720P vs. 1080i (if you have any lingering doubts)

[robmx]

Is this a fair comparison? If so it answers any lingering doubts I might have had. 720P rules.

Bob Miller

AVSFORUM (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=219606)

[hdexpert]

720p super bowl didnt look any better than 1080i did on other things i have seen.. i dont wanna sound like i am starting a fight but unless you have an lcd, plasma, dlp, or some other fixed pixel device you are watching 1080i anyway because all the traditional crt based devices upconvert to 1080i

[57U]

You are correct that this discussion is essentially moot for most people because their TV can only show one format or the other.

[aj327]

Hdexpert,

I have the 43 inch hitachi widescreen I think the model number is fwx 20b...or something like that - the most recent model. Anyway, it says that it's able to display both 720p and 1080i. Are you saying that it upconverts the 720p, because that's certainly not what the specs imply?

-aj327

[hdexpert]

yes it does upconvert..what the specs are telling you is that it will accept a 720p signal but it is displayining at 1080i

[aj327]

So what about the new 46 inch sony...I don't think the specs say anything about 720p...does that mean it gets downconverted to a 480 res, or are you just not able to even receive the signal? And why does it matter if you have a fixed pixel tv...why are they capable of displaying the 720p resolution while the crt based technology is not?

Thanks,

-aj327

[hdexpert]

the 46 inch sony is hi scan 1080i (they are apprehensive about using the word hd so they use hi scan) so if there was a 720 signal input it would upconvert to 1080i...all tvs display in what is called the tv's "native resolution"....fixed pixel devices plasmas, lcds, dlps,etc generally have a progressive "native resolution" (480p for edtv and 720p for hdtv) and crt based tvs (man is this gonna start a debate) generally look better with and have an interlaced "native resolution"....both of these are general statements because there are cases when crts display progressive (480p dvd players) and there are a very few cases where fixed pixel devices display interlaced.......but the picture always looks better whenever it displays its "native resolution"

[e95]

you were quite wise to purchase the hitachi because it can accept [accept being the key word here] just about any signal, to include 720p

most rear projection hd sets only accept 480i(p) and 1080i - they scramble anything else, meaning you have to use a stb just to see them - which is fine for tv cause you need a stb just to get hd ota or hd cable.

but for me? i have the three game systems - and notably the xbox has games that output in 720p so i can plug the box right into the tv and away we go without the need of anything additional

e95

[MrFister]

ABC and 720p picture was much nicer to watch sports on my 34XBR800 which does all formats. The motion artifacts I get on CBS 1080i were gone on the 720p signal. It's sure much nicer to watch sports with 720p. I can't wait for ESPN-HD in 720p. Glad I jumped into HDTV when I did and chose a TV which could carry it all.

[57U]

You are, as many people are, under the mistaken impression that your TV actually displays 720P. It does not. The 720P signals are converted to 1080i.

See the link below and read the end of the second paragraph.

http://www.crutchfield.com/S-IxLd2GFF6bP/cgi-bin/ProdView.asp?I=15834XB800

There are almost no TVs that can display both 1080i and 720P natively. They are extremely rare and quite expensive.

As I have stated here many times, the 720P vs 1080i discussion is a moot point for 99.9% of HDTV owners, because their TVs display one or the other, but not both.

If you want 720P, you'll need to buy a DLP, LCD or Plasma TV, or the new Toshiba LCoS at about $10k.

Someone once told me that the 9"CRT RPTVs can do 720P, but I looked at the specs for one and it only did 1080i too (although better than a 7" CRT RPTV)

If there is someone out there that actually has a TV (other than the new Toshiba LCoS) that can natively display both 720P and 1080i, I'd like to hear from you.... Please advise make and model number of TV and perhaps provide a link to the specs showing the capability.

[DTC mac]

JUST AS I HAVE ALWAYS SUSPECTED!!! RobMx is simply a contrarian.

EX: spouts blue in the face over COFDM vs 8-VSB

720p is better than 1080I



SOME PEOPLE WOULD CLAIM THE SKY IS GREEN IF THEY THOUGHT ANYONE WOULD LISTEN.

at least he is supporting an ATSC standard on the second one.

[MrFister]

57U
I pump a native 720p signal to my TV with the Sony HD-200 using the variable 1 mode. I can tell you by just looking at the picture on the set if the signal is 720p or 1080i. With 720p the display icons are much smaller even though the picture fills the screen. There is a noticeable difference between the 2 formats on the 34XBR800. If the TV is displaying all HD in 1080i like the site says then the 720p signal is still making the difference and I am happy my set can accept it and convert it still keeping 720p's superior quality like no motion artifacts. I just wish I knew why the resolution increases in 720p even though it is supposedly converted to 1080i.

[aj327]

This probbly doesn't really address your question, but it's interesting nonetheless. From what reading I've done, for various reasons 1080i can actually have less resolution than 720p. 720p always displays 720 lines of resolution but 1080i will vary from around 540 to 1080 - depending on how much motion is taking place on the screen. Why it's motion dependent I haven't really figured out yet, but apparently the average resolution for a 1080i display is somewhere in the 600s, actually LOWER than the constant 720p.

Once again, I'm a bit confused why this happens, but it has to do with the progressive vs interlacing technology.

Another problem with the 1080i is that it's cumbersome which makes it difficult for broadcasters to fit it into the allotted 6 MHZ slot. Apparently this has led to broadcasters leaving out a significant percentage of the transmission...720p, however, fits quite nicely into the 6MHz bandwidth.

[57U]

Originally posted by MrFister
I just wish I knew why the resolution increases in 720p even though it is supposedly converted to 1080i. You're simply seeing the difference in the original format. Some people prefer the more "film-like" look of 720P. Some like the "crisper" look of 1080i. Red or white wine...

[dsmith]

I am pretty sure that a few years back Panasonic made a 720P capable HDTV RPTV that used CRTs and did display that format. Actually, I am not sure it displayed 1080i - it may have converted that to 720P also. I forget the model number but it was 57" as I recall.

dsmith

[MrFister]

When watching a 720p signal with my 34xbr800 it is like going from 640x480 to 1024x768 on your computer. There are more pixels giving you smaller icons. As far as 1080i being crisper, that is simply untrue when watching a football game at least. The game in 1080i is blurry, fuzzy, blocky or whatever you call it during motion. 720p takes away the artifacts. 720p vs 1080i is more like McDonalds vs Ruth's Chris Steakhouse than a wine preference. If I am indeed watching converted 1080i , then why the noticable resolution change between the two is what I am wondering. Afterall it's all 1080i.

[57U]

What you're seeing is perhaps a difference in the original material. If your "1080i" looks bad it's because the original material is not as good, or the signal is not as good, not because of anything inherently wrong with 1080i. Look at Jay Leno and that should give you an excellent 1080i image, or if you get PBS, look at the show "Smart Travels" or some of the other 1080i material. It is just excellent.

As for pixels, CRTs are not pixel based. The only pixel based TVs are DLPs, LCDs and plasmas and they are all "720P". I know you were trying to make an analogy, but the analogy simply should not work on CRTs.

I have certainly seen slight differences when viewing 720P originating material vs 1080i, however, it's not McD, vs Steak. It's more like Bordeaux vs Burgundy, both excellent, but different.

You may wish to check out your equipment to see if there is something leading to what you are saying is a vast difference. Perhaps your STB is outputting a "bad" 1080i or doing a bad "convert" of the 720P material while the TV is doing a better "convert"?

[woodman]

Originally posted by aj327
This probbly doesn't really address your question, but it's interesting nonetheless. From what reading I've done, for various reasons 1080i can actually have less resolution than 720p. 720p always displays 720 lines of resolution but 1080i will vary from around 540 to 1080 - depending on how much motion is taking place on the screen. Why it's motion dependent I haven't really figured out yet, but apparently the average resolution for a 1080i display is somewhere in the 600s, actually LOWER than the constant 720p.

Once again, I'm a bit confused why this happens, but it has to do with the progressive vs interlacing technology.

Another problem with the 1080i is that it's cumbersome which makes it difficult for broadcasters to fit it into the allotted 6 MHZ slot. Apparently this has led to broadcasters leaving out a significant percentage of the transmission...720p, however, fits quite nicely into the 6MHz bandwidth.

I don't know where you're doing this "reading", but you are being seriously misled by someone who doesn't actually know what in the hell they're talking about. Also, you're confusing "resolution" with scanning lines (like so many people do). The two are vastly different animals. In 1080i, there are 1080 horizontal scanning lines being painted on the screen ... it does NOT vary. There is never only 540 scan lines being put on the screen ... NEVER!

Then, there's this statement about "average resolution being somewhere in the 600s". That is so far off the mark as to be laughable. And the one about 1080i being "cumbersome" causing broadcasters to "leave out a significant percentage of the transmission". Here again, this is patently untrue! Furthermore, 720p actually is more bandwidth intensive, rather than less so, since it has a higher scanning rate than 1080i .... 43.2KHz vs. 31.5KHz.

You need to pick your information sources more carefully. The ones you've been reading are misleading you - BIGtime!

[kevinw]

WOW
A robmx post actually having reponses. Too bad it was lifted from another sight.:(
I wonder why only ABC and its affiliate ESPN are offering 720p at all? Everyone else is going 1080i. With the vast majority of Hd display devices unable to show 720p natively whats the motivation?
Do the owners of TV's that can display 720p flip a switch when watching ABC or do they leave the STB on 1080i ?
Enquiring minds want to know.;)

[aj327]

Hey Woodman,

I haven't seen you around these parts for a while.

Since I was hit with the HDTV craze back in November, I've been trying to learn as much about the nuances of this technology as possible, but I'm sure that I still have misconceptions about a lot of things. And if that happens to be the case in this instance maybe you could explain to me what is meant by the following paragraphs...I found them in a link that is posted in the FAQ section so I assumed that they were trustworthy...

" So in the Manichean dualism of static vs. moving images, which affects performance more? As Kane explains it, the performance of 1080i varies constantly between 540 and 1080, depending on the amount of motion in the picture at any given moment. "The whole idea of television is to have moving pictures. And since there is usually motion, the average resolution is always going to be well below 1080. It's rare that the picture would ever reach a resolution of 1080. Calculations based on average motion mean vertical resolution is going to be somewhere around 635 lines. It's not a numerical average because what determines the actual resolution is the amount of motion. But 720p has a solid 720 lines all the time. I believe 720p is a better direction for the time being."

And then this one about the bandwidth issue:

"Because it is digitally maladroit, 1080i has a major disadvantage in transmission, according to the ABC FAQ: "The 1080 x 1920 (1080i) format ... cannot be compressed to fit in a 6MHz channel without creating objectionable artifacts and it has been recommended that the 1920 pixels be sub-sampled to 1440 to reduce compression artifacts. Therefore, encoder manufacturers have elected to discard approximately 25 percent of the picture for over-the-air transmission. This compromise is not required for 720p. More of the original picture information remains through the transmission chain." John Malone of cable giant TCI has even said he would not voluntarily carry 1080i signals, calling it a "spectrum hog," though he added he had no problem with 720p. "

Maybe, I misinterpretted what is being said here - because like I confessed in my last post, I don't understand why motion would detract from the total resolution with an interlacing format - but that's what's implied anyway in this article. As far as the bandwidth issue goes - the article doesn't seem to leave a whole lot of room for interpretation with that one. So I think you might be wrong about that bit.

Let me know what your interpretation is. And if you disagree with the article, then maybe the moderators should remove the link and replace it with one that isn't misleading.

-aj327

[hdexpert]

i havent researched this in a while because as it was put earlier in this thread...the 720p 1080i debate is pretty much moot for most users...to the best of my knowledge the only tv on the market that will do both 720p and 1080i natively is runco's dtv1100 9" crt front projector..it ran around $60,000 with appropriate scaler and accessories..once again i believe this is a correct statement but it has been a while since i looked in to it...

[aj327]

I understand that the 720p 1080i debate is moot - but hey, there's nothing wrong with information for information's sake.

[woodman]

Originally posted by aj327
... maybe you could explain to me what is meant by the following paragraphs...I found them in a link that is posted in the FAQ section so I assumed that they were trustworthy...

" So in the Manichean dualism of static vs. moving images, which affects performance more? As Kane explains it, the performance of 1080i varies constantly between 540 and 1080, depending on the amount of motion in the picture at any given moment. "The whole idea of television is to have moving pictures. And since there is usually motion, the average resolution is always going to be well below 1080. It's rare that the picture would ever reach a resolution of 1080. Calculations based on average motion mean vertical resolution is going to be somewhere around 635 lines. It's not a numerical average because what determines the actual resolution is the amount of motion. But 720p has a solid 720 lines all the time. I believe 720p is a better direction for the time being."

This quote from Joe Kane is very misleading for openers - and dead flat wrong for closers. Vertical resolution IS dependent to a certain degree on the motion that's occurring in the scene, but it's NOT the only determining factor. There's also the matter of just what detail is present - moving or not. His use of the numbers 1080 and 540 make it sound like the scanning rate is shifting between the two (which is most definitely NOT the case) since one is exactly one half the other one. He IS correct when he says that the vertical resolution will generally be "somewhere around 635 lines" but then he completely blows his credibility when he states (or intimates) that 720p will have a full 720 line "resolution" all of the time ... this is patently absurd!

And then this one about the bandwidth issue:

"Because it is digitally maladroit, 1080i has a major disadvantage in transmission, according to the ABC FAQ: "The 1080 x 1920 (1080i) format ... cannot be compressed to fit in a 6MHz channel without creating objectionable artifacts and it has been recommended that the 1920 pixels be sub-sampled to 1440 to reduce compression artifacts. Therefore, encoder manufacturers have elected to discard approximately 25 percent of the picture for over-the-air transmission. This compromise is not required for 720p. More of the original picture information remains through the transmission chain." John Malone of cable giant TCI has even said he would not voluntarily carry 1080i signals, calling it a "spectrum hog," though he added he had no problem with 720p. "

I have a LOT of problems with these statements - most of which I vehemently declare are UNTRUE! 720p is MORE of a bandwidth hog than 1080i because of its higher horizontal scanning rate, and therefore the need for more digital video "data" to be occupying the 6MHz channel bandwidth with 720p than with 1080i. John Malone should stick to running his cableTV empire, and leave technical issues to those that actually KNOW something about them.

