *and* purposes," not "intensive purposes."

To clarify this for myself a 1080i cable/ota signal when going to my 1080P fixed panel for all intensive purposes is 1080P?

That said that shows me that there is just a wee difference in noticeable quality between 720P and 1080i/1080P with video myself. 1080i for all intensive purposes today is 1080P, the whole "i" difference was due to CRT's. The difference of 720 and 1080 is definitely something many people wouldn't be in general all that excited about. That is why HD is not only about rez but bit rate and color bits. My main reason I want 1080P is for my HTPC so my desktop and games can run at 1080P resolutions and well that is about it.

I think the relevance of this thread was that the 1080p from the Blu-ray Samsung cannot theoretically look any better than the 1080i output from the Toshiba because it internally converts the native 1080p/24 signal to 1080i/60 and then back to 1080p. The Toshiba outputs the same 1080i/60 and lets your TV deinterlace to 1080p (if you have a 1080p set!). In actual fact, the 1080p from the Samsung looks a lot worse than the Toshiba 1080i, but that is a long story for another thread, my friends.

why do many want to have 1080p broadcasts over 1080i ?? i'm too lazy to read through the posts :P

why do many want to have 1080p broadcasts over 1080i ?? i'm too lazy to read through the posts :P

Then we are too lazy to respond to your lazy a**.

Based on what I have read so far from this thread, it appears the a semi conclusion of 1080i=1080p, is derived when the source is 1080i/30 or /60 or 1080p/24. To me, both HD DVD and BR souce being released is not up to par with display technology. It should be is 1080p/60, which will be better than current broadcast quality. Since the bandwidth can support up to 40mb/s vs 20mb/s (broadcast), why did HD DVD and BD choose such low frame rates? Will 1080p/60 exceed 40mb/s? I thought one of the reasons for HD discs was to get back the audience from broadcast.

Just curious.

It should be is 1080p/60And, where are the 1080P60 sources going to come from in this dream world?

Almost all sources today are either 24P or 60I, This is a fact of life. Maybe, in the future, we will have true 60p sources, but not in the world we live in today.

And no, 1080 60I definitely does not equal 1080 60P, at least not without a lot of very compute intensive processing to convert 1080 60I to 60P and correct for the temporal displacement of the two fields.

Vern

And, where are the 1080P60 sources going to come from in this dream world?

Almost all sources today are either 24P or 60I, This is a fact of life. Maybe, in the future, we will have true 60p sources, but not in the world we live in today.

And no, 1080 60I definitely does not equal 1080 60P, at least not without a lot of very compute intensive processing to convert 1080 60I to 60P and correct for the temporal displacement of the two fields.

Vern

Many displays are more than capable of converting a 1080i signal into 1080p without "compute intensive processing".

I don't remember one post from someone who has claimed to see tearing or motion artifacting from a 1080i signal that was converted to 1080p if the original source media was 1080p.

Many displays are more than capable of converting a 1080i signal into 1080p without "compute intensive processing".I'm sure Vern was referring to 1080i source (video) and not 1080p24 source sent within a 1080i signal.

With 1080i video there is really no perfectly correct way to convert that to progressive, as Greg Rogers has pointed out. Just different degrees of doing a good job. 1080p24 sent in a 1080i signal is a different story as there is a mathematically correct way to do it (and doesn't require as much computation as doing the best job with an interlaced original).

--Darin

... To me, both HD DVD and BR souce being released is not up to par with display technology. It should be is 1080p/60, which will be better than current broadcast quality.
Film-sources (movies) shouldn't be displayed at 1080p60. That produces judder. Film sources should be stored on disc at 1080p24 (or 1080p24sf) and displayed at an integer multiple of 24p (24p, 48p, 72p) etc. It is a limitation of many displays that they can only display 1080p60 (or 1080p50 for 50 Hz countries). High-definition DVD players will eventually be able to output 1080p24 or 1080p24sf, but the current 1080i60 and 1080p60 outputs produce judder without further frame rate conversion.

1080p/120 is the answer to all problems.

Film sources should be stored on disc at 1080p24 (or 1080p24sf)....
The compression codecs (MPEG-2, VC-1 and H.264) don't have a concept of 1080p24sf. The coded sequence is either interlaced or progressive, so there's really no way to make the distinction that 1080p24sf is on disc. In all three codecs, it can only be signaled as 1080p@24. In other words, by just examining the coded bitstream, there's absolutely no way to tell if the original source was fed to the encoder as 1080p24 or 1080p24sf.

Ron

The compression codecs (MPEG-2, VC-1 and H.264) don't have a concept of 1080p24sf.

The VC-1 bitstream has a PSF flag. (Section 6.1.13.) I always thought it was kind of odd.

With that said, I agree 100% with Ron, the content on the disc will be 1080p24, not PsF. I also do not expect players to offer PsF output since it was nothing more than a hack to begin with.

108024PsF is not an encoding standard. It is purely a transport standard that says that each field is trasmitted separately over the wire by being clocked out of a progressive frame buffer with the odd lines comprising the first field and the even lines comprising the second field.

This is no different from sending a 1080I signal down the wire, except that each pair of fields are guaranteed to be from the same frame, originally captured with no temporal (that means time, it nothing to do with tearing) displacement. (IOW, the entire frame buffer was originally captured from the same film frame).

since it was nothing more than a hack to begin with I don't agree with this. 24PsF was created to allow progressive frames to be processed by the same cabling and switching infrastructure (HD-SDI, for example)already in place in HD production facilities. Without it we probably wouldn't have 24P encoded on HD discs to begin with, because every telecine bay and production house would have had to rip out every existing piece of gear and cabling and replace it with new 60I / 24P capable gear at a very great expense.

