1080p not relevant for films?

[l77Il7H]

why do you people want 1080p so badly? aren't movies recorded at 24fps? the only thing 1080p is useful for is gaming but games still look good at 1080i. but honestly, can anyone of you REALLY see the difference between 1080i and 1080p????

[jerzdawg]

i dont know much... but i know that some have claimed that 720p looks better than 1080i in some cases...sooooo... I am going to put a bet that someone will answer this question that 1080p will look better than 1080i

[bangbang023 Veteran]

why do you people want 1080p so badly? aren't movies recorded at 24fps? the only thing 1080p is useful for is gaming but games still look good at 1080i. but honestly, can anyone of you REALLY see the difference between 1080i and 1080p????

edit: all the information i spelled out was for something a bit different, don't mind me.

n simple terms, 1080p gives you a sharper image which handles movement better.

Edited April 24, 2006 by bangbang023

[Vice]

The quality of WMV-HD (1080i) and H.264 (1080p) the H.264 looks better, I dunno why, it just does.. Might be the encoding or compression but i personally prefer a 1080p feed..

[zivan56]

Because there is no reason to have an interlaced image on a progressive display. It may look good, but any faster movement results in tearing of the image.

[P!P]

What do frames have to do with it? We're talking about the number of pixels on the screen. 1080p has double the number of 1080i. Interlace should die.

[bangbang023 Veteran]

What do frames have to do with it? We're talking about the number of pixels on the screen. 1080p has double the number of 1080i. Interlace should die.

Actually, 1080i and 1080p have the same resolution, 1920*1080.

[acedriver]

The Facts and Fiction of 1080p

[P!P]

Actually, 1080i and 1080p have the same resolution, 1920*1080.

But only have are shown? Interlaced? Right?

[l77Il7H]

What do frames have to do with it? We're talking about the number of pixels on the screen. 1080p has double the number of 1080i. Interlace should die.

lol, you made me laugh. you obviously don't know much about hdtv.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Actually, 1080i and 1080p have the same resolution, 1920*1080.

Except 1080i only shows 540 lines at any one time, your brain just fills in the rest.

[bangbang023 Veteran]

Except 1080i only shows 540 lines at any one time, your brain just fills in the rest.

Right, but they do have the same amount of "pixels" as the guy was saying. It's just that only half the lines (odd, then even) get updated at a time (every 1/60th of a second in most cases).

[l77Il7H]

Except 1080i only shows 540 lines at any one time, your brain just fills in the rest.

i don't think that's correct. the computer fills in the rest with the previous image. i have watched 1080i and 720p television for a while now and i think 1080i is fine even in fast moving films. 1080i shows like CSI looks great and has a lot of fast pace scenes.

[bangbang023 Veteran]

i don't think that's correct. the computer fills in the rest with the previous image. i have watched 1080i and 720p television for a while now and i think 1080i is fine even in fast moving films. 1080i shows like CSI looks great and has a lot of fast pace scenes.

You are both partly right. Your mind actually does make the complete image that you see. Every other scan line updates every 1/60th of a second, meaning the other lines still have the previous image in them. However, the lines alternately updated at such a high speed that your mind is tricked to seeing one seemless image.

However, this tricking of the mind doesn't work perfectly. Interlaced images tend to have some more jagged edges in them as compared to a progressive image which is done in a logical one pass order. There is also some detail lost in the constant flickering of an interlaced image. This is why ESPN chose to use 720p since sports games usually including fast paced action.

[kak]

1080p isn't exactly logical right now either. From what I have read, most of the sets out currently that 'support 1080p' don't even have an HDMI port capable of handing the signal.. or something along those lines. There also aren't any sources from what I've seen either.

[P!P]

i don't think that's correct. the computer fills in the rest with the previous image. i have watched 1080i and 720p television for a while now and i think 1080i is fine even in fast moving films. 1080i shows like CSI looks great and has a lot of fast pace scenes.

You obviously don't know much about HDTV. ;)

1080i can't handle fast-paced action as much 720p. Which is way ESPN HD is in 720p and not 1080i.

[bangbang023 Veteran]

1080p isn't exactly logical right now either. From what I have read, most of the sets out currently that 'support 1080p' don't even have an HDMI port capable of handing the signal.. or something along those lines. There also aren't any sources from what I've seen either.

