[tbdombrosky]

Most people on this forum think that 1080i looks better than 720p. I have not seen either of these resolutions but I wonder if the reason people think that is because the 720p is harder to scale to 540p than 1080i is. 540p is what most hdtv's scale everything to.


So my question to everyone is, has anyone compared native 720p (like on a plasma) to 1080i converted to 540p?


Also why in the world are ESPN and ABC promoting 720p when only a small number of tv's support it natively? It just doesn't make sense if 1080i is so much more widely supported and you can't even see the difference in 720p because it is being converted to 540p (on the ones that don't support it natively).


Thanks.


Tom

 

[magic123]

It has been a mystery to me why ABC went with 720P and Fox went with 480P. Of course, in the latter case, it is probably less expensive. But, still, within 5 years Fox will have to chamge to 1080i I would guess to remain competitive. But, the 720P format remains a mystery, Actually, whether 1080i or 720P it looks about the same on my 34XBR800 display. From the beginning HDNET has been the leader in HD and pretty well set the format..1080i-WS.

 

[jdmcdonald]

There is no mystery in [email protected]


It is superior to [email protected] It has no interlace artifacts, ever.


Nobody had the guts to use [email protected] or [email protected], which are

superior to [email protected] for film material or talking heads or sitcoms.


I have a native 720p TV set and have watched native 720p (from film) OTA stuff from ABC extensively. It is wonderful. I have not yet

seen native [email protected] sports.


I have not yet seen any 1080i material of any sort that looks better

on any HDTV I have ever seen than true 720p. Clearly if film

is sent as 1080i and a set has a really topnotch deinterlacer and

2:3 pulldown which is capable of taking 1080i and making it

back into [email protected] and there is a TV capable of actually doing

[email protected] (maybe the new Toshiba (or is it Hitachi) LCOS set)

the it will have higher resolution and no artifacts.


But transmitting film as "i" is stupid .... it should be "p".


And for sports "60p" will unequivocally beat "60i" even if

it is only 720/1080 as many pixels. It will likely even look better

on a true [email protected] display than 1080i on that same display.


The experts on OpenDTV agree with this.


Doug McDonald

 

[sat_uplinker]

From Mike Strand at the ABC ATSC lab, which I visited a few years ago, the reason ABC has gone progressive is because they think plasma (native progressive) is the future of TV and 720p is the best for for it. 720p also lets stations have a little extra bandwidth left over for sub channels. Here in baltimore the ABC station has 2 480p subs, one wx radar and 1 4:3 NTSC upcon on the channel in addition to 1 720p carrier. I kinda like 720p now better than 1080i for that reason. PQ is the same to my eye.


Faux and 480p is a whole 'nother story.


bob

 

[tbdombrosky]

I just don't think it was a good idea to broadcast 720p when nothing supports it natively (and gives the best quality). They're putting themselves at a disadvantage in terms of image quality in the short run. I know nothing supports 1080i natively too but the conversion process is supposedly much friendlier.


If more tv's supported 720p native then this would be the obvious move but the only things that support are certain plasmas and projectors (don't know about rptvs). On the other hand, I don't understand why everyone pushed 1080i so much. Basically you're converting an interlaced image to be displayed on noninterlaced displays. It defeats the whole purpose of being noninterlaced. It's like displaying a computer image on a regular analog tv.


Tom

 

[magic123]

We can only guess at future of digital/HD. Plasmas will certainly be around for many years as will several other competing displays. But, beginning about 3 years ago and for the next 5-10 years I believe 1080i-WS will be the standard. Maybe 20 years out a whole new 'improved' HD format will happen along..a wider screen..more 3rd demension and something like 1080P or beyond. Progress (improvements in displays) will never end, of course. For now and foreseeable future, I believe 1080i..16 by 9 format will the norm.

 

[dynamohum1]

I may take some heat from the plasma fans on this one but it would seem that basing your broadcast standard on a display that may be short lived like the plasma would be a mistake. I have seen the plasma televisions on display and other than the wow that is a thin television thing the picture is not that good. The lcd televisions I have seen are much better and with prices coming down on lcd screens and sizes going up I would bet that the LCD television is the thin TV of the near future. This is not to say that 720p will not look great on an lcd display, but if you could buy an lcd television for the same price as plasma why would you go with plasma? Does anyone know if there would be any benefit with 720p over 1080i on an lcd screen?

 

[magic123]

dynamo..


We never know the future, as stated above, I believe the plasmas will catch on for a number of years..when pricing for 50 inch get in the $3000 range. The LCD is a competitor, of course, as will be several other designs. Right now (and I have looked at them all)..I believe the direct view at $2000 is the value one to buy. Even on an absolute basis it gives up very little. And we know it is reliable. The last direct view i had lasted 13 years. However, because of limited size, the days of the direct view could be limited because of weight and size factor. And, 34-38 inches does seem the limit on these displays. We will be going to something much lighter in weight with a much larger display. How fast these other competing displays catch on depends, among other things, on pricing. I think $3000 is sort of magical level.

 

[dynamohum1]

With all the complaints about the FOX 480p resolution, it would seem that anyone in this forum that is interested in watching HDTV material would stay away from a display that can only do 480p. Are there any plasma displays that can fully resolve 720p anyway?

 

[magic123]

dynamo..


The Fox station in Detroit..Fox 2..shows the network..480P-WS..I realize I am the sole exception but I do not find the presentation bad at all. On my display and to my eyes, it is very close to DVD quality. Of course, 1080i looks much better I quickly add. The Fox display looks like the CBS commercials in digital..which look good to me. Of course, to be competitive down the road, Fox may have to go to the standard..1080i-WS. Or be stubborn and cheap and begin to give up sponsers and viewers. But this is still a number of years away.

