Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

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!!

lol this is the dumbest thing I ever saw. Why does every pirate think they are more of an expert then the professionals just because they don't care what it looks like?

[slick1ru2]

Anthony, you should stick to telephones. Optics isn't your field. You are wrong and can't admit it. Hope you were never anyone's boss.



http://www.edubook.com/hdtv-essentia...xplained/3310/




If you’re a sports fan you would want to opt for HDTV that supports 720p. Sports channels like ESPN and FOX broadcast in 720p and you get to enjoy smoother picture quality in fast motion scenes.

YouTube - ‪TV Resolution 720p vs 1080i 1080p Plasma LCD DLP‬‏

YouTube - ‪What's the Difference Between 720p and 1080i?‬‏

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

lol this is the dumbest thing I ever saw. Why does every pirate think they are more of an expert then the professionals just because they don't care what it looks like?

You prove that you don't have to be a pirate to be clueless? I know you aren't calling yourself a professional.

[Uniquely]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

lol this is the dumbest thing I ever saw. Why does every pirate think they are more of an expert then the professionals just because they don't care what it looks like?

How about instead of accusing him of being a pirate without any evidence to support the accusation... you explain why his post is wrong.

[Anthony P]

Anthony, you should stick to telephones. Optics isn't your field. You are wrong and can't admit it

did you bother looking at the video

like the guy said in the first one
"two half frames (fields) are interlaced together"
he even shows it with his fingers



and later on added a graph, how many rows of pixels does the image say is in 1080i?



As for the second one the guy says that 1080i has 1080 lines and that he does not care if it is better because he has a small TV but that if someone was willing to spend the money they they are better off with a 1080 set.


so why do you think that I have no idea what I am talking about when these guys confirm the exact same thing I posted to your BS that 1080i is 540 lines?


As for what you wrote in italics. It is useless. I never told anyone to buy a 1080 TV to watch Fox & ESPN sports. If the source is 720p then a 1080p display won't make it better. But what does that have to do with the discussion where you think that 1080i= 540<720 and so you conclude 720p is better then 1080i.

Personaly I find there is a lot of material in 1080 and so that is what I pick to watch (be it i or p).

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by robinandtami

How about instead of accusing him of being a pirate without any evidence to support the accusation... you explain why his post is wrong.

I did, it is all my posts there is no such thing as lossless video that is available to the consumer and so lower bitrate necessarily means lower quality especially when the difference in bit rate is big. As for accusing him, I am not the one that did he admitted it on the thread. If he was a professional then he would have a professional machine and SW and so he would not be using the encoder used for pirating.

Even if one was to assume that a particular encoder is 10x better then any other one the argument would still not hold because you would still be talking of an inferior encoding at an inferior bitrate. 100$ is more then 10$ be they Canadian dollars or US dollars or Australian dollars and if I did not add the $ symbol 100 euros is more the 10 euros and 100 pounds is more the 10 pounds……. The only time that fails to be true is once you reach lossless compression. 40mbps will always be better then 4mbps if all else is equal.

[richieb1971]

The only difference between 1080i and 1080p is the way its drawn. The resolution is the same.

1080p = 60 freshes of full screen action (or 24p 3:2 pulldown/or 24 native)

1080i = 60 freshes of half the screen (or 30 frames intertwined between odd and even lines)

You can't have something advertising 1080 when its 540. Thats against the law of advertising.


As for aliasing of lines in 1080i, usually the image is pre-processed so you don't see that. Thats why a video buffer exists so that by the time its on your screen you won't even notice it.

If I bought a TV that had images like the above I would consider myself an idiot.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by richieb1971

The only difference between 1080i and 1080p is the way its drawn. The resolution is the same.

1080p = 60 freshes of full screen action (or 24p 3:2 pulldown/or 24 native)

1080i = 60 freshes of half the screen (or 30 frames intertwined between odd and even lines)

You can't have something advertising 1080 when its 540. Thats against the law of advertising.

exactly, I don't know why it is so hard for some people to get such a simple concept.

As for aliasing of lines in 1080i, usually the image is pre-processed so you don't see that. Thats why a video buffer exists so that by the time its on your screen you won't even notice it.

if it is a CRT then it would show interlaced and draw one line at a time, but for any modern display, that is exactly the point . The same way a 720pTV can't show 1080/i and will downscale it and a 1080p TV can't show 720p and will upscale it to 1080p a TV can't show i and so will deinterlace the image before creating it to be shown. so 1080i (unless there is an issue) will be the exact same thing as 1080p on a 1080p TV.