Vern

The compression codecs (MPEG-2, VC-1 and H.264) don't have a concept of 1080p24sf. The coded sequence is either interlaced or progressive, so there's really no way to make the distinction that 1080p24sf is on disc. In all three codecs, it can only be signaled as 1080p@24. In other words, by just examining the coded bitstream, there's absolutely no way to tell if the original source was fed to the encoder as 1080p24 or 1080p24sf.
Thanks Ron. I was being really sloppy (and incorrect) using the term 1080p24sf in a compression context. I was trying to distinguish between interlaced and progressive sequences while avoiding the confusion that terminology usually produces.

But now that I got your attention ... Is it true that Blu-ray MPEG-2 encoding is still using interlaced sequences of frame pictures for film-sources? Is that still the only way to include top_field_first and repeat_first_field flags in MPEG-2, or has that changed? Is VC-1 similar in that respect?

Edit: Also thanks Vern and Stacey, I didn't see your replies until after I posted this.

If all interlacing was against the law for the wole universe this would be a better world.

But now that I got your attention ... Is it true that Blu-ray MPEG-2 encoding is still using interlaced sequences of frame pictures for film-sources? Is that still the only way to include top_field_first and repeat_first_field flags in MPEG-2, or has that changed? Is VC-1 similar in that respect?

Actually, it's the other way around. HD-DVD only allows 1080i@29.97 fps sequences while Blu-ray allows 1080p@23.976, 1080p@24 and 1080i@29.97 fps sequences (independent of codecs).

The current scheme for VC-1 encoding on HD-DVD is to code the source at 1080p@23.976 and then run the bitstream through a tool that changes the syntax of the bitstream from 1080p@23.976 to 1080i@29.97 with perfect telecine flags (repeat_first_field, top_field_first and progressive_sequence in MPEG-2 lingo but probably some other names in VC-1 and H.264). Stacey can verify that this is the case.

If you are interested in direct 1080p23.976 or 1080p24 output from the player, then Blu-ray has the advantage. The Blu-ray player knows that the stream is 24p at the beginning of the movie and will not change for the entire movie. It can output 24p without concern. There's still some question as to how the player handles other content on the disc and whether annoying output frame rate changes might occur. We'll see when an actual Blu-ray player ships with 24p output.

HD-DVD players cannot know that the stream is 24p. The stream is always signalled 1080i@29.97. It may have perfect telecine flags (and the VC-1 titles do because of the tool mentioned above), but the player cannot know beforehand that the entire stream has perfect flags. It could be 1080i@29.97 video, 1080i@29.97 with telecine flags dropping to video at times or 1080i@29.97 with perfect flags.

So for HD-DVD, it's a user interface problem. You could provide a 24p output mode, but it's not guaranteed to work properly with all content. Most designers are reluctant to provide an option that possibly doesn't work. It just leads to confusion and lot's of support calls from the field. But never say never.

Bottom line, the 24p output story is yet to be told by either format. I expect Blu-ray to deliver first (and possibly HD-DVD never), but we'll see.

Ron

Ron, You have posted this misinformation before, and this statement is flat out WRONG.
Vern
The statement is correct. Your understanding of it is not complete.

Ron

OK, I got it now. Your key statement is that the player detecting and outputting 24FPS from an HD DVD is not bullet proof.
I agree with that.

Since every HD DVD I have played through my CII scaler and Sony Qualia has exibited perfectly smooth pans and scrolls with no sign of 3:2 induced studder, I'm thinking it's not a big deal if we don't get 24PsF or 24P out of the player anyhow.

Deleted previous post as it clearly doesn't apply here.

Vern

Here a web site guys that compared 1080i vs. 1080p. Very interesting.
http://blog.hometheatermag.com/geoffreymorrison/0807061080iv1080p/

By the way if the new blue laser content (HD-DVD and Blu-Ray) disc is store at 1080p/24 then what is DVD? 480p/60?

Since every HD DVD I have played through my CII scaler and Sony Qualia has exibited perfectly smooth pans and scrolls with no sign of 3:2 induced studder, I'm thinking it's not a big deal if we don't get 24PsF or 24P out of the player anyhow.
I've got a CII and Sony Ruby, and at 1080p60 I'm seeing plenty of stuttering pans. Going in via DVI at 1080p48 fixed that, luckily.

Well, I am going into my Qualia with 60I since it doesn't support 60P without an upgrade. The Qualia also has film pulldown detection logic.

Vern

There's lots of plans to broadcast 1080p in Europe.
If somebody wants to watch brd/hd-dvd with 1080i display there has to be filtering somewhere along the line.
And that's why it is much easier to output 1080p to 1080p displays, like many players will do.
Then there's no need for filtering 1080p and 1080i output can be filtered.
Continue discussion!!!


UGH....Always a step a head you guys!!! :D

Can you contribute something other than being a shmuck?

that's not very kind and supportive!!! :(

i guess time will tell huh?

So let me ask this--say Blue-Ray conmes out with a player that outputs 1080p/24 and say you send that to a set that accepts 1080p/24 and has a REFRESH of 72.

In THAT case and IF the Blue Ray Player did a GREAT job of ouputting 1080p/24 and SINCE the set would REFRESH at 72 instead of 60 wouldn't you have the best picture possible as far as a film would go?

And since video is shot Not at 24 like film but at 30 or 60 why don't they just make PROGRESSIVE sets that ACCEPT 1080p/24 and REFRESH EVERYTHING Video and Film at 120 so there never is freakin Judder!

What's so hard about having Blue-Ray output 1080p/24--having sets that accept it and having everything refreshed to 120 so everything in the video universe--film and video would look great?!

Artwood -

I'm pretty it would look better because of the 3:3 pulldown. The real diiference is if we ever get 1080p/60 content on disc which probably won't happen anytime soon. 1080p is marketing guys.

Hieu

Why is it that the Japanese can broadcast 1080p but we can't? Are we just retarded?

What if they had only 1 channel of 1080p and charged anybody who wanted to put prgraming on it? Who would PAY to use it?

If someone recorded it would the universe end?

A 1080p feed was setup a couple of years ago at CES. A group went around every booth who offered an ASTC tuner and asked them to tune to the channel. Less than 10% of the ATSC tuners were able to decode it. It was decided at this time that 1080p was not an option for ATSC in the US due to lack of support from the box makers.

