lsmd69
03-26-2005, 07:12 PM
This is a very simple question... Does anyone know when and where I can purchase a 1080P capable set. I need one pronto
 |
|
|||||||||||||
View Full Version : 1080P When ???
Ratman
03-26-2005, 07:18 PM
http://www.hdtvoice.com/voice/showthread.php?t=16869&highlight=1080p+discussion
TheAntMan
03-26-2005, 10:59 PM
I searched for a 1080p set, and came up with the sites Ratman posted above...
mjones73
03-27-2005, 01:24 AM
Just curious, why do you need a 1080p set pronto when there is no available 1080p source material...
gparris
03-27-2005, 12:03 PM
Pronto does not have a 1080p display on its panels... :rofl2:
lsmd69
03-27-2005, 05:40 PM
I want to be ready for the future....
eric gill
03-27-2005, 05:46 PM
hitachi has a 1080p set. lcd rear projection . very nice tv
chris0ne
03-28-2005, 01:32 AM
The new benQ sets are 1080p, there is a 37" and a 46" model shipping soon
akrover
03-28-2005, 05:27 PM
The new Sony Qualia 006 can do 1080p
chad1279
03-28-2005, 07:43 PM
This set doesn't display 1080p. It converts to 1080p internally then displays at 720p.
max
03-28-2005, 08:41 PM
The Qualia set by Sony Displays everything as 1080p, but it cannot except a 1080p signal.
It will take 480p, 720p and 1080i then convert it to 1080p and display it.
MAX,
It will take 480p, 720p and 1080i then convert it to 1080p and display it.
MAX,
TheAntMan
03-28-2005, 09:31 PM
well ismd...it seems you have many choices to choose from. Now you do know though, there is little to none 1080p broadcast signals correct (won't be for a long time)? You just want one that will upconvert and output at 1080p?
lsmd69
03-29-2005, 11:00 PM
thats right......I want something that will display in 1080p...I mean think about it 480p is good...720p is a big jump from that ....1080p should do the same....Whats the point of displaying in 1080p but able to receive a 1080p signal?? By the way, its LSMD
TheAntMan
03-29-2005, 11:12 PM
your premise sounds good LSMD.
raff
03-30-2005, 11:22 AM
thats right......I want something that will display in 1080p...I mean think about it 480p is good...720p is a big jump from that ....1080p should do the same....Whats the point of displaying in 1080p but able to receive a 1080p signal?? By the way, its LSMD
To be perfectly honest, I think this is futile. Please understand, I'm not bashing you at all, feel free to spend your money in any way you want. But buying a 1080P set for upconversion of current content will not enhance it, in fact it could prove disappointing.
For example, upconverted SD content (480i) is still going to look like SD content, but probably softer. A lot of people complain about their TV's upconverting 480i content to 1080i / 720P, so they leave it native or accept it on the S-Video connection and do not upconvert.
720P content is going to look its best (IMO) when it's sent directly to a native 720P set. No upconversion means no artifacts or fake content have to be inserted or realized.
1080i content will probably not change one bit. The biggest issue people have with 1080i is macro-blocking during fast motion. This won't change if you upconvert it to 1080P within your TV set. The macro-blocking is the result of limited transmission bandwidth and compression. Whether you look at it natively in 1080i or upconvert it to 1080P, the macro-blocking is still there.
And as stated earlier, nothing is broadcast in 1080P, and there is nothing on the horizon.
Just my opinion... I would rather see you spend your money on a good HDTV today, then get washed up in the hype of 1080P. Being an early adopter is not always fun... trust me!
To be perfectly honest, I think this is futile. Please understand, I'm not bashing you at all, feel free to spend your money in any way you want. But buying a 1080P set for upconversion of current content will not enhance it, in fact it could prove disappointing.
For example, upconverted SD content (480i) is still going to look like SD content, but probably softer. A lot of people complain about their TV's upconverting 480i content to 1080i / 720P, so they leave it native or accept it on the S-Video connection and do not upconvert.
720P content is going to look its best (IMO) when it's sent directly to a native 720P set. No upconversion means no artifacts or fake content have to be inserted or realized.
1080i content will probably not change one bit. The biggest issue people have with 1080i is macro-blocking during fast motion. This won't change if you upconvert it to 1080P within your TV set. The macro-blocking is the result of limited transmission bandwidth and compression. Whether you look at it natively in 1080i or upconvert it to 1080P, the macro-blocking is still there.
And as stated earlier, nothing is broadcast in 1080P, and there is nothing on the horizon.
Just my opinion... I would rather see you spend your money on a good HDTV today, then get washed up in the hype of 1080P. Being an early adopter is not always fun... trust me!
mjones73
03-30-2005, 11:50 AM
I'd have to second that, your going to spend a premium today for a 1080p set where you could enjoy something at a much more reasonable price today and worry about a 1080p set when we actually start having things to watch on them.
maximusII
04-01-2005, 12:03 AM
To be perfectly honest, I think this is futile. Please understand, I'm not bashing you at all, feel free to spend your money in any way you want. But buying a 1080P set for upconversion of current content will not enhance it, in fact it could prove disappointing.
For example, upconverted SD content (480i) is still going to look like SD content, but probably softer. A lot of people complain about their TV's upconverting 480i content to 1080i / 720P, so they leave it native or accept it on the S-Video connection and do not upconvert.
720P content is going to look its best (IMO) when it's sent directly to a native 720P set. No upconversion means no artifacts or fake content have to be inserted or realized.
1080i content will probably not change one bit. The biggest issue people have with 1080i is macro-blocking during fast motion. This won't change if you upconvert it to 1080P within your TV set. The macro-blocking is the result of limited transmission bandwidth and compression. Whether you look at it natively in 1080i or upconvert it to 1080P, the macro-blocking is still there.
And as stated earlier, nothing is broadcast in 1080P, and there is nothing on the horizon.
Just my opinion... I would rather see you spend your money on a good HDTV today, then get washed up in the hype of 1080P. Being an early adopter is not always fun... trust me!
Although I agree with your overall point I think you are way off on some of your statements;
But buying a 1080P set for upconversion of current content will not enhance it, in fact it could prove disappointing. The Qualia 006 has a superb scaler that will enhance ANY signal you feed it, just visit the owners thread on the AVS Forum for details. Yes the TV is 13K but considered cheap when compared to anything near its class, like LG's 71" 1080p plasma that runs a cool 75G...
720P content is going to look its best (IMO) when it's sent directly to a native 720P set. No upconversion means no artifacts or fake content have to be inserted or realized. Not always the case.
1080i content will probably not change one bit. The biggest issue people have with 1080i is macro-blocking during fast motion. This won't change if you upconvert it to 1080P within your TV set. The macro-blocking is the result of limited transmission bandwidth and compression. Whether you look at it natively in 1080i or upconvert it to 1080P, the macro-blocking is still there. This isn't as simple as 480i to 480p, there are very few if any 1080i sets with 2 million pixels however these 1080p sets will be the fullest HDTV resolution currently possible, a significant leap from todays 1080i sets IMO.
And as stated earlier, nothing is broadcast in 1080P, and there is nothing on the horizon.
Just my opinion... I would rather see you spend your money on a good HDTV today, then get washed up in the hype of 1080P. Being an early adopter is not always fun... trust me! Agreed, however there are 1080p sets coming this summer from Panasonic and Samsung for under 5K, essentially the same price as their current top 720p models.
For example, upconverted SD content (480i) is still going to look like SD content, but probably softer. A lot of people complain about their TV's upconverting 480i content to 1080i / 720P, so they leave it native or accept it on the S-Video connection and do not upconvert.
720P content is going to look its best (IMO) when it's sent directly to a native 720P set. No upconversion means no artifacts or fake content have to be inserted or realized.
1080i content will probably not change one bit. The biggest issue people have with 1080i is macro-blocking during fast motion. This won't change if you upconvert it to 1080P within your TV set. The macro-blocking is the result of limited transmission bandwidth and compression. Whether you look at it natively in 1080i or upconvert it to 1080P, the macro-blocking is still there.
And as stated earlier, nothing is broadcast in 1080P, and there is nothing on the horizon.
Just my opinion... I would rather see you spend your money on a good HDTV today, then get washed up in the hype of 1080P. Being an early adopter is not always fun... trust me!
Although I agree with your overall point I think you are way off on some of your statements;
But buying a 1080P set for upconversion of current content will not enhance it, in fact it could prove disappointing. The Qualia 006 has a superb scaler that will enhance ANY signal you feed it, just visit the owners thread on the AVS Forum for details. Yes the TV is 13K but considered cheap when compared to anything near its class, like LG's 71" 1080p plasma that runs a cool 75G...
