1080 I possible W/ DTV?

[cnmsales]

Just wondering, I am currently upgrading all my equipment in my house to switch over to HD. I am getting a HR20 reciever. I am wanting to know does DTV output in 1080I? if not when will they be doing so, The reason for my question is to determine what TV set i need to purchse. If they arent going to be using 1080I in the next 10 yrs then I can save my self some money and go with a lower res. If they currently are in 1080I or getting ready to do it I will want to go with it so my tv's newness dont wear off in a week.

What do they currently output in?

[Mertzen]

Yes. D* broadcasts certain content in 1080i.

[JeffBowser]

....wait for it.........

......."HDLite" arguments will now start flowing.......

[paulman182]

He probably means 1080P, which neither D* nor any other programming provider will output anytime in the near future due to bandwidth issues. It is only available from Blu-Ray and HD DVD.

[HarleyD]

"It's broadcast in 1080i. I totally don't know what that means, but I want it." http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/09/12/jessica_narrowweb__200x309.jpg

[NYSmoker]

He probably means 1080P, which neither D* nor any other programming provider will output anytime in the near future due to bandwidth issues. It is only available from Blu-Ray and HD DVD.

Xbox 360 and PS3 are also 1080p sources. Of course video games are not moving pictures but still it is a source.

[JeffBowser]

(start soapbox) Harley - that has got to be the dumbest advertisement I have ever seen. "Don't know what it is, but I want it" so perfectly sums up what is being foisted on us in general by retailers of crap we don't need. (end soapbox)

[ApK]

He probably means 1080P,

Out of curioisty, why would you think he meant P if he said I?

[HarleyD]

(start soapbox) Harley - that has got to be the dumbest advertisement I have ever seen. "Don't know what it is, but I want it" so perfectly sums up what is being foisted on us in general by retailers of crap we don't need. (end soapbox)
Lighten up, Francis. ;)

[paulman182]

Out of curioisty, why would you think he meant P if he said I?

Because he is basing a TV purchase on the question, and every HDTV I know of on the market today accepts 1080i. The 1080p TVs are the "latest and greatest," according to all the ads, so there is a lot of interest in them right now.

[ApK]

OIC. Two years ago, which was when I last looked at HD TVs, one had to choose between native 720 or native 1080.

Nice that things have progressed.
So those new disk formats do 1080P, huh? Cool. How do they look?

[ClubSteeler]

They send their downrezzed 1280x1080i right now.

However, I believe that they used to at one time send full 1920x1080i, so YES, maybe when they have more bandwidth they can send 1080i.

If you meant to ask about 1080p... I doubt it...

No single HD network otu there (that I know of) broadcasts in 1080p. Plus it would eat up twice the bandwidth of 1080i. SO it doesn't seem logical to me that D*, which already down rezzes and then reducing the bit sampling rates so hat they are only tranmitting about 50-70% of the bits necessary for true 1080i, would then decide to offer a format requiring twice that...????

I really doubt it....

And if it ever did happen... you really wouldn't see much difference. The resolution is the same for 1080i and 1080p, just not interlaced.. And honestly, with compression and sub channels and what not, you're not going to see the difference when watching live TV... That's just my $0.02.... I don't care if you're sat, cable, OTA or fiber...

Honestly, if I were to buy a HDTV, and I was a D* customer, and money was real tight, I'd simply get a 720P TV set. If you do the math, 720P is sending more bits per frame than the downrezzed 1280x1080i.. When I screw around with my STB and make it convert 1080i to 720p and vice vrsa, I do not visually see a difference.

[veryoldschool]

They send their downrezzed 1280x1080i right now.
How do you know this?
Can/would you give some source that can be checked into please?
If my OTA channel is 1920x1080 & D* were to "downrezz" it to 1280x1080, I think I could see a difference in my picture, as there would be only 66% of the image. I know I can when I was using cable and they did much less than this. FWIW

[PoitNarf]

How do you know this?
Can/would you give some source that can be checked into please?
If my OTA channel is 1920x1080 & D* were to "downrezz" it to 1280x1080, I think I could see a difference in my picture, as there would be only 66% of the image. I know I can when I was using cable and they did much less than this. FWIW

He is correct, 1080i content on MPEG2 channels is coming in at 1280x1080 (I've seen multiple articles about this, but I'm too lazy to find one of them at the moment). Content in 720p is not altered resolution wise though. However, 720p and 1080i MPEG4 content is broadcast at their full resolution.

[veryoldschool]

He is correct, 1080i content on MPEG2 channels is coming in at 1280x1080 (I've seen multiple articles about this, but I'm too lazy to find one of them at the moment). Content in 720p is not altered resolution wise though. However, 720p and 1080i MPEG4 content is broadcast at their full resolution.
OK, I've heard of MPEG-2 "trimming", but not to that degree, I think 1440 was it.
Now my question is: what do you mean 720P isn't? If [or since] bandwidth is the issue, isn't a 720P signal the same "bit need" as 1080i? Or to ask it another way isn't the bandwidth of 1080i the same as 720P? "P" sends every frame & "i" sends every other, so aren't their needs for bandwidth the same [or very close]?

[ClubSteeler]

OK, I've heard of MPEG-2 "trimming", but not to that degree, I think 1440 was it.
Now my question is: what do you mean 720P isn't? If [or since] bandwidth is the issue, isn't a 720P signal the same "bit need" as 1080i? Or to ask it another way isn't the bandwidth of 1080i the same as 720P? "P" sends every frame & "i" sends every other, so aren't their needs for bandwidth the same [or very close]?

You are correct... The bits per frame needed for 1080i and 720 are very close, right around a million pixels, give or take...

But now they are able to reduce their version of 1080i by about a 1/3, roughly near 690k pixels.. Saves bandwidth.

[texmex]

OK, I've heard of MPEG-2 "trimming", but not to that degree, I think 1440 was it.
Now my question is: what do you mean 720P isn't? If [or since] bandwidth is the issue, isn't a 720P signal the same "bit need" as 1080i? Or to ask it another way isn't the bandwidth of 1080i the same as 720P? "P" sends every frame & "i" sends every other, so aren't their needs for bandwidth the same [or very close]?

