DBSTalk Forum banner

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

13K views 110 replies 49 participants last post by  Carl Spock 
#1 ·
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).
 
#52 ·
P Smith said:
The above referenced article is full of misinformation.

First it implies that cable and satellite broadcasts of movies aren't "Blu-ray quality" because they are in 1080i instead of 1080p, which is complete nonsense. 1080i can produce 30 full progressive non-interlaced frames per second at the same resolution as 1080p….. more than enough progressive frames to encode the 24 frames per second frame rate of movies that are typically on Blu-ray discs. The quality difference between Blu-ray and cable/satellite comes from the higher bitrate that Blu-ray uses, not from being in 1080p. Reproducing a 24fps movie in 1080p offers nothing whatsoever that 1080i cannot deliver given the same bitrate.

Secondly, the idiot from Tanberg TV who is the source of the 1080p predictions seems to think that satellite operators have an abundance of spare unused bandwidth that they will use to provide the "Blu-ray quality" broadcasts that he is predicting.

In short, the guy's company has a vested financial interest in providing advanced digital TV technology, so of course he's going to try to push the proposition that the current video delivery technology and methods will soon need to be vastly improved.... of course, with the help of a company like his.
 
#54 ·
Bumped since there was a request to continue this type of discussion from the HD Anticipation thread.

maartena said:
I would like to suggest we take the 720p vs 1080i discussion to its own topic. It's not really related to DirecTV, nor HD channel anticipation, and completely depends on how the channel in question broadcasts.

If someone would PLEASE be so kind and create a topic in another forum - perhaps "General Satellite Discussion" - it would be much appreciated.

Thanks :)
 
#57 ·
At least some of the immediacy of the topic has been dulled with the passage of four years: Not many 1080i TVs around; it's all 1080p, vs. 720p sets. Then the main question becomes: At what size set would it make no perceptible difference to go with 720? I'm guessing 30" or less.
 
#58 ·
It's just amazing to me that otherwise intelligent people can simultaneously hold the belief that the "p" in 1080p makes it better than 1080i, but the "p" in 720p does. . . nothing.

Umm, what?

Having said that, are modern 1080p TV's essentially upconverting 1080i to 1080p thru buffering and post-processing? Does it actually make it a little better? Not like native 1080p, but better than it would be otherwise?
 
#59 ·
georule said:
It's just amazing to me that otherwise intelligent people can simultaneously hold the belief that the "p" in 1080p makes it better than 1080i, but the "p" in 720p does. . . nothing.

Umm, what?

Having said that, are modern 1080p TV's essentially upconverting 1080i to 1080p thru buffering and post-processing? Does it actually make it a little better? Not like native 1080p, but better than it would be otherwise?
It's well known fact - if you want learn - read what chips ( using in HDTV ) doing for video processing...
Yes, and it's big market where new chips are better and better.
 
#60 ·
P Smith said:
It's well known fact - if you want learn - read what chips ( using in HDTV ) doing for video processing...
Yes, and it's big market where new chips are better and better.
I did think that was true. There's still only so much they can do as long as the native captured signal at the source is alternating 540 lines on a 100mph fastball, a slapshot in hockey, a golfball in flight, etc.

You're not really arguing that with modern tech (say a top-end TV built in the last year) that upconverted 1080i is as good as native 1080p?
 
#61 ·
georule said:
I did think that was true. There's still only so much they can do as long as the native captured signal at the source is alternating 540 lines on a 100mph fastball, a slapshot in hockey, a golfball in flight, etc.

You're not really arguing that with modern tech (say a top-end TV built in the last year) that upconverted 1080i is as good as native 1080p?
The part you're not posting is the frame rates.
1080p/60 isn't going to be a broadcast signal with the current bandwidth & MPEG-2 encoding.
720p/60 simply has more frames for that 100 MPH fastball, but movies don't normally have 100 MPH fastballs, so the higher resolution is preferred, be it 1080i, de-interlaced to 1080p/30, or "true" 1080p/24.
 
#62 ·
veryoldschool said:
The part you're not posting is the frame rates.
1080p/60 isn't going to be a broadcast signal with the current bandwidth & MPEG-2 encoding.
720p/60 simply has more frames for that 100 MPH fastball, but movies don't normally have 100 MPH fastballs, so the higher resolution is preferred, be it 1080i, de-interlaced to 1080p/30, or "true" 1080p/24.
Let me be clear. Anybody who prefers, on balance, 1080i over 720p, for their mix of content, I have no problem with. Taste is inarguable unless you're a glutton for punishment, in my book.

I do object to the idea, that several people in the originating thread put forward, that 720p brings absolutely nothing to the party. There were people accusing ABC/ESPN/FOX of "being cheap", and that's why they held on to 720p.
 
#63 ·
veryoldschool said:
1080p/60 isn't going to be a broadcast signal with the current bandwidth & MPEG-2 encoding.
Not to mention it isn't part of the HDTV standard that the Grand Alliance came up with in 1993 and refined in 1997 or 1998 (I can't remember which). It has been updated since then but the basic parameters of HDTV haven't changed. 1080p remains outside the standard.

Beyond the practical ones mentioned by VOS, there are huge marketing considerations. We here are cutting edge folks. The general public isn't. Imagine the hue and cry from your next door neighbor who finally bought his first HDTV last year, spending $299 for a 32" Samsung that's only capable of 720p, when he finds out that his set can't receive ESPN because they just switched to broadcasting 1080p. There might be enough of an general outcry that even Congress would get involved. These are FCC standards, after all.

As much as we might like greater definition in broadcast technology, 1080p isn't going to be a broadcast standard for at least a dozen years. People don't like change this rapidly. Widespread acceptance of Blu-ray has been slow. Lots of people still have a row of VHS tapes on a bookshelf at home and their DVDs look perfectly fine, thank you.

