What is Digg?86 Comments
- aschmack, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30It's all bragging rights.
- aschmack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25No it isn't.
- Dipsomaniac, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24That's the ultimate test, though. If the average viewer can't see a difference, then there might as well not BE a difference.
- tito13kfm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23um.. no, it's 1920x1080 progressive.
Bah, beaten by Mythos... Had to check my numbers.. - skytimelapse, on 10/12/2007, -5/+221080p is just a lot sharper. It's simple: if you can afford it and you want it, go for it, if not, 720p is good too.
- isayx3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18"the differences seem very subtle and are ultimately tied into how good graphically the game looks to begin with. For instance, I saw Activision's Marvel: Ultimate Alliance on a 1080p Sony display, and the game looked decent, but it's not graphically stunning to begin with, so it wasn't completely amazing. By comparison, Resistance: Fall of Man looked great--even though the resolution is "only" 720p native"
- directedition, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19God, why do we still have interlaced formats? The very concept of video itself is tainted by this bain of editing and progressive display. If you want to play an interlaced video on anything but the display type it was meant for, it's ugly. Only progressive can save us all.
- Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Feature films are done at 24fps, which looks nearly identical on both versions of 1080. The format is only good as the source material, folks :)
- anonym41414, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Converting a movie from 1080i to 1080p isn't an up-conversion or a down-conversion. It's just a reformatting of the same information.
Movies and TV (except news and some reality shows) are shot in 24p, meaning you record 24 frames per second. There are no fields; each frame is recorded at the same instant.
TV is broadcast in an interlaced format, though, so before being broadcast the footage is converted to 59.94i via a process called pulldown. You split each frame into two fields and rearrange them to fit into the 59.94 timebase.
Removing the interlacing is a lossless operation with footage that was shot in 24p (or 23.98p), because you're just rearranging the fields back into the order in which they were originally shot. If you're not changing the resolution (going from 1080/59.94i to 1080/23.98p, for example), you don't have to create or discard any image data.
Now, if your source material was shot in 59.94i, you cannot deinterlace losslessly. You can only frame-blend (interpolate) or field-double. In both cases, you lose both spatial and temporal resolution.
I'm continually amazed by how many people don't understand that 1080i and 1080p are the exact same image format with different display timings, and by how many people don't understand the difference between shooting progressive and inserting pulldown and shooting interlaced. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16You are a complete moron!
- wilf_brim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10TFA is decent, but misses one big point. Right now there is an incredible dearth of 1080p content. As pointed out above, even 1080p native games will only look as good as the source material, which ain't that great. BluRay and HD-DVD adoption is so small right now as to be not worth talking about.
Right now cable, satellite, and OTA offerings in 1080i are hard enough to find, 720p harder still. And they are pushing 1080p? How about getting all my locals on the cable system in at least 1080i with all prime time, and all major sporting events in 1080i? I'd be happy with that.
Needless to say, when I had to replace my HDTV last week, I didn't spend the 20% (actually, it would have been more like 50% in my case) premium for a 1080p unit. - MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"yes, theres practically no difference in picture between 1080i and 1080p... unless of course the movie that you're watching has any horizontal (or, to a lesser extent, vertical) motion whatsoever"
Yeah, I kind of figured his review skills were a bit off when using a still image to discern detail differences between interlaced and non-interlaced near-still images. Hint: there isn't any.
And you think movies are bad interlaced, try sports games. Look like absolute crap. That's why networks who know what they're doing (ABC, FOX) use 720p instead of 1080i for sports programming.
So is 1080p worth it? Well, at the same aspect ratio you're looking at approximately doubling the pixel count over 720p, so I'd say it'll be worth it to a lot of people. - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Try reading about drop frame, your head asplode.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMPTE_time_code#Drop_frame_timecode
This is the kind of Einstein decision making process that determines the standards. It's like Congress, without the benefit of the firm hand of bribery. - tuxidomasx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10lol. i just hooked my hdtv to my computer, pushing out 1080p.
digg lights up the whole room. its like typing at the SUN.
i swear people can prolly read my screen through the window in my apartment.
but if you ever doubt the power of HDTV at 1080p, you havent seen how beautiful pr0n is on this thing.
quality sites like suicidegirls... oh my damn... its breathtaking.