ClubSteeler and PoitNarf are correct: ALL 1080i DirecTV MPEG2 is sent at 1280x1080. As far as bandwidth needs, here's the math (uncompressed):

1080i (full rez):
1920 x 1080 = 2073600 * 30fps = 62208000 bps

720p:
1280 x 720 = 921600 * 60fps = 55296000 bps

So you see, 1080i (full rez, uncompressed) requires ~12% more bandwidth than 720p. Of course, we don't get uncompressed video, but obviously the numbers still apply to the compressed stream. Just for fun...

1080i (DirecTV style):
1280 x 1080 = 1382400 * 30fps = 41472000 bps

So DirecTV can get away with providing LOWER bitrates to their 1080i than their 720p.

[JeffBowser]

Ha, I knew it - here is the "HD-Lite" argument surfacing again. Must. Stifle. Comment.

[texmex]

Ha, I knew it - here is the "HD-Lite" argument surfacing again. Must. Stifle. Comment.

I don't see any HD-Lite "arguments". Just the facts...

[Radio Enginerd]

Because he is basing a TV purchase on the question, and every HDTV I know of on the market today accepts 1080i. The 1080p TVs are the "latest and greatest," according to all the ads, so there is a lot of interest in them right now.

I like how they're now using "Full 1080 HD" as a marketing term. That does mean 1080p, right? :)

[JeffBowser]

The very term "HD-Lite" is an argument. I challenge anyone who is TRULY capable of putting aside marketing hype and pre-conceived notions to subjectively look and verify if they can actually, in real-life situations, see any difference between 1280x1080, and 1960x1080, and 1280x720. Unless you sit very close, and 20/10 vision, or blow your screen up above 70", you cannot.

GAH ! I have been suckered into commenting !! :lol:

[Radio Enginerd]

The very term "HD-Lite" is an argument. I challenge anyone who is TRULY capable of putting aside marketing hype and pre-conceived notions to subjectively look and verify if they can actually, in real-life situations, see any difference between 1280x1080, and 1960x1080, and 1280x720. Unless you sit very close, and 20/10 vision, or blow your screen up above 70", you cannot.

GAH ! I have been suckered into commenting !! :lol:

Be Strong...

- Lloyd Christmas

[texmex]

The very term "HD-Lite" is an argument. I challenge anyone who is TRULY capable of putting aside marketing hype and pre-conceived notions to subjectively look and verify if they can actually, in real-life situations, see any difference between 1280x1080, and 1960x1080, and 1280x720. Unless you sit very close, and 20/10 vision, or blow your screen up above 70", you cannot.

GAH ! I have been suckered into commenting !! :lol:

Don't want to encourage further debate, but you can't throw out a full one third of the resolution and claim that no one will notice. I'd argue that in a blind test on a 1080p setup larger than 52", at recommended viewing distance with better than average quality source material, better than 50% would be able to tell the difference. Without a blind test I think it's pretty simple - you can't miss what you've never had. Most viewers don't even know they aren't getting full rez HD...

[JeffBowser]

Now you bring 1080P into it. P vs I is a whole different argument. Background - I am a photographer. I have a 6 megapixel camera and a 13megapixel camera. You cannot see ANY difference in prints between the two until your print size start to exceed 20x30. This is the EXACT same concept with TV screen resolutions. The acuity of your eye is the limiting factor until your format size exceeds a certain dimension. Your 52" at standard viewing distance does not meet that. As for 1080P, that is marketing hooey, pure and simple, aside from a possible comment on the engineering effort that went into the rest of the subsystems on that TV.

Dang, suckered in again. What's wrong with me.

[ClubSteeler]

Ha, I knew it - here is the "HD-Lite" argument surfacing again. Must. Stifle. Comment.


I mostly agree with you.. except for sampling bitrates is truly the cause of the problem.

I had some very very good pics from a steeler playoff game in 2006 that shows the D* HD problem. In my opinion, it's not from downrezzing to 1280x1080i, because the picture looked stunning when the teams were huddling up. However, when the action started, it was abysmal looking.

If they took there 2/3 resolution and pumped it mpeg2 at 19Mbps instead of the 9 - 16Mbps they use now..... I'd 100% agree with you.

The real problem is they "trim" pixels AND starve bits...

However, for non action stuff... sitcoms... news.... etc... I think D* HD looks very nice.... Probably as good as anything elose from viewing distance like you claim.

[veryoldschool]

Dang, suckered in again. What's wrong with me.
Would you quit bringing up the human limitations, it is really getting in the way of my marketing ploy right now....:D

[harsh]

Here's a source of information about D*'s crushing of the signal: http://www.widemovies.com/dfwbitrate.html

Note that in some instances, the bitrates are estimated.

[JeffBowser]

Ah, Club, now you are talking. Bitrates and bandwidth, that can, and does, affect the picture. Pure resolution reduction on the scale we are talking is not generably noticeable in and of itself. Perhaps folks just get the two confused.

[jaywdetroit]

He is correct, 1080i content on MPEG2 channels is coming in at 1280x1080 (I've seen multiple articles about this, but I'm too lazy to find one of them at the moment). Content in 720p is not altered resolution wise though. However, 720p and 1080i MPEG4 content is broadcast at their full resolution.

Why is it when my HR20 is set to native and I hit info on my TV, the TV reports 1920x1080 then?

[harsh]

Why is it when my HR20 is set to native and I hit info on my TV, the TV reports 1920x1080 then?Two possibilities (not exhaustive):

1. The scaling that I'm theorizing about is indeed taking place in the "native" modes
2. Your TV doesn't correctly report the information.

