Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

why does 720p exist?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 6:25:36 AM

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

Can someone explain to me what the heck they were thinking when they
created two separate HD formats that can't be interconverted without
quality loss? There's no way I can look at this situation and not go
"Hey, that was kinda dumb."

I was sorta hoping that the broadcasters would all use 1080i and 720p
would fall out of use, so all the TV sets would be made 1080i, but
noooo, half the networks use one and half use the other, so half of
the TV shows are going to be butchered by the viewer's set either way.
This sure doesn't seem to me like it was a good idea.

More about : 720p exist

Anonymous
December 5, 2004 1:11:53 PM

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

"Paul Kienitz" <paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net> wrote in message
news:e5747637.0412050325.17116de9@posting.google.com...
> Can someone explain to me what the heck they were thinking when they
> created two separate HD formats that can't be interconverted without
> quality loss? There's no way I can look at this situation and not go
> "Hey, that was kinda dumb."
>
> I was sorta hoping that the broadcasters would all use 1080i and 720p
> would fall out of use, so all the TV sets would be made 1080i, but
> noooo, half the networks use one and half use the other, so half of
> the TV shows are going to be butchered by the viewer's set either way.
> This sure doesn't seem to me like it was a good idea.

Why are there PC's and Mac's
Why 5 types of flash cards for digital camera's.
Why MP3 files and AAC files for music?
Why different proprietary RAW files for digital photography?
It seems the tech world is creating more and more of these issues.
Some will say it's choice - different strokes for different folks.
I think it has more to do with money. Someone or some company comes up with
a format and hopes to profit from it in some way. Hopes it will be real
successful and dominate the other formats. They don't want to give up on it
easy once they've invested in that format.
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 1:11:54 PM

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

"larrylook" <LarryLOOK@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:7smdnTUL5JGuuC7cRVn-tg@comcast.com...
>
> "Paul Kienitz" <paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net> wrote in message
> news:e5747637.0412050325.17116de9@posting.google.com...
>> Can someone explain to me what the heck they were thinking when they
>> created two separate HD formats that can't be interconverted without
>> quality loss? There's no way I can look at this situation and not go
>> "Hey, that was kinda dumb."
>>
>> I was sorta hoping that the broadcasters would all use 1080i and 720p
>> would fall out of use, so all the TV sets would be made 1080i, but
>> noooo, half the networks use one and half use the other, so half of
>> the TV shows are going to be butchered by the viewer's set either way.
>> This sure doesn't seem to me like it was a good idea.
>
> Why are there PC's and Mac's
> Why 5 types of flash cards for digital camera's.
> Why MP3 files and AAC files for music?
> Why different proprietary RAW files for digital photography?
> It seems the tech world is creating more and more of these issues.
> Some will say it's choice - different strokes for different folks.
> I think it has more to do with money. Someone or some company comes up
> with
> a format and hopes to profit from it in some way. Hopes it will be real
> successful and dominate the other formats. They don't want to give up on
> it
> easy once they've invested in that format.

So I suppose if we extend your thought process, all restaurants should serve
the same menu items and have the same seating arrangment. All houses should
have the same floor plan. All city streets should share the same grid system
and naming convention. etc etc. A variety of options is what makes life
worth living. Thank God there is something other than McDonalds and
Wallmart.
Related resources
December 5, 2004 3:38:11 PM

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

On 5 Dec 2004 03:25:36 -0800, paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net (Paul Kienitz)
wrote:

> Can someone explain to me what the heck they were thinking when they
> created two separate HD formats that can't be interconverted without
> quality loss? There's no way I can look at this situation and not go
> "Hey, that was kinda dumb."
>
> I was sorta hoping that the broadcasters would all use 1080i and 720p
> would fall out of use, so all the TV sets would be made 1080i, but
> noooo, half the networks use one and half use the other, so half of
> the TV shows are going to be butchered by the viewer's set either way.
> This sure doesn't seem to me like it was a good idea.

1080 is HDTV.
720 is not HDTV.
720 is EDTV (Enhanced Definition TV).
720 is only 25% more than normal digital TV in Europe (576 pixels).
720 is 50% more than 480 pixels.
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 3:38:12 PM

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

"Ken" <___ken3@telia.com> wrote in message
news:0gs5r09s8vu0i09667mbi8u4b5sumnliv1@4ax.com...
> On 5 Dec 2004 03:25:36 -0800, paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net (Paul Kienitz)
> wrote:
>
>> Can someone explain to me what the heck they were thinking when they
>> created two separate HD formats that can't be interconverted without
>> quality loss? There's no way I can look at this situation and not go
>> "Hey, that was kinda dumb."
>>
>> I was sorta hoping that the broadcasters would all use 1080i and 720p
>> would fall out of use, so all the TV sets would be made 1080i, but
>> noooo, half the networks use one and half use the other, so half of
>> the TV shows are going to be butchered by the viewer's set either way.
>> This sure doesn't seem to me like it was a good idea.
>
> 1080 is HDTV.
> 720 is not HDTV.
> 720 is EDTV (Enhanced Definition TV).
> 720 is only 25% more than normal digital TV in Europe (576 pixels).
> 720 is 50% more than 480 pixels.

Some of these sites offer another opinion:
http://www.digitalconnection.com/FAQ/HDTV_6.asp
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pna/learn/about/chapt...
http://www.hdtvinfoport.com/high-definition-television....
http://tinyurl.com/4f5pt

>
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 3:38:12 PM

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

Both the 1080i and 720p formats are in the HD standard.