Did the box makers take their marching orders from the MPAA?

Right so stations that transmit 1080i HD really are transmitting 1080P to us for all intensive purposes.

I don't mean to be a spelling/grammar nazi, but the term you're looking for is "all intents and purposes", not "intensive purposes."

I don't mean to be a spelling/grammar nazi, but the term you're looking for is "all intents and purposes", not "intensive purposes."

But you just became one by posting :D

I hear people all the time say irregardless, and supposebly, but I stay mum even though these "words" do not exist. So for all intensive purposes, I am considerate.

-T

But you just became one by posting :D

I hear people all the time say irregardless, and supposebly, but I stay mum even though these "words" do not exist. So for all intensive purposes, I am considerate.

-T


You are considerate, but can you tell us the heighth of the new blu ray palyers

Clarification:

First you MUST differentiate between TRANSMISSION and DISPLAY.

Second, if your display is DIGITAL (DLP, LCD, DiLA, SXRD, Plasma, etc.) then it is PROGRESSIVE in its display regardless of the signal it receives.

Now:

PROGRESSIVE SOURCE --------->Native 1080p------------->Native 1080p DISPLAY (Perfect 1080p Image)
PROGRESSIVE SOURCE --------->Interlaced 1080i---------->Deinterlaced 1080p DISPLAY (Perfect 1080p Image)

INTERLACED SOURCE ----------->Native 1080i------------->Deinterlaced and Processed to 1080p

The difference is only in that the job in going from a PROGRESSIVE SOURCE to final 1080p DISPLAY is in putting the image back together simply by recombining the fields.

If the source is INTERLACED then you also have to account for the fact that the fields are offset in time. This is where the quality of the processing is important as this is not trivial (though well-established on how to do well).

This cannot hold for games correct? A 60fps 1080P game cannot be transmitted in 1080i and displayed in 1080P without a loss in IQ or a drop to 30fps or am I missing something?

Actually, it's the other way around. HD-DVD only allows 1080i@29.97 fps sequences while Blu-ray allows 1080p@23.976, 1080p@24 and 1080i@29.97 fps sequences (independent of codecs).

The current scheme for VC-1 encoding on HD-DVD is to code the source at 1080p@23.976 and then run the bitstream through a tool that changes the syntax of the bitstream from 1080p@23.976 to 1080i@29.97 with perfect telecine flags (repeat_first_field, top_field_first and progressive_sequence in MPEG-2 lingo but probably some other names in VC-1 and H.264). Stacey can verify that this is the case.



Hi guys,

I'm hoping Ron (or someone) can help me understand this better. Let's use an example of an HD-DVD player outputing 1080i HDMI to a 1080p display. I understand that a movie will be encoded at 1080p/24. Are you saying that inside the player, this must be decoded at 1080i/29.97? If so, how is this accomplished? I undersand 2:3 pulldown, but can't make the connection here.

And, if the player has a 1080i/29.97 signal, does it simply double each field to ouput the final 1080i/60?

Finally, what is the frame pattern of 1080i/60 that is reconstructed to 1080p/60?

Who and what exactly is being broadcast in 1080p?

Are all of us suckers who just wanted to get into HDTV watching obsolete sets just 1-year into the purchase?

Who and what exactly is being broadcast in 1080p?
Much of the series / sitcom programming on CBS and NBC is a 1080p24 sourced and delivered at 1080i60. If your TV does a decent job at deinterlace, it can reconstruct the original 1080p image.

Hi guys,

I'm hoping Ron (or someone) can help me understand this better. Let's use an example of an HD-DVD player outputing 1080i HDMI to a 1080p display. I understand that a movie will be encoded at 1080p/24. Are you saying that inside the player, this must be decoded at 1080i/29.97? If so, how is this accomplished? I undersand 2:3 pulldown, but can't make the connection here.

And, if the player has a 1080i/29.97 signal, does it simply double each field to ouput the final 1080i/60?

Finally, what is the frame pattern of 1080i/60 that is reconstructed to 1080p/60?
The bitstream describes a 1080i@29.97 output from 1080p@23.976 frames. Here's how it's done:

RFF TFF
0 1 film frame 1, 2 fields, 2 fields total, 1 frame total
1 1 film frame 2, 3 fields, 5 fields total
0 0 film frame 3, 2 fields, 7 fields total
1 0 film frame 4, 3 fields, 10 fields total, 5 frames total
0 1 film frame 5, 2 fields, 12 fields total, 6 frames total
1 1 film frame 6, 3 fields, 15 fields total
0 0 film frame 7, 2 fields, 17 fields total
1 0 film frame 8, 3 fields, 20 fields total, 10 frames total
0 1 film frame 9, 2 fields, 22 fields total, 11 frames total
1 1 film frame 10, 3 fields, 25 fields total
0 0 film frame 11, 2 fields, 27 fields total
1 0 film frame 12, 3 fields, 30 fields total, 15 frames total
0 1 film frame 13, 2 fields, 32 fields total, 16 frames total
1 1 film frame 14, 3 fields, 35 fields total
0 0 film frame 15, 2 fields, 37 fields total
1 0 film frame 16, 3 fields, 40 fields total, 20 frames total
0 1 film frame 17, 2 fields, 42 fields total, 21 frames total
1 1 film frame 18, 3 fields, 45 fields total
0 0 film frame 19, 2 fields, 47 fields total
1 0 film frame 20, 3 fields, 50 fields total, 25 frames total
0 1 film frame 21, 2 fields, 52 fields total, 26 frames total
1 1 film frame 22, 3 fields, 55 fields total
0 0 film frame 23, 2 fields, 57 fields total
1 0 film frame 24, 3 fields, 60 fields total, 30 frames total

TFF alternates after every time RFF is 1. That is, if you repeat the first field (top or bottom), the next frame must start on the opposite parity (bottom or top).

