1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

1080i

Discussion in 'TVs' started by bigddd, Apr 16, 2005.

  1. bigddd

    bigddd
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    If all the hd dvd and blu ray players are going to be able to output at 1080i why are all the hd tvs being sold at the moment in the uk and near future all limited to 1080p?
     
  2. carlton

    carlton
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I think u got it the wrong way round as 1080p is the better of the two.
     
  3. bigddd

    bigddd
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    yes I did sorry! Any comments?
     
  4. HighDeff

    HighDeff
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Technological evolution my dear, by the end of this year, we might see the first 1080p screens in Europe and in a couple of years, we might have 4K screens and the 1080p screens will be oldfasioned.!!!

    It never stops..........
     
  5. MikeK

    MikeK
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,231
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +316
    And even when they do go 4K, they'll no doubt have p and i variants. :(

    When will we ever decide to leave that tired old technology behind.
    Interlacing should stay in the past now, where it belongs!
    There was a technical reason for it's existence then, but as we move to digital HD, that reason no longer really exists!

    The HD system should be end-to-end progressive only!
     
  6. Rob20

    Rob20
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,662
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Ratings:
    +388
    The only 1080p tv in the Uk is sharp's 45" lcd set. rrp of £6,500, but can be found for £5,000. Has received good reviews for it's ability to dsplay hi-def 720p and 1080i, (there aren't any 1080p signals at the moment), but not so good for sd tv. i.e. until probably not worth buying til Blu-Ray, HD-DVD or Sky Hi-Def is released sometime 2006. Sony's 70" rear pro 'SXRD' qualia tv is 1080p, out in the Uk this year. JVC also has a 1080p 45" LCD set. Then there were further sets that were 1080p shown at the CES. By 2006 there should be a good handful of 1080p sets. Worth waiting for imo.
     
  7. Dutch

    Dutch
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Messages:
    2,598
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    North Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +282
    Sony are also going to release the Qualia 005 46" 1080p native resolution LED backlight LCD in Europe this year - should be great (but pricey)!

    Steve
     
  8. Stephen Neal

    Stephen Neal
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    6,080
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +681
    Yep - in a perfect world - but the world isn't perfect yet.

    1080/50p or 1080/60p are still not viable production formats. Cameras, VTRs, Vision Mixers etc. are still not widely available for 1080/50p or 60p production. (The standard broadcast cabling standard HD-SDI can't carry 1080/50p or 60p - you have to use two cable runs for every signal/device...)

    If you are creating a broadcast operation now - you really only have the choice of 1080/50i or 60i or 720/50p or 60p if you are selecting a single transmission standard.

    Sure you can run 1080/24p, 25p or 30p for production purposes, but 24-30fps isn't suitable as a universal broadcast format, as the poor motion rendition makes sport in particular unwatchably jerky. (Anyone who has seen sport on film will know what I mean)

    In this area transmission is potentially ahead of production - in that 1080/50p or 1080/60p transmission may be feasible now - however generating 1080/50p or 60p material is still not generally possible.
     
  9. MikeK

    MikeK
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,231
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +316
    No, the world isn't perfect, and nobody suggested it was!

    There seems to be some confusion here!
    I didn't suggest that UK HDTV should be 1080/50p (might be nice though :) ), in fact I didn't mention 1080 at all, I simply said it should be progressive.
    Obviously, IMO, that means sport being 720/50p (with capture at 720/50p).

    Interlacing should not be used at all IMO, except perhaps for the transmission of movies, originally telecined (or shot) in 1080, which are inherently progressive (even here though it's littered with potential issues, as the state of deinterlacing DVD shows only too well - and if they can't get that right, what hope do we have for reasonably priced domestic level HD deinterlacers doing it right either).
    For this situation though, I can't help wondering why a 1080/25p transmission standard hasn't also been proposed!
     
  10. Welwynnick

    Welwynnick
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    7,087
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Welwyn, Herts
    Ratings:
    +825
    Of course the technical reason for having interlaced video hasn't gone away - it's bandwidth. Bandwidth in transmission, bandwidth in storing, bandwidth is everything because it costs. If you interlace, you can have twice the resolution for the same bandwidth. And if you have the resolution, you can then use a great de-interlacer to get your very desireable progressive scanning back.
     