[JeffBowser]

It's DirecTV messing with our heads to prove a point :lol: It could be as a poster noted above, MPEG4 is at 1920, and others are at 1280, or it could be like my TV, it dumbly reports any signal that is not 480 as 1080. Can't see any difference, so.....:D

[veryoldschool]

Two possibilities (not exhaustive):
1. The scaling that I'm theorizing about is indeed taking place in the "native" modes
2. Your TV doesn't correctly report the information.
My two cents & not much more: There must be "something" else going on, as if I watch TNT-HD, when their showing an old L&O that wasn't made in HD, I can see the distortion with the image. In the simplest example.. 640 stretched to 720. Now I can see this. If the D* process "clips", squashes, stamps on, whatever, a 1980 down to either 1440 or less, I can't think I wouldn't notice it in some form, with my 46" LCD 1080P display.
There must be "something" more going on in the box for it not to manifest itself in the same manor as what I saw with digital cable & their 520x480 SD MPEG-2.

[HIPAR]

Why is it when my HR20 is set to native and I hit info on my TV, the TV reports 1920x1080 then?

Because the receiver box is taking whatever is coming down from the satellite and reformating the data to 1080I. Your TV needs to see the signal from the box as one of the official over-the-air ATSC formats.

--- CHAS

[caam1]

All microdisplay devices (LCD, DLP, LCOS, etc.) are progressive scan. The only true 1080i TVs are those with CRTs (either direct view or projection). A 1080p display will display all the pixels in 1080i video whithout having to scale it. A 720p display has to scale 1080i video by "throwing out" some of the pixels. A 1080p display should look better with 1080i material if you sit close enough to the screen to see the difference. If you sit 10 feet back from a 42 inch screen, you probably won't be able to see the difference.

[raott]

Ah, Club, now you are talking. Bitrates and bandwidth, that can, and does, affect the picture. Pure resolution reduction on the scale we are talking is not generably noticeable in and of itself. Perhaps folks just get the two confused.

They are doing both, starving the bit rate and reducing the resolution. I watched a replay of one of the college fb games I recorded a couple of months ago that was on ESPNHD. The picture was horrible, completely bit starved, macro blocking all over the place.

I will also argue that resolution does make a difference. The general consensus on avsforum is that there is a clear difference between 1080i and 720p, with 1080i winning hands down. I can clearly see the difference between an OTA CBS football game and an OTA Fox game on a 55 inch set.

If you want, we can all pretend we are D* VP's and claim we've never heard of HDLITE.

[cantfish2much]

ClubSteeler and PoitNarf are correct: ALL 1080i DirecTV MPEG2 is sent at 1280x1080. As far as bandwidth needs, here's the math (uncompressed):

1080i (full rez):
1920 x 1080 = 2073600 * 30fps = 62208000 bps

720p:
1280 x 720 = 921600 * 60fps = 55296000 bps

So you see, 1080i (full rez, uncompressed) requires ~12% more bandwidth than 720p. Of course, we don't get uncompressed video, but obviously the numbers still apply to the compressed stream. Just for fun...

1080i (DirecTV style):
1280 x 1080 = 1382400 * 30fps = 41472000 bps

So DirecTV can get away with providing LOWER bitrates to their 1080i than their 720p.

Just out of curiosity what is being pulled in from OTA on a HR-20 as far as HD? Is it the 1080i fullrez (1980x1020)? The OTA HD sure seems better than the D* HD on a HR-20. Superbowl looked great with OTA HD through a HD-20 (well it looked great whenever they wiped the rain drops off of their camera lens)

[JeffBowser]

I am familiar with the forum, and the consensus is anything but. I am talking physics, mechanics, and biological limitations. Quite a few people on that AVS forum are talking straight emotions and making justifications for laying out huge sums of money on snake-oil. My opinion is that your conclusions are flawed, sir. :) I have a 65" set and several 35" sets, so I do have a good basis for comparison. My 65" set is not kind to poor sources.



The general consensus on avsforum is that there is a clear difference between 1080i and 720p, with 1080i winning hands down. I can clearly see the difference between an OTA CBS football game and an OTA Fox game on a 55 inch set.

If you want, we can all pretend we are D* VP's and claim we've never heard of HDLITE.

[raott]

I am familiar with the forum, and the consensus is anything but. I am talking physics, mechanics, and biological limitations. Quite a few people on that AVS forum are talking straight emotions and making justifications for laying out huge sums of money on snake-oil. My opinion is that your conclusions are flawed, sir. :) I have a 65" set and several 35" sets, so I do have a good basis for comparison. My 65" set is not kind to poor sources.

Maybe you should visit the site during football season and see what the general consensus is. The only "snake oil" is those that claim that 1080i doesn't do sports well.

The difference between a CBS picture and a FOX picture is clear on large sets. I'll take 1920x1080 any day of the week. Unfortunately D* doesn't give me that.

With that said, I will agree that the much more important factor is bit rate. Unfortunately again, D* bit rate leads much to be desired.

[texmex]

...except for sampling bitrates is truly the cause of the problem.

I'd agree that the bit-starving is MUCH more of a problem than the lost resolution. But I simply can't concede that tossing out 1/3 of the resolution does not result in a noticeable difference. No sense in arguing about it until someone can set up a side by side blind test...

[texmex]

Just out of curiosity what is being pulled in from OTA on a HR-20 as far as HD? Is it the 1080i fullrez (1980x1020)? The OTA HD sure seems better than the D* HD on a HR-20. Superbowl looked great with OTA HD through a HD-20 (well it looked great whenever they wiped the rain drops off of their camera lens)

I don't know of any OTA sources that aren't full resolution. Generally, OTA is also providing higher bitrates that D*; bitrates vary by affiliate though - multicasting can make an OTA signal look worse than D* (i.e. motion artifacts).

[texmex]

Now you bring 1080P into it. P vs I is a whole different argument. Background - I am a photographer. I have a 6 megapixel camera and a 13megapixel camera. You cannot see ANY difference in prints between the two until your print size start to exceed 20x30. This is the EXACT same concept with TV screen resolutions. The acuity of your eye is the limiting factor until your format size exceeds a certain dimension. Your 52" at standard viewing distance does not meet that. As for 1080P, that is marketing hooey, pure and simple, aside from a possible comment on the engineering effort that went into the rest of the subsystems on that TV.

