Official "1080p Vs. 720p" Thread Discussion - Page 41

Originally Posted by markrubin

excellent

made sticky

please post all 1080p Vs 720p here

Originally Posted by mtbdudex

Just curious....when was this thread "de-sticky'd"?

Post #2 made it a sticky almost 4 years ago (12-13-06, 04:14 PM ), is it because 1080p is almost de-facto std for 37" and up so a non-issue?
Or simply too many stickies so some had to be let go?

Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor

I had a lot of input on this thread years back, and since then I bought a 1080 V Panasonic plasma. On blu ray 1080 all 3 hd formats are close, but on broadcast TV, 1080i looks a bit dull, less color, not as bright. 720p is a better broadcast signal even on a 1080p tv. The link in my profile was correct why 720p won.

Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor

I went back and forth with Directv hd dvr, for months, I wanted to give 1080p a chance because things have changed in the past few years when I was a 720p proponent. I found out a 1080p sets de interlace 1080i and makes it 1080p. So yea I kept the box in native so one day I started I went t HBO 1080i and converted it to 720p and 720p looked better. I know it doesn't make sense taking something out it's native format and having the TV scale it when it wasn't scaling in 1080i...and to say it looks better, I know doesn't make sense but it does. However this wasn't the case on my friends Cox cable box. But we later found out that cox only broadcasts in one HD format, and many cable companies do this. I then converted a lot of 1080i channels to 720 and snapped shots. Outcome

In outdoor scenes that were VERY sunny, 1080i seemed to have an edge. Watching Golf and football in sunny scenes, 1080i seemed to have an edge. But here is where it got tricky, in average lit scenes, like indoor scenes, inside of a house, a regular outdoor scene where there was not bright sunshine, dark scenes, night scenes, 720p won hands down, even if the signal was native 1080i. Watching shows like Reba (indoor scenes) looking at a fruit basket on the table, a chair, the wall, skin tone, 720p won. Now before you think this is an isolated opinion by a 720p proponent, I gave my wife and my friend blind tests of the same source material, and they picked 720p in the instances I described above. To add, this video I came confirms why I was seeing a better picture in 720p. The video from technology evangelist seemed to say that it is because of interlaced artifacting. Now I know people are going to say that 1080i is being de interlaced by the set anyway and it shouldn't matter, but it appears that cleaning it up to a 60 frame single painting is relieving the TV of something such as the artifacts. Reason why the video says stay with 720 if possible and to avoid interlaced signals on a progressive monitor. So I hated to revive an old thread but I feel like I should post my new research and tests an outlook on this with modern equipment.
I have deleted the 1080i option, put the box in native, and chose options 480p, 720p, 1080p. I do use 1080p for blu ray. Well here's the video confirming my results least with Directv's new HD DVR on the V series 1080p plasma. 720p is still the best option for fast moving scenes and broadcast TV.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-JXf...e_gdata_player

1080i HDTV continues the tradition of interlaced scanning, and brings with it the interlace quality penalties. In the DTV world, each scanning line is made up of samples, called pixels. In 1080i, each line is made up of 1,920 pixels, which is in some cases reduced to 1,440 pixels. There are 1,080 lines in each complete frame, and 540 lines in each field, a little more than double the number of lines in an NTSC frame and field respectively. 1080i is usually transmitted with a frame rate of about 30 frames per second, as is NTSC.

The other HDTV scanning format, 720P, is a progressively-scanned format. Each 720P line is made up of 1,280 pixels, and there are 720 lines in each frame. 720P is typically transmitted at about 60 full frames per second, as opposed to 1080i's 60 half-frames per second. This affords 720P some significant advantages in picture quality over 1080i, advantages such as improved motion rendition and freedom from interlace artifacts.

The advocates of 1080i HDTV support their cause with a flurry of numbers: 1080 lines, 1920 pixels per line, 2 million pixels per frame. The numbers, however, don't tell the whole story. If we multiply 1920 pixels per line times 1080 lines, we find that each 1080i frame is composed of about two million pixels. 1080i advocates are quick to point out that a 720P frame, at 1280 pixels by 720 lines, is composed of about one million pixels. They usually fail to mention that during the time that 1080i has constructed a single frame of two million pixels, about 1/30 second, 720P has constructed two complete frames, which is also about two million pixels. Thus, in a given one-second interval, both 1080i and 720P scan out about 60 million pixels. The truth is that, by design, the data rates of the two scanning formats are approximately equal, and 1080i has no genuine advantage in the pixel rate department. In fact, if the horizontal pixel count of 1080i is reduced to 1440, as is done in some encoders to reduce the volume of artifacts generated when compressing 1080i, the 1080i pixel count per second is less than that of 720P.

Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor

Try disabling the native option, pick only 720p and 1080i, then pick a 1080i channel and hit the format button toggling from 720p to 1080i in motion and in pause, then you'll see what I mean.
Thanks for hearing my side. Yea I'm getting 1080p anyway because the tv is scaling the 720p signal, but there seems to be a difference feeding it a full painted frame.
I'm not being bias as I said a few times 1080i had its moments, but too few times. On blu ray 720p against 1080p was hard too tell, confirming the distance and limitations of the human eye I spoke of years ago on this thread. But with broadcast tv the 1080i format lost luster, it wasn't glossy, lost of shine. It wasn't little picture elements I was looking at but rather the overall picture texture smoothness, shine luster. Progressive conversion works on progressive monitors as the video I provided stated. Avoid interlaced signals on your progressive monitor. I disagree with him when when he said 1080p is where you want to be at in a broad sense, maybe with blu ray, but do you want 24 frames per second when watching car racing? Although rumor mill has it ESPN is thinking of 1080p/60. I broke down and bought the 1080p set to find it really did me not much good other than plasma being a better system than LCD. I get the 1080p. /24 with blu ray but, I say to everyone if you can buy the 768 plasma, SAVE YOUR MONEY! Because the 720p format looks better than 1080i.
Unless you're going to watch a lot of blu ray 1080p, then save your money. Just put your direct tv box in in 720p and 480p and pick native.

Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor

I know about that, that is irrelevant because I'm using a 1080p set, I'm just saying to save money and get the 768 set.

Are you sure you're looking at the texture and not little detail like lint? Look at the overall texture of the picture and skin tones, the smoothness the glossiness of 720p and disregard detail.

After going through this with three directive boxes and hard for me to believe you're seeing a better picture with the box in 1080i.

Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor

Others noticed this....
See here
http://www.ask.com/answers/42682501/...ter-then-1080i

Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor

So you calibrated your tv to make 1080i look better. You brought tones up and down. Someday if you get a new set, try this test before you tamper with the factory settings of the set. I could make a square peg fit a round hole if I shave it and tweak it to.
All things natural 720p is better artifact free painting signal vs 1080i.

Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor

Let me know what you think of this article, look at the artifacts factor, which may explain if the box is cleaning them up before they hit they set. Are all these links wrong?

http://www.bonolabs.com/Two%20Million%20Pixels.pdf

If the source lets you choose among other resolutions, check off every one that the TV can support. If there's a "native" option available, we recommend most users check that one off as well. These steps allow the TV to perform the video processing, and usually TVs do a better job of it than cable or satellite boxes. If you have a Blu-ray player and a TV that can handle 1080p/24 sources, we also recommend engaging that option. Computers should be set to output the native resolution of the display, as long as the TV can accept it. Check your manual if you're not sure what source resolutions your TV can support.

Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor

Ok, like I understand the scailing thing, will leave it at this, this directv box is showing a better picture in 720p. If it was the TV scailer, why is it I don't see this shift in HD DVD or BD? You really don't see too much of a difference with hd disk from 1080i vs 720p, just broadcast signals, which tells me it has to do with something else like bitrates and compressing artifacts. The Cnet article is a common sense general rule of thumb, its not true for all cable/sat boxes.
As for directv 720 wins, but I would lie to get a terrestrial ota box and try the test with that, that's when I'll know if it's limited to Directv.

Hey thanks for time, you're seeing what your seeing and I'm seeing what I am, so there is no right or wrong. If there were techs here with other boxes and equipment they would be able to tell us why I'm seeing what I am. But still, I see those videos that say avoid interlaced signals on progressive monitors, I see they're right, but everywhere else everyone likes 1080i on forums.
Is it because the first number stands out and no pays attention to frame rate or the P over i ?
It seems like you calibrated the set for 1080i. I have 3 directv boxes and 3 hdtvs, can it be I see the same results on all of them?
Hey have a good night. I don't care if it's scaling whatever, if 720 conversion looks better it looks better. What, should keep my box in 1080i for the sole purpose of psychologically knowing the scaling factors? Maybe a weird combination of converting to a single 720/60 frame working with a TV scailer is great combination, I really don't know the answer why, just that is looks better.
I'll take Technology evangelist's advice and keep the interlaced garbage off my set.

Take care.

Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor

But 1080p may not nbethe best for watching a car race.
I presented enough links on this page that pointed the artifacts problems with 1080i signals, and I think that is what I was seeing. To deny all those links and tests is hard.
I understand the difference in de interlacing and scaling. Maybe cleaning up interlaced to a progressive image before it hits the set will make a set with a good scalier present a great picture rather than feed the set 2 broken interlaced fields and bypassing the scailer. Maybe these scailers on sets like the V series do better work than we give them credit for. Maybe all those artifacts those articles speak of regarding the 1080i signal are not being cleaned out solely by the sets de interlacer. Yea on paper you figure 1.1 1080i into 1080p, but there are are lot of factors people ignore. You're sending a signal designed for an interlaced system to a progressive monitor, also, it is not 1.1, 1080i when broadcasted is actually 2 fields of 517 most of the time which is probably a HUGE contributing factor to why I am seeing a better picture converting that image into one progressive image of 720x1280 and letting a sets progressive monitor with a good scalier scale that image after the box cleaned out some the artifacts. Like I said, we don't have all the answers. But most if not all of the time, 1080i broadcast tv is 2 artifact filled fields of 1035x 1440. Not a 1.1 mapping for a 1080p set.
This well researched article here presents that fact
http://www.bonolabs.com/Two%20Million%20Pixels.pdf
00
Or google " HDTV 1035 x 1440 as practiced"

Or why the link in my signature presented the fact that 720p beat 1080i in an official test.
I know people like that first vertical number because that's the one stated when a set is rated or advertised, but we shouldn't ignore the P over the i or the frame rate.