720P content is going to look its best (IMO) when it's sent directly to a native 720P set. No upconversion means no artifacts or fake content have to be inserted or realized. Not always the case.
1080i content will probably not change one bit. The biggest issue people have with 1080i is macro-blocking during fast motion. This won't change if you upconvert it to 1080P within your TV set. The macro-blocking is the result of limited transmission bandwidth and compression. Whether you look at it natively in 1080i or upconvert it to 1080P, the macro-blocking is still there. This isn't as simple as 480i to 480p, there are very few if any 1080i sets with 2 million pixels however these 1080p sets will be the fullest HDTV resolution currently possible, a significant leap from todays 1080i sets IMO.
And as stated earlier, nothing is broadcast in 1080P, and there is nothing on the horizon.
Just my opinion... I would rather see you spend your money on a good HDTV today, then get washed up in the hype of 1080P. Being an early adopter is not always fun... trust me! Agreed, however there are 1080p sets coming this summer from Panasonic and Samsung for under 5K, essentially the same price as their current top 720p models.
maximusII
04-01-2005, 12:10 AM
I want to be ready for the future....
IMO this is smart, not futile at all... :)
IMO this is smart, not futile at all... :)
Rich
04-01-2005, 01:06 AM
How are you ready for the future if your "1080p" set will not accept a 1080p signal? When 1080p source material becomes available, you will have to downconvert it to 720p and then have the tv upconvert it to psuedo 1080p. This would drive me nuts. Personally, I would not buy a 1080p set that would not accept a 1080p signal.
jmc98
04-01-2005, 01:15 AM
toshiba will have a 1080p set later this year do not know price
raff
04-01-2005, 01:27 AM
The Qualia 006 has a superb scaler that will enhance ANY signal you feed it, just visit the owners thread on the AVS Forum for details. Yes the TV is 13K but considered cheap when compared to anything near its class, like LG's 71" 1080p plasma that runs a cool 75G...
We are not discussing 13K-75K tv's here. Also, I don't think the Qualia will accept a 1080P signal, I'm not positive on this.
720P content is going to look its best (IMO) when it's sent directly to a native 720P set. No upconversion means no artifacts or fake content have to be inserted or realized. Not always the case.
Please elaborate.
1080i content will probably not change one bit. The biggest issue people have with 1080i is macro-blocking during fast motion. This won't change if you upconvert it to 1080P within your TV set. The macro-blocking is the result of limited transmission bandwidth and compression. Whether you look at it natively in 1080i or upconvert it to 1080P, the macro-blocking is still there. This isn't as simple as 480i to 480p, there are very few if any 1080i sets with 2 million pixels however these 1080p sets will be the fullest HDTV resolution currently possible, a significant leap from todays 1080i sets IMO.
This has nothing to do with 480i to 480P and they can not be used as a reference since one is SD and one is ED.
This is an arguement that macro-blocking will not be better on a 1080P set, since the issue is not with the 1080i display but with compression and transmission bandwidth.
And as stated earlier, nothing is broadcast in 1080P, and there is nothing on the horizon.
Just my opinion... I would rather see you spend your money on a good HDTV today, then get washed up in the hype of 1080P. Being an early adopter is not always fun... trust me! Agreed, however there are 1080p sets coming this summer from Panasonic and Samsung for under 5K, essentially the same price as their current top 720p models.
True... Sets that can not accept a 1080P signal, only upconvert internally. How good will that be? Time will tell.
We are not discussing 13K-75K tv's here. Also, I don't think the Qualia will accept a 1080P signal, I'm not positive on this.
720P content is going to look its best (IMO) when it's sent directly to a native 720P set. No upconversion means no artifacts or fake content have to be inserted or realized. Not always the case.
Please elaborate.
1080i content will probably not change one bit. The biggest issue people have with 1080i is macro-blocking during fast motion. This won't change if you upconvert it to 1080P within your TV set. The macro-blocking is the result of limited transmission bandwidth and compression. Whether you look at it natively in 1080i or upconvert it to 1080P, the macro-blocking is still there. This isn't as simple as 480i to 480p, there are very few if any 1080i sets with 2 million pixels however these 1080p sets will be the fullest HDTV resolution currently possible, a significant leap from todays 1080i sets IMO.
This has nothing to do with 480i to 480P and they can not be used as a reference since one is SD and one is ED.
This is an arguement that macro-blocking will not be better on a 1080P set, since the issue is not with the 1080i display but with compression and transmission bandwidth.
And as stated earlier, nothing is broadcast in 1080P, and there is nothing on the horizon.
Just my opinion... I would rather see you spend your money on a good HDTV today, then get washed up in the hype of 1080P. Being an early adopter is not always fun... trust me! Agreed, however there are 1080p sets coming this summer from Panasonic and Samsung for under 5K, essentially the same price as their current top 720p models.
True... Sets that can not accept a 1080P signal, only upconvert internally. How good will that be? Time will tell.
strangersonmyflight
04-01-2005, 02:05 AM
I guess if sheer size isn't your foremost requirement, you can always peruse the computer monitor alternative. It is quite certainly expensive for the size, but you'll be far, far ahead when it comes to accuracy and true to spec performance.
As an example, consider the Apple 30" Cinema Display. You get your widescreen profile and a whopping 2560x1600 native resolution which will pretty much cover you on any HD format for some time, not to mention nearly any HD format to potentially be created in the future. HD of this time could not do it justice, imo. It's not exactly big as far as HDTV's go, but you are nearly assured of superior performance within that size for any material you ever care to feed it for a very long time into the future (unless they come out with a bigger model next year, of course, but damn!).
As an example, consider the Apple 30" Cinema Display. You get your widescreen profile and a whopping 2560x1600 native resolution which will pretty much cover you on any HD format for some time, not to mention nearly any HD format to potentially be created in the future. HD of this time could not do it justice, imo. It's not exactly big as far as HDTV's go, but you are nearly assured of superior performance within that size for any material you ever care to feed it for a very long time into the future (unless they come out with a bigger model next year, of course, but damn!).
Rich
04-01-2005, 11:28 PM
Yeah, that Apple display is something.
A question though. 1080p is, in my understanding, already one of the ATSC standards. All of the ATSC tuners say they can accept all of the ATSC standards. Therefore, if the new 1080p sets have atsc tuners, they already can accept true 1080p. Why would they be unable to display this without first downconverting it to 720p or 1080i, and then upconverting it to psuedo 1080p. This does not make any sense. Maybe these sets really can accept and display a real 1080p signal.
Or am I missing something?
A question though. 1080p is, in my understanding, already one of the ATSC standards. All of the ATSC tuners say they can accept all of the ATSC standards. Therefore, if the new 1080p sets have atsc tuners, they already can accept true 1080p. Why would they be unable to display this without first downconverting it to 720p or 1080i, and then upconverting it to psuedo 1080p. This does not make any sense. Maybe these sets really can accept and display a real 1080p signal.
Or am I missing something?
strangersonmyflight
04-02-2005, 12:05 AM
It's a long story...I'm sure one of the mods can point you to the relevant topic or explain it to their satisfaction.
raff
04-02-2005, 02:03 AM
Yeah, that Apple display is something.
A question though. 1080p is, in my understanding, already one of the ATSC standards. All of the ATSC tuners say they can accept all of the ATSC standards. Therefore, if the new 1080p sets have atsc tuners, they already can accept true 1080p. Why would they be unable to display this without first downconverting it to 720p or 1080i, and then upconverting it to psuedo 1080p. This does not make any sense. Maybe these sets really can accept and display a real 1080p signal.
Or am I missing something?
1080P is one of the standards, but no existing (home grade) ATSC tuner claims they can decode ALL of the resolutions. If you look at the specs of any tuner they will state which resolutions they can decode, usually 480i, 480P, 720P, 1080i. Remember, the operative word here is existing tuners. My DST-3000 is 4 years old. When it was made, 1080P was never even discussed.
Most of the new 1080P sets do not have internal tuners, and can only accept up to a 1080i signal. They then internally scale it to 1080P.
A question though. 1080p is, in my understanding, already one of the ATSC standards. All of the ATSC tuners say they can accept all of the ATSC standards. Therefore, if the new 1080p sets have atsc tuners, they already can accept true 1080p. Why would they be unable to display this without first downconverting it to 720p or 1080i, and then upconverting it to psuedo 1080p. This does not make any sense. Maybe these sets really can accept and display a real 1080p signal.
Or am I missing something?
