1080i vs. 1080p The easiest way to explain it

[yojoeski]

I believe I've found the best way to explain the difference fo the two. Both are the same quality until things start to move quickly on the screen. Once this happens, 1080i will become slightly blurry and grainy whereas 1080p will hold it's crisp clear picture.

Oh, before I forget it as well, don't know if this has been posted or not, but the Terminator 3 preorder for Feb 26th has been removed from Amazon.com.

[JasonR]

It is the same if you only like half of your resolution displayed at any given time....

Give me 720P over 1080i

[Chaka]

I think that most don't realize they don't have a 1080i native set so it doesn't matter. . Most until recently were 720p native that accepted 1080i input. All new TVs are 1080p.

[Sonny]

[cawgijoe]

You would not be able to tell the difference between my 1080i Sony KV-34XBR800 CRT and any other 1080p or 720p set with approximately the same size placed right next to it.

As to motion......I would defy anyone here to come over and point out motion-blur on my set.....you won't find it.

Of course we are talking CRT here......

[Gremal]

Same as the difference between 480i and 480p. Interlaced vs progressive.

[suesboywill]

That's a good explanation but not all people see things the same way.
This is more apparent at my workplace...

[gand41f]

I guess this short thread is ample evidence that there is no easy way to explain it.... (only half )

enjoy
gandalf

[richard lichtenfelt]

Grain is due to the composition of film. It is not affected by progressive scan or the lack thereof.

[trey]

Unless I misunderstand, I think this is a good way to give someone any idea of the difference between interlaced and progressive

interlaced: viewable as 60 seperate fields, having to display 1 field every 60th of a second
1/60 2/60 3/60 4/60 5/60 6/60
-------xxxxx-------xxxxx-------xxxxx
xxxxx-------xxxxx-------xxxxx-------
-------xxxxx-------xxxxx-------xxxxx
xxxxx-------xxxxx-------xxxxx-------
<----------> <---> <-just one single field
^1/60&2/60 are one "frame

xxxxx - is just a placed holder for formatting purposes, they should technically be blank

This works for our eyes since we don't register the transition any quicker than 1/30 of a second.
Technically you are only seeing half of the image at one time ever. So in 1080i in the first field of the first frame you would get image on scan lines 1,3,5,....1079, and during the second field of the first frame you would see scan lines 2,4,6,.....1080. This is why people say you are getting half of the quality/resolution with interlaced

Progressive scan shows the full fram for the full 1/30 of a second instead of splitting it in half:
1/30 2/30 3/30 4/30
==== ==== ==== ====
==== ==== ==== ====
==== ==== ==== ====
==== ==== ==== ====

[amavon]

Originally Posted by gand41f

I guess this short thread is ample evidence that there is no easy way to explain it.... (only half )

enjoy
gandalf

It is not that simple as many techniques are used in deinterlacing. The end result of which is directly related to the quality of the pictue. When done correctly deinterlaced 1080i to 1080p processing is virtually indestiguishable from native 1080p. it is always about the the quality of the deinterlacer. Do I hear applause for DCDi or Silicon Image (DVDO) and even many Sony products prior to 1080p (ie SXRD XBR1's)...simply yes...they all use motion adaptive, bob, weave, scaling, 3:2 and inverse 2:3 to make a single 1920 X 1080 picture and do it well with powerful, fast processors.



Kris

[Kuraudo]

TREY YOU'RE ARE SPOT ON!
Interpolated and interlaced results just don't cut it.

Go look at the Vizio thread and notice that a lot of people are ignorant
to quality and the majority of consumers are going cheap on TVS. Most will not see enough details to disgtinguish and then go spread the myths on forums.
Most of the time you will need only the best processing to get video to look better. Might as well make every film 1080p and call it a day.
From a pure standpoint, 1080p has every advantage over 1080i and should be fought for.

Another big reason people cant tell is because they are looking at a 1080p picture on a 720p "Native" set that "accepts" 1080i or some low quality 1080i/p screen that does not have much detail.
The difference in detail just between my lowly Samsung LN-S4095D vs. The Sony Bravia Xbr4 is a total blowout. The Sony wins in every aspect. Much less if 1080i is viewed on a crap set like Vizio.

It's a myth that there is no difference between 1080i and 1080p. Don't you think if Tv sales people/manufacturers/etc knew the truth they would be broke because they couldn't move their old sets off the shelves?
Then the consumer believes the idiot sales people and spreads these rumors based on half truths without examining it for themselves. There is also the psychology of pre convincing a notion. If you convince someone, even if they compare the 2 tvs with their own eyes they will believe the notion over what the see..Its kind of how people are anorexic, they believe they are fat.

Originally Posted by amavon

It is not that simple as many techniques are used in deinterlacing. The end result of which is directly related to the quality of the pictue. When done correctly deinterlaced 1080i to 1080p processing is virtually indestiguishable from native 1080p. it is always about the the quality of the deinterlacer. Do I hear applause for DCDi or Silicon Image (DVDO) and even many Sony products prior to 1080p (ie SXRD XBR1's)...simply yes...they all use motion adaptive, bob, weave, scaling, 3:2 and inverse 2:3 to make a single 1920 X 1080 picture and do it well with powerful, fast processors.



Kris