Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[Steedeel]

yes i watch sports in England with basically the top pay tv service available here in hd 1080i on a 5o inch screen. Very decent quality but nowhere near bluray. It boils down to wanting the best or not caring. I love bluray picture quality, i am completely hooked. you are not and don't really care for it. We are both just going around in circles trying to get the better of each other.

I am utterly devoted to bluray for my FILM entertainment and will continue to buy it as long as i can.

You are not so lets just leave it there. Otherwise it is going to turn into a David Brent situation with us both bragging about our jobs and home cinema and maybe even doing a funny dance.

I have said some things that have offended you. You have said things that has offended me. I am passionate about my hd film source you are passionate about tech in general, that's fair enough.
I am going to get back to my love of watching films rather than posting on this forum so this is my last post on this particular topic.

I will enjoy bluray for many many years. hope you get what you want out of your entertainment needs and we can both be happy.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

yes i watch sports in England with basically the top pay tv service available here in hd 1080i on a 5o inch screen. Very decent quality but nowhere near bluray. It boils down to wanting the best or not caring. I love bluray picture quality, i am completely hooked. you are not and don't really care for it. We are both just going around in circles trying to get the better of each other.

I am utterly devoted to bluray for my FILM entertainment and will continue to buy it as long as i can.

You are not so lets just leave it there. Otherwise it is going to turn into a David Brent situation with us both bragging about our jobs and home cinema and maybe even doing a funny dance.

I have said some things that have offended you. You have said things that has offended me. I am passionate about my hd film source you are passionate about tech in general, that's fair enough.
I am going to get back to my love of watching films rather than posting on this forum so this is my last post on this particular topic.

I will enjoy bluray for many many years. hope you get what you want out of your entertainment needs and we can both be happy.

Your being in the UK means there is absolutely no way to see the quality of video I am talking about so let's just leave it at that. ANd 720p is a better format then 1080i especially for sports.

[Steedeel]

I disagree but no change there. Bye

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Rob71

Funny that on my $1200 Best Buy priced 60" LCD, Netflix is not the "goregous"
experience you claim. And that is 1080P through a PS3. There is a marked difference between their streams and almost any BD I've watched. It is what it is.

Post your DL speed from Speedtest.net. If you have 2mb connection, you arent't getting the correct streaming rate for 1080p. Push the select button and post what it says. And was that before or after last October?

[partridge]

Personally I've always felt that the people behind the specs for HD made a big mistake by not including bit rates in it. I can take any size image and set it fill a 1080 screen, but that doesn't mean it's going to look as good as an image taken in actual 1080 resolution.

It bugged me a few years back that both MS and Apple were plying HD streams and downloads as "HD" but clearly the bitrate for the picture and sound was nowhere near that of blu-ray (and audio always seems to get overlooked!)

If HD included a minimum bitrate for image and audio the online vendors would be using different terminology.

I've downloaded films from PSN in HD and they look fine, but an 8Gb download can't compare to a 25Gb blu-ray, unless someone got it very wrong on the blu-ray! I appreciate that compression technology improves, etc, but if a blu-ray throws 20mbps of image data at the screen, then how can any streaming technology equal that unless it too is throwing the same level of data at the screen, which for the vast majority of consumers just isn't possible; I get buffering sometimes watching SD streams through my PS3 and I have a very good (ADSL) connection.

That said, from the right distance any picture becomes perfectly adequate to view and as individuals some of us are more tolerant of image quality than others. As long as we're all happy with what we're seeing and hearing, that's the main thing, right..?

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Not as much as I worry for you and your knowledge of optical physics and human acuity. You do know that ESPN and Fox broadcast in 720p right? Again, go back to the blind test, most can't tell which is which. I doubt you can either.

You do realize not all 720p sources are equal? Football on FOX (over the air) looks a damned sight better than it does on ESPN (Dish Network) to me. I've used netflix streaming and sometimes its OK sometimes its terrrible. Including sometimes where its clear they converted a 24p source to 30p, creating massive judder. But honestly its nowhere near Bluray quality. And I watch mainly on a 50" 720p plasma. Resolution is certainly not everything.

