or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Technical › Should DVD or BD play in 1080p or 720p?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Should DVD or BD play in 1080p or 720p?

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
I have the Samsung UN55D7000 tv and Samsung BD-D5500 blue ray player. When I play a DVD or bd and click the info button on the tv remote, it says 1920 x 1080/60p. I hooked the bd player through my receiver and directly to the tv via hdmi and it shows the same 60p. Is this normal? Regular tv shows are 1080i, 480i, 720p etc.
post #2 of 27
Yes...do you want it otherwise? (to the normal question, but the title question is a bluray is 1080p, the dvd is being upscaled from 480i/p (in the US))
Edited by lovinthehd - 12/8/12 at 4:35pm
post #3 of 27
Yes the player is upscaling the DVD from 480i to 1080p60 (see HDMI output settings on the player). You could change the settings in the player so it output it at something else eg. 480i (in HDMI settings), though I don't think the Samsungs have a way to just pass the signal through whatever it is (which I think they should have).
post #4 of 27
Thread Starter 
Sounds like my equipment is working properly then. I was confused and thought it was displaying 60p and not 1080p.
post #5 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewram1 View Post

Sounds like my equipment is working properly then. I was confused and thought it was displaying 60p and not 1080p.

1920 x 1080 is the resolution (number of pixel rows in each direction), 60p refers to 60 frames per second

p or i refers to progressive or interlaced...
post #6 of 27
Thread Starter 
So is a dvd and blu-ray supposed to be 60 frames a second?
post #7 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewram1 View Post

So is a dvd and blu-ray supposed to be 60 frames a second?

Try this article http://www.filmmaking-careers.com/hdtv.html
post #8 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewram1 View Post

So is a dvd and blu-ray supposed to be 60 frames a second?
An "NTSC" DVD has 60 fields per second, but it's de-interlacing it to 60 frames per second. But the motion, if it's a film shot at 24 fps will still be only as good as 24 fps (ie won't be like the high frame rate Hobbit),. though it will be slightly different to a Blu-ray outputting at 24 fps because of 2:3 pull-down judder (unless your TV is capable of detecting and removing it).

Most Blu-rays will be encoded at 24 fps (UK TV Blu-rays are often at 50i and there's a 3D football Blu-ray in the US that's 60 frames per sec at 720p resolution, and concerts could be 60i/50i). Ideally (in theory, though one site thinks differently) if you are watching a 24 fps Blu-ray, if your Blu-ray player has an "enable 24p" option in the output settings (eg. HDMI output) and your TV is capable of receiving a 24 fps input (eg. like 100/120 Hz TVs often can), it's best to enable that option so that when it plays 24 fps content, it will output it like that, this will output it without 2:3 pull-down (no added pull-down judder).

There's a BDA task force currently looking at whether to add high frame rates on Blu-ray (eg. so we could have the Hobbit films (Hobbit=48 fps 3D for the HFR version) and Avatar sequels at the right frame rate and high resolution - for 60 frames per sec on Blu-ray currently, under the normal Blu-ray specs (for the encoding, I don't mean the output) it would only be 720p resolution), as well as looking at adding 4K and higher colour resolution.
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 12/9/12 at 8:13am
post #9 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

There's a BDA task force currently looking at whether to add high frame rates on Blu-ray (eg. so we could have the Hobbit films (Hobbit=48 fps 3D for the HFR version) and Avatar sequels at the right frame rate and high resolution - for 60 frames per sec on Blu-ray currently, under the normal Blu-ray specs (for the encoding, I don't mean the output) it would only be 720p resolution), as well as looking at adding 4K and higher colour resolution.

Another update to the BD spec would be to add full resolution support for 3D 1080/60i and 1080/50i content.

At the moment 3D Blu-rays only allow for 1080 line content at 24p. If you want to master 1080 line content with full 50/60Hz motion you need to use side-by-side encoding to squeeze two eye feeds into a single 1920x1080/50i or 60i stream which isn't compatible with 2D displays, and reduces each eye to 960x1080 resolution. (AIUI this is also not really a standard encoding format - so things like menus don't work correctly)
post #10 of 27
Quote:
An "NTSC" DVD has 60 fields per second, but it's de-interlacing it to 60 frames per second.

2 fields = 1 frame, so, it's 30 frames per second, not 60.
post #11 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs 
An "NTSC" DVD has 60 fields per second, but it's de-interlacing it to 60 frames per second.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAM64 View Post

2 fields = 1 frame, so, it's 30 frames per second, not 60.
You play an "NTSC" DVD (480i) which is 60 fields per second, in a Blu-ray player . You press Info on your TV. It says something like "1080/60p" (if you are outputting from the Blu-ray player in a progressive format. If you told it to output interlaced it would say differently). That shows you that the signal the TV is receiving from the player in this example is 60 full frames per second. You could also check the Display option if your Blu-ray player has one and that can show what format it is outputting it as eg. "1080/60p".