  11. MikeK

    MikeK
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,231
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +316
    If you interlace, you can have twice the resolution for the same bandwidth

    Can you explain this statement?

    And if you have the resolution, you can then use a great de-interlacer to get your very desireable progressive scanning back.

    Fair enough, but who makes these great deinterlacers, and how much do they cost? :)
     
  12. Welwynnick

    Welwynnick
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    7,087
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Welwyn, Herts
    Ratings:
    +825
    The purpose of interlacing is to halve the bandwidth for the same resolution. An interlaced frame is composed of two fields, one with just the odd numbered lines, the other with the even lines. With 625 line PAL, the fields are transmitted at 50Hz, and two fields make up one frame, which is therefore transmitted at half the rate, 25Hz. The video lines are therefore transmitted at about 15.6kHz.

    When the two fields are received, they are re-interlaced together to make complete frames. The consequence of this is that only half the data of the frame is transmitted in each field, so the data rate or bandwidth (which occupies a certain width in the frequency spectrum) is therefore halved.

    A de-interlacer will generate the missing odd or even lines in each field by using video data in the lines above and below, and the good ones will use video data in the preceeding and succeeding frames as well. This process re-constructs the missing lines from the interlaced fields to make two full frames where there was just one. The data rate is therefore doubled. This is a complicated thing to do, and there are several ways of doing it, but in recent years there have been many very successful products come to the market.

    The favourite ones in these forums are various versions of DVDO iscan, Lumagen Vision and Crystallio. These cost around £1 - 2k, though there are several others like Zinwell, Focus Enhancements and ImageMAX available for a fraction of that. All these devices also scale the image, so you get say a 720p or 1080p image from an ordinary interlaced PAL source. That's not as good as real HD, but it can look very good.

    Interlacers and scalers are used to feed projectors and flat panel displays that generally only reproduce progressive video, but they don't have to be stand-alone units, however. So you can connect an STB or DVD directly, the progressive display will usually have internal de-interlacing and scaling anyway. So if you had a High Def interlaced source and fed it into a HiDef display, you would get a progressive picture anyway. External units will do it better, though. These days you also get de-interlacers and even scalers in DVD players, and maybe even AV amps, they are everywhere.

    This means that you can successfully re-contruct the missing lines in an interlaced frame - so why broadcast them? If you look at it backwards, progressive broadcasts are greedy of bandwidth, because they continuously broadcast somewhat redundant data. A hypothetical PAL progressive broadcast, for example, would transmit 625 lines (576 visible) at 50Hz, which uses a 31kHz line rate (double the interlaced rate). But what if you used that bandwidth to transmit interlaced instead? For a given number of pixels per line, you would be able to transmit 1250 interlaced lines instead. Since you would be able to successfully convert that into 1250 progressive lines in the receiver/de-interlacer/display, you would be able to get twice the resolution for that same bandwidth. That's called having your cake and eating it.
     
  13. probedb

    probedb
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,653
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Sheffield
    Ratings:
    +181
    You can't get data back that's not there in the first place. You can only best guess at what would be there by looking at previous and next frames. That's what a deinterlacer does and why there are all these different methods of doing it for different sources.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinterlacing
     
  14. Welwynnick

    Welwynnick
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    7,087
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Welwyn, Herts
    Ratings:
    +825
    Well, to a large extent, yes you can. The wikipedia reference appears to be out of date. There is no mention of inverse tele-cine de-interlacing or per-pixel motion adaptive de-interlacing, which can go a long way towards re-contructing the missing data. This data is not random rata; the picture does not change much from one frame to the next, so interlacers use temporal interpolation to predict what would have been there. A de-interlaced picture is still not be as good as a pure progressive one, but it is close, and progressive is certainly not twice as good. My point was that (maybe except for sport) the limited bandwidth available in broadcast and storage, was, and will, be better spent on interlaced video.
     
