Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

1080i / 720p / 1080p

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 7:01:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Boy all I wanted to know was the difference, and you sure answered that, but
now I see Hitachi has a 1080p.
Does this now make the difference in 1080i and 720p now redundant? I would
think 1080p would have to be better then both?

More about : 1080i 720p 1080p

Anonymous
May 27, 2004 7:01:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

drs_retired wrote:
> Boy all I wanted to know was the difference, and you sure answered
> that, but now I see Hitachi has a 1080p.
> Does this now make the difference in 1080i and 720p now redundant? I
> would think 1080p would have to be better then both?

The native resolution of the TV is one thing. The transmission
resolution is the other. Currently, there is no 1080p programming. 720p
and 1080i are two adopted standards currently in use.

One the other hand, DVDs which are encoded at 480i certainly look better
deinterlaced at 480p. I would think the same would be true of a 1080i
image deinterlaced to 1080p. Not sure about how 720p would look on the
set. It would have to be scaled and depending on the quality of the
scaler it may, or may not look better.


--
David G.
May 27, 2004 7:01:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I suspect that the improvement between 1080i and 1080p would be nowhere near
as perceivable as from 480i to 480p. Might be some decrease in motion
artifacts in sports broadcasts, but there would be no perceivable
improvement in definition...


"David G." <david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> wrote in message
news:JfadnT01ApJNlCvdRVn-gw@comcast.com...
> drs_retired wrote:
> > Boy all I wanted to know was the difference, and you sure answered
> > that, but now I see Hitachi has a 1080p.
> > Does this now make the difference in 1080i and 720p now redundant? I
> > would think 1080p would have to be better then both?
>
> The native resolution of the TV is one thing. The transmission
> resolution is the other. Currently, there is no 1080p programming. 720p
> and 1080i are two adopted standards currently in use.
>
> One the other hand, DVDs which are encoded at 480i certainly look better
> deinterlaced at 480p. I would think the same would be true of a 1080i
> image deinterlaced to 1080p. Not sure about how 720p would look on the
> set. It would have to be scaled and depending on the quality of the
> scaler it may, or may not look better.
>
>
> --
> David G.
>
Related resources
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 11:12:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Please read Hitachi's documentation first before jumping the gun about
1080p. It states it is Virtual HD. It is Hitachi's upconvert for an analog
signal, not true HD 1080p.

Scott

"drs_retired" <drs_retired@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Vontc.13429$be.11987@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Boy all I wanted to know was the difference, and you sure answered that,
but
> now I see Hitachi has a 1080p.
> Does this now make the difference in 1080i and 720p now redundant? I would
> think 1080p would have to be better then both?
>
>
Anonymous
May 28, 2004 1:16:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

David G. wrote:

> The native resolution of the TV is one thing. The transmission
> resolution is the other. Currently, there is no 1080p programming. 720p
> and 1080i are two adopted standards currently in use.

That's not entirely true, the BBC makes all of its HDTV programmes in
1080p, certainly 'Rockface' (BBC and ColumbiaTristar Television) is made
in this format.

As you say, no one transits it yet, although some hope that when the UK
decides to go HDTV that we might use this format. Although the quality
might not be worth the extra bandwidth.

--
Ian
Anonymous
May 28, 2004 5:31:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Ian Morris wrote:
> David G. wrote:
>
>> The native resolution of the TV is one thing. The transmission
>> resolution is the other. Currently, there is no 1080p programming.
>> 720p and 1080i are two adopted standards currently in use.
>
> That's not entirely true, the BBC makes all of its HDTV programmes in
> 1080p, certainly 'Rockface' (BBC and ColumbiaTristar Television) is
> made in this format.
>
> As you say, no one transits it yet, although some hope that when the
> UK decides to go HDTV that we might use this format. Although the
> quality might not be worth the extra bandwidth.

Two things:

1- Firstly, as I understand it now, a 1080p 24 signal takes less
bandwidth than a 1080i 60 transmission does.