720p has higher bandwidth capacity than 1080i, so it is better for
highly dynamic scenes as in sports ie basketball. 1080p would be ideal
except it requires too much bandwidth.
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 3:38:13 PM

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

>> 1080 is HDTV.
>> 720 is not HDTV.
>> 720 is EDTV (Enhanced Definition TV).
>> 720 is only 25% more than normal digital TV in Europe (576 pixels).
>> 720 is 50% more than 480 pixels.
>
> Some of these sites offer another opinion:
> http://www.digitalconnection.com/FAQ/HDTV_6.asp
> http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pna/learn/about/chapt...
> http://www.hdtvinfoport.com/high-definition-television....
> http://tinyurl.com/4f5pt

Also:
http://tinyurl.com/6tdn7
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 4:07:40 PM

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

Both 720p and 1080i are recognized HDTV standards. EDTV refers to 480p.
Since "standard" NTSC broadcasts are at 480i, 480p represents a doubling of
lines per field.

720p, it has been argued, by virtue of its "progressive" scan, has less
flicker and works better for sports and high-speed motion. It displays all
720 lines in every field of video. 1080i, since it is "interlaced", displays
only 540 lines per field, or one half of the picture information. Owing to
persisence of vision, it may appear that 1080i transmissions have greater
resolution, especially with static or slow moving images.

So two formats for two purposes. Networks and other providers have made the
decision to support both to provide the best results for their intended
audience.

Hope that helps

--
George J. Molnar
Chicago, Illinois
"Ken" <___ken3@telia.com> wrote in message
news:0gs5r09s8vu0i09667mbi8u4b5sumnliv1@4ax.com...
> On 5 Dec 2004 03:25:36 -0800, paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net (Paul Kienitz)
> wrote:
>
>> Can someone explain to me what the heck they were thinking when they
>> created two separate HD formats that can't be interconverted without
>> quality loss? There's no way I can look at this situation and not go
>> "Hey, that was kinda dumb."
>>
>> I was sorta hoping that the broadcasters would all use 1080i and 720p
>> would fall out of use, so all the TV sets would be made 1080i, but
>> noooo, half the networks use one and half use the other, so half of
>> the TV shows are going to be butchered by the viewer's set either way.
>> This sure doesn't seem to me like it was a good idea.
>
> 1080 is HDTV.
> 720 is not HDTV.
> 720 is EDTV (Enhanced Definition TV).
> 720 is only 25% more than normal digital TV in Europe (576 pixels).
> 720 is 50% more than 480 pixels.
>
December 5, 2004 4:07:41 PM

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

It would be even more helpful if you got the acronyms right. There is NO
such thing as EDTV!!! It was a Fox marketing term.
There is just SDTV - which includes BOTH 480i and 480p, and HDTV which
includes 720p and 1080i.
You'll find no mention of an edtv standard in the ATSC standards.
And 1080i always has greater resolution that 720p. 1080x1920 vs 720x1280.
The math is irrefutable.

"George J. Molnar" <George@Molnar.com> wrote in message
news:wKDsd.39476$Qv5.29061@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> Both 720p and 1080i are recognized HDTV standards. EDTV refers to 480p.
> Since "standard" NTSC broadcasts are at 480i, 480p represents a doubling
> of lines per field.
>
> 720p, it has been argued, by virtue of its "progressive" scan, has less
> flicker and works better for sports and high-speed motion. It displays all
> 720 lines in every field of video. 1080i, since it is "interlaced",
> displays only 540 lines per field, or one half of the picture information.
> Owing to persisence of vision, it may appear that 1080i transmissions have
> greater resolution, especially with static or slow moving images.
>
> So two formats for two purposes. Networks and other providers have made
> the decision to support both to provide the best results for their
> intended audience.
>
> Hope that helps
>
> --
> George J. Molnar
> Chicago, Illinois
> "Ken" <___ken3@telia.com> wrote in message
> news:0gs5r09s8vu0i09667mbi8u4b5sumnliv1@4ax.com...
>> On 5 Dec 2004 03:25:36 -0800, paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net (Paul Kienitz)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Can someone explain to me what the heck they were thinking when they
>>> created two separate HD formats that can't be interconverted without
>>> quality loss? There's no way I can look at this situation and not go
>>> "Hey, that was kinda dumb."
>>>
>>> I was sorta hoping that the broadcasters would all use 1080i and 720p
>>> would fall out of use, so all the TV sets would be made 1080i, but
>>> noooo, half the networks use one and half use the other, so half of
>>> the TV shows are going to be butchered by the viewer's set either way.
>>> This sure doesn't seem to me like it was a good idea.
>>
>> 1080 is HDTV.
>> 720 is not HDTV.
>> 720 is EDTV (Enhanced Definition TV).
>> 720 is only 25% more than normal digital TV in Europe (576 pixels).
>> 720 is 50% more than 480 pixels.
>>
>
>
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 4:07:41 PM

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

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 13:07:40 GMT, "George J. Molnar"
<George@Molnar.com> wrote:

>Both 720p and 1080i are recognized HDTV standards. EDTV refers to 480p.
>Since "standard" NTSC broadcasts are at 480i, 480p represents a doubling of
>lines per field.
>
>720p, it has been argued, by virtue of its "progressive" scan, has less
>flicker and works better for sports and high-speed motion. It displays all
>720 lines in every field of video. 1080i, since it is "interlaced", displays
>only 540 lines per field, or one half of the picture information. Owing to
>persisence of vision, it may appear that 1080i transmissions have greater
>resolution, especially with static or slow moving images.
>
>So two formats for two purposes. Networks and other providers have made the
>decision to support both to provide the best results for their intended
>audience.