I didn't "bring" 1080P into it. As far as I know, 1080P sets are currently the only sets capable of fully resolving 1080i (1920x1080) material. That's why my hypothetical blind test only makes sense on 1080p sets. Why would you do a blind test on a 720p set where all 1080i signals are down-rezzed to 1280x720? That would certainly prove YOUR point (i.e. not being able to tell the difference). My point is that on any set larger than 52" that is capable of fully resolving 1080i (i.e. a 1080p set), a LOT of people would be able to see a difference between 1920x1080 and 1280x1080.

[HarleyD]

"Better or Worse?"

"Now?"

"How About Now?"


http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/PTGPOD/162311~Eye-Exam-Stockholm-Sweden-Posters.jpg

[veryoldschool]

I think you don't need to take another step....your walk is over.:D

[HarleyD]

I think you don't need to take another step....your walk is over.:D
http://drinkingliberally.org/blogs/oakland/archives/who%20me.jpg
Moi?!

[veryoldschool]

You do add something to this forum....[I may be still wondering what though.....] :new_popco

[cnmsales]

So my question then is, Will directv any time in the near future and by near i mean 5 yrs be offering 1080p? If not then I have no reason to purchase a 1080p set. Secondly, Does sports from directv look good in 1080i or not? and if not Will the new sats going up fix this problem?

[TigersFanJJ]

Xbox 360 and PS3 are also 1080p sources. Of course video games are not moving pictures but still it is a source.

I may be wrong, but everything I've read on the xbox 360 says 1080i. The ps3 has a bluray player built in.

[ClubSteeler]

So my question then is, Will directv any time in the near future and by near i mean 5 yrs be offering 1080p? If not then I have no reason to purchase a 1080p set. Secondly, Does sports from directv look good in 1080i or not? and if not Will the new sats going up fix this problem?

I'd say "NO!"....

They'd be dumb to offer 1080p. Why? Right now there is not one single station broadcasting in 1080p. So yeah, direcTV could make a 1080p STB, and could send you every hi-def channel in 1080p, but it it physically impossible to make the picture look better than the source, and if the source is not 1080p, then D* would just be wasting bandwidth for no reason...

Go turn on your WORST looking SD channel you can find.
Now set up your STB to only send out 1080i.
Now it is going to upconvert your crappy 480i to 1080i.

Does the picture look better?

Nope...

There's no magic...

So how many channels do you think will broadcast 1080p in 5 years?
Few to none...

If you started a new HD network would you broadcast in 1080p knowing that 95% of the tvs out there can not support it, and not one single provider, fiber, sat, cable or otherwise supports it.... ????

Nah.... I wouldn't worry about 1080p. You won't even be able to tell the difference anyway. It's like 480i vs 480p on a DVD player. I rarely, if ever, can tell the difference..

[JeffBowser]

Raott - I swear, this will be me final input here :lol:

Don't the confuse Progressive scan versus Interlaced argument with the "HDLite" argument, which is what it appears you are doing. They are not one and the same. of course progressive shows motion better than interlaced, and this has zippo to do with the broadcast resolution.

[machavez00]

I like how they're now using "Full 1080 HD" as a marketing term. That does mean 1080p, right? :)

I asked that same question in December.
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=72571

[NYSmoker]

I may be wrong, but everything I've read on the xbox 360 says 1080i. The ps3 has a bluray player built in.

Microsoft released an update over Live to allow the XBox 360 to output 1080p. Virtua Tennis is the first 1080p native title being released and others are following.

[TigersFanJJ]

Microsoft released an update over Live to allow the XBox 360 to output 1080p. Virtua Tennis is the first 1080p native title being released and others are following.

That's pretty cool. What about those that don't have a broadband connection, therefore no Live? Is xbox going to release the update on a disc that you can load (or have they already)?

I'm curious because I'm thinking of getting one of the two consoles. Have been leaning towards the ps3 mainly because of the bluray player. Now that xbox has has stepped it up, I will probably get one instead because of the price.

[NYSmoker]

That's pretty cool. What about those that don't have a broadband connection, therefore no Live? Is xbox going to release the update on a disc that you can load (or have they already)?

I'm curious because I'm thinking of getting one of the two consoles. Have been leaning towards the ps3 mainly because of the bluray player. Now that xbox has has stepped it up, I will probably get one instead because of the price.

I believe you can go online at xbox.com and download the updates and burn them on a cd. Then take that cd to the Xbox 360. I'm not 100% sure though. I have it for the games and I am happy. I have not purchased the HDDVD addon yet, but I am sure I will eventually.

[CCarncross]

Wow, I see quite a difference in interlaced vs progressive images....maybe I'm just more critical. To the original poster, if you cant tell the PQ difference between 1080p and 1080i sets, then save your money....

[JeffBowser]

I'll qualify this by having said I have not seen any 1080p source (I left video games behind me 25 years ago), I don't see how there can be any humanly noticeable difference between 1080p and 1080i sets (assuming both are true 1080 capable), when there is no 1080p source to be had outside of juvenile games.

[texmex]

I'll qualify this by having said I have not seen any 1080p source (I left video games behind me 25 years ago), I don't see how there can be any humanly noticeable difference between 1080p and 1080i sets (assuming both are true 1080 capable), when there is no 1080p source to be had outside of juvenile games.

But there ARE no true 1080i sets that are capable of fully resolving 1080i. As far as I know, the only 1080i sets available are CRT sets (projection and direct view - and I don't think either can truly resolve 1080i). If you want to fully resolve a 1080i signal and you don't want to buy a CRT set, then you HAVE to buy a 1080p set. 1080p is not marketing hype - it's the ONLY way to watch 1080i source material in all its glory. The only alternative to a 1080p set is 720p (which will down-rez all 1080i material) - or try to find a 1080i CRT projection set, which are becoming increasingly rare.

[texmex]

Just to follow up - I checked my Crutchfield catalog from this holiday season.

Flat Panel LCD: 35 models, 26" - 52"; all are either 768p (1366x768) or 1080p (1920x1080)

Flat Panel Plasma: 18 models, 42" - 65"; 15 are 768p (either 1366x768 or 1024x768), one is true 1080p (1920x1080) and 2 are listed as 1080i but resolution is limited to 1024x1080.

