Is 1080p 1080p

[HDJK]

Originally Posted by gandley

now we just need tvs that can fully resolve 1080p when there is motion on screen.

+ so many 1s

[sleazypig]

Well the US dvds looked bad because American standard definition was 480i and US dvds where in 480p to match what are tvs where capable of. In Europe standard definition was 570i and European dvds where probably in 570p so they probably did look a little better. Now with Blu-ray 1080p is max resuolution everywhere in the world so now where all equal.

[Lucy Diamond]

PAL is way better.

Having said that...does anyone know where I can get a decent Pal to NTSC conversion dvd player that will play on an NTSC TV???

I have a bunch of nicole Kidman movies and a copy of Mad About Mambo that I'd love to watch one of these days.


Thanks...later,

[welwynnick]

Originally Posted by sleazypig

Well the US dvds looked bad because American standard definition was 480i and US dvds where in 480p to match what are tvs where capable of. In Europe standard definition was 570i and European dvds where probably in 570p so they probably did look a little better. Now with Blu-ray 1080p is max resuolution everywhere in the world so now where all equal.

DVDs aren't PAL or NTSC in the strict sense of the word, but they are consistent with the broadcast formats, which are both interlaced. Therefore US DVDs are 480i and EU DVDs are 576i. Most of the recent players perform internal de-interlacing of the stored imagery to progressive scan.

BR, Nick

[the Bass Mechanic]

Originally Posted by welwynnick

DVDs aren't PAL or NTSC in the strict sense of the word, but they are consistent with the broadcast formats, which are both interlaced. Therefore US DVDs are 480i and EU DVDs are 576i. Most of the recent players perform internal de-interlacing of the stored imagery to progressive scan.

BR, Nick

Er, hope I'm not speaking out of turn here, but I was an early adopter of DVD and read all of the articles and white papers I could get my hands on back then (March 1997). I even still have my Sony DVP-S7000 (one of the launch players that I got through a friend who was a reviewer) and the DVD standard stored the video data at progressive frames (29.97fps, 720x480 resolution for NTSC, I don't remember the exact PAL and SECAM standards right now). The data had to be progressive as the CoDec would not work right on interlaced data. I also remember that second and third gen players did have progressive component outputs (or "colorstream" as Toshiba called it) once there were "affordable" TV's (mostly rear or front projection) that supported the higher scan rate needed to display progressive video.

Nowadays, progressive video is the norm, as any type of display other than CRT is natively progressive by the very nature of their design. I will probably have to explain the idea of interlaced video to any grandchildren (or more likely, grand nieces and nephews) I have as they will grow up in world without interlace or Standard Definition (although they may refer to 1080P as low res compared to their 2160P TV's)!

[welwynnick]

Originally Posted by the Bass Mechanic

Er, hope I'm not speaking out of turn here, but I was an early adopter of DVD and read all of the articles and white papers I could get my hands on back then (March 1997). I even still have my Sony DVP-S7000 (one of the launch players that I got through a friend who was a reviewer) and the DVD standard stored the video data at progressive frames (29.97fps, 720x480 resolution for NTSC, I don't remember the exact PAL and SECAM standards right now). The data had to be progressive as the CoDec would not work right on interlaced data. I also remember that second and third gen players did have progressive component outputs (or "colorstream" as Toshiba called it) once there were "affordable" TV's (mostly rear or front projection) that supported the higher scan rate needed to display progressive video.

No, DVD is definitely interlaced. This is confirmed by absolutely every authoritative source there is. If anyone tries to say that DVDs are progressive, I should put a big question mark over their reliability.

Yes, lots of sources and displays do use progressive video, but this is only achieved by de-interlacing, which is an imperfect and lossy process. Try reading every Secrets DVD player test.

