|
|
Is 1080p visibly superior to 1080i with the human eye?
Has anyone actually seen a 1080p TV at work? Is the picture really that
much better detectable by the human eye? Do the current HD Channels (eg. CBS,NBC,ESPN,Discovery,KCET) broadcast in 1080p? |
Is 1080p visibly superior to 1080i with the human eye?
"Paul L" wrote in message ... Has anyone actually seen a 1080p TV at work? Is the picture really that much better detectable by the human eye? Do the current HD Channels (eg. CBS,NBC,ESPN,Discovery,KCET) broadcast in 1080p? Hmm... I thought the standards options were (Ignoring SDTV), 480p, 720p and 1080i. The only reference to 1080p that I've seen is electronically converting 1080i to 1080p after the 1080i is received. This implies there is no 1080p broadcast. But then, I'm no expert : ) |
Is 1080p visibly superior to 1080i with the human eye?
"DonC" wrote in message ... "Paul L" wrote in message ... Has anyone actually seen a 1080p TV at work? Is the picture really that much better detectable by the human eye? Do the current HD Channels (eg. CBS,NBC,ESPN,Discovery,KCET) broadcast in 1080p? Hmm... I thought the standards options were (Ignoring SDTV), 480p, 720p and 1080i. The only reference to 1080p that I've seen is electronically converting 1080i to 1080p after the 1080i is received. This implies there is no 1080p broadcast. But then, I'm no expert : ) 1080p24 is a broadcast standard. It has never been utilized that I know of. Material sourced from 1080p 60 rather than 1080i 60 should be capable of providing a better display on a properly designed 1080p60 display. Richard. |
Is 1080p visibly superior to 1080i with the human eye?
DonC wrote: "Paul L" wrote in message ... Has anyone actually seen a 1080p TV at work? Is the picture really that much better detectable by the human eye? Do the current HD Channels (eg. CBS,NBC,ESPN,Discovery,KCET) broadcast in 1080p? Hmm... I thought the standards options were (Ignoring SDTV), 480p, 720p and 1080i. The only reference to 1080p that I've seen is electronically converting 1080i to 1080p after the 1080i is received. This implies there is no 1080p broadcast. But then, I'm no expert : ) Yes, for the time being only 1080p internal upconversion is functional. However, HD-DVDs are on the way and 1080p might be part of that system. On 1080p HDTV sets, Two features are necessary.. 1) HDCP Copy Protection firmware 2) An external HDMI port that supports 1080p inputs Item #2 is a hard feature to find these days... The HP 65" DLP may support external 1080p inputs HDTV 1080p looks like a longer way off, OR until MPEG4 codec is 'blessed'. |
Is 1080p visibly superior to 1080i with the human eye?
"Paul L" wrote in message
... Has anyone actually seen a 1080p TV at work? Is the picture really that much better detectable by the human eye? Do the current HD Channels (eg. CBS,NBC,ESPN,Discovery,KCET) broadcast in 1080p? Depends on your eye, how far away you're sitting, what the input is, etc. I have no doubt that it CAN be visibly better, though. The perceived effective vertical resolution of an interlaced signal can vary from 50 to nearly 100% of its total number of lines depending on motion, generally averaging (when there is some motion) around 60-70% compared to progressive scan at the same resolution (and closer to 100% when the image is still, or from a slower, progressive-scan source such as film). To clear this up: at this time there is no HD broadcast in any 1080p format. While 1080p24 is allowed, it's not used anywhere that I know of. (And there is no 1080p60.) I don't know what format HD-DVD and Blu-Ray discs will generally have, perhaps that will be 1080p24. On the other hand, even 1080i can effectively give progressive-scan at nearly full resolution when showing a movie which was originally shot as 24p (much as a DVD can give 480p, even though encoded as 480i). (There are some refreshes where half the screen is showing the transition to the next frame, but in between it is essentially progressive scan, and if the filtering isn't too aggressive, it can come close to a true progressive scan signal in resolution.) In addition, de-interlacing a native 1080i signal (such as a TV show originally videotaped at 1080i) may possibly improve its appearance slightly compared to watching it in straight 1080i. In theory it might be a good idea to get a 1080p display for future compatibility: you never know when a 1080p60 format might be added, or maybe you will be able to display it from your computer or video game console. But not all 1080p HDTVs are capable of accepting such an input. However, the best reason to get a 1080p display is mainly that you get the best of both worlds. You can watch 1080i without any scaling or downsampling, and you can watch 720p in full progressive scan. With a 1080i TV, a 720p signal may essentially approximate 720i. And with a 720p TV, a 1080i signal also may approximate 720i. A 1080p TV can display both formats at their highest possible quality. |
Is 1080p visibly superior to 1080i with the human eye?