Sounds like they botched the job to me ;) 
December 5, 2004 4:11:05 PM

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

1080p60 and 24 is the best production standard and downconverts better to
1080i and 720p than either 720p or 1080i as a production standard.

The real crime will the the adoption of anything other than 1080p60 and 24
(1080p50 and 25 for 50Hz countries) for HD-DVD. The players can output (in
NTSC markets), either 1080p, 1080i, 720p, 480p or 480i digital or analog
making for a superior source device than available than over the air or dish
or cable. So far only Windows Media format (currently available on some
DVD's for PC playback) can provide the consumer 1080p source material.

Richard.
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 5:20:09 PM

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

"Paul Kienitz" <paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net> wrote in message
news:e5747637.0412050325.17116de9@posting.google.com...
> Can someone explain to me what the heck they were thinking when they
> created two separate HD formats that can't be interconverted without
> quality loss? There's no way I can look at this situation and not go
> "Hey, that was kinda dumb."

Image quality for different content as well as some "religious" belief over
interlace

the 6 MHz channel bandwidth and MPEG-2 compression efficiency would not
support 1080P (which would have been best from all perspectives)

so the channel would only hold 1080 interlaced or 720 progressive

for more static images, like the eye candy shown on INHD or DiscoveryHD, the
1080 is best, for rapidly moving images (like most sports) the progressive
image is preferred as is does have the shifts between images

Now for the religion:
The PC crowd wanted a progressive image.
Tests show that many people can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080i
resolution.
Not to mention that virtually all affordable home displays (including most
RP's, all plasmas and all but one LCD) now available can only display about
720 worth of pixels anyway.

the political solution was to support both
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 5:25:05 PM

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

"Ken" <___ken3@telia.com> wrote in message
news:0gs5r09s8vu0i09667mbi8u4b5sumnliv1@4ax.com...
> On 5 Dec 2004 03:25:36 -0800, paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net (Paul Kienitz)
> wrote:
>
>> Can someone explain to me what the heck they were thinking when they
>> created two separate HD formats that can't be interconverted without
>> quality loss? There's no way I can look at this situation and not go
>> "Hey, that was kinda dumb."
>>
>> I was sorta hoping that the broadcasters would all use 1080i and 720p
>> would fall out of use, so all the TV sets would be made 1080i, but
>> noooo, half the networks use one and half use the other, so half of
>> the TV shows are going to be butchered by the viewer's set either way.
>> This sure doesn't seem to me like it was a good idea.
>
> 1080 is HDTV.
> 720 is not HDTV.
> 720 is EDTV (Enhanced Definition TV).
> 720 is only 25% more than normal digital TV in Europe (576 pixels).
> 720 is 50% more than 480 pixels.

NO

1280x720P IS HD - by ATSC definition

852x480 = SD 16:9 by ATSC definition and ED by marketers of low-end plasmas
who had to have something that sounded better than 'standard'
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 5:26:44 PM

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

> 1080 is HDTV.
> 720 is not HDTV.
> 720 is EDTV (Enhanced Definition TV).

As others are also pointing out, this is just incorrect. 1080i and 720p are
the two HD formats. What is called "ED" is 480p.

Fox broadcasts its NFL football in 720p, CBS uses 1080i. On my set, at
least -- which has a native resolution of 788p -- the two HD formats look
very similar -- pretty much equally stupendous.

mack
austin
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 5:33:17 PM

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

paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net (Paul Kienitz) wrote in message news:<e5747637.0412050325.17116de9@posting.google.com>...
> Can someone explain to me what the heck they were thinking when they
> created two separate HD formats that can't be interconverted without
> quality loss? There's no way I can look at this situation and not go
> "Hey, that was kinda dumb."
>

It's a bit of a trick, so with the 1080i (interlaced) format you can
get higher resolution than 720p, but that comes at the loss of frames
per second. With an interlaced format, each frame really takes two
scans to draw (odd number rows, then even). With the 720p
(progressive) format all the rows of a given frame are drawn in a
single scan, so the result is a smoother picture with less screen
artifacts (jerky movements, etc...).

Since movies are shot on film and displayed at 24 frames per second in
a theater, speed really isn't a problem. The resolution provided 1080i
is my personal choice. Since "better" is a subjective word, I'll just
say it looks more film like than 720p. When 1080i is combined with 3:2
pull-down, the result is fantastic at reproducing the theatrical
experience (again, what's "better" is subjective, but many of us
perfer the theater look.

(for info on 3:2 pull-down, see:
http://www.projectorpeople.com/tutorials/pulldown-3.asp )

To compare the amount of data in 1080i frame vs a 720p frame is easy:

1080i - 1920x1080 = 2073600 pixels
720p - 1280x720 = 921600 pixels

How much higher resolution is 1080i? That's pretty easy:
2073600/921600 = 2.25!

1080i has 2x the resolution of 720p

I still think 720p has its place; 720p is more ideal for sports
broadcast and other live events. It's no wonder that ESPN HD and FOX
broadcast out in 720p native. But the majority of the networks
broadcast in 1080i native, so even if you have a 720p set, you're
really not getting a "smoother" picture except on the few channels
that do broadcast out in 720p native.

The other "reason" for the two formats is that some technology lends
itself better towards interlaced and progressive formats. Example, CRT
Rear-projection tecnology lends itself to interlaced formats, while
Plasma and LCD sets sets are better suited for progressive formats.