I use the term 1080i@29.97 to mean 29.97 interlaced frames per second. That's how it's signalled in the bitstream. Everything is normalized to frames. However, lots of folks call this 1080i59.94 (or 1080i60 for short), or 59.94 interlaced fields per second.

If the output rate after a deinterlacer is 1080p@59.94, then the repeated fields are tossed, and the original 1080p@23.976 frames are repeated either 2 or 3 (in a 2:3 cadence) times to get to 1080p@59.94.

Ron

Actually, it's the other way around. HD-DVD only allows 1080i@29.97 fps sequences while Blu-ray allows 1080p@23.976, 1080p@24 and 1080i@29.97 fps sequences (independent of codecs).
.....
If you are interested in direct 1080p23.976 or 1080p24 output from the player, then Blu-ray has the advantage.
It’s somehow contradictory.
Blu-ray has to deal with 1080i@29.97 fps sequences as well.

Thank you for the explaination, Ron.

MOst LCD/Plasma TVs today take the 1080 60i signal, and use only half of that information because it is unable to deinterlace properly. Every other frame is skipped, and your resolution essentially becomes 1920x540 @ 30p. That means that about 50% of the transmitted information is used.

The TV uses that converted 540p signal and scales it to the native display resolution.

If the TV has a 1366x768 resolution, even more pixels are lost because it cannot display the 1920 horizontal pixels that are available from the converted 540p signal. The TV has to scale the picture down to 1366 horizaontal pixels, which is about 71% of the 1920x540 pixels.

I may be worng with these calculations, but it seems to me that most HDTV screens sold today use about 35% of the pixel information sent by the broadcasters.

It is still better than standard TV though.

Pleae correct me if I made some incorrect assumptions.

You are considerate, but can you tell us the heighth of the new blu ray palyers
Okay now. We don't want anyone to loose there heads over this apparently sensitive issue.

rambo, I believe this information was based on the previous generation of TV sets. In the newest generation, I believe that there are far fewer sets that do this. More sets today properly handle deinterlacing 1080I. The sets that still do not are typically not 1080 resolution sets, so some loss of resolution is guaranteed, regardless of how the deinterlacing is performed.

Vern

So it has been concluded that 1080i vs 1080p output from a optical disc with a "film" on it, is essentially the same thing when output to a 1080p fixed display (dlp for example). What about xbox 360 or ps3 outputting GAMES at 1080i vs. 1080p to a 1080p display? I want to get a 1080p tv for using my 360 and ps3 with but thought I needed a tv that can "accept a 1080p source" to get the best quality. So if I had a ps3 or 360 that was outputting at 1080p, but the tv didn't "accept a 1080p source", but rather converted to 1080p, woud I see any difference? This may sound redundant but I am asking because of previous posts where it sounds like with "film" based content it is not an issue, but broadcast tv it is. So what about video games?

So it has been concluded that 1080i vs 1080p output from a optical disc with a "film" on it, is essentially the same thing when output to a 1080p fixed display (dlp for example). What about xbox 360 or ps3 outputting GAMES at 1080i vs. 1080p to a 1080p display? I want to get a 1080p tv for using my 360 and ps3 with but thought I needed a tv that can "accept a 1080p source" to get the best quality. So if I had a ps3 or 360 that was outputting at 1080p, but the tv didn't "accept a 1080p source", but rather converted to 1080p, woud I see any difference? This may sound redundant but I am asking because of previous posts where it sounds like with "film" based content it is not an issue, but broadcast tv it is. So what about video games?


It is true that 1080i gives the same total information as 1080p after interlacing and de-interlacing. And fortunately, this is a digital signal, so there is no signal loss after all that signal processing.

However, what people don't mention is the motion artifacts associated with interlacing. And that's why some people prefer 720p over 1080i.

Chuong

Brian DK: I'll let you know in two days!

In general, extra processing = extra lag during gameplay. How much lag is noticable depends on a number of factors. There's no simple answer unfortunately. Just read test reports of gamers using various titles on various TVs.

It is true that 1080i gives the same total information as 1080p after interlacing and de-interlacing. And fortunately, this is a digital signal, so there is no signal loss after all that signal processing.

However, what people don't mention is the motion artifacts associated with interlacing. And that's why some people prefer 720p over 1080i.

Chuong
That is why the conversation has been specifically about FILM sources. When a frame from film is interlaced, there is no temporal difference between the odd field and even field and therefore no motion artifacts. When the two fields are woven back together, you get the original frame back.

The motion artifacts you refer to are from content that was interlaced as it was captured, such as 1080i television. In that case, the odd and even fields are captured at seperate moments in time and can not be woven back together seamlessly.

That is why the conversation has been specifically about FILM sources. When a frame from film is interlaced, there is no temporal difference between the odd field and even field and therefore no motion artifacts. When the two fields are woven back together, you get the original frame back.

The motion artifacts you refer to are from content that was interlaced as it was captured, such as 1080i television. In that case, the odd and even fields are captured at seperate moments in time and can not be woven back together seamlessly.

You are correct that I was thinking of 1080i TV.

Regarding FILM sources, I wonder if there is any difference in picture quality between 1080i/60 and 1080p/60? Since the transmission rate is twice as fast in 1080p/60.

:blackdot:

Hi,

I've read the entire post, plenty of interesting stuff in here but way to technical for my little brain.

I know some of you guys would want to cut their wrist open after reading my question but still… be strong…

So basicaly you are saying 1'080p is just a marketing thing since 1'080i = 1'080p, so please help me answering this, I have a Panasonic Plasma 1024*768 which is compatible with 720p and 1'080i and then I have a Samsung LCD 1920*1080 which is 720p, 1080i and 1080p.

So I agree that on my Samsung 1'080i or 1'080p would make no difference at all, but on the Panasonic I don't understand how this can be true since It simply doesn't have enough pixel to display 1920*1080.

