1080p! What good is it now?

[Andrew M Ward]

Andrew, I did read your "I'm drinkin'" disclosure before your posts. You are funnier than hell even if you dont mean to be. hahha
Stew

Don't take me too seriously ... :W only about 50% of my content is me trying to make a valid point or some observation, the other 50% is ... Mystery-meat

or worse...

8x)

or worse again...

:throwat:

[comeup]

I heard there is no difference between 1080i and 1080p unless the monitor is close to your viewing position. if your really close you can see more pixals on a 1080i verses a 1080P television. As the monitors go further away so does the pixals. On a 42inch flat monitor 20 ft away you would not see a difference because your out of range of the pixals on both monitors altogether. If your ten feet away you would want to buy the 1080P television because the picture would be cleaner.


I'm no expert on this just something more than one person has told me.

Peace

[autio]

jeez, Do you consider 15 to 20 feet away "close to your veiwing position" I realize everyone has a different set up but my room is 20 by 22 which I actually thought was big and still the only way to be 20 feet away would be to stand in the doorway.

[comeup]

All I'm really saying is when your out of range of pixals on both sets there is no picture difference, the bigger the set the more room you need that was a example I mentioned on the above statement.

Peace brothers

[Andrew M Ward]

Wow!

I'm going to have to start drinking again! 8O

[autio]

From the reseach I have done I dont think there is any difference at all ( that the human eye can discern between any of the formats after your blood alcohol level reaches a certain level for example after 6 drinks the difference between 480i and 1080p becomes negligible. and after ten drinks in two hours the differnce between color and black and white was only noticed by 50 percent of the control group. From this information I was able to from the hypothesis that if you cant afford state of the art audio visual equipment stand far away and drink like a sailor home on leave!! :B

[aud19]

From the reseach I have done I dont think there is any difference at all ( that the human eye can discern between any of the formats after your blood alcohol level reaches a certain level for example after 6 drinks the difference between 480i and 1080p becomes negligible. and after ten drinks in two hours the differnce between color and black and white was only noticed by 50 percent of the control group. From this information I was able to from the hypothesis that if you cant afford state of the art audio visual equipment stand far away and drink like a sailor home on leave!! :B

:rofl:

I know he's not being completely serious here but he does touch on what I was saying earlier. From 10'+ away the average person is not likely to notice any difference between upsampled 1080i and 1080p. AS I SAID BEFORE : Now if you happen to sit at -10' and/or have extrordinary eyesight, your much more likely to notice a difference. In other words for 95% of people it won't make a big or even noticeable difference.

[peterS]

All I'm really saying is when your out of range of pixals on both sets there is no picture difference, the bigger the set the more room you need that was a example I mentioned on the above statement.

Peace brothers

god ther so much bad infio on this forum.... its a damn shame :roll:

[aud19]

god ther so much bad infio on this forum.... its a damn shame :roll:

Are you saying you disagree that the further you are from and/or the smaller the set, the less noticeable detail, hence resolution becomes Peter?

[autio]

slightly off topic but look at this picture then back away 15 feet and look at this picture and you will see that yes sometimes at a distance your eyes will play tricks on you

[aud19]

Sorry Autio, there's a wall 15' away :lol:

[autio]

well try at 14 feet!!!

[peterS]

:rofl:

I know he's not being completely serious here but he does touch on what I was saying earlier. From 10'+ away the average person is not likely to notice any difference between upsampled 1080i and 1080p. AS I SAID BEFORE : Now if you happen to sit at -10' and/or have extrordinary eyesight, your much more likely to notice a difference. In other words for 95% of people it won't make a big or even noticeable difference.

jesus :E
have you even seen an hd tv before-lol

you can tell the difference from 100' away from a toshiba 720 next to a sxrd of the same size
im told so dayly... im getting the hell out of this thread before im forced to turn to alchohol :driving:

[peterS]

Are you saying you disagree that the further you are from and/or the smaller the set, the less noticeable detail, hence resolution becomes Peter?

the smaller the set the better the resolution per inch.... that is why we demo the upconvert up against a 480p in 26" lcds :Z

you can probably tell the difference between a speaker cable but not a two fold increase in resolution-lol

[Andrew M Ward]

jesus :E
have you even seen an hd tv before-lol

you can tell the difference from 100' away from a toshiba 720 next to a sxrd of the same size
im told so dayly... im getting the hell out of this thread before im forced to turn to alchohol :driving:

No kidding!
I basically have to sit down with a bottle next to the computer before I log on to this forum...

it's astounding, actually a better word would be ALARMING... :sos:

[aud19]

We're not talking actual detail here we're talking perceived detail. I'm not arguing that 1080p in fact has more resolution, we all know it does. But whether you're sitting close enough to actually perceive that detail on a given size display vs a lower resolution source is very much debatable. There's a reason a lot of people are knowingly buying EDTV plasma's over their HDTV res counterparts.