HDTV, like many other things in this world, was clearly made with p0rn in mind. - thatbox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Resolution is resolution. There is no complicated formula you have to use to determine how much better the picture will be. If you want more pixels, pay for more pixels. If you don't want them or can't tell a difference, don't. What's the big deal?
- MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Resolution is resolution. There is no complicated formula you have to use to determine how much better the picture will be. If you want more pixels, pay for more pixels. If you don't want them or can't tell a difference, don't. What's the big deal?"
Because resolution isn't resolution. Interlacing the image effectively cuts the frame rate in half, because only half the lines are updated each frame. As a result, 1080p and 1080i look the same for stills, but for motion interlaced video looks like absolute ***** at any resolution. Compare NFL games on Fox/ESPN/ABC (720p) to the games on NBC/CBS (1080i). When the camera pans quickly, the screen looks very jagged in 1080i, but looks fine in 720p.
That's why this is a debate primarily between 1080p and 1080i, not between 720p and 1080p, because the latter debate breaks down quite simplistically as you point out. - DelMonte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Personally, I wish they aimed at providing video without lossy compression, before trying to upgrade the resolution.
I would have liked it better if they used the additional space on the new HD-DVD and Blu-Ray to provide a loss-less image, even at the same resolution than the current DVD standard. But that's just me, I hate compression artifacts. - gridbread, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I just don't see the justification in price.
If you already own a set that does 1080i, don't bother.
WHUXGA or nothing ; D - wheezl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6True, whatever resolution you get, get whatever number you can afford that ends with a "p"
1080p, 720p, whatever.
Interlaced video in this day and age is a freaking disgrace.
I am oversimplifying here... but 1080i is like 1920x540 only updated twice as often. There is quite a bit more to it than that, but it's still crap. - thatbox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I think he was trying to make a joke because there's no way he could be successfully manipulating a mouse if he were serious :(
- Kniggit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You won't be able to notice the difference between 720p and 1080p at normal viewing distances on anything below a 42" screen unless you go right up to the screen (which is not a normal viewing distance), you're running a PC output where every pixel is discernable, or you have native 1080p text with details. Even in those cases, you need a trained eye to see it.
That's why resolution matters so much on a computer monitor - you're normally around 1ft. away. Not so when you're 6-7 ft. away from your tv sitting on your couch. At 42" and above starts to break the 1080p threshold, and it DOES matter for most content at that point. - SexyGeniusNinja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@wilf_brim's later comment
"Even shows like Survivor are still shot in SD. Although, that (IMHO) is unforgivable,"
I agree, the the fact that survivor is still shot is entirely unforgivable. - DrGonzo1184, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Here is the reason for it:
IT IS NOT INTERLACED! - wilf_brim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Dood, 1080p content isn't going to "explode" for one reason and one reason alone: bandwidth. There isn't enough. And cable companies would rather add channels in 1080i rather than offer content in 1080p. Which there isn't any of, anyway. There aren't very many 1080p cameras. Even shows like Survivor are still shot in SD. Although, that (IMHO) is unforgivable, as home digital movie cameras (not even prosumer models) are available in HD.
- XTrek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Snap out of it monkeys... I want to be able to connect my computer to my giant display in 60hz mode. Just make the hdtv's accept 1080p and be done with it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4p and i are simply methods of display.
http://blog.hometheatermag.com/geoffreymorrison/0807061080iv1080p/ - yoda17, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5 As an electrical engineer I had the experience for a few years of working on digital tv systems (as opposed to HDTV which are the broadcast standards employed by HD tv (and also standard definition SDTV).
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_television
I can remember going into one of the labs once and seeing a (unknown to me at the time) non-interlaced television for the first time and questioned what resolution it was running since it looked so much better than what I had become accustomed. I was told 480x640, but that someone had just gotten the non-interlaced (p) working.
This was all about years ago, so display technologies may have changed. Just my experiences. - streak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6VGA resolution is 640x480. So a VGA monitor would display 1080p at 640x480 (if it could display it at all). 1024x768 is XGA.
- stox, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7David Carnoy has convinced me that he is a total idiot. Current Blu-Ray movies are 1080i, the player is up-converting to 1080p. So what he is really comparing is 1080i source displayed natively versus 1080i source up-converted to a 1080p display.
- Topher06, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yeah, but if your taking the plunge into the world of HDTV, why not cover all your bases? Your going to spend $2000 on an LCD HDTV without 1080p today and find out 6 months from now that 1080p content has exploded onto the scene and even cable is broadcasting it. I generally am not in the habit of buying a new TV every 6 months.