Rear-Proj DLP: 16 models, 42" - 72"; 720p (1280x720) or 1080p (1920x1080)

Rear-Proj LCD: 6 models, 46" - 62"; all 720p (1280x720)

Rear-Proj SXRD: 5 models, 50" - 70"; all 1080p (1920x1080)

The point? You CAN'T buy a 1080i set from Crutchfield! They no longer carry CRT HDTV sets. Your options are 720p or 1080p. If you want a set that is capable of fully resolving 1080i, you're buying 1080p...

[NYSmoker]

I'll qualify this by having said I have not seen any 1080p source (I left video games behind me 25 years ago), I don't see how there can be any humanly noticeable difference between 1080p and 1080i sets (assuming both are true 1080 capable), when there is no 1080p source to be had outside of juvenile games.

Why are games classified by you as juvenile? It is a billion dollar business and in my opinion you are never too old for some Madden even when you might be too old to actually attempt to play football. You say you left the games behind 25 years ago, could that maybe be a reason why YOU can not notice a difference between 1080i and 1080p?

[ClubSteeler]

But there ARE no true 1080i sets that are capable of fully resolving 1080i. As far as I know, the only 1080i sets available are CRT sets (projection and direct view - and I don't think either can truly resolve 1080i). If you want to fully resolve a 1080i signal and you don't want to buy a CRT set, then you HAVE to buy a 1080p set. 1080p is not marketing hype - it's the ONLY way to watch 1080i source material in all its glory. The only alternative to a 1080p set is 720p (which will down-rez all 1080i material) - or try to find a 1080i CRT projection set, which are becoming increasingly rare.

Holy Shmoly you are right!!!
I learned something today.

Here I thought I was watching 1080i all this time. No wonder why I couldn't tell the difference between 720p and 1080i sources.... my tv converts everything to 720p...

I feel lonely and scared....

And to think that I have probably spent hours switch my STB between 1080i and 720p during football games trygin to decide which I liked better. At least my conclusion of "It doesn't matter" makes sense... :)

[JeffBowser]

You know what, I had a whole inflammatory reply all set to go. I just deleted it. One can't argue cold facts with people blinded by marketing hype, nor does my opinion of video games have any bearing whatsoever on the subject at hand. Rather than escalate, I will step out.

Tex - I see your specs, and I do not argue any of that. My arguments on noticeable differences were made earlier in my photography statement on page 2.

[JeffBowser]

Bit of history - when the HD specs were being argued waaay back, it was determined that there was no discernable visual difference between 720p and 1080i, but that one was better for fast motion, and one was better for stills. Hence, both were made standards, and some broadcast entities chose one, and some another. Now, there was money to be made, so marketing departments geared up and started selling us stories one how something is better than another, and voila ! Demand is created, and more demand is created still as people who measure their worth by their toys are demanding something better and better, and more exclusive, until we have a never-ending vicious cycle of upgrade-itis.

[Que]

http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5137915-1.html


Quote:
HD Lite is an informal term used to describe the broadcast of a particular HDTV channel with reduced picture quality. In most cases this means that the channel originates with a particular video encoding, resolution, and bit rate, but is re-encoded or rate shaped by the multichannel video programming distributor (i.e. cable television or DBS provider) to save bandwidth. Reduced video quality is characterized by reduced sharpness, reduced detail, excessive compression artifacts (mosquito noise and blocking), and in some cases, washed-out colors. The reduced video quality is most often caused by poorly done recompression, low bit rates (from recompression or rate-shaping equipment), or reduced resolution. When HD Lite uses reduced resolution, it is most commonly 1280 x 1080i or 1440 x 1080I, which is in contrast to the 1920 x 1080i and 1280 x 720p resolutions that most networks, over-the-air broadcasters, and cable/satellite HDTV channels provide.

Here a link that show each channels bit rate

http://www.widemovies.com/dfwbitrate.html


Here are some more HD-Lite links:

http://www.stophdlite.com/

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=HD+Lite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hd_lite

[Edit] You might even need to calibrate your TV http://www.smartcalibration.com/hdnetpatterns.html

[ClubSteeler]

Bit of history - when the HD specs were being argued waaay back, it was determined that there was no discernable visual difference between 720p and 1080i, but that one was better for fast motion, and one was better for stills. Hence, both were made standards, and some broadcast entities chose one, and some another. Now, there was money to be made, so marketing departments geared up and started selling us stories one how something is better than another, and voila ! Demand is created, and more demand is created still as people who measure their worth by their toys are demanding something better and better, and more exclusive, until we have a never-ending vicious cycle of upgrade-itis.


This is a big surprise to me...

So let's go back to D*... How many HDTV owners out there have 1080p? If I had to guess I'd say that maybe 5% of HDTV owners have 1080p.

Knowing that....

My whole opinion on D* downrezzing is changing...

So my cable box sends my tv 1920x1080i and my tv converts it to 1280x720p.

D*, takes 1920x1080i, converts it to 1280X1080i, and my TV gets that downrezzed pick at stabndard 1080i rate and converts it to 720p...

So... What does that mean????

If D* uses good algorithms to do the 1920 -> 1280 horizontal conversion, it makes me wonder that if the difference would even be detectable on my TV.

It almost makes me look at D* downrezzing as smart, not a rip off. My TV's going to throw those pixels away anyway right????


It makes me think that every D* HD complaint is 100% about sample bit rate, and has absolutely nothing to do about the down rezzing....


Only one question enters my mind....
If D* throws away 1 out of every 3 horizontal pixels.. and my TV does too, but they are not the same pixel, I can see how this conversion could make the picture look worse than true 1080i being converted by your TV.. Just a thought..

[veryoldschool]

Jeff:
I too sometimes find that after I review a posting of mine, find that I don't need to post it & have gotten it out of my system.
I think some others would do well to review their posts and ask themselves "does this really matter if I post it?"

