1080p not relevant for films?


Recommended Posts

l77Il7H

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.

i have a 24" dell lcd and hdtv mce2005. so yes, i AM watching them at native resolution. :shiftyninja:

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.

i agree. 1080i looks just as good or better than 720p for sports. cbs sports are much more chrispier and cleaner than abc's. fox is the worst one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bangbang023

i have a 24" dell lcd and hdtv mce2005. so yes, i AM watching them at native resolution. :shiftyninja:

i agree. 1080i looks just as good or better than 720p for sports. cbs sports are much more chrispier and cleaner than abc's. fox is the worst one.

If you have an LCD, you are not watching 1080i at all. Everything is converted to a progressive format.

Link to post
Share on other sites
l77Il7H

If you have an LCD, you are not watching 1080i at all. Everything is converted to a progressive format.

it's still interlaced. i doubt my mce2k5 de-interlaced them. that's quite cpu intensive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bangbang023

it's still interlaced. i doubt my mce2k5 de-interlaced them. that's quite cpu intensive.

The monitor is non-interlaced. I don't think I've seen an interlaced, fixed pixel display.

Link to post
Share on other sites
l77Il7H

The monitor is non-interlaced. I don't think I've seen an interlaced, fixed pixel display.

then i don't see why people want 1080p so badly. people who are watching 1080p would be using lcd or plasma tv. that would mean 1080i is good enough. the only one left in the dust would be dlp tv.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bangbang023

then i don't see why people want 1080p so badly. people who are watching 1080p would be using lcd or plasma tv. that would mean 1080i is good enough. the only one left in the dust would be dlp tv.

DLP can do 1080p though it can't. It's a bit odd, but they use wobulation to achieve 1080p resolution. The funny thing is, wobulation is a bit like interlacing. Not exactly ,but a bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SeaClearly

I was lucky enough to see a live football broadcast from ESPN in native 1080p support on a pre-production White Westinghouse native 1080p set with the new HDMI 1.3 spec that is able to accept native 1080p signals. Now this was in more of a lab so the ESPN 1080p feed isn't available but ESPN at some point in the future is working to add 1080p sporting events. All I can say is that if you think CBS 1080i is great you have no idea what we all are missing. They zoomed in and out very fast and the color and such was perfect and even with 1080i far away shots do tend to have some static but with 1080p the close up shots are just as good as the far away shots. Its like going from DVD to HDTV all over again if that gives you a hint. Now they are working with cable company box makers to add the HDMI 1.3 port along with the hardware support for 1080p decoding. They would also have all existing boxes updated via software to accept a 1080p signal but output it in 1080i/720p format for those without native 1080p sets. You would need to access a specific special menu to turn on 1080p support so it won't be easy to turn it on by accident. This means that ESPN can offer cable and satellite companies a different 1080p feed instead of their current 720p feed if their boxes have been updated. This means that the boxes can just scale down to the same quality they always get but when they do have a native 1080p broadcast for those with native 1080p sets as long as they have the box setup to output a 1080p signal without converting it they will get a true 1080p live sporting event.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bangbang023

Just so you know, HDMI does accept 1080p even in it's current incarnation (1.3 is not needed), but very few sets support it because of the lack of signals out there for it. This trend is going continue, for the most part.

Link to post
Share on other sites
majortom1981

The problem is coming up with the bandwidth to support the signal.

Also cable and satalite companies do not even stream true hdtv channels. They are mostly compressed and scaled down a little.

you would have to compare a real 1080i signal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bangbang023

Well, I don't think satellite would ever be able to carry 1080p. They already compress the hell out of 1080i and the quality can suffer at times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SeaClearly

By the time this rolls out I've been told that ESPN will just offer a seperate feed that would only be available during a 1080p event and that means that a cable and sat company only has to have the bandwidth just during those specific events. But at some point in time ESPN will just offer one 1080p feed because in two or so years DirecTV will have plenty of bandwidth and both cable and fiber offerings will have enough bandwidth. Cable can use switched video technology or just decide to go all digital and require that all analog customers need a digital box and fiber offerings of course have more than enough bandwidth and Verizon has both fiber and switched video hardware just with one strand of fiber per 32 houses. They have a backup strand they can at some point use which would double their bandwidth in just a couple of months of tech work. Again we must look at where these companies will be in the future. Also consider the fact that both Dish Network and DirecTV in 2009 will have bandwidth freed as they won't be offering SD locals anymore will they. So DirecTV with MPEG4 can get at least 200 HD channels once they dump those analog local channels in 2009. So they have two satellites in space today that can carry all current local stations HD signals (even if the station hasn't gone HD yet) in the entire country while a third satellite (not launched yet) has enough bandwidth for 150 national conus HD channels and the 4th satellite will be a backup spare satellite. So we are looking at DirecTV in 2010 being able to offer all current SD channels they do today plus have room to carry 1500 local HD channels along with at least 300 national HD channels. In simple terms if every single SD channel today went HD they can offer them all and still have some bandwidth left over. Heck you never know if Dish Network might just pay DirecTV to resell their local HD channels. As long as DirecTV has the channels and dish network doesn't I don't see why DirecTV wouldn't mind getting paid for something they have in place as it is. Also if they lose access to NFL Sunday Ticket by that time which could very happen it would be more reason to resell both national and local HD channels to Dish Network. DirecTV can always sell lower and require Dish to put the channel in an HD package. So if a customer is willing to pay more for dish network you aren't going to get this customer so why not get paid by all those customers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bangbang023

Regardless of the number of satellites, most people agree that, with the exception of temporary ESPN feeds like you mentioned, 1080p broadcasting probably isn't going to happen. DirecTV is already compressing the hell out of broadcasts to the point where it can affect picture quality on some of the better sets out there. Obviously, once they get everyone over to their h20 boxes, the mpeg4 will help out a lot, though they are going to have to use the freed bandwidth to add more channels before upping the resolution so drastically.

