is 1080p Marketing Hype?

[CaptainJack]

Interesting thread about 1080p.
I've got a question about 1080i to 1080p. I've got the JVC
HD61FH96 that is 1080p but "it will not accept a direct, native 1080p source signal at it's inputs"
(from a review).
Because I'm waiting for the Sony BDP S550 player (my Denon AVR-3805 doesn't have HDMI, so,
since my sound system is a THX 7.1, I'm waiting for a good player that has
7.1 anolog outputs) I can't test it yet with my JVC, but I'm
assuming I'm going to have to set output from the Sony to
1080i and let the JVC upgrade to 1080p.
I'm lucky that the JVC doesn't do the 50% game of de-interlacing (i.e. it has motion adaptive de-interlacing) but because I'm now diving in head first in to Blu-Ray (I've bought over 40 disks in the last two weeks), I am concerned about what the final PQ is going to be having to go though i to p conversion.
Do any of you have any experience with this process or any
thoughts about the outcome?
Thanks,
Jack

[Mr. Joshua]

Go get you one of the new sony lcd's to match up with your PS3. Good prices on them, then no worries, 1080p is the way to go, and the cross media bar on the new sony lcd's should fit in very nicely with your PS3...

[bluseminole]

Originally Posted by CaptainJack

...
Because I'm waiting for the Sony BDP S550 player (my Denon AVR-3805 doesn't have HDMI, so,
since my sound system is a THX 7.1, I'm waiting for a good player that has
7.1 anolog outputs)...
Thanks,
Jack

The Pioneer BDP-51FD will be out on July 18 with 7.1 analog outs and DTHD, DTS-MA decoding built in. It will retail for $599, and is only profile 1.1 as opposed to Sony's 2.0, but hey, if you don't want to wait...

Plus, the Pioneer has Wolfson DACs for the analog outs, which are better than Sony's.

[bluseminole]

Oh, and Jack...

In regards to your question, I couldn't say because I am not familiar with your particular set. However, if the deinterlacer is of a decent quality in the set, then a 1080i picture (scaled to 1080p) should be indistinguishable from a native 1080p input. If the deinterlacer is not good, then there is no way around it.

This is why I notice such a great difference between 1080i and 1080p on my small 37" LCD--the deinterlacer/scaler is pure crap, so when it deinterlaces material, motion scenes are jaggy and not-so-well defined--they look like upconverted DVDs. However, feeding the set a native 1080p signal, so it doesn't have to scale it to fit the 1080p display resolution, solves all of those problems, and the picture is absolutely beautiful.

It all depends on your TV.

[SP@Z.]

Technology is always a marketing hype, they're always gonna push it and say "this is the greatest invention" when they know they have something even better being worked on behind close doors.

[bluseminole]

Originally Posted by SP@Z.

Technology is always a marketing hype, they're always gonna push it and say "this is the greatest invention" when they know they have something even better being worked on behind close doors.

So this blu-ray thing is just marketing hype? Damn, they got me good.

[dtrush]

I have both. I always spend time on the 1080p unit since it's a larger set & I like playing games there a bunch better.
I don't think it makes much of a difference between 1080i on my smaller set versus 1080p on my larger set. I'm sure the smaller the set the less 1080p is needed as you're most likely going to still sit a little ways away from the unit.

[Ectoplasm]

We've owned 4 different LCD and PDP models. 2 were 42" LCDs at 1080p, and the others are a 32"LCD and a 50" plasma at 1080i (768p). 1080p is good if you sit within 10 feet or so, and not necessary unless your TV is 40" or larger, IMHO. If not, then don't bother upgrading. It is a much more significant thing than the whole 24fps/120/240hz crapola they're pushing, though.

[welwynnick]

In general, when people talk about the difference between 1080i and 1080p, what do they think they are talking about - the interface format or the display format?

For digital and flat panel displays, there are no 1080i TVs.

Nick

[syncguy]

The digital displays are progressive and interlaced digital displays are a rare exception. So, 1080i will be converted to 1080p by the display device before displaying.

If the original recording is in 1080i, there will be unavoidable anomalies when 1080i is converted to 1080p for digital display and the perceivable quality of the picture will depend on the conversion (deinterlacing) process. If the display has 1080p input the conversion can be done in the display or some external device so that you could choose where the conversion occurs depending on the perceivable quality of the conversion device. If the display has only 1080i input the only choice of conversion device is the display.

If the original source is 1080/60p, there will be a definite disadvantage if it is converted to 1080/60i (before inputting to the display device) as this process will reduce the resolution by about half and this will be visible in any display (depending on the viewing distance). In this case, a display with 1080p input is a definite advantage. However, these types of sources are currently rare (to my knowledge).

If the original source is 1080/24p, (e.g. blu-ray movies), in principle, it can be converted to 1080/60i (telecine and interlacing) and send it to the display device and in the display device it can be reconverted to 1080/24p (inverse telecine and deinterlacing) before displaying on a digital progressive display without losing quality or resolution (if it could display at 48 or 96 Hz refresh rate). However, this would work as explained only if the interlacer and the deinterlacer are working perfectly. The imperfections in the interlace/deinterlace processes (as well as the inability to refresh the display in multiples of 24) could introduce anomalies and these would be visible which could have been avoided if the 1080/24p signal is directly inputted to the display device. Such a display device (with a 24p input) may display 24p signal at a refresh rate of 48, 96, 120 or 240 Hz.

