How discernable is 1080p over 1080i ?

[welwynnick]

Originally Posted by MSG33

If the calc is based on being able to discriminate PAIRS of pixels, you'd need to sit twice as far away, not twice as close.

Yes, I meant to say that everyone has been suggesting that we need to sit twice as close as the resolution criterion really implies, so I'm supporting what you say about the visibility of 1080p displays.

If we assume the limit of resolution amounts to one pixel per minute of arc, then the minimum viewing distance is 3438 pixels away from the screen.

If we now assume that the limit amounts to two pixels per minute of arc, then the minimum distance for any display becomes 1719 pixels.

That means that we will indeed se the benefit of 1080p displays where many people assume it will make no difference.

regards, Nick

[ixlegitballinxl]

on my 52 sony lcd, 720p looks better then 1080i, and there is a huge diffrence between 1080 and 1080p. Get a 1080p tv, you'll have no worries then!


people usually downplay 1080p, when they dont have 1080p money

[MSG33]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

No. I said excellent. To reach the eye limits, probably 4000-6000 lines are needed per picture height at an about 2 picture heights distance.

My mistake there. Most people tend to refer to tables like these as maximum limits, not optimal positioning.

Also have in mind that in your comparisons, although you may be seeing a signal recorded in 480i (DVD), or 1080p (BD), the recorded image itself might not be reaching 480p or 1080p (I think a few transfers might be reaching the full sharpness and detail of 1080p but there's several that do not).

I have a Sony BDP-S300 connected directly to the TV via a 4' HDMI cable, with the player explicitly set to 1080p in the menu. I'm not sure exactly how/why resolution would be lost in the transfer process. I play DVDs on the same player, which also upconverts.

So a 1000p computer signal (assuming a bit of overscan from the TV, 1080->1000) looks best at 2 screen widths. Not very different from the "At 2x screen width sitting distance 800p" I suggested.

The television I have has a feature to disable overscan, so it's running a pixel-perfect 1920x1080.

I can understand that. That's why I advocate large screens
The eye can relax at a long distance focus, yet get an image that covers its field of view. Like in a movie theater.

In computer environments, I've always preferred resolution over screen size. For example, If I was going to upgrade a monitor, I would ALWAYS go for one at the same size with more resolution, over a larger one at the same resolution.

My preference for high resolution/high dot pitch is far from popular. Many people think I'm nuts for using 1920x1200 on a 15" screen (150ppi), or 640x480 on a 3.7" screen (220ppi). The pocket PC I referred to is almost 5 years old, discontinued, and nothing else has come out since with more than half the resolution. For example, iPhones are only half VGA with the same sized screen, when IMHO the iPhone could actually benefit a lot more from the resolution, as people actually browse full-size web content on those using all sorts of pan-and-scan gymnastics.

While comparing computer resolution to TV resolution isn't the same, as there's no such thing as "screen real estate" in movies, I would still almost always decide to buy a 42" 1080p monitor over a larger 720p TV for the same price, all else equal (brightness, color rendition, etc)

You see, most of these HT sitting tables you find are made under the assumption that you put a display of X resolution at a distance where the image is reaching the limits of your eyesight. In other words, the farthest you can put it. If you sit farther away you'd be wasting your time (to make an audio equivalent, how low can you set the volume and still hear the audio.). But you don't have to watch movies that way. Yes it makes for a great "window" but a small window. You can have a bigger "window" or "door" with a larger screen or sitting closer and still have a good looking image (magazine images can be printed at 300dpi or more, but most of them are at 150dpi and we still judge magazine reproduction as very good to excellent), and be immersed more into the movie. That's one reason many movies are made in the wider "Scope" ratio, so you get a bigger "window".

In our case, 42" was the largest 16:9 screen we could fit in a custom cabinet, which was permanently built around a 50" 4:3 TV 15 years ago. As much as a larger screen would have been nice, modifying the cabinet after the fact would cost several times more than all the AV equipment it contains. Also, sometimes I do move closer -- for example I've pulled up chairs at 6' to play games.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by MSG33

I have a Sony BDP-S300 connected directly to the TV via a 4' HDMI cable, with the player explicitly set to 1080p in the menu. I'm not sure exactly how/why resolution would be lost in the transfer process. I play DVDs on the same player, which also upconverts.

