1080i vs 1080p - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 220 Old 10-09-2006, 12:44 AM
Senior Member
 
BrianEK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wheaton, IL
Posts: 471
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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?
BrianEK is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 220 Old 11-15-2006, 06:18 PM
Member
 
chuongvu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianEK View Post

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
chuongvu is offline  
post #183 of 220 Old 11-15-2006, 09:55 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
joeblow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 12,104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 195
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.

Los Angeles Lakers - 16 NBA Championships!

joeblow is offline  
post #184 of 220 Old 11-16-2006, 07:59 AM
Member
 
Grammar Police's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: J'ville, FL
Posts: 137
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuongvu View Post

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.
Grammar Police is offline  
post #185 of 220 Old 11-27-2006, 01:56 PM
Member
 
chuongvu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grammar Police View Post

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.
chuongvu is offline  
post #186 of 220 Old 11-27-2006, 05:31 PM
Advanced Member
 
joffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 871
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
:blackdot:

"Why am I Mr. Pink?"
joffer is offline  
post #187 of 220 Old 11-28-2006, 06:06 AM
Senior Member
 
cR4p's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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
cR4p is offline  
post #188 of 220 Old 11-28-2006, 07:03 AM
Senior Member
 
k.berger's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Deer Park, NY
Posts: 441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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
k.berger is offline  
post #189 of 220 Old 11-28-2006, 07:16 AM
Senior Member
 
cR4p's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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
cR4p is offline  
post #190 of 220 Old 11-28-2006, 07:47 AM
Senior Member
 
k.berger's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Deer Park, NY
Posts: 441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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.
k.berger is offline  
post #191 of 220 Old 11-28-2006, 12:28 PM
Member
 
turbo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by cR4p View Post

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.
turbo3 is offline  
post #192 of 220 Old 11-28-2006, 12:30 PM
Member
 
turbo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianEK View Post

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.
turbo3 is offline  
post #193 of 220 Old 12-04-2006, 10:37 PM
Member
 
rocklee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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.
rocklee is offline  
post #194 of 220 Old 12-29-2006, 02:47 AM
Newbie
 
rugal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuongvu View Post

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.
rugal is offline  
post #195 of 220 Old 12-29-2006, 04:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kschmit2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 2,224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rugal View Post

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).
kschmit2 is offline  
post #196 of 220 Old 01-29-2007, 03:39 PM
Member
 
afyuen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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.
afyuen is offline  
post #197 of 220 Old 01-29-2007, 04:01 PM
Moderator
 
PooperScooper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Leominster MA
Posts: 19,803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:


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

Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. -- Thomas Alva Edison
PooperScooper is offline  
post #198 of 220 Old 01-29-2007, 04:28 PM
Member
 
afyuen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper View Post

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.
afyuen is offline  
post #199 of 220 Old 03-25-2007, 08:25 PM
Member
 
rpgonzalez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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
rpgonzalez is offline  
post #200 of 220 Old 03-25-2007, 10:02 PM
Newbie
 
agidman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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.
agidman is offline  
post #201 of 220 Old 03-25-2007, 10:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Stephen Tu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


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 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.
Stephen Tu is offline  
post #202 of 220 Old 03-25-2007, 10:44 PM
Member
 
rpgonzalez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Tu View Post

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 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? 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?
rpgonzalez is offline  
post #203 of 220 Old 03-25-2007, 11:24 PM
Advanced Member
 
Brian27's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 568
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by turbo3 View Post

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

Take care,
Brian
Brian27 is offline  
post #204 of 220 Old 03-25-2007, 11:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Stephen Tu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


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)
Stephen Tu is offline  
post #205 of 220 Old 03-26-2007, 08:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
oleus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 3,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 12
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
oleus is offline  
post #206 of 220 Old 03-26-2007, 09:28 AM
Member
 
rpgonzalez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Tu View Post

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.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Tu View Post

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)
rpgonzalez is offline  
post #207 of 220 Old 03-26-2007, 10:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
oleus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 3,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by rpgonzalez View Post

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?
oleus is offline  
post #208 of 220 Old 03-26-2007, 10:21 AM
Member
 
rpgonzalez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by oleus View Post

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
rpgonzalez is offline  
post #209 of 220 Old 08-29-2007, 07:21 AM
Advanced Member
 
disco904's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 595
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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)

Nathan::
disco904 is offline  
post #210 of 220 Old 08-29-2007, 08:39 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
JOHNnDENVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
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.
JOHNnDENVER is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Players

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off