Maybe, I misinterpretted what is being said here - because like I confessed in my last post, I don't understand why motion would detract from the total resolution with an interlacing format - but that's what's implied anyway in this article. As far as the bandwidth issue goes - the article doesn't seem to leave a whole lot of room for interpretation with that one. So I think you might be wrong about that bit.

Let me know what your interpretation is. And if you disagree with the article, then maybe the moderators should remove the link and replace it with one that isn't misleading.

-aj327

No need to remove the FAQ link - but it does contain some very misleading information in my view. As I've already made clear in other postings, the whole issue of "resolution" is so complicated and mixed up and misunderstood that I don't think that I, or any one else could straighten it all out. The resolution that's displayed in any video image is not only a function of what the display is capable of, but even more so, of how much detail is present in the original image. In most cases - most of the time - the resolution present in a video display, whether vertical or horizontal will be far less than what the display and/or the format is capable of. Period.

[MrFister]

If it's moot then why can I tell so many differences on my Sony set between 720p and 1080i. And why were there no legitimate answers to the points I made in earlier posts. And it's not original material differences as made obvious between the ABC and CBS football games. My DiscoveryHD looks fantastic in 1080i but there is little motion normally and Jay Leno looks great until you get someone dancing around on stage. ABC and ESPN-HD know what they are doing and I hope others will follow.

[57U]

There have been a number of people who talk about the motion artifacts of 1080i, vs 720P. I, quite frankly, have never seen any motion artifacts on any HD station. I've watched hockey, football, basketball, fast moving creatures on nature shows, etc.

Perhaps some TVs are better than others regarding this issue...

I have seen occasional missing data, but that's totally different and can be corroborated by my STB which shows "missing bytes".

I'm also not saying one format is "better" than the other, I like them both and see little difference between them other than what appears to be a more "film like" quality to the material that comes to my set as 720P, yet displayed at 1080i.

My friend's Sony Grand Wega II also has this more "film like" appearance because all of his images are displayed as 768P. Even though his TV costs almost 2X what my RPTV does, I prefer my RPTV picture. The only advantage I see to the GWII is the lack of convergence required.

[hdexpert]

nobody has said fister that either there is anything wrong with your sony 34xbr800 or that 1080i is better than 720p or vice versa, but something that i dont think you are understanding is that, YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN 720P ON YOUR TV.....it is not capable of it....since its native resolution is 1080i that is what your signal is upconverted to before you watch it......and not to start another source of contention, but your not really seing that .....it has been proven many times that there isnt the physical real estate on any crt less than 38 inches to fully display 1080 lines of resolution, not that it matters because the massive amount of resolution that you can get onto a 34" inch tv is phenominal..and the picture on you tv in general is fantastic....all of this other stuff discussed in this thread is just a bunch of technical babble that us tweaky idiots like to argue about....after all is said and done if the picture looks as good as almost all the hdtv (and edtv) for that matter is, does all of this really matter....(sure is fun discussing it all though, aint it)

[MrFister]

720p vs 1080i..... my TV accepts both and I can see a difference. I understand that the 34xbr800 down converts my 720p signal to 1080i. What no one has explained is why the 720p signal is so much different, both resolution wise and it's ability to remove the motion artifacts on sets that down convert. I can tell within 2 seconds if I am watching a 720p signal, can't you? Or is my set so much different from the others? Anyway about it I am pleased with what I see when it's delivered 720p.

[hdexpert]

ok good, i see now that you do understand that your signal is UPCONVERTED to 1080i...i believe someone did offer an explanation to why 720 looks better on your tv than 1080 earlier in the thread but rather than retype i will say go back up and re read,,,720 and 1080 are both beautiful pictures and i hope they never settle on one type of signal...there are arenas where one is better than the other and vice versa

[aj327]

You've all gone and lost me now. If a 720p signal is upconverted why would you still get the benefit of the "filmlike" quality of progressive scan - if the image is now interlaced? Doesn't make any sense - care explaining?

[MrFister]

I can't seem to find the answers I posed in yours or anyone elses post other than than there are differences in the original material and we have all seen that in just 1080i material alone. Here they are once again taken from my other posts: 1. "why the noticable resolution change between the two" or "why the resolution increases in 720p even though it is supposedly converted to 1080i". 2. why "it's ability to remove the motion artifacts on sets that down convert" the signal to 1080i form. And aj327's question would be nice to know the answer to as well.

[coolmacguy]

Here is a basic explanation of the dif. Some of the earlier posters clearly dont understand this technology. 1080i is interlaced video, the same as regular TV is. In interlaced video every even line is painted every 1/60 of a sec. Then the odd lines are painted the next 1/60th. So a complete image is displayed every 1/30 or a sec. So the 540 even lines are displayed and then the odd 540. A single 1080 line frame is displayed in 1/30 sec. In progressive video, the entire image is shown in 1/60 of a sec, and then the same frame again in the next 1/60th. Therefore two full images are displayed in 1/30 of a sec, as opposed to one with interlaced. This leads to a much clearer and smoother image, especially with motion.

[LeeS]

Here is a link to our FAQ's about 720p and 1080i (http://www.hdtvoice.com/voice/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2326). Good info and as 57U says, 'Its a little pro 720p'.

During the SuperBowl I watched for motion artifacts. Not much else to watch except the commercials. Raiders Fan :( My set converts 720p to 1080i. I didn't see any and I was looking for it. Perhaps my set does an exceptional job of converting? I doubt it does any better than similiar sets.

I think the picture quality has more to do with production. Take a look at the 'DEMO' programs on PBS and NBC, both 1080i. NBC on King5 out of Seattle. If DEMO's can look that good so can regular programming. Leno for instance. Watched it once just to see.

Sorry to jump in so late, I have been following along listening to both sides. Personally I'm a Chevy man.

Lee

[hdexpert]

very good analogy..chevy and ford...both do the same thing in different ways...720p supposedly is SLIGHTLY better for slow moving and 1080i supposedly SLIGHTLY better for fasy moving...personally from what i have seen so far i prefer 1080i since that is the native resolution of most tv's (including mine) but 720 looks really nice as well, although it is upconverted for my set...thanks for the definition of interlacing...i am sure someone following this thread didnt know that and it clarifies it for them..and based on that, although true, i will say this..the traditional problems with interlacing has been the appearance of scan lines...in my experience that is not a valid reason for disliking 1080i though because the scan lines are too small to be perceived

[Jake]

Originally posted by MrFister
ABC and 720p picture was much nicer to watch sports on my 34XBR800 which does all formats. The motion artifacts I get on CBS 1080i were gone on the 720p signal. It's sure much nicer to watch sports with 720p. I can't wait for ESPN-HD in 720p. Glad I jumped into HDTV when I did and chose a TV which could carry it all.

MrFister,
I believe you are in the minority if you think that ABC's 720p Super Bowl was anywhere near the quality of CBS's 1080i AFC playoff games. CBS's 1080i was far superior to my eyes. Even my guests were asking me why the Super Bowl didn't look as good as the AFC playoff games. Those same guests own analog TV's and even they could dicern the difference.

[tonov12]

Unfortunately I am unable to view any HD programming other than what is offered by Diretv:( . I do have one question though....how do you know if your TV will convert the 720p signal? I'm worried that my Mitsu can't convert the 720p signal to the 1080i that it can display. If my TV can't do it and the STB that I have can't do it, will I have to go out and spend another $700 on an STB that will? The frustration that I have already dealt with regarding HDTV will be doubled if that's the case!!:mad:

I have the Mitsu WS-55819 and the Panasonic TU-HDS20B

[mikehbkwm]

Your TV doesnt accept 720p it only accepts 1080i. I dont know about your receiever though. If it does accpet 720p then it might be able to convert that to 1080i so that your tv can display that resolution.

[proacman]

Theoretically, 720p should look better in scenes where there is a lot of movement, such as a hockey game, and 1080i should look better when there is less movement. This is simply because it takes two passes to create the 1080i signal.

But, as other people have said, all the HD monitors that I am aware of have a native resolution, either 720p or 1080i. Thus, one would have to compare two sets with differing resolution and the same screen size showing the same program to have a fighting chance of determining which is better. I think it's just better to sit back an watch.

[woodman]

Originally posted by tonov12
Unfortunately I am unable to view any HD programming other than what is offered by Diretv:( . I do have one question though....how do you know if your TV will convert the 720p signal? I'm worried that my Mitsu can't convert the 720p signal to the 1080i that it can display. If my TV can't do it and the STB that I have can't do it, will I have to go out and spend another $700 on an STB that will? The frustration that I have already dealt with regarding HDTV will be doubled if that's the case!!:mad:

I have the Mitsu WS-55819 and the Panasonic TU-HDS20B

You can put all of your worries to rest ... all HDTVs and all set-top boxes can handle any of the DTV scanning formats. They have to be able to do so - it's the nature of the beasts.

You do NOT have to go out and buy anything further - no matter what happens in television broadcasting and/or signal providing via satellite or by cableTV.

Feel better now?

[LeeS]

tonov12,

Slow day at work today so I did some surfing trying to find specs on your WS-55819. My Toshiba specs say that the set will accept 720p and convert it to 1080i. Nowhere could I find anything about your set accepting 720p and converting it. That doesn't mean it isn't so. I would think that would be something they would stick in the specs.

The following quoted from consumer guide:

As noted, the TU-HDS20 receives all standard and High Definition signals and converts these images to whatever your set is capable of displaying. It is the only set-top box to output 720p. If you have a standard definition TV, the set will display the best image that it can. If you have a new TV that is "HD-Ready" or "HD-capable" meaning that it has progressive scan and other digital circuitry built-in, you'll be able to receive and decode all HD broadcasts at 1080i or 720p lines of resolution. Non-HD programming will be displayed at either 480i or 480p.

The review didn't have a date. I think it might be a tad old. Woodman is correct about the Pany doing any resolution.

Lee

[tonov12]

I can't tell you how much better that makes me feel. I was always wondering about that and somewhat worried. I have heard of some TV's that can't convert the 720p signal to the 1080i format. Actually, I think it was in this forum in the gaming area. I think someone mentioned that their tv wouldn't convert the 720p signal from one of the Xbox games. That is where my concern began and then when I read in this thread about all of the programming being broadcast in 720p I really began to worry.
I hope what you say is correct. I was very disappointed when I finally got my equip. installed and realized just how HD worked. I was expecting to receive the network broadcasts and stuff in HD. When I found out that they could only be received OTA I realized that I had just wasted a substantial chunk of change! Oh well, looks like things are improving on the HD front. Hopefully one of these days I can enjoy the Masters, Superbowl etc!:cool:

[LeeS]

tonov12,

If you would like we can start another thread. This 720p vs 1080i has been pretty much beat to death :). But I do enjoy reading everyones opinion.

You can go to AntennaWeb.org (http://www.antennaweb.org) and enter your zip code. If any OTA HDTV is available it will tell you. There are lots of links about antennas and distances in this forum.

If you like regular network programming there is alot of it out there in HDTV. Sports are starting to pick up.

As for the rest of you, sorry for getting off thread,
Lee

[jp_texas]

I haven't read the entire thread but just in case someone hasn't mentioned it... The Panasonic 16x9 hdtv rptv 56wx42 and 65wx42 offer 720p in addition to 480p and 1080i native modes without conversion. They are not terribly expensive relative to some of the other rptv's of the same screen size on the market and are often discounted dramatically.

Nice site, I just discovered it tonight.

[57U]

Originally posted by jp_texas
The Panasonic 16x9 hdtv rptv 56wx42 and 65wx42 offer 720p in addition to 480p and 1080i native modes without conversion. jp, welcome to the forum:

When I looked at the specs for this TV, there is no mention of the unit even accepting 720P, much less natively dispaying it. Sorry, I still stand by my statement that no current RPTV natively displays 720P, see links below:

Panasonic 56" Specs (http://shop.store.yahoo.com/salestores/panpt56diag11.html)

Panasonic CRT based TVs (http://www.panasonic.com/consumer_electronics/tv/crtbased.asp) (This has an error too in that it says connect via digital component video inputs. Component Video is analogue.)

Panasonic 56 (http://www.prodcat.panasonic.com/shop/NewDesign/ModelTemplate.asp?ModelId=15160&show_all=false&product_exists=True&active=1&ModelNo=PT-56WX42&CategoryId=2716)

Diagonal Screen Size (inches) 56
Aspect Ratio 16:9 (Widescreen)
CRT Type 7" Diagonal
HDTV Display Capability 480p/1080i

[jp_texas]

I stand corrected. Thanks for the advice.

[hdexpert]

i dont know about the other dlp rptv's but the mitsubishi wd65100 is natively 720p

[57U]

It's a DLP, of course it's 720P, just like LCD and Plasma, the other "pixel based" TVs. These "pixel based" TVs can only do 720P (768P in the case of some LCDs), they cannot do 1080i. I've mentioned that many times. I'm talking about what everyone calls an RPTV (CRT-based) that natively displays 720P. Don't think there is one.

[woodman]

57U is right - there is no CRT-based RPTV on the market today that displays 720p natively. However, Panasonic made at least one model that did - maybe two, I'm not sure. There was a model PT-56WXF95 from the 2000 model year I think, that did 720 natively, and it seems to me that there was a 47" model that also did. Perhaps PT-47WXF95?????

Panasonic (along with virtually ALL other mfgs.) gave up the idea a couple of years ago, since it made no economic sense to pursue. Such capability has a level of importance to only a very small segment of the population - it's best to leave it to the Sam Runcos and Yves Faroudjas of the world to supply the video CONEs of the world.

[57U]

Thanks Woodman. Well at least there was one. Here's ---> A Link (http://www.dvdphd.com/reviews/pt56wxf95_review.shtml) with the proof.

Interestingly, Panasonic are either very conservative with their specification on horizontal resolution or measure it differently because it's usually listed as about 800-850, while many RPTVs today claim to have 1200 or more.

[MrFister]

Originally posted by coolmacguy
Therefore two full images are displayed in 1/30 of a sec, as opposed to one with interlaced. This leads to a much clearer and smoother image, especially with motion. [/B]

So does that mean those of us who have TV's which take the native 720p and turn it into 1080i can still see the advantages 720p formatting?

[MrFister]

Originally posted by Jake
Even my guests were asking me why the Super Bowl didn't look as good as the AFC playoff games. Those same guests own analog TV's and even they could dicern the difference.