  15. probedb

    probedb
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,653
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Sheffield
    Ratings:
    +181
    Good point :) It tends to be in quick pans like in sports events where there's a lot of change from frame to frame. I agree on the bandwidth totally. My JVC tv has it's own system for upscaling everything and turning everything to 75Hz and it's far better at doing that job than my DVD player is at outputting a progressive scan picture so much so that there's no real difference between the 2.

    One day £100 players/TVs will be as good at deinterlacing/scaling as £10,000 processors are today :)
     
  16. Welwynnick

    Welwynnick
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    7,087
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Welwyn, Herts
    Ratings:
    +825
    pinkprobegt, which JVC TV do you have? Is it one of those that takes 1080i component input? Most TVs are shacked by 15.6kHz scan rate and 5.8MHz bandwidth, but those seem to break the mould.

    I don't think your prediction is far away. I don't have direct experience, but some £200 DVD players can now upscale and de-interlace as well as £10k processors from not very long ago.
     
  17. probedb

    probedb
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,653
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Sheffield
    Ratings:
    +181
    Can you tell I'm having a boring day at work ? ;)

    Yup it's a HV-28D40 which has DIST processing and accepts the 1080i over component. I currently occasionally have my computer hooked up and to get rid of the overscan it outputs 1776x1000i with 1920x1080i timings and it does look very nice. I've got several 1080i films and they look fabulous. I've actually emailed HCC and corrected them in their new issue as they state Samsung's new slim CRT is the first to accept 1080i but JVCs have been doing it for aover a year at least :)
     
  18. Welwynnick

    Welwynnick
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    7,087
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Welwyn, Herts
    Ratings:
    +825
    Hmmm, yes, me too.

    Ever since we had a decent PC that could play DVDs, I've been longing to find a better way than our existing TV, and been considering plasmas, projectors and big PC monitors.

    I recently heard about the JCV TVs that could accept 1080i. I've seen 720p or 1080i on DLP TV, DLP PJ, CRT PJ plasma and LCD, but it occurred to me that the JVCs could give you the best PQ of all: proper HD resolution coupled with CRT brightness and contrast, conveniently wrapped up with TV convenience. Is it as good as it sounds?
     
  19. Starburst

    Starburst
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    17,838
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Ilkeston
    Ratings:
    +979




    How bizarre.
    I read about the JVC many moons ago on the HCC website, different offices within the publisher not talking to eachother perhaps:)


    Link
     
  20. probedb

    probedb
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,653
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Sheffield
    Ratings:
    +181
    Hehe :) Sounds like it to me!

    As for the JVC I don't have anything to benchmark it against other than my PC (18" TFT) but have to say it's definitely more detailed than SD DVDs over component. Also I think I'd probably notice it more on the 32" model :) Things that bug me about the TV are; 1. Slow to react to the remote, 2. No updates for the IDTV part so no 7 day EPG, 3. Auto widescreen mode not too intelligent, i.e. if there's a 16:9 broadcast but non-anamorphic it won't zoom it to fit the screen.

    On the plus side pictures look fantastic from good sources and that can include the IDTV depending on the bitrate, having a 75Hz refresh makes a big difference to me flicker wise. The colours are very nice as is pretty much everything else. I think HCC reviewed it's predecessor and said it was pretty much the best they'd ever seen DVD and I'd have to agree. But do check one out with a good quality source, not the boosted/split crappy feeds they have in stores.
     
  21. MikeK

    MikeK
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,231
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +316
    The purpose of interlacing is to halve the bandwidth for the same resolution. An interlaced frame is composed of two fields, one with just the odd numbered lines, the other with the even lines. With 625 line PAL, the fields are transmitted at 50Hz, and two fields make up one frame, which is therefore transmitted at half the rate, 25Hz. The video lines are therefore transmitted at about 15.6kHz.

    When the two fields are received, they are re-interlaced together to make complete frames.


    OK, so we are talking about progressive displays (obviously an interlaced TV does not need to deinterlace them - it just displays each field in succession)

    The consequence of this is that only half the data of the frame is transmitted in each field,

    True

    so the data rate or bandwidth (which occupies a certain width in the frequency spectrum) is therefore halved.