 

[DonBerg]

All the 50" plasma models easily resolve more than 720p's resolution of 1280x720p - most of them are a 1366x768 matrix. Also most consumer HDTVs (directview and RPTV) can't really resolve more than the 720p equivalent resolution due to dot pitch or lenticular lens limitations.

 

[Jim Ferguson]

I watch native 720P (when available) on my Barco CRT front projector. I prefer it to having the set "upconvert" from 720P to 1080I. For equivalent content types (i.e. a filmed TV show on CBS versus a filmed TV show on ABC) I prefer the 720P. 720P has a very sweet "liquid" feel that I don't get with 1080I. I can see interlace scan line effects with 1080I on my projector, but not with 720P.


I haven't recently seen any non-film-based 720P for comparison however (not since the ABC MNF season in 99.)

 

[vruiz]

Quote:

Originally posted by tbdombrosky 540p is what most hdtv's scale everything to.

Quote:

Originally posted by tbdombrosky I know nothing supports 1080i natively too

I wonder what gave you this impression. The above statements are totally inaccurate. The fact is that the majority of HDTVs are native 1080i, not 540p. Only a few brands and models convert things to 540p, and that's only with 480i/480p material. 1080i material is ALWAYS passed through unchanged.

 

[Jim Burns]

Q: What is the difference between 720p and Bigfoot?


A: People have seen the Bigfoot!



Why is ABC going to 720p? What is easier to compress 921600 pixels or 2073600 pixels? 921600 (aka 720p) of course. The whole thing is about lower bit rates. ABC does not care about picture quality they care about making money. With less of the 19.39 Mbps used for a singe picture they have the opportunity to make money on secondary programming or ancillary data transmition.

 

[AJSJones]

I think it's a misrepresentation to say that ABC is GOING to 720p. They were always there! I'd say it was more like the set manufacturers trying to save a buck or two.


In SF there are several 720p stations and I enjoy it natively with a Marquee FPJ. Having compared MNF in 720p and CBS NFL in 1080i, it's not a night and day difference and I'd say that the MPEG artifacts are more noticeable in either than the p vs i issue, especially for fast pans and stuff. 720p has just as much ability to create the "you are there" feeling or "window effect" as 1080i, and in some cases the lack of interlace artifacts can make it look better, but I don't usually notice them


$0.02


Andy

 

[SD4934]

Quote:

Originally posted by vruiz I wonder what gave you this impression. The above statements are totally inaccurate. The fact is that the majority of HDTVs are native 1080i, not 540p. Only a few brands and models convert things to 540p, and that's only with 480i/480p material. 1080i material is ALWAYS passed through unchanged.

Thanks. Wondered why it took so long for someone to jump on the original inaccuarate statement about 540p.

 

[trbarry]

I've noticed that if I watch a real 480p broadcast (not an upconvert 480i) it will look better if I keep in in 480p instead of let my STB or PCHD cards scale it to 1080i. This is on a 55" Tosh RPTV.


I also notice some mild scaling or interlace artifact on my 1080i set when watching 720p broadcasts, though nothing extreme enough to bother me much.


I'm still holding out for 1080p.


BTW, I think someone asked Bob Ross of CBS here about a year ago why they don't use 1080p @ 24 or 30. IIRC, there can be problems with this with the studio equipment that wants to blend streams or do local insertion or some such. And many STB's/Tv's don't either gracefully or quickly change modes so they don't want to be switching around a lot. But blending 1080i video with 1080i telecined material is reasonably seemless.


- Tom

 

[sat_uplinker]

Quote:

ABC does not care about picture quality they care about making money.


Please! Are you saying 720p is 'not caring about PQ?' 720p looks great on my plasma. looks just as good as 1080i. Why don't you complain about Faux instead?


Another thing: "They care about making money" Duh! TV stations are a BUSINESS after all! They don't do this for free! Do you know how much MONEY broadcast equipment costs? Or how much money it costs to run a full-power DTV transmitter?


I dont have a problem with ABC using some extra bandwidth to have a successful business plan for DTV. 720 is high-def enough.


bob

 

[amillians]

Jim, puh-leeez! 720p/60 is 55,296,000 pixels/second and 1080i/60 is 62,208,000 pixels/second. You should know better--playing it off like 720p is 921,600 pixels and 1080i is 2,073,600 pixels is pure BS from a broadcasting perspective. If ABC were as evil as you make them out to be, they'd be Fox--I'd hardly call 11% of the potential data payload a major coup for ancillary programming.


P.S. I'm no math major, but I believe it would be much easier to *perceptually* compress 2,073,600 pixels than it would be to compress 921,600.

 

[Jim Burns]

I was in meetings with ABC when they decided to go 720, they were trying to convince all of the manufacturers (I was at Zenith back then) to go 720 for two reasons


1. They firmly believed that the Consumer could not tell the difference between 1080, 720 or 480I. That is a quote from Antoon Uyttendaele who was the Senior Advisor Science & Technology for ABC at the time. He even said, “I think it is funny for CBS to do real High Definition at 1080I because there audience is the least likely to noticeâ€.

2. 720p is a scan rate that is cheaper for the manufacturers to use for analog TVs. Even with 720s higher scan rate than 1080I the longer retrace time of 720p made it possible to use lower cost yokes and dynamic convergence circuitry. The very short retrace time of 1080I makes for problems with yoke ringing and dampening.


This is a complicated issue because from what I know I do not think anyone has a real DTV business plan yet. The formats we are talking about here are broadcast formats. Most of those with fixed pixel display (except for 720 DLP) will never see any of the native formats. For me 720P and 1080I broadcast TV beats cable every time. Send me whatever number you want just give me HD.