1080P is one of the standards, but no existing (home grade) ATSC tuner claims they can decode ALL of the resolutions. If you look at the specs of any tuner they will state which resolutions they can decode, usually 480i, 480P, 720P, 1080i. Remember, the operative word here is existing tuners. My DST-3000 is 4 years old. When it was made, 1080P was never even discussed.
Most of the new 1080P sets do not have internal tuners, and can only accept up to a 1080i signal. They then internally scale it to 1080P.
maximusII
04-02-2005, 04:43 PM
We are not discussing 13K-75K tv's here. Also, I don't think the Qualia will accept a 1080P signal, I'm not positive on this.
Please elaborate.
This has nothing to do with 480i to 480P and they can not be used as a reference since one is SD and one is ED.
This is an arguement that macro-blocking will not be better on a 1080P set, since the issue is not with the 1080i display but with compression and transmission bandwidth.
True... Sets that can not accept a 1080P signal, only upconvert internally. How good will that be? Time will tell.
We are discussing 1080p TVs, actually price is moot...
I do think a 1080p TV that will not accept a 1080p signal is puzzling to say the least. There may be reasons for this such as the HDMI spec which has changed 3 or more times(v0.9 to 1.2...)since its introduction a short time ago, whatever the reason it's a sad excuse.
In theory a 720p signal to a 720p display is the best way to go, however if you've spent any time on these forums you know that in many cases a 1080i signal sent to a 720p display results in a better picture, TV's internal scaler vs. STB scaler I guess...now if you're talking a "pure" 720p signal (OTA perhaps?) received by your set yeah but what percentage of people get this? under 5%?
The general response to the original post seems to be that 1080p sets are not a good investment at this time, I happen to disagree. There is no such thing in this game as future-proofing however a 1080p display acquired at a personally acceptable cost is IMO the best you can do these days. 720p displays (under 1 million pixels) are barely HD in my opinion, and so are the 1 to 1.5 million pixel 1080i displays that are mainstream right now. A 1080p set isn't just a switch to progressive, it's significantly more pixels to look at.
And when 1080p source becomes available around the end of this year you will see the full benefit these sets have to offer.
Maybe I'm wrong but I'm not one of those people who think 1 to 1.5 million pixels is good enough and our eyes will need 65" displays or bigger to see the difference of full 1080p HDTV.
I also think 1080p broadcast will happen and sooner rather than later, (Speculation)Once Mark Cuban or ESPN, who have been acquiring 1080p cameras, start showing 1080p broadcast then others will follow suit they will have no choice IMO. Time will tell...
Supposing I want to buy Panasonic's 60" LCD 1080p RPTV for $4999 in June, I will be set for BD/HD DVDs arrival and my 1080i/720p broadcast will be upconverted. That IS preparing for the future as well as I can within my budget and certainly makes more sense than picking up a 4K 720p set now.
Will it remove macro-blocking? No. Will I be getting the best HDTV has to offer overall? Yes. Will SD and DVD look way better, that depends on the scaler, which is why I brought up the Qualia 006 in the first place.
People seem to think there is no point to a 1080p display if there is no 1080p source. I'm trying to say there is a point, 1080p(displays) are here and can be affordable and they are much better than 1080i/720p offerings not just in terms of resolution (no screen door effect, closer viewing distance for better immersion and so on). Should you buy a 1080p set that costs twice as much as a 720p set? No, I've tried to point out that it won't have to cost much more for an advanced set. Naturally of course source will follow...
It is my belief that All HDTV's over a certain size will soon be 1080p, so why step backwards? Do you really think we'll be stuck with 1080p displays and no matching signal for years and years to come? I don't...
Please elaborate.
This has nothing to do with 480i to 480P and they can not be used as a reference since one is SD and one is ED.
This is an arguement that macro-blocking will not be better on a 1080P set, since the issue is not with the 1080i display but with compression and transmission bandwidth.
True... Sets that can not accept a 1080P signal, only upconvert internally. How good will that be? Time will tell.
We are discussing 1080p TVs, actually price is moot...
I do think a 1080p TV that will not accept a 1080p signal is puzzling to say the least. There may be reasons for this such as the HDMI spec which has changed 3 or more times(v0.9 to 1.2...)since its introduction a short time ago, whatever the reason it's a sad excuse.
In theory a 720p signal to a 720p display is the best way to go, however if you've spent any time on these forums you know that in many cases a 1080i signal sent to a 720p display results in a better picture, TV's internal scaler vs. STB scaler I guess...now if you're talking a "pure" 720p signal (OTA perhaps?) received by your set yeah but what percentage of people get this? under 5%?
The general response to the original post seems to be that 1080p sets are not a good investment at this time, I happen to disagree. There is no such thing in this game as future-proofing however a 1080p display acquired at a personally acceptable cost is IMO the best you can do these days. 720p displays (under 1 million pixels) are barely HD in my opinion, and so are the 1 to 1.5 million pixel 1080i displays that are mainstream right now. A 1080p set isn't just a switch to progressive, it's significantly more pixels to look at.
And when 1080p source becomes available around the end of this year you will see the full benefit these sets have to offer.
Maybe I'm wrong but I'm not one of those people who think 1 to 1.5 million pixels is good enough and our eyes will need 65" displays or bigger to see the difference of full 1080p HDTV.
I also think 1080p broadcast will happen and sooner rather than later, (Speculation)Once Mark Cuban or ESPN, who have been acquiring 1080p cameras, start showing 1080p broadcast then others will follow suit they will have no choice IMO. Time will tell...
Supposing I want to buy Panasonic's 60" LCD 1080p RPTV for $4999 in June, I will be set for BD/HD DVDs arrival and my 1080i/720p broadcast will be upconverted. That IS preparing for the future as well as I can within my budget and certainly makes more sense than picking up a 4K 720p set now.
Will it remove macro-blocking? No. Will I be getting the best HDTV has to offer overall? Yes. Will SD and DVD look way better, that depends on the scaler, which is why I brought up the Qualia 006 in the first place.
People seem to think there is no point to a 1080p display if there is no 1080p source. I'm trying to say there is a point, 1080p(displays) are here and can be affordable and they are much better than 1080i/720p offerings not just in terms of resolution (no screen door effect, closer viewing distance for better immersion and so on). Should you buy a 1080p set that costs twice as much as a 720p set? No, I've tried to point out that it won't have to cost much more for an advanced set. Naturally of course source will follow...
It is my belief that All HDTV's over a certain size will soon be 1080p, so why step backwards? Do you really think we'll be stuck with 1080p displays and no matching signal for years and years to come? I don't...
maximusII
04-02-2005, 04:48 PM
1080P is one of the standards, but no existing (home grade) ATSC tuner claims they can decode ALL of the resolutions. If you look at the specs of any tuner they will state which resolutions they can decode, usually 480i, 480P, 720P, 1080i. Remember, the operative word here is existing tuners. My DST-3000 is 4 years old. When it was made, 1080P was never even discussed.
Most of the new 1080P sets do not have internal tuners, and can only accept up to a 1080i signal. They then internally scale it to 1080P.
This is something I've been wondering about myself, according to this forum all ATSC tuners (regardless of age) are required by law to receive ALL 18 ATSC formats, yet do we actually know if they will receive a 1080p signal?
Most of the new 1080P sets do not have internal tuners, and can only accept up to a 1080i signal. They then internally scale it to 1080P.
This is something I've been wondering about myself, according to this forum all ATSC tuners (regardless of age) are required by law to receive ALL 18 ATSC formats, yet do we actually know if they will receive a 1080p signal?
Ratman
04-02-2005, 04:57 PM
This is something I've been wondering about myself, according to this forum all ATSC tuners (regardless of age) are required by law to receive ALL 18 ATSC formats, yet do we actually know if they will receive a 1080p signal?
Yes they will...
The conundrum is that there are no 'broadcasted' 1080p signals therefore an ATSC can receive it, but if it's not broadcasted (yet?), moot.
No receivers, DVD players, STB's, etc output a native 1080p video signal, moot.
So, what can a 1080p capable TV provide? A deinterlaced 1080i signal to 1080p for display.
Just like a progressive scan DVD player performs for 480i DVD's.
Yes they will...
The conundrum is that there are no 'broadcasted' 1080p signals therefore an ATSC can receive it, but if it's not broadcasted (yet?), moot.
No receivers, DVD players, STB's, etc output a native 1080p video signal, moot.
So, what can a 1080p capable TV provide? A deinterlaced 1080i signal to 1080p for display.
Just like a progressive scan DVD player performs for 480i DVD's.
maximusII
04-02-2005, 05:01 PM
Yes they will...
The conundrum is that there are no 'broadcasted' 1080p signals therefore an ATSC can receive it, but if it's not broadcasted (yet?), moot.