Let me get this straight. Your using statements from people who are unable to tell the difference between 720p and analog to make your point? I would either cut off the booze earlier, invite videophiles next time or get a new HDTV.

[hdexpert]

57 i was just messin with ya i know what ya meant but technically it is an rptv....like i said i was just pickin

[hdexpert]

geez fister think before you answer.....the playoffs were in 1080i that is what he was talking about...cbs uses 1080 abc uses 720

[MrFister]

Originally posted by hdexpert
geez fister think before you answer.....the playoffs were in 1080i that is what he was talking about...cbs uses 1080 abc uses 720

hehe.. his friends have analogs..kinda hard for them to get 1080i to compare don't ya think??

[kevinw]

hehe.. his friends have analogs..kinda hard for them to get 1080i to compare don't ya think??

Not if they were at Jake's house for the playoffs and the Superbowl...
So far no one here has even seen 720p natively or has 2 sets to compare with. Everyone has seen 1080i or 720p converted to 1080i.
Now I watched a lot of the SEC saturday games in HD this year and they were far better than the Superbowl in regards to PQ.

What I still want to know is why ABC/ESPN are using 720p when so few can even wach it in the first place? Sort of like X-Box making games in 720p when so few can view them natively either.

[MrFister]

Originally posted by MrFister way back when
ABC and 720p picture was much nicer to watch sports on my 34XBR800 which does all formats. The motion artifacts I get on CBS 1080i were gone on the 720p signal. It's sure much nicer to watch sports with 720p. I can't wait for ESPN-HD in 720p. Glad I jumped into HDTV when I did and chose a TV which could carry it all.

Taken from NBC.com..."720p provides the smoothest possible motion rendition". 1080i "has the same motion rendition as traditional TV".

Taken from: http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/Progressive_FAQ.htm
"The 720P picture is brighter and has greater contrast than the 1080I picture".
"The number of lines of resolution in progressive and interlace pictures are not an "apples-to-apples" comparison. In the time it takes 720P to paint 720 lines, 1080I paints only 540 lines. And, by the time 1080I does paint 1080 lines, 720p has painted 1440 lines".

I can tell you XBOX's Tony Hawk's 4 in 720p looks just as good or better than Dragon's Lair 3D in 1080i. Maybe we all need Sonys. They downconvert the signal to 1080i wonderfully.

[hdexpert]

thanks for answering that last one kevin....this is the last time i even bother replying to you fister because no matter how many times we tell you this...you keep not understanding...YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN A 720P PICTURE ON YOUR TV, YOU ARE WATCHING IT UPCONVERTED TO 1080I...IT STILL LOOKS GOOD BECAUSE 1080I IS AWESOME....i have actually seen a 720p picture on a wd65100 and a tuhds20 and yes it looks great, but you have not seen it on your sony...so please, this horse has been beat to death..in fact we have been whippin the corpse for days...when you learn about hd then start arguing, and until then just ask kevin and 57u questions and quit making a fool of your self with these invalid arguments you keep bringing up

[LeeS]

ROFLMAO, you guys are great! I needed to come back to this thread. Are you sure that its not a mule you been beating?:D

Just finished reading robmx's last two posts and I'm having trouble focusing. I kinda wish I had gotten into the 8VSB vs COFDM alot earlier, hard to catch up.

Lee

[Jake]

kevinw & hd expert,
Thanks for the backing. You are both correct. Just to clarify, my guests watched both the AFC Playoffs on CBS in glorious 1080i and the Super Bowl on ABC in 720p upconverted to 1080i. It was very obvious to my guests and I that the CBS signal was much more representative of good HD programming than ABC's upconverted signal.

MrFister, you are both ignorant and combative, and your comments reveal your lack of education on the subject. Settle down.

[proacman]

My TV's native resolution is 720p. I watched both the Superbowl on ABC (720p) and a few college football games on CBS (1080i), both using a Samsung t165 viewing OTA signals.

I thought the CBS telecasts were better, especially in terms of detail and color accuracy. So, maybe the difference is less related to 720p vs 1080i, and more to do with the production, equipment and the station transmitting the signal.

[kevinw]

maybe the difference is
less related to 720p vs 1080i, and more to do with the production, equipment and the station transmitting the signal

That is the real answer.
In my mind even Fox in 480p looks better than some true HD shows. It is all in the production quality.

[SkandlasAndlas]

MY RPTV displays 720p natively, but I've only seen it in NBA2k3 for Xbox (and it looks damn good). I'll be getting a STB from Time warner soon, so I'll let you guys know how cable looks in comparison :D

[57U]

Of course it does:rolleyes:

It may accept 720P, but it displays 1080i. This discussion is getting really old now...

[hdexpert]

lol 57u said it all

[mikehbkwm]

UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH STOPPPPPPPPPPPPP THEEEEEEEEEEEE MADNESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS............

[MrFister]

Originally posted by hdexpert
this is the last time i even bother replying to you fister because no matter how many times we tell you this...you keep not understanding...YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN A 720P PICTURE ON YOUR TV, YOU ARE WATCHING IT UPCONVERTED TO 1080I

If you don't answer it's no great loss as you have yet to answer one of my questions and as demonstrated by your latest you still don't take the time to understand other's posts before getting an attitude. My last post stated "Maybe we all need Sonys. They downconvert the signal to 1080i wonderfully." To most people this would indicate I realize the 720p signal has been altered. I also added quotes from other web sites backing my point about the benefits of 720p, including NBC which uses 1080i. It's not just me against the world.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jake

Even my guests were asking me why the Super Bowl didn't look as good as the AFC playoff games. Those same guests own analog TV's and even they could dicern the difference.

my guests watched both the AFC Playoffs on CBS in glorious 1080i and the Super Bowl on ABC in 720p upconverted to 1080i.

For crying out loud Jake which is it?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jake
MrFister, you are both ignorant and combative, and your comments reveal your lack of education
By the way it's spelled "discern"
Why would put in your post anything about their analog TVs in the first place, if they watched it all on a digital TV? I have credibility at least. I try to inject humor whenever possible and refrain from name calling, I don't want to risk sounding like a democrat. (that's not a name is it) ;)

Like me, you and all your friends were apparently able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080i. That is what this thread was about. I have a TV which accepts both signals and I can tell several differences immediately even though it all shows itself as 1080i. However there are a few out there who don't believe this is possible. I can't help them. If you go back you will see I had a couple questions about the transition from 720p to 1080i on those sets that can do it. Only coolmacguy came close to answering one of them. I really didn't expect to get an answer here as the HD tech at Sony could not give me an answer either, but I thought it was worth a shot. You all have a good day.

[hdexpert]

you are a dipstick

[57U]

OK, Please stop being juvenile. Flames will not be tolerated.

This thread has run its course anyway. Let's stop it here.

[hdexpert]

sorry 57 i just got annoyed wont happen again

[aj327]

Just got back from vaca and was surprised to see over 60 posts to this seemingly benign thread - who knew.

Anyway, after reading all these posts I'd just like to offer this post in defense of Mr. Fister. Yes I think it was made quite clear that crt based tvs convert the 720p signal to 1080i, so no need to repeat.

However - I believe Mr. Fisters' unanswered questions are:

1) Why does 720p look more "film like" as 57U put it, if it's being converted to an interlaced format. Some people are implying that there should be no benefits to having a converted image - yet others (like 57U) are implying that there are differences (the "film -like" comment).

and

2) Why do his display icons look smaller (an objective, not subjective observation) when in 720p mode if he's still seeing things in 1080i? I'm assuming that Mr. Fister is saying that this happens all the time he is in 720p mode which works against the theory that it's simply a format issue.

I think Mr. Fister deserves an answer to these questions or for people to just admit that they just don't know...especially all those supposed experts out there.

[kevinw]

I do not know who you are calling an expert;) but
I subjectively do not see any improvement of a 720p signal converted to 1080i with my equipment.

As to the icon couldn't explain why but others who did view the game in 720p( not converted to 1080i) said that the overscan was different.
So.. In Mr Fisters case his TV looks better(subjective) receiving a 720p signal and letting his TV change it to 1080i where as my TV looks better taking a 1080i signal with no conversion then the job my STB does in taking taking the 720p signal and converting to 1080i. Again subjective but based upon my watching of the playoffs and SEC game of the week VS the SuperBowl.
What would be really cool is to have them side by side for the battle of the conversions.

[57U]

Originally posted by kevinw What would be really cool is to have them side by side for the battle of the conversions. OK, everone on this site chip in a few $ and I'll buy one of the new Toshiba LCoS sets and report back...:p

Damn, this thread has more lives than a Jain, or a cat, or an Energizer bunny, or, now you've got me prattling on.

[LeeS]

About $2.50 (US) each :)

(mumbling to self: What's a Jain?)

Lee

[57U]

--> Jains believe in reincarnation (http://www.umich.edu/~umjains/overview.html)

[robmx]

Next life!

Who watched the NBA All Star Game and how did it compare to the Superbowl and the playoffs before that?

[57U]

There was a thread on here regarding the NBA game. Here are my thoughts on PQ only, ranking the various games from best to, well, not best.

NCAA football games on CBS = NCAA basketball games on CBS
CBS Championship game
NBA game last weekend
ABC Superbowl
Fox EDTV games

Remember that each person is going to have his own view depending on

STB
Preference of colour, sharpness, etc.
HDTV used
Signal
Bias

Rob, you just won't let this thread die will you? You have the honour of starting the longest thread on this forum OK?

[robmx]

Originally posted by 57U

Rob, you just won't let this thread die will you? You have the honour of starting the longest thread on this forum OK?

BAA (Bows all around) I wish I could get such attention for my main theme.

The point of my mention of the NBA game was that it was mentioned how pixel free and clean it was compared to other HD live broadcast by others on the web.

This would be the first test of 720P vs 1080i where 720P has an edge, fast action. They used 8 720P cameras.

So how smooth was the action?

720P had another advantage (I beleive). It maxes out the 19.34 Mbps bandwidth less in high action situations.

That is
(1) ABC argues that 720P works better in the contraints of the available bandwidth. 1080i will spike above the 19.34 Mbps more often than 720P causing pixelation and dropouts.

(2) and also offers more real information in each frame than 1080i.
720 vs 540 each 1/60 of a second.

In other words 720P should work better than 1080i the faster the action.

[57U]

I have looked for "compression artifact"-like activity (pixels, etc) on all of the sports events. I've never seen them on HD, therefore it may have something to do with the "equipment along the way" whether it's the STB, TV, station, feed to the affiliate, etc.

You're a guy who seems to like specs. I've been dying to provide this link. See --> This ATSC Chart (http://www.miranda.com/library.en/Digital%20Standards/Std_Poster.pdf) for more information on "Bandwidth" and other issues. (The eye test comes for free, eyedox will have more business)

[hdexpert]

my god it seemed like only a few hours since i last checked this post and there are 8 more replies...what happened to "let it die" lol......your right its all subjective, to me...it just makes since that the tvs would look better in their native ratio, and i would say the general consensus agrees....unless someone asks me a specific question i am not posting this thread again....i did want to make one more point though..several peeps have mentioned the 720p out of an xbox, i could be mistaken (i am sure yall will tell me) but i was under the assumption that it was not yet possible to record in 720p or 1080i (without spending buku dollars) because of the cost of developement of the blue laser..if so then is it just an upcovert of 480 coming out of the xbox..or has microsoft done the impossible and released a new technology for a measley $199.00

[Jester]

The difference is that the XBox is using PC style componentry to "generate" a display in HiDef resolution. It is the equivalent of playing a game on your PC at 1280 x 720 resolution and using HiDef conversion circuitry (scan conversion) to output the result to your RPTV. The DVD caliber game disk does not have to carry 2+ hours of HiDef MPEG2, so it fits without the new laser technology.

BTW: It costs Microsoft a lot more than $199 to produce an XBox. The reason they sell it at a loss is the games that you will *hopefully* purchase will make up the difference. That's why they tried to make the hardware proprietary. They did not want you to buy the XBox for general purpose computing (although some Linux groups are close to making that a reality).

[Wooger]

Close nothing. I believe it is a fact now. $199 graphically supercharged workstations! WHOO-HOO!!

...too bad we live in a Window$ world!

[aj327]

"you are a dipstick"

"what happened to "let it die" lol......your right its all subjective, to me...it just makes since that the tvs would look better in their native ratio, and i would say the general consensus agrees....unless someone asks me a specific question i am not posting this thread again...."

Maybe you shouldn't post to this thead unless you have some specific answers, or something besides insults. I beleive I posted two specific and legitimate questions. I'm not asking about native resolutions and what looks "better" subjectively. I'm asking for some behind the scences answers for various seemingly conflicting comments.

I appreciate when people say they just don't know, but don't care for loud mouthed braggarts who don't know half as much as they say they do - yet feel licensed to bully and shame those apparently less educated.

[hdexpert]

wow that last post was pretty hypocritical dont ya think...you just slammed me.......for slamming other people..........not that i care what ya think...i didnt answer your questions because they were not asked of me (i believe you asked 57u and some one else)
thanks for the answer on the xbox thing jester, i wasnt curious enough to research it but i am glad i know..

[BadCamper]

AHEM! *cough cough*

I don't know about you folks...but I'm not going to complain about either 720p or 1080i (or even the supposed up-and-coming 1080p that's being discussed on another thread).

They ALL LOOK BETTER THAN 480i, which makes them peachy keen in my book!



I'm suprised that more of you are so focused on finding the negatives about such a great thing. Reminds me of the people in the movie theatres who watch the movie to whine about all the flaws and mistakes they find!

"If paper was so rare in Waterworld, then why did they use it to make cigarettes? That just doesn't make sense!"

Focusing your interest on all the negative aspects of something seems to lead to you people (not all of the participants here, thank God) into a negative thinking spiral. Reminds me of those people who let the smallest things just ruin their days...muttering and cursing about somebody who cut them off on the way to work all the way to the dinner table!

Get a life, Go watch TV and enjoy!

[hdexpert]

both 720p and 1080i are beautiful, i dont think there has ever been any disagreement on that...i think what camper was tryin to say is "why cant we all just get along?"

[viccrew85]

I have a question regarding 720p vs. 1080i. I have a Mitsubishi Diamond Series WS-65909 model. I've noticed that ESPN HD is going to be broadcasting in 720p. Does anyone know what my television will do with that signal? Will I be able to view shows being broadcast in 720p? And if so, will they be converted to 1080i or 480p? I'm kind of new to HDTV, but any help would be greatly appreciated.

