is 1080p Marketing Hype?

[tron3]

I may wear glasses these days, but my ability to notice differences is pretty keen if I know what to look for.

Can't say I have EVER noticed a difference between 408i and 480p. I naturally see the resolution increase to 720p, but don't know if the "p" is doing anything. I have yet to notice the difference between 1080i and 1080p.

As I understand it, you really only see it in larger tv's. But the frikken resolution is so high and tight how can you notice? Maybe it does do something for eye fatigue.

[dobyblue]

People with sets that pass both deinterlacing and 3:2 tests will NOT notice the difference between 1080i and 1080p sources providing the original source is 1080p24...at ANY distance with ANY visual acuity.

Here's the scoop:

Panel resolution:
1080i vs. 1080p
1) Who has a 1080i native panel? Only people (@ 99%) with CRT's.
2) Most people see 1080i on a DLP, LCD or plasma and think their TV can display 1080i, which it cannot; it can only handshake with a 1080i signal and convert to 720p or 768p.
3) At optimum viewing distances on like HDTV's (ie - a PDP-5080FD vs. a PDP-5010FD at 6ft) a 1080p set with a 1080p source may look better than a 720p or 768p set with the same 1080p source.

1080p source material
1080i vs. 1080p
Providing the HDTV is capable of de-interlacing and 3:2 recognition, there will be NO DIFFERENCE between 1080p24 and 1080i60, as the article by Brian Florian explains quite deftly.

1080i source material
1080i vs 1080p
Chances are the 1080i will look more natural as the 1080p deinterlacing will offset the time axis of the source material, also illustrated in said article

[CptGreedle]

Deinterlacing is not as good as regular progressive. Sure theoretically it should look the same. But in practice, each TV has a different method of deinterlacing and the end result is still noticeable. I posted an example earlier that showed how a deinterlaced image looses detail and clarity and can even retain some jitter that progressive just doesn't have.

If you have an HDTV that looks as good interlaced or progressive, good for you. But most HDTVs will not look as good interlaced (assuming they support progressive).

When looking at interlaced vs progressive (without deinterlacing), things to look for include Moire, jitter, soft edges in moving objects. Here is a better list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interla...by_interlacing

- moire example

[HDJK]

Originally Posted by CptGreedle

Deinterlacing is not as good as regular progressive. Sure theoretically it should look the same. But in practice, each TV has a different method of deinterlacing and the end result is still noticeable. I posted an example earlier that showed how a deinterlaced image looses detail and clarity and can even retain some jitter that progressive just doesn't have.

If you have an HDTV that looks as good interlaced or progressive, good for you. But most HDTVs will not look as good interlaced (assuming they support progressive).

When looking at interlaced vs progressive (without deinterlacing), things to look for include Moire, jitter, soft edges in moving objects. Here is a better list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interla...by_interlacing

- moire example

That's all good, but applies to interlaced content only.

[Sonny]

Ahh.....the O'l "i" vs "p" question And the O'l "i" into "p" question I've had/have some HDTV's that do it well & some that did it not so well

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by CptGreedle

Deinterlacing is not as good as regular progressive. Sure theoretically it should look the same. But in practice, each TV has a different method of deinterlacing and the end result is still noticeable. I posted an example earlier that showed how a deinterlaced image looses detail and clarity and can even retain some jitter that progressive just doesn't have.

If you have an HDTV that looks as good interlaced or progressive, good for you. But most HDTVs will not look as good interlaced (assuming they support progressive).

When looking at interlaced vs progressive (without deinterlacing), things to look for include Moire, jitter, soft edges in moving objects. Here is a better list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interla...by_interlacing

- moire example

You do not need deinterlacing using interpolation unless the SOURCE is interlaced.

In practise as well as in theory there are TV's which will accept a 1080i60 signal (which is created from a 1080p24 master) and recreate the 1080p24 master with NO LOSS. Because the master is progressive, interpolation is not necessary.

Again, the new KURO sets will accept 1080i60 and create the original 1080p24 signal then perform 3:3 pulldown to 72Hz with no loss on content whatsoever.

