AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 282 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I really don't understand the fuss about 1080p inputs. Would I like it? Yes, if other comparably-priced tv's had it AND there was a source that would use it. Saying that, at this point I am not convinced 1080p will become a reality, as I believe HDDVD (i believe it was them, not BluRay) said they will support 1080i and I am not convinced Sony's will support 1080p HDMI by the time it hits the street. On top of all this, I can not tell if a HD channel is 720p or 1080i unless somebody tells me what station I am watching on my CRT. Maybe you guys can, but I consider myself to have very good vision (20x20 at last check).


In my mind PQ, contrast, and acceptable BLs is what will make or break a TV for me, not an input that might not be used and/or has very little/no gain in PQ when compared to the 'guts' of the HDTV...


What am I missing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Well, one obvious reason is future compatibility. Both HD-DVD formats, as well as broadcasters will eventually move to full HD (1080p) in the not too distant future. The overwhelming majority of display devices available today, even ones with 1920X1080 native res max out at 1080i via their digital inputs.


Another reason is native rate addressing. The new 1080p displays, as do all fixed-pixel digital displays, will look their best when fed their native rate. If their inputs cannot accept 1080p, it will not be possible to achieve 1:1 pixel mapping, thus the internal scaler will always be engaged, which is less than ideal (at least for the purist).


Since both DVI and HDMI are capable of passing 1080p with ease, it seems very short-sighted not to enable these ports to accept that resolution on new displays (especially full HD ones).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,498 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by YellowCows
Well, one obvious reason is future compatibility. Both HD-DVD formats, as well as broadcasters will eventually move to full HD (1080p) in the not too distant future.
Broadcasters have no intention of moving to 1080p60. They are already trying to change the HDTV requirements to DTV so they can do 480i in digital and have the bandwidth available to support more channels. Same with cable and DBS.


Both HD DVD formats are 1080i. You may see them support 1080p24 or 1080p24sf which is better for movies anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by YellowCows
Well, one obvious reason is future compatibility. Both HD-DVD formats, as well as broadcasters will eventually move to full HD (1080p) in the not too distant future. The overwhelming majority of display devices available today, even ones with 1920X1080 native res max out at 1080i via their digital inputs.


Another reason is native rate addressing. The new 1080p displays, as do all fixed-pixel digital displays, will look their best when fed their native rate. If their inputs cannot accept 1080p, it will not be possible to achieve 1:1 pixel mapping, thus the internal scaler will always be engaged, which is less than ideal (at least for the purist).


Since both DVI and HDMI are capable of passing 1080p with ease, it seems very short-sighted not to enable these ports to accept that resolution on new displays (especially full HD ones).


1) Future compatibility: I have yet to see one major broadcaster announce 1080p in the foreseeable future. Heck, I live in a city with 270k folks and our ABC isn't even broadcasting 720p yet. On top of the HW change to 1080p for local stations just now coming online in HD, you have BW issues...if folks think some of the signals are compressed now....you know where I'm going..


2) Internal Scaling: I agree if 1080p was available, 1080p inputs would be desireable. In reality, it appears very little/any? source input will contain 1080p therefore a scalar will always be engage, be it in your TV, DVD, cablebox, etc. Pick your poison...


3) HDMI 1080p 'Ease': Has anyone seen HDMI actually pass 1080p? I know the specs say it can do it, but the HDMI specs also state it supports DD5.1 but I know of no RPTV that will use the data to pass along to its optical output. My point being, HDMI might support it but who knows how the TVs will implement it (MPAA concerns?, etc.)


Bottomline: we talk about "short-sightedness", etc., but can anybody really tell a difference in 1080p vs 1080i? I have yet to see that answer...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AUPigskin--
1) Future compatibility: I have yet to see one major broadcaster announce 1080p in the foreseeable future. Heck, I live in a city with 270k folks and our ABC isn't even broadcasting 720p yet. On top of the HW change to 1080p for local stations just now coming online in HD, you have BW issues...if folks think some of the signals are compressed now....you know where I'm going..