[LeeS]

I completely agree with the last two posts. This is #84, correction #85, perhaps Kevin or 57U can put a stake through its heart with #XX and call it a record! I'm sure one that won't be broken for a while :) I give up :)

I going to watch a Deep Space 9 episode I recorded on my PVR. Then I come back and see where we are. This is very addicting :D

Lee

aaarrrg! it still lives :) #86. viccrew85, I'm looking it up on the net, but someone will probably beat me to it.

[LeeS]

viccrew85,

I can't find in writing that your set accepts 720p and converts it to 1080i. That does not mean that it doesn't, I just can't find it.

More than likely your STB does it for you and sends the 1080i to your set. I'm not that familiar with Mitsubishi TV's :(

I have an old Toshiba DST-3000 STB and it does the conversion for to 1080i for me. I get ABC OTA so I know someone is doing it. :)

Maybe tomorrow when more users are online there will be some Mitsu owners who can help you nail it down.

Lee

[viccrew85]

Thanks for the input!

[tonov12]

As far as I know, Mitsu TV's require the STB to do the conversion. I haven't dealt with the Diamond series too much but of the couple Mitsu's that I've seen, they needed an external device to convert 720p.

[proacman]

There is a review of a Mitsubishi Diamond Series TV at the following site:

http://www.guidetohometheater.com/showarchives.cgi?80

In the review it states that 720p is converted to 1080i.

I am not aware of any HD set that will not accept both 720p and 1080i. If the set's native resolution is 1080i, it converts 720p to 1080i. If it's native resolution is 720p, it converts 1080i to 720p. Any set that didn't do this would quickly be taken off the market for lack of sales and angry customers.

[tonov12]

You're right Pro, any integrated set should convert the signal to it's native resolution. I guess all Diamond would be integrated sets? I know that the Mitsu's that are just HDTV-ready will not convert the 720p signal, they require an STB to do the conversion.

[cjhsa]

Originally posted by MrFister
57U
I pump a native 720p signal to my TV with the Sony HD-200 using the variable 1 mode. I can tell you by just looking at the picture on the set if the signal is 720p or 1080i. With 720p the display icons are much smaller even though the picture fills the screen. There is a noticeable difference between the 2 formats on the 34XBR800. If the TV is displaying all HD in 1080i like the site says then the 720p signal is still making the difference and I am happy my set can accept it and convert it still keeping 720p's superior quality like no motion artifacts. I just wish I knew why the resolution increases in 720p even though it is supposedly converted to 1080i.

I'd like to say that I see exactly the same thing. 720p signals make the DirecTV guide and icons smaller. It is quite different than watching a 1080i signal. So, what am I actually seeing?

[pradike]

Originally posted by 57U
There have been a number of people who talk about the motion artifacts of 1080i, vs 720P. I, quite frankly, have never seen any motion artifacts on any HD station. I've watched hockey, football, basketball, fast moving creatures on nature shows, etc.

Perhaps some TVs are better than others regarding this issue...

I'm also not saying one format is "better" than the other, I like them both and see little difference between them other than what appears to be a more "film like" quality to the material that comes to my set as 720P, yet displayed at 1080i.

I think you are right on the money with this issue. I have never seen either the "rainbow" effect nor motion artifacts.

I have a Marantz DLP Front projector defaulting to 1080i. I also have set it to 720p to compare, as well as see how it would appear using the Sound & Vision "tuning" DVD.

There is no contest that if all content was 1080i, it would be supreme (for 1080i content). That said, 720 content is usually almost as good, and in the case of original media recoded in that format, equally good.

At the end of the day, it would be nice to have one HD standard, but between DVDs, the major 4 networks, HDTV-specific stations, and other variables, the main goal is to get the best you can with what you have.

[gqarmstrong]

i just purchased a samsung ppm63h3 63 inch plasma, which has the capabilty to display both 720p and 1080i. which will look better on my tv? will the tv automatically pick which format?

[57U]

All fixed pixel displays, like your plasma, have only one native display mode. In your case it's 768P (768 x 1366 pixels). All incoming signals will be converted to this format. The TV has no choice. Nice TV.

[gqarmstrong]

thanx 57U, i just found this site today and i have been looking for more in depth answers to my hdtv and plasma questions. thanx for your quick reply, but i'll be back for more!!!

[skymanbob]

Hi Friends -
My three year old Panasonic 53" CRT HDTV (1080i, of course) looks fabulous with a good HD signal, such as Discovery HD. My best friend's newly bought DLP (only 720p)looks even better (clearer & amazingly more life-like) when viewing the same Discovery HD station -- so its job of down-converting to 720p is superb. Yet his images look LESS good than mine when we compare some other stations such as HBO-HD. This is the opposite of how they're "supposed" to compare.
Anyway, thought I'd jump in to say -- they're both superb, truly. But we who have 1080i sets do seem to view inferior images when watching 720p programming, because the conversion to 10801 just isn't all that good. On the other hand, the DLP sets do a fabulous job of converting the other way around.
If I had to do it again, would I pay three times more for his DLP? Tough question, but I think not. -- Bob

[mech]

You are, as many people are, under the mistaken impression that your TV actually displays 720P. It does not. The 720P signals are converted to 1080i.


Now that was funny as hell! This is one of the old arguments that come back about every 2 months. I think I made this comment about two months ago, but I will make it again. "Do people think 720p is better because they know or is it because that is what they heard?" Most of the time it's the second one. I have seen both resolutions in action and I think they both can have artifacts! This is something for the time being that digital TV’s are going to have. (MeCh flips his two pennies in the air)

[anteater]

I am planning to buy a Magnavox 27MS5402 and it does NOT mention anything about 720p and when i called their CC line the lady said its NOT supported.

Does any one know what will happen when i feed the Magnavox with a 720p signal? Any one out there with this HDTV?

Any feedback would be highly appreciated. THNX !!

[Ratman]

Assumption based on other sets...

If it's fed a "native" 720p signal (I.E. game consoles), you will get nothing.

If it's connected to an external receiver (or has an internal receiver) and it detects the 720p signal (I.E. ABC, ESPN-HD), it will upconvert to 1080i.

[twonami]

:sleeping:

[Ratman]

:sleeping:
What's that supposed to mean?
Did I misstate something?

[twonami]

What's that supposed to mean?
Did I misstate something?

no, it just an old post.
It reminds me of the monster cable debates.

[RCori]

I'm more confused than ever. My 1 day old Sony 46WT510 DOWNCONVERTS the 720p signal to 480. Can I override this with my satellite box?

[Ratman]

Probably... yes.

[RCori]

But the manual says that the Sony downconverts 720p to 480. The box overrides this?

[Ratman]

But if the STB is set to output 1080i... then the TV will receive 1080i.

If the STB receives a 720p signal (ABC/ESPN-HD, etc) it will upconvert to 1080i.

[RCori]

I think I finally understand---
if I put the box on 1080i, I should receive 1080i The box overides the TV.

By the way, how's the water situation in Collingswood? I used to live in Mt. Laurel (now in the DC area).

[Ratman]

The usual.... Cooper River has flooded over onto Park Drive. The Crescent Blvd. (Rt.130) is (was) a lake.

Medford Lakes is swamped though! Between the 5"+ of rain, they had a dam break. Pretty bad. People are still being evacuated from the worst areas.

[RCori]

Good luck to all in NJ. I can't ever remember rain like that there---

[Ratman]

Nah... pretty much like a hurricane without the wind.
Thanks!

[deckard]

How dare you diss the man(Joe Kane)"misleading and dead flat wrong".LOL. What are your credentials? Do you work for Ovation software by any chance?
There are 3 main reasons 1080i is a majority standard; vs. Mr.720p.
1)1080p costs too much $$$(broadcasters,manufacturers & consumers)
2)1080p/720p costs more bandwidth(broadcasters)
3)Tv makers have been doing interlaced for 50 years, making 1080i their obvious but sad choice for now.(digital displays are changing this slowly$$$)

What are you reading this on right now? An interlaced computer monitor??
The computer industry switched to progressive scan displays, why? It IS superior, they have no bandwidth/transmission issues, and a relatively small screen size versus light output(13" to 20")monitors.

Guess I better throw away my DVE dvd. :whistle:

[richard_rd]

After just taking the time to read this thread from begining to end i figured i would add my 2 cents to the topic.

720p is better suited to display data with lots of movement, such as sporting events because all diplay lines and all pixels are lit with every 1/60th of a second. With 1080 I it takes 1/30th of a second to light every pixel and the lines are scanned odd, then even, every 1/60th of a second. This is why 720p handels motion smother then 1080i.

1080i in the same screen size has more and smaller pixels so fine details are much better (ie.. better rounded and sharper edges on items in the image).

Contrast and color are richer with 720p because more pixels are lit at the same time, 720 for 720p vs 540 for 1080I. This makes the frame brighter and color more brilliant when displayed in 720p progressive mode.

720p takes up less bandwith to broadcast because it works better with current compression algorityms that the networks use. this is why Cable and satalite providers would prefer to broadcast in 720p vs 1080i.

Large widescreen HDTVs that display 720 are way more expensive then HDTV's that display 1080i (CRT based RPTV's). In my opinion it is not worth the 2 to 4 times mark up to buy a HDTV that diplays 720p unless you are wealthy enough not to have to worry about how you blow your money.

I personally own a Hitachi 57S500 which is a 57 inch CRT based RPTV and I love the picture quality weather the input is 720P or 1080i, heck, even my old non-progressive 480i sony DVD player looks great on it. The TV can out put either 1080I or 540p. (the 540p feature is unique to Hitachi I believe, and if you are watching a sporting event and are seeing abnomalies in the picture you could switch over to 540P mode with one buton push on the remote.

The TV also does several video processing routines that are unigue to Hitachi that make it display images much more cleaner and free of errors then other brands of TV's, these are:

1080I and 540P display mode
Virtual 1080p processing
Automatic 3:2 pulldown for 24fps movies
26 point interpolation for fast moving sequences

If you would like to learn more about these features the Hitachi web site has many quick time movies that explain the benefits of these four features and many other features that the TV supports. I have included the URL below for anyone who is interested.

http://www.hitachi.us/tv/discover/techadv/tech_ad_proj07.shtml

I just purchased this set two weeks ago at circuit city for $1849, be careful trhough,cc has both the 57S500 and the 57F500 from hitachi at that price. The "S" model (UltravVision) has many upgraded enhacements over the "F" model, such as
1. better antiglare screen
2. Better CRT's, (new 5 element high contrast CRT's with better burn in protection)
3. Virtual 1080p processing
4. Adjustable color decoder without having to access the service menu.
5. Four level black and edge ehancements

[deckard]

So which is it, 720p or 1080i that takes more bandwidth to broadcast, I have heard both and a definitive answer would be great?





I know of at least one other that does 540p(toshiba).
3/2 pulldown is not unique to hitachi and never was!

[65notch]

I'm about to pull the trigger on a Panny PT53WX54. But I don't know what it does with a 720p signal.

I've tried to contact Tech support. I can't get through. I looked at the manual it doesn't say anything about not or accepting 720p.

Here is some info on their website, and if you look down at the bottom it talks about DVI and 720p, but I don't know what that means. Are they talking about DVI in general or these Tv's?

http://www.panasonic.com/consumer_electronics/tv/crtbased.asp

Any thoughts?

thanks,
Dave

[yomama]

I'm about to pull the trigger on a Panny PT53WX54. But I don't know what it does with a 720p signal.

I've tried to contact Tech support. I can't get through. I looked at the manual it doesn't say anything about not or accepting 720p.

Here is some info on their website, and if you look down at the bottom it talks about DVI and 720p, but I don't know what that means. Are they talking about DVI in general or these Tv's?

http://www.panasonic.com/consumer_electronics/tv/crtbased.asp

Any thoughts?

thanks,
Dave

I looked in my 53wxd63 manual and couldnt find anything....I would not
worry about it tho, as ABC's Monday Night Football in 720p looked fantastic. :drool11:

[Rich]

Lets go back a few posts to one of the orginial questions in this thread, which is why to some a 720p signal, upconverted to 1080i, looks better than a 1080i signal. In other words, how can some qualities of progressive scan survive interlacing.

Is this not the exact same issue as the question of progressive scan dvd players: whether there is any benefit to progressive scan dvd players for those who do not have an EDTV or 720p native resolution tv. I know from other posts that some people do set their 480p capable dvd players to 480i because they beleive their tvs do a better job upconverting the interlaced signal. But I am betting that a bunch of you, like me, are setting the dvd player to output the 480p signal. Yet how can any benefit of progressive scanning survive interlacing?

[mikehbkwm]

How dare you diss the man(Joe Kane)"misleading and dead flat wrong".LOL. What are your credentials? Do you work for Ovation software by any chance?
There are 3 main reasons 1080i is a majority standard; vs. Mr.720p.
1)1080p costs too much $$$(broadcasters,manufacturers & consumers)
2)1080p/720p costs more bandwidth(broadcasters)
3)Tv makers have been doing interlaced for 50 years, making 1080i their obvious but sad choice for now.(digital displays are changing this slowly$$$)

What are you reading this on right now? An interlaced computer monitor??
The computer industry switched to progressive scan displays, why? It IS superior, they have no bandwidth/transmission issues, and a relatively small screen size versus light output(13" to 20")monitors.

Guess I better throw away my DVE dvd. :whistle:


Deckard Woodmans actually been in the TV industry for 50 years thats a DAMN long time and he knows his stuff he used to post very valuable information on this site but he hasnt been here in a long time wonder what happened to him..

[deckard]

I'll admit this and some of my posts can be aggressive but when I see anyone calling Joe Kane "flatout wrong" I will ask for backup to those statements.
Before I even joined here I read about woodman bashing walmart and saying TV tilt has nothing to do with the earths magnetism.
So whatever his background I came here doubting anything he said.

I do miss him though...


This is also the thread where TV industry guru Twonami pi$$ed me off, looks like he annoyed Ratman as well IMO. Oh well in the past...

[Ratman]

...and saying TV tilt has nothing to do with the earths magnetism.

I remember...
http://www.hdtvoice.com/voice/showpost.php?p=57009&postcount=51

[kevinw]

I'll admit this and some of my posts can be aggressive but when I see anyone calling Joe Kane "flatout wrong" I will ask for backup to those statements.
Before I even joined here I read about woodman bashing walmart and saying TV tilt has nothing to do with the earths magnetism.
So whatever his background I came here doubting anything he said.