If I bought a TV that had images like the above I would consider myself an idiot.

I think the images like

are created that way to make a point, that each field is changed every 1/60th of a second. If both fields were shown (as you see them) the whole explanation of i would fall through. The issue is people not bright enough to see it says there are 1080 rows and get bogged down by "there are white line and so it must be worst then 720p.

[richieb1971]

I never thought of people still using CRT technology. I remember in my stay in the USA that CRT's were still quite popular. In the UK where I live CRT's are extinct.

[Cinema Jaguar]

Originally Posted by John72953

I suppose eventually it will all die in favour of bits and bytes. Good thing that I have a huge vinyl library and I'm building a bit of Blu-ray one as well.

It may be a hd-plug-in card system in the future for storing and or copy a digital download.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by richieb1971

I never thought of people still using CRT technology. I remember in my stay in the USA that CRT's were still quite popular. In the UK where I live CRT's are extinct.

here too at least as far as purchases go. But the analogue cut off in the US happened in 2009 and in Canada it will be this year. So even though they where almost none existant for purchase for a few year, until 2009-2008 or something like that small crappy ones where still being sold. I think Europe transitioned faster (and better) to digital then we did.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by richieb1971

The only difference between 1080i and 1080p is the way its drawn. The resolution is the same.

1080p = 60 freshes of full screen action (or 24p 3:2 pulldown/or 24 native)

1080i = 60 freshes of half the screen (or 30 frames intertwined between odd and even lines)

Except if it's 1080p60 vs 1080/60i, with 1080p60 60 full frames are captured every second, whereas with 1080/60i only half the lines are captured 60 times a second. While 1080/60i 60Hz content will be de-interlaced to 1080p60, it won't be as efficient as 1080p60 and it won't be showing what was really there (ie. half the lines won't necessarily be what was actually there in those lines - ie. it will be guessing what should be in half the lines, since half the lines in each 1/60th of a second weren't actually stored in the input). The 1080p60 shouldn't need filtering too. Also, depending on how it's de-interlaced 1080/60i could reduce in resolution to 540 lines on motion (eg. if the whole picture is in motion).

So 1080p60 should look better/be more accurate than 1080/60i.

[richieb1971]

1080i = full frame every 2/60th's of a second.

When the 1080th line is drawn the resolution is equal in every way to a 1080p image.

As for accuracy, the native format is always the most accurate. If the native format is 1080i, then the most accurate format is 1080i.


You can upscale to 1080p from 1080i. Just like you can make a Dolby TrueHD codec out of a DD5.1 one. But the results won't be any better. Sometimes people, they just like to compare their dicks with factory numbers.

Look with your eyes, listen with your ears.

Just for clarification its possible for any movie to get a 5 star for video with a 1080i codec.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

So 1080p60 should look better/be more accurate than 1080/60i.

yes, 1080p60 has twice the frames of 1080i60 and is better. But 1080p60 is neither in Broadcast (ATSC-mpeg 2) nor BD specs and except (I think) for some video games/consoles it is impossible to get. Now AVC was added to ATSC in 2008 with the ability to go to 1080p60 but it will be years before we see it (let's face it, for Cable/sat, maybe there can be new boxes, but for OTA would a broadcaster want to send an h.264 stream if it is unusable because the TV is a few years old?)

That is why the usual comparison is 1080p30 vs 1080i60.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

did you bother looking at the video

like the guy said in the first one
"two half frames (fields) are interlaced together"
he even shows it with his fingers



and later on added a graph, how many rows of pixels does the image say is in 1080i?



As for the second one the guy says that 1080i has 1080 lines and that he does not care if it is better because he has a small TV but that if someone was willing to spend the money they they are better off with a 1080 set.


so why do you think that I have no idea what I am talking about when these guys confirm the exact same thing I posted to your BS that 1080i is 540 lines?


As for what you wrote in italics. It is useless. I never told anyone to buy a 1080 TV to watch Fox & ESPN sports. If the source is 720p then a 1080p display won't make it better. But what does that have to do with the discussion where you think that 1080i= 540<720 and so you conclude 720p is better then 1080i.

Personaly I find there is a lot of material in 1080 and so that is what I pick to watch (be it i or p).

Your mind interlaces them into one. Did you not see all the WHITE LINES in the image? They aren't displayed at the same time so differences in 1 frame to the next causes artifacts such as round balls blurring when kicked or thrown. You don't get that artifact with 720p. Talk to a TV network engineer.


