Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

Another 1080p/1080i/720p discussion, pulled from D11 thread


  • Please log in to reply
110 replies to this topic

#26 OFFLINE   cartrivision

cartrivision

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,862 posts
Joined: Jul 25, 2007

Posted 17 June 2008 - 12:40 PM

I wouldn't be too sure about that (remember the original "leaked" photos of the HR21 Pro that clearly showed a 1080P indicating light), the bandwidth required to broadcast 1080/24P is pretty much the same as 1080/60i so I would not be too surprised to see PPV movies broadcast in 1080/24P...just me speculating of course...


A 24fps movie that is broadcast in 1080i/60 format already contains all the information in the 1080i video that would be present in 1080p/24 video, so it's just a matter of deinterlacing it into a 1080p24 signal.... there is no need to broadcast it as 1080p/24, although there might be some bandwidth savings from doing so.

#27 OFFLINE   Dolly

Dolly

    Hall Of Fame

  • Banned User
  • 2,179 posts
Joined: Jan 30, 2007

Posted 17 June 2008 - 02:41 PM

Well while I can't say I understand all this stuff about resolution on a TV. It doesn't sound like I will have to worry about having a worthless TV in the near future. That was my main concern.

#28 OFFLINE   JeffBowser

JeffBowser

    blah blah blah

  • Registered
  • 2,512 posts
Joined: Dec 21, 2006

Posted 17 June 2008 - 02:56 PM

Hey, I haven't mentioned my cousin's work at Panavision on quad-hi definition cameras in ages. Who cares about 1080 or 720 in any format, when one can have 7680x4320p ? :lol:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions.

#29 OFFLINE   cekowalski

cekowalski

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 128 posts
Joined: Aug 18, 2007

Posted 18 June 2008 - 12:53 AM

I don't totally get why this is such a huge debate, other than the fact that it is poorly explained, in general, and poorly understood.

Drop the "i" vs. "p" as it doesn't matter with most modern displays. An interlaced picture is de-interlaced on most modern televisions, before it gets displayed. The difference is that in 1080i, you get a 540 line image 60 times per second (which get combined to become a 1080 line image that displays every 1/30th of a second, on modern displays). At 1080p, you get a 1080 line image the displays every 1/60th of a second. Effectively, you're looking at a 1080 line image on 1080i displays, but at a lower frame rate (30 fps) than 1080p (60 fps). That's the only difference.

So do you want 30 frames per second, or 60 frames per second? If bandwidth is no consideration, everyone would say 60. But if every 2nd frame is a repeat of the previous one, do you really care? Films are 24fps. That can't be upconverted unless you speed the film up. So the vast majoriy of Hollywood films don't look any better in 1080p than they do in 1080i.

Movies are 24fps, so the 1080i format has that covered when upconverted to 1080p. In fact, I think Blu-Ray being 1080p(60) is a marketing thing. How can a 1080 line, 24 fps image, look better when reproduced on a 1080 line 60 fps display, vs. a 1080 line 30 fps display?

Now, do you want more HD channels, or more frames per second on the ones you have?

What about this? (and the debate of 720p vs 1080i repeats)... do you want 1080 lines at 60 fps, or 2160 lines at 30 fps?

I think TVs will get bigger yet again, and the next era will bring higher resolutions, not higher frame rates, for most material.

My main thought here -- don't think of this in terms of your circa 1990 CRT computer monitor. Interlacing looks bad on CRT monitors, not LCD or Plasma panels, or even projection LCD/DLP/LCOS. These displays don't "fade" out and cause flicker. The debate is not "flicker" vs. "not flicker." It's frame rate.

1080i vs 1080p is a 30 fps vs. 60 fps debate. So which is more bang for the buck -- more pixels per frame, or more frames per second?

I think the requirements of 1080p, bandwidth-wise, would give birth to a new, lower frame rate, higher resolution format, and the debate will continue.

#30 OFFLINE   richlife

richlife

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,060 posts
Joined: Dec 04, 2006

Posted 18 June 2008 - 05:44 AM

This opinion is purely subjective, but I completely agree with the statement that 1080 is better than 720 just because it can display twice as much detail.