But as I said earlier, I haven't seen that big a difference in 1080p TV's over 1080i ones. In fact, at BestBuy in Canada, the cheapest LCD TV's over 40" are 1080p models and there is a 47" 1080p model that is at the same price point as a 42" 1080i from different brands. - ReaperUnreal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Alright, time for some explaining. I worked at a tech company that made production switchers for high-definition content, and let me tell you, this reviewer has no idea what's going on. What he thinks is 1080p isn't really 1080p that would be broadcast. Due to the way that television signals are defined, there's no real way to broadcast 1080p at 60fps. 1080i60 is possible only because half the pixels are being sent at a time. What happens in practice is something called segmented frame (look it up), so really what would be broadcast is 1080p23SF or 1080p24SF.
So maybe, the BluRay signal looks marginally better on a TV with 1920x1080 native res, but for any broadcast signal, compression and picture format disparities will render the difference useless.
And honestly, the only way you'll notice any interlacing is with extremely fast and repetitive motion, or if your TV is running in a 3:2 pulldown mode (which it really shouldn't be). - dubloe7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5yes, theres practically no difference in picture between 1080i and 1080p... unless of course the movie that you're watching has any horizontal (or, to a lesser extent, vertical) motion whatsoever, then your movie will be made of interlacing artifact AIDS and fail.
but there aren't many movies with any motion, are there? - rmqjr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If this fellow is comparing 1080p against 1080i, he seems to have no clue what he is talking about. For one, this is not a resolution difference but a difference in the scan structure, both being at 1080 pixels in that dimension. A difference in the scan structure, changing from interlaced to progressive, does not improve picture resolution but instead corrects artifacts that come about from using interlacing. I don't mind that he might not notice the difference, but it would be nice if he knew what he was talking about. Interlaced scanning was a way of decreasing bandwidth and flicker and is a compromise of poorer quality than progressive scan.
- anonym41414, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think you typed that backwards, because 1080p is NOT a resolution. A resolution is just a pixel matrix: 1920x1080 for example. Once you start figuring in scanning frequencies and frame timings, you're in video-standard land.
What people call 1080p can mean one of several things. It sometimes means 1080/59.94p, which means the signal carries 59.94 frames of 1920x1080 each second. (This is not an ATSC format, but that's because it requires more bandwidth than over-the-air television transmission can provide.)
Sometimes 1080p means 1080/29.97p, which means 29.97 frames per second at 1920x1080. Nobody uses this format.
Most often, it means 1080/23.98p, which means 23.98 frames of 1920x1080 each second.
So not only is "1080p" a video standard and not a resolution, it's a righteously ambiguous one with two possible meanings. - streak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The reviewers seem to be out to lunch on progressive scan versus interlaced. The difference between 1080p and 1080i should be immediately apparent in scenes that contain a lot of action. But these guys didn't seem to even test action scenes. They saw the most striking differences in the appearance of a brick wall! If they didn't see any differences in the action scenes of MI3, then I would strongly suggest the program material was not being output interlaced like they thought. Progressive scan is best for sports (to avoid the jagged smearing of interlaced), and interlaced is best for stuff like scenery and dialogs (because it is almost indistinguishable from progressive scan while requiring just half the bandwidth). No digg.
- Cglass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Meh I'll take the loss, simply because Best Buy is offering:
Hitachi 51" CRT Rear-Projection HDTV - $699.99
http://www.blackfriday.info/item/1039
and
Westinghouse 32" LCD HDTV (Doorbuster Item: 5am - 12pm Only) - $479.99
http://www.blackfriday.info/item/977
on black friday. - msgyrd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Asplode is internet slang for explode. To "make your head asplode" is akin to "blowing your mind" or some other shocking revelation.
- Yage2006, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I can think of one good case for it. If you plug a PC to your screen you are going to want those extra lines. It helps the fonts icons and other small detail.
720p is fine more movies and most games though.
Anyway more is always better :) - rayman901, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I swear to god, I just spent $2500 on a 46" 1080p LCD HDTV a few hours ago. Dammit.