Here is an interlaced image on a progressive monitor.




Left is a progressive image, center is an interlaced, right is a line doubler image.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080i


Each frame of 1080i video consists of two fields of 1920×540 pixels each.

1080i is directly compatible with some CRT-based HDTV sets on which it can be displayed natively in interlaced form, but for display on modern progressive-scan LCD and plasma TV sets it must be deinterlaced and often scaled. Depending on the television's video processing capabilities, the resulting video quality may vary. (see image upper right)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/720p

When broadcast at 60[note 1] frames per second, 720p features the highest temporal (motion) resolution possible under the ATSC and DVB standards.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Your mind interlaces them into one. Did you not see all the WHITE LINES in the image?

there are no white lines, the image in this example uses white lines to demonstrate each field.

Here is an interlaced image on a progressive monitor.

where are those white lines you assume exist? this image is like the one you posted previously. The issue is not interlaced vs progressive but what happens when you interlace the wrong fields. Now this can happen if you buy a crappy TV with crappy interlacing, which is one of the reason that I prefer 1080p, but you should not get that plus if you looked ta the frame before and the one after that issue would not exist, this will happen for 1/60th of a second.

Each frame of 1080i video consists of two fields of 1920×540 pixels each.

but you miss the mosytimportant word even though you bolded it.

so let's try that again

Each frame of 1080i video consists of two fields of 1920×540 pixels each.

and 2x540=1080. A display cannot show a single field, be it i like a CRT or p like an LCD/Plasma/DLP it will always be 2 like the quote says.

1080i is directly compatible with some [SIZE="7"]CRT[/ize]-based HDTV sets on which it can be displayed natively in interlaced form, but for display on modern progressive-scan LCD and plasma TV sets it must be deinterlaced and often scaled. Depending on the television's video processing capabilities,

exactly now look at what I made big, on a CRT it interlaces both images on the display and so 1080 lines interlaced. ON a progressive the fields are combined (aka de-interlaced) and then a prossive image is shown.

the resulting video quality may vary. (see image upper right)

and this is the difference between 1080p and 1080i. 1080p will always be progressive from the get go so such mistakes can't happen. There is the possibility of interlacing the wrong fields if it is 1080i but the possibility is real small.

When broadcast at 60[note 1] frames per second, 720p features the highest temporal (motion) resolution possible under the ATSC and DVB standards

except for being out of date, (i.e. like I pointed out in the previous post 1080p60 was added to ATSC in 2008). This is not about resolution (pixels) but it is about Temporal resolution frames. Obviously 60 frames captures more motion then 30 frames or 24 frames. but those frames are crappier since they only have 720 lines of resolution instead of 1080. so if a ball goes from A to B in a second, it looks worst since the resolution is not there but you supposedly see more of the locations it went through in that second

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by richieb1971

1080i = full frame every 2/60th's of a second.

When the 1080th line is drawn the resolution is equal in every way to a 1080p image.

As for accuracy, the native format is always the most accurate. If the native format is 1080i, then the most accurate format is 1080i.


You can upscale to 1080p from 1080i. Just like you can make a Dolby TrueHD codec out of a DD5.1 one. But the results won't be any better. Sometimes people, they just like to compare their dicks with factory numbers.

It depends on the temporal resolution of the video. If it's 60Hz (motion in each 1/60th of a second), you will never have enough source info in 1080/60i to make full 1080p60 without inventing/interpolating etc pixels/lines when de-interlacing to 1080p60.

If it's 30Hz temporal resolution (new motion once every 1/30th of a second) then you could get them same as 1080p30, but 30Hz is only half as smooth as 60Hz - so camera pans wouldn't be as good, it wouldn't be good for sport/or as good for live stuff (eg. concerts).

Look with your eyes, listen with your ears.

Just for clarification its possible for any movie to get a 5 star for video with a 1080i codec.

It's possible on this site for a movie to get 4 out of 5 stars when a movie was 95% shot with a standard def PAL DV camcorder. On this site they don't seem to take picture quality into account - only how much they think it looks like the original master/whether they think it looks like it did at the cinema.

Though I'm not saying 1080i is bad - and yes I agree it can look better than 1080p24. It can have 2.5x the temporal resolution too - so is better for fast motion/real look - or can have a 1080p25/30 look. But at the same bitrate, progressive at the same Hz should compress better, and allow for less filtering and should be better because - apart from the compression, all the source lines would be from the camera, not 'made up' by the de-interlacer (ie. 1080p60 should be better than 1080/60 at the same bitrate - if BD had it as part of the spec - though 1080p60 is possible on some newer BD players).

