"1080i is better than 1080p"...

[stockstar1138]

he didn't say what format he supported, but im pretty sure he was trying to feel good about his poor, low bit-rate, half pixaled, low capacity, lossy audio, hardly any studio support, $98 hd dvd a2.

[bhampton]

Yeah,

This is why 480i from DVD was better.

Good Luck finding a 480i only DVD player that's recent.

People will sing the praises of 1080i right up to the moment they can afford 1080p.

-Brian

[Therickus]

Originally Posted by bhampton

Yeah,

This is why 480i from DVD was better.

Good Luck finding a 480i only DVD player that's recent.

People will sing the praises of 1080i right up to the moment they can afford 1080p.

-Brian

Explained....Perfectly.

[Sling]

Originally Posted by Therickus

Explained....Perfectly.

That why AVS Pi** me off.It seemed like 90% of there members pushed 720p to be the best..I could not believe it.
AVS PIO Kuro 720p paradise for idiots.

[mikem471]

Originally Posted by bhampton

People will sing the praises of 1080i right up to the moment they can afford 1080p.

-Brian

Give that man a prize!!!

[DefTechPioElite]

Originally Posted by stockstar1138

he didn't say what format he supported, but im pretty sure he was trying to feel good about his poor, low bit-rate, half pixaled, low capacity, lossy audio, hardly any studio support, $98 hd dvd a2.

THAT'S WHAT IM TALKIN ABOUT! What a doucher, 1080p is grrrrrrrrreat like frosted flakes.

[jedisinclair]

I don't know... now I'm rethinking my position. I should sell my LCD TV and my PS3 and try to track down an old atari 2600 and a black and white TV. I mean, Atari 2600 football vs Madden, what was I thinking???

[tron3]

Originally Posted by jedisinclair

I don't know... now I'm rethinking my position. I should sell my LCD TV and my PS3 and try to track down an old atari 2600 and a black and white TV. I mean, Atari 2600 football vs Madden, what was I thinking???

You became a victim of FUD. Heck, I remember buying my Sega Genesis and was awed over the 16 bit power of it compared to my 8 bit Sega Master System. Much as with blu-ray, I repurchased most of the same games for the Genesis. That was sold long ago and I have the plug-n-play Genesis hand held. Not the mind blowing experience I remember.

In keeping with this thread, I fail to see the difference in even 480i vs 480p. Yet, I prefer 480p for some mental complacency reason.

[Mystique]

That guy is crazy in the head.

[SDG]

This artical explaines it good. More to it than this.

http://techdigs.net/content/view/53/42
The problem with interlacing technology is this alternating line drawing tends to cause the eyes to see a flicker. Unfortunately, interlacing reared its ugly head again in the 1990s when established HDTV standards included both 720p and 1080i options. Some broadcast networks use 1280x720p (720 lines progressively displayed) and some use 1920x1080i (540 even lines drawn, then 540 odd lines drawn). As of 2006, no U.S. broadcast network uses 1080p, or 'full HD' (1920x1080p).
The problem with 1080i is that despite having more total lines, it generally doesn't look as good as 720p. This is especially true for high-motion video such as sports. If you have a large (over 46") HDTV hooked up properly and want to see an example of this, watch a punt return on HDTV NBC Sunday Night Football, and then watch a punt return on HDTV Monday Night ESPN Football. The difference is significant. With far less aliasing (visible chunky pixels), ESPN's 1280x720p looks substantially better than NBC's 1920x1080i. While some of this may be due to the compression used by NBC or the cable outlet, most of it is due to interlacing.

The hd dvd that some are so proud of due to its low low price is 1080i. Sub-standard.

[StilettoViper]

Originally Posted by SDG

This artical explaines it good. More to it than this.

http://techdigs.net/content/view/53/42
The problem with interlacing technology is this alternating line drawing tends to cause the eyes to see a flicker. Unfortunately, interlacing reared its ugly head again in the 1990s when established HDTV standards included both 720p and 1080i options. Some broadcast networks use 1280x720p (720 lines progressively displayed) and some use 1920x1080i (540 even lines drawn, then 540 odd lines drawn). As of 2006, no U.S. broadcast network uses 1080p, or 'full HD' (1920x1080p).
The problem with 1080i is that despite having more total lines, it generally doesn't look as good as 720p. This is especially true for high-motion video such as sports. If you have a large (over 46") HDTV hooked up properly and want to see an example of this, watch a punt return on HDTV NBC Sunday Night Football, and then watch a punt return on HDTV Monday Night ESPN Football. The difference is significant. With far less aliasing (visible chunky pixels), ESPN's 1280x720p looks substantially better than NBC's 1920x1080i. While some of this may be due to the compression used by NBC or the cable outlet, most of it is due to interlacing.

