What looks better 720p or 1080i?
-
Now Available: Tech Talk Podcast with Scott Wilkinson, Episode 19 Click here for details.
- Status
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Yeah, this horse has died many times 
Native 1080i vs. native 720p formats? I happen to agree with this guy:
http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/Naming_Proposal.htm
Also, I think ATSC 19.4 Mbps is barely enough for most 720p material (and nearly all “HD†ATSC streams are much less than 19.4 Mbps!). Medium to high motion scenes are too blocky! The slightly higher pixel rate of 1080i only exacerbates the problem. Just my $0.02!
Native 1080i vs. native 720p formats? I happen to agree with this guy:http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/Naming_Proposal.htm
Also, I think ATSC 19.4 Mbps is barely enough for most 720p material (and nearly all “HD†ATSC streams are much less than 19.4 Mbps!). Medium to high motion scenes are too blocky! The slightly higher pixel rate of 1080i only exacerbates the problem. Just my $0.02!
Joined
·
465 Posts
Wow, it's been almost a week since this one.
What the heck, let's see what happens when gas is thrown on a fire.
Anything "p" is better than "i". Interlacing was introduced to work around a technical limitation of early TV's. It was ultimately turned into a "marketed" advantage for those that don't know any better.
In the original HDTV standard it was purposely left out. This is one of the reasons it took so long to complete the HDTV standard (that is now practically useless as it basically includes everything and the kitchen sink.)
What the heck, let's see what happens when gas is thrown on a fire.
Anything "p" is better than "i". Interlacing was introduced to work around a technical limitation of early TV's. It was ultimately turned into a "marketed" advantage for those that don't know any better.
In the original HDTV standard it was purposely left out. This is one of the reasons it took so long to complete the HDTV standard (that is now practically useless as it basically includes everything and the kitchen sink.)
Sorry if I seem like a newbie, I guess I kind of am when it comes to HDTV standards, but I have known for many years how a progressive picture is alot better then interlaced. I for one play my Xbox with a VGA adapter in native 640X480p on my Wells Gardner arcade 27" monitor. Would you say 480p looks better then 1080i?
Quote:
Of course not. It's not even remotely close.
Interlaced broadcasts use some vertical filtering to eliminate the "flicker" that you might see with an interlaced PC monitor. This vertical filtering does come at the expense of some detail, but even ~1400x900 far exceeds the detail available with a 720x480p picture signal.
You like DVDs right? The MPEG-2 on 99% of DVDs is 480 interlaced (480i).
| Would you say 480p looks better then 1080i? |
Interlaced broadcasts use some vertical filtering to eliminate the "flicker" that you might see with an interlaced PC monitor. This vertical filtering does come at the expense of some detail, but even ~1400x900 far exceeds the detail available with a 720x480p picture signal.
You like DVDs right? The MPEG-2 on 99% of DVDs is 480 interlaced (480i).
calinb: nice article, nice proposal but 1080I is not 540I nor will it ever be. I understand what the article is trying to say but to compare is really erroneous because they are two different formats. I have a 50in sony lcd. its native format is 788p. Beyond a reasonable doubt any programs that are in 1080i have a noticeably better picture. Shows like Leno and sports like NHL hockey that I have watched on HD net look superior to NHL hockey on espn in 720p. This is not just my opinion as I have had dozens of people who are impartial not techies but who love hockey etc, and they even notice the 1080i picture being better.
Quote:
From what I have read ESPN HD should never be used as a comparative standard. It supposedly is compressed to the point that it is poor. REgarding the orginal question, the truth is I dont know. I have a panny lcd and I watch Fox which is in 720p and it is spectacular. However, the NBA on TBS which is 1080i is also spectacular.
belizean
| Originally posted by Hughmc calinb: nice article, nice proposal but 1080I is not 540I nor will it ever be. I understand what the article is trying to say but to compare is really erroneous because they are two different formats. I have a 50in sony lcd. its native format is 788p. Beyond a reasonable doubt any programs that are in 1080i have a noticeably better picture. Shows like Leno and sports like NHL hockey that I have watched on HD net look superior to NHL hockey on espn in 720p. This is not just my opinion as I have had dozens of people who are impartial not techies but who love hockey etc, and they even notice the 1080i picture being better. |
belizean
Another LCD RPTV owner here. I actually think 1080i signals look better. The only real difference I have seen has been more pixels in lots of motion via 1080i. And yes, it could simply be a compression issue-seems like there is plenty of that on the 1080i feeds. I just haven't seen artifacts on 720p, especially compared to 1080i (only some fast motion scenes, not all).
My take on it is who cares? If it looks good, then one should be happy with it.
My take on it is who cares? If it looks good, then one should be happy with it.
Allow me to complicate this argument a bit more.