[badboi]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Your being in the UK means there is absolutely no way to see the quality of video I am talking about so let's just leave it at that. ANd 720p is a better format then 1080i especially for sports.

Yeah, because we all know that the Brits suffer from some genetic deficiency that makes them unable to see things correctly.

Hasn't the 720p v. 1080i/p thing been beaten to death already by so many others before?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by robinandtami

How do we know it actually needs 40mbps? How much of that 40mbps is actually just diminishing returns? At what point does the speed of delivery actually represent a perceptable difference in picture quality? Just like sitting 10' away from a 60" 1080P set should technically provide a more detailed picture than sitting 6' away from a 32" 720P set... how many people are in practice actually able to see a real difference in detail?

As a consumer Diminishing returns does not make any sense in this context. I don't know when your boss gave you the largest pay increase as a % of your previous salary so let's make a simple scenario. In 2010 Joes boss told him "you will get a 2% increase" in 2011 Joes boss tells him "Things are tight and you can only get a 2% increase" do you think Joe should say "I don't want that extra return of 1% for the job I do, it is diminishing returns compared to the increase I got last year so I don't want it. I will continue to work for the same salary as 2010 and when you are ready to go beyond 2% come and see me again", or do you think he should just accept what his boss gives him? And I did not even get complicated since a 5% increase to someone making 10$ an hour is probably much more important and will have a much bigger impact then someone making 100$ or 1000$ an hour.

The same here. If I am a buyer I am buying a film, if I am a renter I am renting a film. If I have better PQ/AQ why would I not want it even if someone decides it is not that much better?

talking of diminishing returns only makes sense to do so when you are a producer/merchant. If you are a farmer and you can plant X rows of crop does it make sense to squeeze them a bit more and put in X+1 rows. X+1 has more cost and time and you might not get a full X+1 worth of benefit from it, for example maybe each plant produces a bit less because they are squeezed, maybe you can not sell X+1 worth of what is grown..... (and this goes back to the history of diminishing returns) but even in a more modern example it can still apply. To tie it to an other topic, will someone be willing to pay more for a TV, BD player..... because the manufacturer used a good part (lets say metal) instead of a cheap one (plastic), most will not since if a TV., BD player will last 10 years instead of 5 years when you buy it very few people consider or even now that. And with merchants, they usually get better pricing on quantity, but on the other hand there can be a time where the extra $ he will need to spend to get more is not worth it, maybe because he will need to hold on to it for a long time and there is cost to that, maybe because he will need to discount the price………

Now if you asked me would I spend 1M$ a film for top quality, then the law of diminishing returns might come into play and I will say no. But as long as we stick in the realm of reasonableness talking of diminishing returns just means accepting crap quality since there is no reason for someone not wanting something that is better.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

I didn't ask what you did, I asked what the guy who doesn't seem to know about digital data. Digital Medical imaging. Which includes IT functions with networking, database management and working with super HD monitors for accurate display of exams.

Then I really don’t get why you said “you guys” when you where only talking about the OP. The natural assumption is that you where talking to all the heathens that don’t believe DL only is imminent and that

I did go down the formal IT training path and am a Microsoft Certified Professional, stopped just short of MCSE because I really didn't need it. I am also, as I noted an early electronics adapter, and Amazon invited me years ago into their Vine program where they send me items like LCD TVs, and other new, advanced electronics and software for review.

As for being MS certified, that is the difference. that is not experience that adds to the subject matter. To tie it in to my previous post and R&Ts post that you agreed with (diminishing returns). This is where my experience matters a lot more. Having worked very close with ISPs/Network providers. Let me ask you this. What incentive does the ISPs have to spend trillions of dollars in order for Netflix or Vudu or AppleTV or Hulu….. or any other DLCP in order for them to be able to offer decent quality streaming (or DL)? Do you think people are willing to spend a hell of a lot more for their internet account? If you say they should not raise the price, then where is there any return on investment for them? Due to deminishing returns, the natural thing is to spend and upgrade the network as little as possible just what is needed in order to keep the customers they have. We are long past the point of diminishing returns for them and that is what guys like you are missing. And that has a trickle down effect, why would Netflix pay studios and offer higher quality when most people can't use it? it raises their cost for no reason.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

4k in a normal TV would be great if I were an eagle and could see the difference.

if you have 20:20 vision (with or without glasses) then you can see the diference.