Thank you
The conundrum is that there are no 'broadcasted' 1080p signals therefore an ATSC can receive it, but if it's not broadcasted (yet?), moot.
Thank you
Rich
04-02-2005, 06:28 PM
Ratman said: "So, what can a 1080p capable TV provide? A deinterlaced 1080i signal to 1080p for display."
But if it has a tuner that will accept 1080p (as all atsc tuners supposedly do) why would it be unable to deliver the signal to the display circuitry without first interlacing it and then deinterlacing it? I know my stb will not output 1080p, but why would a atsc tuner in a 1080p set not output true 1080p? That was my question.
But if it has a tuner that will accept 1080p (as all atsc tuners supposedly do) why would it be unable to deliver the signal to the display circuitry without first interlacing it and then deinterlacing it? I know my stb will not output 1080p, but why would a atsc tuner in a 1080p set not output true 1080p? That was my question.
Ratman
04-02-2005, 08:57 PM
You've missed the point of the previous comments...
There are no 1080p sources...
Even though the "TUNER" is a 1080p capable ATSC receiver (based on the standards), if there's no programming, moot point.
Now... AFAIK, none of the 1080p capable (supposedly) TV's will accept a 1080p native signal (as most today don't accept a native 720p signal) on any of the "inputs" either.
Although, this is exclusive of the capabilities of the an ATSC tuner.
Therefore... no 1080p source material, non issue.
As stated earlier, today's 1080p sets can be equated to a progressive scan DVD player.
There are no 1080p sources...
Even though the "TUNER" is a 1080p capable ATSC receiver (based on the standards), if there's no programming, moot point.
Now... AFAIK, none of the 1080p capable (supposedly) TV's will accept a 1080p native signal (as most today don't accept a native 720p signal) on any of the "inputs" either.
Although, this is exclusive of the capabilities of the an ATSC tuner.
Therefore... no 1080p source material, non issue.
As stated earlier, today's 1080p sets can be equated to a progressive scan DVD player.
gparris
04-02-2005, 09:21 PM
I think Ratman is right...nothing exists on disc, tape or transmission for 1080p but the concept of taking the 480i/p, 720p and 1080i and upconverting like a progressive scan DVD player to 1080p is great.
Additionally, these sets that do display the 1920 x 1080 must do a fantastic job, but again who/what actually "transmits" full HD?
I hear stories about "HD Lite" (D*) and wonder why even bother buying a set that does display it all when this happens...
720p or 1080i are great as HD by definition-pun intended-but most transmissions (cable, satellite, OTA) are probably less that 2 million pixels..am I right on this?
Additionally, these sets that do display the 1920 x 1080 must do a fantastic job, but again who/what actually "transmits" full HD?
I hear stories about "HD Lite" (D*) and wonder why even bother buying a set that does display it all when this happens...
720p or 1080i are great as HD by definition-pun intended-but most transmissions (cable, satellite, OTA) are probably less that 2 million pixels..am I right on this?
maximusII
04-02-2005, 10:16 PM
Additionally, these sets that do display the 1920 x 1080 must do a fantastic job, but again who/what actually "transmits" full HD?
I hear stories about "HD Lite" (D*) and wonder why even bother buying a set that does display it all when this happens...
720p or 1080i are great as HD by definition-pun intended-but most transmissions (cable, satellite, OTA) are probably less that 2 million pixels..am I right on this?
That is a great point, broadcast-wise who knows what they are sending out; 1080 x 1920 or 1080 x 1440...perhaps that's one of the reasons DVHS looks "the best", AFAIK it's a full 1080 x 1920 video signal, if that's the case there are very few 1080i displays that are showing it's full resolution.
I hear stories about "HD Lite" (D*) and wonder why even bother buying a set that does display it all when this happens...
720p or 1080i are great as HD by definition-pun intended-but most transmissions (cable, satellite, OTA) are probably less that 2 million pixels..am I right on this?
That is a great point, broadcast-wise who knows what they are sending out; 1080 x 1920 or 1080 x 1440...perhaps that's one of the reasons DVHS looks "the best", AFAIK it's a full 1080 x 1920 video signal, if that's the case there are very few 1080i displays that are showing it's full resolution.
strangersonmyflight
04-03-2005, 12:10 AM
Yes, I agree it is a good point.
If it were possible to get the networks, satellites, cable, etc to cite their bitrate and typical compression factor (rather than resolution and HD/SD) as saleable points, that would be a spec's race that would actually benefit the consumers for once. We need some quality standards for the industry to encourage true high performance video.
If it were possible to get the networks, satellites, cable, etc to cite their bitrate and typical compression factor (rather than resolution and HD/SD) as saleable points, that would be a spec's race that would actually benefit the consumers for once. We need some quality standards for the industry to encourage true high performance video.
Matt27
04-03-2005, 12:46 AM
I guess we will have to wait for HD DVD and or Blu-Ray.
strangersonmyflight
04-03-2005, 01:28 AM
Is there word yet on what resolutions HD-DVD/BR will present movies in?
Matt27
04-03-2005, 01:35 AM
Not sure yet, but they should look a lot better compared to HD broadcasts on tv, because the signal is coming directly from the dvd player to the tv.
Blu-ray has an advantage with the extra storage space, if they can go as high as they can with the bitrate of the picture quality, and still have plenty of room for HQ Audio and some extra's then that would be really cool.
They probably already thought about it though...But that alone would look really good PQ wise.
Blu-ray has an advantage with the extra storage space, if they can go as high as they can with the bitrate of the picture quality, and still have plenty of room for HQ Audio and some extra's then that would be really cool.
They probably already thought about it though...But that alone would look really good PQ wise.
strangersonmyflight
04-03-2005, 01:49 AM
I submit that the bitrate should be superior on the disc format, as well, and that should be in large part where the quality comes from, rather than if it is "direct to the tv" or not.
Matt27
04-03-2005, 03:18 AM
Just checked www.ign.com and they say the resolution for both formats should be 1920 x 1080 at 36mps. pretty impressive.And both will use mpeg2 and mpeg4.
And your right the bitrate determines the actual quality.I'm just trying to say the HD would look better because of the media on a disc, compared to getting it over the air.
And your right the bitrate determines the actual quality.I'm just trying to say the HD would look better because of the media on a disc, compared to getting it over the air.
strangersonmyflight
04-03-2005, 03:52 AM
Whatsa "mps"?
Matt27
04-03-2005, 03:58 AM
megabytes per second or is it mbs?
strangersonmyflight
04-03-2005, 04:28 AM
That would be MB/s- highly unlikely, nonetheless.
raff
04-03-2005, 04:30 AM
It's Megabits per Second.
strangersonmyflight
04-03-2005, 04:35 AM
Congratulations! I just wanted to make sure he didn't get April Fooled.
Matt27
04-03-2005, 05:45 AM
Nah already got fooled last night.I went to open my door in my room and on the other side of the door handle it was covered in peanut butter.
My ******* brother knew i had to wash my hands next so he taped the water sprayer in the kitchen sink so when i go to turn the water on i got sprayed in the face.lol
*******.lol
I got him back though when he got a soda it sprayed in his face.lol
My ******* brother knew i had to wash my hands next so he taped the water sprayer in the kitchen sink so when i go to turn the water on i got sprayed in the face.lol
*******.lol
I got him back though when he got a soda it sprayed in his face.lol
gparris
04-03-2005, 03:07 PM
I have checked and checked and nowhere does the HD DVD or BluRay Disc (BD) group indicate the 1080p so I will assume it will be 720p/1080i...and the 1080p unconverting sets that output all 2 million plus pixels will get a much-needed "workout".
Matt27
04-03-2005, 04:25 PM
That's what i think too gparris... I think they will both be 1080i/720p too.
Not so sure about 1080p since hardly any equipment support it.
Not so sure about 1080p since hardly any equipment support it.
jco
04-03-2005, 06:31 PM
This entire discussion thread is flawed in that it keeps reffering to "1080P" which is vague because the frame rate is critical and not specified. 1080P/30 and 180p/24 ARE supported by ATSC but are NOT being used by any broadcasters because they are essentially inferior to 1080i/60 with 24FPS motion pictures. The 720p format that IS being used by broadcasters now is 720p/60 so if you want to upgrade THAT to 1080P then we would be talking about a 1080P/60 format which is NOT a ATSC format and most likely will not be available for many years via broadcasts, at least OTA broadcasts which are pretty much "locked in" to ATSC for the near future.
Secondly these new sets which are converting 1080i/60 to progressive display is not the same as what a true 1080p/60 signal and display would look like under all conditions, it would be inferior in some cases.