I was talking about what the player was de-interlacing to (and outputting as), not how many full frames per second the NTSC format is capable of recording.
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 12/11/12 at 1:39pm
post #12 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneals2000 View Post

Another update to the BD spec would be to add full resolution support for 3D 1080/60i and 1080/50i content.
At the moment 3D Blu-rays only allow for 1080 line content at 24p. If you want to master 1080 line content with full 50/60Hz motion you need to use side-by-side encoding to squeeze two eye feeds into a single 1920x1080/50i or 60i stream which isn't compatible with 2D displays, and reduces each eye to 960x1080 resolution. (AIUI this is also not really a standard encoding format - so things like menus don't work correctly)
I agree. Though if they add high frame rate 3D at at least 1080p, they might add 1080/50p and 1080/60p including with 3D, which could also be used for storing de-interlaced 1080i content.
post #13 of 27
Quote:
That shows you that the signal the TV is receiving from the player in this example is 60 full frames per second.

You're only getting 60 interpolated frames, the data is not there to begin with, it's 'made up'.
post #14 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAM64 View Post

You're only getting 60 interpolated frames, the data is not there to begin with, it's 'made up'.
It really depends on the content that is encoded and the de-interlacing//processing chips in the players. Obviously 24 fps stored in 480/60i will be 'de-interlaced' differently to 30p and 60i content stored in 480/60i. Different players will use different methods. But yes, with interlaced recording (60i, but not 24p/30p stored in it), there will be gaps in the recorded information (either the odd or even lines every 1/60th of a second), which is why true 60p is better. But with the majority of "NTSC" DVDs, which are 24 fps stored in 60i with 2:3 pull-down, they have all the information there.
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 12/12/12 at 10:30am
post #15 of 27
Quote:
It really depends on the content that is encoded and the de-interlacing//processing chips in the players.

But this is about NTSC, which is encoded in only one way. It only has 30frames per second, there is no information available to make 60 frames per second.
Quote:
But with the majority of "NTSC" DVDs, which are 24 fps stored in 60i with 2:3 pull-down, they have all the information there.

60i is 30p, 60p has half the information duplicated or interpolated, it doesn't exist to begin with.
post #16 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAM64 View Post

But this is about NTSC, which is encoded in only one way.
Look at he original question. It is about playing NTSC DVDs (as well as Blu-rays) in a Blu-ray player and the TV saying it is receiving 1080/60p. Over 95% of "NTSC" DVDs will contain 24 fps content encoded in 60i with 2:3 pull-down, where there are no gaps in the content.
Quote:
60i is 30p
No it isn't. 30p is 30 temporal samples per second, each frame is 1/30th of a second apart. 60i can contain that information, or it can contain interlaced footage containing 60 temporal samples per second, with each field taken 1/60th of a second apart.

Again, like I said, yes there are gaps (either the odd or even fields missing in each 1/60th of a second, ie. odd then even missing) in the latter, how they deal with that is down to the de-interlacer. See wikipedia for some of the methods they could use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinterlacing

Like I said, I agree that 60i isn't as good as a true 60p encoding, but it can contain twice the temporal information as 30p.
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 12/12/12 at 11:55am
post #17 of 27
Quote:
It is about playing NTSC DVDs (as well as Blu-rays) in a Blu-ray player and the TV saying it is receiving 1080/60p.

That's because they're being upscaled, the extra information is being made up from nothing.
Quote:
Like I said, I agree that 60i isn't as good as a true 60p encoding, but it can contain twice the temporal information as 30p.

...at half the resolution.
post #18 of 27
Thread Starter 
I guess my equipment is working properly based on all your input. It's just weird how the stores are pushing 1080p, etc, etc, when dvds and blue rays are still only 60p. Seems kind of deceptive.
post #19 of 27
Thread Starter 
I meant useless instead of deceptive...kind of like the 3d feature
post #20 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewram1 View Post

I guess my equipment is working properly based on all your input. It's just weird how the stores are pushing 1080p, etc, etc, when dvds and blue rays are still only 60p. Seems kind of deceptive.
60p is a frame rate, ie. 60i = 60 fields per second (i=interlaced), 60p = 60 frames per second (p=progressive scan).

1080p is a (spatial) resolution. ie. 1080p usually means 1920x1080 resolution, progressive scan. 1080i usually means 1920x1080 resolution, interlaced.

1920x1080/60p means 1920x1080 pixels in each frame, 60 frames per second.
1920x1080/24p or 1920x1080p24 is the same resolution at 24 frames per second. This is the format of most Blu-ray films.

60 fps is higher than 24 fps. Higher captured frame rates give more accurate motion (that's why they've used higher fps for the Hobbit and James Cameron will for Avatar 2). Though if you are watching a 24 fps Blu-ray film, but your TV is saying it's receiving 1920x1080/60p, it means the player is just repeating frames, in an uneven way (some frames will be output 3 times, others 2 times) to convert 1920x1080p24 into 1920x1080p60.

DVDs
"NTSC" format 720x480 at 60i. Most will contain 24 fps content stored in 60i.
"PAL" format 720x576 at 50i.