The hd dvd that some are so proud of due to its low low price is 1080i. Sub-standard.

NO WAY, I can see a HUGE different between 1080i football games broadcast by CBS and 720p broadcast by FOX. HUGE difference...the 1080i boardcast looks significantly better. End of story....easy call.

[Sling]

Originally Posted by StilettoViper

NO WAY, I can see a HUGE different between 1080i football games broadcast by CBS and 720p broadcast by FOX. HUGE difference...the 1080i boardcast looks significantly better. End of story....easy call.

That's the great thing about 1080p 24fps.You get a perfect picture they way it was meant to be seen.
By end of 2008 all HDTV will be 1080p then many AVS members will be sad.

[Sling]

Originally Posted by SDG

This artical explaines it good. More to it than this.

http://techdigs.net/content/view/53/42
The problem with interlacing technology is this alternating line drawing tends to cause the eyes to see a flicker. Unfortunately, interlacing reared its ugly head again in the 1990s when established HDTV standards included both 720p and 1080i options. Some broadcast networks use 1280x720p (720 lines progressively displayed) and some use 1920x1080i (540 even lines drawn, then 540 odd lines drawn). As of 2006, no U.S. broadcast network uses 1080p, or 'full HD' (1920x1080p).
The problem with 1080i is that despite having more total lines, it generally doesn't look as good as 720p. This is especially true for high-motion video such as sports. If you have a large (over 46") HDTV hooked up properly and want to see an example of this, watch a punt return on HDTV NBC Sunday Night Football, and then watch a punt return on HDTV Monday Night ESPN Football. The difference is significant. With far less aliasing (visible chunky pixels), ESPN's 1280x720p looks substantially better than NBC's 1920x1080i. While some of this may be due to the compression used by NBC or the cable outlet, most of it is due to interlacing.

The hd dvd that some are so proud of due to its low low price is 1080i. Sub-standard.

Thanks for the outstanding post SDG

[dB/dt]

Originally Posted by SDG

This artical explaines it good. More to it than this.

http://techdigs.net/content/view/53/42
The problem with interlacing technology is this alternating line drawing tends to cause the eyes to see a flicker. Unfortunately, interlacing reared its ugly head again in the 1990s when established HDTV standards included both 720p and 1080i options. Some broadcast networks use 1280x720p (720 lines progressively displayed) and some use 1920x1080i (540 even lines drawn, then 540 odd lines drawn). As of 2006, no U.S. broadcast network uses 1080p, or 'full HD' (1920x1080p).
The problem with 1080i is that despite having more total lines, it generally doesn't look as good as 720p. This is especially true for high-motion video such as sports. If you have a large (over 46") HDTV hooked up properly and want to see an example of this, watch a punt return on HDTV NBC Sunday Night Football, and then watch a punt return on HDTV Monday Night ESPN Football. The difference is significant. With far less aliasing (visible chunky pixels), ESPN's 1280x720p looks substantially better than NBC's 1920x1080i. While some of this may be due to the compression used by NBC or the cable outlet, most of it is due to interlacing.

The hd dvd that some are so proud of due to its low low price is 1080i. Sub-standard.

This is all correct, until you imply it has anything to do with HD optical media.

The above discussion pertains to broadcast sources, not HD optical media. Since the material on HD optical media is stored at 24fps, on a 1080p60 display, the image from a 1080i or 1080p source will be IDENTICAL. This has been mentioned previously in this thread (and many, many other places).

However, displays capable of displaying 1080p signals at 24fps (or a multiple thereof) DO benefit from a player sending a 1080p signal at frequency that is a multiple of 24. This is where 1080p IS superior, and not simply marketing hype. You rid yourself of judder that comes from the 3:2 processing converting 60Hz to a multiple of 24.

The short version is, if you have a digital display not capable of 24fps display, 1080i and 1080p signals from HD optical media are equivalent. If you have a display that can present signals at a frequency multiple of 24, find a player capable of outputting 1080p at a frequency multiple of 24fps, as you will eliminate judder.