Secondly these new sets which are converting 1080i/60 to progressive display is not the same as what a true 1080p/60 signal and display would look like under all conditions, it would be inferior in some cases.
maximusII
04-03-2005, 06:39 PM
From Blu-raydisc.com (http://www.blu-raydisc.com/Section-13627/Index.html)
Video highlights
The BD-ROM format for movie distribution supports three highly advanced video codecs, including MPEG-2, so an author can choose the most suitable one for a particular application. All codecs are industry standards, meaning easy integration with existing authoring tools, and choice from wide range of encoding solutions. All consumer video resolutions are available:
- 1920 x 1080 HD (50i, 60i and 24p)
- 1280 x 720 HD (50p, 60p and 24p)
- 720 x 576/480 SD (50i or 60i)
The format supports 1080p/24, this is fact, so does HD DVD.
Whether or not any studio's will use it, time will tell.
Saying they are not 1080p is inaccurate, assurances from Richard Doherty at Panasonics BD lab indicate they will be of the highest quality possible which means 1080p/24 at up to 40 Mbps(MPEG2) or 1080p/24 at 15-20Mbps(MPEG4 AVC HP/VC-1). Richard Doherty also stated that with the advanced codecs(MPEG4/VC-1) once you get past a certain Mbps the quality remains the same, so a figure of around 20Mbps(approx.) is all that's needed.
Video highlights
The BD-ROM format for movie distribution supports three highly advanced video codecs, including MPEG-2, so an author can choose the most suitable one for a particular application. All codecs are industry standards, meaning easy integration with existing authoring tools, and choice from wide range of encoding solutions. All consumer video resolutions are available:
- 1920 x 1080 HD (50i, 60i and 24p)
- 1280 x 720 HD (50p, 60p and 24p)
- 720 x 576/480 SD (50i or 60i)
The format supports 1080p/24, this is fact, so does HD DVD.
Whether or not any studio's will use it, time will tell.
Saying they are not 1080p is inaccurate, assurances from Richard Doherty at Panasonics BD lab indicate they will be of the highest quality possible which means 1080p/24 at up to 40 Mbps(MPEG2) or 1080p/24 at 15-20Mbps(MPEG4 AVC HP/VC-1). Richard Doherty also stated that with the advanced codecs(MPEG4/VC-1) once you get past a certain Mbps the quality remains the same, so a figure of around 20Mbps(approx.) is all that's needed.
maximusII
04-03-2005, 06:46 PM
This entire discussion thread is flawed in that it keeps reffering to "1080P" which is vague because the frame rate is critical and not specified. 1080P/30 and 180p/24 ARE supported by ATSC but are NOT being used by any broadcasters because they are essentially inferior to 1080i/60 with 24FPS motion pictures. The 720p format that IS being used by broadcasters now is 720p/60 so if you want to upgrade THAT to 1080P then we would be talking about a 1080P/60 format which is NOT a ATSC format and most likely will not be available for many years via broadcasts, at least OTA broadcasts which are pretty much "locked in" to ATSC for the near future.
Secondly these new sets which are converting 1080i/60 to progressive display is not the same as what a true 1080p/60 signal and display would look like under all conditions, it would be inferior in some cases.
Films currently mastered in HD are done at 1080p/24, therefore the BD/HD DVD consumer machines will not need the 3:2 pulldown cadence. The results will be stunning PQ if a studio cares...
1080p/60 although the pinnacle of our HD system is NOT an ATSC Standard therefore it is MOOT...
Secondly these new sets which are converting 1080i/60 to progressive display is not the same as what a true 1080p/60 signal and display would look like under all conditions, it would be inferior in some cases.
Films currently mastered in HD are done at 1080p/24, therefore the BD/HD DVD consumer machines will not need the 3:2 pulldown cadence. The results will be stunning PQ if a studio cares...
1080p/60 although the pinnacle of our HD system is NOT an ATSC Standard therefore it is MOOT...
jco
04-03-2005, 06:52 PM
From Blu-raydisc.com (http://www.blu-raydisc.com/Section-13627/Index.html)
The format supports 1080p/24, this is fact, so does HD DVD.
Whether or not any studio's will use it, time will tell.
Saying they are not 1080p is inaccurate, assurances from Richard Doherty at Panasonics BD lab indicate they will be of the highest quality possible which means 1080p/24 at up to 40 Mbps(MPEG2) or 1080p/24 at 15-20Mbps(MPEG4 AVC HP/VC-1). Richard Doherty also stated that with the advanced codecs(MPEG4/VC-1) once you get past a certain Mbps the quality remains the same, so a figure of around 20Mbps(approx.) is all that's needed.
I never stated 1080/24 wasnt 1080p but just talking about 1080p without reffering to the frame rate is meaningless when discussing diplay formats, ATSC formats, even HD-DVD formats because the frame rate effects what is possible and what the quality will be.
Secondly,
1080p/24 is fine for motion pictures shot at 24FPS but is insufficient for smoothest fastest motion on things NOT shot on 24fps film. Thats why the popular 720P format being used NOW is 720p/60. If 24 was sufficient for fast motion the xxxP/60 formats wouldnt exist! They would be 720P/24.
It has been proven in the past that 24FPS motion pictures do NOT display fast motion
as smoothly and naturally as 30 or 60 FPS do.
JCO
The format supports 1080p/24, this is fact, so does HD DVD.
Whether or not any studio's will use it, time will tell.
Saying they are not 1080p is inaccurate, assurances from Richard Doherty at Panasonics BD lab indicate they will be of the highest quality possible which means 1080p/24 at up to 40 Mbps(MPEG2) or 1080p/24 at 15-20Mbps(MPEG4 AVC HP/VC-1). Richard Doherty also stated that with the advanced codecs(MPEG4/VC-1) once you get past a certain Mbps the quality remains the same, so a figure of around 20Mbps(approx.) is all that's needed.
I never stated 1080/24 wasnt 1080p but just talking about 1080p without reffering to the frame rate is meaningless when discussing diplay formats, ATSC formats, even HD-DVD formats because the frame rate effects what is possible and what the quality will be.
Secondly,
1080p/24 is fine for motion pictures shot at 24FPS but is insufficient for smoothest fastest motion on things NOT shot on 24fps film. Thats why the popular 720P format being used NOW is 720p/60. If 24 was sufficient for fast motion the xxxP/60 formats wouldnt exist! They would be 720P/24.
It has been proven in the past that 24FPS motion pictures do NOT display fast motion
as smoothly and naturally as 30 or 60 FPS do.
JCO
maximusII
04-03-2005, 06:56 PM
I never stated 1080/24 wasnt 1080p but just talking about 1080p without reffering to the frame rate is meaningless when discussing diplay formats, ATSC formats, even HD-DVD formats because the frame rate effects what is possible and what the quality will be.
Secondly,
1080p/24 is fine for motion pictures shot at 24FPS but is insufficient for smoothest fastest motion on things NOT shot on 24fps film. Thats why the popular 720P format being used NOW is 720p/60. If 24 was sufficient for fast motion the xxxP/60 formats wouldnt exist! They would be 720P/24.
It has been proven in the past that 24FPS motion pictures do NOT display fast motion
as smoothly and naturally as 30 or 60 FPS do.
JCO
Hey, we ALL want 1080p/60, and BD-ROM for one may even include this in the spec before it's released. Sadly, I seriously doubt that will happen.
Secondly,
1080p/24 is fine for motion pictures shot at 24FPS but is insufficient for smoothest fastest motion on things NOT shot on 24fps film. Thats why the popular 720P format being used NOW is 720p/60. If 24 was sufficient for fast motion the xxxP/60 formats wouldnt exist! They would be 720P/24.
It has been proven in the past that 24FPS motion pictures do NOT display fast motion
as smoothly and naturally as 30 or 60 FPS do.
JCO
Hey, we ALL want 1080p/60, and BD-ROM for one may even include this in the spec before it's released. Sadly, I seriously doubt that will happen.
jco
04-03-2005, 07:00 PM
Films currently mastered in HD are done at 1080p/24, therefore the BD/HD DVD consumer machines will not need the 3:2 pulldown cadence. The results will be stunning PQ if a studio cares...
1080p/60 although the pinnacle of our HD system is NOT an ATSC Standard therefore it is MOOT...
