1080P vs. 720P

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 16:34:29 -0400 Leonard Caillouet wrote:
|
| "Bob Miller" wrote in message
| . net...
|
| 1080i is very close to being dead along with any conversation about any
| resolution that is not progressive. It was and is garbage, a hangover from
| special interest trying to wring royalties out of old technology.
|
| Once again Bob, you show your ass with such ridiculous statements. While it
| is true that 1080i is going away in most production and as a native format
| for most displays, it will continue to be broadcast for some time. It was
| never trash unless it is poorly executed, which could be said for 720p or
| even NTSC. It actually looks great most of the time, and as processors get
| better, the issue is less and less significant for most consumers. Like is
| usually the case, you start with a grain of truth (in this case that
| progressive has advantages over interlace) and you extend that to something
| that is misleading and/or simply incorrect. You do more to confuse than
| explain. Go back into your hole.

I think Bob was playing word games. He's well practiced at that. Sure,
making something _natively_ interlace is going away. But as a means to
squeeze video into a smaller bandwidth, that's still usable. So what if
a display that can do 1080p at a frame rate equal to the field rate of
1080i content? The conversion is fine. In fact doubling the conversion
might even be better. If the display itself does 1080p120 for 1080i30
content, I'm fine with that. I'd prefer that.

What I'm more interested in is seeing old movies transmitted in 1080p24
(ATSC can do that, too) and displayed at 1080p72 (we are at a technology
to do this, but I don't know if products are made to do it). Of course
they will have to do some more cleaning on some of those old films. But
if they stick to keeping the B&W ones in B&W, they can get even more of
them on the same disk, or over the same channel.

Old films at 1080? Can they even do that? I'm sure a lot of them don't
have the original quality to give you all of what 1080 can be. But at
1080 you can certainly see a bit more. But even so, 720p24 would be a
better format than 480i30 pulled up.

How many B&W movies scanned at 480p24 could be put on an ATSC channel?
How many B&W movies scanned at 720p24 could be put on an ATSC channel?
How many B&W movies scanned at 1080p24 could be put on an ATSC channel?
How many color movies scanned at 480p24 could be put on an ATSC channel?
How many color movies scanned at 720p24 could be put on an ATSC channel?
How many color movies scanned at 1080p24 could be put on an ATSC channel?
How many colorized movies scanned at 480p24 could be put on an ATSC channel?
How many colorized movies scanned at 720p24 could be put on an ATSC channel?
How many colorized movies scanned at 1080p24 could be put on an ATSC channel?

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 20:50:08 -0700 G-squared wrote:
| On Jun 23, 8:29 pm, Russell Patterson wrote:
| On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:07:55 -0700, (Steve Curtis)
| wrote:
|
| "ToMh" wrote:
|
| 1080p is a waste of money for a 37 or 32
| inch TV. At normal viewing distances
| there is no difference.
|
| There are no 1080p 37 inch or less TVs on the market.
|
| Toshiba Makes both a 32 and a 37 inch 1080P.
|
| What models would those be? The only ones I found had a panel
| resolution of 1366x768

I see a lot of those. What I find more interesting is that there are
computer LCD monitors with higher resolution and smaller size. So the
ability to make the display better exists. I have to presume it is a
product marketing decision to cut costs because they think they can get
away with slightly less for the consumer (which should like fine for
720p broadcasts, anyway).

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 23:53:53 GMT, Bob Miller wrote:

Jan B wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 18:06:01 GMT, "SoCalCommie"
wrote:

1080 (i or p) is supported NATIVELY by any 1080p display.

I don't believe that is correct.
A material that is interlaced has motion between the two fields.
A nativily progressive display like an LCD or most PDP will fill every
line with picture information at every frame update (not every other
line). It can not show it NATIVELY.
It is only with progressive material with low frame rate like film
the display can recombine the source material and show it (in the low
frame rate) with all pixels as originally recorded.
/Jan

Are you saying that a 1080P display will show 540 60P when given a 1080i
source? That is the only information it would have that it could show
natively it would seem. Double up the 540i that 1080i gives it every
1/60th of a second.

If your question is to me, no I'm not saying it will show 540p/60. My
comment was to the statement that "1080 (i or p) is supported NATIVELY
by any 1080p display" which is not correct. See above.
1080i can not be called 540p either because it is not the same.

I thought that top of the line 1080P displays did more with the info
than that.

Yes, they try to deinterlace the 1080i material.. It is not handled
_natively_. Possibly by some CRT based displays but not by the more
common LCD and PDP displays. (In Europe we use 50Hz also for HDTV
signals so I don't think we even want displays to handle the 1080i
signal natively because of the 25Hz line twitter it would produce.)
/Jan

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 12:39:33 -0500, "Deke" no
wrote:

What a maroon.

