AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Players › 1080i vs 1080p
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

1080i vs 1080p - Page 5

post #121 of 220
7/19/06 at 1:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by toke View Post

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.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #122 of 220
7/19/06 at 6:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcMame View Post

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"?
Reply
Reply
post #123 of 220
7/19/06 at 6:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by toke View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #124 of 220
7/19/06 at 7:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by toke View Post

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.

Quote:


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.
Reply
Reply
post #125 of 220
7/19/06 at 11:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcMame View Post

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).
Reply
Reply
post #126 of 220
7/19/06 at 12:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by toke View Post

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 !
Reply
Reply
post #127 of 220
7/19/06 at 12:48pm
Quote:


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
Reply
Reply
post #128 of 220
7/19/06 at 4:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSKTexas View Post

Here is a link 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.
Reply
Reply
post #129 of 220
7/20/06 at 8:40am
All 1080i worshipers: Name the displays that properly with no error whatsoever perfectly perform inverse telecine properly on 1080i.
Reply
Reply
post #130 of 220
7/20/06 at 9:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

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?
Reply
Reply
post #131 of 220
7/20/06 at 1:36pm
I don't believe it PERFECTLY does it--do you?
Reply
Reply
post #132 of 220
8/24/06 at 1:18pm
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.
Reply
Reply
post #133 of 220
8/24/06 at 2:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by affeking View Post

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.

Quote:


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.
Reply
Reply
post #134 of 220
8/24/06 at 2:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by affeking View Post

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
Reply
Reply
post #135 of 220
8/24/06 at 2:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by affeking View Post

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
Reply
Reply
post #136 of 220
8/24/06 at 2:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

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?
Reply
Reply
post #137 of 220
8/24/06 at 2:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gosawx View Post

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
Reply
Reply
post #138 of 220
8/24/06 at 3:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

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
Reply
Reply
post #139 of 220
8/24/06 at 6:52pm
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."

Quote:
Originally Posted by HorrorScope View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #140 of 220
8/24/06 at 8:23pm
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.
Reply
Reply
post #141 of 220
8/24/06 at 11:59pm
why do many want to have 1080p broadcasts over 1080i ?? i'm too lazy to read through the posts :P
Reply
Reply
post #142 of 220
8/25/06 at 8:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTV Freak View Post

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**.
Reply
Reply
post #143 of 220
8/25/06 at 8:31pm
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.
Reply
Reply
post #144 of 220
8/26/06 at 4:55am
Quote:


It should be is 1080p/60

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
Reply
Reply
post #145 of 220
8/26/06 at 10:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Dias View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #146 of 220
8/26/06 at 10:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmpage2 View Post

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
Reply
Reply
post #147 of 220
8/26/06 at 6:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAKKL View Post

... 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.
Reply
Reply
post #148 of 220
8/26/06 at 6:34pm
1080p/120 is the answer to all problems.
Reply
Reply
post #149 of 220
8/26/06 at 6:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregr View Post

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
Reply
Reply
post #150 of 220
8/26/06 at 7:34pm
Quote:


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.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Players

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Players › 1080i vs 1080p