I wasn't refering to resolution lost on the display, I meant when they transfered the 35mm film to 1080. So you might be seeing a "1080p"' disc, but the image quality recorded there (for whatever reasons) could be closer to 600p or 900, etc, etc

A direct view TV with 1:1 pixel mapping shouldn't have any resolution losses. One with a lens might reduce contrast of the highest details therefore affecting perceived resolution. TVs with lenses also have flare (which reduces overall contrast and shadow detail) which also reduces image quality

Originally Posted by MSG33

In computer environments, I've always preferred resolution over screen size. For example, If I was going to upgrade a monitor, I would ALWAYS go for one at the same size with more resolution, over a larger one at the same resolution.

Yes but we aren't working on a computer, we're being entertained by a movie. If movies were meant to be seen small they'd make small screens and change lenses on projectors that gave a smaller image. Before the multiplex and VHS era, the best theaters had the largest screens. My personal opinion is that the last generation, raised on VHS, has grown acustomed to watching a small screen and thinks that's how movies should be watched . Nothing wrong with upping resolution, tho. That's why we endores Blu-ray

Originally Posted by MSG33

My preference for high resolution/high dot pitch is far from popular. Many people think I'm nuts for using 1920x1200 on a 15" screen (150ppi), or 640x480 on a 3.7" screen (220ppi). The pocket PC I referred to is almost 5 years old, discontinued, and nothing else has come out since with more than half the resolution. For example, iPhones are only half VGA with the same sized screen, when IMHO the iPhone could actually benefit a lot more from the resolution, as people actually browse full-size web content on those using all sorts of pan-and-scan gymnastics.

I don't think it's nuts to use 1200 x 1920 on a 15" computer screen, as normal reading distance is about 10" to 1 foot, and the screen is 8" high (which comes out to around between 1.25 PH and 1.5 PH viewing.) Watching 1080p on that screen for 1.78 movies gives you then around between 1.4 PH and 1.7 PH viewing, and for Scope ratio (2.39) movies gives you between 1.9 PH and 2.2 PH viewing.

Normal quality printing in magazines is usually 150dpi too.

Originally Posted by MSG33

While comparing computer resolution to TV resolution isn't the same, as there's no such thing as "screen real estate" in movies, I would still almost always decide to buy a 42" 1080p monitor over a larger 720p TV for the same price, all else equal (brightness, color rendition, etc)

Well I would too, no point of having a larger screen with less resolution . But I differ, there is "screen real state" in movies. I'd buy the biggest, highest resolution screen (or sit closer) that gives me the same trill and enjoyment I get from a movie theater screen. Sitting in the middle of a well designed theater is near 2 PH.

Originally Posted by MSG33

In our case, 42" was the largest 16:9 screen we could fit in a custom cabinet, which was permanently built around a 50" 4:3 TV 15 years ago. As much as a larger screen would have been nice, modifying the cabinet after the fact would cost several times more than all the AV equipment it contains. Also, sometimes I do move closer -- for example I've pulled up chairs at 6' to play games.

That's 3.5 PH for 1.78 movies and 4.7 PH for Scope ones.

Waaaant loove? Sit Closer!

[syncguy]

Another interesting discussion on 1080i and p.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...126#post869126

[welwynnick]

Originally Posted by Stephan.klose

I work in an electronics shop. We have well over a 100 TV's there. I tested most of them and switched between 1080i and p input. To the naked eye it's mostly indistinguishable

Could you qualify that by describing what sorts of TV you were testing. Were they 768 or 1080 line TVs? What material did you test with? Was it mastered interlaced or progressive? Was it distributed interlaced or progressive? Where you input 1080p, was that de-interlaced from a 1080i medium? In which case, was the source or display de-interlacer better? These are some of the issues that need to be considered in the 1080p question.

Nick

[mr.hidef]

Originally Posted by JimPullan

There are a multitude of 1080i HDTV's having been sold and now the introduction of the 1080p displays. With the advent of the 1080p capable Blu-Ray players, can the average consumer actually see a difference between a 1080p movie over the exact 1080i movie ? Will a 1080p experience be any more thrilling than the 1080i experience ?

Jim

Are you a noob?......oh I see "power member"...Why would you ask such a obvious question?

[DjLoudsound]

I used to work for a satellite company creating channels and monitoring Video and Audio quality and I can tell you that I can notice a difference from 1080p and 1080i. To the regular joe you will not see a difference. The only thing that might throw it away would be a little noise present on the 1080i image that would not be present on the 1080p image to the regular joe. Since the previous company I worked for only sends out 1080i you wouldnt see a difference unless you owned blu-ray.