On another note: I like a nice sharp picture. To that end, I picked a 1080P LCD with "only" a 46" display [replacing a 51" RPTV]. What a sharp, clear, finely detailed picture. :D

[veryoldschool]

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=80458

[JeffBowser]

VOS, the calm voice of reason. :D

[JeffBowser]

Ah, ClubSteeler begins to see the light !

Question for gear heads out there - I have a 65" CRT rear projection that supports 480i, 480p, and 1080i. What does its lack of 720p support tell me about the technology behind it ? It's the only one of my 5 HD sets that won't do a native 720p, and it is old enough that it's tech specs make no mention of this

[ClubSteeler]

Ah, ClubSteeler begins to see the light !

Question for gear heads out there - I have a 65" CRT rear projection that supports 480i, 480p, and 1080i. What does its lack of 720p support tell me about the technology behind it ? It's the only one of my 5 HD sets that won't do a native 720p, and it is old enough that it's tech specs make no mention of this

I have no idea... but if I had to guess....
Each frame of 480p is something like 640x480
Each frame of 1080i is 1920 x 540 right,,,

So I bet this TV only have 540 vertical lines, and in 1080i mode, it simply duplicates the first 540 frame twice, so in reality you are watching

whatever the horizontal resolution is X (480/540)p all of the time.

For the question about horizontal resolution, I don't know. But if they couldn't squeeze in 720 lines, then they probably can't squeeze in 1920 or 1280 horizonal either...

My guess would be that your TV is 960 x 540 .... I'm probably wrong...

[JeffBowser]

Gad, that's not so good, if that is the case.

[veryoldschool]

I have no idea... but if I had to guess....
I'm probably wrong...
I had a Sony RPTV that was HD ready. It would show full 1080i [since it was a CRT based] & for 720P it would down rez to 480 & then double to 960. I think it has to do with the scalar they used. FWIW

EDIT: a CRT beam must pass through a grid of holes. If the grid isn't spaced right for 720, then it won't work. My 1080 had at least 10% overscan.

[HarleyD]

So have we come to a resolution on the issue of resolution?

[veryoldschool]

So have we come to a resolution on the issue of resolution?
:D :lol: :lol: :lol:

[JeffBowser]

:lol: :lol: I doubt it !

So have we come to a resolution on the issue of resolution?

[HarleyD]

Resolution passed.

The "i"s have it.

[texmex]

It almost makes me look at D* downrezzing as smart, not a rip off. My TV's going to throw those pixels away anyway right????

It makes me think that every D* HD complaint is 100% about sample bit rate, and has absolutely nothing to do about the down rezzing....

Congrats - you've just figured out how D* justifies the down rezzing. If you have a 720p set, then you'd never know the difference. But I'm not willing to give them the "thumbs up" just because 1080p sets are in the minority. The gap between sales of 720p and 1080p sets will close, and as it does, more and more people will be affected by the "down rez".

Let's just hope that when the new sats go live, D* stick with FULL REZ MPEG4 on all of the new HD channels they've promised...

[JeffBowser]

:D Still won't be able to see the difference :D

What we really should hope for is that they ease up on the compression, and give it a bit more bandwidth (bitrate).

Seriously, if anyone truly wants, I can post up some still pictures at varying resolutions and compression levels to demonstrate how absolute resolution only matters at huge blowups, but how undue compression can absolutely destroy a signal at any display size.

Hey, VOS, thanks for that insight. Guess if I really want to know about my set, I will have to e-mail Mitsubishi.

[harsh]

So my question then is, Will directv any time in the near future and by near i mean 5 yrs be offering 1080p? If not then I have no reason to purchase a 1080p set. Secondly, Does sports from directv look good in 1080i or not? and if not Will the new sats going up fix this problem?There is almost no chance of anyone casting 1080p. To suggest that as a reason why you couldn't benefit within the next few years is probably folly.

By and large, the 1080p models have much more advanced processing capabilities which should give you a better picture even with 1080i content. If you're looking at LCD or Plasma, 1080p is the only hope of not having everything scaled (except for a couple of Sony LCD panels are 1280x720p).

Yeah, the price of HDTVs will come down as time goes on, but not like they did this past year.

Whether or not sports looks good in 1080i on DirecTV depends a great deal on two things:

1. How good your TV is at motion compensation
2. How much bandwidth they choose to devote to the signal that day.

[texmex]

Hey Jeff, check out this calculator:

http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

According to the link above, the human eye can resolve the full 1080i, 1920x1080 resolution on a 56" screen at a viewing distance of 7 feet. You keep arguing that "we" won't be able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080i on any screen. Well, for those of us interested in an immersive HDTV experience, those of us who choose to sit close enough to the screen, "we" will definitely be able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080i at screen sizes as small as 50". Jeff speaks the truth for those of you who choose to sit 10+ ft away from your sets - you won't see a difference. But, you've essentially called us all idiots for buying into the "marketing hype" of 1080p (and 1080i for that matter). And yet, the link above refutes your claim. Will everyone sit this close to their sets? No, of course not. But for those who choose to do so, are they idiots buying into marketing hype? I think not...

[veryoldschool]

Hey Jeff, check out this calculator:

http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

According to the link above, the human eye can resolve the full 1080i, 1920x1080 resolution on a 56" screen at a viewing distance of 7 feet. You keep arguing that "we" won't be able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080i on any screen. Well, for those of us interested in an immersive HDTV experience, those of us who choose to sit close enough to the screen, "we" will definitely be able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080i at screen sizes as small as 50". Jeff speaks the truth for those of you who choose to sit 10+ ft away from your sets - you won't see a difference. But, you've essentially called us all idiots for buying into the "marketing hype" of 1080p (and 1080i for that matter). And yet, the link above refutes your claim. Will everyone sit this close to their sets? No, of course not. But for those who choose to do so, are they idiots buying into marketing hype? I think not...
To add, see post #64. It doesn't have to be 50" or larger & I'm about 9' from it. FWIW

[texmex]

Seriously, if anyone truly wants, I can post up some still pictures at varying resolutions and compression levels to demonstrate how absolute resolution only matters at huge blowups...
Maybe it's just me, but I would certainly consider a 50" diagonal screen a "huge blowup", especially for a 0.9 megapixel image.