2- If the transmission is not in 1080p, then there is no 1080p
programming. That's like saying that movies are shot in HD, and even
though they are transmitted in NTSC to a TV, they are really HD.


--
David G.
Anonymous
May 29, 2004 2:10:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

> Two things:
>
> 1- Firstly, as I understand it now, a 1080p 24 signal takes less
> bandwidth than a 1080i 60 transmission does.
>
Interesting, I didn't know that.

> 2- If the transmission is not in 1080p, then there is no 1080p
> programming. That's like saying that movies are shot in HD, and even
> though they are transmitted in NTSC to a TV, they are really HD.

Yes, but who knows what will happen in the future. I was just commenting
that the source material exists.
Anonymous
May 29, 2004 4:20:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Ian Morris" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:40b853a2$0$25318$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> > Two things:
> >
> > 1- Firstly, as I understand it now, a 1080p 24 signal takes less
> > bandwidth than a 1080i 60 transmission does.
> >
> Interesting, I didn't know that.
>
> > 2- If the transmission is not in 1080p, then there is no 1080p
> > programming. That's like saying that movies are shot in HD, and even
> > though they are transmitted in NTSC to a TV, they are really HD.
>
> Yes, but who knows what will happen in the future. I was just commenting
> that the source material exists.

one of the real issues we have for the future is that the ATSC standard does
not force software upgradeable codecs and that most receivers have
non-reprogrammable ASIC's running the algorithm.

So the one we have is the one we have.

cable and satellite offer a brighter future for more features and resolution
May 29, 2004 7:54:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"David G." <david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> wrote in message
news:quKdnWyGHs756irdRVn-ug@comcast.com...
> Ian Morris wrote:
> > David G. wrote:
> >
> >> The native resolution of the TV is one thing. The transmission
> >> resolution is the other. Currently, there is no 1080p programming.
> >> 720p and 1080i are two adopted standards currently in use.
> >
> > That's not entirely true, the BBC makes all of its HDTV programmes in
> > 1080p, certainly 'Rockface' (BBC and ColumbiaTristar Television) is
> > made in this format.
> >
> > As you say, no one transits it yet, although some hope that when the
> > UK decides to go HDTV that we might use this format. Although the
> > quality might not be worth the extra bandwidth.
>
> Two things:
>
> 1- Firstly, as I understand it now, a 1080p 24 signal takes less
> bandwidth than a 1080i 60 transmission does.

24 frames a second? I think sports and the like would be ugly at that low
FPS. I really doubt that would be any improvement over 1080i - it would
likely be worse. When most people talk about getting 1080p they generally
mean at 60 fps - a lot of bandwidth for sure but it would be a nice picture.

FWIW - I do know that film is 24 fps, each frame shown twice, but film is
not a good medium for sports, either.

Tom
Anonymous
May 29, 2004 10:10:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Ian Morris" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:40b853a2$0$25318$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>
> David G. wrote:
> >
> > Two things:
> >
> > 1- Firstly, as I understand it now, a 1080p 24 signal takes less
> > bandwidth than a 1080i 60 transmission does.
> >
> Interesting, I didn't know that.

There are two reasons, one quite obvious, the other less so.

(1) 24*1080*1920 = 49,766,400
60*540*1920 = 62,208,000
If your source is a 24fps movie (for which 60i will not provide any
additional information), it is more efficient to encode it as 50 million
pixels per second rather than 62 million.

(2) Progressive-scan images compress better than interlaced ones (more
redundancy between adjacent lines, more chance corresponding pixels in
succeeding frames will not change, etc.).

> > 2- If the transmission is not in 1080p, then there is no 1080p
> > programming. That's like saying that movies are shot in HD, and even
> > though they are transmitted in NTSC to a TV, they are really HD.

Yes and no. While there is no standard for 1080p60, there IS 720p60 and
480p60. In addition, there is 1080p24 (though it is not used yet in the U.S.
that I know of). Any of these should display better on a 1080p display than
on a 1080i display (particularly the p60 formats, less noticeably the p24
formats). I'd expect a 1080p display to show 720p signals significantly
better than a 1080i display, for instance (since it doesn't need to
essentially throw away half the information in the 720p signal).

