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

1080i vs 1080p - Page 3

post #61 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfhub View Post

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfhub View Post

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfhub View Post

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

Actually it's the same. Both broadcasts and bd needs a lot of compression and more blur picture gives better efficiency to compression.
post #62 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Dias View Post

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Dias View Post

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Dias View Post

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

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Dias View Post

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

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

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

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

Before somebody has real facts about these or somebody really makes these tests, there's no proof that 1080i quality equals with 1080p quality even with disc based source and that was AFAIK the whole point of this thread.
post #63 of 220
STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP

This has gone TOO FAR!!!!!

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

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

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

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

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

STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP
post #64 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterS View Post

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

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

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

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



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

Thanks much...

Steve Jaros
post #65 of 220
Sure,

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

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

As far as display devices:

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

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

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

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

Hope this helps.

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

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

Later
post #66 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephenj View Post

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

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

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



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

Thanks much...

Steve Jaros


Steve,

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

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

All of these technologies will take the 1080X1920 data and convert it for use at the native pixel and scan rate for the unit. Let your eyes decide for you, not the hype of having the latest and greatest device.........
post #67 of 220
PeterS and AV Doogie - thanks for your replies, much appreciated.

Steve

PS - AV, i'm *thrilled* with the way the HD-DVDs look on my Z3, so i'm just wondering if i'd be even more thrilled if i had a native 1080i display device !
post #68 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephenj View Post

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

Steve

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

Personally a bit more yes, but not a ton much smaller gap between 720 and 1080 as cmopared to SD to 720 much smaller difference in the prior. I'm excited because I use a HTPC and that will be nice setting the desktop rez to 1080.
post #69 of 220
So, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
post #70 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterS View Post

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

Ok, I'll stop after this post if there's no positive feedback.
Obviously you don't understand what I'm after and nobody else here in this thread has answers either.

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

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

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

PS. My real name is Toke, so you can leave the quotations away...
post #71 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by toke View Post

These are the facts:
1) if picture has 1080p vertical resolution and it is showed unfiltered in 1080i display, there will be flicker.
2) broadcaster of disc player do not know what kind of display it is feeding. So 1080i signal must be suitable (and same) for all kind of displays.

The above facts don't apply here. Unless you have a CRT display, you are not going to get flicker (please see more below). An LCD pixel for example, can hold its value forever and does not go dark like it does on a CRT. So it will not flicker even if you send it 1 frame a second. Or in this case, single pixel lines.

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

Quote:


Assumptions:
A) All 1080i displays have internal filter

Most definitely not. Digital displays have no filtering for 1080i.

Quote:


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

True for HD DVD.

Quote:


B) All 1080i does not have internal filter, because originally 1080i signal wasn't designed to be used for 1080p picture. Therefore 1080i signal either from broadcaster or from disc player has to be filtered, because otherwise all 1080i displays could not be used with 1080i signal. In this case 1080i signal cannot have same vertical resolution than 1080p.

Again, the case is different for HD DVD where no filtering is done.

Quote:


(Manufacturers can't just say to all of those who have bought 1080i display within last five years, that "we have now new 1080i, your old 1080i just isn't good anymore". 1080i signalling is supposed to be standard. When standards get changed they also change their name.)

1080i "standard" does not say anything about filtering. Filtering is optionally applied to reduce flicker on a CRT display. The content owner can choose to filter, and optimize for the CRT at the expense of everyone else. Or not filter which is the case for HD DVD.

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

Quote:


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

I don't know what proof you are looking for other that knowledge of people like us who work with HD DVD studios/post houses in a daily basis . The bottom line is that 1080i and 1080p pictures have identical resolution in HD DVD. I suspect the same is also true of BD but I don't want to speak for them.

Quote:


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

Nice to meet you Toke . My name is below...
post #72 of 220
Damn - Amir beat me to it.

Good answers.
post #73 of 220
Can't we all just get along? Group hug everyone.
post #74 of 220
Then I come in here for the conclusive layman part of all of this...