4k is the 1:1 ratio scan of a film master of a movie. So 4k is the amount of data from a digitized analog format made to be projected on a huge movie theater screen. Most don't need that kind of resolution.

No, you are wrong. The original film element has more then 4K resolution and right now there are films being scanned at 6K and 8K, I am sure searching this site you will find the information on at least some of those titles that have gotten higher then 4k scans. On the other hand 4K has nothing to do with cinemas. Let me tell you a small dirty little secret, and if you don’t want to take my word for it please ask some of the insiders here if it is true. A few years ago there was a study done by the SMPTE for the ITU, they compared the original negative and got that it was >4K, but film is not easy to copy like digital, and for every positive you need a negative before it (remember before digital cameras when you took pictures you had the film which created a negatives which was then used to make the pictures.) so with every copy you have what is known as generational losses (i.e. think of a photocopy, it is never as good as the original). Then you have an other secrete that most theatres are extremely badly set up and the actual resolution you see in theatres is not 4K but most of them are even lower then true 1080p. So in some instances (extremely good transfer from the original film positive) you can get a sharper (more detailed) image then what you saw in the theatre.

[lucjan]

Hopefully. Blu ray players can be a bit expensive (the good one's), and you need proper TV's, which add onto the cost, but the benefits are really quite fantastic. It seems like blu ray's growing tbh. I keep seeing its prevalence in stores, especially online one's like Amazon.

[Uniquely]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

As a consumer Diminishing returns does not make any sense in this context. I don't know when your boss gave you the largest pay increase as a % of your previous salary so let's make a simple scenario. In 2010 Joes boss told him "you will get a 2% increase" in 2011 Joes boss tells him "Things are tight and you can only get a 2% increase" do you think Joe should say "I don't want that extra return of 1% for the job I do, it is diminishing returns compared to the increase I got last year so I don't want it. I will continue to work for the same salary as 2010 and when you are ready to go beyond 2% come and see me again", or do you think he should just accept what his boss gives him? And I did not even get complicated since a 5% increase to someone making 10$ an hour is probably much more important and will have a much bigger impact then someone making 100$ or 1000$ an hour.

The same here. If I am a buyer I am buying a film, if I am a renter I am renting a film. If I have better PQ/AQ why would I not want it even if someone decides it is not that much better?

talking of diminishing returns only makes sense to do so when you are a producer/merchant. If you are a farmer and you can plant X rows of crop does it make sense to squeeze them a bit more and put in X+1 rows. X+1 has more cost and time and you might not get a full X+1 worth of benefit from it, for example maybe each plant produces a bit less because they are squeezed, maybe you can not sell X+1 worth of what is grown..... (and this goes back to the history of diminishing returns) but even in a more modern example it can still apply. To tie it to an other topic, will someone be willing to pay more for a TV, BD player..... because the manufacturer used a good part (lets say metal) instead of a cheap one (plastic), most will not since if a TV., BD player will last 10 years instead of 5 years when you buy it very few people consider or even now that. And with merchants, they usually get better pricing on quantity, but on the other hand there can be a time where the extra $ he will need to spend to get more is not worth it, maybe because he will need to hold on to it for a long time and there is cost to that, maybe because he will need to discount the price………

Now if you asked me would I spend 1M$ a film for top quality, then the law of diminishing returns might come into play and I will say no. But as long as we stick in the realm of reasonableness talking of diminishing returns just means accepting crap quality since there is no reason for someone not wanting something that is better.

The comparison between money and picture quality is a meaningless analogy. Anyone with a very basic understanding of math can see more money.