Really the whole argument gets over blown. A poor quality set is going
to look worse than a high quality one and that goes beyond native
aspect ratios. Buying a quality set that's built with high quality
components and loaded with features should be your primary concern
over native aspect ratio.

-Jeremy
http://hdtv.0catch.com
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 5:53:58 PM

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

In <e5747637.0412050325.17116de9@posting.google.com> Paul Kienitz wrote:
> Can someone explain to me what the heck they were thinking when they
> created two separate HD formats that can't be interconverted without
> quality loss? There's no way I can look at this situation and not go
> "Hey, that was kinda dumb."
>
> I was sorta hoping that the broadcasters would all use 1080i and 720p
> would fall out of use, so all the TV sets would be made 1080i, but
> noooo, half the networks use one and half use the other, so half of
> the TV shows are going to be butchered by the viewer's set either way.
> This sure doesn't seem to me like it was a good idea.
>

Why would anyone in their right mind choose an interlaced format over a
progressive one? The only argument for 1080i that holds any water is
someone with a 1080i set trying to convince themselves it's better than
720p because the number is bigger and their set won't do 720p.
Do your homework and go use your eyes, 720p is better.
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 5:54:39 PM

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

In <0gs5r09s8vu0i09667mbi8u4b5sumnliv1@4ax.com> Ken wrote:
> On 5 Dec 2004 03:25:36 -0800, paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net (Paul
> Kienitz) wrote:
>
> 1080 is HDTV.
> 720 is not HDTV.
> 720 is EDTV (Enhanced Definition TV).
> 720 is only 25% more than normal digital TV in Europe (576 pixels).
> 720 is 50% more than 480 pixels.
>
>

Ridiculous.
December 5, 2004 7:23:45 PM

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

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 13:07:40 GMT, "George J. Molnar" <George@Molnar.com>
wrote:

> Both 720p and 1080i are recognized HDTV standards. EDTV refers to 480p.

That's really bad.
December 5, 2004 7:52:41 PM

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

"George J. Molnar" <George@Molnar.com> wrote in message
news:wKDsd.39476$Qv5.29061@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> Both 720p and 1080i are recognized HDTV standards. EDTV refers to 480p.
> Since "standard" NTSC broadcasts are at 480i, 480p represents a doubling
of
> lines per field.
>
> 720p, it has been argued, by virtue of its "progressive" scan, has less
> flicker and works better for sports and high-speed motion. It displays all
> 720 lines in every field of video. 1080i, since it is "interlaced",
displays
> only 540 lines per field, or one half of the picture information. Owing to
> persisence of vision, it may appear that 1080i transmissions have greater
> resolution, especially with static or slow moving images.
>
> So two formats for two purposes. Networks and other providers have made
the
> decision to support both to provide the best results for their intended
> audience.
>
> Hope that helps
>
> --
> George J. Molnar
> Chicago, Illinois

The progressive argument makes sense, in theory. There is no question that
480p is superior over 480i, but at 1080i I have to be looking for (and
thinking about) artifacting to actually make it out...

I wish everything would just go to 1080p and put all the 720p vs 1080i stuff
to rest. :^)
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 8:27:10 PM

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

Ken,

720 IS an HDTV standard.

720 is 921,600 pixels (720 X 1280 @ 16:9 aspect ratio)
480 is 307,200 pixels (480 X 640 @ 4:3 aspect ratio)
Therefore, HD 720 is THREE TIMES the number of pixels of SD 480 (921,600
verses 307,200)

Phil

"Ken" <___ken3@telia.com> wrote in message
news:0gs5r09s8vu0i09667mbi8u4b5sumnliv1@4ax.com...
>
> 1080 is HDTV.
> 720 is not HDTV.
> 720 is EDTV (Enhanced Definition TV).
> 720 is only 25% more than normal digital TV in Europe (576 pixels).
> 720 is 50% more than 480 pixels.
>
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 9:50:24 PM

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

JDeats wrote:
>
> The other "reason" for the two formats is that some technology lends
> itself better towards interlaced and progressive formats. Example, CRT
> Rear-projection tecnology lends itself to interlaced formats, while
> Plasma and LCD sets sets are better suited for progressive formats.
>

While I agree with everyting I snipp:-) Having owned a direct view CRT
set that displayed progressive (deinterlaced NTSC) and currently owning
several HD resolution CRT monitors, I have to disagree with the above.
There is no reason that a 720p (or multiscan) CRT RPTV couldn't be
built. It would just cost a bit more.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 10:13:50 PM