- cmdrNacho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I still don't understand any of this.. so the westinghouse at best buy for 500 what is that considered 720p ???? any help would be appreciated. thanks
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I would laugh at anyone dumb enough to rush out and buy a 1080P display to 'upgrade' from 720P. If you're buying a new TV then sure, try to get 1080P if you can afford it. Personally I would just buy a 720P display and save myself $500+ to buy a PS3 or 360 with. The only case where 1080P is worth the extra money is for serious technologists who want to say they have "THE BEST" and plan to invest a ton of money into a HD/BluRay collection. For the rest of us 720P is the best bang for your buck.
- hansamurai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The case should be made against 480i or 1080i if anything. Progressive is so much superior to interlaced it's not even funny.
- joemarus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2anon41414: You got it right, brother! There is a definite lack of understanding of what 1080p really means. 1080i is still 1920x1080, the same number of pixels as 1080p.
Another thing that is everyone seems to forget is that fixed-pixel displays (like plasma and LCD) always show a progressive picture. If you stick a 1080i signal into any LCD or plasma display, you will get a progressive picture. So if you have a 1920x1080 LCD or plasma, the picture on the screen will be, by definition, 1080p, no matter what came into the set. What really makes a difference is how well the set can de-interlace and up/down-convert input signals, be they 720p, 1080i, 480i, 1080p, or whatever.
Maybe it's just me, but a "1080p set" means that the set is capable of accepting a 1080p input signal and displaying it (at full resolution, hopefully). As there are almost no ways you can get pure 1080p input signals, the premium you pay for a "1080p set" is not worth it. Just look for a 1920x1080 pixel set. - goingstuckey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@MrUnderbridge
"Compare NFL games on Fox/ESPN/ABC (720p) to the games on NBC/CBS (1080i). When the camera pans quickly, the screen looks very jagged in 1080i, but looks fine in 720p."
I think it depends on what type of set you're viewing the game on. I have a very nice 1080i XBR Sony CRT HDTV, and 1080i looks just fine, even when they pan fast (are you watching the games on a 720p set?). Also, I don't like watching games on Fox/ABC because the resolution is noticeably lower. - lateralus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2an LCD tv that supports 1920x1080 resolution natively is still a hot commodity and therefore gets rightfully hyped and advertised. I don't think there's anything wrong with manufacturers putting these out instead of waiting on the broadcasters and DVD makers to figure their issues out. There's no reason for someone to own 10.2MP digital camera that I can think of, but they're here and they make the 5.0MP camera with the better lense cheaper for me to buy.
If anything it's helping further drive the prices down on 1024x768/1360x768 plasma's and lcd's, and that's not a bad thing. - DRawkus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The article is accurate in saying that the price you pay for 1080p isn't worth it today. Give it another year or so and the format and price will stabalize like HDMI did in 2006.
+digg - lateralus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Ever watch a HD Hockey game in 1080i? You'd be begging for 720p or 480p.
- mplex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There's one other big thing to consider, and that's is resolution for a computer hookup. Right now, with my 1360x768 40in LCD, I had to go to large fonts to make it readable and still be pixel perfect. Unless you are looking at a 50in+ TV and want to use a computer with it at times, plan on not being able to use the native resolution with the TV and still be able to read the text on the screen.
Also, we will not be seeing 1080p from broadcasters ever IMO. It took years to get the bandwidth situation for 720p and 1080i broadcasting over the air, nor do cable operators or satellite operators want to waste bandwidth on marginal quality improvements. The next big broadcast improvements will be something like 4320p. It takes four times the resolution to achieve twice perceived quality of video or still imagery. That's the reason your new 8MP camera images only look marginally better than a 4MP camera. To double the quality of a 4MP camera, you would need to go to 16MP.
To sum up, 1080p will look better than 1080i for MOTION, but 99% of people can tell the difference between 1080i and 720p as it is on a 1080p display. Hell, from what I've seen, most people have a hard time telling the difference between 480p DVDs and the new 1080p BluRay discs. Like the article said, color representation is far more important as is the built in resolution scaler. Many of the cheaper 1080p TVs may look great with 1080p, but look like crap at all lower resolutions due to poor scalers.
Good luck and beware of hype. - evilkat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Man the reviewer depresses me. The ONLY time you will ever see a difference between a 1080i image and the 1080p image is if the TV has a crappy deinterlacer. It's the SAME resolution. They should theoretically have the SAME detail, esp in the still image.
In practice however, when viewing, you might notice loss of detail during camera pans for instance, when the de-interlacer decides to drop some the resolution if it's crappy. - mcgirt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's not an LCD.
-
Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is