Ok so Full-HD and 1'080P are marleting things right, still you need a display that can display 1920*1080 and then 1080i or 1080p is the same, I know I'm wrong so if someone can explain me how my 1024*768 Plasma who can display 1'080i can also diplay 1080p since 1080p as a much higher resolution than what the TV ca do.

I Know… I'm sorry, I told you.. Be strong

Well, follow your logic: If you agree, that generally speaking as far as film-based material there is no difference in amount of information delivered to display whether transmission method is "i" or "p", this same principle applies to your other display... Which means, no matter which way the data is delivered, it still gets ALL of it. What it does with it. is entirely different matter, and has nothing to do with discussion at hand. It obviously has to "downconvert" the signal, since it has about 2.5 times fewer pixels to play with. How well it's doing it, is of course unknown, but it starts with this same data, regardless of it's delivery.

Kris

Yes ok but still if you take the exemple of HD-DVD/Bluray which are 1920*1080 you need a 1920*1080 TV to be able to watch them in there native resolution, the only difference in this case is if you let the player do the job and send 1080p or if you let the TV handle it and have the player to send 1080i in the case I agree that 1080i and 1080p are the same.

When reading this thread saying that 1080i = 1080p, it gave me the feeling that buying a Samsung 1920*1080 was useless since my *old* Panasonic 1024*768 which is 1'080i could do the same job since it's 1'080i and 1'080i=1'080p.

So if you want to watch 1080p material you will need a 1920*1080 TV and if you have a 1'080i capable TV it doesn't mean you will be able to display 1'080p, so I don't see how this 1080p / Full-HD thing is a marketing scam.

Again I'm probably wrong and I need someone to clarify

You ar missing the point. Your 1024x768 display will display... well 1024x768 pixels, no matter what signal it gets. It's electronics are limited to accepting 1080i (which exceeds it native resolution anyway), which means all signals have to be processed (downconverted, or upconverted) to 1024x768. It might as well ACCEPT 1080p, and it would still DISPLAY 1024x768 image. I understand your confusion: because of the standards, ALL displays accept 1080i (and only new ones 1080p), that doesn't mean that all of them can display those NATIVELY. In fact, till very recently there were almost no native 1080x1920 displays available (except for professional systems). For example, most of the plasmas still to-off at 1366x768 or such. Some of those accept 1080p, ALL of them accept 1080i.
There is difference between what display can accept as far as signal goes, and what it can display.

how my 1024*768 Plasma who can display 1'080i can also diplay 1080p since 1080p as a much higher resolution than what the TV ca do.


Well, 1080p is the same resolution as 1080i, so if your TV can do 1080i then it can also do 1080p.

So it has been concluded that 1080i vs 1080p output from a optical disc with a "film" on it, is essentially the same thing when output to a 1080p fixed display (dlp for example). What about xbox 360 or ps3 outputting GAMES at 1080i vs. 1080p to a 1080p display? I want to get a 1080p tv for using my 360 and ps3 with but thought I needed a tv that can "accept a 1080p source" to get the best quality. So if I had a ps3 or 360 that was outputting at 1080p, but the tv didn't "accept a 1080p source", but rather converted to 1080p, woud I see any difference? This may sound redundant but I am asking because of previous posts where it sounds like with "film" based content it is not an issue, but broadcast tv it is. So what about video games?

No games are rendered in 1080p. Both Xbox and PS scale it to 1080p so it's not native to begin with.

Sorry for the newbie question so please bear with me!

So basically is 1080p what they call FULL HD? I've tried reading through this thread and understood a grasp of it. However, I am wondering if the new technology now allows us to use such TVs as computer monitors? The resolution is ideal for 3D and I would like to use it to play PC games and so forth.

It is true that 1080i gives the same total information as 1080p after interlacing and de-interlacing. And fortunately, this is a digital signal, so there is no signal loss after all that signal processing.

However, what people don't mention is the motion artifacts associated with interlacing. And that's why some people prefer 720p over 1080i.

Chuong

This is incorrect. 1080P is a 60hz signal, therefore it can display a maximum of 60 fields or frames per second. Each of these frames or fields can be different to the next, so in motion a 1080P signal can be extremely smooth. Whereas DVD is 24 frames per second, games on the PS3 are 60 frames per second, so each frame contains 1080 lines of data. If you input this data at 1080i you loose HALF the data. The end result is that a 1080i signal made from a console which has rendered a 1080P signal (from a 1080P frame buffer) will encounter aliasing errors associated with such a loss in data. This has been seen previously on Playstation 2. Ive seen the result on games like Ridge racer and it isn't pretty.
So, in reference to using game consoles, 1080P is king. 1080i is crap in comparison.

This is incorrect. 1080P is a 60hz signal, therefore it can display a maximum of 60 fields or frames per second. Each of these frames or fields can be different to the next, so in motion a 1080P signal can be extremely smooth. Whereas DVD is 24 frames per second, games on the PS3 are 60 frames per second, so each frame contains 1080 lines of data. If you input this data at 1080i you loose HALF the data. The end result is that a 1080i signal made from a console which has rendered a 1080P signal (from a 1080P frame buffer) will encounter aliasing errors associated with such a loss in data. This has been seen previously on Playstation 2. Ive seen the result on games like Ridge racer and it isn't pretty.
So, in reference to using game consoles, 1080P is king. 1080i is crap in comparison.

if you wanna talk about games, go to the proper forum.

There is no difference between 1080i60 and 1080p24 when is comes to displaying film sourced contents (at least after inverse telecine).

My 2 cents:


I came to this thread for this exact reason - to find out if it was worth paying $$$ more for the Toshiba HD-A20 which outputs 1080p or save some moolah on the HD-A2. I'm glad that I purchased the A2 (even though it's still in transit as we speak).