[JeffBowser]

Alrighty, well, I'm not going to keep the argument going. I realize there is a deep seated need on these technically inclined forums to see only information that backs up pre-conceived notions. Counter-views are rarely tolerated. My view is near blasphemy - the horrors! I just spent 5 figures on my system, it MUST be better, I will not entertain a different thought for one minute !

That being said, I, too, would buy a 1080p set, but not today. Not until the marketing hype is past, and the price has gotten reasonable. And not because I think I could see a real difference in my day to day viewing of NewsChannel5, my once a week drug "My Name is Earl", or my NFL jones, but for the sole reason that a 1080p set will have generally been constructed with tighter tolerances, better algorithms, and overall better engineering, for a longer useful life-span. It's all about reasoning - are you buying your 1080p because some hot chick with big boobs told you she'd love you if you did (marketing creating demand), or are you buying it because you understand what's behind it (solid, unemotional decision making?)

[veryoldschool]

Alrighty, well, I'm not going to keep the argument going. I realize there is a deep seated need on these technically inclined forums to see only information that backs up pre-conceived notions. Counter-views are rarely tolerated. My view is near blasphemy - the horrors! I just spent 5 figures on my system, it MUST be better, I will not entertain a different thought for one minute !
That being said, I, too, would buy a 1080p set, but not today. Not until the marketing hype is past, and the price has gotten reasonable. And not because I think I could see a real difference in my day to day viewing of NewsChannel5, my once a week drug "My Name is Earl", or my NFL jones, but for the sole reason that a 1080p set will have generally been constructed with tighter tolerances, better algorithms, and overall better engineering, for a longer useful life-span. It's all about reasoning - are you buying your 1080p because some hot chick with big boobs told you she'd love you if you did (marketing creating demand), or are you buying it because you understand what's behind it (solid, unemotional decision making?)
I bought it & didn't get the big boobs. Should I take it back?:D
Oops.. there was that one big boob...a salesman that the more he opened his mouth, the more I knew he didn't know what he was talking about.
So maybe I should take back only half of it since a did get a big boob, just not two of them. Hmmm:D

[JeffBowser]

:lol:

I bought it & didn't get the big boobs. Should I take it back?:D
Oops.. there was that one big boob...a salesman that the more he opened his mouth, the more I knew he didn't know what he was talking about.
So maybe I should take back only half of it since a did get a big boob, just not two of them. Hmmm:D

[elaclair]

I bought it & didn't get the big boobs. Should I take it back?:D
Oops.. there was that one big boob...a salesman that the more he opened his mouth, the more I knew he didn't know what he was talking about.
So maybe I should take back only half of it since a did get a big boob, just not two of them. Hmmm:D


let me guess, you got it at Fry's...........

:lol:

[texmex]

No sense arguing about this anymore. For those of you who are interested in a slightly more scientific analysis of the 1080 v. 720 discussion, I found a good article here:

http://www.carltonbale.com/blog/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/

I'm sure Jeff will try to convince you that this article was written by an industry shill and only serves to spread "the hype". Why don't we let people decide for themselves Jeff...

[veryoldschool]

let me guess, you got it at Fry's...........

:lol:
No, I would have needed to drive over fifty miles one-way for their abuse. :lol:

[Que]

:D Still won't be able to see the difference :D

What we really should hope for is that they ease up on the compression, and give it a bit more bandwidth (bitrate).

Seriously, if anyone truly wants, I can post up some still pictures at varying resolutions and compression levels to demonstrate how absolute resolution only matters at huge blowups, but how undue compression can absolutely destroy a signal at any display size.

Hey, VOS, thanks for that insight. Guess if I really want to know about my set, I will have to e-mail Mitsubishi.

http://www.widemovies.com/directvcomp.html

This is a comparison of scenes from Time After Time and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen on DirecTV, before and after they moved HDNet Movies to 3 per transponder.

[NYSmoker]

Some people just have to be right. Even if there may not be a "right" answer.
Anyway I love my 1080p set and that is all that matters to me.

[veryoldschool]

Some people just have to be right. Even if there may not be a "right" answer.
Anyway I love my 1080p set and that is all that matters to me.
How dare you love what you bought. That's un-American. :D

[Sackchamp56]

I may be wrong, but everything I've read on the xbox 360 says 1080i. The ps3 has a bluray player built in.

There was a software update that allows the 360 to output 1080p, but it does not have HDMI currently. So you have to have a TV that will accept 1080p thorugh component.

[ClubSteeler]

I've enjoyed this debate.. although it seems it is annoying to some, it's been a good civil debate.. and not to keep beating a dead horse.. I had one more thought that I wanted to add.. And this one is biased more towards those who are upset over the 1280x1080 downrezzing...

If D* throws away 1 out of every 3 pixels to conserve bandwidth.....
Your TV does not understand 1280x1080i, the STB must convert back to 1920x1080i, so it interpolated this third pixel using mathematical equations to guess what this missing pixel looked like based on those around it (probably)..

So now, all of these non-1080p HDTVs, must once again downrezz the 1920 down to 1280 s othat they can show their native display of 1280x720p...

So now your TV is droppin one of these 3 pixels again...

So here's my though... is there any way to guarantee that the TV is dropping the exact same 1 out 3 pixels that D* dropped?

If not, the 2 out of 3 that you are left with has 1 that was transmitted, and 1 that was mathematically determined. The end result would be 1/2 of your nearly 1 million pixels on the screen would have been mathematical guesses.

The end result would be a much less sharp looking picture as compared to OTA/cable.

Now one could debate if this is noticable at viewing distance, but I would think that 50%, almost 500,000 would defintiely be noticable.

On the other hand, if there is a way to ensure that your TV drops the same pixel as D* drops, then downrezzing is brilliant and truly undetectable by any of us.

OK, I'm done..

By the way, this could explain the "walking grass" you sometimes see on HD football, where it looks like the turf is moving. On one frame say pixel1 is exact and pixel 2 is mathematically gnerated, and then it is reverse on the next frame. You'll certainly see alternating variations in the shade of green in the grass, and I guess this could have something to do with the walking grass... who knows?