2) Internal Scaling: I agree if 1080p was available, 1080p inputs would be desireable. In reality, it appears very little/any? source input will contain 1080p therefore a scalar will always be engage, be it in your TV, DVD, cablebox, etc. Pick your poison...


3) HDMI 1080p 'Ease': Has anyone seen HDMI actually pass 1080p? I know the specs say it can do it, but the HDMI specs also state it supports DD5.1 but I know of no RPTV that will use the data to pass along to its optical output. My point being, HDMI might support it but who knows how the TVs will implement it (MPAA concerns?, etc.)


Bottomline: we talk about "short-sightedness", etc., but can anybody really tell a difference in 1080p vs 1080i? I have yet to see that answer...
1) I read an article in an AV journal last month (my friend works at a post-production company that sub-contracts for the major studios and networks) regarding the 'HDTV Roadmap', as they called it, which specifically mentions that full HD is 'the next step', and that there are some plans to start 1080p transmissions (at least in some test markets) as early as 2010. This is also on the cards in other HD markets like Japan & Korea (who are competing on full HD transmission start dates) as well as European TV markets (which are only just starting to roll out HD broadcasts). Apparently, while there are moves to agree on a broadcasting platform in time for the Beijing Olympics in 2008. The London Olympics in 2012 is, supposedly, 'certain' to be broadcast in full HD.


2) Both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD specs specify 1080p/24fps video. Initial player models will output HD in either 720p or 1080i, but later models will undoubtedly output the full resolution. This is stipulated from the outset.


3) Yes, I have. I am looking at an even higher resolution right now. My PC graphics card is outputting 1920X1200 @ 60Hz via DVI to my Samsung LCD monitor as we speak. As I said, both HDMI and DVI can handle 1920X1080 with ease.


As for telling the difference, yes I should think so. Can you tell the difference between an upscaled DVD image and true HD? Absolutely. But this is besides the point, the point is that 1080p displays ought to be provided with 1080p-capable inputs. Present technology can handle this, so why not provide it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
503 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by YellowCows
Since both DVI and HDMI are capable of passing 1080p with ease, it seems very short-sighted not to enable these ports to accept that resolution on new displays (especially full HD ones).
I agree with the rest however neither hdmi and dvi will carry 1080p anytime soon because of copyright and some other issues. Many companies are working on a new standard called "DisplayPort" that will have copyright protection and superior bandwidth to handle full hd.See more here www.vesa.org
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by erdega79
I agree with the rest however neither hdmi and dvi will carry 1080p anytime soon because of copyright and some other issues. Many companies are working on a new standard called "DisplayPort" that will have copyright protection and superior bandwidth to handle full hd.See more here www.vesa.org
The new Pioneer plasma panel specs for teh upcoming 6th Generation plasmas state 1080p compatibility via HDMI. This means the panels will accept a 1080p input, and scale it down to the panel's native rate.


Furthermore, scalers from DVDO, Crystalio and Lumagen to mention 3 can output 1080p via DVI/HDMI now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
I have a question about this though...


I mean How huge of a difference will it be viewing 1080p content compared to 1080i content being displayed on a native 1080p set?


I mean if you are just a regular user most people cant even tell if they are being feed 720p to 1080i on a 1080p set...heck most people cant even tell the difference between DVD's played 480p and 480i on their HD sets right now...


1080p will be a good feature to have Im sure...But Im not realy sure if its realy that much of improvement...But Ill still end up buying a SXRD set in the near future though...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by YellowCows
3) Yes, I have. I am looking at an even higher resolution right now. My PC graphics card is outputting 1920X1200 @ 60Hz via DVI to my Samsung LCD monitor as we speak. As I said, both HDMI and DVI can handle 1920X1080 with ease.