People should also keep in mind what the output on their cable or sat decoder (if applicable) is set at. Case in point, I was watching football this past sunday on a Sony GWIII 50in over a cable HD feed. The GWIII has a 788p native resolution so there is some additional scaling no matter what signal is fed to the tele. However, when setting the box at 1080i output, the game on CBS (1080i feed), looked awesome, and the fox game (720p feed), while looking really good, was not as sharp as the CBS game. Switching the decoder box to output 720p resulted in the opposite (Fox looking great, CBS looking really good but not as great). This is obviously nothing new to veterans of this forum, but for the noobs, any time you introduce an extra step of scaling or conversion will result in a slightly degraded picture. Make sure you know what feed the station you are watching is outputting (1080i or 720p) and what your decoder box is outputting before you make any judgments on what resolution "looks better." I was watching the games off a comcast box and by default, it comes set at 1080i. If one were watching Fox's HD broadcast on a DLP or non-sony LCD tv (i.e., 720p native res) at default configuration with the cable box, one would actually see the 720p signal upconverted to 1080i in the cable box, then down converted by the television to the native resolution. 2 steps of scaling with hurt any picture and might leave a viewer thinking that 1080i, since it was only scaled once (in default config) is better when a 720p signal on that kind of television should look better. This kind of stuff can make even decently education shoppers go cross-eyed and it's no wonder why the transition to HDTV will take much longer than expected.
People should also keep in mind what the output on their cable or sat decoder (if applicable) is set at. Case in point, I was watching football this past sunday on a Sony GWIII 50in over a cable HD feed. The GWIII has a 788p native resolution so there is some additional scaling no matter what signal is fed to the tele. However, when setting the box at 1080i output, the game on CBS (1080i feed), looked awesome, and the fox game (720p feed), while looking really good, was not as sharp as the CBS game. Switching the decoder box to output 720p resulted in the opposite (Fox looking great, CBS looking really good but not as great). This is obviously nothing new to veterans of this forum, but for the noobs, any time you introduce an extra step of scaling or conversion will result in a slightly degraded picture. Make sure you know what feed the station you are watching is outputting (1080i or 720p) and what your decoder box is outputting before you make any judgments on what resolution "looks better." I was watching the games off a comcast box and by default, it comes set at 1080i. If one were watching Fox's HD broadcast on a DLP or non-sony LCD tv (i.e., 720p native res) at default configuration with the cable box, one would actually see the 720p signal upconverted to 1080i in the cable box, then down converted by the television to the native resolution. 2 steps of scaling with hurt any picture and might leave a viewer thinking that 1080i, since it was only scaled once (in default config) is better when a 720p signal on that kind of television should look better. This kind of stuff can make even decently education shoppers go cross-eyed and it's no wonder why the transition to HDTV will take much longer than expected.
Joined
·
1,892 Posts
This is indeed the topic that won't die.
There are many threads on this issue already. Both sides of the fence can dig up all kinds of info to say one is better than the other. Truth be told, they are both good if you take off the biased bifocals.
I currently have a 1080i crt but I've also seen good pq on 720p sets as well. I sit pretty close and I've never noticed a scan line and the only pixellation issues I've seen come from stations that multicast or overcompress.
Nevertheless, I'll say to avoid all the bickering just hold out for a 1080p set if you have the cash. If a 1080p set isn't an option due to price when they become available grab a 1080i crt, get Avia, (and do convergence if you get a rear projection crt). They are much cheaper than anything 720p right now. That should last you until 1080p sets start dropping in price. (If 720p sets were equal in price to crts I would suggest pick whichever suits you best).
I'm hoping to upgrade in a couple years.
At the end of the day though as with everything check around and try to get as much unbiased facts as possible. Then go check out some sets yourself at the stores if possible. Buy what suits you.
Forget this thread and every other 720p vs. 1080i debate. As I said before this is the classic "justifying your buying decision " debate.
There are many threads on this issue already. Both sides of the fence can dig up all kinds of info to say one is better than the other. Truth be told, they are both good if you take off the biased bifocals.
I currently have a 1080i crt but I've also seen good pq on 720p sets as well. I sit pretty close and I've never noticed a scan line and the only pixellation issues I've seen come from stations that multicast or overcompress.
Nevertheless, I'll say to avoid all the bickering just hold out for a 1080p set if you have the cash. If a 1080p set isn't an option due to price when they become available grab a 1080i crt, get Avia, (and do convergence if you get a rear projection crt). They are much cheaper than anything 720p right now. That should last you until 1080p sets start dropping in price. (If 720p sets were equal in price to crts I would suggest pick whichever suits you best).
I'm hoping to upgrade in a couple years.
At the end of the day though as with everything check around and try to get as much unbiased facts as possible. Then go check out some sets yourself at the stores if possible. Buy what suits you.
Forget this thread and every other 720p vs. 1080i debate. As I said before this is the classic "justifying your buying decision " debate.
Joined
·
1,892 Posts
I thought this was useful as well...