Quite franky Andrew, if you're that put-off by the forum we'd just as soon you didn't log on. This negative additude is not helpful or appreciated. Whether you choose to improve your demeanor is up to you but this is my last warning either way. Peter, I would appreciate if you kept the discussion helpful and on topic as well. I don't want to lock the thread as it's informative but if you two can't remain informative AND respectful I will.

[Andrew M Ward]

:roll:

So when a few people say: "You don't know what your talking about"
and
Then they jokingly say: "We must resort to alcohol to tolerate it"
and then
you say: "This is your last warning"


Who's behavior should we be examining?





















:

[Lex]

Ok, I'm issuing a big COOL IT in this thread. I've seen a bit to many jabs in just scanning this, and that's all I am going to do at this point. I'll say regardless of if a member agrees with staff, our staff is due respect. It is not a moderator's job to know everything, and even if their information were incorrect, it's not up to members to chastize my administration. Moderators are moderators for several reasons, of which total experience in a tech area is only part of why they moderate.

I'm also adding this comment, that nothing seemed particularly joking about this thread and how Jason or HTG was roughed up. It seemed many things, but joke oriented, it did not seem.

The staff of HTGuide is to be treated with respect, regardless of how "special" a member thinks they are, or how in the know they think they are. I'm going to issue the ultimate "try me" challenge, and I will lock down accounts for 30 days of the next person to step over that line of respect in this thread.

The forum is also to be respected. If a member can have no respect for HTGuide, the staff, or other members, then they should not spend time here, or perhaps any forum. I think my staff will take critisism, my staff will take correction, but I'll personally see to it that they don't have to take being abused by anyone.

Doug
Owner

[Chris D]

No, my ":wtf:" is not a drunken post, but a way of subtly pointing out that people are crossing the line here and need to be more civil. We can disagree and point out errors without being rude .

Jason, thanks for keeping this all together.

[purplepeople]

Okay... correct me *when* I'm wrong here:

1) DVD is a 480-line image that is output the by player at 480i or 480p.
2) The 480i output is essentially 2 different 240-line images interlaced at 30fps.
3) 480p output is the entire 480-line image at 60fps
4) 720p is a 720-line image at 60fps
5) 1080i is two 540-line images interlaced at 30fps
6) 1080p is a 1080-line image at 60fps.


So... it seems to me that the smart thing to do was not have 720 or 1080 but actually a 960-line image. This way, an upconverter does not have to process some far-out math just to deliver a smooth image.

This is actually the hesitation I'm having regarding a move to any HDTV system, whether set-top, display or projector.

Also, it also seems to me that converting a 720-line image by 1.5X to get 1080 lines is creates somes interlacing issues that result in a flicker. Wouldn't it be easier to just double the information?

ensen.

[Chris D]

hey, autio, that is a cool picture comparison, though. I've never seen something like that before.

[autio]

I havent either it is quite an illusion I thought I would share it here because of the issue with distance to monitor and precieved resolution in this thread. I thought this was olne of the most informative threads on hd formats on the forum I hope the moderators didnt "scare away" our passionate posters!!

[stewfoo]

This forum is a huge part of my daily entertainment. I love the knowledge (and misinformation at times) that I gain here as well as the Andrew Ward drama. I think he is just honest.... Brutally honest. For the first time since coming on this forum I know exactly how he feels. In fact, I was at my neighbor's house while the "Radio Shack Consulting" Rep (at least that is what it said on his toolbox) was playing with his receiver settings. Well, this guy told my neighbor to listen to movies in 6ch stereo mode because he has 6 speakers (including sub). I swear I almost lost it. I think if Andrew was there he would have went into convulsions and stroked. My point is that I think when bad info is going around it should be corrected. Once it is out there it cant be taken back.... Just try to restrain yourself a bit when talking to the moderators... They play a necessary role.

[comeup]

Fellas I think alot of this was misunderstanding not bad info, as aud19 said (we all agree) that 1080P is better.

PEACE TO YOU ALL

[JonMarsh]

Okay... correct me *when* I'm wrong here:

1) DVD is a 480-line image that is output the by player at 480i or 480p.
2) The 480i output is essentially 2 different 240-line images interlaced at 30fps.
3) 480p output is the entire 480-line image at 60fps
4) 720p is a 720-line image at 60fps
5) 1080i is two 540-line images interlaced at 30fps
6) 1080p is a 1080-line image at 60fps.


So... it seems to me that the smart thing to do was not have 720 or 1080 but actually a 960-line image. This way, an upconverter does not have to process some far-out math just to deliver a smooth image.