I do miss him though...


This is also the thread where TV industry guru Twonami pi$$ed me off, looks like he annoyed Ratman as well IMO. Oh well in the past...

Ha Ha And I thought I was the biggest Walmart disliker and I also said something to the nature of Why? Because Joe Kane said so? Nothing against Mr. Kane but he is only one side of the 720p-1080i controversy.
As long as I am happy with my 1080i box thats really all that counts to me.

[kevinw]

Read this post from the beginning for some real WALMART/Sears- Woodman-Wooger and Kevinw fun
http://www.hdtvoice.com/voice/showthread.php?t=5091&page=3&pp=25&highlight=walmart

[deckard]

Being in Canada and watching an American company(Walmart)destroy the competition is a mixed bag for me but hey I shop there cause it's cheap, thats the bottom line and it makes me a hypocrite. :D
Believe it or not I prefer 1080i...no actually I love it.

[deckard]

Read this post from the beginning for some real WALMART/Sears- Woodman-Wooger and Kevinw fun
http://www.hdtvoice.com/voice/showthread.php?t=5091&page=3&pp=25&highlight=walmart


Hey thats one of the reasons I joined this forum...truly entertaining IMO. :cheers:

[UTrod03]

the 46 inch sony is hi scan 1080i (they are apprehensive about using the word hd so they use hi scan) so if there was a 720 signal input it would upconvert to 1080i...all tvs display in what is called the tv's "native resolution"....fixed pixel devices plasmas, lcds, dlps,etc generally have a progressive "native resolution" (480p for edtv and 720p for hdtv) and crt based tvs (man is this gonna start a debate) generally look better with and have an interlaced "native resolution"....both of these are general statements because there are cases when crts display progressive (480p dvd players) and there are a very few cases where fixed pixel devices display interlaced.......but the picture always looks better whenever it displays its "native resolution"

Sony uses the term "hi-scan" with tvs that don't have an integrated tuner and cable card slot. There is no other real specs difference between comparable Sony 51" tvs. One has the tuner and card slot, and the other doesn't. Gain knowledge before you spread ignorance.

[cjhsa]

Utrod, that post was made two years ago. You might get a clue yourself.

[kevinw]

Lets close this thread It has been revied every 6mos for almost 2 years

[UTrod03]

If it's moot then why can I tell so many differences on my Sony set between 720p and 1080i. And why were there no legitimate answers to the points I made in earlier posts. And it's not original material differences as made obvious between the ABC and CBS football games. My DiscoveryHD looks fantastic in 1080i but there is little motion normally and Jay Leno looks great until you get someone dancing around on stage. ABC and ESPN-HD know what they are doing and I hope others will follow.

cbs, fox, and discovery are the three best looking hd channels i have, and fox is 720 while cbs is 1080. what's up with that? actually, i think, as far as football games go, abc is weak...audio and video wise.

[twonami]

your thread-fu is weak

[UTrod03]

ok...i'm new to this site, and, on this subject i have a quick question. i'm sure it's been asked in the lifetime of this thread, but i'm going to ask it again. if my tv converts everything to 1080i, then why does cbs look better than abc, and why, on fox, is the station icon small, as i've been told it is when watching 720p, and why is it large on cbs?

[UTrod03]

Utrod, that post was made two years ago. You might get a clue yourself.


i have questions. i've just gotten into this technology, and i don't want to have to keep upgrading like i already have with my audio stuff. i'm on my third reciever in 6 mo. i want facts. isn't that what this is for? if you know nothing, don't post anything.

[kevinw]

Calm down folks

First if you have a question, start a new thread and ask what you want. Of course everyone prefers the new member do a search first but then I too have been overwhelmed by the tally of posts and could not make sense either.

Usually starting a post in the Newbie section saves one a lot of grief.

Now the answer to you question why does some 720p material look worse than 1080i and some 1080i look worse than 720p. The source- not alwys the station but what is being televised. Directors often have an idea about what they think things should look like and that is what they make.

Part of the reason is that all production studios have there monitors tuned to SMPTE standards. You should get a home theater tune up disk to tune your tv to the same standards.

Utrod - You may have gotten a warmer response from folks if you had not drug up a year old post and then *****slapped the original poster
Gain knowledge before you spread ignorance.
Not a nice thing to say for someone who self- proffesses a lack of knowledge.
have questions. i've just gotten into this technology

[UTrod03]

Calm down folks

First if you have a question, start a new thread and ask what you want. Of course everyone prefers the new member do a search first but then I too have been overwhelmed by the tally of posts and could not make sense either.

Usually starting a post in the Newbie section saves one a lot of grief.

Now the answer to you question why does some 720p material look worse than 1080i and some 1080i look worse than 720p. The source- not alwys the station but what is being televised. Directors often have an idea about what they think things should look like and that is what they make.

Part of the reason is that all production studios have there monitors tuned to SMPTE standards. You should get a home theater tune up disk to tune your tv to the same standards.

Utrod - You may have gotten a warmer response from folks if you had not drug up a year old post and then *****slapped the original poster

Not a nice thing to say for someone who self- proffesses a lack of knowledge.

look, my knowledge base is growing rapidly. sure, i don't know as much as the so called "experts," but i can gaurantee you i know plenty about how the technology works. it sounds like what i see on my tv is largely determined by what my cable company allows to come through my dvr. that's what my question was about. it wasn't about the mechanics of the technology. anyways, if what you say is true, then how can one truly know that 720 looks better than 1080? if the broadcaster/director thinks the resolution should be different than that, then how can you possibly know exactly what you're watching?

[kevinw]

Exactly 720p DOES NOT look any better or any worse than 1080i. It is not the resolution but the production values that make the differences.
IMO and take this part with a grain of salt- I think people who have sets that display 720p natively think 720p is the best and those with a display that does 1080i think only 1080i broadcast look the best.

[Ratman]

IMO... 99% of the time, you can blame the source for any 'inadequacies' of the material displayed on your screen.

All of it looks better than 480i.

All of it looks better than VHS.

Enjoy your investment(s).

[UTrod03]

so a tv that has a native res of 720 is no better than one with 1080?

[Ratman]

... or no worse. It's HD.

[57U]

"better" is in the eye (or wallet) of the beholder. As this very long thread indicates, there are people on both sides of the fence and some who are sitting on the fence who "know". For example, check out the FAQ on "Types of HDTV". There is no "best".

[mikehbkwm]

this thread must end now or it will self destruct GAWD i remember when this damn thing started seems so long ago now...

[UTrod03]

who cares? the questions will still be asked by people who are new to the technology. it it hurting you any?

[Ratman]

I think 768p looks best! :)

[kevinw]

I like 77 because you get 8 more.... :whistle:

[swirvin]

i just bought a 52" toshiba dpl with a digitalstream OTA tuner. the tuner has a selector switch on the back for 480p-720p-1080i.

which setting should i have it on for local OTA channels? superbowl?

thanks.

[mikehbkwm]

i think 5043x4000 looks the best....

[Matt27]

The detail and clarity would be so imense that your eye's would water with pain:)lol

[-TheDrVuu-]

MY Sanyo 32" HT-32744 displays the native broadcast of the signal - 720i 720p 1280i 480p and 480i - it displays it, no upconverting... Is that bad?

[jco]

If 1080i doesnt look signifigantly sharper on your set than 720p with the very best signals then there is something wrong with your set. The disadvantage of 1080i is
that it doesnt handle fast motion as well as 720p which is why sports networks like
ESPN go with 720p while movie channels like HBO and SHOWTIME go with 1080i because there is no motion in movie frames, just a series of stills. On my new set I can see a definate drop off in sharpness between 1080i and 720p which was less apparent on
my older lower resolution set. Neither format is always "better" thats why they BOTH were adopted as part of the HDTV standard. I disagree with the posts saying that it doesnt matter if the incoming signal is 720P or 1080i because the set displays everything at 1080i anyway. FALSE. IF the incoming signal is 720p, it doesnt gain any resolution ( its still approx 1 Mpixels of details) when converted to 1080i, but if the incoming signal is 1080i, it still has the full 2 Mpixel 1080i resolution. You cant convert a 720P signal to 1080i resolution, its "upconverted 720P" which is not the same thing at all as true 1080i resolution. 1080i has about 40% better horizontal resolution than 720P which is clearly visible on a really good set with really good signals...

[mfabien]

Jco,

My take is that some Networks are using 720p because it requires less bandwith than 1080i.

I have never ever noticed ghosting or trace in action scenes or sports with my set and it displays HD only in 1080i. But then I have a CRT RPTV. And, I have no need to have my STB/DVR capture ABCHD or FOXHD in 720p, I set the picture format to 1080i for every HD channel and it's great.

If I had a Plasma, DLP or LCD set with a native 720p display, I would set the STB at 1080i, because there are more networks using 1080i than 720p, and let the TV convert the format.

[jco]

I do not think there is a signifigant difference in the required bandwidth of 1080i vs. 720P. If it was 1080i vs 720i, then there would be a bandwidth savings but thats not
the case. Secondly, there is no need to "save bandwidth" from a network standpoint.
The HDTV standards are already using data compression techniques like MPEG to save
bandwidth and there wouldnt be much point in switching from old NTSC to new digital TV and then degrading the image to "save bandwidth". The reason for progressive format is it is able to capture and render FAST motion better than the interlaced formats. So 1080i vs 720P is simply a tradeoff, 1080i is twice the resolution with poorer motion rendering, 720P is half the resolution with superior motion rendering. One thing that is "helping" 720P at this point is there are few program sources and TV sets that are taking advantage of the full 1080i resolution so the VISIBLE difference in resolution between 720P and 1080i is rarely being seen, but with the very best sets and sources the difference is more visible and it would be safe to assume as production quality and TV sets improve, the superior resolution of 1080i will become more noticable in the future.

[kevinw]

If 1080i doesnt look signifigantly sharper on your set than 720p with the very best signals then there is something wrong with your set.

One thing that is "helping" 720P at this point is there are few program sources and TV sets that are taking advantage of the full 1080i resolution so the VISIBLE difference in resolution between 720P and 1080i is rarely being seen

Which one is it...

[armentage]

Secondly, there is no need to "save bandwidth" from a network standpoint.
The HDTV standards are already using data compression techniques like MPEG to save
bandwidth and there wouldnt be much point in switching from old NTSC to new digital TV and then degrading the image to "save bandwidth".

If that were the case, my cable company wouldn't compress the hell out of less-watched stations (including SciFi, Comedy Central, ESPN World) to the point where they are un-watchable on a 50" TV. When I freeze-frame on my DVR, the image quality on most digital channels is DISPICABLE. It looks like a 160x120 RealMedia file from the early 90's, where everyone was on model.

The major networks look pretty good, no artifacting and lots of detail. HBO SHO etc look great on their "main" channels (HBO1, SHO1, Starz!) but the extra ones, like (HBO-4 HBO-S SHO-W SHO-M Starz4 etc.) can look pretty bad.

Note that I use TWC NYC.

[jco]

BOTH statements are true. Most sets cannot display the full 1080i resolution and in my opinion there IS something wrong with them, they are just inferior (cheap) designs. For example most LCD sets are only 720P resolution. That sucks, Sharp has just solved the problem/design limitation and has introduced a direct view LCD with the required 1080 vertical by 1920 horizontal pixels for FULL 1080i format display. Given a very high quality 1080i source signal the 1080i WILL be sharper on that set (no pun intended) than the best 720P signal will.

[jco]

If that were the case, my cable company wouldn't compress the hell out of less-watched stations (including SciFi, Comedy Central, ESPN World) to the point where they are un-watchable on a 50" TV. When I freeze-frame on my DVR, the image quality on most digital channels is DISPICABLE. It looks like a 160x120 RealMedia file from the early 90's, where everyone was on model.

The major networks look pretty good, no artifacting and lots of detail. HBO SHO etc look great on their "main" channels (HBO1, SHO1, Starz!) but the extra ones, like (HBO-4 HBO-S SHO-W SHO-M Starz4 etc.) can look pretty bad.

Note that I use TWC NYC.

Read what I said, I said "From a Network Standpoint". I suspect your CABLE company is doing the severe lossy compression of these signals, not the networks. The networks want to keep the "Masters" as clean as possible like they always have, even in the analog era.... Maybe there was a misunderstanding, when I said networks I meant the television networks like CBS, NBC, etc, not your CATV "Network".

[kevinw]

BOTH statements are true. Most sets cannot display the full 1080i resolution and in my opinion there IS something wrong with them, they are just inferior (cheap) designs. For example most LCD sets are only 720P resolution. That sucks, Sharp has just solved the problem/design limitation and has introduced a direct view LCD with the required 1080 vertical by 1920 horizontal pixels for FULL 1080i format display. Given a very high quality 1080i source signal the 1080i WILL be sharper on that set (no pun intended) than the best 720P signal will.
So what your saying is that 720p is better but no one can see it so 1080i is better? Or is it the other way around since no one can see all of the 1080i lines because there Tvs are bad?
BTW What are you using as a monitor?

[jco]

So what your saying is that 720p is better but no one can see it so 1080i is better? Or is it the other way around since no one can see all of the 1080i lines because there Tvs are bad?
BTW What are you using as a monitor?
how in the world do you interpret what I said to mean what you say above? What I said is that 1080i SIGNAL is better resolution than 720P (sharper) but since most (if not all) HDTV sets cannot yet fully display 1080i correctly yet the difference between seeing 720P and 1080i on most sets is minimal in terms of resolution. BUT as the sets get bettter and the signal quality (transfers, cameras, etc.) gets better, 1080i will gain more VISIBLE difference in superiority of resolution over 720P. And the key thing to remember is that the only advantage of 1980i over 720P is sharpness with slow moving or still images. If your set cannot display that extra sharpness then 720P is best
on THAT SET because it handles motion better and something like fast moving sports would look better in terms of lack of motion artifacts.....
In other words, if your set isnt sharp enough to display the extra resolution
of 1080i, then you gain nothing by using it, and in fact you lose the motion
quality of 720P by using 1080i. But that is on a flawed set. If your set CAN
display the extra resolution of 1980i then it may well look better than 720P for many signals (like MOVIES) because its sharper and many signals (LIKE MOVIES) will not have the motion artifacts issues anyway with interlaced...