[slick1ru2]

1 frame is displayed at a time. That is the difference. 1 frame at a time, very quick, but differences in the in the two frames can be seen. That is why sports heavy channels broadcast on 720p, you don't see the artifacts like in 1080i because it displays the entire frame, not two half frames. When the TV repair man came to replace the 10 bit Samsung panel in my Mitsubushi, I pointed out the elongated baseballs in a game. He told me that was 1080i artifact. Now some complain that ESPN or ABC or FOX looks bad. OF COURSE IT DOES. Why? People put their cable and satellite boxes to 1080i output so their boxes are trying to convert the signal. You want to see those channels look better, when you watching a game, put your STB to 720p output.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tvl...ory?id=1614556

Why Did ESPN Choose 720p versus 1080i?

ESPN chose 720p because of the "p," which stands for progressive scan technology. Progressive scan technology paints the picture on your television screen from top to bottom on a line-by-line basis&.as in lines 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, etc. Interlace technology, the "i" in 1080i, paints the picture on an every-other-line basis, first painting lines 1,3,5,7,9 and then a split second later painting lines 2,4,6,8 and 10. Your eyes then assemble the painting into one image.

Progressive scan technology produces better images for the fast moving orientation of sports television. Simply put, with 104 mph fastballs in baseball and 120 mph shots on goal in hockey, the line-by-line basis of progressive scan technology better captures the inherent fast action of sports. For ESPN, progressive scan technology makes perfect sense.

We note with interest that when consumers now shop for DVD devices which produce the best pictures, the industry standard for quality is "progressive scan DVD players." We believe that says a great deal about our selection of 720p.

However, it is important to note that 720p and 1080i are not mutually exclusive technologies. Unlike certain incompatibilities in industries like cellular telephone service, DVD's and other products dating back to VHS versus Betamax and 8-track audio tape versus cassettes, all television sets, set top boxes and tuners are required to accept a series of formats, in which 720p and 1080i are included. Therefore, no one is excluded, and consumers with sets that inherently create pictures with progressive scan technology will automatically be able to see programs that are produced in the interlace format and vice versa. Some will debate the quality of the technologies, but we believe both 720p and 1080i produce HDTV pictures of a quality far above what most consumers have experienced over the first 50 years of television. As such, all HDTV viewers win!

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

1 frame is displayed at a time. That is the difference. 1 frame at a time, very quick, but differences in the in the two frames can be seen. That is why sports heavy channels broadcast on 720p, you don't see the artifacts like in 1080i because it displays the entire frame, not two half frames. When the TV repair man came to replace the 10 bit Samsung panel in my Mitsubushi, I pointed out the elongated baseballs in a game. He told me that was 1080i artifact. Now some complain that ESPN or ABC or FOX looks bad. OF COURSE IT DOES. Why? People put their cable and satellite boxes to 1080i output so their boxes are trying to convert the signal. You want to see those channels look better, when you watching a game, put your STB to 720p output.

Is an elongated baseball really interlace artefact or isn't it because the camera shutter is open while the ball is moving, so the ball is recorded in several positions so can appear elongated.

eg. if the camera shutter is open 1/60th of a second, and the ball has moved from A to B in 1/60th of a second, the ball should be recorded at all positions from A to B. eg. ())))

Also, saying 720p is better because it's progressive - don't TV stations that broadcast in 720p usually originate it in something else - eg. 1080i?

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

Is an elongated baseball really interlace artefact or isn't it because the camera shutter is open while the ball is moving, so the ball is recorded in several positions so can appear elongated.

eg. if the camera shutter is open 1/60th of a second, and the ball has moved from A to B in 1/60th of a second, the ball should be recorded at all positions from A to B. eg. ())))

Also, saying 720p is better because it's progressive - don't TV stations that broadcast in 720p usually originate it in something else - eg. 1080i?

Shutter speed causes blurring, not elongation unless its very slow. And I am pretty sure Fox Sports and ABC use native 720p equipment. ESPN even said in their initial announcement that so few of their broadcasts were HD initially because no 720p trucks in existence. They had to wait to get them to start broadcasting.


I'm sure the engineers from Fox and ABC would be pretty amused at your assertion that 1080i is the better format for sports.