You misspelled it genus.

A_C

"Agent_C" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 12:39:33 -0500, "Deke" no
wrote:

What a maroon.

You misspelled it genus.

A_C

Maroon? genus? It appears we have a species of a different color here

Jan B wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 23:53:53 GMT, Bob Miller wrote:

Jan B wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 18:06:01 GMT, "SoCalCommie"
wrote:

1080 (i or p) is supported NATIVELY by any 1080p display.
I don't believe that is correct.
A material that is interlaced has motion between the two fields.
A nativily progressive display like an LCD or most PDP will fill every
line with picture information at every frame update (not every other
line). It can not show it NATIVELY.
It is only with progressive material with low frame rate like film
the display can recombine the source material and show it (in the low
frame rate) with all pixels as originally recorded.
/Jan

Are you saying that a 1080P display will show 540 60P when given a 1080i
source? That is the only information it would have that it could show
natively it would seem. Double up the 540i that 1080i gives it every
1/60th of a second.

If your question is to me, no I'm not saying it will show 540p/60. My
comment was to the statement that "1080 (i or p) is supported NATIVELY
by any 1080p display" which is not correct. See above.
1080i can not be called 540p either because it is not the same.

I thought that top of the line 1080P displays did more with the info
than that.

Yes, they try to deinterlace the 1080i material.. It is not handled
_natively_. Possibly by some CRT based displays but not by the more
common LCD and PDP displays. (In Europe we use 50Hz also for HDTV
signals so I don't think we even want displays to handle the 1080i
signal natively because of the 25Hz line twitter it would produce.)
/Jan

Well there is at least one "natively 1080i" plasma, the Hitachi that Mr.
Martin found. I knew there was at least one. I had read about it before.
Don't know of any others.

Broadcasters do a lot of strange things and call it HD. Manufacturers do
a number of things in their HD sets that *******ize the signal and call
it HD when its not. Most people don't know the difference anyway.

Bob Miller

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 12:42:00 -0700, "Robert A. Cunningham"
wrote:

Maroon? genus? It appears we have a species of a different color here

Surely you appreciate the subtle heumor in that?

A_C

"rjn" wrote

How are the store sets connected, and to what?

I presume 1080i over HDMI but didn't check. The important item for this
comparison would be that all sets have the same feed.

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:39:10 GMT, Bob Miller wrote:

Jan B wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 23:53:53 GMT, Bob Miller wrote:

Jan B wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 18:06:01 GMT, "SoCalCommie"
wrote:

1080 (i or p) is supported NATIVELY by any 1080p display.
I don't believe that is correct.
A material that is interlaced has motion between the two fields.
A nativily progressive display like an LCD or most PDP will fill every
line with picture information at every frame update (not every other
line). It can not show it NATIVELY.
It is only with progressive material with low frame rate like film
the display can recombine the source material and show it (in the low
frame rate) with all pixels as originally recorded.
/Jan

Are you saying that a 1080P display will show 540 60P when given a 1080i
source? That is the only information it would have that it could show
natively it would seem. Double up the 540i that 1080i gives it every
1/60th of a second.

If your question is to me, no I'm not saying it will show 540p/60. My
comment was to the statement that "1080 (i or p) is supported NATIVELY
by any 1080p display" which is not correct. See above.
1080i can not be called 540p either because it is not the same.

I thought that top of the line 1080P displays did more with the info
than that.

Yes, they try to deinterlace the 1080i material.. It is not handled
_natively_. Possibly by some CRT based displays but not by the more
common LCD and PDP displays. (In Europe we use 50Hz also for HDTV
signals so I don't think we even want displays to handle the 1080i
signal natively because of the 25Hz line twitter it would produce.)
/Jan

Well there is at least one "natively 1080i" plasma, the Hitachi that Mr.
Martin found. I knew there was at least one. I had read about it before.
Don't know of any others.
....
I don't know the details of the ALiS plasma panel but from what I
understand it has 1024 interlased lines. That might fit well to a
1080i signal if exactly 56 lines are cropped off (as 'overscan').
If this is the case and if the update frequency is equal to the input
signal (50 or 59.94Hz) then it might display 1080i natively.

Anubody here that knows for sure?

(However, the statement I objected to was that any display capable of
displaying 1080p also could handle 1080i natively. Still not true.)

/Jan

"dave gower" wrote:

How are the store sets connected, and to what?

I presume 1080i over HDMI but didn't check. The important item
for this comparison would be that all sets have the same feed.

Not if you're trying to see the difference between 1080i and 1080p :-)

Just as having all the Sam's sets on the same 720p feed
tells you little about the 1080 sets, other than how well
their internal scalers work.

When the live comparison really matters, you bring your
own player and a copy of DVE-HD.

--
Regards, Bob Niland
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.