This has been tested using professional calibration discs. The only variations in how a TV handles 3:2 content and deinterlacing of 1080i60 sources are when the TV FAILS to do it properly.

[dobyblue]

Here is a list of sets that will accept 1080i60 and properly convert back to 1080p24.

Fujitsu P50XTA51UB 50” Plasma
Fujitsu P63XTA51US 63” Plasma
Hitachi 55HDS69 55” Plasma (in Auto Film Mode only)
JVC HD526887 52” LCOS
JVC HD56C97 56” 1080p LCOS (with HDMI only)
JVC HD56S998 56” 1080p LCOS (with HDMI only)
Maxent MX42HPT51 42” 768p Plasma
Mitsubishi WD-73733 73” 1080p DLP
Pioneer KURO plasma (all sets – in 72Hz Pure Cinema mode)
Pioneer PRO-950 50” 768p Plasma (in Advanced mode only)
Pioneer PDP-5070 50” 768p Plasma
Pioneer PRO-FH1 50” 1080p Plasma
Polaroid FLM3732 37” LCD
Samsung LN-T4081F 40” 1080p LCD
Sharp LC37D62U 37” 1080p LCD (with HDMI in Film Mode only – advanced user menu)
Sharp LC42D62 42” 1080p LCD (in Film Mode only – advanced user menu)
Sharp LC42D63 42” 1080p LCD
Sharp LC46D64U 46” 1080p LCD (in Film Mode only – advanced user menu)
Sharp LC52D64U 52” 1080p LCD (in Film Mode only – advanced user menu)
Sharp LC57D90 57” LCD (fails deinterlacing in Fast mode, passes in Slow mode)
Sony KLV32U100M 32” LCD
Sony KDL32S3000 32” 768p LCD
Sony KDL32S130 32” 768p LCD
Sony KDF37H1000 37” 720p LCD
Sony KDL40S130 40” 768p FPLCD
Sony KDL40S3000 40” 768p LCD
Sony KDL46XBR4 46” 1080p LCD (DRC set to “off” and not in Vivid or Standard mode)
Sony KDL46XBR5 46” 1080p LCD (DRC set to “off” and not in Vivid or Standard mode)
Toshiba 40RF350U 40” 1080p LCD

Obviously there may be newer sets not yet tested, but there’s a handful for you that will perform identically with 1080i60 content to correctly achieve 1080p24.

[Entertainment72]

1080i and 1080p is the SAME resolution just different in the scanning..

SAME RESOLUTION.. holy moly people dont know what they talk about some times. That being said 1080P will provide a better overall picture.

[dobyblue]

A 1080p SOURCE will provide the better overall picture, not necessarily a 1080p TV as this shootout shows - http://www.hometheatermag.com/lcds/208hdface/

6 of the best 1080p sets vs. a 768p Pioneer plasma.

That 768p plasma is now discontinued, however it was at a nice price and passed both interlacing and 3:2 tests meaning your HD 1080i broadcasts will look better on it too than 720p of the same source.

If you take a 1080p set that fails deinterlacing tests, lets say for instance it discards all the even lines and doubles up the odd lines, and put it beside a 768p set which passes deinterlacing (and 3:2) and display 1080i content on it, chances are you're getting MORE resolution and a display truer to the original source on the 768p set than you are on the 1080p set.

With Blu-ray at 1080p24 of course it's a totally different story as very little processing is required. However given that some sets get down to under 500 lines of motion resolution there will still be times when the 768p plasma is still resolving more resolution.

[Anthony P]

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.

not if it is not done properly (and no set will be 100% properly deinterlaced)

I am not saying it will always happen (like original i) but it will happen sometimes and when it does it will be like something filmed at 1080i.

I just don't get this easygoing "good enough" attitude. why accept pip when there is a possibility that something will go wrong when you can have ppp and make sure nothing goes wrong.

[welwynnick]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

not if it is not done properly (and no set will be 100% properly deinterlaced)

I am not saying it will always happen (like original i) but it will happen sometimes and when it does it will be like something filmed at 1080i.