[Beta Man]

another thing to consider, is although "yes" under certain conditions you can, or can't distinguish a difference...... when you see a store display of two televisions, either both calibrated, or both out of the box, sitting SIDE BY SIDE..... sure it's a lot easier to tell the difference, but take the 1080i home, and a few weaks later, watching something completely different for the first time on the 1080i, regardless of size, it's gonna look "good" and unless it's a HUGE screen, and you're sitting fairly close, you probably won't say "Oh man... I still remember how great that 1080p next to this was" you'll be too busy enjoying your television......

It's like those little paint samples at the store (analogy due to recent experience) They have 8 GAZILLION different shades/tones of white.... and you really need to hold them next to each other to see the difference, take a sample home, hold them next to things to see which you like, and after all that, it still looks different when you put it on the wall and the light/shade areas of the room meet etc.....

There is a difference in the paint colors.... the size of the sample, and how closely you look at it (far away etc) determines how much parity there is between the two of them.

[Headphone Czar]

I was gaming at BB on a 40inch Samsung.. I checked the 360's display setting & it was set to 1080i. I flipped it to 1080p, & there was a noticeable difference on a 40inch screen from 2FT away.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by DjLoudsound

Since the previous company I worked for only sends out 1080i you wouldnt see a difference unless you owned blu-ray.

You would see a difference depending on how the TV handles interlaced signals, it's as simple as that.

[lpfan71]

I'm not sure if this particular topic has been addressed or not, but reading through 7 pages of posts at 1:30 in the morning can be difficult. We have a 1080p DLP tv, but I realized a little late in the game that the HDMI blu ray input was only 1080i. Does this simply then go back to what Deciazulado and others were talking about in differences between 1080p and 1080i or is there more to it with my case? We got a blu ray player over a year after we got the tv, so really it wasn't that important until that point, but now it's just annoying knowing nothing is 1080p like I thought it would be.

[Halcro 1]

At most average seating distance anything under 47 Inches @ 1080 P Is a waste of money , but the only bad thing is when you get top the top models in this size there is more than I or P that makes the 1080 P set look better...In my case switching a Blu movie from 1080 P to I is a difference butnot an OMG difference ... I do not know how it works in Gaming mode

[Halcro 1]

Originally Posted by DjLoudsound

I used to work for a satellite company creating channels and monitoring Video and Audio quality and I can tell you that I can notice a difference from 1080p and 1080i. To the regular joe you will not see a difference. The only thing that might throw it away would be a little noise present on the 1080i image that would not be present on the 1080p image to the regular joe. Since the previous company I worked for only sends out 1080i you wouldnt see a difference unless you owned blu-ray.

The problem is in this case is that cable and sattelite compress their signals (cable more than sattleite) You can see what is called mosquito noise around like the ESPN banner at the botom of the screen , where BluRay does not compress the signal at all thats why 1080I looks basically as good as 1080P

[TenaciousMC]

I have a 26" Sony KDL-26S2000 with a BDP-S350 attached to it. The TV's only capable of displaying up to 1080i. Is it better to set the S350 to 1080i or 720p?

Thanks!

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by TenaciousMC

I have a 26" Sony KDL-26S2000 with a BDP-S350 attached to it. The TV's only capable of displaying up to 1080i. Is it better to set the S350 to 1080i or 720p?

Thanks!

I would go 1080i, but that's my personal preference...... what is your viewing distance?

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by TenaciousMC

I have a 26" Sony KDL-26S2000 with a BDP-S350 attached to it. The TV's only capable of displaying up to 1080i. Is it better to set the S350 to 1080i or 720p?

Thanks!

Your set's resolution is 1366x768, so every signal is displayed as 768p. That being said, you'll have to try both signals and see for yourself. Mine likes 1080i a little better than 720p from HD cable.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by Halcro 1

At most average seating distance anything under 47 Inches @ 1080 P Is a waste of money

That's incorrect. There is no measure of "average seating distance", so there is no measure of what point 1080p becomes useless.

In addition, plenty of 1080p sets have better specs than their sister 768p sets while several 768p sets have better specs than other 1080p sets on the market.

Seating distance + screen size + source material

[TenaciousMC]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

I would go 1080i, but that's my personal preference...... what is your viewing distance?

I'd say no more than 10 feet away.