I have an old ancient Barco 9" CRT 1200 projector that does scanning freq up to 135kHz, so it does 1080p resolutions, no problem, which is actually a bit higher rez than line quadrupled SD NTSC signals. Remember the $30-40,000 Faroudja line quadrupler? EGADS! Anyways, I have an Extron DV204 scaler which does various scans up to 1080p and it seems that this projector looks cleaner and sharper with 720p mode, compared to 1080i or 1080p. 1080p gives more artifacts, but I'm not sure whether it is the scaler or on the projector end. This, of course is with a 480i source. I am waiting on the A2 to see if sending it a 1080i signal would look better at the 1080i scan or 720p, or even 1080p.

I also have a BenQ DLP projector 8220 (1024x768) and have run my Helios DVD upscaling player on it and the higher resolutions was a disappointment. In fact 480p output to the DLP projector seems to give the cleanest/sharpest image. The 720p/1080i modes show very noticeable softening of the edges. Same goes for using the Helios on the Barco CRT projector. I'm not sure if its my display equipment, but I'm very disappointed in the Helios as the reviews have raved about the upconversion on this player. I think if you have a good scaler, and a good reference 480i player for SD DVD's, it's better to stick with that arrangement than to get a upconverting DVD player. I have tried several upconverting players before, and they were all disappointments. Seems like the image is optimal at the progressive scan 480p mode on all of these players.

I am currently waiting on my Extron DVS304 scaler which is an update to the 204 allowing multiple frequency scan inputs as opposed to only 480i on the 204. That way, I can pass through a native 1080i or deinterlace using the scaler and output to the CRT projector to see if there's any difference.

And thanks to all on this thread who have cleared some of my misconceptions about the 1080i/1080p debate.

and have run my Helios DVD upscaling player on it and the higher resolutions was a disappointment. Don't base any judgements using the Helios. :) I've also read (as I'm sure you have) that some folks with 9" CRTs have trouble with 1080p60 but have much better luck with 1080p48. Some issues can be source related also. It'd be cool if you could get 1080p24 output from one of the players and 2:2 it to 1080p48. 1080p72 would probably be pushing it. :)

larry

Don't base any judgements using the Helios. :) I've also read (as I'm sure you have) that some folks with 9" CRTs have trouble with 1080p60 but have much better luck with 1080p48. Some issues can be source related also. It'd be cool if you could get 1080p24 output from one of the players and 2:2 it to 1080p48. 1080p72 would probably be pushing it. :)

larry


Hmmm... Never thought about doing 1080p48. I believe my scaler allows that. Will have to try and report back later.

If I go to best buy and I argue with someone who knows a *little* about what I am talking about and I want to persuade them that 1080i and 1080p are the “same” for movies would I be correct in saying:

“Movies are shot in 24fps. This is converted (“telecline” or 3:2 pulldown or whatever the algorithm is officially called) to 30fps. Since TV’s have a 60Hz refresh rate, we can either split the frame up in half and send one half then the other at 1080i/60Hz, or use a 1080p source at 30Hz. Either way, the information viewed on a fixed pixel plasma set is identical regardless if the transmission OR display is 1080p vs 1080i.”

Now look... don’t blow me away with too much information in case Im wrong. Remember, all Im trying to do is throw down a quick argument and be done with it. would my statement be “good enough for government work” or would someone look at me and say:

“wow, dude, you’re a moron.”

...be kind :o

Wow, I think that people are trying to over think this comparison! Here is your first question, "What size screen are you watching the 1080i or 1080p signal on?" If you watching a tv that is smaller than 50 inches, than you will not notice a difference, unless you are 12 inches away from the screen. I would challenge you to look at a 50" + screen that is capable of 1080p and switch the resolutions to see the difference. If you cannot see the difference than you are not a video file.

So would my statement be “good enough for government work” or would someone look at me and say:

“wow, dude, you’re a moron.”

You are somewhere in between. I will take a shot at it.

Movies are shot 24 fps. On these new BD/HD-DVD formats, they are usally stored at 24fps 1080p on disc. There are basically 3 ways to transmit to a 1080p display:
1. 24fps. Available on only a few 1080p displays. This allows the display to simply repeat frames 3x or 5x to display at 72hz/120hz, eliminating the 3:2 judder.
2. 60 frames/sec, progressive. Every other frame is shown 3 times rather than 2, which converts from 24 to 60 frames per second.
3. 60 fields/sec, interlaced. Each of the original 24 frames is broken up into 2 fields. (it's not converted to 30 frames like you say above). Then every 4 frames (8 fields) is shown but with some fields repeated to get it up to 10 fields, in a 3:2 pattern where some of the fields are repeated which gets you from 48 fields/sec to 60 fields/sec.

[edited, "10 fields", not "12 fields"]

Now, *if* the TV's deinterlacer is capable of detecting this pattern, it can tell which fields are repeating, discard them, and reassemble the original frames. It can then display them with whatever pattern it wants, 3:2 to get 60 frames per second, or some multiple of 24, and in this case it should end up exactly the same as if you had sent progressive in the first place. But it's not a given that every TV's deinterlacer has this film cadence detection for 1080i sources. There are some magazine articles (e.g. Merson's article (http://hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/1106hook/) in Home Theater Mag) that suggest that a fair number of TVs aren't doing this properly; they are using video-mode algorithms. In these cases progressive from the player would be better, although probably many people wouldn't be able to tell a difference on most scenes.

You are somewhere in between. I will take a shot at it.

Movies are shot 24 fps. On these new BD/HD-DVD formats, they are usally stored at 24fps 1080p on disc. There are basically 3 ways to transmit to a 1080p display:
1. 24fps. Available on only a few 1080p displays. This allows the display to simply repeat frames 3x or 5x to display at 72hz/120hz, eliminating the 3:2 judder.
2. 60 frames/sec, progressive. Every other frame is shown 3 times rather than 2, which converts from 24 to 60 frames per second.
3. 60 fields/sec, interlaced. Each of the original 24 frames is broken up into 2 fields. (it's not converted to 30 frames like you say above). Then every 4 frames (8 fields) is shown but with some fields repeated to get it up to 12 fields, in a 3:2 pattern where some of the fields are repeated which gets you from 48 fields/sec to 60 fields/sec.

