Here is the article: Link (http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_14_1/feature-article-1080p-3-2007-part-1.html)

Quoted from the article:

"1080i is the highest resolution format of the HDTV ATSC specification as well as the recently launched HD DVD and Blu-ray media."

Isn't most HD-DVD/Blu-ray content 1080p and flagged as such on the actual media?

"More importantly, with the exception of some odd, early, and now discontinued plasma models, NO flat panel or fixed pixel display devices "do interlaced". That is, although you can feed them an interlaced signal like 1080i60, one way or another it has to be converted, or "de-interlaced" into a progressive stream, and then scaled or mapped to the device's native resolution, whatever that may be."

Is this true? Does a 1080i plasma or LCD really display 1080i content progressively?

"The wrong way, which of course happens to be the cheap way from a processing and cost perspective, is to simply scale each 540 line field to the native resolution of the display. That means that whether your TV is 720 lines, 768 lines, 1024 lines, or even one of the "Full HD" 1080 line models, if it de-interlaces this way, you are only seeing a picture which is 540 lines strong. Not what you paid for, is it?"

How can this be? If I am displaying a 1080i signal on my 1080p TV and for whatever reason it is "cheaply" processing it, how do I lose any resolution? Half of a 1080i frame is 540 lines (1 field)... Are they saying that some TVs just display those 540 lines as a full frame instead of deinterlacing the full 1080 lines from both fields?

Here is the article: Link (http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_14_1/feature-article-1080p-3-2007-part-1.html)

Quoted from the article:



Isn't most HD-DVD/Blu-ray content 1080p and flagged as such on the actual media?
I think the first part is true, but maybe not the second part. 1080i is the highest resolution format of the HDTV ATSC specification, since 1080p is not in that spec. But I think you are right that HD DVD and Blu-ray can do 1080p.

Is this true? Does a 1080i plasma or LCD really display 1080i content progressively?
Yes all plasmas and flat panel lcd's are natively progressive. The way I see it, it's not really a 1080i panel, it's either 720 or 1080 (or 480, ED). 1080i plasma or 1080i lcd is a misnomer. These panels may accept and process a 1080i signal, but really when you refer to a panel in that way you are just referring to its native rez, which is either (rougly) 720 or 1080 (or 480).

How can this be? If I am displaying a 1080i signal on my 1080p TV and for whatever reason it is "cheaply" processing it, how do I lose any resolution? Half of a 1080i frame is 540 lines (1 field)... Are they saying that some TVs just display those 540 lines as a full frame instead of deinterlacing the full 1080 lines from both fields?There's been articles on here in the past discussing this... basically some deinterlacers are cheap and their method of deinterlacing is to take half the signal and then double it up to get it up to 1080p. Sounds lame but apparently yes it's true.

Here is the article: Link (http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_14_1/feature-article-1080p-3-2007-part-1.html)

Isn't most HD-DVD/Blu-ray content 1080p and flagged as such on the actual media?Yes, that was a typo. Or they may have meant that 1080i and 1080p both deliver full 1080p resolution for film sources.

Is this true? Does a 1080i plasma or LCD really display 1080i content progressively?Yes, LCDs, plasmas, DLPs, and LCOS displays are all fixed resolution, progressive panels. Everything must be deinterlaced for display.

How can this be? If I am displaying a 1080i signal on my 1080p TV and for whatever reason it is "cheaply" processing it, how do I lose any resolution? Half of a 1080i frame is 540 lines (1 field)... Are they saying that some TVs just display those 540 lines as a full frame instead of deinterlacing the full 1080 lines from both fields?Yes, deinterlacing 1080i into 1080p is not as easy as you might think. A number of displays cut corners on their video processing, and simply bob to display a 540p image. Of the 2006 displays tested by Gary Merson of Home Theater Magazine, more than 60% bobbed to display a 540p image with 1080i input signals, rather than properly deinterlacing video and film.

I suggest you read my post right here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10070516&&#post10070516) for more information on how this all works.

Ok, so if all 1080 panels are progressive what is the difference between a 1080i panel and a 1080p panel? Is the difference simply that a 1080p panel can accept a 1080p signal?

I thought I had all this stuff down until now :)

EDIT: Actually, now that I looked I can't seem to find any 1080i plasma/lcd panels. I think I was thinking of 1080i RP sets which must support interlacing.