What I am asking is at what delivery speed is there a perceptable difference in picture quality. The math has been done and the scales drawn for different resolution sets, screen sizes and seating distances. You made the statement that bd delivers at 40mbps and that is the speed needed to get a quality 1080P picture. My question is how do we know that? Would the human eye be able to tell difference if the same film were transported at 30mbps? What if it used slightly different compression? I don't know the answer to these questions... and honestly I doubt you do either.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

From CNET:

Whether you're dealing with 1080p/24 or standard 1080p/60, doesn't alter our overall views about 1080p TVs. We still believe that when you're dealing with TVs 50 inches and smaller, the added resolution has only a very minor impact on picture quality. In our tests, we put 720p (or 768p) sets next to 1080p sets, then feed them both the same source material, whether it's 1080i or 1080p, from the highest-quality Blu-ray player. We typically watch both sets for a while, with eyes darting back and forth between the two, looking for differences in the most-detailed sections, such as hair, textures of fabric, and grassy plains. Bottom line: It's almost always very difficult to see any difference--especially from farther than 8 feet away on a 50-inch TV.

Read more: http://reviews.cnet.com/720p-vs-1080...#ixzz1MWO2Scog

Do you realize your link contradicts you? The clearly states there is a difference. Now if someone wants to pretend something is minor or not is immaterial to the question “is there a difference?” There are people spending 100k$ on TVs http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/17/p...100-000-price/ to them that is a minor difference in price compared to a 1k$ TVs because they have the cash and don’t mind spending it. Using the term minor either means you don’t care (like the 103" TV example where the guy does not mind spending 100k$ on a TV) or you are trying to downplay something (like calling the difference between 720p and 1080p as minor). Why do you care if we would rather not have to live with that difference, or the minor difference between 4k and 1080p?

Simple question, a few years have passed and your TV brakes you go shopping and you end up with three Tvs all of the same brand, size and quality except one is 720p, the other 1080p and the other 4K, which one do you pic? Do you go with the 720p because there is “minor” difference from the rest of them or do you say “there is a difference so why compromise if I don’t have to?”. Now obviously in a real situation the price might not be the same and if someone does not care for the difference they can call it minor and feel good about buying the cheaper TV. The issue is that just because you don't care that none of us should care either for that difference.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by robinandtami

The comparison between money and picture quality is a meaningless analogy. Anyone with a very basic understanding of math can see more money.

lol, have you had some discussions on-line way too many people don't have basic understanding of math, if they did most of the on-line arguments would not exist.

As for "seeing more money" doesn't "diminishing returns " by definition implies there is a difference that can be seen? Also they don't encode infrared or UV everything is in the visible spectrum and even more it is a small discrete part of the visible spectrum. Any difference will also, minimally, be pixel size and at the very least be a frame length long. All of these are visible. So unless someone has serious vision problems or the set is seriously messed up, anyone should be able to see the difference even if it is one pixel on a frame or in a few frames.

What I am asking is at what delivery speed is there a perceptable difference in picture quality. The math has been done and the scales drawn for different resolution sets, screen sizes and seating distances. You made the statement that bd delivers at 40mbps and that is the speed needed to get a quality 1080P picture. My question is how do we know that? Would the human eye be able to tell difference if the same film were transported at 30mbps?

You completely misunderstand me. I don't think 40mbps is what is needed to get quality 1080p. What is needed is MUCH higher. The issue is I (and everyone else) don't have access to that, BD is the best I have access to, so I live with it. But if tomorrow I could go and get a ultraBD that has lossless video then BD quality would be just as unacceptable as everything below BD quality is unacceptable now.