Quote:
Quote:
| Originally posted by dfiler Some people have perfect pitch, able to discern the wavelength of a sound to unbelievable resolution. Some people can look at skyscraper and tell you how many stories there are within a half second. Some people can look at a color and give you it's exact RGB values while depending on ethnicity, others have a 33% chance of being color blind. Some people can play a song back perfectly after hearing it only one time. Some people can tell you the temperature, accurate to .5 degree F. Human brains recalibrate themselves to make better use the spectral spread of ambient lighting. Human brains will recalibrate themselves over time to account for increases or decreases in the 'noise floor' in the nervous system. Brains will also fill in the blank spots created by defects in the retina. (Mappings of these from an optomotrist visit are quite fascinating) Women have better color perceptions while men have better spatial perception. Women hear better at higher frequencies then men. Different races have different types of color blindness. ... and on and on ... The point is that differences between viewers far outweigh differences between 720p and 1080i. All this talk of field rates and resolution is completely useless without also figuring in sensory and neural differences. |
maximum: what you posted by dfiler may be the most important factors for HT experience. After a basic standard for quality of sight and sound that we want in equipment, our human senses then become the pinnacle of the experience and to each his own as we all have even a slight difference of view.
Joined
·
1,892 Posts
The sad thing is that even if we gathered facts and unbiased opinions from many different sources it wouldn't make a dent.
Stay tuned next week for another 720p vs 1080i debate.
Stay tuned next week for another 720p vs 1080i debate.
Joined
·
1,390 Posts
I have been watching hdtv for over a year now on my mitsu 55413 and i think 720p looks better for sports and fast motion while 1080i is better for movies.
BTW i think espn looks the best on my tv and it's 720p->1080i
BTW i think espn looks the best on my tv and it's 720p->1080i
LG OLED C7, Onkyo 7100, Oppo 203, Apple TV 4K, CCWGTV, DefTech BP9040s, CLR 2300, B&W 606 S2s
Joined
·
463 Posts
Quote:
I have a JVC D-ILA rear projection TV and Rogers cable is coming in through a SA 3250 HD box. Does this mean when I do the initial set up that I would be wise to enable all of the scan rates and let the TV do all the converting?
| Originally posted by levik1832 Allow me to complicate this argument a bit more. People should also keep in mind what the output on their cable or sat decoder (if applicable) is set at. Case in point, I was watching football this past sunday on a Sony GWIII 50in over a cable HD feed. The GWIII has a 788p native resolution so there is some additional scaling no matter what signal is fed to the tele. However, when setting the box at 1080i output, the game on CBS (1080i feed), looked awesome, and the fox game (720p feed), while looking really good, was not as sharp as the CBS game. Switching the decoder box to output 720p resulted in the opposite (Fox looking great, CBS looking really good but not as great). This is obviously nothing new to veterans of this forum, but for the noobs, any time you introduce an extra step of scaling or conversion will result in a slightly degraded picture. Make sure you know what feed the station you are watching is outputting (1080i or 720p) and what your decoder box is outputting before you make any judgments on what resolution "looks better." I was watching the games off a comcast box and by default, it comes set at 1080i. If one were watching Fox's HD broadcast on a DLP or non-sony LCD tv (i.e., 720p native res) at default configuration with the cable box, one would actually see the 720p signal upconverted to 1080i in the cable box, then down converted by the television to the native resolution. 2 steps of scaling with hurt any picture and might leave a viewer thinking that 1080i, since it was only scaled once (in default config) is better when a 720p signal on that kind of television should look better. This kind of stuff can make even decently education shoppers go cross-eyed and it's no wonder why the transition to HDTV will take much longer than expected. |
Joined
·
465 Posts
Quote:
Even more crappy.
Higher resolution displays will only exaggerate poor quality images. The problem is when you convert an analog image to digital, deciding what is intentional vs noise is difficult to impossible. Even without the noise, take any 320 x 240 image and blow it up to 1920 x 1080 and see what you get. Then throw in a little noise (static) and do it. To make matters even worse, we are taking an image (SD) that was originally designed for a 19" TV and a 6 to 10 foot viewing distance and blowing it up to 50 - 60 - 70 or more inches and sitting almost the same distance away.
| Originally posted by NVboy I'm all for 1080p, but how will (already) crappy SD look on it? |
Higher resolution displays will only exaggerate poor quality images. The problem is when you convert an analog image to digital, deciding what is intentional vs noise is difficult to impossible. Even without the noise, take any 320 x 240 image and blow it up to 1920 x 1080 and see what you get. Then throw in a little noise (static) and do it. To make matters even worse, we are taking an image (SD) that was originally designed for a 19" TV and a 6 to 10 foot viewing distance and blowing it up to 50 - 60 - 70 or more inches and sitting almost the same distance away.
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
- Status
Join the discussion