[JeffBowser]

You know, Club, I have wondered the same thing. LCD panels, at least, have a native resolution, and anything outside that resolution is a translation. I have no idea how plasma works, but I know it is theoretically possible for a CRT to natively display any res, but CRT is going away....

[JeffBowser]

Tex and NYSmoker seem to dislike me. :lol:

From your link: 1080p vs. 720p start to become apparent when closer than 9.8 feet and become full apparent at 6.5 feet.

My statements that you won't see the difference assumes certain things, and one of these things is sitting at an appropriate distance. You can have all the res in the world, but if you sit with your nose on the TV like a 5 year old child hypnotized by his Saturday morning cartoons, you will see pixels. This in no way invalidates my argument, nor yours. Your argument is dependant on sitting close, and mine is dependant on sitting away. My eyeballs sit 12feet from the front surface of my 65" TV, which is nearly optimal when looking at THX certified specs.


No sense arguing about this anymore. For those of you who are interested in a slightly more scientific analysis of the 1080 v. 720 discussion, I found a good article here:

http://www.carltonbale.com/blog/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/

I'm sure Jeff will try to convince you that this article was written by an industry shill and only serves to spread "the hype". Why don't we let people decide for themselves Jeff...

[NYSmoker]

Tex and NYSmoker seem to dislike me. :lol:

From your link: 1080p vs. 720p start to become apparent when closer than 9.8 feet and become full apparent at 6.5 feet.

My statements that you won't see the difference assumes certain things, and one of these things is sitting at an appropriate distance. You can have all the res in the world, but if you sit with your nose on the TV like a 5 year old child hypnotized by his Saturday morning cartoons, you will see pixels. This in no way invalidates my argument, nor yours. Your argument is dependant on sitting close, and mine is dependant on sitting away. My eyeballs sit 12feet from the front surface of my 65" TV, which is nearly optimal when looking at THX certified specs.

I like everyone, except tourists, I just don't agree with the "your eyes can't see 1080p" camp or the "there is no content" camp. Don't tell me what my eyes can see and there is content out there, however, it comes at a price, i.e. Next gen console, standalone Blu-ray or HD-DVD player.

[ClubSteeler]

The "no content" argument is in response to the original question about whether D* will ever support 1080p.

Not one single channel today that I know of is broadcast in 1080p, so I claim no-content... as far as satellite tv is concerned anyway.

[NYSmoker]

The "no content" argument is in response to the original question about whether D* will ever support 1080p.

Not one single channel today that I know of is broadcast in 1080p, so I claim no-content... as far as satellite tv is concerned anyway.

True there are no 1080p broadcasts, but I ask is that all you watch on your tv? Do you not watch movies? Play video games? I do so I might as well buy a set that can support other things. This may be a satellite tv forum but a tv is used for many more things besides receiving broadcast television.

[texmex]

If D* throws away 1 out of every 3 pixels to conserve bandwidth.....
Your TV does not understand 1280x1080i, the STB must convert back to 1920x1080i, so it interpolated this third pixel using mathematical equations to guess what this missing pixel looked like based on those around it (probably)..

So now, all of these non-1080p HDTVs, must once again downrezz the 1920 down to 1280 s othat they can show their native display of 1280x720p...

So now your TV is droppin one of these 3 pixels again...

Club, this is why it's almost always recommended that you set your set top box to output the resolution that matches your television. You are absolutely correct - if you set your box to output 1080i and your TV is 720p, then the signal will go through two sets of conversions before it hits your screen. If you set your box to 720p, then the box will scale the picture, send it to your TV and your TV will display the picture without further modification. There may be cases when your TV has a better video processor than your set top box, and often people will use a mode called "native pass through" to take advantage of the better processor in the TV. But as a rule of thumb, set your HD set top box to match the native resolution of your TV.

[texmex]

Now you bring 1080P into it. P vs I is a whole different argument. Background - I am a photographer. I have a 6 megapixel camera and a 13megapixel camera. You cannot see ANY difference in prints between the two until your print size start to exceed 20x30. This is the EXACT same concept with TV screen resolutions. The acuity of your eye is the limiting factor until your format size exceeds a certain dimension. Your 52" at standard viewing distance does not meet that. As for 1080P, that is marketing hooey, pure and simple, aside from a possible comment on the engineering effort that went into the rest of the subsystems on that TV.

Jeff - So you're still sticking with this statement?

[finaldiet]

I always wondered why my Sony XBR 910 had better HD than any sets I have looked at lately. CSI-Miami is absolutely stunning on my crt compared to my LCD. Not much of a tech guy, but my eyes can see the difference and that's all that matters.

[JeffBowser]

Aye, but let me make my underlying assumptions clear - we are discussing normal human beings watching standard broadcast fare, watching TV's less than 60" or so in size, and you are sitting at 2-3x screen diagonal from it. This is probably where a lot of misunderstanding is coming from - underlying assumptions. Change the assumptions, and the results change. If you are a videophile, which I am not, you will be talking scrutinizing reference signals, in the best possible environment, in which case, differences will ne noted, because they are there. I am saying the normal user, watching the normal broadcast dreck, and regular DVD's isn't gonna see any significant difference at all. Look over at my avatar, looks nice. Now, save it, and blow it up 3x - looks terrible, right ? It's all relative to your assumptions. I'm not getting into games, and other sources, this wasn't the original thrust of this thread (to which end, I apologize to the OP, for taking this so far).

NTYSmoker - don't like tourists eh ? In my neck of the woods New Yorkers overrun my town for 5 months out of every year. Thanks for paying my taxes for me.

Jeff - So you're still sticking with this statement?

[NYSmoker]

There is a reason we refer to Florida as where New Yorkers go to die.

[finaldiet]

AHHHHH! Looks OK to me.

[JeffBowser]

Truth be told, a lot of them look, and drive, like they died already :lol:

There is a reason we refer to Florida as where New Yorkers go to die.