What if it used slightly different compression? I don't know the answer to these questions... and honestly I doubt you do either.

there is two types of compression destructive and none-destructive. In a lossless codec like DTS-MA or DTHD all the compression is none-destructive. In a lossy codec like DTS,DD, MPEG-2, AVC, VC-1 you have some that is none-destructive (i.e. completely black screen for a few frames definitely can be compressed to the max with no loss) and some that is destructive and the reason they are called lossy is because there is loss. BD levels are already in destructive levels, compressing it more means more info is destroyed since it has already compressed the none destructive parts. In theory, I guess, a truly radical codec could use less BW and not lose anything. But that is not the case. The rules for the Codecs are a well known beasts and so even when you go from something like MPEG-2 to AVC you are not talking of a big difference in none-destructive. The reason one CODEC is called better or one encoder is not that it keeps more detail but that it is more strategic about what is destroyed to make it less obvious.

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Your being in the UK means there is absolutely no way to see the quality of video I am talking about so let's just leave it at that. ANd 720p is a better format then 1080i especially for sports.

Being from the UK and having seen sport in both 720p and 1080i I can say with some authority your wrong.

PS, I've seen ESPN/ABC/Fox in 720p60 CBS/NBC in 1080i30

CBS and NBC trounces the 720p channels in sport, on a good TV with good processing to 1080p is Simply more detailed Period.

it's the same story here in Europe with 720p channels VS 1080i , 1080i is always better. all top quality channels choose 1080i unless they are severely bandwidth limited.

Ironic, not being in the UK and having access to Sky Sports HD, you have no Idea that Sky Sports trounces virtually all US broadcasts for picture quality with it's 15-20mbit/s AVC picture ( and the bitrate during the action starts rarely drops below 18mbit/s). We often get a better picture from major event's like the Superbowl than Americans do.


Back to the topic.

Blu-ray has a future, it may never be as popular as DVD, or as convenient as online downloads stream or rentals, but AV enthusiasts will keep buying Blu-Ray's until Net movies and downloads catch up or better Blu-Ray.

Even if the day comes when download can surpass the quality of blu-ray then some people just like physical versions like CD's and it's hard to see currently how Blu-Ray will be surpassed noticably by the masses until the leap to the next new higher resolutions on huge screens.


The day download might equal or surpass Blu-ray may not be that far away. Mpeg4 AVC encoding software ane hardware are getting ever better and more efficient especially the open source x.264. Somebody needs to show Hollywood Blu Ray Mastering engineers how AVC encoding is done though. When somebody knows how to set up an AVC encoder properly a 40mbit/s average bitrate is totally unnecessary. I've seen 40mbit/s average Blu Ray video re-encoded to a 1/3rd of the size with no detectable loss in quality by a human eye every comparison, studying still frames of both and you cannot tell them apart without checking what source the stills are from. Imagine how good Blu-Rays could look if these guys encoded the blu-rays direct from the uncompressed 4k digital intermediates!!

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

Being from the UK and having seen sport in both 720p and 1080i I can say with some authority your wrong.

PS, I've seen ESPN/ABC/Fox in 720p60 CBS/NBC in 1080i30

CBS and NBC trounces the 720p channels in sport, on a good TV with good processing to 1080p is Simply more detailed Period.

it's the same story here in Europe with 720p channels VS 1080i , 1080i is always better. all top quality channels choose 1080i unless they are severely bandwidth limited.

Ironic, not being in the UK and having access to Sky Sports HD, you have no Idea that Sky Sports trounces virtually all US broadcasts for picture quality with it's 15-20mbit/s AVC picture ( and the bitrate during the action starts rarely drops below 18mbit/s). We often get a better picture from major event's like the Superbowl than Americans do.

I agree that 1080i isn't inherently worse (so long as its properly deinterlaced) than 720p for sports, its just that 720p stands up better to compression.

As far as the US networks go all of the local market stations re-compress the video they get from the network except FOX. The video quality you saw can greatly vary across the country. I prefer FOX for football because on CBS and NBC when theres fast motion the picture just falls apart. NBC is stunning when not much is going on. ESPN is worse than all of the above IMO though.

I saw some BBC-HD caps back when they broadcast at 16mbps. Simply blew away any HDTV channels in the US. We've really been let down by providers trying to cram in as many HDTV channels as they possibly can. I know Dish Network here send out about 4-5mbs h.264.

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

Back to the topic.

