Originally Posted by primetimeguy
Really? You are the one that quoted information trying to say having larger pixels was an advantage for 720p because it was brighter.
I'm done trying to have a civil discussion with you to look at the pros and cons of both sides. Keep your 720p ESPN on your 720p plasma and I'll look for my 4k monitor at CES (which I guess will be dimmer since pixels are smaller).
Sir one statement presented with MANY other factors (like that was the only reason).
I read all those links about the pros and cons, and all you read is the same thing, 720p is better for fast action sports and 1080i is better for movies etc.
What do you think I haven't read that?
But I presented multiple facts why the higher pixel count is a non relevant factor with broadcast signals (today) read it. How compression artifacts are a factor with 1080i and not 720p. People don't look at the facts and the tangibles that effect broadcast signals...they just look at ...faster frames rate is better for sports, but it doesn't have as high of of a pixel count. The facts presented clearly displayed that was too simple to be true because of the tangibles that effect broadcast signals.
"Our work suggests that the 1080p/50 format is of high value for content capturing, whatever the emission format. The 720p/50 format derived from a 1080p/50 (or higher spatial source) format was of very high quality. Many professional HDTV cameras in use today have sensors that capture progressively in 1920 x 1080 pixels (or even higher spatial resolutions) but, for studio interface reasons 4, 5, provide only a down-sampled 720p/50 or 1080i/25 signal on their HD-SDI outputs.
We can clearly recommend the use of 720p/50 as a television production format today. The fact that the 1080p/50 format (or higher resolutions) is used inside many of today’s cameras raises the ques- tion of whether this would be a suitable HDTV production format in the future.
We believe that 1080p/50 in fact would be an ideal high-quality production format for the future – as soon as the following three fundamental issues are solved:
1080p/50 studio infrastructure;
highly-efficient studio compression systems become available that can handle 1080p/50 whilst maintaining high quality (i.e. 7th generation transparency criteria) and without overloading the network and storage systems;
availability at reasonable prices and with industry-wide support. For emission
The demonstration suggests that a progressive format for emission provides the best image quality / bitrate compromise with MPEG-4 AVC compression. EBU Members have already been advised in EBU Recommendation R-112 that the 720p/50 emission format is currently the best option. The demonstration has underlined this statement. Once interlacing is applied to an image format, vertical-temporal information is lost that can never be recreated. The interlaced “footprint” causes an unnecessary burden in the digital broadcast chain
, particularly since modern content-adaptive compression systems such as MPEG-4 AVC perform better with progressive signal sources than with interlaced signals. Furthermore, de-interlacing chips are not needed in flat-panel matrix displays 6 thus avoiding a further point of image-quality impairment and video-audio delay.
1080i/25 already suffers a first spatio-temporal “compression” in the baseband domain when inter- lacing is applied and this affects the whole digital chain (particular the encoders). Although different interlacing techniques are possible, roughly half the vertical-temporal information compared to 1080p/50 is removed. Consequently, an encoder has less information available to make intelligent decisions for compression and it is necessary to make more approximations which become visible as artefacts. "
"Despite all the facts with links, and tests results I presented in this thred, like a religion, people stuck up for 1080 interlaced. Here is a link (another one) that proves 720p is better. I claim victory not only with the official test by the EBU in my signature, but read this.
"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.
Another parameter 1080i advocates use to advance their cause is resolution. Resolution is the ability to preserve the separate components of fine detail in a picture, so that they may be discerned by the viewer. But picture quality is not dependent on resolution alone. Numerous studies of perceived picture quality reveal that it is dependent on brightness, color reproduction, contrast, and resolution. Color reproduction is identical in all HDTV scanning formats, and may thus be disregarded as a factor. A typical study assigns the following weights to brightness, contrast, and resolution:
"What this means to the HDTV viewer is that the vertical resolution of any HDTV pictures that have a vertical motion component is better in 720P than in 1080i. Based on the above findings, progressively-scanned images equivalent to the observed dynamic vertical resolution of 1080i may be achieved using only 648 lines. If we want to play a numbers game, 720P has better dynamic vertical resolution than 1080i by 72 lines."
"We have seen that interlaced scanning was born as a compromise to conserve analog bandwidth; a compromise that results in picture impairments and artifacts. A DTV broadcast is limited not by analog bandwidth but by digital bandwidth: the critical limitation is on the number of digital bits per second that may be transmitted. In order to broadcast DTV pictures, their bit rate must be aggressively reduced by digital compression to fit within the broadcast channel or pipeline that is available. The digital bits representing HDTV pictures must be compressed by a ratio that averages around 70 to 1 in order to fit into the 19 megabit-per-second DTV transmission channel. This creates a "funnel effect": for each 70 bits that enter the funnel's large end, only a single bit passes through the small end of the funnel into the transmission channel. Digital compression technology is improving rapidly, but it has been consistently observed that 720P HDTV pictures may be compressed much more aggressively than 1080i pictures before they become visually unacceptable. In fact, compression of 1080i pictures routinely generates visible artifacts, particularly when the pictures contain fast motion or fades to or from black. These artifacts cause the picture to degenerate into a blocky, fuzzy, mosaic, that may be observed frequently in 1080i broadcasts. The stress level to the HDTV broadcast system caused by bit rate reduction is much lower for 720P, and blockiness artifacts are seldom observed in 720P broadcast pictures. It may be expected that 720P will always lead 1080i in compressibility and freedom from compression artifacts, because progressive scanning is by its nature superior in the area of motion estimation. This gives it a "coding gain" relative to interlaced scanning, and the result will always be delivery of the same picture quality at a lower bit rate.
Finally, let's take a closer look at the display. The resolution of any type of display is dependent on its dot pitch, which effectively defines the physical size of the dots, or screen pixels: the higher the resolution, the smaller each dot must be. We see this when considering computer monitors or printers: a 600 dot-per-inch printer makes a sharper image than a 300 dot-per-inch printer, and a 0.28 dot-pitch monitor makes a higher resolution image than a 0.50 dot-pitch monitor, and of course the higher resolution printer and monitor cost more than their lower-resolution counterparts.
In order to fully resolve a 1080i picture, a display screen must have about 6 million dots, and for 720P, the figure is about 2.75 million dots. The larger the number of dots required, the smaller each dot must be, and the smaller the dot, the less light it generates. The full resolution of 720P may be displayed using dots three times larger than 1080i for a given screen size, and this gives the HDTV viewer a brighter picture with a higher contrast ratio. As an added bonus, the lower resolution display is less expensive to make."
"720P, when compared with 1080i, provides better dynamic resolution, better motion rendition, the absence of interlace artifacts, and the absence of compression artifacts. It makes brighter pictures with a higher contrast ratio than 1080i".http://www.bluesky-web.com/numbers-mean-little.htm
Those are the facts. I have seen nothing other than some misguided flawed information by forum posters to dispute this evidence.
Stay with 720p over 1080i if at all possible especially if you have a progressive monitor.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-JXf...e_gdata_player
FORGET ABOUT IT!