"Dennis Mayer" wrote in message ... DonC wrote: "Paul L" wrote in message ... Has anyone actually seen a 1080p TV at work? Is the picture really that much better detectable by the human eye? Do the current HD Channels (eg. CBS,NBC,ESPN,Discovery,KCET) broadcast in 1080p? Hmm... I thought the standards options were (Ignoring SDTV), 480p, 720p and 1080i. The only reference to 1080p that I've seen is electronically converting 1080i to 1080p after the 1080i is received. This implies there is no 1080p broadcast. But then, I'm no expert : ) Yes, for the time being only 1080p internal upconversion is functional. That might not be exactly the case right now. Windows Media (WMV) is currently available on a very limited basis, and you can download 1080p clips from the Microsoft web site. There is a debate at avsforum as to whether any current TV has the capability of playing such files. I am looking into the possibility of purchasing either the Mits WD-73827 and Toshiba 72MX195, both of which support 1080p, but their ability to play files from a computer is not been positively established. |
Is 1080p visibly superior to 1080i with the human eye?
"Paul L" wrote in message ... Has anyone actually seen a 1080p TV at work? Is the picture really that much better detectable by the human eye? Do the current HD Channels (eg. CBS,NBC,ESPN,Discovery,KCET) broadcast in 1080p? I have seen 1080P 60 in the lab. On static scenes, it looks identical to 1080i. On dynamic scenes where the camera is moving, like sports, it looks crisper. There are NO HD channels in 1080P 60 - not enough bandwidth. |
Is 1080p visibly superior to 1080i with the human eye?
"Paul L" wrote in message
... Has anyone actually seen a 1080p TV at work? Is the picture really that much better detectable by the human eye? Do the current HD Channels (eg. CBS,NBC,ESPN,Discovery,KCET) broadcast in 1080p? Don't personally have one, but I can imagine it would definitely be much better if you plan to hook it up with a computer. "Normal" (non-1080P) HDTV set as computer monitor looks like crap, even the smaller sets like 27', 32', etc. I'm planning to hold off buying current HDTV set in order to get a cheaper 1080P set, and hook it up with a computer to replace all those boxes, players, discs and tapes. Of course if you are only interested in (HD)TV programs, I doubt it will make much differences. ZR. |
Is 1080p visibly superior to 1080i with the human eye?
If you have a 1080p widescreen LCD monitor, like a Dell 2405 or Samsung
240t, you can download some short [what I believe to be] 1080p clips from Dvico/fusionhd. They're breathtaking. |
Is 1080p visibly superior to 1080i with the human eye?
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:20:38 -0500 DonC wrote:
| "Paul L" wrote in message | ... | Has anyone actually seen a 1080p TV at work? Is the picture really that | much better detectable by the human eye? Do the current HD Channels (eg. | CBS,NBC,ESPN,Discovery,KCET) broadcast in 1080p? | | Hmm... I thought the standards options were (Ignoring SDTV), 480p, 720p and | 1080i. The only reference to 1080p that I've seen is electronically | converting 1080i to 1080p after the 1080i is received. This implies there | is no 1080p broadcast. I believe the following are what ATSC recognizes for OTA broadcast. You may need to enable a fixed size font, such as Courier, to view this table layout correctly: ================================================== = pixel width --------- 1920 1280 704 704 640 lines height -------- 1080 720 480 480 480 aspect ratio -------- 16:9 16:9 16:9 4:3 4:3 pixel shape ratio --- 1:1 1:1 40:33 10:11 1:1 frame field line | | | | | rate rate scheme | | | | | ------ ------ ------ 23.976 23.976 progr YES YES YES YES YES 24.000 24.000 progr YES YES YES YES YES 29.970 29.970 progr YES YES YES YES YES 30.000 30.000 progr YES YES YES YES YES 59.940 59.940 progr no YES YES YES YES 60.000 60.000 progr no YES YES YES YES 29.970 59.940 inter YES no YES YES YES 30.000 60.000 inter YES no YES YES YES ================================================== = Cable has about twice the bandwidth in each 6 MHz channel, using 256-QAM (or 16-VSB, if anyone uses that), so the potential to use 1080p59.94 does exist in that case. Satellite providers may also be able to do this. Upconverting 1080p29.97 to 1080p59.94, vs. upconverting 1080i29.97/59.94 to 1080p59.94, might be what you'd be dealing with. But I don't know if anyone is able to even get source material in 1080p29.97 (or 1080p30 or even 1080p24 and 1080p23.976). Pro broadcast cameras I have seen on the market are either 1080i29.97/59.94 or 720p59.94. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ | | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Is 1080p visibly superior to 1080i with the human eye?