[Danno]

Originally Posted by SDG

This artical explaines it good. More to it than this.

http://techdigs.net/content/view/53/42
The problem with interlacing technology is this alternating line drawing tends to cause the eyes to see a flicker. Unfortunately, interlacing reared its ugly head again in the 1990s when established HDTV standards included both 720p and 1080i options. Some broadcast networks use 1280x720p (720 lines progressively displayed) and some use 1920x1080i (540 even lines drawn, then 540 odd lines drawn). As of 2006, no U.S. broadcast network uses 1080p, or 'full HD' (1920x1080p).
The problem with 1080i is that despite having more total lines, it generally doesn't look as good as 720p. This is especially true for high-motion video such as sports. If you have a large (over 46") HDTV hooked up properly and want to see an example of this, watch a punt return on HDTV NBC Sunday Night Football, and then watch a punt return on HDTV Monday Night ESPN Football. The difference is significant. With far less aliasing (visible chunky pixels), ESPN's 1280x720p looks substantially better than NBC's 1920x1080i. While some of this may be due to the compression used by NBC or the cable outlet, most of it is due to interlacing.

The hd dvd that some are so proud of due to its low low price is 1080i. Sub-standard.

This article is complete FUD.

Pixelation from source compression and deinterlace artifacts are two completely different things, and look nothing alike.

This is 100% BS. 1080i ALWAYS looks better than 720p, especially on larger sets.

Also - again with the Flickering FUD. Oof.

This is simple, really. If 480p progressive scan DVD players solved the problem of the flicker in a 480i image, why would an image that is 540p (1080i) all of a sudden display flicker?

Answer: it wouldn't.

[bootman]

1080i vs 1080p info.

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

BTW anyone with a 1080p set won't see flicker with a 1080i signal since the set is converting it to 1080p anyway.(or a 720p set that takes the 1080i signal and downconverts it to 720p.)

This is not true of a 1080i set since the signal is left at 1080i.
Now the question becomes if you are sensitive to flicker.
Not everyone is.

[Neo65]

1080i to most TVs is treated as 540P upscaled to 720/768/1080 depending on native resolution.

Only the more expensive TVs have the logic to weave the lines from 2 fields and display them as progressive the proper way, most just scale each field. If you have a mass market TV and not a top of the line sony or panasonic that costs a lot, you're most likely going to get the 540 upsampled. There's almost no TV that will do the inverse 3:2 pull down correctly to revert to the original 24P if you send in 1080i60.

From what I can tell, a lot of TVs upscale progressive content reasonably well (hence a player that sends 480P from DVD will look good, while a 480i will likely not do well).

Some TVs can deinterlace 480i to 480P and then upscale, but very few know how to deinterlace 1080i and combine the two fields into a single 1080P and then displaying it. You can blame sports programming for that. The 1080i@60 sports programming means that any TV that tries the simple weaving trick that would have worked well for HDM is going to create feathering effects as two alternating fields 16.67 milliseconds apart are displayed as one frame at the same time --- rendering the game unwatchable.

Hence the reason why the TVs just treat 1080i as 540P. Most people don't even realize this and believe everything looks "good enough". Lots of things are like that, cheaper toys with lead paint, cheaper food made with bleached wheat, cheaper pet food made with cheaper wheat gluten laced with cheaper melanine, 128kbps mp3s... They're sort of good enough until you get a chance to really see what's going on.

[bluseminole]

Interesting thing about my 1080p display (Westinghouse LVM-37W1)...it accepts 1080p (no 24fps) via DVI, so no problems there. But a while back, when I first hooked up my OTA HD box via DVI and set it to 1080i, the system info display on the monitor read 1080x540, which makes sense since it is interlaced. But I called customer support in my foolishness (because I expected the system info to display what the TV was displaying, not receiving) and the guy told me that my monitor--since that is all it is, with minimal video processing internally--doesn't scale sources to fit the screen. Instead, he told me, a 720x480 signal will be displayed as such, not scaled to 1920x1080 to fit the screen. I didn't think this was possible--doesn't the TV have to scale the images in order for them to fill the screen?

Also, my Panny BD player will not allow me to select any output resolution other than 1080p. Something with the HDMI is telling the player that my TV shouldn't accept a 720p or 1080i source. In fact, I can't even select 480i/p. Curious. Anybody else have their output resolutions restricted?

[U4K61]

The average consumer can't tell the difference between 1080p and 1080i. 1080i has a temporal resolution of only 540p when there is motion in the image and/or when it is not deinterlaced correctly to 1080p. Most can't tell the difference between 540p and 480p from where they are sitting on the living room couch. The difference between 480p or 480i from your DVD player does not matter much when many are still using composite video. The analogue color signal has less detail then the luminance signal. I knew I should have kept that B&W TV.

[GreenFlash06]

I'm wondering if anyone has a Mitsubishi WD-62827 : 62" 1080p DLP™ HDTV?