Reader Rob writes in and asks, "What's the deal with 1366x768? It seems like most of the HDTV's out there in the 32-37" range have those dimensions. How does that translate on a pixel to pixel basis, and why don't they do 1280x720?"

Rob that is a great question and one that has come up many times before. I even asked the Pioneer representative at CES this year the same question. His response was that it was a PC resolution that has been standardized. He was of course talking about XGA which is 1024x768 but it is the same premise. More pixels is better, there is no arguing that, but the question still remains where do the rest of those pixels come from and how can they make a 16x9 display from a 4x3 resolution? The answer is actually pretty simple; it is not a 1:1 pixel mapping and pixels don't have to be square. In fact the Pioneer Elite plasma (arguably the best plasma) has a 1024x768 resolution and rectangular pixels.
I know what you are thinking now; How can it look as good if they are scaling the 1280x720 or 1920x1080 video to a different resolution? (Well that is what you should be thinking.) The answer is surprising or it at least is surprised me. All TVs scale, yes all! The single biggest difference between a TV and a computer monitors is that TVs have overscan. The reason isn't a good one, but that is the way it has always been and that is the way it is now. That means that if you buy a TV with a native resolution of 1280x720 and the TV has ~3% overscan, the circuitry in the TV is throwing away 3% of your pixels and scaling the rest to fit into the 1280x720 pixels on the display. There are some TVs that have the ability to turn this off, they call it "computer" mode others call it a 1:1 pixel map. The problem with these modes is that TV production folks expect you to have overscan, so they use the outside pixels for things such as Closed Captions or Neilson ratings, it is refereed to in the industry as the vertical blanking interval. It also happens to be how those MovieBeam movies get beamed.

The bottom line is it really doesn't matter how many pixels your TV has as long as it looks good.

I see an endless masturbation on the web of discussions of 720 vs 1080. And that's what I see it as, endless masturbation. Both are simply two different ways of making a picture, with neither necessarily better than the other. There are in general advantages and disadvantages to both but that depends on the application. In projection 1080 offers slightly better resolution when discussing cameras costing $50k and above but that resolution might be lost depending on the equipment and the chain in which that signal is processed. For instance a 2/3" camera might show the slightly better resolution rendering of 1080 but that is completely lost to a sub $50k camera. In other words all this masturbation. about $9k cameras and their 'ability' shows me that those folks are neither professionals nor concentrating on the things that make one a professional. For television applications there is no real advantage or disadvantage in most cases between either 720 or 1080(i). It's simply personal choice. Anything else is nothing more than wannbes trying to use equipment to justify their lack of experience.

Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor

Well I tell you what, those articles could be based of looking at ABC or FOX 720p and 1080i CBS terrestrial with no box or hd DVD or Blu Ray formats. I'll bet anyone any amount of money show me any 1080i channel on directv in 1080i and switch it to 720 I'll tell the difference 10 times out of 10, 100 out of 100. I did this with 3 sets and 3 different boxes for months. I know what that 720p conversion looks like on Directv. I'm not looking too much into. I presented enough articles to point out 1080i's artifacts and a facts that 1080i is more like 1035 x 1440. As well as official tests by the EBU that gave the 720 signal a clear win over 1080i. The articles you presented just appear to be broad statements to say both will provide a HD format and to sweep this never ending debate under the rug saying they're both great. Those articles are superficially looking looking at the raw pixel count and overscan and ignore interlaced artifacting, frame rates, painting one fame vs 2 fields trying to be mended together, smoothness, motion and compression factors.

There is a reason why Sony asked the ATSC to change the 1080i x 1920 format to 1080i x 1440, this also ignores the HDTV as practiced of 2 broken fields of 517 are be transmitted by most, if not all all of 1080i broadcasters.
http://www.bonolabs.com/Two%20Million%20Pixels.pdf

1080i was great signal for interlaced sets, but they are dinosaurs now. The mind set of keeping 1080i because they figured 1080p sets would de interlace it correctly did not work out well with the artifacts factors as well as the facts that the signal is not really 1080 x 1920 mapping.
Interlace on interlace may have worked out well. It's a different ball game now.
" stay with 720p if at all possible especially if you have a progressive monitor "
Technology Evangelist

Originally Posted by mr. wally

if 720p provides the best resolution and handle motion better than 1080i,
then why do all the networks the broadcast sports in 720p have inferior pq to the 1080i networks. fox, abc and espn sports broadcasts are definitely inferior to those from cbs and nbc.

Originally Posted by mr. wally

if 720p provides the best resolution and handle motion better than 1080i,
then why do all the networks the broadcast sports in 720p have inferior pq to the 1080i networks. fox, abc and espn sports broadcasts are definitely inferior to those from cbs and nbc.