Ok, so if all 1080 panels are progressive what is the difference between a 1080i panel and a 1080p panel? Is the difference simply that a 1080p panel can accept a 1080p signal?There is no such thing as a 1920x1080i flat panel. Interlaced display is the technology used with analog CRTs (tube TVs) and CRT projection. It is not the technology used with digital displays.

With one or two exceptions (Hitachi), all modern LCDs and plasmas are 1024x768p, 1280x720p, 1366x768p, or 1920x1080p.

Some 1080p plasmas do not even accept a 1080p signal (most do), but rather deinterlace 1080i input to 1080p for display.

What if someone made a plasma that could do BOTH interlaced and progressive NATIVELY?

I've heard that Panasonic once produced a rear projection CRT that could do both interlaced and progressive natively but abandoned the concept due to cost.

1080p 24fps is an ATSC standard. Would look just like 1080p 24fps BD and HD-DVD but with lower bitrate.

I've heard that Panasonic once produced a rear projection CRT that could do both interlaced and progressive natively but abandoned the concept due to cost.Yes, it was their second or third-generation 56" RPTV. It was the first and only consumer CRT RPTV to offer native 720p display. IIRC, it was released the same year Panasonic sponsored the first Monday Night Football in high-definition on ABC (1999/2000).

Just think folks--720p and 1080i both native! No conversion errors on HD broadcast material. Will we ever see such a feat again?

Just think how much easier this all would be if the FCC has done what the HDTV technical committee had expected and picked ONE of the listed digital format from the start and stuck with it. I know they had (political) reasons not to, but look at the confusion and headaches that have resulted. I really think we would be much further along in the HDTV transition if that had been the case.

If I can tell the difference between 480p and 720p at 8 feet, will I be able to see the difference between 720p and 1080p at that same distance?

If I can tell the difference between 480p and 720p at 8 feet, will I be able to see the difference between 720p and 1080p at that same distance?With a 60" display? Sure.

With a 42" display? No.

The perfect answer would have been 960p and a mandate that all TVs would have to refresh at 120--that way you'd have perfect multiples for everything and even SD would look good!

Just think how much easier this all would be if the FCC has done what the HDTV technical committee had expected and picked ONE of the listed digital format from the start and stuck with it. I know they had (political) reasons not to, but look at the confusion and headaches that have resulted. I really think we would be much further along in the HDTV transition if that had been the case.

Then the TV makers just had to add 768p to the mix for fun. ;)

Then the TV makers just had to add 768p to the mix for fun. ;)
Thanks for mentioning 768p. My LCD HDTV is 1366 x 768. Should I set my upscaling DVD player to 720p or 1080i? I heard that 720p is best because there is one less operation to convert it to 768p.

To stay on topic, can a CRT HDTV do 720p then? Or does it convert it to 1080i?

Thanks for mentioning 768p. My LCD HDTV is 1366 x 768. Should I set my upscaling DVD player to 720p or 1080i? I heard that 720p is best because there is one less operation to convert it to 768p.

To stay on topic, can a CRT HDTV do 720p then? Or does it convert it to 1080i?

I would bet 1080i but you never know until you check both.
Not sure about the CRT question.

Any interlaced format is intended (and is optimal) for analog displays - tube based HDTVs like tube rear projection or direct view tube displays.

Digital displays - plasma, LCD, and DLP - can't display an interlaced image, they have to de-interlace the image....

A 1080P digital display will be able to de-interlace the 1080i-60 to a 1080p-30 signal and display the 1080 image.... the quality of the image would depend on the de-interlacing engine on the display.

A 768p digital display will have to downconvert the 1080i-60 to 720p or 480p.... Converting to 480p would be easier (and likely have less distortion because it just has to drop half the lines).... Converting to 720p would require dropping half the lines and then interpolating....

If you have a 768p display, you are probably better off trying to fit your source to 720p to minimize the amount of signal convertions.

Any interlaced format is intended (and is optimal) for analog displays - tube based HDTVs like tube rear projection or direct view tube displays.

I disagree as computer CRT's are much better with progressive.

If you have a 768p display, you are probably better off trying to fit your source to 720p to minimize the amount of signal convertions.
This isn't always true.
Of course it is always best to not convert a native signal but when you are upconverting from 480i, it actually might be better to go to 1080i before 768p.