Now, *if* the TV's deinterlacer is capable of detecting this pattern, it can tell which fields are repeating, discard them, and reassemble the original frames. It can then display them with whatever pattern it wants, 3:2 to get 60 frames per second, or some multiple of 24, and in this case it should end up exactly the same as if you had sent progressive in the first place. But it's not a given that every TV's deinterlacer has this film cadence detection for 1080i sources. There are some magazine articles (e.g. Merson's article (http://hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/1106hook/) in Home Theater Mag) that suggest that a fair number of TVs aren't doing this properly; they are using video-mode algorithms. In these cases progressive from the player would be better, although probably many people wouldn't be able to tell a difference on most scenes.


So... is this the best buy employee or the retarded consumer telling me this as I look at them in the isles of the Best Buy? :eek: j/k!

... if Stephen Tu is the consumer, would I necessarily have egg in my face, or would I be able to say.. "ok, well, then you SHOULD buy the 1080i plasma for $xxx cheaper?

Well, 1080p is the same resolution as 1080i, so if your TV can do 1080i then it can also do 1080p.
This is not true for my set...my sony rear projection tv, model #kp46wt500, can do 1080i but not 1080p. I have input a 1080p signal from the ps3 in the display settings menu and the screen stays black which means that the tv does not support that resolution. If you have the ps3 then you would understand what I'm talking about, I'll explain...In the display settings you have 4 boxes with the different resolutions listed next to each one, 480p, 720p, 1080i and 1080p...you are supposed to check off the boxes that your tv is able to accept and if you check one that your tv will not accept then your screen will go black for 30 seconds and then return to the previous resolution that it was set on prior to changing the display settings. You can also have the ps3 find the supported resolutions automaticaly which you then can look to see which boxes the ps3 has checked off. I have done this both ways and only the 1080p box is left unchecked. Also...this tv I have is one that cant display a native 720p signal but will take it and downscale it to 480p...which sucks by the way...I wish I knew as much about this stuff then...when I purchased my tv, as I do now.

Take care,
Brian

would I necessarily have egg in my face, or would I be able to say.. "ok, well, then you SHOULD buy the 1080i plasma for $xxx cheaper?


You'd have egg in your face if you are trying to tell people to buy "1080i plasmas", as there really aren't any, unless you are talking about Hitachi's weird ALIS panels. Plasmas are generally 1920x1080, 1366x768, 1024x768. They accept 1080i, but convert to their native resolution for display, full frames at a time, not interlaced (except those Hitachis). You could advocate for people to buy "768p plasmas". I blame the stores for this, I guess they try to call them "1080i" plasmas since 1080 is the biggest number, and probably majority of both their staff & consumers have no bloody idea what the "i" and "p" really represent other than a vague notion that "p" is better. But 1080p vs. 768p (or 720p) is a substantially more accurate characterization of what is being compared. 1080p vs. 1080i would only be accurate if comparing said panel to an older-tech CRT set, and then there are lots of other issues bigger than the p vs. i.

The question of whether 1080i or 1080p is "better", for film-based sources, the main focus of this thread, is mainly debating whether the 1080i output limitation on the initial Toshiba HD-DVD players is an issue or not. Basically, if the TV deinterlaces correctly, it's a non-issue for movies, but if it doesn't perhaps the HD-A20 or a Blu-ray @ 1080p will do better.

The debate of 1080p plasmas vs. 768p plasmas is a different issue entirely. There is absolutely no debate in that 768 plasmas are lower resolution, and necessarily throw away detail contained in 1080i/1080p sources. This is entirely a matter of size vs. viewing distance; the bigger the set or the closer you are, the more noticeable the difference is. If you are far away from a smallish set then you wouldn't get the benefit of 1080p and might as well get 768 to save some money. (But a true movie lover I think should always try to get as big a display as reasonable for the distance, and thus 1080p, if within budget, to try to replicate the big movie screen feeling at home. Budget constraints or the "WAF" of a big display might dictate a smaller set though, and at some point the extra res would no longer be worth it)

this is exactly the thread i was looking for....

i had been feeding my Infocus 7200 720p projector 1080p from my PS3 for bluray, until sparkiles starting showing up at that resolution no matter how i recongifured/switched around/replaced cables in the chain from the ps3-switcher-projector (i am going from hdmi-dvi).

since there are zero sparklies at 1080i i have un-checked 1080p from my output options.

reading this thread i am led to believe i am missing out on NOTHING leaving it at 1080i instead of 1080p - correct? (the display is native 720p, not 768 or some similar resolution).

thanks
OLEUS

You'd have egg in your face if you are trying to tell people to buy "1080i plasmas", as there really aren't any,

you have a hard time understanding my point. You must be an engineer. :p

You understood that I was using "1080i" in the context of a consumer looking for a 1080p television set in an environment where the "1080i" is used (albeit incorrectly). So there was no reason to correct me. :o

The question of whether 1080i or 1080p is "better", for film-based sources, the main focus of this thread, is mainly debating whether the 1080i output limitation on the initial Toshiba HD-DVD players is an issue or not. Basically, if the TV deinterlaces correctly, it's a non-issue for movies, but if it doesn't perhaps the HD-A20 or a Blu-ray @ 1080p will do better.

FOR FILM-BASED SOURCE: Essentially, if I were to tell one of those customers (that doesn't know the real difference between the "i" or "p") if they should BUY a 1080p player or not, then I should probably not say anything because I could not be sure their current plasma set deinterlaces "correctly". RIGHT?

So by assuming the end used is uneducated, then a 1080p player is really NOT a marketing ploy, it really IS the "best" in the sense that the consumer *might* have a television that de-interlaces poorly(and has a large enough viewing area)

and finally, if the source is 1080p 24fps, then again we can assume that *some* non-1080p plasmas deinterlace poorly and thus the 1080P display SHOULD be a default recommendation at Best Buy just to make sure.

In the electronics industry, manufacturers need to make choices FOR the consumer if the situation is as complicated as this one. Since there is all this debate, shouldnt the 1080p stuff be pushed?