    Are you forgetting that the field rate is 50 fields per second, and so even though each field contains only half the frame data, there are twice as many fields (50) as there are frames (25). The data rate is exactly the same.
    You stated above that the horizontal scan frequency (or line rate) is 15.6kHz (15625Hz), so do the math.
    15625 lines / 50 = 312.5 lines per field (where 50 is the field rate) - 312.5 lines is half the frame data, where a full frame consists of 625 lines.
    However, what if you decided to transmit these 25 frames without interlacing them into 50 fields (ie 25 frame/sec progressive)
    15625 / 25 = 625 lines per frame (where 25 is the full frame rate)
    The line rate is the same in both cases.

    Now, 25Hz vertical frequency is not enough to drive a CRT - it would flicker like crazy - you need to up that to 50Hz to reduce this effect. Transmitting progressively on an analogue system at 50Hz would mean repeating each frame twice - this would then become 625/50p, and would take up twice the bandwidth - this is in fact the reason for interlacing, to avoid this doubling of bandwidth becoming necessary (when in fact it would then in effect be transmitting redundant data). We actually couldn't accomodate this bandwidth anyway now, due to the way the frequency spectrum has been carved up!
    However, that's analogue - with a digital system you can do things which you simply can't do with an analogue system. Things like adding flags to a 625/25p stream, such as "repeat last frame" - now you could go to 625/50p at the receiver end while still only transmitting 625/25p.

    And now we are digital, and HD services will be starting on digital platforms, there's no real technical reason to still be using this interlacing technique - it's throwback to the analogue age which we could finally be rid of.
    But for economic and political reasons, they won't!

    What was it Yves Faroudja said in 2004
    “I am amazed that anybody would consider launching new services based on interlace. I have spent all of my life working on conversion from interlace to progressive. Now that I have sold my successful company, I can tell you the truth: interlace to progressive does not work!”

    A de-interlacer will generate the missing odd or even lines in each field by using video data in the lines above and below, and the good ones will use video data in the preceeding and succeeding frames as well. This process re-constructs the missing lines from the interlaced fields to make two full frames where there was just one. The data rate is therefore doubled. This is a complicated thing to do, and there are several ways of doing it, but in recent years there have been many very successful products come to the market.

    The favourite ones in these forums are various versions of DVDO iscan, Lumagen Vision and Crystallio. These cost around £1 - 2k, though there are several others like Zinwell, Focus Enhancements and ImageMAX available for a fraction of that. All these devices also scale the image, so you get say a 720p or 1080p image from an ordinary interlaced PAL source. That's not as good as real HD, but it can look very good.

    Interlacers and scalers are used to feed projectors and flat panel displays that generally only reproduce progressive video, but they don't have to be stand-alone units, however. So you can connect an STB or DVD directly, the progressive display will usually have internal de-interlacing and scaling anyway. So if you had a High Def interlaced source and fed it into a HiDef display, you would get a progressive picture anyway. External units will do it better, though. These days you also get de-interlacers and even scalers in DVD players, and maybe even AV amps, they are everywhere
    .

    Well there are deinterlacers and there are deinterlacers - some are better than others - some are pretty good, others are crap.
    As well as a HD subscription, a HD rcvr box and a HD display, are you suggesting that it's perfectly acceptable to expect consumers to then go out and dump another grand on a box they shouldn't really even need?
    Fair enough though, now it looks like we are going to be stiffed with interlaced transmissions anyway, for good performance they may have to!

    Look at it this way!
    They'll produce a film at 1080/24p. For 50Hz regions they'll speed it up slightly to 1080/25p. Then they'll interlace it into 1080/50i format, transmit it, and then we'll deinterlace it back again, either within our HDTV displays (God help us) or inside an video processor!
    Wouldn't we be better off if they just transmitted it at 1080/25p instead of 1080/50i, and avoided the whole interlacing and deinterlacing cycle altogether.
    The bandwidth requirement of 1080/25p would actually be slightly less than 1080/50i anyway, due to the better efficiency of codecs when compressing progressive frames over interlaced fields.