Blu-ray has a future, it may never be as popular as DVD, or as convenient as online downloads stream or rentals, but AV enthusiasts will keep buying Blu-Ray's until Net movies and downloads catch up or better Blu-Ray.

Even if the day comes when download can surpass the quality of blu-ray then some people just like physical versions like CD's and it's hard to see currently how Blu-Ray will be surpassed noticably by the masses until the leap to the next new higher resolutions on huge screens.


The day download might equal or surpass Blu-ray may not be that far away. Mpeg4 AVC encoding software ane hardware are getting ever better and more efficient especially the open source x.264. Somebody needs to show Hollywood Blu Ray Mastering engineers how AVC encoding is done though. When somebody knows how to set up an AVC encoder properly a 40mbit/s average bitrate is totally unnecessary. I've seen 40mbit/s average Blu Ray video re-encoded to a 1/3rd of the size with no detectable loss in quality by a human eye every comparison, studying still frames of both and you cannot tell them apart without checking what source the stills are from. Imagine how good Blu-Rays could look if these guys encoded the blu-rays direct from the uncompressed 4k digital intermediates!!

Well put, I agree with you 100%. I've done some HDTV encoding with x264. You crank the settings up and do 2 passes, and a 720p broadcast encode is identical at around 5 mbps, sometimes less.

I think digital streaming will be pretty much dominating the market in as few as 5 years (anyone see the report that netflix now takes up 1/3 of all US internet traffic), but there will still be those, including myself, that want a real copy when buying a movie.

[Uniquely]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

Back to the topic.

Blu-ray has a future, it may never be as popular as DVD, or as convenient as online downloads stream or rentals, but AV enthusiasts will keep buying Blu-Ray's until Net movies and downloads catch up or better Blu-Ray.

Even if the day comes when download can surpass the quality of blu-ray then some people just like physical versions like CD's and it's hard to see currently how Blu-Ray will be surpassed noticably by the masses until the leap to the next new higher resolutions on huge screens.


The day download might equal or surpass Blu-ray may not be that far away. Mpeg4 AVC encoding software ane hardware are getting ever better and more efficient especially the open source x.264. Somebody needs to show Hollywood Blu Ray Mastering engineers how AVC encoding is done though. When somebody knows how to set up an AVC encoder properly a 40mbit/s average bitrate is totally unnecessary. I've seen 40mbit/s average Blu Ray video re-encoded to a 1/3rd of the size with no detectable loss in quality by a human eye every comparison, studying still frames of both and you cannot tell them apart without checking what source the stills are from. Imagine how good Blu-Rays could look if these guys encoded the blu-rays direct from the uncompressed 4k digital intermediates!!

Now that was a very intelligent and refreshingly non-biased response to the topic. Thank you!

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

Being from the UK and having seen sport in both 720p and 1080i I can say with some authority your wrong.

PS, I've seen ESPN/ABC/Fox in 720p60 CBS/NBC in 1080i30

CBS and NBC trounces the 720p channels in sport, on a good TV with good processing to 1080p is Simply more detailed Period.

it's the same story here in Europe with 720p channels VS 1080i , 1080i is always better. all top quality channels choose 1080i unless they are severely bandwidth limited.

Ironic, not being in the UK and having access to Sky Sports HD, you have no Idea that Sky Sports trounces virtually all US broadcasts for picture quality with it's 15-20mbit/s AVC picture ( and the bitrate during the action starts rarely drops below 18mbit/s). We often get a better picture from major event's like the Superbowl than Americans do.


Back to the topic.

Blu-ray has a future, it may never be as popular as DVD, or as convenient as online downloads stream or rentals, but AV enthusiasts will keep buying Blu-Ray's until Net movies and downloads catch up or better Blu-Ray.

Even if the day comes when download can surpass the quality of blu-ray then some people just like physical versions like CD's and it's hard to see currently how Blu-Ray will be surpassed noticably by the masses until the leap to the next new higher resolutions on huge screens.