So far it is not the case that ALL 1080i sources match 1080p sources all of the time in all situations for all plasma TV's etc. (unless you can tell me that 99% of the plasmas WILL deinterlace 1080i properly.)

but, for all practical purposes with film-based BD discs, i will not be missing out on anything if i leave my ps3 set to 1080i instead of 1080p (going to my 720p projector), correct?

but, for all practical purposes with film-based BD discs, i will not be missing out on anything if i leave my ps3 set to 1080i instead of 1080p (going to my 720p projector), correct?

well, in your case, you can do a visual comparison because you already have equipment purchased. As stephen tu mentioned, your projector is throwing away information anyway, so the i vs p debate should be moot...

You wouldn't want to ask me though, because I feel like I have a weak grasp at best as to what is being said in this thread :(

Okay...to clarify...a question:

I have a 47" 1080p LCD (Westinghouse) that properly accepts 1080p signal from my XBOX 360 via component. When playing an HD DVD, however, it sends 1080i through component. I understand that the VGA cord will send 1080p, as will the XBOX 360 Elite's HDMI.

Other than the differences between component and VGA/HDMI, am I getting the same quality as if I upgrade to XBOX Elite and use the HDMI? In other words, is it worth the upgrade if I'm only using it as an HD DVD player?? Am I getting the "full picture"? (games, btw, are in 1080p)

Take 20 given 1080p displays and compare 1080i source -vs- 1080p source. I'll bet on over half of them 1080i source looks and performs better on them. :)

In other words, people are sweating the 1080p source thing way to much here. 1080p stresses the hardware and connecting cables / connectors a fair amount bandwidth wise too.

I am 1080p source capable and I choose to run 1080i from my sources still for the reasons cited above.

New to using forums so not sure if correct procedure to ask a question!
I have ps3, hd plasma (pioneer pdp507xd), AV Amp (yamaha RX-V2600 (HDMI 1.1, support for LPCM5.1)) and I am unsure as to best connection option.
PS3 auto sets max video and audio resolution supported when connected via hdmi, so when I connect ps3 to amp it will output max 5.1 LPCM but only 720p/1080i (amp wont support 1080p).
When connecting ps3 hdmi to tv it outputs 1080p/24fps but DD/dts5.1 via optical.
Tv is HD (720p/1080i) set NOT Full HD (1080p) but with support (?) for 1080/24 (BD movie native resolution).
Questions:
What exactly does it mean to have 1080/24 support on hd tv and would I get most benefit going through amp to take advantage of lpcm5.1 or outputing 1080/24 to plasma directly (which amp doesent support)?
Is it the case that ps3 output of 1080p@24fps (or 1080i for that matter) is accepted by hd plasma and then downscaled to 720p, in which case there is no benefit in outputting 1080p and I would get more advantage by using lpcm5.1?

There may be an advantage (depending on your TV, it's scaler, and its true native resolution) but it may not be all that noticeable - but that may be the case with the audio as well. Try it both ways and pick what seems to be more noticeable?

I have a pre-HDMI Amp so the choice was simple for me.

Wow.....

Okay, I have read this from the beginning. I have an optoma hd72 projector projecting on a 92 inch screen via HDMI. If I let me PS3 detect resolution, it shows 1080p.

The projector specs are:
Resolution
Native WXGA (1280 x 768)

Maximum Resolution
PC: UXGA (1600 x 1200)
Video: 1080p(1920 x 1080)

Is my projector displaying the 1080 or the native resolution?

Thanks.

The native resolution is the only thing your projector can display, anything else you send to it will be scaled.

The point of this thread is that 1080i60 will result in the same image quality as 1080p24 if your TV can reconstruct the signal correctly. In general you want to keep the signal native and digital as long as you can and save scaling until the very last step, but in reality your mileage may vary depending on the quality of the scaler involved.

I have my PS3 configured to output 720p during normal operation, and 1080p24 when watching a Blu-Ray movie, and that may be a good starting point for you, but your mileage may vary. That's why there's no one answer here.

Right so stations that transmit 1080i HD really are transmitting 1080P to us for all intensive purposes.

:mad: ugh...

intents. and. purposes.

The native resolution is the only thing your projector can display, anything else you send to it will be scaled.

The point of this thread is that 1080i60 will result in the same image quality as 1080p24 if your TV can reconstruct the signal correctly. In general you want to keep the signal native and digital as long as you can and save scaling until the very last step, but in reality your mileage may vary depending on the quality of the scaler involved.

I have my PS3 configured to output 720p during normal operation, and 1080p24 when watching a Blu-Ray movie, and that may be a good starting point for you, but your mileage may vary. That's why there's no one answer here.


Thanks for the reply. I realize my question was a bit off the main topic of the thread.......sorry for that.

I will try those setting later. I have to admit I was expecting more in image quality from Blu Ray than I was getting on my oppo upconverting. Perhaps it's a limitation of my projector or if I was in fact asking my projector to "scale" the image.

Thanks again.
Jay

This question is one I need an answer to before moving foward on a Blu-Ray player purchase. When I purchased my HDTV, 1080p was really expensive. The best I can do on my set is 1080i. Is getting a blu-ray player worth it when you do not have 1080p display?

Even 1080i is a far site better than 480i, I wouldn't worry about your current TV. With properly mastered BRs you'll see a big difference from 480i SD DVDs.
If you're going to be playing many SD DVDs you'll want to look into one of the better(more expensive) BR players with better scalers.

This question is one I need an answer to before moving foward on a Blu-Ray player purchase. When I purchased my HDTV, 1080p was really expensive. The best I can do on my set is 1080i. Is getting a blu-ray player worth it when you do not have 1080p display?

If you use "1080i" in the advance search engine, title search only...you'll find others have asked similar/same questions about this type of set up.

I've purchased LG 50PK950 TV which has Netcast. Is there any reason then to purchase a blu-ray player that has wi-fi?