I have a 1080p Toshiba 56HM195. From what I can tell (info is scarce),
it won't take a 1080p input over HDMI, the only 1080p I'll be seeing is deinterlaced 1080i broadcast or cable, which is the default mode of operation. While it looks good to me, what looks a LOT better is the native image on either the JVC or Sony 3-chip LCoS sets. I've done a side--by-side comparison at the store and the JVC and Sony are outrageous - zero screendoor effect, zero blocking of any kind (even when standing a foot from the monitor), and no artifacts. They cost more, but I wish I'd waited and paid for it, they're worth it. |
Is 1080p visibly superior to 1080i with the human eye?
wrote in message oups.com... I have a 1080p Toshiba 56HM195. From what I can tell (info is scarce), it won't take a 1080p input over HDMI, the only 1080p I'll be seeing is deinterlaced 1080i broadcast or cable, which is the default mode of operation. While it looks good to me, what looks a LOT better is the native image on either the JVC or Sony 3-chip LCoS sets. I've done a side--by-side comparison at the store and the JVC and Sony are outrageous - zero screendoor effect, zero blocking of any kind (even when standing a foot from the monitor), and no artifacts. They cost more, but I wish I'd waited and paid for it, they're worth it. I've seen those LCoS sets in the stores and they look good, but they aren't 1080p, correct? |
Is 1080p visibly superior to 1080i with the human eye?
Z Man wrote: I've seen those LCoS sets in the stores and they look good, but they aren't 1080p, correct? I think so, too - but they definitely have a superior picture to the 1080p single-chip DLP sets. |
Is 1080p visibly superior to 1080i with the human eye?
|
Is 1080p visibly superior to 1080i with the human eye?
wrote in message ups.com... Z Man wrote: I've seen those LCoS sets in the stores and they look good, but they aren't 1080p, correct? I think so, too - but they definitely have a superior picture to the 1080p single-chip DLP sets. I have seen the LCoS sets, and they have a very nice picture. I don't think I would be so bold as to state that they "definitely have a superior picture", I think it depends upon the show you are watching, the room in which the set is located, personal preference, and various other factors. Also, an incrementally better picture might not represent a meaningful difference to most viewers. What I mean is, if you were to assign a theoretical picture quality value to various sets, and let's say you would give the JVC 70" LCoS a 97%, the Sony Qualia 006 (1080p) a 100% rating, the Toshiba 72MX195 (1080p) a 96% rating, and the Mitsubishi WD-73827 (1080p) a 95% rating. The real question is, would the difference between a 95% rating and a 100% rating be readily identifiable, and meaningful, to the average, or even aficionado, TV viewer? In my judgment, all these sets have what most folks would consider an excellent picture. It probably comes down to price (always a factor), personal brand preference, availability, features, warranty coverage, etc. For example, if you intend to hook up a home theatre PC, it might be more important to you to have a standard analog 15-pin video output than a 2%-3% difference in picture quality. Price differences are also significant. I can afford to spend whatever it takes, but that doesn't mean that I would necessarily purchase the Qualia 006 for $10-12k rather than the Toshiba for a little over $4k. All factors considered, I currently lean towards the Toshiba because of its excellent picture quality, feature set, and competitive price. |
Is 1080p visibly superior to 1080i with the human eye?
The Sony SXRD is 1080p and I see that there is a lot of marketing hype
surrounding that spec right now. Apparently more manufacturers are going to be introducing DLP's and LCoS sets that can display at that resolution. Thing is that HDTV broadcasts are all 1080i and will not be 1080p for the foreseeable future because of the tremendous bandwith required. I suppose the 1080p will be useful when HD DVD players outputting at that spec are hooked up to the set. Don't know though if I'll be able to tell the difference. I'm very happy with my JVC HD-ILA set. Picture is the best I've seen anywhere. JK "Z Man" wrote in message news:[email protected] wrote in message oups.com... I have a 1080p Toshiba 56HM195. From what I can tell (info is scarce), it won't take a 1080p input over HDMI, the only 1080p I'll be seeing is deinterlaced 1080i broadcast or cable, which is the default mode of operation. While it looks good to me, what looks a LOT better is the native image on either the JVC or Sony 3-chip LCoS sets. I've done a side--by-side comparison at the store and the JVC and Sony are outrageous - zero screendoor effect, zero blocking of any kind (even when standing a foot from the monitor), and no artifacts. They cost more, but I wish I'd waited and paid for it, they're worth it. I've seen those LCoS sets in the stores and they look good, but they aren't 1080p, correct? |
Is 1080p visibly superior to 1080i with the human eye?