Just think folks--720p and 1080i both native! No conversion errors on HD broadcast material. Will we ever see such a feat again?

I really hope not - any interlaced format is inherently inferior to progressive ones, they suck big time.
Interlace is the typical "el cheapo" picture including 1080i for HD.

You should cry for progressive content, not crappy interlaced displays. :cool:

And another item... as far as the format on HD-DVD or BlueRay... all these format, as with regular DVDs, are using MPEG encoding - which has no concept of scanning, progressive or interlaced.

MPEG works with images, it is either taking images (frames) that is 850x480 pixels, or 1280x720 pixels, or 1920x1080 pixels... with an image frequency (frame rate) of either 30 frames/sec or 60 frames/sec... and performs the MPEG encoding, which is a for of compression - comparing each frame, finding the differences between the frames, and sending the difference instead of the entire frame (this is a really simplistic view, but it's just to make a point)

It is up to the MPEG decoder to recreate the frames (or images) from the encoded signal.... and generally, it is the same chip which has to then take those images and create the progressive or interlaced video signal.

Why scanned images (progressive or interlaced)? Tube displays have a single electron gun that is used to illuminate the pixel on the display, so in order to draw the picture on the tube, the gun would scan across the display to present the image.... interlaced in older displays when the scanning was slow and couldn't keep up with the image rate of 30 frames/sec.... and then progressive when the scanning guns was able to keep up with the image rate....

In digital displays the concept of scanning makes no sense - as far as the display is concerned. Each pixel on a digital display is individually controlled and illuminated.... the digital display doesn't need to scan to create the image... I think the only reason for a scanned image today is because of the cable that connects the display to the source - it is a serial cable and transmits the image info one pixel at a time... and it may more correctly be called a raster image because it's a digital image that is being transfered from the source to the display (Google Raster Image if you're unfamiliar with it). It's the same thing really, but it gets away from the old terms of progressive-scan and interlaced which are irrelevant to digital displays and MPEG.

Wasn't that only Blu-Ray using MPEG2 for their initial releases for a while but not anymore?

[QUOTE=Elemental1]I disagree as computer CRT's are much better with progressive.
QUOTE]

Computer CRTs are not digital displays, they are analog tube displays, the signal that drives them is analog. Progressive looks better then interlaced because you present the image in one scan of the display.

Also, analog computer monitors were newer technology than was available when the NTSC standard was made for interlaced and 30 frame/sec. Analog computer monitors from the mid 90s were capable of HDTV quality images (not the widescreen part)... large and expensive monitors fromthe 90's were able to display high resolutions like 1600x1200 at very high refresh rates like 90-100 Hz (which would be equivalent to 90-100 frames per second)

But they were still analog....

Wasn't that only Blu-Ray using MPEG2 for their initial releases for a while but not anymore?

MPEG2, MPEG4, H.264, VC1, and all the rest all work in basically the same way.... the algorithms they use to compress, transfer (or store) and recreate the images are different - some are newer, some get better compression, some are better for IP packet transfer over the internet, some have better digital rights management.... what goes in and what comes out is the same - digital images of some size (like 1920x1080) and some image rate (like 30 frames per second).

MPEG2, MPEG4, H.264, VC1, and all the rest all work in basically the same way.... the algorithms they use to compress, transfer (or store) and recreate the images are different - some are newer, some get better compression, some are better for IP packet transfer over the internet, some have better digital rights management.... what goes in and what comes out is the same - digital images of some size (like 1920x1080) and some image rate (like 30 frames per second).

Of course but VC-1 is waaay better than MPEG2 at any day, that was my point.

Computer CRTs are not digital displays, they are analog tube displays, the signal that drives them is analog. Progressive looks better then interlaced because you present the image in one scan of the display.
Also, analog computer monitors were newer technology than was available when the NTSC standard was made for interlaced and 30 frame/sec. Analog computer monitors from the mid 90s were capable of HDTV quality images (not the widescreen part)... large and expensive monitors fromthe 90's were able to display high resolutions like 1600x1200 at very high refresh rates like 90-100 Hz (which would be equivalent to 90-100 frames per second)

But they were still analog....

Um, You seem to be having an argument with yourself then as I was replying to your statement about analog being better with interlaced signals.
Are you now saying analog is better with progressive? :confused:

Of course but VC-1 is waaay better than MPEG2 at any day, that was my point.