My current set is a brand new and tweeked Sony KD-34XBR960 CRT with the super fine pitch aperture grille (shadow mask). I can easily see a difference in
sharpness of all of my sources and 720P is NOT displayed as sharp as 1080i on this set. On my last set which was the KV-27HS420 without the fine pitch screen, I couldnt tell any difference between 720P and 1080i sharpness because the resolution of the set itself was lower than both signals and I also noticed less difference between DVD and HD. Not so with my current set. 720 looks much better than DVD and 1080i looks signifigantly better than 720 in terms of sharpness...

[Matt27]

You mean superfine pitch tube right?Because Sony does not use shadow masks, they use aperature grills.

[jco]

You mean superfine pitch tube right?Because Sony does not use shadow masks, they use aperature grills.
34" XBR with super fine pitch aperture grille like I said. and yes it is a direct view color CRT.
jco

[kevinw]

how in the world do you interpret what I said to mean what you say above? What I said is that 1080i SIGNAL is better resolution than 720P (sharper) but since most (if not all) HDTV sets cannot yet fully display 1080i correctly yet the difference between seeing 720P and 1080i on most sets is minimal in terms of resolution. BUT as the sets get bettter and the signal quality (transfers, cameras, etc.) gets better, 1080i will gain more VISIBLE difference in superiority of resolution over 720P. And the key thing to remember is that the only advantage of 1980i over 720P is sharpness with slow moving or still images. If your set cannot display that extra sharpness then 720P is best
on THAT SET because it handles motion better and something like fast moving sports would look better in terms of lack of motion artifacts.....
In other words, if your set isnt sharp enough to display the extra resolution
of 1080i, then you gain nothing by using it, and in fact you lose the motion
quality of 720P by using 1080i. But that is on a flawed set. If your set CAN
display the extra resolution of 1980i then it may well look better than 720P for many signals (like MOVIES) because its sharper and many signals (LIKE MOVIES) will not have the motion artifacts issues anyway with interlaced...

My current set is a brand new and tweeked Sony KD-34XBR960 CRT with the super fine pitch aperture grille (shadow mask). I can easily see a difference in
sharpness of all of my sources and 720P is NOT displayed as sharp as 1080i on this set. On my last set which was the KV-27HS420 without the fine pitch screen, I couldnt tell any difference between 720P and 1080i sharpness because the resolution of the set itself was lower than both signals and I also noticed less difference between DVD and HD. Not so with my current set. 720 looks much better than DVD and 1080i looks signifigantly better than 720 in terms of sharpness...
So at first you said 720p is better than 1080i but if we all did not have lousy sets then 1080i would be better but as technology advances 1080i will be even better?

[Eldorado]

First, has anybody seen any ghosting of the images ever when watching football games on CBS at 1080i? That story of 720p being better for fast action images is hogwash. Most every post here praises the quality of CBS football broadcasts over FOX HD.

Second, my Sony KD-34XBR960 can produce HD images which are clearer when showing a 1080i image over a 720p, but mostly when watching INHD, because that is the least compressed Comcast channel. I believe compression is much more significant than HD format for picture quality. My Sharp LCD projector with a native resolution of 720p does a better job with FOX and ABC (720p) than with CBS and NBC (1080i). So also the quality of the scaler in every particular set makes a significant difference.

[eric gill]

720p super bowl didnt look any better than 1080i did on other things i have seen.. i dont wanna sound like i am starting a fight but unless you have an lcd, plasma, dlp, or some other fixed pixel device you are watching 1080i anyway because all the traditional crt based devices upconvert to 1080i


downconverts to 1080i you mean right Im not saying you as a person can see the diffrence but 720 vissible verse 540 vissible is better.

[eric gill]

So at first you said 720p is better than 1080i but if we all did not have lousy sets then 1080i would be better but as technology advances 1080i will be even better?


your wrong with 1080i you only see 540 lines of resolution at on time.

[jco]

your wrong with 1080i you only see 540 lines of resolution at on time.
False, thats crazy. The interlaced format lets you see ALL the pixels at once because there is persistance and the pixels remain "on" for a while, long enuff for your eye to see everything EVEN WITH an interlaced display. If your "logic" was true, when watching a CRT you would only see a single "dot" because thats all there ever is on the screen at any one time.
JCO

[jco]

First, has anybody seen any ghosting of the images ever when watching football games on CBS at 1080i? That story of 720p being better for fast action images is hogwash. Most every post here praises the quality of CBS football broadcasts over FOX HD.

Second, my Sony KD-34XBR960 can produce HD images which are clearer when showing a 1080i image over a 720p, but mostly when watching INHD, because that is the least compressed Comcast channel. I believe compression is much more significant than HD format for picture quality. My Sharp LCD projector with a native resolution of 720p does a better job with FOX and ABC (720p) than with CBS and NBC (1080i). So also the quality of the scaler in every particular set makes a significant difference.

Interlacing cannot handle fast changes in the image because if something moves alot between the first field and the the second field of the the two fields that make up a frame the two fields dont match and will have a very
unnatural artifact. Progressive format has no such problems like that. I dont
see how you can say that interlaced format is as good with fast motion as progressive format is.

Secondly, just because you have a particular set (fixed pixel) that cannot display 1080i properly and actually looks better with a 720P signal doesnt mean that 720P is better signal, it just means your set cant display the higher resolution (1080i) signal as well has the lower resolution signal because the downconversion from 1080i to 720P isnt as good as true 720P to begin with, not because 1080i isnt better. The only fair and logical way to judge the quality of the 720P and 1080i signals is with the very best playback equipment for each and when doing that 1080i will be sharper (but not able to handle fast motion as well) than 720p.

lastly, I think the main differences seen in HD programs is solely due to source
quality. There are very few programs that look as good as HDTV is possible of delivering. All you have to do is see one exceptionally good program to know that HD is delivering, all the others that look inferior are just that, inferior technical quality programs, its not the HD technology or format or compression causing that, its just inferior recordings. Older, 4 to 5 yr old HD movie transfers are a good example. They dont look nearly as good as the latest ones, even of old films. The difference is the HD transfers, not because one HD channel is compressing the HD signal more than another...

[Matt27]

Anybody know anything about 1080p sets? I'm very interested!:)

[kevinw]

your wrong with 1080i you only see 540 lines of resolution at on time.
How am I wrong , I asked a question to somone else???

[Captmike]

This is a quote from http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/plasmatvreviews/resolution-explained.html

Pixel resolution with regard to plasma monitors is a tricky issue. Basically, all 42" plasma tv's have a built in converter/scalar to take care of the interpolation issue with matching up the incoming signal with the native pixel resolution. A 42" plasma monitor with 1024X1024 will not display a 1080i signal straight out. In order to show a true 1080I HDTV signal a 42" 16:9 plasma display monitor must have a native pixel resolution of 1920X1080. None currently have this resolution. All current 42" plasma monitors must do a certain amount of interpolating through the video processing chip/converter/scalar.

Because the 1024X1024 monitor seems closer in native pixel resolution to the 1080I signal than an 853X480 monitor it stands to reason that it would show the 1080i signal at a higher resolution - closer to the 1024 than the 853. However, the 1024X1024 monitor uses an interlace scan to see every other line while the 853X480 monitor uses progressive scanning. Using a comparison at a 60hz refresh rate, what you will actually see vertically is 512 lines on the 1024X1024 monitor compared with 480 vertical lines on the 853X480 monitor. Not much difference.

While the 1024X1024 (XGA resolution) plasma monitor still appears to have the edge in resolution we have to remember that the pixels are rectangles rather than square. This enables the monitor to produce the images for the 16:9 widescreen monitor. This means that the 1024 X1024 monitor has to do more interpolating on the horizontally stretched pixel, which can cause some softening. There is just a lot of severe scaling to be done there. The 853X480 monitor, having square pixels, will have an easier time with the horizontal conversion.

The 1024X1024 monitor can end up softening the image more due to the more severe horizontal filtering. It can depend upon the scalar/converter of the monitor as to which views the best.

This is where the difference between reasoning and true to life experience gets a little hairy. Contrast, brightness, and black levels come in to play with video images. What the eye picks up may be a much better picture on the 853X480 monitor because the converter/scalar does a better job of "blending" (through progressive scanning) the color information in such a way as to cause a crisper image. Contrast will necessarily translate into a better picture image given the effectiveness of the scalar/converter, though at the same time the 1024X1024 monitor may show a bit better depth/ three dimensionalities.

Since computer signals are progressive the 1024X1024 monitor will convert the signal very well to interlaced and provide a good resolution vertically. Obviously an XGA resolution will favor the 1024X1024 monitory because of the similarity in signal and pixel. Still image graphics for instance would look better on the 1024X1024 than on an 853X480 monitor because the refresh rate does not come into play. The progressive scanning 853X480 may look better using a computer with fast motion imaging, but generally the 1024X1024 monitor should display most computer graphic presentation materials better. A normal VGA resolution of 853X480 will match up nicely with the 853X480 monitor.

The 50" plasma monitors display somewhat different pixel resolutions. Native pixel resolutions of 1280X768 or 1365X768 are shown. These plasma monitors will use progressive scanning to show the best possible picture. An incoming 1080i signal will be cross-converted to 768P (as opposed to down-converted with an 853X480 widescreen monitor). An incoming 720P signal will be upconverted to 768P. Therefore, the viewer will get a full and true HDTV picture.

My current understanding in attempts to be better understand this topic, from this tread and from other sites is:

1. The STB will have a selectable option as to select the desired resolution.

2. The Monitor will have a selectable option as to select the desired resolution.

3. In order to see HD in 1080, If my monitor is xxxx x 768 res. It will be displayed at 720P (if selected) or upconverted to 1080i (if selected) AND only if the specs say that it is "capable" of 1080i?

4. I understand that the picture will be better at 720P (p=progressive i=interlaced)

[57U]

1. The STB will have a selectable option as to select the desired resolution.

2. The Monitor will have a selectable option as to select the desired resolution.

3. In order to see HD in 1080, If my monitor is xxxx x 768 res. It will be displayed at 720P (if selected) or upconverted to 1080i (if selected) AND only if the specs say that it is "capable" of 1080i?

4. I understand that the picture will be better at 720P (p=progressive i=interlaced) 1. Yes, however...

2. Only CRT-type displays will have a selectable output (480P, 1080i, 540P, etc and even then, many do not have that option any more, simply displaying all incoming signals at 1080i).

Fixed pixel displays (like plasmas, LCDs, DLPs) will convert ANY incoming signal to the number of pixels in the display - they have no choice.

3. No, see above.

4. No, neither is "better" as previously discussed in this long thread.

[Captmike]

1. Yes, however...


3. No, see above.

Are you disagreeing with "A 42" plasma monitor with 1024X1024 will not display a 1080i signal straight out. In order to show a true 1080I HDTV signal a 42" 16:9 plasma display monitor must have a native pixel resolution of 1920X1080."?

Or for that matter in order to view true 1080i on any (plasma), the set must have a native pixel resolution of 1920 x 1080?

[/QUOTE]

[57U]

1. a 42" plasma with 1024 x 1024 pixels will display all incoming signals at 1024 x 1024 (basically 1024P). IT HAS NO CHOICE!.

2. You can't view 1080i (as such) on a plasma. All fixed pixel displays display progressively THEY HAVE NO CHOICE.

ANY incoming signal, be it 480i, 480p, 1080i, or 720P will be converted to the native resolution of any fixed pixel display.

[Captmike]

ANY incoming signal, be it 480i, 480p, 1080i, or 720P will be converted to the native resolution of any fixed pixel display.

so, in the case of voOm, who says that they trasmit their digital signal at 1080i,

does not make at difference right now anyway, since there are very few native 1080i plasmas' availble....so what I would be viewing would be downconverted to whatever the native resolution of my set is.....yes or no?

If, lets say, a provider sent digital signals at something LESS than 720...would it then be UNconverted to 720p, provided that my plasma has a native res of 720p...yes or no?

[57U]

Well yes, sort of. Plasmas do not have a native 720P resolution. They are typically 768P or 1024P (some are 480P EDTV plasmas). As I have previously stated, ALL INCOMING FORMATS ARE CHANGED TO THE NATIVE RESOLUTION OF THE FIXED PIXEL DISPLAY. (This is not shouting, it is emphasis since I have now stated it several times)

[kevinw]

It makes no difference what is transmitted in regard to HD, a display will only show what it is capable of. IF 10801 -then 10801, if 720p then 720p. Either the TV or the STB will take the incoming signal and convert to the format that the TV will display.

[Captmike]

It makes no difference what is transmitted in regard to HD, a display will only show what it is capable of. IF 10801 -then 10801, if 720p then 720p. Either the TV or the STB will take the incoming signal and convert to the format that the TV will display.

I have been following every post on this topic and I do understand that no matter what the brodcast is in....(voOm.1080i) the plasma will only display it's native resolution.

so, this example would be correct using voOm as the provider. A 768 or 1024 resolution plasma would be displayed either as 768 or 1024 OR ONLY as 720P????

[57U]

The provider doesn't matter and the incoming signal doesn't matter. All signals are converted to the native resolution of a fixed pixel display.

The display will be 768P in the example you provided. The second number is the horizontal resolution.

IF the display were 1024 x 1024, the display would be 1024P.

If the display were 768 x 1365, the display would be 768P, but with more horizontal "resolution".

If the display were 1080 x 1920 (which some new LCDs are), then that would be 1080P.

If you had a DLP which is 720 x 1280, the display would be 720P.

I hope this is now clear.

Note, that all of this "technical stuff" doesn't really matter. What matters is how does the TV look, because some TVs that may appear to be "superior" technically, may look lousy due to lousy quality, poor electronics or poor "conversion"...

[ggillies]

I have been following this thread fior a while and thought I'd post my findings with the following equipment.

Mitsubishi WD52525
Motorola 5100 HD Cable Box
LG LDA511 DVD player
Denon AVR 3801
NHT 2.4T towers front, NHT center and rears, Velodyne 12" Sub.

First of all, at 1080i I REALLY noticed the rainbow effect. This was with my Cable box set to output 1080i and 480P for all other sources. If I watched any HD material and there waere dark scenes in it, the rainbow effect was particularly bad, especially if I moved my head, or shifted position on the couch. Secondly, when there was any fast motion on the screen, I would get the pixelation/blockiness/jaggies, mostly in the center of the screen.