I have two Sony's using the same LCOS technology with rear projection (I deliberately sought out the last of the rear projection runs for cost effectiveness and picture quality -- good decision). Both TVs look great, but the 50" 1080p is significantly better than the 37" 720p despite the screen size increase (which will display flaws more easily). Sitting at 12 feet, the difference is minimal and shows mainly as slightly less crispness in the 720p. At 2 feet (obviously not a viewing distance) you can see why -- the 1080p is drop dead gorgeous with magnificent 3-D effect. At 2 feet, the 720p has lost it's smooth image and is broken up into pixels, dots, screen door effect, whatever. Even with DirecTV broadcasts, I can usually tell when the image is 1080i vs. 720p. (A crappy broadcast will always be crappy and 1080i doesn't make it better.) My decision? I would buy 1080p for a primary system -- especially if the viewing distance will be relatively short (8-10 feet). Any other set becomes more of a price/performance question with the 1080p as the reference point.

I don't buy the 720p for sporting events (high speed action) at all. I think it's more dependent on the quality and speed of the set. 720p just takes advantage of the fact that many sets just aren't good enough to display the difference.
Rich Beaudry
UNC Tar Heel '69, '75
Woodworker, grandfather, DirecTV 1994
Whole-Home Slimline w/ SWM.
A) HR20-700: NR 4aa; HDMI Audio: HDMI, TOSLINK. Res-1080i; Native- On; eSata-No; Remote-RF (2).
B) HR23-700: NR 4aa; Video&Audio HDMI. Res.-720p; Native-On; Network-No; eSata-No; Remote-IR.
C) H23-600: NR 0440; HDMI. Res.-1080p; Native-On; eSata-No; Remote-IR.
TVs: A) Sony 50" Rear Proj KDS50A2000 & VIZIO 22" LCD M220VA; B) Sony 37" Rear Proj KDF37H1000; C) Toshiba 40" LCD 40FT1U

#31 OFFLINE   morgantown

morgantown

    Icon

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 902 posts
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Posted 18 June 2008 - 11:32 AM

Mods - thank you so much for pulling this discussion from the D11 thread! I hesitated to ask about 1080p and BSS, but could not resist. Sorry it ended up in a thread-jack.

For the record - I still have not completely decided which to get for my newly finished rec. room / bar area. Given that people can sit at the bar and be very close richlife's post has me thinking more about 1089p.

However I'm only looking at a 32" set for the bar part and most people wil be 6' to 30' away which makes me think 720 should be just fine. The "main" TV on the otherhand - I think I'll just wait untill the Fall and get a whopper of a 1080p as it will eventually become the most used TV in the house.

Great discussion and good information. It is always good to get input from folks that are looking at the same DirecTV source as me when comparing TVs.

Thank you to all.
DTV & NFLST since 97 at least, not looked back yet...

#32 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 20,287 posts
  • LocationMediterranean Sea
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 18 June 2008 - 12:43 PM

A few threads where the aspects discussed intensively:

http://dbstalk.com/s...ad.php?t=126130
http://dbstalk.com/s...ad.php?t=122146
http://dbstalk.com/s...ad.php?t=117146
http://dbstalk.com/s...ad.php?t=110101
http://dbstalk.com/s...ad.php?t=103373
and many more.

[Just used Search for "1080p bandwidth"]

#33 OFFLINE   Steve Robertson

Steve Robertson

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,664 posts
Joined: Jun 07, 2005

Posted 18 June 2008 - 12:46 PM

Well I just go by my eyes and after viewing ESPN, ABC, and Fox for a few years now I think 720p sucks.

#34 OFFLINE   BattleZone

BattleZone

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 8,969 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2007

Posted 18 June 2008 - 01:10 PM

A 720P set will display satellite signal as good as a 1080p in my opinion. I install HD tv's and hi-def Dish and HD Direct all the time and many 1080p sets look horrible in my opinion. Cant beat a Panasonic plasma for the price and even the 720 Panasonics look as good as the 1080ps.