As for telling the difference, yes I should think so. Can you tell the difference between an upscaled DVD image and true HD? Absolutely. But this is besides the point, the point is that 1080p displays ought to be provided with 1080p-capable inputs. Present technology can handle this, so why not provide it?
3) So you are saying the DVI 1080p implementation is the same as HDMI (does LCD have HDMI or DVI input)? I had thought there were other "control" lines, (security?) etc. that are implemented in HDMI but not DVI (noob here)...If so, my question again is has anybody seen HDMI input @ 1080p?


Not sure how "upscaled dvd" compared to "true HD" enters the equation... not apples to apples...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by mokojojo
I have a question about this though...I mean How huge of a difference will it be viewing 1080p content compared to 1080i content being displayed on a native 1080p set? I mean if you are just a regular user most people cant even tell if they are being feed 720p to 1080i on a 1080p set...


Ding...Ding...Ding......We have a winner... :D


Can also include 720p to 1080i on a CRT set...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,172 Posts
If the 1080p set has a decent deinterlacer that'll do 3:2 pulldown, then the need for 1080p input to "get the most out of BluRay or HD-DVD" is trivial at best. Nearly all movies are in 24-frame film. Even films shot on digital will be transferred to film at 24 frames for years to come (note:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
503 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AUPigskin--
1) Future compatibility: I have yet to see one major broadcaster announce 1080p in the foreseeable future. Heck, I live in a city with 270k folks and our ABC isn't even broadcasting 720p yet. On top of the HW change to 1080p for local stations just now coming online in HD, you have BW issues...if folks think some of the signals are compressed now....you know where I'm going..
1080p will be a standard soon, my guesstimate is 3 years . More and more displays are coming at 1080p. soon the blu ray disc and playstation is coming to play that content. Panasonic will soon come out with a 1080p video camera for under 10k and other manufacturers are bound to follow it up. So by next year already there will be an affordable way to shoot , record and display 1080p video. The only problem is the bandwidth used by cable/sattelite companies which can't handle such a bitrate right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AUPigskin--
Bottomline: we talk about "short-sightedness", etc., but can anybody really tell a difference in 1080p vs 1080i? I have yet to see that answer...
Yes, I suppose I can . I can only assume the difference is the same as dvd content vs broadcast tv which is 480p vs 480i respectivelly. The difference is noticeable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
503 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by YellowCows
The new Pioneer plasma panel specs for teh upcoming 6th Generation plasmas state 1080p compatibility via HDMI. This means the panels will accept a 1080p input, and scale it down to the panel's native rate.


Furthermore, scalers from DVDO, Crystalio and Lumagen to mention 3 can output 1080p via DVI/HDMI now.
Sorry but I've seen too many of these claims lately and none of them are true. Maybe you can provide us with the official specs?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AUPigskin--
3) So you are saying the DVI 1080p implementation is the same as HDMI (does LCD have HDMI or DVI input)? I had thought there were other "control" lines, (security?) etc. that are implemented in HDMI but not DVI (noob here)...If so, my question again is has anybody seen HDMI input @ 1080p?


Not sure how "upscaled dvd" compared to "true HD" enters the equation... not apples to apples...
Put plainly, HDMI can do everything DVI-D can do, and then some. The 1080p implementation is exactly the same, as you put it. Basically, I can use an HDMI cable with a DVI adaptor to send the signal to the monitor exactly the same way as I use a DVI cable. I'm not sure what you are referring to with 'control lines' - I presume you mean HDCP. Yes, the protocol is the same for both.


What I meant by the upscaled DVD example is this: the DVD movie information contains 480 actual picture lines. When this is output as 720p, say, by any upscaling DVD player, your display will be receiving a 720p signal. However, this signal will be an interpolation (a magnification) of what is essentially, still only 480 lines of real information. Feeding a true 720p HD signal, from an HD broadcast or D-Theater movie, made up of 720 lines of information, any pair of eyes can easily see the difference. Why should this be, when essentially, your display is receiving 720 lines either way? because the extra picture resolution (or information) on true HD content makes for a sharper, clearer, better defined picture, easily distinguishable from an upscaled SD image.