[supersix4]

the spec's back it up that it is infact better but unless you can see a difference that's the only thing that matters check out pioneer elite's

[toocheezy]

I can tell a huge difference when I am watching a Blu-Ray (1080P) vice watching a HD Channel via Dish Network HD, but hey maybe thats just me

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by ixlegitballinxl

"with good de-interlacing"

i've owned 5 hdtv's, trust me..i know what im talking about....if u compared side by side 1080i content and 1080p content, at the same viewing distance, 1080p would be a sharper picture!!!

Then all of your TV's have failed on deinterlacing, it's as simple as that.

1080p24 converts to 1080i60 and back to 1080p24 again WITH NO LOSS when a set passes 3:2 and deinterlacing tests simultaneously like the Pioneer KURO panels do.

Take an HD DVD player with 1080i-only output like the A2, beside the Sony BDP-S300 and play a movie with the exact same video encode like Harry Potter, I Am Legend, etc. Play them both on a Pioneer PDP-6010FD.

Move around, do whatever you like, get as close as you want, you are watching the EXACT SAME PICTURE, but one source was sent as 1080i60 and the other as 1080p24.

The Pioneer hooked up to the Sony will show the 1080p24 content at 72Hz.
The Pioneer hooked up to the Toshiba will take the 1080i60 signal, convert it to 1080p24 and display it at 72Hz.

Identical in every way, shape and form. No increase in sharpness or resolution.

You seriously need to read this article and get back to me, because you're continuing to confuse native panel resolution with signal resolution.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...07-part-1.html

In this HD Digital era we are either shooting 1080p24 digital or we are transferring film to 1080p24. There is no interlaced intermediary. When it comes time to convert it to 1080i60 for transmission or storage on disc, we are feeding a perfect digital p24 stream to the encoder which turns out a 1080i60 signal with, for all intents and purposes, a "perfect" 1080p24 buried within. All it takes is correct video processing at our end (the high definition DVD player and/or display) to realize it.

There are excellent diagrams in that article by Brian Florian to help you understand exactly what is being talked about.

1080p24 = 1080i60 = 1080p24 = 1080i60

You can go between the two all day long like .wav to .flac with no loss.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by welwynnick

In general, when people talk about the difference between 1080i and 1080p, what do they think they are talking about - the interface format or the display format?

In general, most people are severely confused on this matter.

[ixlegitballinxl]

So your stating that on a hdtv, that 1080p is not a better picture then 1080i?


I have 20/20 vision, and i disagree. Not based on a review thread, but based on my own eyes. You must not have a 1080p set, I would highly recommend getting one

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

In general, most people are severely confused on this matter.

In this thread, and others, they certainly are. Even after its been explained multiple times, folks are still confusing panel resolution versus signal resolution.

[Anthony P]

You can send a 1080i and a 1080p signal of the same material to a 1080p set with good deinterlacing and you get the EXACT SAME PICTURE, pixel for pixel, frame for frame.

no, the issue is that it is 1080p24 and 1080i60. You need to interlace and deinterlace with 2:3 and 3:2. The display will not always (actually studies have shown it will be a high percentage) combine the two interlaced images correctly.

[Anthony P]

Then all of your TV's have failed on deinterlacing, it's as simple as that.

the issue is no display is 100% accurate, so sooner or later they all fail

even the article you linked to siad it

If we de-interlace it the RIGHT way though, to 1080p, it would look like this.

Only the areas in motion are reduced in detail. The rest remains at the full 1080 line resolution.

[U4K61]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

1080p (1920x1080=2,073,600 pixels) is higher resolution than 1080i/768p (1366x768=1,049,088 pixels). As for the question of whether or not it will provide YOU a big increase in PQ, that depends on:

• Your eyes
• Screen size
• Seating distance

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Providing the SOURCE was shot progressively, 1080i and 1080p are exactly the same resolution. They are both 1920x1080, just delivered differently.
If your television can correctly deinterlace 1080i60 then you end up with the original 1080p24 signal after performing 3:2 pulldown.

Interesting that Joe Kane in the early days of HDTV made such a tool and shill of 1080i and never mentioned that it can be de-interlaced and made equivalent to 1080p. It set the stage for the endless threads we now have on 720p vs 1080i. In his own words: "1080i has a resolution of 540p, that's all it is worth." It's a shame 24fps film source was left out ot the equation.

Originally Posted by dobyblue

On a TV that handles both 3:2 and de-interlacing properly, like the Pioneer KURO panels, 1080i60 and 1080p24 are identical. The Pioneer sets pass all 3:2 and deinterlacing tests, but you're right in that a high percentage fail 3:2. When you take 1080p24 and convert to 1080i60 and back, nothing is lost; it's bit-for-bit identical.

Back to 1080i/p

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by ixlegitballinxl

So your stating that on a hdtv, that 1080p is not a better picture then 1080i?
I have 20/20 vision, and i disagree. Not based on a review thread, but based on my own eyes. You must not have a 1080p set, I would highly recommend getting one

That is correct, on a TV that handles both 3:2 and de-interlacing properly, like the Pioneer KURO panels, 1080i60 and 1080p24 are identical.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

the issue is no display is 100% accurate, so sooner or later they all fail
even the article you linked to siad it

The Pioneer sets pass all 3:2 and deinterlacing tests, but you're right in that a high percentage fail 3:2.

The part of the article you've linked to is referring to an interlaced shot, not a progressive one. When you take 1080p24 and convert to 1080i60 and back, nothing is lost; it's bit-for-bit identical.

If this were a scene shot at 1080i

That is not what we're discussing.