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

"JDeats" <jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:b0738dc6.0412051433.305775e@posting.google.com...
> paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net (Paul Kienitz) wrote in message
news:<e5747637.0412050325.17116de9@posting.google.com>...
> > Can someone explain to me what the heck they were thinking when they
> > created two separate HD formats that can't be interconverted without
> > quality loss? There's no way I can look at this situation and not go
> > "Hey, that was kinda dumb."
> >
>
> It's a bit of a trick, so with the 1080i (interlaced) format you can
> get higher resolution than 720p, but that comes at the loss of frames
> per second. With an interlaced format, each frame really takes two
> scans to draw (odd number rows, then even). With the 720p
> (progressive) format all the rows of a given frame are drawn in a
> single scan, so the result is a smoother picture with less screen
> artifacts (jerky movements, etc...).
>
> Since movies are shot on film and displayed at 24 frames per second in
> a theater, speed really isn't a problem. The resolution provided 1080i
> is my personal choice. Since "better" is a subjective word, I'll just
> say it looks more film like than 720p. When 1080i is combined with 3:2
> pull-down, the result is fantastic at reproducing the theatrical
> experience (again, what's "better" is subjective, but many of us
> perfer the theater look.
>
> (for info on 3:2 pull-down, see:
> http://www.projectorpeople.com/tutorials/pulldown-3.asp )
>
> To compare the amount of data in 1080i frame vs a 720p frame is easy:
>
> 1080i - 1920x1080 = 2073600 pixels
> 720p - 1280x720 = 921600 pixels
>
> How much higher resolution is 1080i? That's pretty easy:
> 2073600/921600 = 2.25!
>
> 1080i has 2x the resolution of 720p
>
> I still think 720p has its place; 720p is more ideal for sports
> broadcast and other live events. It's no wonder that ESPN HD and FOX
> broadcast out in 720p native. But the majority of the networks
> broadcast in 1080i native, so even if you have a 720p set, you're
> really not getting a "smoother" picture except on the few channels
> that do broadcast out in 720p native.
>
> The other "reason" for the two formats is that some technology lends
> itself better towards interlaced and progressive formats. Example, CRT
> Rear-projection tecnology lends itself to interlaced formats, while
> Plasma and LCD sets sets are better suited for progressive formats.
>
> Really the whole argument gets over blown. A poor quality set is going
> to look worse than a high quality one and that goes beyond native
> aspect ratios. Buying a quality set that's built with high quality
> components and loaded with features should be your primary concern
> over native aspect ratio.
>
> -Jeremy

Why do CRT based RPTV lend themselves to interlacing?

The real answer to the question of the thread is that input from folks on
the computer side was pretty much unanimous that 720 was adequate and
progressive was obviously more sensible than interlaced. The input from the
TV people was that the Japanese 1125 analog system was a benchmark and lower
resolution than that would be untenable. 1080 could be broadcast in 6mHz
channels interlaced by 1080p was not even close. We had been dealing with
interlaced video for years and the Japanese system was interlaced.
Transforming interlaced to progressive was, and is, perceived to be
problematic by TV engineers. It was easier to just define lots of formats
that covered lots of perspectives than to settle on a standard. Hence, we
have 18 digital formats defined by ATSC.

720p may yet become more standard, as TV engineers learn that it is just
plain easier not to have to deal with interlaced video, particularly when
making conversions and resampling. There is not enough advantage in 1080i
to make it a compelling alternative once people realize that it is not 30%
higher resolution and that it is actually not as good for sports.

A better question would have been why does 1080i exist and the answer would
have been that we wanted to have something as good as the Japanese already
had, and interlacing was a non-issue to the TV folks.

Leonard
December 5, 2004 10:46:39 PM

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

"Paul Kienitz" <paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net> wrote in message
news:e5747637.0412050325.17116de9@posting.google.com...
> Can someone explain to me what the heck they were thinking when they
> created two separate HD formats that can't be interconverted without
> quality loss? There's no way I can look at this situation and not go
> "Hey, that was kinda dumb."
> I was sorta hoping that the broadcasters would all use 1080i and 720p
> would fall out of use, so all the TV sets would be made 1080i, but
> noooo, half the networks use one and half use the other, so half of
> the TV shows are going to be butchered by the viewer's set either way.
> This sure doesn't seem to me like it was a good idea.

IIRC, the 720p standard was pushed by the computer-oriented "faction"
involved with the original ATSC standard.

Wasn't the interlaced (1080i) broadcasting HDTV standard included because of
easier/cheaper bandwidth issues?

And wasn't Microsoft strongly pushing 480p and trying to kill off 1080i
early on?
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 10:51:22 PM

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

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 09:55:59 -0800, "Charles Tomaras"
<tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote:


>
>So I suppose if we extend your thought process, all restaurants should serve
>the same menu items and have the same seating arrangment. All houses should
>have the same floor plan. All city streets should share the same grid system
>and naming convention. etc etc. A variety of options is what makes life
>worth living. Thank God there is something other than McDonalds and
>Wallmart.
>

....and ALL the faithfull should give their money to the same church ?
December 5, 2004 11:19:20 PM

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

On 5 Dec 2004 14:33:17 -0800, jeremy@pdq.net (JDeats) wrote:


>...
>I still think 720p has its place; 720p is more ideal for sports
>broadcast and other live events. It's no wonder that ESPN HD and FOX
>broadcast out in 720p native. But the majority of the networks
>broadcast in 1080i native, so even if you have a 720p set, you're
>really not getting a "smoother" picture except on the few channels
>that do broadcast out in 720p native.
>...
>Really the whole argument gets over blown. A poor quality set is going
>to look worse than a high quality one and that goes beyond native
>aspect ratios.


There is an issue of price for many people, and the question of paying
$2k for a 34" CRT HDTV or a 42" EDTV plasma. I'm interested in a
larger picture for DVDs. Don't care much about HDTV broadcast as the
programming isn't my cup of tea.

My interest in the ratios is from snipets I read here and there that
the EDTV sets will handle some things like DVDs (maybe espn ?) better
due to ratio/format conversions/scaling that are never really
explained in detail. Do you know anything about this area ?

As I understand it, EDTV is basically DVD resolution and widescreen
format ?
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 12:53:08 AM

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

curmudgeon (curmudgeon@buzzoff.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> It would be even more helpful if you got the acronyms right. There is NO
> such thing as EDTV!!! It was a Fox marketing term.

No, it wasn't. The only term they used was "Fox Widescreen".