The same goes for 1080p vs 1080i. As you may know, an inetrlaced picture contains two alternating 'fields' of information. On an interlaced display, such as CRT, it takes two passes to 'draw' the picture on your screen - once for the even lines, then again for the odd, and this happens 60 times a second (for 60HZ material - 30 times for the odd, 30 for the even). On the other hand, progressive displays take only one pass to display an image in one whole frame. Film is a progressive format, for instance - each individual picture constitutes a full frame. In effect, with a 1080i picture, you are getting 2 alternating fields of 540 lines each. A 1080p picture gives you the full 1080 lines - virtually doubling the number of perceived lines onscreen at any given time.


One contributing factor why many ppl say they cannot distinguish between 720p (actually 1280X720) and 1080i is that they are viewing both through a fixed-pixel display - the actual difference in resolution between these two formats is not as great as the numbers suggest - due to the fact that one is progressive and the other interlaced. In number of pixels onscreen, this equates to:


- [720p] 1280X720= 921,600 pixels

- [1080i] 1920X540= 1,036,800 pixels - only 11% difference in perceived resolution


The difference in resolution between 720p and 1080p (1920X1080) is, however, exactly as great as the numbers suggest...


- [720p] 1280X720= 921,600 pixels

- [1080p] 1920X1080= 2,073,600 pixels


That is, more than double the actual resolution. I don't know about the rest of you, but I think I'd notice that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,993 Posts
 $6k buys a Panny HD camcorder that records 1080p



Sure 1080p doesn't mean anything if you simply use your set to playback prerecorded media. However we're rapidly moving to the ability to record 1080p in consumer HD Cams. I'd be a little miffed to shell out 5G's assuming that my only avenue for 1080p was broadcast/HD media only to find that in 5 yrs I have 1080p cams available for $2k.


Actually I won't be miffed because I'm like a lot of people on here. If I'm spending my hard earned ducats I'm not paying for artificial limitations created by Sony's paranoia. There's a truckload of DRM in Blu-Ray yet they want me to bend over? Hell no.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by erdega79
1080p will be a standard soon, my guesstimate is 3 years . More and more displays are coming at 1080p. soon the blu ray disc and playstation is coming to play that content. Panasonic will soon come out with a 1080p video camera for under 10k and other manufacturers are bound to follow it up. So by next year already there will be an affordable way to shoot , record and display 1080p video. The only problem is the bandwidth used by cable/sattelite companies which can't handle such a bitrate right now.




Yes, I suppose I can . I can only assume the difference is the same as dvd content vs broadcast tv which is 480p vs 480i respectivelly. The difference is noticeable.


Thats a difference of a different source, then yes you can tell the difference...


What Im talking about is...for example...I have a Sony KF-42WE610 LCD RPTV...I have a DVD player capable of progressive playback...watching DVD's I cant realy tell the difference between switching to 480i and 480p, that goes same for my XBOX...If there is a difference its very minor...Im pretty sure difference between 1080i and 1080p wont be a big leap since most displays that will do this already is 1080p natively.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by YellowCows
Put plainly, HDMI can do everything DVI-D can do, and then some. The 1080p implementation is exactly the same, as you put it. Basically, I can use an HDMI cable with a DVI adaptor to send the signal to the monitor exactly the same way as I use a DVI cable. I'm not sure what you are referring to with 'control lines' - I presume you mean HDCP. Yes, the protocol is the same for both.