Except it's proprietary (Microsoft) and each use of VC1 requires royalties get paid.... VC1 is good, making money for something you invent is good too...

MPEG2 is free public license - which is really why it had become the defacto standard.

So the problem is, when standards bodies get together to create the a standard they tend to avoid anything proprietary - which can hurt VC1.

Alternatively, if it is the consumer that decides the "better" technology, there are only two things that matter - convienince and price (assuming roughly the same quality). If it came down to a single disc that used VC1 to encode an entire HD movie, with added cost of royalties... or a single disc that used MPEG2 to encode an entire HD movie, without royalties... the consumer could care less what the encoding technology is, they will choose the cheaper of the two media, and MPEG2 wins.

Off a disc, MPEG2 can look as good as VC1, it just needs less compression... alternatively, VC1 can be made to look worse if you turn up the compression.

Actually, this is my complaint with a lot of the cable and satelite HD transmission. They can claim they are sending an HD 1080i signal.... but to make it fit in the spectrum, or get a lot of HD channels, they compress the hell out of it and you see artifacts and macroblocking - and then what's the point of the HD? My DVD looks better at 480p.

Except it's proprietary (Microsoft) and each use of VC1 requires royalties get paid.... VC1 is good, making money for something you invent is good too...

MPEG2 is free public license - which is really why it had become the defacto standard.Microsoft VC-1 is a SMPTE standard, just like MPEG-2 and MPEG-4.

Where did you get that idea that MPEG2 had a free public license? That's most certainly not the case. MPEG LA licensing for MPEG-2 makes it the most expensive codec, even after the latest drop. Last I looked, MPEG-2 licensing was $2.50 for a DVD or Blu-ray player, $2.50 per encoder, and $0.50 per software decoder, with a $0.03 base fee (plus $0.01 per 30 minutes) for encoded video.

MPEG-4 is only a fraction of that, and VC-1 is even less.

MPEG-LA MPEG-2 license costs (http://www.mpegla.com/m2/m2-agreement.cfm)
MPEG-LA MPEG-4 license costs (http://www.mpegla.com/m4v/m4vweb.ppt)
MPEG-LA VC-1 license costs (http://www.mpegla.com/vc1/vc1web.ppt)

Um, You seem to be having an argument with yourself then as I was replying to your statement about analog being better with interlaced signals.
Are you now saying analog is better with progressive? :confused:

I reread my post and it wasn't well written.... I was replying to the original point about 1080p displays, and are they useful when the source (and standard) is 1080i.

The point I was trying to make was that interlaced images are useless for digital displays (LCD, Plasma, and DLP). A digital display needs to deinterlace the image to display it.

The interlaced format was designed for analog displays... not that it is optimal for analog displays. Interlacing was designed for analog display that cannot scan fast enough to display a higher resolution image - it's a sneaky way of displaying a higher resolution image with a slower scanning display.

I reread my post and it wasn't well written.... I was replying to the original point about 1080p displays, and are they useful when the source (and standard) is 1080i.

The point I was trying to make was that interlaced images are useless for digital displays (LCD, Plasma, and DLP). A digital display needs to deinterlace the image to display it.

The interlaced format was designed for analog displays... not that it is optimal for analog displays. Interlacing was designed for analog display that cannot scan fast enough to display a higher resolution image - it's a sneaky way of displaying a higher resolution image with a slower scanning display.

Ah, that I can understand.
I think 720p and 1080i were both good choices without using massive bandwidth.
1080i/60 with inverse telecine is 1080p/24 so that is a huge benefit.
720p for high speed motion like sports is the only way to go as it has sources for 60fps, unlike most 1080p sources.
NOw in the practical world, how much does a 1080p display really do for you that a 720p display can't?
That is debatable but it usually doesn't hurt. :D

Microsoft VC-1 is a SMPTE standard, just like MPEG-2 and MPEG-4.

Where did you get that idea that MPEG2 had a free public license? That's most certainly not the case. MPEG LA licensing for MPEG-2 makes it the most expensive codec, even after the latest drop. Last I looked, MPEG-2 licensing was $2.50 for a DVD or Blu-ray player, while H.264 was only $0.50. For software decoders and encoders, MPEG-2 licensing was $0.50, while H.264 was just $0.25. VC-1 license fees were even less.