This is actually the hesitation I'm having regarding a move to any HDTV system, whether set-top, display or projector.

Also, it also seems to me that converting a 720-line image by 1.5X to get 1080 lines is creates somes interlacing issues that result in a flicker. Wouldn't it be easier to just double the information?

ensen.

OK, there are some errors above.

1) DVD is 480 line image, stored occasionally at 24 frames/sec progressive, but most often at 480 interlaced fields (240 lines each), which can be de-interlaced or reassembled, depending on whether video or film sourced, to 30 full fields per second (video) or 24 full frames per second film. Then, in the case of video, each field can be displayed twice for playback at the standard 60 Hz rate, or for film source material, a 3-2 cadence is used. If DVD isn't "deinterlaced" to progressive material, then it's just played back the way we see it on an NTSC set, with interlacing artifacts. 480P on DVD is 24 frame film. Video isn't stored that way, and there is no 480P 60FPS DVD.

3). ATSC can be 480P at 60 FPS. This isn't a DVD spec, though. This is what FOX was broadcasting in "widescreen" for a long time. Still considered SDTV in the ATSC standard.

4). ATSC 720P HD is 60 progressive frames per second. Got that one right.

5). ATSC 1080i HD is 60 alternating 540 line fields from a 1080 image which when deinterlaced properly should make a 30FPS progressive image- this is largly the case for film source. However, vertical filtering to reduce line twitter as well as horizontal filtering to reduce encoding bandwidth can reduce the image resolution. Live sports is recorded in interlaced fields which can't be assembled into progressive frames with doubling to 60 Hz without some kind of motion adaptive de-interlacing; otherwise, artifacts may be visible. The pixel bandwidth is much greater than for 720P, about double, so for slow moving or static scenes, it does generall look more detailed, IF it's a well encoded sorce, and if the playback system can resolve 1080i. Most HD systems in the home at this time (digital panels, 7" RPTV) can't resolve anything close to 1080i, and the digitals down convert. The new 1080P panel digital should be able to do that, and older FPTV projectors like my NEC 10PG with 9" tubes can.

6) 1080P/60FPS does not exist as a commercial media yet. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray will at most record 30 progressive frames per second (video sourced). For film source, they'll have 24FPS images, and output them at 60 FPS using the typical encoding previously used for DVD players- 3-2 cadence for film source, and frame doubling for video source, IF/when they do offer 1080P outputs. IF they use good editing practices and frame ID's, reassembling 1080i to 1080P in the projector without artifacts shouldn't be a biggie, but then they messed this up in a lot of DVDs and DVD players, so who knows?

~Jon

[aud19]

Thanks Jon :T

[purplepeople]

Yes... thanks, Jon.

Since I couldn't care less about a HD broadcasts, it doesn't make sense for me to move to an HD display until HD-DVD and Blu-Ray get sorted out... that I'm better off getting a good 480P player and display.

I just noticed that the convert ratio is the same for 480:720 and for 720:1080 at 1.5x, hence your comment about the pixels nearly doubling. It would be 2.25x the number of pixels, if I remember my basic geometry.

Does the choice of 1.5x scaling result in smoother results than other ratios, like pixel doubling?

ensen.

[JonMarsh]

Personally, I think doubling works better. You'll better results on test patterns, and that seems to be mostly what I watch these days.

~jon

[purplepeople]

Okay, then... any 960 pixel displays out there?

ensen.

[stewfoo]

I am anxiously awaiting Andrew Ward's response to Jon Marsh's reply. To tell you the truth, I am lost.

[aud19]

I am anxiously awaiting Andrew Ward's response to Jon Marsh's reply. To tell you the truth, I am lost.

:lol: Yeah it's not the easiest stuff to keep track of (I'm a good example of this! :lol: ) especially when you don't do this stuff for a living. I mean I have enough trouble remembering all the stuff I need to know for my job! :lol:

Maybe if you ask a specific question though, then these fellows might me kind enough to answer something not quite as broad as:

"I am lost :sos: "

:lol:

(Or at least maybe I can draw you a map.... Technical/graphic design is my job :rofl: )

[gianni]

slightly off topic but look at this picture then back away 15 feet and look at this picture and you will see that yes sometimes at a distance your eyes will play tricks on you

This is weird! Never would of thought....

[autio]

Well I didnt come up with it, so I guess a little credit is in order. If you click on the link below it tells a little background on how it works (a good anology is it is like a audio cross over but visual high pass and low pass)

http://cvcl.mit.edu/gallery.htm

(I apologize for being off topic)

[HigherDef]

:T :rofl: :roll:

[aud19]

Good article on 1080p here by Mark Fleischmann:

http://news.digitaltrends.com/talkback47.html