The lack of consumer acceptance of 3D television isn't just because of the funky glasses you have to wear. It's because 95% of the folks out there are happy with the new HDTV they bought just a few years ago.

You can't force feed new technology on the public. They will reject it and it will fail.
 
#64 ·
Good points, Carl, but would there really be a problem with 720p sets processing the higher resolution signal? Certainly DIRECTV® boxes would do it if necessary, so would other providers, presumably. A problem with OTA?
 
#65 ·
Yes, the problem would be that older sets couldn't understand it OTA. They never were designed to receive a 1080p signal. Certainly 1080p could be down-converted to 720p or whatever you want but first the microprocessor in the tuner needs to know how to receive it.

I should have used NBC instead of ESPN as the station that might switch to 1080p. That gets to the heart of the matter. The built in ATSC tuners in HDTV sets can't decode 1080p. Adding 1080p as a broadcast standard would immediately outdate all current HDTV sets, except for those set up to receive 3D.

The industry would also have a problem with a lot of set top boxes. There's the rub if it was ESPN which switched to 1080p. DirecTV's DVRs, with the exception of the HR20, could all receive 1080p but could all of the Motorola, Pace and Scientific Atlanta cable boxes out there handle 1080p, too? I'd be surprised if that was the case. There are tens of millions of those puppies in people's homes. Can you imagine the cost of replacing all of those? I'm sure we'd be talking about a billion dollar upgrade here. Is it worth a billion dollars just to receive a live broadcast in 1080p?
 
#66 ·
georule said:
I did think that was true. There's still only so much they can do as long as the native captured signal at the source is alternating 540 lines on a 100mph fastball, a slapshot in hockey, a golfball in flight, etc.

You're not really arguing that with modern tech (say a top-end TV built in the last year) that upconverted 1080i is as good as native 1080p?
Yes, it does, but final quality is depend on these chips and IP inside. Told yeah - it's big business.
 
#67 ·
Carl Spock said:
Yes, the problem would be that older sets couldn't understand it OTA. They never were designed to receive a 1080p signal. Certainly 1080p could be down-converted to 720p or whatever you want but first the microprocessor in the tuner needs to know how to receive it.

..
Well, you selected wrong part. Tuner is OK for anything new.

Exactly tuner chip(s) (with its uP ? OK, we can count its small part/uP) is tolerable to OTA signal as long it's still 8VSB. Transport stream after tuner/demod combo (could be one chip) can carry anything, say 2048p120 also if someone would invent H.401 compressing algo, to fit it into 19.4 Mbps bitrate of each OTA transmitter.

Perhaps you should look after tuner/demod - that chip what demuxing transport stream, collecting frames, parsing PES, etc for next step - decompress video/audio. That's where new algos would require !
 
#69 ·
I doubt we'll ever see 1080p as a OTA standard. OTA is on its way out, under pressure from mobile. Yeah, not next week, but in the meanwhile I just don't see the powers that be allowing OTA to increase its BW requirements, or/and require another costly, major hardware upgrade cycle to consumers.
 
#71 ·
Laxguy said:
At least some of the immediacy of the topic has been dulled with the passage of four years: Not many 1080i TVs around; it's all 1080p, vs. 720p sets. Then the main question becomes: At what size set would it make no perceptible difference to go with 720? I'm guessing 30" or less.
The "rule-of-thumb" diagonal size seemingly accepted on this list years ago was greater than 42 in. I think on average before a noticeable difference in the quality of vertical resolution on a 1080p vs. a 720p set.

And even then comparing both resolutions required a certain minimum viewing distance to detect the difference.
 
#72 ·
HoTat2 said:
The "rule-of-thumb" diagonal size seemingly accepted on this list years ago was greater than 42 in. I think on average before a noticeable difference in the quality of vertical resolution on a 1080p vs. a 720p set.

And even then comparing both resolutions required a certain minimum viewing distance to detect the difference.
Yes, and I am sure no consensus was reached, nor will be reached. Also, as sets improve over time, differences may be reduced. Heck, manufacturers may discontinue manufacturing 720 sets before long.
 
#73 ·
Have you looked at the selection of sets in a Best Buy in a while? The majority of sets 32" and under are only 720p. Yes, eventually those will go away but I think their sales right now are being driven by hitting a price point. Cheap sells.
 
#74 ·
Carl Spock said:
Have you looked at the selection of sets in a Best Buy in a while? The majority of sets 32" and under are only 720p. Yes, eventually those will go away but I think their sales right now are being driven by hitting a price point. Cheap sells.
Haven't looked, and yes, pricing is very important. At some point, it may be cheaper to manufacture only 1080p sets even in small sizes, rather than two lines mfg. the same size.
And it's also ca. 32" and below where it's hard to see the difference between 720p and 1080i or p.
 
#75 ·
Agreed.

The only reason I know about Best Buy is I bought a 32" TV within the past 3 months and was shocked by the predominance of 720p sets. Heck, I bought a 15" set for my kitchen 3 years ago that was 1080i, and it wasn't that expensive. Since then the manufacturers have definitely set up a two tiered pricing structure with all the cheap sets 720p.
 
#76 ·
Carl Spock said:
Agreed.

The only reason I know about Best Buy is I bought a 32" TV within the past 3 months and was shocked by the predominance of 720p sets. Heck, I bought a 15" set for my kitchen 3 years ago that was 1080i, and it wasn't that expensive. Since then the manufacturers have definitely set up a two tiered pricing structure with all the cheap sets 720p.
And it wouldn't surprise me that the hardware is identical, but higher res. is disabled in order to maintain higher prices for the 1080 sets.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top