I must *strongly* disagree with you here.

There is a large and very noticable difference between the picture quality of TVs with native resolutions of 1366x768 (the most common native resolution below "full-HD", and commonly referred to as a "720p" TV) and those at 1920x1080.

I agree that not all content can show the difference, but there is plenty of programming on DirecTV that does, and even more with Blu-Ray and computer content.

IMO, it is much more important to have a TV with a true 1920x1080 native resolution than to worry so much about progressive vs. interlaced (1080p vs. 1080i). Yes, progressive does look slightly better in higher-motion frames IF there is enough bandwidth to prevent compression artifacts. And, yes, because sat broadcasts have limited bandwidth, they often use 720p instead of 1080i for high-motion content. But 720p content looks as good on a 1080 TV as it does on a 720p TV, but the reverse is not true.

And while 1080p satellite or cable broadcasts are at the very, very least a decade or more away, 1080i has been here for years and is the standard for MOST HD content.

#35 OFFLINE   man_rob

man_rob

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,439 posts
Joined: Feb 21, 2007

Posted 18 June 2008 - 01:11 PM

Here's some interesting info.

While 1080i has more scan lines than 720p, they do not translate directly into greater vertical resolution. Interlaced video is usually blurred vertically (filtered) to prevent twitter. Twitter is a flickering of fine horizontal lines in a scene, lines that are so fine that they only occur on a single scan line. Because only half the scan lines are drawn per field, fine horizontal lines may be missing entirely from one of the fields, causing them to flicker. Images are blurred vertically to ensure that no detail is only one scan line in height. Therefore, 1080i material does not deliver 1080 scan lines of vertical resolution. However 1080i provides a 1920-pixel horizontal resolution, greater than 720p's 1280 resolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/720p



#36 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 20,287 posts
  • LocationMediterranean Sea
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 18 June 2008 - 02:06 PM

The future of 1080p broadcast is here - XstreamHD !
And reading old threads will give more facts - http://dbstalk.com/s...ad.php?t=115434

#37 OFFLINE   rudeney

rudeney

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,266 posts
Joined: May 28, 2007

Posted 18 June 2008 - 03:11 PM

I don't totally get why this is such a huge debate, other than the fact that it is poorly explained, in general, and poorly understood.

Drop the "i" vs. "p" as it doesn't matter with most modern displays. An interlaced picture is de-interlaced on most modern televisions, before it gets displayed. The difference is that in 1080i, you get a 540 line image 60 times per second (which get combined to become a 1080 line image that displays every 1/30th of a second, on modern displays). At 1080p, you get a 1080 line image the displays every 1/60th of a second. Effectively, you're looking at a 1080 line image on 1080i displays, but at a lower frame rate (30 fps) than 1080p (60 fps). That's the only difference.

So do you want 30 frames per second, or 60 frames per second? If bandwidth is no consideration, everyone would say 60. But if every 2nd frame is a repeat of the previous one, do you really care? Films are 24fps. That can't be upconverted unless you speed the film up. So the vast majoriy of Hollywood films don't look any better in 1080p than they do in 1080i.

Movies are 24fps, so the 1080i format has that covered when upconverted to 1080p. In fact, I think Blu-Ray being 1080p(60) is a marketing thing. How can a 1080 line, 24 fps image, look better when reproduced on a 1080 line 60 fps display, vs. a 1080 line 30 fps display?

Now, do you want more HD channels, or more frames per second on the ones you have?

What about this? (and the debate of 720p vs 1080i repeats)... do you want 1080 lines at 60 fps, or 2160 lines at 30 fps?

I think TVs will get bigger yet again, and the next era will bring higher resolutions, not higher frame rates, for most material.

My main thought here -- don't think of this in terms of your circa 1990 CRT computer monitor. Interlacing looks bad on CRT monitors, not LCD or Plasma panels, or even projection LCD/DLP/LCOS. These displays don't "fade" out and cause flicker. The debate is not "flicker" vs. "not flicker." It's frame rate.