"EDTV" came from CE companies.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/Workaholic.gi...
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 12:55:38 AM

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

George J. Molnar (George@Molnar.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> 720p, it has been argued, by virtue of its "progressive" scan, has less
> flicker and works better for sports and high-speed motion.

This is only true of 720/60p. 720/24p and 720/30p are both part of the
ATSC standard, and neither would do better (and 720/24p) considerably
worse) than 1080/60i for fast motion.

Currently, nobody is broadcasting any form of 720p other than 720/60p, but
a station that showed only movies could benefit from the bandwidth
savings of 720/24p.

--
Jeff Rife | "Because he was human; because he had goodness;
SPAM bait: | because he was moral they called him insane.
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | Delusions of grandeur; visions of splendor;
spam@ftc.gov | A manic-depressive, he walks in the rain."
| -- Rush, "Cinderella Man"
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 1:14:38 AM

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

"Mack McKinnon" <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote in message news:<EUEsd.81071$KQ2.55247@fe2.texas.rr.com>...

> Fox broadcasts its NFL football in 720p, CBS uses 1080i. On my set, at
> least -- which has a native resolution of 788p -- the two HD formats look
> very similar -- pretty much equally stupendous.

On mine, which I believe is natively 1080, CBS looks significantly
better than Fox or ABC does.
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 1:21:23 AM

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

"larrylook" <LarryLOOK@noemail.com> wrote in message news:<7smdnTUL5JGuuC7cRVn-tg@comcast.com>...

> Why are there PC's and Mac's
> Why 5 types of flash cards for digital camera's.
> Why MP3 files and AAC files for music?
> Why different proprietary RAW files for digital photography?
> It seems the tech world is creating more and more of these issues.

Those all came from different proprietary designs COMPETING with each
other. 720p and 1080i came from the same people! It's as if there
were two incompatible new video-disk formats both invented by Sony.
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 1:35:10 AM

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

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message news:<10r77m23f43bne5@corp.supernews.com>...

> JDeats wrote:
> >
> > The other "reason" for the two formats is that some technology lends
> > itself better towards interlaced and progressive formats. Example, CRT
> > Rear-projection tecnology lends itself to interlaced formats, while
> > Plasma and LCD sets sets are better suited for progressive formats.
> >
>
> While I agree with everyting I snipp:-) Having owned a direct view CRT
> set that displayed progressive (deinterlaced NTSC) and currently owning
> several HD resolution CRT monitors, I have to disagree with the above.
> There is no reason that a 720p (or multiscan) CRT RPTV couldn't be
> built. It would just cost a bit more.

The important point is not that CRTs can be progressive, it's that
LCDs can't. Plasmas also dislike being interlaced. They just can't
do it. As a result, any picture sent in 1080 is going to look
substantially degraded when fed to a screen that has 720 physical
lines and no interlacing. Conversely, a 720p picture looks fuzzy when
fed to a display such as a CRT that natively does 1080i. The result
is that due to people fussing over which of the two formats is better,
every viewer is watching 50% of their content at a resolution that's
worse than either!
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 1:44:09 AM

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

"Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:<FuNsd.471$ln.42@lakeread06>...

> A better question would have been why does 1080i exist and the answer would
> have been that we wanted to have something as good as the Japanese already
> had, and interlacing was a non-issue to the TV folks.

Asking "why bother with 1080i" would make sense if it weren't for the
existence of film. As long as people rent movies there's going to be
a need for 1080i, which effectively becomes 1080p when given 24 fps
source material.

I think it's clear what this mess is going to end up leaving us with:
a push for a whole new standard beyond 1080i after five or ten
years...
December 6, 2004 2:34:31 AM

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

Any clown who argues 921,600 (720p) pixels is "better" than 2,118,760
pixels is either a fool or a retard.

>? The only argument for 1080i that holds any water is
> someone with a 1080i set trying to convince themselves it's better than
> 720p because the number is bigger and their set won't do 720p.
> Do your homework and go use your eyes, 720p is better.
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 2:47:45 AM

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

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:20:09 -0500, "Randy Sweeney"
<rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Paul Kienitz" <paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net> wrote in message
>news:e5747637.0412050325.17116de9@posting.google.com...
>the 6 MHz channel bandwidth and MPEG-2 compression efficiency would not
>support 1080P (which would have been best from all perspectives)

Just to clarify: there *is* enough bandwidth for 1080P24, just not
1080P60.
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 3:36:49 AM

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

(joseph@nospam.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> There is an issue of price for many people, and the question of paying
> $2k for a 34" CRT HDTV or a 42" EDTV plasma. I'm interested in a
> larger picture for DVDs. Don't care much about HDTV broadcast as the
> programming isn't my cup of tea.

So, get a 42" HDTV-ready (1080i display) rear-projection CRT for less than
$1500 shippped.

It's going to give you a *great* DVD picture, and be ready for HD-DVD and
any other HD source, and give you an even better picture with those.

--
Jeff Rife | "Because he was human; because he had goodness;
SPAM bait: | because he was moral they called him insane.
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | Delusions of grandeur; visions of splendor;
spam@ftc.gov | A manic-depressive, he walks in the rain."
| -- Rush, "Cinderella Man"
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 3:41:56 AM

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

curmudgeon wrote:
> Any clown who argues 921,600 (720p) pixels is "better" than 2,118,760
> pixels is either a fool or a retard.

Well, I get 2,073,600 pixels for 1920x1080. But since there are few
TV sets out there that truly display the full resolution of 1920x1080
pixels, this is mostly a moot argument. And please do not claim that the
consumer analog CRT TVs display resolution equivalent to 1920x1080 fixed
pixels - they don't. In 2 years, I expect fixed pixel 1920x1080p sets to
be widely available for the higher end RP TV and LCD TVs and some 50"
or > 60" plasmas. Then we can have long threads debatting the merits of
all 18 ATSC broadcast standards.