The day download might equal or surpass Blu-ray may not be that far away. Mpeg4 AVC encoding software ane hardware are getting ever better and more efficient especially the open source x.264. Somebody needs to show Hollywood Blu Ray Mastering engineers how AVC encoding is done though. When somebody knows how to set up an AVC encoder properly a 40mbit/s average bitrate is totally unnecessary. I've seen 40mbit/s average Blu Ray video re-encoded to a 1/3rd of the size with no detectable loss in quality by a human eye every comparison, studying still frames of both and you cannot tell them apart without checking what source the stills are from. Imagine how good Blu-Rays could look if these guys encoded the blu-rays direct from the uncompressed 4k digital intermediates!!

Watch and learn about 1080i artifacts. 1080i only shows 540 lines at a time. It is lower then 720p in quality.

I watch my sports, when I can, OTA, digital broadcast from the station, not rebroadcast through the cable or satellite system. It has 3x the bandwidth/bit rate of the rebroadcasters. When I DVR a program OTA vs satellite, its 3 times the size on the HD. ESPN and Fox Sports broadcast in 720p which shows an entire frame vs half a frame at a time for 1080i.

YouTube - ‪720p vs 1080i HD Explained‬‏

Guess which is 1080i

[Show spoiler]

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by robinandtami

Now that was a very intelligent and refreshingly non-biased response to the topic. Thank you!

I agree.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Watch and learn about 1080i artifacts. 1080i only shows 540 lines at a time. It is lower then 720p in quality.

you are really out there. You don't get even the simplest of the fundamentals.


1080i shows 1080 lines at the time just like 1080p. and even if one looks at a field and says there are 540 rows per field (even if your TV shows two fields at the same time which make a frame) you still have 1920 columns.


The guy in the video is wrong, and I will use your own example to explain it



look at the image on the left. what is wrong with it? is it that there is 1/2 the info then the one on the right? where are those black lines as the guy in the video stipulates?

On a progressive TV (and any modern digital display will have that) all the lines are refreshed at the same time. On an Interlaced TV like a CRT or some of the first plasma TVs in the 90's, they refresh 1/2 the screen at a time (either odd or even) and that is what you se in the pic on the left. That is why looking at the exterior edge of the building you see lines = because the camera panned while filming and so the odd and even lines are messed up because that instance shows the left of one frame and the right of the other. On the other hand if they captured 1/60th of a second faster (or slower) you would have gotten what you see in he pic on the right. Also if you bothered reading the captions, the pic on the right says deinterlaced-progressive, which is what you should see on a progressive TV when you have an interlaced source that got deinterlaced correctly.

Simply put. If you have a progressive TV (like a Plasma or LCD) then if it is properly deinterlaced then there is no differe3nce between 1080i and 1080p. On the other hand since theoretically there could be issues, I prefer 1080p and don’t agfree with people saying there is no difference.

Why does interlace exist? a CRT uses an electron gun (think of it like a laser or typewriter) that shoots electrons one line at a time when these lines hit the screen the phosphors get exited (like a hot girl in a bar full of guys) when phosphors get exited they glow and that is the light you see from your TV (this would be true for CRT and Plasma, LCD the light comes from a bulb or DEL) but what happens is that as time progresses the phosphors start to dim. In the early CRTs that was an issue because 1/30 of a second later when the gun was back at the same location the new line would be brighter then the one just before that and that made a bright line that was descending. Someone had the bright idea or splitting the frame into two fields (odd and even) so it does half the screen and then back at the top (but off by one line) for the other half and this way your screen changes every 1/60th of a second and the phosphors don't lose their brightness as much. So on an interlaced display every 1/60th of a second you see something like the left image and every other 1/60th the image on the right. And for someone that is focused on making excuses, just an extra little tidbit but when your brain gets the left image for such a short period of time it says “I must be getting something wrong” and so tends to dismiss it while focusing on the images on the right. Which is what you will call invisible, after all, do you remember when you where younger and used to watch on a CRT having the image on the left where ½ of what you saw was wrong, and this example is not even that bad, imagine if it was not just a camera move but a cut scene where ½ the image for that 1/60 th of a second was completely wrong,