What I meant by the upscaled DVD example is this: the DVD movie information contains 480 actual picture lines. When this is output as 720p, say, by any upscaling DVD player, your display will be receiving a 720p signal. However, this signal will be an interpolation (a magnification) of what is essentially, still only 480 lines of real information. Feeding a true 720p HD signal, from an HD broadcast or D-Theater movie, made up of 720 lines of information, any pair of eyes can easily see the difference. Why should this be, when essentially, your display is receiving 720 lines either way? because the extra picture resolution (or information) on true HD content makes for a sharper, clearer, better defined picture, easily distinguishable from an upscaled SD image.


The same goes for 1080p vs 1080i. As you may know, an inetrlaced picture contains two alternating 'fields' of information. On an interlaced display, such as CRT, it takes two passes to 'draw' the picture on your screen - once for the even lines, then again for the odd, and this happens 60 times a second (for 60HZ material - 30 times for the odd, 30 for the even). On the other hand, progressive displays take only one pass to display an image in one whole frame. Film is a progressive format, for instance - each individual picture constitutes a full frame. In effect, with a 1080i picture, you are getting 2 alternating fields of 540 lines each. A 1080p picture gives you the full 1080 lines - virtually doubling the number of perceived lines onscreen at any given time.


One contributing factor why many ppl say they cannot distinguish between 720p (actually 1280X720) and 1080i is that they are viewing both through a fixed-pixel display - the actual difference in resolution between these two formats is not as great as the numbers suggest - due to the fact that one is progressive and the other interlaced. In number of pixels onscreen, this equates to:


- [720p] 1280X720= 921,600 pixels

- [1080i] 1920X540= 1,036,800 pixels - only 11% difference in perceived resolution


The difference in resolution between 720p and 1080p (1920X1080) is, however, exactly as great as the numbers suggest...


- [720p] 1280X720= 921,600 pixels

- [1080p] 1920X1080= 2,073,600 pixels


That is, more than double the actual resolution. I don't know about the rest of you, but I think I'd notice that.
I agree...If by puutting that comparison yes...you can tell the difference...But most people here cant seem to grasp one factor...the display device, in case of the SXRD its already 1080p native display...so anything you feed on it is already output as 1080p...My point is how big of a difference is 1080p going to be with 1080i when the native resolution of the set is already 1080p...big difference...I dont think so...Improvement yes...but not as huge like everyone else are trying to say...I mean most people actualy preffer 720p to 1080i and some 1080i to 720p...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Well, mokojojo, if you've ever seen the difference an outboard scaler can make, feeding native rate to any digital display via DVI/HDMI, you'll know why 1080p would be such a significant upgrade.


Particularly in the case of 1080p displays, feeding them a 1080p signal, i.e. 1:1 pixel-addressed image, would be practicaly the optimal feed they could ever receive. You can try this yourself on your computer screen - try changing the resolution, either up or down. You will see a marked difference in picture quality, even if you go only one step up or down in resolution. Digital screens look their best when easch pixel is being addressed individually by each corresponding pixel in the source material.


In the Sony SXRD case, there is no option to feed NR to the set, so the consumer, happy as they may be with what they've got, sadly will never be able to see this potiential improvement.


erdega79, I went back to the forum page (on another AV forum I am a member of) to find the press quote that contained the 1080p input reference for the new Pioneers, but it was edited by the poster. My guess is only the upcoming full HD panels (out in 2006) will have that input, not the XGA units coming out next month. As for the scalers I mentioned, they all do 1080p, as I said. Just check their individual websites for the spec sheets - too much work to cut & paste here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by YellowCows
Well, mokojojo, if you've ever seen the difference an outboard scaler can make, feeding native rate to any digital display via DVI/HDMI, you'll know why 1080p would be such a significant upgrade.


Particularly in the case of 1080p displays, feeding them a 1080p signal, i.e. 1:1 pixel-addressed image, would be practicaly the optimal feed they could ever receive. You can try this yourself on your computer screen - try changing the resolution, either up or down. You will see a marked difference in picture quality, even if you go only one step up or down in resolution. Digital screens look their best when easch pixel is being addressed individually by each corresponding pixel in the source material.