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

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

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

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

1080i content=1080p content when you use a 1080 fixed panel display
post #75 of 220
Toke,

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

This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no filter in the player. (actually players as I have done the same thing with the HD DVD player)
post #76 of 220
Ok,
thank you, all of you.
Amir, I know that progressive displays do not suffer from interlace flicker.
And because of your good answers I now know that both bd and hd-dvd players can deliver full 1080p vertical resolution. So it's up to author to decide whether or not the content can be watched with 1080i crt. And there are crt's that can resolve 1080 lines. Amir, you have to be familiar with very expensive broadcast quality crt's that we use in post production companies.
I have also been under impression that those big consumer hd crt's have been able to resolve full 1080 lines, but I may have been wrong.

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

Thank you again everybody for your information.
These things kind of crosses the consumer and professional equipment info usually available, so it's hard to get this info when you are in Europe and can't test everything on your own...
post #77 of 220
Here's more info about this Here
post #78 of 220
If 1080i = 1080p content when you use a 1080 fixed panel display

WOULD

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

IF THAT IS TRUE then why not broadcast

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

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

Tell everyone out there the flaw in these EQUIVALENCES oh 1080i worshipers!
post #79 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwolf2 View Post

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

2,073,600
post #80 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

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

WOULD

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

IF THAT IS TRUE then why not broadcast

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

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

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


One answer is that we would then be back to the old 4:3 television frame. We want to move forward and not backward.
post #81 of 220
So let me get this straight--it's impossible to still have rectangular TV at 960--who believes that?
post #82 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cain View Post

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

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

--- Cain

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

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

i'm a newbie to these forums, but that's just my theory.
post #83 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

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

WOULD

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

IF THAT IS TRUE then why not broadcast

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

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

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

I'm not worshiping 1080i, what I'm trying to get across is that 1080p data can be TRANSMITTED as 1080i to a 1080p display and still be 1080p data.
post #84 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dtec View Post

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

Plus you were using CRT TV's with 480i so there was a win when the player made it progressive because the CRT would not it would keep it interlaced. But with the new fixed panels it seems that is old school thinking. But then again I didn't get any reaction to my questions to see if I am comprehending right, I'll just go on my merry way assuming so.
post #85 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

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


If I understand your post correctly...All you are wanting to do is double the number of lines from 480 to 960. I understand you to mean that we would then keep the existing 4:3 aspect ratio and not move to the new 16:9 aspect ratio.
post #86 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSKTexas View Post

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

My understanding is that if you try to say this in public, you can be shot on site. If it happens in front of a Sony kiosk (or inside any Best Buy) you will be publically flogged and then shot on site (by a Geek Squad representative if transgression occurs within Best Buy). "1080p" is the new marketing buzzword that is going to sell a ton of new televisions and video components - don't you think they have plans for dealing with people who can get their heads around fairly basic processes and try to help others not be deluded by dumb marketing.
post #87 of 220
^ That's exactly why I want a definitive answer so I can go make those guys head explode!
post #88 of 220
New here, but it occurs to me that it is not ALL marketing hype that a TV supporting 1080p input is superior. You seem to assume that video is the only source material. There are many bold statements in this thread that seem narrow minded. For instance wouldn't this input allow for the acceptance of 1080p source material? Remember there are folks using HTPCs where frame rate does matter above 30 Hertz. Shouldn't these folks be looking for 1080p60 accross the board? Hopefully a video card that support more...
post #89 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by HorrorScope View Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have to disagree with Toke on his assertion that 1080p broadcast will be in Europe soon. Standards bodies have looked at it and done tests, but that doesn't mean it will happen anytime soon as the bandwidth doesn't yet exist and none of the HDTV infrastructure that the likes of BSybB in the UK are investing in could handle it, and they only started rolling out the service a few months ago...
post #90 of 220
Again -

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

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

Since the primary focus of this forum is next-generation optical disc formats which are primarily FILM and stored on disc as 24fps - then there is no difference between 1080i or 1080p as a TRANSMISSION format.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Players
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Players › 1080i vs 1080p