    There is the case, granted, where some content is actually produced in true interlaced form (where each of the 50 fields represents a half resolution, unique point in time, semi-frame (if you like - I find the term "field" here misleading as we usually talk in terms of field pairs per frame), such as 1080/50i.
    For this material, I would get the broadcaster to convert this to 720/50p, using their broadcast quality deinterlacer and scaler - these are far more powerful than your average "cheap as chips" chipsets built into TV sets - and may be as close as you can get to the deinterlacer nirvana you describe!
    You could also argue that what is the point of filming in interlaced form, when you know full well that the results (in HD form) are almost always going to be viewed on a progressive display!
    But it's economics I suppose - it's very easy to derive a standard SD 576/50i signal from a 1080/50i source. Maybe this is the main reason for 1080/50i!

    This means that you can successfully re-contruct the missing lines in an interlaced frame - so why broadcast them?

    Why have a 1080 line cameras, if you can simply use a 540 line camera and interpolate the missing data? In fact why bother with HD at all - why not simply scale and interpolate SD/ED and call it HD instead - much cheaper :)
    It's just not as easy as that!

    If you look at it backwards, progressive broadcasts are greedy of bandwidth, because they continuously broadcast somewhat redundant data.
    Sorry I can't agree with this either - compression techniques used to actually transmit digital TV streams (SD or HD), are designed to remove this redundant data (well as much as possible anyway) - essentially that's how they work and are able to compress to the degree they do, by eliminating redundant interframe data! They also do this more efficiently with progressive frames.


    A hypothetical PAL progressive broadcast, for example, would transmit 625 lines (576 visible) at 50Hz, which uses a 31kHz line rate (double the interlaced rate).

    True, but in a digital system it doesn't necessarily have to transmit 50 frames/sec. It can use flags such as "repeat last frame" to tell the receiver to convert a 25p signal, such as a film, into 50p. Essentially this is what a PAL progressive DVD player does when you play a film!
    But assume you mean a true 625/50p source (with 50 unique full frames/sec)

    But what if you used that bandwidth to transmit interlaced instead? For a given number of pixels per line, you would be able to transmit 1250 interlaced lines instead.

    You would be transmitting a hypothetical 1250/50i, which is 25 frames/sec, NOT 50fps.
    To transmit this, you'd need a Hscan freq of 1250x25 or 31250Hz - the same line rate as before - 625x50=31250Hz.
    However, the two signals are not the same - one is 625 line frames at 50 frames/sec, the other is 1250 line frames at 25 frames/sec (transmitted as 625 line fields at 50 fields/sec).
    They are as different as 720/50p and 1080/50i

    Since you would be able to successfully convert that into 1250 progressive lines in the receiver/de-interlacer/display, you would be able to get twice the resolution for that same bandwidth. That's called having your cake and eating it.

    If only it were that easy!
    Your faith in digital interpolation techniques is undoubted. Unfortunately it's also unfounded IMO. If it were that simple we would have no need of film mode deinterlacers with cadence detection - we could just deinterlace everything in video mode and interpolate all the missing data in each field, but my opinion is that it simply isn't as perfect as you are suggesting.


    Should have ditched 1080/50i, and gone with 720/50p and 1080/25p!
    Still, 1080/50i should still be a lot better than what we have now, so it's not the end of the world :)
     
  22. Quickbeam

    Quickbeam
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    The frames of a film are progressive whether they are broadcast at 1080p25 or 1080i50. There is no movement between fields, so the coding efficiency will be about the same. The bandwidth for the 1080i50 version should actually be slightly less than the 1080p25 one because 1080i broadcasts are vertically filtered to reduce interline flicker on interlaced displays.

    While no one would dispute that 1080p would be better than 1080i (and 720p would be better than 720i if such a format existed), it's worth remembering 1080i has a maximum resolution of 2 megapixels, while 720p's maximum resolution is only 1 megapixel. The effects of interlacing may prevent 1080i from reaching its maximum resolution, but that does not mean the maximum resolution of 1080i is only 1 megapixel.