I then switched my Motorola to output 720P for HD and left it at 480P for other sources. There was a SIGNIFICANT difference. THe rainbow effect has almost totally disappeared! I very seldom notice it anymore. As soon as I change back to 1018i, it comes back full force. THe motion artifacts have reduced SIGNIFICANTLY at 720P also.

I have my DVD player connected via HDMI, but I am just using it for the video. For the sound, I am using the digital coax connector (the optical is being used by the Motorola) to my Denon. On this model of DVD, there is a button that only works in HDMI mode where you can change the output from 480i to 480P, to 720P, to 1080i. Again, on the DVD the 720P is just better than ANY of the other settings. I have had a couple of my friends who are very technical (IT professionals and fellow HDTV converts) come and take a look. I didn't tell them which settings were which and asked them to grade the picture quality for me, I then cycled through the settings on my Cable box and my DVD player. They unanimously thought the 720P was better. The colors also seem to be richer, but maybe that's a by=product of a better overall picture.

Anyway, I think that the benefits of the now almost non existant rainbow effect, plus my opinion that the picture is better in every sense has mad me a firm believer in 720P.

Any Comments?

[57U]

Comments? Yes. This is true for your particular application, for your particular equipment, for your eyes, for your environment, and for the particular programming in question.

It is not true for "anyone else" although they may prefer 720P or 1080i, as mentioned before, there is no "better", only "different".

Different TV
Different STB
Different DVD player
Different DVD
Different TV programme
Different results.

As we have noted in this thread, there are differing opinions, but there is no "right" opinion, other than the one I have already expressed which is that there is no "better" in the 720P vs 1080i discussion.

Both are "good". Once 1080P comes along, perhaps this stupid argument can be put to rest.

[ggillies]

Yes you are absolutely correct. My particular equipment seems to be better at these setting, but others experience may vary. I wasn't claiming that 720P was inherently better or worse than 1080i, just that in my application (specifically the DLP side of things, it made a difference) I too can't wait to find out what 1080P looks like!

[jco]

As we have noted in this thread, there are differing opinions, but there is no "right" opinion, other than the one I have already expressed which is that there is no "better" in the 720P vs 1080i discussion.
I disagree. Given a really good set that is capable of displaying more horizontal resolution than 720P offers (1280 pixels?) like the new 1080x1920 LCDs 1080i will look sharper than 720P both horzontially and vertically (twice the pixels of 720P), but 1080i does not handle fast motion as well SOME OF THE TIME. for example if the source is a movie, then there is no motion problems with 1080i because the source doesnt change during the two fields of a 1080i frame. So it that case, 1080i is definately superior. The only time 720P might look better than 1080i is during live events with fast motion like sports and even then you are giving up sharpness to get smoother motion. So its not a matter of 720P being nearly the same as 1080i. they are definately different and in many cases 1080i will be visibly superior. So it is not a case of for ANY situation 720P and 1080i will be similar and debatable. Depending on the case (fast motion scenes live) there may be a debate, but with other signals (like movies) there is no debate, 1080i is superior and there is no argument for 720P in the case of movie sources....

[tbenson81]

The answer is very simple and all you need is a little common sense to understand why.

1080i - Is better most of the time because there is over 30% more resolution. If you are watching a drama or any show with not a lot of motion, the naked eye is not going to see the difference and the picture will be of higher quality thann 720p.

720p - Is better for sports and fast motion, where the changes in the picture are so rapid that they are noticed by the naked eye.

[armentage]

The only time 720P might look better than 1080i is during live events with fast motion like sports and even then you are giving up sharpness to get smoother motion. So its not a matter of 720P being nearly the same as 1080i. they

Why exactly do you think that 720p will be sharper for live action?

[Ratman]

Why exactly do you think that 720p will be sharper for live action?
That's not what he said...
He stated just the opposite.
Re-read the quote you pasted.

[kevinw]

The only time 720P might look better than 1080i is during live events with fast motion like sports and even then you are giving up sharpness to get smoother motion.
This is during broadcast..If your TV does not display 720p and the TVor the STB converts to 1080i then it is moot. The reverse is also true, if broadcast in 1080i and converted to 720p you gain nothing again.

[kevinw]

Why exactly do you think that 720p will be sharper for live action?
He was saying smoother for 720p and less sharp vs 1080i that is sharper and less smooth during rapid movement.

[57U]

1080i - Is better most of the time because there is over 30% more resolution. .
You're forgetting that one is interlaced and the other is progressive. In terms of "bitrate" (bandwidth) there is about a 10% difference.

Also, I've seen many posts where people don't "like" the look of 720P because it looks "smoother" (not as crisp).

Well, if you want that "crisp" look, turn your sharpness back up to 100% and enable SVM.

I'm not advocating one format over the other, I'm just trying for some "balance" so people realize this is not a "cut and dried" discussion as can be evidenced by the length of the discussion and by the various viewpoints.

Also, as mentioned very early in this thread, the discusssion becomes moot once you've bought your HDTV, as it either displays in progressive format of close to 720P or in an interlaced format of 1080i. There are no consumer HDTVs that natively display both.

[armentage]

Sorry, I meant to ask:


Why will 720p be smoother than 1080i?

Is 720p @ 30hz vs 1080i @ 60?

[tonelocdog]

I like 1080i better, except for watching nba basketball in 720p on espn hd :sherlok:

[Captmike]

The provider doesn't matter and the incoming signal doesn't matter. All signals are converted to the native resolution of a fixed pixel display.

The display will be 768P in the example you provided. The second number is the horizontal resolution.

IF the display were 1024 x 1024, the display would be 1024P.

If the display were 768 x 1365, the display would be 768P, but with more horizontal "resolution".

If the display were 1080 x 1920 (which some new LCDs are), then that would be 1080P.

If you had a DLP which is 720 x 1280, the display would be 720P.

I hope this is now clear.

Note, that all of this "technical stuff" doesn't really matter. What matters is how does the TV look, because some TVs that may appear to be "superior" technically, may look lousy due to lousy quality, poor electronics or poor "conversion"...

So, when I purchase this Mits and it has 1365 X 768 pixal array, I will get 768 resolution...the native resolution of the set. When it says Scan Rate Compatibility of 1080i...

1. how and when can that be viewed? ( you stated the incoming signal doesn't matter)

[Splicer]

He means the TV will display it at the native resolution of the TV irrespective of the signal being input to it. It will up or down convert the signal.

[Captmike]

He means the TV will display it at the native resolution of the TV irrespective of the signal being input to it. It will up or down convert the signal.


Ok....understatand that regarding the specs on the Mits....it's means that it will accept a 1080i signal but will only display it at its native resolution of 768. Is that a correct statement?

[Sheabuff]

Yes it is

[Captmike]

Yes it is

ok,,,,,getting smarter....

The question then becomes.....

How are users viewing at 1080i?

[Sheabuff]

It is my understanding that with the tv in particular you would recieve a 1080i signal and the tv would convert(I will not say up or down because HD is HD) it to 768P, which is what the viewer would see displayed. With the Mits you would not view 1080i.

[Captmike]

It is my understanding that with the tv in particular you would recieve a 1080i signal and the tv would convert(I will not say up or down because HD is HD) it to 768P, which is what the viewer would see displayed. With the Mits you would not view 1080i.

Ok, I understand that now but, how are users that post "First of all, at 1080i I REALLY noticed the rainbow effect" veiwing 1080i?

[57U]

For the 50th time in this thread... Only CRT-based HDTVs display 1080i natively. Also, all consumer CRT-based HDTVs can only display HD as 1080i natively. (Some can accept 720P and 1080i but 720P will be converted to 1080i)

[highton]

All right!

This discussion seems to be going in circles, but it seems like our moderator makes the most sense to me. I was told just the other day by my Home Theater store, that whatever signal I put into the plasma is what I would be watching. I did not think that was correct, but did not want to argue too much, as I'm just a rookie at this. I did put the question to him that: How can a display that only has 768 horizontal lines show 1080? That's when he repeated that "What you put in is what you will be watching." I stopped there because it seemed as if I was talking to a wall.
So, according to 57U, the fixed pixel displays can only show their native resolution at all times. This makes perfect sense to me! If I put a 720P signal to the 768 panel it has to convert those 720 lines up to 768. Therefore a little interpolation must occur. Some of those 720 lines have to be repeated to bring the display resolution to 768, right? Accordingly the 1080 lines would have to be scaled back to the 768. Now I'm wondering which would be better for my application? I posted this question on another thread and got no response, so I'll try it over here! I've got a Dish Network HD 811 receiver hooked to my 1024x768 plasma screen. When I set the output of the sat. receiver to 720P I get a VERY soft picture. I would almost say it's no better than a 480P or even a 480i signal. I change the output to 1080i and the display is much sharper and truly looks Hi-Def. After reading this forum I'm wondering if the sat. receiver is having a hard time converting the signal to 720P. (I'm also thinking that the sat. receiver may have a problem with it.) And since almost all of the HD programming is broadcast at 1080i, wouldn't it be better to keep the signal at that until it is finally converted at the display and therefore only converts it once. It seems like taking a 1080i signal and converting to a 720P and then convertring it again to 768P is kinda like making a copy of a copy. Somethings got to get lost in the process!
Is my thinking way off base here?

[Captmike]

I share your concerns. 57U has been very patient while I learn this stuff as well. I too just received some answers that I didn't like from a salesman at BB regarding the resolution (768) of a plasma. When I asked him...It's my understanding that what is meant if the specs say compatible with 1080i is that it will accept that signal but it's displayed at the native resolution of the display...in this case 768. He said no....it is unconverted to 1080i. When I further questioned him and asked if that were the case then how could that be displayed when the resolution on the monitor only goes to 768. He then could not answer....but did ask me what I meant by "native resolution". I walked over to a Samsung DLP which stated on BB's spec sheet. "Only displays at 720P). I told the salesman...that is its "native" resolution.

I think that it's best to find out what you want by using forums such as this. Then after deciding what you want...use the salesperson only for the purchase and not to rely on their knowledge…..or lack there of. I like to stir the pot sometimes. So I think that the next time I go into one of these stores I will ask to speak to the most knowable person. Then I will ask that person what is "native resolution", what is the i in 1080 (I) and the p in 768 (P), and probably the best one that I have heard so far....and I understand that I have to have a HD OTA antenna?

[kevinw]

All right!

This discussion seems to be going in circles...
Keep in mind the source also. If you output a 1080i source at 720p then have it converted to 768p you will in fact have 3 conversions.

[HDCowboy]

Regards,

HDCowboy. On the issue of comparing 720p with 1080i, an excellent... most terrific explanation, borrowed (with permission) from a CEDIA certified fellow, and esteemed member, "rbinck". I would like to now defer to Mr. "rbinck"... I quote.



It is difficult to compare the two on horizontal lines alone.

Let's look at some numbers. At 1920 x 540 pixels per scan that is a total of 1,036,800 pixels. The two scans ends up with 1920 x 1080 or 2,073,600 pixels. Now you compare that with 1280 x 720 which is 921,600 pixels. Even each 540 lines that make up the half frame has more pixels than the 720p format.

The only case for 720p is the motion blur case, which is valid when you compare 480i with 480p when both of them have the same number of horizontal pixels. It is much less valid when you compare 1080i against 720p, but we humans tend to discount this. Consider the motion blur of interlaced scan vs the pixel straddling blur of object edges occuring between pixels. This can and is as bad or worse as the motion blur and it happens in both directions. The more pixels the less this blur is.
:hyper:

[highton]

Keep in mind the source also. If you output a 1080i source at 720p then have it converted to 768p you will in fact have 3 conversions.
kevinw,
I see by your equipment list that you have the Dish 811. How does the 720P output look on your TV compared to the 1080i? My 720P output looks VERY soft (not Hi-Def at all!), as I've said in my other post. I also have a Dish 921 hooked up to a 37" Sharp Aquos, and can't hardly tell any difference between 720P & 1080i.

[kevinw]

kevinw,
I see by your equipment list that you have the Dish 811. How does the 720P output look on your TV compared to the 1080i? My 720P output looks VERY soft (not Hi-Def at all!), as I've said in my other post. I also have a Dish 921 hooked up to a 37" Sharp Aquos, and can't hardly tell any difference between 720P & 1080i.
I personally can not tell any difference in PQ when comparing similiar programs.For example ABC,ESPN or FOX football to CBS college ball.
I have the 811 set to output 1080i so all conversion is done by the 811. My TV will only dipsplay a 1080i picture.

[HDTV2k4]

I felt compeled to jump into this thread and add my $.02. I am not a DTV/HDTV expert, but more of a power user. I have a firm understanding of electronics and new technologies. My backround is varied, but I have a traditional/digital photographic backround and computer systems engineering experience.

My set is the Sony KV30HS420, from what most are saying it cannot display 720p, the signal is "upconvereted to 1080i". I guess what I need is for someone to explain to me is why is it when I run the set up on my SA 8300HD to select all of the different modes (480i/480p/720i/720p/1080i) I can clearly see the difference between ALL of the modes. Also, when using pass-through and viewing the actual channel the difference is clear. The 8300HD displays the mode in use.

As for native resolution, I know LCD monitors have them, but CRT's don't (at least not computer CRT's). I would think this set would be able to view any of those resolutions, but they may not all look so great (same as my 19" CRT) which I can display many resolutions, but 1280x1024 looks the best.

All I know and IMO the channels that broadcast 1080i signals, look the best by far, the image looks cleaner and crisper. As for the interlaced discussion, I don't know maybe my eyes work differently, but I've seen full motion sports on the 1080i stations as I don't see any blurring or flickering. What I do see the most is the pixelization which is which is due to mpeg-2 compression.

Anyway, these are just my opinions. All I really care about is that I love my system, tv and dvd's have never looked better and the sound is excellent. I just can't wait for more HD channels! :hyper:

D

[57U]

You can clearly see the difference because there are some differences in the channels and the programming. There may be times for example (on a "poor" 1080i signal), when a "good" 720P signal will look better.

Also, since your display is native 1080i, wouldn't you expect it to do a better job when it receives a 1080i signal?

[jco]

Having reread this thread from start to finish again I think there is something that
has not been discussed that should have been. It was said many times that the input signal format coming into your set is usually "moot" because nearly all sets display
only one format or another so it doesnt matter. I dont understand why its moot? If your set only natively displays one format or another then you will be dealing with one format raw and one format converted when doing these comparisons and the converted format is always inferior to the raw one because you only get the "lowest common denominator" of the two formats when you do the conversions.