During the extensive testing and engineering studies when they were
struggling to pick the ATSC standards, for motion scenes, according to
what I have read, the effective resolution to the human observer was
essentially all but the same between 720p60 and 1080i60. So for fast
motion such as sports, some networks have chosen to go with 720p60.

Of course, there is nothing to stop a network from broadcasting both
standards - 720p for football games and 1080i60 or even 1080p24 for
movies OTA if they wanted too. But that would mean they would have to
switch back and forth and have to spend extra $ to have equipment
capable of handling all the formats. But I do not know what would happen
to the cable feeds if they did this. Probably mess everything up.

BTW, you have belittled ED sets several times. ED plasmas have a lot
going for them. I would argue that the improvement in apparent picture
quality going from analog NTSC 480i to digital ATSC 480p widescreen is
bigger than the improvement from ATSC 480p to 720p or 1080i. 42" ED
plasmas are selling briskly for a reason. Yes, they are not true HD, but
OTOH, they present a fine picture.

Alan Figgatt
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 5:02:18 AM

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

Alan Figgatt (afiggatt@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> In 2 years, I expect fixed pixel 1920x1080p sets to
> be widely available for the higher end RP TV and LCD TVs and some 50"
> or > 60" plasmas.

It depends on what you mean by "widely available". Right now, there are
at least two different companies selling 1920x1080 LCD displays of greater
than 40" diagonal. Sharp has a 45" for $8000.

So, I think that in 2 years, 1920x1080 fixed pixel displays will be almost
ubiquitous. This time next year, they will be in the sub-$4000 price
range.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/Macarena.gif
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 5:13:19 AM

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

Paul Kienitz (paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> The important point is not that CRTs can be progressive, it's that
> LCDs can't. Plasmas also dislike being interlaced. They just can't
> do it.

There are plasmas that are refreshed "interlaced". Whether that makes them
"interlaced" or not is not for me to say.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | "He chose...poorly."
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov | -- Grail Knight, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade"
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 5:16:29 AM

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

Paul Kienitz (paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Asking "why bother with 1080i" would make sense if it weren't for the
> existence of film. As long as people rent movies there's going to be
> a need for 1080i, which effectively becomes 1080p when given 24 fps
> source material.

That's the point. For film sourced material, use 1080/24p to store,
transmit, and display it. There is no need to use 1080/60i for movies.
1080/60i has a lot of other uses, but movies are best served by 1080/24p.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/ActionItem.gif
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 8:03:42 AM

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

Karyudo wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:20:09 -0500, "Randy Sweeney"
> <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"Paul Kienitz" <paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net> wrote in message
>>news:e5747637.0412050325.17116de9@posting.google.com...
>>the 6 MHz channel bandwidth and MPEG-2 compression efficiency would not
>>support 1080P (which would have been best from all perspectives)
>
>
> Just to clarify: there *is* enough bandwidth for 1080P24, just not
> 1080P60.

Remember that after the broadcaster uses MPEG2 for the required SD
program they can use MPEG4 for a 1080P60 program in a subscription based
service in the remaining bandwidth. Should be room for it.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 8:21:40 AM

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

joseph@nospam.com wrote:

>
> There is an issue of price for many people, and the question of paying
> $2k for a 34" CRT HDTV or a 42" EDTV plasma. I'm interested in a
> larger picture for DVDs. Don't care much about HDTV broadcast as the
> programming isn't my cup of tea.
>
> My interest in the ratios is from snipets I read here and there that
> the EDTV sets will handle some things like DVDs (maybe espn ?) better
> due to ratio/format conversions/scaling that are never really
> explained in detail. Do you know anything about this area ?
>
> As I understand it, EDTV is basically DVD resolution and widescreen
> format ?
>
>
EDTV is 480P, DVD is 480i. Upconverting a DVD to 480P does not increase
the information. True EDTV would start out as 480P information. Should
be far superior to DVD.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 9:17:09 AM

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

"curmudgeon" <curmudgeon@buzzoff.net> wrote in message
news:EgRsd.40912$Ch2.33735@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Any clown who argues 921,600 (720p) pixels is "better" than 2,118,760
> pixels is either a fool or a retard.

Obviously, you don't understand the trade-offs. The fact is that both 720p
and 1080i look quite good, and anyone who argues that one is better in all
regards likely owns a Dodge with a Hemi or buys 1000 watt loudspeakers
because they just have to be better...

There are trade-offs for both. The problems associated with interlacing are
becoming more obvious as more exchange between formats and applications
occurs and displays get better and better.

Leonard
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 9:20:33 AM

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

"Paul Kienitz" <paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net> wrote in message
news:e5747637.0412052221.72933aee@posting.google.com...
> "larrylook" <LarryLOOK@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:<7smdnTUL5JGuuC7cRVn-tg@comcast.com>...
>
> > Why are there PC's and Mac's
> > Why 5 types of flash cards for digital camera's.
> > Why MP3 files and AAC files for music?
> > Why different proprietary RAW files for digital photography?
> > It seems the tech world is creating more and more of these issues.
>
> Those all came from different proprietary designs COMPETING with each
> other. 720p and 1080i came from the same people! It's as if there
> were two incompatible new video-disk formats both invented by Sony.

Actually, they did not. Competing interests from different industries is
exactly why we ended up with the maze of format options that we have.