I just don't get this easygoing "good enough" attitude. why accept pip when there is a possibility that something will go wrong when you can have ppp and make sure nothing goes wrong.

+1

De-interlacing is NEVER perfect, even Dale Adams says that. Its easy to assume that performing cadence detection and weaving the right lines will restore the original image without loss, but it's not as simple as that.

It's been long established that successful de-interlacing requires blind film and cadence detection, as field and frame flagging is not reliable. The DI has to do this by reading the picture in each field, and detecting quickly and reliably whether there is any motion in the original subject between adjacent fields.

This has two functions. Firstly, the DI has to detect whether the original material was film or video (progressive or interlaced), so that the right DI process can be used. Secondly, if it IS film, the cadence has to be detected so the right fields are paired up for weaving, and the duplicated fields discarded for the pull-down process.

Even when inverse-telecine is being applied to a film, the DI still continues to perform film detection, and the key point is that it sometimes gets it wrong. That means film may be detected and de-interlaced as video (losing resolution) or the cadence may be lost and wrong fields woven together (giving combing artifacts).

Equally, video material may be detected as film, and weaving is applied when it shouldn't. De-interlacing is an art, and getting it right means getting the right balance between speed and reliability of detection, and between film and video performance. The best de-interlacers can do this well, by which I mean the HQV, VRS, VXP, Pixelworks and Qdeo processors, but MOST still do all this poorly. By most, I include nearly all Blu-ray players (including the PS3) and more HD DVD players than Toshiba would have you believe.

Therefore 1080i can be acceptably close to 1080p, but in practice it often isn't (even usually isn't) but even in the best of systems it's never exactly the same as 1080p. Where proper 1080p is available (from BD or HD players) then although the difference may be small, it will always be best. Aside from de-interlacing issues, there are other reasons why 1080i is poorer, and 1080p can also avoid these issues.

Nick

[tvine2000]

i'll tell what is a rip off,1080p/120hz,why because its the only way you get 1080p/24fps.if you have a 1080p 60hz,no 1080p/24fps.sad because they could have done it with 60hz

[dobyblue]

As long as the source is 1080p24, you can perfectly reconstruct the 1080p24 from 1080i60.

It's not complex at all, despite how many televisions cock it up....to the tune of over 85% BEFORE you even take into account what the player is doing as it HAS TO completely preserve the 2:3 sequence so that the HDTV doesn't have to re-aquire it, which is also NOT common.

However I do completely agree with Anthony that ppp is the obvious solution and as Joel Silver from ISF stated to me, "life can be good at 1080i out from 1080p content to 1080p displays - but why do all that work??" and that's taking into account that everything else works perfectly.

[welwynnick]

I have justified my position with explanation and qualification.

At the very least, we are gong to have to disagree on this one. I respect everything else you say, but not this.

regards, Nick

[dobyblue]

I agree with you Nick on all points except the word "NEVER"

[bluseminole]

Originally Posted by welwynnick

+1
.....
De-interlacing is NEVER perfect, even Dale Adams says that. Its easy to assume that performing cadence detection and weaving the right lines will restore the original image without loss, but it's not as simple as that.
.......

Nick

And so its safe to say that the only way to ensure the most faithful reproduction of the source material is to use 1080p content feeding a 1080p signal to a native 1080p display/PJ that accepts 1080p signals. And that's a fact, not marketing hype.

[bluseminole]

I think everyone agrees on that point: p>p>p is the best available performance.

So how can it be pure hype?

[CptGreedle]

I can indeed see what you mean. If the source is interlaced, than interpolation is necessary for de-interlacing. If the TV is interlaced but the source is progressive, interpolation is not needed.
However the common problems of interlacing still apply, like moire and jitter. The image will be more clear and sharp than an interlaced source, but the TV will be adding the effects of moire and jitter because of the nature of an interlaced image.

Still, I thought this was a thread about the benefits of progressive TVs. Progressive TVs will need to interpolate interlaced sources... hence validating my point. Also, I think the main point has been agreed. Progressive looks better than interlaced, although many people would not notice or know what to look for.
I think we all agree it is not marketing hype.