In order to fairly compare the 720P signal vs. the 1080i signal you would need a set that can display them both properly.
That would mean either a set that can actually display both signals WITHOUT conversions from one format to the other or two sets of equal and HIGH quality each being optimized for the two different formats. It is not a valid comparison to use CONVERTED signals because these two different formats are just that different and they cannot be converted from one in the other without major losses. If you convert 720P to 1080i you maintain the resolution of 720P but you lose its inherent strength which is the 60 frames per second, all 60 frames progressively scanned. You end up
with only 30 interlaced "frames" so its WORSE than true 720P signal and display. Conversely, if you convert a 1080i signal to 720P, You LOSE resolution which is the main strength of 1080i but maintain same 30 "frames" per second of 1080i and if the original signal was true 1080i the deinterlacinig to create the 720P frames may cause artifacts.

What does all this mean? Well if your set is 1080i native and every other format is converted to 1080i, You are far more likely to get the best picture with 1080i signals and especially with slow moving video. On the other hand, if your set is 720P native, you are far more likely to get better pictures with 720P signals especially when the motion in the video is high. Since it seems that most fixed pixel displays at this time are approx 720P resolution it would seem to me that 720P would be best on these types of displays because they cant display the higher resolution of 1080i anyway and the 60fps would be much better than a converted 1080i signals 30fps. If you have a CRT based set with native 1080i display AND HIGH QUALITY display that is capable of actually showing the increased detail of 1080i, then it would make sense that 1080i signal would look much better than a CONVERTED 720P signal.

I have never seen this type of comparison on two different monitors each optimized for the two different formats both displaying the exact same material in the respective formats using both slow and fast video motion ( I doubt very few people ever have outside labs ) but the logic would be that signals matching your native display format will nearly always look better than converted signals will because converted signals dont have the best of each format, they have the worst of each format. And since nearly all sets only display one format natively the incoming signal format does matter quite a bit, you want the raw, true format that matches your set, not the converted one for the best possible picture on your set.

As for which signal really looks better when they are both compared WITHOUT any conversions? I dont know but it sure would seem to me that with slow moving subject matter the increased resolution of 1080i would be hard for 720P to match and vise versa that with really fast motion, 720P
would be a tough thing for 1080i to display even thought the detail would not be as good. That said though, since mosts sets cant do both properly you dont get BOTH of these advantages, you only get one or the other, the one that matches your native display format. Thats a sad situation. Maybe it will change in the future so that all displays can properly display all the formats properly without lossy conversions? Its something to hope for at least.....

[57U]

Without rereading the entire thread, I believe that the issue of "Which is a better signal", becomes moot once you have a TV since all consumer TVs only display one format or the other and then the decision becomes, how do you set up your STB.

Of course, it would be best to feed an "unconverted" signal to the TV if the TV accepts both 720P and 1080i (some STBs allow for a "passthrough" or "native" format). This would then minimize the conversions.

If the HDTV accepts both 720P and 1080i, but the STB can only send one type of signal, then you need to determine if your TV "prefers" to receive a 1080i or 720P signal from the STB. From the feedback on this and other forums, the answer is usually, but not always 1080i.

This is probably valid for several reasons:

1. Most channels are 1080i
2. Most TVs are designed to "best handle" a 1080i signal, since they are more prevalent.

We also need to remember that there are relatively few "true" 720P displays (DLPs are one and some LCDs). Most fixed pixel displays are either 768P, 788P or 1024P (some very recent 1080P), in which case the incoming signal undergoes a conversion, no matter what format it is.

If the TV only accepts 1080i, the discussion is moot.

[mfabien]

I have a CRT RPTV and configured my SA8000HD to transmit all HD to the TV in 1080i.

My two eyes now have new lenses (after removing cataracts) and my last eye exam says that my vision is now 20/20.

Having said that, I must admit that I can't see any difference in PQ between FOXHD, ABCHD and CBSHD, NBCHD or PBSHD. Maybe it simply shows that I'm a poor videophile...but the fact is I'm a happy HD camper!

[jco]

Without rereading the entire thread, I believe that the issue of "Which is a better signal", becomes moot once you have a TV since all consumer TVs only display one format or the other and then the decision becomes, how do you set up your STB.

Of course, it would be best to feed an "unconverted" signal to the TV if the TV accepts both 720P and 1080i (some STBs allow for a "passthrough" or "native" format). This would then minimize the conversions.

If the TV doesn't accept 720P (all HDTVs accept 1080i), then you need to determine if your TV "prefers" to receive a 1080i or 720P signal from the STB. From the feedback on this and other forums, the answer is usually, but not always 1080i.

This is probably valid for several reasons:

1. Most channels are 1080i
2. Most TVs are designed to "best handle" a 1080i signal, since they are more prevalent.

We also need to remember that there are relatively few "true" 720P displays (DLPs are one and some LCDs). Most fixed pixel displays are either 768P, 788P or 1024P (some very recent 1080P), in which case the incoming signal undergoes a conversion, no matter what format it is.
First of all this thread is not just about how to set up your TV, its about
which SIGNAL is better 720P or 1080i. To determine that you cant use
any lossy conversions. Secondly my post above specifically relates to why
720P or 1080i may look better or worse on a given type set but I am trying
to clarify is that only the format that matches your set's native display
format if it has one can look the best so which format BROADCAST (BC) signal you watch on the TV is NOT moot.

Maybe I didnt make myself clear enough, Im saying that if your TV only displays one format natively then it is going to look best with BROADCAST signal in THAT format, so its not a moot issue. To elaborate, if your set is a native 1080i display set and you feed it 720P and 1080i BC signals, you are watching degraded 1080i (converted 720p) and true 1080i. Vice versa, if you have a 720p native set and you feed it 720P and 1080i BC signals, you are watching 720P and degraded 720P ( converted 1080i).

Bottom line is that ASSUMING THE SET IS CAPABLE OF FULL PERFORMANCE OF ITS NATIVE FORMAT, then only the input signal that matches the native format of the set is going to give you that and the "other" signal which has been converted will not so its going to look worse because the converted signals in the case of 1080i>720P or 720P>1080i have SEVERE loss in the conversion of ether resolution or frame rate. This loss is not the same type of loss as the as a 720P>768 conversion some sets have which doesnt affect framerate and has barely perceptable resolution losses.

[57U]

In theory, you are correct, but in practice, what's been found is that most people switch back and forth between 720P and 1080i on their STBs and TVs and see no significant difference, because the conversion is relatively straight-forward.

There are some people who MAY see a difference.

For example, I've compared PBS Detroit (720P) with PBS Spokane (correction, not Seattle)(1080i) on my TV and see no difference (with The STB set to "passthrough")

A similar post (#205) above stated the same thing. Can't we all just be happy that we have HD and stop "quarrelling" about whether one form of HD is better than another?

If one has options with regard to the output of the STB and input of the TV, then one should experiment with all combinations to see which one they prefer on their setup. The same setup may even have different results for different people, simply because people are different. There is no "right" answer.

[TheAntMan]

Can't we all just be happy that we have HD and stop "quarrelling" about whether one form of HD is better than another?

If one has options with regard to the output of the STB and input of the TV, then one should experiment with all combinations to see which one they prefer on their setup. The same setup may even have different results for different people, simply because people are different. There is no "right" answer.

That's true. Every time, I answer a post about "which is better?" that is always what I make a point to say. If it's asked which TV is better?, or what cable is better, or which input is better to use. We all can answer from our experiences, but there is no "right" answer. If a person wants to know what's better b/w DVI/Component, I may say I see little/no improvment b/w the 2, and person X may say they see big improvment b/w the 2, but those are our individual experiences...We'll shake hands and leave it at that. The only "right" answer to the person who asked the question in the first place is .... experiment a look to see what you like best. The question of 720p vs 1080i is no different from the example I just gave. If you have the options to view both on your TV. Take a look at both and see what you like better. I believe everything is in the eye of the beholder watching the TV in his/her living room. :guiny:

[jco]

In theory, you are correct, but in practice, what's been found is that most people switch back and forth between 720P and 1080i on their STBs and TVs and see no significant difference, because the conversion is relatively straight-forward.

There are some people who MAY see a difference.

For example, I've compared PBS Detroit (720P) with PBS Seattle (1080i) on my TV and see no difference (with The STB set to "passthrough")

A similar post (#205) above stated the same thing. Can't we all just be happy that we have HD and stop "quarrelling" about whether one form of HD is better than another?

If one has options with regard to the output of the STB and input of the TV, then one should experiment with all combinations to see which one they prefer on their setup. The same setup may even have different results for different people, simply because people are different. There is no "right" answer.
NO there is a right answer to whether 720P or 1080i formats will look better
if they are displayed properly or not and whether these conversions are
straightforward or NOT. That seems to be even more clear to me now why you thought the issue was moot. If you really know what happens in these
format conversions you will find out that they matter a LOT to the maximum possible image quality you will see on screen.

This theory is basic DTV and just because " most people" cant see a difference in switching a few pass thru settings using some typical STBs doesnt hold water if ANY people can because there IS a degradation in 720P>1080i conversions and 1080i>720P conversions and it isnt minor or invisible unless of course you are vision impaired or your set cant produce an image quality good enough to discern the differences between the true broadcast formats and the degraded conversions between them.

Not to sound harsh but there is no nice way to say it, if some people may see a difference, and I dont see any reason they couldnt given decent quality equipment, then its not a moot issue as to whether you are watching a true signal format or a converted one now is it? My contention is that the better your set, and the better the broadcast quality the more apparent this difference is and will become even greater as time goes by. It is not as good
to have a set that can only display either 720P or 1080i as conversions as one
that can display them both properly. Its not displaying the ORIGINAL signal properly ( at full quality) if its been converted from 1080i>720P or 720P>1080i.

I guess the difference between 720P/60 and 1080i/60 formats isnt totally clear to everyone or you wouldnt say the conversion is "straightforward". They are VERY DIFFERENT from each other and they CANT be converted "straightforwardly". When you convert 720P>1080i you get a displayed format WORSE than either 720P/60 or 1080i/60. When you convert 1080i>720P you get a displayed format WORSE than either 1080i/60 or 720P/60. This is signifigant because on a good HDTV monitor you will see more of the degradation, on a poor one you wont because EVERYTHING is degraded to the point where the better signal is never displayed properly
at all.

Just to further clarify what I am trying to say ,
when you convert 720P/60 to 1080i/60 you end up with a display that has same performance as what a "720i/60" format would display. When you convert 1080i/60 to 720P/60 you end up with a display that same performance as what a 720P/30 format would display ( and even then only if you can deinterlace the 1080i signal without artifacts) . These are both LOWER performance displays than the respective non converted native formats and will not look as good ON A GOOD MONITOR capable of displaying the higher level formats properly. Just because someone might use a monitor that cant display these differences in the native vs. degraded formats very well doesnt mean they dont exist. They will be visibly worse on really HD good monitiors the because the conversion degradation is signifigant. When you watch 1080i/60 on a 720P/60 native monitor you dont get the 60 true frames per second a true 720p/60 signal would give you but you still get the 720 resolution. When you watch 720P/60 signal on a 1080i/60 native monitor you still get the 60 interlaced fields a 1080i/60 signal would give you but you dont get the 1080 resolution. IN both of these cases you are essentially getting HALF native format your TV has. On a 720P/60 native display, HALF the framerate of true 720p/60, and on a 1080i/60 display, HALF the resolution of a true 1080i/60 signal. This is hardly straightforward and insignifigant loss. I dont see how you can say a 720P signal with half the normal framerate is just as good or a 1080i signal with half the normal resolution doesnt matter or doesnt matter in real terms. If these things didnt matter we wouldnt have 1080 formats or P60 formats but we do. If these formats were easily and straightforwardly "convertable" without major losses they both wouldnt still exist and their wouldnt be two types of HD broadcasts at this time or even broadcast formats ( we have 18 ATSC formats at last count ). So what I am saying here is and its really signifigant in my opinion, if your TV only does one format natively and properly, then only that format broadcast can give you the maximum performance from your set. It also means that if you want to watch the "other" format which your set cant do natively, then you need to accept the fact that its degraded display of it and not
try to critique that formats visual quality until you see it displayed properly. If you see no difference between the two with IDENTICAL source material at same time and with both sources in true unconverted form ( like both downconverted from a 1080P/60 source), then your set isnt very good. But I think it very very unlikely you will ever be able to get that type of comparison. Maybe HD-DVD test disks will allow it once the format gets out.

... Also if it didnt "really" matter, these expensive monitors than CAN do both formats properly without conversions wouldnt exist and certainly no one would pay high $$$ to get them if nothing is gained compared to these degrading signal conversions. I wish my monitor could do true 720P/60 format display, it cant, and because it cant, I really dont know how good the 720P format might be
as I am not getting 60 discrete progressive frames per second when I watch a 720P/60 program on espn like I should be.

Secondly, unless the programs you watched on PBS were both master recorded in 1080P/60 and true 720P/60 and 1080i/60 downconversions were created & broadcasted seperately the test wouldnt be valid. I doubt you will ever be able to find out for sure because many broadcasters dont like to reveal what they are doing when they are degrading things in production to save money. That is interesting though. Are they the first network to not have all its stations broadcasting the same HD format?

Final word, if degradation doesnt matter why are people here consistantly
asking about 1080P/60 which is even higher than both 720P/60 and 1080i/60
not lower than either which is what these conversions are....??? Formats and format degradations matter on good equipment.....Who cares if they dont on junk, we are not concerned about junk are we???

[57U]

...unless the programs you watched on PBS were both master recorded.Explanation: I did the test several times. They were identical programmes, which come directly from PBS at exactly the same time. The only difference is the output format from the affiliate. Detroit outputs 720P and Spokane outputs 1080i, using the identical feed from PBS.

The moderators have decided this thread has run its course and it will now be closed, with JCO having had "the last word".

The original intent of this thread was to discuss output formats (1080i, 720P) from affiliates and perhaps native formats of HDTVs, but it has gone far beyond that. 1080P was mentioned in post 176 and probably elsewhere.

JCO, if you wish to discuss the items you brought up in your last posts further, please start a new thread, with a different and appropriate title.