1080i vs 1080p is a 30 fps vs. 60 fps debate. So which is more bang for the buck -- more pixels per frame, or more frames per second?

I think the requirements of 1080p, bandwidth-wise, would give birth to a new, lower frame rate, higher resolution format, and the debate will continue.



Actually, even in the digital world, there is an issue with interlacing. De-interlacing doesn’t just “lien double” the picture. It actually has to interpolate between lines that have different timing. It’s that difference in timing between odd and even numbered scan lines that introduces some potential loss of crispness to the picture. Having said that, it’s very doubtful that the average consumer watching average HD programming on an average HDTV would even notice. The biggest advantages of 1080i over 720p are two things: One, the increase in horizontal pixel resolution from 1366 to 1920, and two, one less step in converting the resolution since a 1080p HDTV is going to be able to display pixel-for-pixel the incoming 1080i signal, where the 720p signal is going to have to go through a conversion to the native resolution of the screen (likely either 1920x1080 or 1366x768).

#38 OFFLINE   Sirshagg

Sirshagg

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,922 posts
Joined: Dec 29, 2006

Posted 18 June 2008 - 03:12 PM

The future of 1080p broadcast is here - XstreamHD !
And reading old threads will give more facts - http://dbstalk.com/s...ad.php?t=115434


Really? still looks like vaporware to me. Albeit very sexy vaporware.
Who is this "Vod Kanockers" that you speak of?

#39 OFFLINE   John in Georgia

John in Georgia

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 317 posts
Joined: Sep 24, 2006

Posted 18 June 2008 - 04:10 PM

Anyone think that this BSS could ultimately end up in me having to actually look at purchasing a 1080p TV for my DirecTV services? I understand 1080p is not even broadcast in the US as of a few days ago...

Currently I just stick with 720p for DirecTV as I did not think the chance for 1080 would happen on DBS, or the "latest" revelation of BSS (that Tom pointed out over a year ago).


I currently have DirecTV HD and Blu-Ray as video sources. I enjoy motion sports and have a 720p CRT and a 1080p DLP. If I were buying today, it would definitely be 1080p.

John

#40 OFFLINE   cartrivision

cartrivision

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,862 posts
Joined: Jul 25, 2007

Posted 18 June 2008 - 09:06 PM

So do you want 30 frames per second, or 60 frames per second? If bandwidth is no consideration, everyone would say 60. But if every 2nd frame is a repeat of the previous one, do you really care? Films are 24fps. That can't be upconverted unless you speed the film up. So the vast majoriy of Hollywood films don't look any better in 1080p than they do in 1080i.

Movies are 24fps, so the 1080i format has that covered when upconverted to 1080p. In fact, I think Blu-Ray being 1080p(60) is a marketing thing. How can a 1080 line, 24 fps image, look better when reproduced on a 1080 line 60 fps display, vs. a 1080 line 30 fps display?


It can't and that's the dirty little secret of 1080p. For the way 1080p is used by most people more than 90% of the time... to watch 24fps film source material on Blu-Ray discs... delivering the video as 1080p provides ABSOLUTELY ZERO benefit over delivering it in 1080i, as long as the 1080i video is properly deinterlaced.

#41 OFFLINE   Draconis

Draconis

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,426 posts
  • LocationLas Vegas, NV
Joined: Mar 16, 2007

Posted 18 June 2008 - 10:15 PM

Lets not forget one key fact; the satellite decoder chipset on the HD receivers does not support 1080p.

So no, 1080p is not coming anytime in the near (or far) future.

#42 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 20,287 posts
  • LocationMediterranean Sea
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 18 June 2008 - 10:41 PM

Lets not forget one key fact; the satellite decoder chipset on the HD receivers does not support 1080p.

So no, 1080p is not coming anytime in the near (or far) future.


REALLY ?!

I would concurr reading Broadcom specs.