    Perhaps in the end it's rather pointless arguing one is better than the other based purely on technical arguments. Most Americans seem to prefer 1080 - even those that have 720p displays. As I pointed out in another thread it looks increasingly likely that Sky will use 1080i for its own broadcasts (a decision which was probably forced by the lack of 720p50 compatible production equipment). It may be some time before we have access to 720p material to compare with the 1080i stuff.
     
  23. MikeK

    MikeK
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,231
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +316
    The frames of a film are progressive whether they are broadcast at 1080p25 or 1080i50. There is no movement between fields, so the coding efficiency will be about the same. The bandwidth for the 1080i50 version should actually be slightly less than the 1080p25 one because 1080i broadcasts are vertically filtered to reduce interline flicker on interlaced displays.

    Yes you are probably right - they'll probably still filter even though practically nobody will actually be watching on a 1080 line interlaced display anyway! :rolleyes:
    However, I'm not sure that will save much bandwidth - they'll still be transmitting a 1080 line frame (OK - 540 line fields) - even though that frame really may only contains about 800 lines worth of vertical resolution, it's still made up of 1080 lines. I really don't know enough about MPEG4 though!

    In any case, that's just another reason NOT to go for 1080i IMO!


    While no one would dispute that 1080p would be better than 1080i (and 720p would be better than 720i if such a format existed), it's worth remembering 1080i has a maximum resolution of 2 megapixels, while 720p's maximum resolution is only 1 megapixel. The effects of interlacing may prevent 1080i from reaching its maximum resolution, but that does not mean the maximum resolution of 1080i is only 1 megapixel.

    Totally agree - and my gripe is not really a 1080 vs 720 one - it's an interlaced v progressive one.
    The point about converting true 1080/50i to 720/50p is simply this - it boils down to the broadcaster's deinterlacer/scaler at 720 versus our domestic deinterlacers at 1080. While I accept that a minority of viewers will have decent units at home, I think the majority will be relying on budget affairs, and in that case, I know which picture my money would be on!


    Perhaps in the end it's rather pointless arguing one is better than the other based purely on technical arguments. Most Americans seem to prefer 1080 - even those that have 720p displays. As I pointed out in another thread it looks increasingly likely that Sky will use 1080i for its own broadcasts (a decision which was probably forced by the lack of 720p50 compatible production equipment). It may be some time before we have access to 720p material to compare with the 1080i stuff.


    Again, for me it's not really a 1080 vs 720 debate, it's about 1080/50i vs 1080/25p. Neither 1080 format could really compete with true 720/50p on motion rendition, but 1080/25p would pan it on static image detail. For various reason already outlined, that remains to be seen for 1080/50i.
    Choose 720/50p or 1080/25p depending on the application - no problem with that!
    Sadly it appears that 1080/25p isn't going to be an option - at least at first anyway, and maybe not until 1080/50p becomes viable, further down the road.
     
  24. u32t5645

    u32t5645
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    No, Samsung was not first. I doubt JVC was, either, unless Loewe’s 1080i CRT (via component and DVI) doesn’t count. Their 38-inch Aconda tubes have been around for a few years. Currently, I don’t think any display in any format compares to the quality of that Loewe critter. It is the standard by which I judge all other displays. If it weren’t for pixel color limitations, the new generation of LCD displays with almost twice the resolution of 1080 would be a consideration. Unfortunately, there isn’t any source that takes advantage of the new LCD’s resolution. I can only presume it has to do with the 15gb/side available with the recently blessed HD-DVD formats.

    And fwiw, over-air hi-def broadcasts here (US) are either 720p or 1080i. Same for satellite. There is an obvious difference in the picture quality between the two, 1080i being preferred.