In the Sony SXRD case, there is no option to feed NR to the set, so the consumer, happy as they may be with what they've got, sadly will never be able to see this potiential improvement.


erdega79, I went back to the forum page (on another AV forum I am a member of) to find the press quote that contained the 1080p input reference for the new Pioneers, but it was edited by the poster. My guess is only the upcoming full HD panels (out in 2006) will have that input, not the XGA units coming out next month. As for the scalers I mentioned, they all do 1080p, as I said. Just check their individual websites for the spec sheets - too much work to cut & paste here.
Exactly thats my whole point...Looking at this as a mass consumer view...I mean lets face it, as enthusiast were the minority for this market and maybe the only guys who actually care...for the rest as long as the own a 1080p set all is good...as it stands now well end up having 1080p capable inputs on our sets in the future and most people wont even know they have it. And like you said so your self about most sets, chances are they wont be able to tell the difference...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
This is a fascinating discussion. Seriously.


So much of the 1080p/720p/1080i discussion gets lost amid other brand-specific threads that it's nice to see it all organized in one thread.


I, too, have been very curious as to how much a viewer would truly lose in viewing future 1080p content on a 1080p set without an input that supports it. My guess would be fairly negligible if any. This is still astounding resolution, at least on paper.


And, as much as the folks here are devoted videophiles with wonderfully high expectations, it's hard to believe more mainstream consumers will even care that much between an "i" and a "p." I think most people are so blown away by a 720p picture that dropping that extra grand for a 1080p set would seem, well, a waste. If anything, I think shooting these numbers and letters at potential new HDTV consumers is intimidating rather than inviting.


Which leads me to ask: does there really seem to be a place for 1080p, on a practical level, in the near future? All the talk of bandwidth expense, broadcasters wanting to keep costs — and resolution — lower and other considerations make me wonder if the desire for these sets is a fear or lust driven proposition as opposed to one of reality?


Basically, when the vast majority of people in the U.S. have yet to even convert to HDTV — and many casual viewers could care less — is such resolution, as an analogy I read on another post described, akin to having a car that can go 200 mph when the speed limit is 70 mph?


Much of the desire appears to be due to the impending Blu-Ray/HD-DVD arrival. But even that is so muddled right now. In January, it was announced these players would arrive in fall/winter. No real word yet on when we'll see one or content to match. Just more about the "war" between the formats. I know the PS3 will be a big boost, but still, on a practical level, will the mainstream really go for this? People who only a decade ago had shelves of VHS tapes, replaced those with DVDs, added to many of those duplicate, double-dipping "special editions" and of course those who are now buying those same movies for a PSP? Can people be convinced to buy a copy of "Aliens" for potentially the fourth or fifth time? Especially when DVD quality is pretty dang decent. With an upconversion player, even better.


And for those who really want to see "Spider-Man" or what not in an HDTV image, they can just record it off an HDTV premium cable channel to a DVR. No extra cost. No new equipment. Yes, the Blu-Ray or HD-DVD image will be somewhat better, but enough to convince people to fork out for new equipment and software? To buy those same old movies again and again?


I just don't know.


I apologize for what seems like a digression from the topic, but its basically verbalizing many of my concerns about 1080p and if it's promise will truly be actualized. I read many folks' responses boasting the merits of 1080p sets and it seems sort of PR-ish and blustery. "1080p is the future. Nuff' said" and such. It just seems that on a practical level, there's not a lot to support that other than lust. Because, when all is said and done — and with all due respect to hardcore videophiles — mass consumer acceptance is the true key to any product or technology's success.


I just truly wonder if Blu-Ray/HD-DVD — which is rightfully mentioned in almost every discussion involving 1080p — will be a breakthrough technology that near-forces everyone buy a 1080p set or something like SACD; an esoteric product that performs great, but still just caters to a small niche.


Just curious. Any real, practical info on these questions would be very much appreciated.
 
1 - 20 of 282 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top