Leonard
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 10:04:26 AM

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

In article <MPG.1c1d93a3302ff96a98997b@news.nabs.net>,
Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> writes:
> curmudgeon (curmudgeon@buzzoff.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> It would be even more helpful if you got the acronyms right. There is NO
>> such thing as EDTV!!! It was a Fox marketing term.
>
> No, it wasn't. The only term they used was "Fox Widescreen".
>
> "EDTV" came from CE companies.
>
I seem to remember the term EDTV from the 1980s timeframe, and it
was meant to be an enhanced NTSC-level follow-on that didn't quite
meet the expected HDTV performance level. For example, the RCA
scheme that added a subcarrier, quadrature modulation (eliminating
the idea of baseband video) and adding digital data during sync was
meant to be an EDTV scheme. 'Enhanced definition' wasn't really meant
to change the parameters too awful much.

(Thank goodness we didn't make the already complex NTSC scheme -- PAL
being worse, even more complex!!! This isn't meant to 'dis' PAL, but
only to state that more analog or timing complexity would have gone
in the wrong direction.)

John
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 11:55:11 AM

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

Eric wrote:
> I wish everything would just go to 1080p and put all the 720p vs 1080i stuff
> to rest. :^)
Well, it's all part of the standard. The idea is to offer "choice".
Some people prefer one over the other. Sometimes that's a good thing,
sometimes not. As long as it's part of the standard and all equipment
supports all the formats you are safe.

1080p is currently only intended to be a "production" format. Having a
non-linear 1080p editing station still requires quite a hardcore set up
costing thousands. That will eventually drop. For HD-DVD / Blu-ray or
whatever media is finally used may offer 1080p since it is distributed
on actual media, but I doubt they will. It would require players that
offer this as well which could be cost prohibitive. You will probably
never see 1080p used for broadcast. The bandwidth is gargantuan (which
is relative of course...in a few years it may not seem that way).

Maybe at some point in the future when HD becomes ubiquitous?
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 11:57:52 AM

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

Leonard Caillouet wrote:
> 720p may yet become more standard, as TV engineers learn that it is just
> plain easier not to have to deal with interlaced video, particularly when
> making conversions and resampling.

Amen..I hate working with interlacing!!! Frames baby, frames!


Steve
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 12:12:16 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> Remember that after the broadcaster uses MPEG2 for the required SD
> program they can use MPEG4 for a 1080P60 program in a subscription based
> service in the remaining bandwidth. Should be room for it.
>

You keep mentioning this hypothetical. There have been many OTA
subscription schemes based on either microwave or NTSC. AFAIK, they all
failed. Is there a fundamental reason to expect such a scheme to succeed
this time around?

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 12:16:52 PM

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

Paul Kienitz wrote:

>
>
> The important point is not that CRTs can be progressive, it's that
> LCDs can't. Plasmas also dislike being interlaced. They just can't
> do it.

Of course they can. It's just a matter of timing. Each pixel is
individually addressable. There is no reason in the world that either an
LCD or Plasma can't be interlaced. All that has to happen is for the
driver to send alternate lines offset in time. The real question is why
would you want to. ALIS PDPs do this alternate line business.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
December 6, 2004 12:31:39 PM

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

"Steve K." <steve@nodamnspam.com> wrote in message
news:kaVsd.2801$yr1.2076@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Leonard Caillouet wrote:
>> 720p may yet become more standard, as TV engineers learn that it is just
>> plain easier not to have to deal with interlaced video, particularly when
>> making conversions and resampling.
>
> Amen..I hate working with interlacing!!! Frames baby, frames!
>
>
> Steve

1080i was adopted into the standard because the hardware people in Japan
already had mature 1080i hardware ready to go. They had a 1080i analog
system up and running in Japan. Sony and others knew it would take some time
to perfect cost effective production and consumer display technology for
progressive scan.

Today 1080p is being favored for production work and eventually 2160p will
come into favor as well at the production end. 1080p for home use will
appear sooner or later IMO once consumer technology is in place. Today few
if any consumer display devices take full advantage of 1080i and few feeds
take full advantage of 1080i's max horizontal resolution.

But it is a complex subject not served well by black and white answers.

Richard.
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 1:02:32 PM

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

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Matthew L. Martin wrote:
> Bob Miller wrote:
>> Remember that after the broadcaster uses MPEG2 for the required SD program
>> they can use MPEG4 for a 1080P60 program in a subscription based service in
>> the remaining bandwidth. Should be room for it.
> You keep mentioning this hypothetical. There have been many OTA subscription
> schemes based on either microwave or NTSC. AFAIK, they all failed. Is there a
> fundamental reason to expect such a scheme to succeed this time around?

Remember that Bob Miller has a talent for choosing the wrong horse to be
on. Once you apply the algorithm of "whatever Bob Miller says, the
opposite is true", you get the truth that broadcasters will not deploy SD
plus subscription based HD.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 2:39:16 PM

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

"curmudgeon" <curmudgeon@buzzoff.net> wrote in message
news:EgRsd.40912$Ch2.33735@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Any clown who argues 921,600 (720p) pixels is "better" than 2,118,760
> pixels is either a fool or a retard.

not so...

the image tearing artifacts on rapidly moving interlaced images can make
720P look better than 1080i

and additionally, if your HD monitor can only display 1300 pixels, it
doesn't make any difference HOW MANY you try to shove into it... you only
get 1300 out

not to mention that a lot of people have relatively poor vision and a lot of
content is filmed/edited/printed/copied/distributed in relatively poor
quality
!