Z Man wrote: I have seen the LCoS sets, and they have a very nice picture. I don't think I would be so bold as to state that they "definitely have a superior picture", I think it depends upon the show you are watching, the room in which the set is located, personal preference, and various other factors. Also, an incrementally better picture might not represent a meaningful difference to most viewers. I did a side-by-side comparison of a Toshiba single-chip DLP set (62HM195) and a 60" JVC iLA 3-chip LCoS set. The materials I saw were cable 1080i and DVD of LOTR RotK (played at 480p over HDMI on the iLA, and in 480p and upconverted 1080i over HDMI on the Toshiba). The differences were obvious and very visible. The Toshiba visibly exhibited the screendoor effect on the 1080i cable content, there wasn't a hint of it in the iLA's picture. On DVD material, the Toshiba showed moderate blocking, especially in dark gradient areas, clearly visible at about 2' from the screen, in both 480p and upconverted 1080i. While this level of blocking is not directly visible at normal seating distances, it causes a noticeable loss of detail. The iLA showed no blocking at all down to the pixel level. Lastly, there were obvious artifacts in the Toshiba's picture on the DVD material in both 480p and 1080i. These artifacts were purplish lines betwwen white gradients, and at edges of color transitions. I reduced the sharpness to zero on the Toshiba without eliminating the artifacts. The net effect was not incremental - the iLA had an obviously better picture at any viewing distance on the same material. My wife was with me, she could care less about picture quality, and she agreed that the iLA was notably better. It should be - it cost $1500 more. I have the smaller Toshiba, the 56HM195. I've spent a number of hours working on getting the picture quality to its best level (using Avia and other reference discs). It certainly has a good picture, I'm pleased with it, but there is no doubt that the 3-chip LCoS iLA set has a better picture. |
Is 1080p visibly superior to 1080i with the human eye?
[comments bottom posted]
wrote in message ups.com... Z Man wrote: I have seen the LCoS sets, and they have a very nice picture. I don't think I would be so bold as to state that they "definitely have a superior picture", I think it depends upon the show you are watching, the room in which the set is located, personal preference, and various other factors. Also, an incrementally better picture might not represent a meaningful difference to most viewers. I did a side-by-side comparison of a Toshiba single-chip DLP set (62HM195) and a 60" JVC iLA 3-chip LCoS set. The materials I saw were cable 1080i and DVD of LOTR RotK (played at 480p over HDMI on the iLA, and in 480p and upconverted 1080i over HDMI on the Toshiba). The differences were obvious and very visible. The Toshiba visibly exhibited the screendoor effect on the 1080i cable content, there wasn't a hint of it in the iLA's picture. On DVD material, the Toshiba showed moderate blocking, especially in dark gradient areas, clearly visible at about 2' from the screen, in both 480p and upconverted 1080i. While this level of blocking is not directly visible at normal seating distances, it causes a noticeable loss of detail. The iLA showed no blocking at all down to the pixel level. Lastly, there were obvious artifacts in the Toshiba's picture on the DVD material in both 480p and 1080i. These artifacts were purplish lines betwwen white gradients, and at edges of color transitions. I reduced the sharpness to zero on the Toshiba without eliminating the artifacts. The net effect was not incremental - the iLA had an obviously better picture at any viewing distance on the same material. My wife was with me, she could care less about picture quality, and she agreed that the iLA was notably better. It should be - it cost $1500 more. I have the smaller Toshiba, the 56HM195. I've spent a number of hours working on getting the picture quality to its best level (using Avia and other reference discs). It certainly has a good picture, I'm pleased with it, but there is no doubt that the 3-chip LCoS iLA set has a better picture. Actually, the DiLA would cost me less. I can get the JVC HD-70G886 70" television for $3800 right he http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...keTra ck=true while the Toshiba 72MX195 would cost me several hundred dollar more. However, the JVC is not 1080p, and I am pretty much committed to purchasing a 1080p set. Maybe the answer is to wait until next month when 1080p DiLA sets are expected, but one can wait forever if one waits for the next big 'thing', as improvements come quite frequently and prices drop. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com