When I said logical, I mean the way progressive scan displays an image is more logical than the interlaced method.

Coming June, HDMI 1.3 should hit the market and this will allow 1080p TV's to finally accept 1080p incoming signals. The only sources, however, will be HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players.

Don't knock current 1080p sets, though. Because they have a full 1080 lines of resolution, they are better suited to display 1080i signals (which most HD TV is broadcast in) than the more common 720p sets.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

...

There is also some detail lost in the constant flickering of an interlaced image.

...

Oh yeah, the main problem i find is in the second frame it shows, they have moved ever so slightly, and the objects are split up (as the even lines show them to the left, odd show them to the right), that gets annoying.

[theyarecomingforyou]

The Facts and Fiction of 1080p

Thanks for that... great article.

[kak]

When I said logical, I mean the way progressive scan displays an image is more logical than the interlaced method.

Coming June, HDMI 1.3 should hit the market and this will allow 1080p TV's to finally accept 1080p incoming signals. The only sources, however, will be HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players.

Don't knock current 1080p sets, though. Because they have a full 1080 lines of resolution, they are better suited to display 1080i signals (which most HD TV is broadcast in) than the more common 720p sets.

Good stuff. I've been wanting to know when the new HDs would be hitting the market. Going to get one for my room in the new house and didn't want to buy an older format [or buy before a decent price drop].

[nexx]

Except 1080i only shows 540 lines at any one time, your brain just fills in the rest.

Since we're talking about digital displays and not CRT's - your eyes dont fill in the rest, the deinterlacer does. The quality of the final image will depend on the quality of the deinterlacer. Too bad most displays have crappy ones.

People are too quick to dismiss 1080i shouting 'omg interlaced!' - it's a compromise. In the case of film (24/25fps) there is no compromise. It can be stored and broadcast in an interlaced format (see PsF) and weaved/inverse telecined back to 1920x1080p@24fps. I dont even think BluRay/HDDVD (or any camera) support 1080p@60fps content.

[bangbang023 Veteran]

Since we're talking about digital displays and not CRT's - your eyes dont fill in the rest, the deinterlacer does. The quality of the final image will depend on the quality of the deinterlacer. Too bad most displays have crappy ones.

People are too quick to dismiss 1080i shouting 'omg interlaced!' - it's a compromise. In the case of film (24/25fps) there is no compromise. It can be stored and broadcast in an interlaced format (see PsF) and weaved/inverse telecined back to 1920x1080p@24fps. I dont even think BluRay/HDDVD (or any camera) support 1080p@60fps content.

The HD standard as a whole, if I recall correctly, doesn't support 1080p60. It maxes out at 1080p30 and is basically a result of lack of foresight.

Edited April 24, 2006 by bangbang023

[l77Il7H]

You obviously don't know much about HDTV. ;)

1080i can't handle fast-paced action as much 720p. Which is way ESPN HD is in 720p and not 1080i.

you don't even know the difference between 1080i and 1080p and you're going to say that i don't know much about hdtv? god, what a hypocrite.

yea, technically 720p is faster but i have presonally watched shows in 1080i and 720p and i cannot see the interlacing or tearing that everyone says.

[bangbang023 Veteran]

you don't even know the difference between 1080i and 1080p and you're going to say that i don't know much about hdtv? god, what a hypocrite.

yea, technically 720p is faster but i have presonally watched shows in 1080i and 720p and i cannot see the interlacing or tearing that everyone says.

Unless you've been using more than one HD set with one of them being a tube, I doubt you've watched any 1080i in it's native resolution.

[SeaClearly]

720p should be better than 1080i for sporting events but that doesn't always hold true if the broadcast itself isn't done in a quality manner. For example have you all compared an NFL game between Fox, ABC, ESPN and CBS. CBS is 1080i while the other three are 720p. I'll list my order from best to worst on the quality I see on my HDTV set which brings my point about broadcast quality in play.

CBS is the best.

ABC/ESPN are tied for second best but ESPN gets the edge as many local ABC stations multicast which in turn reduces the picture quality and often leads to breakups and pixel issues.

Fox is the worst with horrid picture quality with tons and tons of breakups with many games and from my point of view their splicer system is a joke.

Now if your watching everything on DirecTV you most likely are seeing horrid picture quality on all HD channels as they bit starve the heck out of their HD channels.