I think the OP left this thread.. haven't seen him post since the first page...

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by bluseminole

And so its safe to say that the only way to ensure the most faithful reproduction of the source material is to use 1080p content feeding a 1080p signal to a native 1080p display/PJ that accepts 1080p signals. And that's a fact, not marketing hype.

That is correct - hence why 1080p24 output has long been a pro of Blu-ray throughout the format war....the Toshiba players up until the 3rd gen I believe were all doing conversion to 1080i60 then back to 1080p24 before outputting, something I think the XA2 fixed with a firmware upgrade.

Originally Posted by CptGreedle

I can indeed see what you mean. If the source is interlaced, than interpolation is necessary for de-interlacing. If the TV is interlaced but the source is progressive, interpolation is not needed.
However the common problems of interlacing still apply, like moire and jitter. The image will be more clear and sharp than an interlaced source, but the TV will be adding the effects of moire and jitter because of the nature of an interlaced image.

Still, I thought this was a thread about the benefits of progressive TVs. Progressive TVs will need to interpolate interlaced sources... hence validating my point. Also, I think the main point has been agreed. Progressive looks better than interlaced, although many people would not notice or know what to look for.
I think we all agree it is not marketing hype.

I think the OP left this thread.. haven't seen him post since the first page...

Ha, ha, he has left the building.

Hopefully people will understand also that virtually ALL plasma, DLP and LCD commercial TV's are progressive displays and when they see the words "1080i" on them it doesn't mean it can correctly display an interlaced signal, only that it can handshake with one.

I do not miss interlaced judder at all - especially when watching hockey and the glass around the rink looks like a zig-zag; very annoying.

1080p24 is the way to go.

[U4K61]

Originally Posted by Entertainment72

1080i and 1080p is the SAME resolution just different in the scanning...That being said 1080P will provide a better overall picture.

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

1080p (1920x1080=2,073,600 pixels) is higher resolution than 1080i/768p (1366x768=1,049,088 pixels).

Originally Posted by CptGreedle

Deinterlacing is not as good as regular progressive. Sure theoretically it should look the same. But in practice, each TV has a different method of deinterlacing and the end result is still noticeable. I posted an example earlier that showed how a deinterlaced image looses detail and clarity and can even retain some jitter that progressive just doesn't have.

If you have an HDTV that looks as good interlaced or progressive, good for you. But most HDTVs will not look as good interlaced (assuming they support progressive).

When looking at interlaced vs progressive (without deinterlacing), things to look for include Moire, jitter, soft edges in moving objects. Here is a better list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interla...by_interlacing

1080i/p

1080i has the same spatial resolution as 1080p as it maps 1:1, but has a lower a temporal resolution if no attempt is made to deinterlace it. If there is motion in the video, the horizontal lines of the two interlaced fields may not line up, cutting vertical resolution down to 540.

1080i from 24fps film can be de-interlaced correctly from 3:2 pulldown back to 1080p and can be viewed judder free on a 72, 120, or 240 Hz set. In this case, 1080i and 1080p are equivalent. All this of course, is if the rest of the system is working as intended.

LINKS:

• High Definition 1080p - Home Theater High Fidelity
• The Frame Rates Post - Craig
• Vertical Resolution - Craig
• Blu-ray Screen Shots - ricwhite

The Matamatics of Equivalence

• Equivalence - Abastract Algebra

Originally Posted by dobyblue

As long as the source is 1080p24, you can perfectly reconstruct the 1080p24 from 1080i60.

However I do completely agree with Anthony that ppp is the obvious solution and as Joel Silver from ISF stated to me, "life can be good at 1080i out from 1080p content to 1080p displays - but why do all that work??" and that's taking into account that everything else works perfectly.

A 1080i/p Discussion

• 1080i/p - dobyblue
• A well "MASTERED" Blu-ray - dobyblue
• 1080i60 signal of 1080p24 > 720p - dobyblue
• Broadcast resolution - dobyblue
• 720p/1080i/p - Craig
• 1080i - Craig
• 1080i60 - Anthony P

Back to Getting Started HD POST