The framerate IS critical and 1080p/60 is NOT a moot issue. When people generically ask about "when 1080p"? they are obviously asking about an UPGRADE from 720p/60 and 1080i/60 signal formats currently in use and the upgrade from that in terms of PQ would only be 1080p/60 nothing less. To display 1080p/30 to 1080p/24 IS ALREADY POSSIBLE with specially coded ( correlated fields) 1080i broadcasts so that isnt an upgrade. ONLY 1080P/60 signal format (or better, 1080+P/60+) would be a true upgrade from 720P/60 & 1080i/60 signal formats in usage now.
JCO
1080p/60 although the pinnacle of our HD system is NOT an ATSC Standard therefore it is MOOT...
The framerate IS critical and 1080p/60 is NOT a moot issue. When people generically ask about "when 1080p"? they are obviously asking about an UPGRADE from 720p/60 and 1080i/60 signal formats currently in use and the upgrade from that in terms of PQ would only be 1080p/60 nothing less. To display 1080p/30 to 1080p/24 IS ALREADY POSSIBLE with specially coded ( correlated fields) 1080i broadcasts so that isnt an upgrade. ONLY 1080P/60 signal format (or better, 1080+P/60+) would be a true upgrade from 720P/60 & 1080i/60 signal formats in usage now.
JCO
HDFiend
04-04-2005, 06:01 PM
PCs can outpt 1080p resolution, so it would be nice for one of these so-called 1080p sets to handle incoming 1080p signals. I couldn't even imagine how cool T2 would look on a 70 inch screen in HD!
Matt27
04-04-2005, 11:49 PM
I'm with you dude, that would be really cool:)
Razor8
04-05-2005, 04:39 PM
I think waiting as long as you can is a very smart thing. It allows specific issues to be addressed as well as providing time for the technologies to advance/improve. I don't think its going to be long before the xHD3 and HD4 models hit the market. You know that if these DMDs are close to market then imagine what they're working on now! Plus after the 1080p models are here one can always weigh the advantages/disadvantages at that time. In the meantime prices will continue to drop. Sound thinking in my opinion. Razor
tonelocdog
04-05-2005, 11:32 PM
This entire discussion thread is flawed in that it keeps reffering to "1080P" which is vague because the frame rate is critical and not specified. 1080P/30 and 180p/24 ARE supported by ATSC but are NOT being used by any broadcasters because they are essentially inferior to 1080i/60 with 24FPS motion pictures. The 720p format that IS being used by broadcasters now is 720p/60 so if you want to upgrade THAT to 1080P then we would be talking about a 1080P/60 format which is NOT a ATSC format and most likely will not be available for many years via broadcasts, at least OTA broadcasts which are pretty much "locked in" to ATSC for the near future.
Secondly these new sets which are converting 1080i/60 to progressive display is not the same as what a true 1080p/60 signal and display would look like under all conditions, it would be inferior in some cases.
I agree, 1080p is too far into the future to be worth purchasing.
Secondly these new sets which are converting 1080i/60 to progressive display is not the same as what a true 1080p/60 signal and display would look like under all conditions, it would be inferior in some cases.
I agree, 1080p is too far into the future to be worth purchasing.
TheAntMan
04-05-2005, 11:49 PM
This is a very simple question... Does anyone know when and where I can purchase a 1080P capable set. I need one pronto
There's never a simple question :rofl2: . Probably the 1st 15 or 16 posts...but on a different subject from there on... :)
There's never a simple question :rofl2: . Probably the 1st 15 or 16 posts...but on a different subject from there on... :)
tonelocdog
04-05-2005, 11:57 PM
:) I dont know why he wants one so bad, there not even any around, unless you look at an elucisve online sites that might have em. :D The topic is too broad. Way to many ways to answer this question. Also you won't get 1080p on the set anyway. It will probabaly get down converted to 720p or 1080i. JMHO
TheAntMan
04-06-2005, 12:05 AM
the question was actually a simple one in the beggining and the first page answered his question with lots of 1080p sets. I asked him that too, tone, why a 1080p set with no 1080p programming on the horizen, and he said just wanted to be ready. I can't fault him for that. :)
maximusII
04-06-2005, 06:19 AM
Went awry at post 17 did we?? :)
IMO any smart consumer looking to buy an HDTV should at least be considering 1080p sets in their choices, just because there is no 1080p broadcast and presumeably won't be for a while doesn't mean a 1080p set is useless. There are 1080p sources now and more are coming...
IMO any smart consumer looking to buy an HDTV should at least be considering 1080p sets in their choices, just because there is no 1080p broadcast and presumeably won't be for a while doesn't mean a 1080p set is useless. There are 1080p sources now and more are coming...
Ratman
04-06-2005, 08:32 AM
There aren't any 480p DVD's either, but most everyone watches them with a 480p player. This can be equated to 1080p TV's deinterlacing a 1080i program.
I don't see why everyone gets 'twisted' with the thought of a 1080p TV, just because there's no 1080p media available today.
I don't see why everyone gets 'twisted' with the thought of a 1080p TV, just because there's no 1080p media available today.
scobro
04-16-2005, 01:46 PM
How are you ready for the future if your "1080p" set will not accept a 1080p signal? When 1080p source material becomes available, you will have to downconvert it to 720p and then have the tv upconvert it to psuedo 1080p. This would drive me nuts. Personally, I would not buy a 1080p set that would not accept a 1080p signal.
Exactly(pass this man a beer!) :cheers:
I got all caught up in the hype of 1080p and then thought about it,"why would i buy a 1080p when it won't be able to accept a 1080p signal when they do become available"The time to buy a 1080p is when your set can accept it and the broadcast stations can send it..Right!
Exactly(pass this man a beer!) :cheers:
I got all caught up in the hype of 1080p and then thought about it,"why would i buy a 1080p when it won't be able to accept a 1080p signal when they do become available"The time to buy a 1080p is when your set can accept it and the broadcast stations can send it..Right!
jco
04-16-2005, 08:48 PM
Exactly(pass this man a beer!) :cheers:
I got all caught up in the hype of 1080p and then thought about it,"why would i buy a 1080p when it won't be able to accept a 1080p signal when they do become available"The time to buy a 1080p is when your set can accept it and the broadcast stations can send it..Right!
I am sorry I cant understand your post because I am not sure if the "right!" at the very end is a sarcastic type commment meaning to imply what you just stated in the whole previous sentence was incorrect/absurd ridiculous or whether its just the end of the sentence like "stations can send it right" the punctuation is what is confusing me...Sorry but I cant tell which way you are going on that one, quite unusual for that to happen but it has.
I got all caught up in the hype of 1080p and then thought about it,"why would i buy a 1080p when it won't be able to accept a 1080p signal when they do become available"The time to buy a 1080p is when your set can accept it and the broadcast stations can send it..Right!
I am sorry I cant understand your post because I am not sure if the "right!" at the very end is a sarcastic type commment meaning to imply what you just stated in the whole previous sentence was incorrect/absurd ridiculous or whether its just the end of the sentence like "stations can send it right" the punctuation is what is confusing me...Sorry but I cant tell which way you are going on that one, quite unusual for that to happen but it has.
jco
04-16-2005, 09:10 PM
There aren't any 480p DVD's either, but most everyone watches them with a 480p player. This can be equated to 1080p TV's deinterlacing a 1080i program.
I don't see why everyone gets 'twisted' with the thought of a 1080p TV, just because there's no 1080p media available today.
As I posted in post #48, using the term 1080P without specifying the frame rate possible is too vague and can lead to confusion as to what people are talking about and to what is possible and to what 1080p/xx might be useful for. As posted in other threads recently there would be a great value RIGHT NOW in a 1080P/60 display that could display true 1080P/60 natively because it would allow you to see BOTH 720P/60 and 1080i/60 formats currently in widespread usage at virtually full quality because both 720P/60 and 1080i/60 could be upconverted to 1080P/60 with very minimal loss since
1080P/60 has the both the 1080 resolution capability of 1080i and the 60P frame rate of 720P. Very few sets now can display both formats properly (without a very lossy cross convertor) and a true 1080P/60 display could display BOTH these current HD formats upconverted to 1080P/60 nearly perfectly which most HD sets today can't. the KEY here is it would have to be a true 1080P/60 monitor, 1080/P24 or 1080/P30 would not do this job. This would be good to have for sure even NOW and with NO new sources!
I don't see why everyone gets 'twisted' with the thought of a 1080p TV, just because there's no 1080p media available today.