In addition, even if the available progressive formats are not used, since
60i can contain all the information needed to reconstruct a 24fps movie
(less efficiently than 24p would, as noted above), then a 60p display would
allow for improved viewing of 24fps sourced movies even if they are
broadcast in 60i. More ideal still would be a progressive display capable of
72Hz refresh (or using a technology that doesn't really have a refresh
rate), where each frame is displayed three times, rather than alternating
between two and three times (resulting in judder).
Anonymous
May 30, 2004 12:21:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"GGA" <crpediem@ptdprolog.net> wrote in message news:<htadnb1U4e5D6CvdUSdV9g@ptd.net>...
> Please read Hitachi's documentation first before jumping the gun about
> 1080p. It states it is Virtual HD. It is Hitachi's upconvert for an analog
> signal, not true HD 1080p.
>
> Scott
>
> "drs_retired" <drs_retired@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Vontc.13429$be.11987@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > Boy all I wanted to know was the difference, and you sure answered that,
> but
> > now I see Hitachi has a 1080p.
> > Does this now make the difference in 1080i and 720p now redundant? I would
> > think 1080p would have to be better then both?
> >
> >
I am a big fan of 1920x1080@24fps. I hate to see artifacts from
interlacing. I have read quite a bit about motion and it seems that
24fps really is good enough to show any type of motion. It's is the
standard for recording anyway so it would be best to be the standard
for playpack. The only reason 30fps was used is because it was easier
a long time ago because of technology restraints. It was not to make
the picture move smoother.
May 30, 2004 7:52:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

<okner@newshosting.com> wrote in message
news:19c13a19.0405291921.714a5c39@posting.google.com...
> "GGA" <crpediem@ptdprolog.net> wrote in message
news:<htadnb1U4e5D6CvdUSdV9g@ptd.net>...
> > Please read Hitachi's documentation first before jumping the gun about
> > 1080p. It states it is Virtual HD. It is Hitachi's upconvert for an
analog
> > signal, not true HD 1080p.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > "drs_retired" <drs_retired@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:Vontc.13429$be.11987@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > Boy all I wanted to know was the difference, and you sure answered
that,
> > but
> > > now I see Hitachi has a 1080p.
> > > Does this now make the difference in 1080i and 720p now redundant? I
would
> > > think 1080p would have to be better then both?
> > >
> > >
> I am a big fan of 1920x1080@24fps. I hate to see artifacts from
> interlacing. I have read quite a bit about motion and it seems that
> 24fps really is good enough to show any type of motion. It's is the
> standard for recording anyway so it would be best to be the standard
> for playpack. The only reason 30fps was used is because it was easier
> a long time ago because of technology restraints. It was not to make
> the picture move smoother.

24 fps wouldn't be very good for sports at all. 24 fps is indeed the
standard for film but that doesn't make it necessarily a good tv medium - at
least not for everything.

Artifacts only really affect interlacing when the movement is too fast, so
if there are motion artifacts in in 60i, you can be a lot of that motion
will be missed entirely in 24p.

Tom
Anonymous
May 30, 2004 2:23:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Thomas" <tom@nowhere.ca> wrote in message
news:JTcuc.26459$JmE.18583@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...

> Artifacts only really affect interlacing when the movement is too fast,

Artifacts (or reduction in resolution) can affect an interlaced signal as
soon as motion motion occurs (which could be even farily subtle movements of
the camera). It doesn't really need to be "fast" motion.

> so
> if there are motion artifacts in in 60i, you can be a lot of that motion
> will be missed entirely in 24p.