Here are a few references:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...on-9-2000.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD-Video

Resolution and Frame rate
DVD-Video can consist of either MPEG-2 at up to 9.8 Mbit/s (9800 kbit/s) or MPEG-1 at up to 1.856 Mbit/s (1856 kbit/s).
The following formats are allowed for MPEG-2 video:

• At 25 fps (usually used in regions where PAL is standard):

720 × 576 pixels MPEG-2 (Called full D1) 704 × 576 pixels MPEG-2 352 × 576 pixels MPEG-2 (Called Half-D1, same as the China Video Disc standard) 352 × 288 pixels MPEG-2

• At 29.97 or 23.976 fps (usually used in regions where NTSC is standard):

720 × 480 pixels MPEG-2 (Called full D1) 704 × 480 pixels MPEG-2 352 × 480 pixels MPEG-2 (Called Half-D1, same as the China Video Disc standard) 352 × 240 pixels MPEG-2
The following formats are allowed for MPEG-1 video:

• 352 × 288 pixels MPEG-1 at 25 fps (Same as the VCD Standard)
• 352 × 240 pixels MPEG-1 at 29.97 fps (Same as the VCD Standard)

[edit] Other requirements

Interlacing is only supported for MPEG-2 video, due to MPEG-1 constraints. 16:9 aspect ratio anamorphic video is only supported at 720 × 576/480, and all resolutions support 4:3 aspect ratio video.

http://dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#1.40

A progressive-scan DVD player converts the interlaced (480i or 576i) video from DVD into progressive (480p or 576p) format for connection to a progressive-scan display (31.5 kHz or higher). Progressive players work with all standard DVD titles, but look best with film source. The result is a significant increase in perceived vertical resolution for a more detailed and film-like picture. Since computers use progressive-scan monitors, DVD PCs are by definition progressive-scan players, although quality varies quite a bit (see 4.1 and 2.12).

There's enormous confusion about whether DVD video is progressive or interlaced. Here's the one true answer: Progressive-source video (such as from film) is usually encoded on DVD as interlaced field pairs that can be reinterleaved by a progressive player to recreate the original progressive video. See 3.8 for further explanation of interlaced and progressive scanning.

http://dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#3.8

There are basically two ways to display video: interlaced scan or progressive scan. Progressive scan, used in computer monitors and digital televisions, displays all the horizontal lines of a picture at one time as a single frame. Interlaced scan, used in standard television formats (NTSC, PAL, and SECAM), displays only half of the horizontal lines at a time (the first field, containing the odd-numbered lines, is displayed, followed by the second field, containing the even-numbered lines). Interlacing relies on phosphor persistence of the TV tube to blend the fields together over a fraction of a second into a seemingly single picture. The advantage of interlaced video is that a high refresh rate (50 or 60 Hz) can be achieved with only half the bandwidth. The disadvantage is that the vertical resolution is essentially cut in half, and the video is often filtered to avoid flicker (interfield twitter) and other artifacts.

It may help to understand the difference by considering how the source images are captured. A film camera captures full frames in intervals that are 1/24th of a second long, whereas a video camera alternately scans fields of odd and even lines in 1/60th of a second intervals, resulting in interlaced frames that are 1/30th of a second long. (Unlike projected film, where the entire frame is shown in an instant, many progressive-scan displays trace a series of lines from top to bottom, but the end result is about the same.)

DVD is specifically designed to be displayed on interlaced-scan displays, which represent 99.9 percent of the more than one billion TVs worldwide. However, most DVD content comes from film, which is inherently progressive. To make film content work in interlaced form, the video from each film frame is split into two video fields —240 lines in one field, and 240 lines in the other— and encoded as separate fields in the MPEG-2 stream. A complication is that film runs at 24 frames per second, whereas TV runs at 30 frames (60 fields) per second for NTSC, or 25 frames (50 fields) per second for PAL and SECAM. For PAL/SECAM display, the simple solution is to show the film frames at 25 per second, which is a 4 percent speed increase, and to speed up the audio to match. For NTSC display, the solution is to spread 24 frames across 60 fields by alternating the display of the first film frame for 2 video fields and the next film frame for 3 video fields. This is called 2-3 pulldown.

BR, Nick

[monkyman]

Yeah, 1080, 1081, whatever it takes.


(let's see how many get this)

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by monkyman

Yeah, 1080, 1081, whatever it takes.


(let's see how many get this)

Mr. Mom