As I posted in post #48, using the term 1080P without specifying the frame rate possible is too vague and can lead to confusion as to what people are talking about and to what is possible and to what 1080p/xx might be useful for. As posted in other threads recently there would be a great value RIGHT NOW in a 1080P/60 display that could display true 1080P/60 natively because it would allow you to see BOTH 720P/60 and 1080i/60 formats currently in widespread usage at virtually full quality because both 720P/60 and 1080i/60 could be upconverted to 1080P/60 with very minimal loss since
1080P/60 has the both the 1080 resolution capability of 1080i and the 60P frame rate of 720P. Very few sets now can display both formats properly (without a very lossy cross convertor) and a true 1080P/60 display could display BOTH these current HD formats upconverted to 1080P/60 nearly perfectly which most HD sets today can't. the KEY here is it would have to be a true 1080P/60 monitor, 1080/P24 or 1080/P30 would not do this job. This would be good to have for sure even NOW and with NO new sources!
Matt27
04-16-2005, 09:51 PM
Wasn't this thread closed 57U?
I swear it was before.
I swear it was before.
strangersonmyflight
04-16-2005, 11:17 PM
There aren't any 480p DVD's either, but most everyone watches them with a 480p player. This can be equated to 1080p TV's deinterlacing a 1080i program.
...not the same, at all, but I understand you are not interested in hacking the details of the matter, unfortunately. This is where "jco's theorem" makes great sense in that making the above statement is pretty meaningless w/o having the frame/field refresh context. "Deinterlacing" i60 material into progressive frames is not exactly a clean process.
...not the same, at all, but I understand you are not interested in hacking the details of the matter, unfortunately. This is where "jco's theorem" makes great sense in that making the above statement is pretty meaningless w/o having the frame/field refresh context. "Deinterlacing" i60 material into progressive frames is not exactly a clean process.
jco
04-17-2005, 02:06 AM
Yes, this is a good point. I have just realized that if a given DISPLAY is capable of natively doing 1080P/60 then the DISPLAY ITSELF most likely can easily be modified to do 1080i/60 Natively too as well as 1080P/60. You wouldnt need to convert the 1080i/60 to 1080P/30 via deinterlacing. All you would have to do is some special processing that would allow the even odd pixels of the display buffer be updated as the data for each interlaced line becomes available from the raw true 1080i/60 data coming in. That would sound to me to be the elegant solution. I think you only need to do actual deinterlacing if you go from a XXXi/60 format to a XXXP/30 format and XXXP/30 native display because in that case you would need to completely create a new full frame from every last drop of incoming interlaced data. In the case of making a XXXp/60 capable monitor display a true 1080i/60 incoming broadcast signal, you would have the luxurious abilty to only update half the display buffer as needed at a 60 hz rate which is different from changing it fully at a 30 hz rate. I doubt I conveyed all this clearly but what I am trying to say is I think any display that is capable of doing true 1080P/60 display could easily be modified very cheaply to do 1080i/60 NATIVELY too so in that case you wouldnt need to convert or deinterlace the 1080i so its display would be non lossy native too. So you would have a display that was able to do 720P/60 UPconverted > to 1080P/60,
AND 1080i/60 natively AND 1080P/60 natively . All three would be possible, 2 out of three, pefectly native, and the third 720>1080P upconverted would only have a very minimal loss, basically the upsizing of the 720 frame data to 1080 format which is almost undetectable. whew! that was a lot to explain.
AND 1080i/60 natively AND 1080P/60 natively . All three would be possible, 2 out of three, pefectly native, and the third 720>1080P upconverted would only have a very minimal loss, basically the upsizing of the 720 frame data to 1080 format which is almost undetectable. whew! that was a lot to explain.
strangersonmyflight
04-17-2005, 02:26 AM
Uh...yeah, you lost me there for sure, but I'm glad you got your thought out.
jco
04-17-2005, 03:03 AM
I guess I should ask the question: If you have a monitor that can do 720P/60 format natively ( DLP/LCD) how do they signal process 480i/60 or a possible but not existing 720i/60? Because that is the same as what you would need to do with 1080P/60 native format display with a 1080i/60 input signal....
Second question: have you ever heard of any display that could do XXXP/60 natively that couldnt do XXXi/60 natively? Seems to me any display that could do the progessive should be able to to the interlaced because the scanrate is only half as much as the progressive.
Thanks
Second question: have you ever heard of any display that could do XXXP/60 natively that couldnt do XXXi/60 natively? Seems to me any display that could do the progessive should be able to to the interlaced because the scanrate is only half as much as the progressive.
Thanks
strangersonmyflight
04-17-2005, 03:20 AM
1. Well, that is essentially the "deinterlace and scale" move, no?
2. Yes, it is certainly a technical possibility, but the way I understand it, is there are some "niggling details" that get in the way of it being a complete swoosh-dunk (speaking of CRT's, in particular, now). For one, there is the positioning of phosphor cells whose pattern is tweaked to favor either a progressive application or an interlace application, but not both equally. Another, there is the issue of the beam width and degree of overlap (between adjacent scan lines). No doubt, a single device could be engineered to extract the most benefits possible in either mode, but I don't think it is common practice. So what you end up with, again, is a CRT that is designed to produce best results in its target/native mode (which may either be progressive or interlaced, but not necessarily both).
2. Yes, it is certainly a technical possibility, but the way I understand it, is there are some "niggling details" that get in the way of it being a complete swoosh-dunk (speaking of CRT's, in particular, now). For one, there is the positioning of phosphor cells whose pattern is tweaked to favor either a progressive application or an interlace application, but not both equally. Another, there is the issue of the beam width and degree of overlap (between adjacent scan lines). No doubt, a single device could be engineered to extract the most benefits possible in either mode, but I don't think it is common practice. So what you end up with, again, is a CRT that is designed to produce best results in its target/native mode (which may either be progressive or interlaced, but not necessarily both).
jco
04-17-2005, 04:07 AM
1. Well, that is essentially the "deinterlace and scale" move, no?
2. Yes, it is certainly a technical possibility, but the way I understand it, is there are some "niggling details" that get in the way of it being a complete swoosh-dunk (speaking of CRT's, in particular, now). For one, there is the positioning of phosphor cells whose pattern is tweaked to favor either a progressive application or an interlace application, but not both equally. Another, there is the issue of the beam width and degree of overlap (between adjacent scan lines). No doubt, a single device could be engineered to extract the most benefits possible in either mode, but I don't think it is common practice. So what you end up with, again, is a CRT that is designed to produce best results in its target/native mode (which may either be progressive or interlaced, but not necessarily both).
Ok, based on that I guess if you could do the #2 issue reasonably well then you wouldnt need to do #1 at all. But if #2 wasnt possible very well, I still dont understand why you would need to deinterlace for case #1 because you are not needing to make 30P from 60i, you are working with 60P destination frames so why couldnt those frames be actually interlaced formatted data whereby the whole progressive frame isnt really updated 30 times per second and entire frames are doubled to create 60P,, and INSTEAD DO: just update the even and odd lines of each 60P frame at 60 frames per sec. In other words, you would create 60 progressive frames that when shown look like interlaced beause only the even/odd lines in each frame get updated in each successive progressive P60 frame. Then you wouldnt get any of the typical deinterlacing artifact problems because deinterlacing would never be done and the time sequence of the original i60 fields would be maintained too. This would seem like a perfect way to do it to me. I really dont see how any P60 capable display couldnt do I60 natively, its just not logical that if you only want half of something you already can do that you cant do that as well...
2. Yes, it is certainly a technical possibility, but the way I understand it, is there are some "niggling details" that get in the way of it being a complete swoosh-dunk (speaking of CRT's, in particular, now). For one, there is the positioning of phosphor cells whose pattern is tweaked to favor either a progressive application or an interlace application, but not both equally. Another, there is the issue of the beam width and degree of overlap (between adjacent scan lines). No doubt, a single device could be engineered to extract the most benefits possible in either mode, but I don't think it is common practice. So what you end up with, again, is a CRT that is designed to produce best results in its target/native mode (which may either be progressive or interlaced, but not necessarily both).