Blu-ray
Most are 1920x1080p24 (23.976). ie. 24 fps. If you set your player to enable 24 fps output (assuming your TV can accept it - if it's a 120Hz or 240Hz TV it probably can), you'll get 24 fps straight from your player to the TV when playing 24 fps Blu-ray titles (it won't say it's receiving 1920x1080/60p when playing 24 fps Blu-ray films), so you won't get added 2:3 pull-down judder with Blu-rays. (though extra features on 24 fps Blu-ray titles are sometimes in 60i format, eg. 480/60i.).
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 12/13/12 at 4:51pm
post #21 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAM64 View Post

That's because they're being upscaled, the extra information is being made up from nothing.
...at half the resolution.

Though there is a trade-off between temporal and vertical resolution inherent in interlaced systems - that's the purpose of them. They deliver higher vertical resolution on static and slow moving content than on fast moving content (where there may be more motion blur and where the eye perceives less detail)

Obviously we'd prefer 60p over 60i, but 60i has significant benefits over 30p in temporal resolution terms, as well as some losses.

Bottom line is that 24p content carried in 60i using 3:2 pulldown can be reconstructed fully. So 480/24p film-sourced content carried in a 480/60i signal can be reconstructed cleanly (and losslessly) back to 480/24p (assuming no vertical pre-filtering has been employed) using 3:2 pulldown detection and removal. The same is true of 1080/24p content carried in a 1080/60i stream.

(In Europe, where 1080/50i and 1080/25p are the two dominant TV production formats, material shot 1080/25p is often carried within a 1080/50i stream as 1080/25psf)
post #22 of 27
Quote:
Bottom line is that 24p content carried in 60i using 3:2 pulldown can be reconstructed fully. So 480/24p film-sourced content carried in a 480/60i signal can be reconstructed cleanly (and losslessly) back to 480/24p (assuming no vertical pre-filtering has been employed) using 3:2 pulldown detection and removal. The same is true of 1080/24p content carried in a 1080/60i stream

No arguement there, but I still maintain that 60 NTSC fields cannot become 60 NTSC frames.
post #23 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAM64 View Post

No arguement there, but I still maintain that 60 NTSC fields cannot become 60 NTSC frames.
What format is the Blu-ray player outputting in the original post, when a 60i "NTSC" DVD is played? What format has the player converted the 60 interlaced fields per second to?
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 12/14/12 at 10:45am
post #24 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAM64 View Post

No arguement there, but I still maintain that 60 NTSC fields cannot become 60 NTSC frames.

Not sure what you are trying to say? Modern cameras capture 1080/60p internally, and then line-offset/line-pair generate 1080/60i fields, and then de-interlacers will re-create a 1080/60p frame sequence. The de-interlacing can vary hugely in quality - from very basic permanent bob, motion adaptive bob/weave, vector adaptive through to phase correlated vector-adaptive. The latter does a pretty amazing job.
post #25 of 27
Quote:
Not sure what you are trying to say?

I'm saying that 60 NTSC fields cannot become 60 full frames.
Someone posted this above, I corrected them, the argument ensues....why you're bringing up HD is beyond me.
post #26 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAM64 View Post

I'm saying that 60 NTSC fields cannot become 60 full frames.
Yet the original post shows that 60 interlaced fields are being converted into 60 frames per second. Whichever de-interlacing method (see above posts for the methods) is being used, 60 frames per second are being output (as stated by the OP).
Quote:
why you're bringing up HD is beyond me.
Because interlacing and de-interlacing is done in HD as well as SD. The original poster is talking about both SD and HD.
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 12/15/12 at 8:08am
post #27 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAM64 View Post

I'm saying that 60 NTSC fields cannot become 60 full frames.

I'm still not sure what you are trying to say.

Whether we're talking 480i or 1080i - both SD and HD native interlaced capture is based around 60 interlaced fields with frame-line offset scanning for alternate fields in each line-pair. (Modern cameras use frame resolution - or higher - sensors and pair frame-lines to create a field line, changing the line-pair relationship for odd and even fields)

So 60 fields are captured at 60 different points in time with native interlaced production (with the slight complication that some scanning systems aren't based on sampling at a single fixed point in time for the whole field/frame). To recreate the full motion of the interlaced signal on a frame based display you have to de-interlace to 60 frames per second, not 30.

How you de-interlace is the question. For static content, you can effectively merge the two field-pairs to create a frame. For fast moving content you have a number of options - from just repeating the lines in a single field to create a lower resolution frame (effectively at field resolution) or you can employ phase correlation and/or block matching or similar motion vector tracking algorithms to try and track picture content and motion across multiple fields and create higher resolution than field-res frames. The best de-interlacers will decide how to de-interlace content on a block-by-block or sample-by-sample basis.

Yes - there is some interpolation involved - but the results are a lot better than running at a 240/60p or 540/60p or 480/30p or 1080/30p as a compromise between vertical and temporal resolution.

(I brought up HD because the OP asked about both BDs and DVDs - and there's so little origination in SD these days it seemed sensible to discuss HD)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Technical
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Technical › Should DVD or BD play in 1080p or 720p?