#43 OFFLINE   Dolly

Dolly

    Hall Of Fame

  • Banned User
  • 2,179 posts
Joined: Jan 30, 2007

Posted 19 June 2008 - 12:20 AM

Lets not forget one key fact; the satellite decoder chipset on the HD receivers does not support 1080p.

So no, 1080p is not coming anytime in the near (or far) future.

Thanks :) I still don't understand all this resolution business. I just want to know that the HD TV I just got last year and is still not completely paid for is not going to be a piece of junk any time soon! I'm still stuck with one SD TV as it is :mad: Because it isn't old enough to even think about replacing it yet :(

#44 OFFLINE   CKNAV

CKNAV

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 320 posts
Joined: Dec 26, 2005

Posted 19 June 2008 - 07:34 AM

The future of 1080p broadcast is here - XstreamHD !
And reading old threads will give more facts - http://dbstalk.com/s...ad.php?t=115434


Not really a broadcast. They way it is supposed to work is, that films will be downloaded to the DVR.
2 HR20-700
1 HR21-700
1 HR21-200
1 SWM8

#45 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 20,287 posts
  • LocationMediterranean Sea
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 19 June 2008 - 09:10 AM

Lets not forget one key fact; the satellite decoder chipset on the HD receivers does not support 1080p.

So no, 1080p is not coming anytime in the near (or far) future.

Did you provide citation for your source ?

Little fact if you're not aware - Blu_ray DVD player use SAME decoder.

#46 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 20,287 posts
  • LocationMediterranean Sea
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 19 June 2008 - 09:10 AM

Lets not forget one key fact; the satellite decoder chipset on the HD receivers does not support 1080p.

So no, 1080p is not coming anytime in the near (or far) future.

Did you provide citation for your source ?

Little fact if you're not aware - Blu-Ray DVD players use SAME decoder.

#47 OFFLINE   smiddy

smiddy

    Tain't ogre til its ogre

  • Registered
  • 15,637 posts
Joined: Apr 05, 2006

Posted 19 June 2008 - 11:57 AM

Broadcom's BCM7401 is capable of 1080p in 24 and 30 frames per second. So the HR21 DVRs are capable of producing it. Though it comes back to source and if they are programmed to produce it. I think the HDMI port may be 1.1 though, but I don't know if that limits it.
Aaron 'smiddy' Smith

#48 OFFLINE   spartanstew

spartanstew

    Dry as a bone

  • Registered
  • 12,533 posts
  • LocationWylie, Texas
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 19 June 2008 - 12:05 PM

Lets not forget one key fact;


The other major fact, is that the majority of consumers sit too far away from their sets (distance vs. screen size ratio) to distinguish between 720p and 1080p anyway.

Everyone wants 1080p because they believe it's the best, but then they sit 10' away from their 50" set and don't realize that they're eyes wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway.

I'm sure Directv can't wait to get their hands on your unit.

 
Directv customer since 2000

#49 OFFLINE   smiddy

smiddy

    Tain't ogre til its ogre

  • Registered
  • 15,637 posts
Joined: Apr 05, 2006

Posted 19 June 2008 - 12:29 PM

The other major fact, is that the majority of consumers sit too far away from their sets (distance vs. screen size ratio) to distinguish between 720p and 1080p anyway.

Everyone wants 1080p because they believe it's the best, but then they sit 10' away from their 50" set and don't realize that they're eyes wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway.


I think you nailed the perception between one's eyes and one's brain. :lol:
Aaron 'smiddy' Smith

#50 OFFLINE   jeffman

jeffman

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 107 posts
Joined: Sep 09, 2007

Posted 20 June 2008 - 04:19 PM

Thanks :) I just want to know that the HD TV I just got last year and is still not completely paid for is not going to be a piece of junk any time soon!


- If you want some interesting opinions tell us the make and model.

- It was obsolete the day you bought it.

- Seriously though...if YOU think it looks good, and YOU enjoy it. Who cares what your peers think.
DirecTV Since 1996 :)
My Gear: Some TV's, HD DVRs, Audio Gear, Wife, Kids, Cats, Fish...




Protected By... spam firewall...And...