Ok, based on that I guess if you could do the #2 issue reasonably well then you wouldnt need to do #1 at all. But if #2 wasnt possible very well, I still dont understand why you would need to deinterlace for case #1 because you are not needing to make 30P from 60i, you are working with 60P destination frames so why couldnt those frames be actually interlaced formatted data whereby the whole progressive frame isnt really updated 30 times per second and entire frames are doubled to create 60P,, and INSTEAD DO: just update the even and odd lines of each 60P frame at 60 frames per sec. In other words, you would create 60 progressive frames that when shown look like interlaced beause only the even/odd lines in each frame get updated in each successive progressive P60 frame. Then you wouldnt get any of the typical deinterlacing artifact problems because deinterlacing would never be done and the time sequence of the original i60 fields would be maintained too. This would seem like a perfect way to do it to me. I really dont see how any P60 capable display couldnt do I60 natively, its just not logical that if you only want half of something you already can do that you cant do that as well...
strangersonmyflight
04-17-2005, 04:29 AM
Just a guess, but because you would have blatant interlace artifacts for any scenes that have movement? (To be sure, "deinterlace artifacts" are not desirable, but then "interlace artifacts" are very undesirable.) Sure, the lines could all fit into the "right" place on the screen (even that is debateable as "interlace lines" may not necessarily line up over "progressive lines", rather may differ in location by mere "half-line widths" depending on the processing context), but detail would be fubarred with 2 fields on at one time that belong in 2 different points in time. This would produce less-than-ideal results on a CRT designed to show a contiguously scanned image on-screen (i.e., the mismatch in details between different fields would stick out like a sore thumb, when shown together at a single point in time). Freeze frame features would look quite the mess, as well, I would think.
jco
04-17-2005, 12:46 PM
Just a guess, but because you would have blatant interlace artifacts for any scenes that have movement? (To be sure, "deinterlace artifacts" are not desirable, but then "interlace artifacts" are very undesirable.) Sure, the lines could all fit into the "right" place on the screen (even that is debateable as "interlace lines" may not necessarily line up over "progressive lines", rather may differ in location by mere "half-line widths" depending on the processing context), but detail would be fubarred with 2 fields on at one time that belong in 2 different points in time. This would produce less-than-ideal results on a CRT designed to show a contiguously scanned image on-screen (i.e., the mismatch in details between different fields would stick out like a sore thumb, when shown together at a single point in time). Freeze frame features would look quite the mess, as well, I would think.
since we are talking about displaying an interlaced (60i) SIGNAL on a 60P
progressive display any artifacts that an interlaced inherently has with fast motions are not the issue and they of cource cannot be removed if they are inherent. We are talking about how to utilize a P60 capable display to emulate a native i60 display. If there still interlaced artifacts that were already inherent in the i60 SIGNAL that would not make the process I was talking about invalid. I am taking about using a P60 native display to emulate with no quality loss a i60 display, not trying to make it into real P60 which would be inpossible or to make into perfect P30 frame doubled to P60, those would require deinterlacing and sometimes THAT deinterlacing would intoduce NEW artifacts into itself because then you are maniulating timing of the displayed information whereas what I was trying to describe would NOT alter the relative timing of the displayed information...
since we are talking about displaying an interlaced (60i) SIGNAL on a 60P
progressive display any artifacts that an interlaced inherently has with fast motions are not the issue and they of cource cannot be removed if they are inherent. We are talking about how to utilize a P60 capable display to emulate a native i60 display. If there still interlaced artifacts that were already inherent in the i60 SIGNAL that would not make the process I was talking about invalid. I am taking about using a P60 native display to emulate with no quality loss a i60 display, not trying to make it into real P60 which would be inpossible or to make into perfect P30 frame doubled to P60, those would require deinterlacing and sometimes THAT deinterlacing would intoduce NEW artifacts into itself because then you are maniulating timing of the displayed information whereas what I was trying to describe would NOT alter the relative timing of the displayed information...
strangersonmyflight
04-18-2005, 12:10 AM
When I say "interlace artifacts", I'm not talking about the stuff that is inherent to the way the program is presented. I'm referring to the artifacts of simply combining 2 fields that represent motion in 2 different, albeit small, bits of time and showing it as if the 2 picture events occurred at 1 time. Depending on the motion in the scene, stuff is not going to "match-up", hence, artifacts. It may be your assertion that this differs little from the way an actual interlace monitor operates, anyway, but you may find this to not be the case if you investigate further. Afterall, if you could just combine 2 fields from 2 different points in time all willy nilly w/o the slightest hint of mismatch artifacts, the TV industry would have done away with interlace scan sets long ago (regardless of what is being broadcast over NTSC). It's no great technological feat to make a large progressive scan TV, and if 2 fields can be combined as nonchalantly as you imply with no compromise to image integrity, there would just be no point in designing interlace scan monitors.
...but by no means do you have to take my word for it. You appear to have an electronics background (per one of your posts from another topic). Why not just work up a test model on a computer monitor, and see if it really works as you anticipate? You'll be a rich man indeed if you have found a way to spontaneously turn i60 into p60 with zero processing overhead, no? Get back to us to let us know of your results... ;)
...but by no means do you have to take my word for it. You appear to have an electronics background (per one of your posts from another topic). Why not just work up a test model on a computer monitor, and see if it really works as you anticipate? You'll be a rich man indeed if you have found a way to spontaneously turn i60 into p60 with zero processing overhead, no? Get back to us to let us know of your results... ;)
petej88
04-18-2005, 01:54 AM
I was looking at the Samsung 1080P specs for their new boxes. Thought it was interesting they had a disclaimer that the hdmi input cannot support 1080p but only up to 1080i, at least at this time. I guess the hdmi format is still evolving. If so, when will hdmi support 1080p?
57U
04-18-2005, 02:14 AM
HDMI supports 1080P. It's the equipment at either end of the connection that may not support it.
jco
04-18-2005, 11:12 AM
When I say "interlace artifacts", I'm not talking about the stuff that is inherent to the way the program is presented. I'm referring to the artifacts of simply combining 2 fields that represent motion in 2 different, albeit small, bits of time and showing it as if the 2 picture events occurred at 1 time. Depending on the motion in the scene, stuff is not going to "match-up", hence, artifacts. It may be your assertion that this differs little from the way an actual interlace monitor operates, anyway, but you may find this to not be the case if you investigate further. Afterall, if you could just combine 2 fields from 2 different points in time all willy nilly w/o the slightest hint of mismatch artifacts, the TV industry would have done away with interlace scan sets long ago (regardless of what is being broadcast over NTSC). It's no great technological feat to make a large progressive scan TV, and if 2 fields can be combined as nonchalantly as you imply with no compromise to image integrity, there would just be no point in designing interlace scan monitors.
...but by no means do you have to take my word for it. You appear to have an electronics background (per one of your posts from another topic). Why not just work up a test model on a computer monitor, and see if it really works as you anticipate? You'll be a rich man indeed if you have found a way to spontaneously turn i60 into p60 with zero processing overhead, no? Get back to us to let us know of your results... ;)
You are not understanding me or my "model". My "model" doesnt combine two separte interlaced fields into one progressive frame and display it all a once. that would be deinterlacing.
I was suggesting showing only the new field information in each successive P60 frame. In other words do pixel updating just like a interlaced display would . What this would be is NOT progressive new full frames 30 times per second made by combining interlaced fields, but would instead be a truely timed display of the field data, hence no new artifacts...
As for me doing major homework youd like to see, it aint going to happen, do it yourself if you are really that interested, I am not that interested. I will leave that kind of thing up the the professionals who do it for a living. I wouldnt trust myself even if it seemed to work because I wouldnt presume to
assume I have taken everything into account like a PRO would.
...but by no means do you have to take my word for it. You appear to have an electronics background (per one of your posts from another topic). Why not just work up a test model on a computer monitor, and see if it really works as you anticipate? You'll be a rich man indeed if you have found a way to spontaneously turn i60 into p60 with zero processing overhead, no? Get back to us to let us know of your results... ;)
You are not understanding me or my "model". My "model" doesnt combine two separte interlaced fields into one progressive frame and display it all a once. that would be deinterlacing.
I was suggesting showing only the new field information in each successive P60 frame. In other words do pixel updating just like a interlaced display would . What this would be is NOT progressive new full frames 30 times per second made by combining interlaced fields, but would instead be a truely timed display of the field data, hence no new artifacts...
As for me doing major homework youd like to see, it aint going to happen, do it yourself if you are really that interested, I am not that interested. I will leave that kind of thing up the the professionals who do it for a living. I wouldnt trust myself even if it seemed to work because I wouldnt presume to
assume I have taken everything into account like a PRO would.
strangersonmyflight
04-18-2005, 08:27 PM
So you then have a blank line in every other line of the display (since you are only showing 1 field to make each progressive frame)? I don't think that will look particularly good, either. Screen flicker will be especially bad.
As for what the process of "deinterlacing" does, the recombination of separate fields would only be a single step in what happens (if it is even done at all, depending on the deinterlacing technique). To say that is simply all that happens is really not giving the process due credit.
As for what the process of "deinterlacing" does, the recombination of separate fields would only be a single step in what happens (if it is even done at all, depending on the deinterlacing technique). To say that is simply all that happens is really not giving the process due credit.
Razor8
04-19-2005, 08:13 PM
Just read an article about 1080p sets. Go to ecoustics.com and look on the right side of the page at the top. Some are shipping now. The article talked about features and an industry move to 1080p. Good reading. Ray
