Is progressive scan HDTV?

[skaterstan]

Right, I am pretty clued up on all the the different types of HDTV.

However, at the moment I have a Toshiba 36ZP48. It says it is progressive and I do have a progressive signal running to it from my DVD player, looks amazing!

What type of progressive/HDTV is this? My guess is that it's running in 480p.

Can it do any more resolutions above this, then I may consider hacking my xbox!

Thanks in advance

Martin

[Starburst]

I would have though it could handle both NTSC (480p) and PAL (576p) Progressive from a DVD source or suitable STB.
It is not a HD telly in the respect it can't display 720p and 1080i sources.

[Eddy Boy]

SDTV is any signal be it progressive or interlaced that is 480 vertical lines for NTSC and 576 for PAL, anything over this is classed as HDTV. You will need to check if a display is progressive scan compatabile. In theory HDTVs are progressive scan compatabile beacuse the common lines are 720p (progressive) and 1080i (interlaced)

Your display depends a lot on the connections plus your DVD player.
If you are using component then unless stated on the player it will either be 480p or 576p. If you are running HDMI/DVI-D then it is possible that you could use 720p, also if your player is set to this. Don't forget that your display may have 720 lines but can only run via component 480 or 576 in which case the TV performs the scaling itself up to its native resolution.

[Stephen Neal]

Good question.

Progressive CAN be HDTV - the 720 line HD standard is progressive. Interlaced CAN be HDTV - the 1080 lines HD transmission standard is interlaced.

HOWEVER - the confusion is whether the 16:9 480/60p and 576/60p - the progressive versions of the interlaced standard def formats - can be considered "HD"

In the US 16:9 480/60p isn't usually described as "HD" - it is described as "ED" (Extended definition). Whilst it offers significant quality improvements over NTSC analogue (and is 16:9), it is not amazing quality when compared to 720p and 1080i (which are considered HD)

In Australia 16:9 576/50p is officially considered "HD" - though whether this is a HUGE improvement over 16:9 576/50i digital component is more of a debate (though there is a bit of a vertical resolution issue)

[CKNA]

Originally Posted by Stephen Neal

Good question.

Progressive CAN be HDTV - the 720 line HD standard is progressive. Interlaced CAN be HDTV - the 1080 lines HD transmission standard is interlaced.

HOWEVER - the confusion is whether the 16:9 480/60p and 576/60p - the progressive versions of the interlaced standard def formats - can be considered "HD"

In the US 16:9 480/60p isn't usually described as "HD" - it is described as "ED" (Extended definition). Whilst it offers significant quality improvements over NTSC analogue (and is 16:9), it is not amazing quality when compared to 720p and 1080i (which are considered HD)

In Australia 16:9 576/50p is officially considered "HD" - though whether this is a HUGE improvement over 16:9 576/50i digital component is more of a debate (though there is a bit of a vertical resolution issue)

There is no debate. 720p and up is HD . Anything below is SD or ED.

[Enquirer]

There is no debate. colour is spelled colour and Not color the English invented the language and everyone else is wrong.

Do you see the folly of a Definition? What Mr Neal wrote in my opinion is correct.In Austrailia the Austrailian standards people have considered 16:9 576/50p as "HD"
if you agree with this resolution is not the point.

Just because that is not considered HD in the USA and other countries doesn't mean that else where that standards setters can't have a different opinion.

I agree with all the people here that say it is not a very good standard ,but the Austrailian standards people are entitled to there opinion.

Remember as Obi wan says only the sith deal in absolutes (I should stop watching that film)

[mouseboy]

Not really an AV forums thing -but to reply to your comment Enquirer


Remember as Obi wan says only the sith deal in absolutes (I should stop watching that film)

Don't you think it's ironic that that quote itself is an absolute, and therefore by his own argument, Obi Wan is a Sith...??... :o)

[Stephen Neal]

I wouldn't argue with CKNA - I think the US definition of 480p as EDTV not HDTV is spot on.

I was simply stating that Australia deem 576/50p to be HD - but 576/50i SD.

I don't agree with the Australian "relaxation" of the HD definition - but it doesn't stop it being an official description in Aus.

In Europe anything below 720p is not considered HD - at least in the "HD-ready" stakes.

[CKNA]

Originally Posted by Stephen Neal

I wouldn't argue with CKNA - I think the US definition of 480p as EDTV not HDTV is spot on.

I was simply stating that Australia deem 576/50p to be HD - but 576/50i SD.

I don't agree with the Australian "relaxation" of the HD definition - but it doesn't stop it being an official description in Aus.

In Europe anything below 720p is not considered HD - at least in the "HD-ready" stakes.

I was not arguing. All I was saying that no engineer or videophile would call 480p or 576p HD. Australians are entitled to an opinion but it is an opinion of some moron who had a say in specifying their HD. Everybody else in Australia agrees that 576p is not HD. Just check out any Australian DTV forum and you'll see how upset people are about 576p being called HD.

Besides there is no cameras that do 480p or 576p natively. It is either shot in 480i or 576i and upconverted or downconverted from 720p or 1080i.

[howard444]

I wish to add and explain here that line resolution is not the primary issue in a digital world. It was in analogue but in digital.

The problem is digital compression.

On my progressive scan DVD player and TLPET1 LCD projector I can achieve better results from a good REGION 1 480p DVD than some HD transmissions due to the fact that all digital transmissions are subjected to a great deal of compression and not shot by shot/scene by scene authored like a DVD is. Add the habit of people watching on PLASMA screens the end result is softer less detailed less filmic image than my 480p images off a good R1 DVD. Yes HD done well should be way better. But the TV industry is not committed to best quality but most quantity. Yes a blu-ray DVD will be better than what I have now but will it be worth another three grand in spending and replacing my disc collection.?