Humm... my understanding was that MPEG2 was free, which is why you can find free software codec for MPEG2 all over the place. I believe the fee associated with DVDs (not familier with BluRay) was the DVD licensing fee that goes to Sony and Phillips - which is why you have to pay for software DVD players.

I also thought that MPEG4 really didn't get much acceptance (pretty much died) because the MPEG association tag a royalty to it which they hadn't done with MPEG1 and 2.... Which is why you have to pay for any software MPEG4 codec. This goof by the MPEG association slowed MPEG4 addoption enough that better codecs were developed (H.264 and VC1) which leaf-frogged MPEG4.

As far as H.264 and VC1, there is a big push toward H.264 becasue it isn't a proprietary codec, where Microsoft owns VC1....

A 1080P digital display will be able to de-interlace the 1080i-60 to a 1080p-30 signal and display the 1080 image.... the quality of the image would depend on the de-interlacing engine on the display.

A 768p digital display will have to downconvert the 1080i-60 to 720p or 480p.... Converting to 480p would be easier (and likely have less distortion because it just has to drop half the lines).... Converting to 720p would require dropping half the lines and then interpolating....

If you have a 768p display, you are probably better off trying to fit your source to 720p to minimize the amount of signal convertions.That's not quite how it works. A 1080i60 video signal is deinterlaced into 1080p60, not 1080p30. For movies and episodic content acquired in 1080p24 and broadcast as 1080i60, inverse telecine is done to reconstruct the original 24 progressive frames, followed by pull-down repeat those 24 frames for display at 60Hz.

On a 768p display, the 1080p60 image would be scaled to 768p. That's better than 720p, but obviously not up to quality of full 1080p.

Humm... my understanding was that MPEG2 was free, which is why you can find free software codec for MPEG2 all over the place.MPEG-2 most certainly is not free for commercial use.

I believe the fee associated with DVDs (not familier with BluRay) was the DVD licensing fee that goes to Sony and Phillips - which is why you have to pay for software DVD players.The MPEG-LA is the association that administers all MPEG-2, MPEG-4 / AVC, and VC-1 licensing fees. Once collected, they distribute each share of those fees to the appropriate company.

As far as H.264 and VC1, there is a big push toward H.264 becasue it isn't a proprietary codec, where Microsoft owns VC1....Once again, Microsoft submitted VC-1 to the standards organization (SMPTE). It was a proprietary codec three years ago, but that ended this year.

H.264 is just the term used for MPEG-4 PartII. I linked the licensing agreement above. It's significantly less expensive than MPEG-2, but more expensive than VC-1.

Ah, that I can understand.
I think 720p and 1080i were both good choices without using massive bandwidth.
1080i/60 with inverse telecine is 1080p/24 so that is a huge benefit.
720p for high speed motion like sports is the only way to go as it has sources for 60fps, unlike most 1080p sources.
NOw in the practical world, how much does a 1080p display really do for you that a 720p display can't?
That is debatable but it usually doesn't hurt. :D


Generally, I figure get as much as you can afford.... and hedge your bets with technology, because who knows what will happen even a few years ahead.

If you remember the home theater days before HD - they had the big front projection displays with line doublers and quadruplers to get higher resolution (they needed it for the 10 foot screens).


What's to prevent an LCD manufacterer from making a 2160 (2x1080) display? and make it really huge? Maybe...someday...?

What would happen if one day all the videos came off the internet, rather than a disc.... would we need a specific image size? If all this goes they way of the PC you'll get whatever display you can afford, a video card that can drive the resolution you have (may be built into the display), and then you download or tune into the internet signals and the video card takes care of optimizing it for your display.... just like your PC does today....

Generally, I figure get as much as you can afford.... and hedge your bets with technology, because who knows what will happen even a few years ahead.



While I like the idea of 1080p, if it is at the expense of other things that effect the overall PQ, don't do it.
Most plasma owners know not to go by one spec on a checklist. ;)

While I like the idea of 1080p, if it is at the expense of other things that effect the overall PQ, don't do it.
Most plasma owners know not to go by one spec on a checklist. ;)

Of course, because they can't grasp the specs anyway, that's why they chose plasma. :D

Of course, because they can't grasp the specs anyway, that's why they chose plasma. :D

Hah...is that what you think?
Tsk Tsk Tsk.....you should know what they say about specs. ;)

[Lies, damn lies...and specs] :D