True. 24fps is really an abysmally slow framerate, and does an extremely
poor job of capturing motion.
Anonymous
May 31, 2004 9:17:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <9svjb0t01h8nr4hne3dgdloh8mrsuoden3@4ax.com>,
Karyudo <karyudo_usenet@yahoo.com.remove.me> writes:
> On Sun, 30 May 2004 10:23:38 GMT, "Matthew Vaughan"
> <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Thomas" <tom@nowhere.ca> wrote in message
>>news:JTcuc.26459$JmE.18583@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>>
>>> if there are motion artifacts in in 60i, you can be a lot of that motion
>>> will be missed entirely in 24p.
>>
>>True. 24fps is really an abysmally slow framerate, and does an extremely
>>poor job of capturing motion.
>
> Point being, I disagree 24fps is too slow for sports/fast motion.
> Sure, it's on the slow side, but it looks fine. I'd prefer something
> higher, too, but to argue 24fps "does an extremely poor job of
> capturing motion" is a bit disingenuous.
>
When doing film vs. video production, there are very different
accomodations needed for 24fps vs. 60fps (whether interlaced or
progessive.) If you look at film, they'll tend to keep the main
object in relatively the same position. Certain kinds of motion
that would look 'okay' in 60fps will have an unpleasant artifact.

AFAIR, I remember some comments from a coach somewhere that they
prefer video for exactly the reasons that we are discussing.

If you CAREFULLY plan the camera and subject positions, and
properly handle the motion issues, then 24fps can work well
(movies are an example.) However, when the motion is unplanned,
then the extra motion rendition available from video can be
helpful.

John
Anonymous
May 31, 2004 11:13:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Thomas wrote:
> "David G." <david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> wrote in
> message news:quKdnWyGHs756irdRVn-ug@comcast.com...
>> Ian Morris wrote:
>>> David G. wrote:
>>>
>>>> The native resolution of the TV is one thing. The transmission
>>>> resolution is the other. Currently, there is no 1080p programming.
>>>> 720p and 1080i are two adopted standards currently in use.
>>>
>>> That's not entirely true, the BBC makes all of its HDTV programmes
>>> in 1080p, certainly 'Rockface' (BBC and ColumbiaTristar Television)
>>> is made in this format.
>>>
>>> As you say, no one transits it yet, although some hope that when the
>>> UK decides to go HDTV that we might use this format. Although the
>>> quality might not be worth the extra bandwidth.
>>
>> Two things:
>>
>> 1- Firstly, as I understand it now, a 1080p 24 signal takes less
>> bandwidth than a 1080i 60 transmission does.
>
> 24 frames a second? I think sports and the like would be ugly at
> that low FPS. I really doubt that would be any improvement over
> 1080i - it would likely be worse. When most people talk about
> getting 1080p they generally mean at 60 fps - a lot of bandwidth for
> sure but it would be a nice picture.
>
> FWIW - I do know that film is 24 fps, each frame shown twice, but
> film is not a good medium for sports, either.
>
>
> Tom

I'm not positive, but I didn't think that 1080p60 was in the HD spec and
that the required bandwidth was higher than the allotted bandwidth for a
HD signal. Comments welcome for clarification.

--
David G.
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 3:42:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <ZNzuc.14184$Fo4.196673@typhoon.sonic.net>, matt-no-spam-
109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com says...
> You have no idea the lengths cinematographers go to in order to capture
> motion on 24fps film. Fast motion just doesn't "read", in the same way that
> rain doesn't read (they frequently use milk instead so you can actually see
> it). You can't just point the camera at something involving fast motion and
> expect it to look all right. Even 50/60Hz video can't keep up with the
> fastest motion (I see this in televised soccer games all the time, when the
> ball obviously "jumps" in discrete steps in long kicks), but it's fast
> enough to to a pretty good job most of the time.

NFL Films has been shooting sports with film cameras for years. Does
anybody know what frame rate they've been using?
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 3:49:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <LNudnY4CRdiIISbdRVn-sw@comcast.com>,
david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com says...

> I'm not positive, but I didn't think that 1080p60 was in the HD spec and
> that the required bandwidth was higher than the allotted bandwidth for a
> HD signal. Comments welcome for clarification.

You are correct. 1080/60p would require too much bandwidth for high
definition broacasting. 1080/30p and 1080/24p are available in the ATSC
specification, however. They have the additional advantage of making
more efficient use of the available bandwidth than does 1080/60i.
!