I'm actually curious about future compression and where we are heading. Better compression or more bandwidth? Cable and, I think, IPTV are generally relying on VC-1 while DirecTV is, as you stated, going with the base technology of mpeg4, but is this the answer or do they need to rework their satellite delivery system further? One thing is for sure: At least you can lease boxes from them now. I'd be ****ed if I bought an h10 and suddenly have to jump up, otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1WayJonny

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..

Sup,

The difference is just that the horzontial line and the vertical ones refresh at the same times giveing a sharper image of course, and as bangbang said this also make movement more life like

yes you can see the difference cause at first ti looks weird and funny untill you realize its the more fluid

most tech peeps will do 720p, me as well i would rather have a little less pixels for smoothness

1080p give both choco and vanilla cake ;)

so ill take that 1080p any day

but the only thing that my 1080p TV supprts is my computer ....

Blue ray will have

HD-DVD doesnt yet, but im sure it will just be an update!

no console is powerful enough to do 1080p.... so PS3 will not be all crazycause only game with no demand (PPU, etc...) will be able to upscale

yes i know PS3 can but your big games cant make it, the 360 and the PS3 stutter at 720p or 1080i as of now...

and dont start some stupid PS3 vs 360 thread after this post...

BOTH CANT DO IT LIKE YOU WOULD EXPECT

the only thing is really good for is MOVIES and PC Apps/Games

Link to post
Share on other sites
SeaClearly

Regardless of the number of satellites, most people agree that, with the exception of temporary ESPN feeds like you mentioned, 1080p broadcasting probably isn't going to happen. DirecTV is already compressing the hell out of broadcasts to the point where it can affect picture quality on some of the better sets out there. Obviously, once they get everyone over to their h20 boxes, the mpeg4 will help out a lot, though they are going to have to use the freed bandwidth to add more channels before upping the resolution so drastically.

I'm actually curious about future compression and where we are heading. Better compression or more bandwidth? Cable and, I think, IPTV are generally relying on VC-1 while DirecTV is, as you stated, going with the base technology of mpeg4, but is this the answer or do they need to rework their satellite delivery system further? One thing is for sure: At least you can lease boxes from them now. I'd be ****ed if I bought an h10 and suddenly have to jump up, otherwise.

Your not leasing the box from DirecTV like you would with cable. So for an HD Tivo you are leasing it with an upfront cost of 499.99 and your mirror fee becomes a lease fee. The end result is that even after your two year agreement you don't own the box nor will you ever own the box now. So if you finished your two year agreement that is your programming agreement so if after that two years you cancel service with DirecTV you must send back that hardware to DirecTV or they will charge you 250 or so bucks. What is worse is if you pay the 250 bucks they can still request the box back as you don't own the box and worse they now reserve the right to put a lien on your house or car and/or charge you in the court of law for grand theft as the box costs them more than 500 dollars and even though you paid most of it they still can charge you for their loss which is not getting back a 500+ dollar box. Its all much worse for the customer compared to the past.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bangbang023

Well, it's worse unless you're brought into a situation like they face now with having to upgrade all their customers before fully moving over to mpeg4. I know a lot of people are a bit angry over the fact that 4 months after buying an h10, it's already being phased out. Then again, you have a point when it comes to the people leading the h20's now and won't be upgrading for a while. Kind of getting screwed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Julius Caro

It's funny that most HD LCD sets have a native progessive resolution, while most broadcasters use 1080i.

I receive some HD promo channels via satellite, they're all 1080i. When I use the 1080i output of the receiver, things look better than when I use the 720p one. I guess the TV does a better downscaling than the receiver, damn sony bravias! :D

I'm all for progressive though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bangbang023

It's funny that most HD LCD sets have a native progessive resolution, while most broadcasters use 1080i.

I receive some HD promo channels via satellite, they're all 1080i. When I use the 1080i output of the receiver, things look better than when I use the 720p one. I guess the TV does a better downscaling than the receiver, damn sony bravias! :D

I'm all for progressive though.

It's really the nature of the technology that makes fixed pixels displays progressive scan. And yes, a good TV would have a better scaler than a crappy cable box/low end receiver.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Julius Caro

It's really the nature of the technology that makes fixed pixels displays progressive scan. And yes, a good TV would have a better scaler than a crappy cable box/low end receiver.

Crappy?? :( It was more than 300 EUR!

Anyway, yeah, the scaling of this receiver could be MUCH better. HD channels are glorious, but the upscaling done by the receiver is bad for my taste. Everything is like smoothed or something, when upscaled, so the little 'bad' details won't be seen. I really hoped the upscaling would be like the DVD upscaler player, but it wasnt. BUT on the other hand, if I set the receiver to 576p, the TV will do wonders with that (SD upscaling looks really good that way). HD channels in 576p (1080i downscaled to 576p, and then upscaled by the tv to 720p) look better than most SD channels. I saw this HD channel in 576p and was like: OMG IT LOOKS wow (it was SD!) and then set it to 720p and I was even more shocked, lol. I had never realized SD transmission over satellite were complete CRAP (with the exception of some german SD channels that look very good). I guess satellite broadcasts are 480i, but still...

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.