    I’d love to stay and chat but Francis Ford Coppola’s 1992 film, ‘Bram Stoker’s Dracula’ is coming over the satellite in 1080i. Gotta go watch Gary Oldman bite Anthony Hopkins. :)
     
  25. NicolasB

    NicolasB
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    6,070
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Emily's Shop
    Ratings:
    +669
    Which model are you referring to? I know many Loewe TVs can be driven at 1024x576p via VGA, but I didn't know any of their CRT models could be driven at 1920x1080i - you'd have thought they'd be shouting it from the rooftops if they had a device like that.

    Again, which screens are you referring to? I'm not aware of any commercial LCD device with a resolution that comes to close to 4000x2000.
     
  26. Welwynnick

    Welwynnick
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    7,087
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Welwyn, Herts
    Ratings:
    +825
    MikeK, tried three times to reply, but kept losing text, so giving up. In short, take your point about 1080/25p, but I do believe from direct experience that good scalers do work, so there is more benefit to be had from de-interlaced 1080/50i.
    regards, Nick
     
  27. MikeK

    MikeK
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,231
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +316
    Nick,

    No problem - we've debated it and we'll just have to agree to disagree :)
    Like I said though, and I'm sure you'll agree, at the end of the day, 1080i should still be better than what we have now!


    Now, as for TVs which take 1080i - that doesn't mean they can actually display it!
     
  28. u32t5645

    u32t5645
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Nicolas – I hope we’re talking about the same thing…

    SPECIFICATIONS
    Screen size: 38" tube
    Aspect ratio: 16:9
    Native resolution: 1080i
    Number and type of inputs: Two multi-scan (YPbPr and VGA-RGB), four S-video, four composite-video, two RF
    Dimensions: 41" x 24 5/8" x 24 5/8"
    Weight: 220 lbs.


    It was the Loewe Aconda, made in the USA. I’m told the engineering and parts are all Germany in origin but the unit was assembled here. I had one for a couple years. The picture tube developed problems, I got tired of excuses, so I had the original retailer buy back the TV from me at full price, $4k. My primary concern was that since Loewe was pulling out of the American market, would parts be available? Interestingly, Loewe is maintaining warranty servicing here per the requirements of the various laws of the 50 states. The only reason for Loewe to do that is to assure a future re-emergence in the lucrative American market. Some folks think the American made Loewe was garbage, but highly praise the German-made models. Don;t know if there is any (designed) functional difference between the two.

    I don’t think the JVC tele you guys are talking about (HV-28D40) is available here. The Samsung with the squished CRT should be here this fall, along with HD-DVD players, so we are told. I guess you folks are just now getting the HD-DVDs, ahead of us. Fwiw, Warner Bros plans to release it’s entire catalog on HD-DVD starting this fall. They will be using the format that is NOT BluRay. They hope to establish the competing format (PinkRhonda???) as the standard by dumping a bunch of source material on the market before BluRay. Sounds like another VHS vs Sony’s Beta format…but I don’t think WB’s strategy will work. I read that most DVD players in the US are less than 2-years old. I’m guessing they’re not likely to hit the garbage can to be replaced by a player with a new DVD format just to watch WB movies, especially when the new HD-DVDs are compatible with the older players, too.

    A couple weeks ago I saw that new LCD display for just a minute. I am not a fan of the current LCD products so I wasn’t really interested in it. It is a 27-in display set up in a local electronics supermarket demo’ing some graphics and pre-loaded movie segments. When I saw it I stop and said “wow!” A salesman standing near by told me about the exact resolution (???), about twice that of a current display, so I asked what source has that resolution. He said there was nothing, yet. That’s why I commented about the possibility of HD-DVD’s. Those discs have the capacity to feed that hi-res LCD display. No comment about a player that can take that res off the DVD.

    I doubt anyone is going make (or buy) a display that has a higher resolution than any source signal…unless a source is anticipated. Don’t recall the manf but it was a major one, Sharp? Panasonic? Philips? It’s in a silver frame, if that helps. The store had the cost of that 27-in LCD display at $10k…and the store sells stuff at discount.
     
  29. NicolasB

    NicolasB
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    6,070
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Emily's Shop
    Ratings:
    +669
    Sounds very cool indeed. :) Was it ever available in Europe? It's a great shame Loewe have given up on CRT sets. The 40" Aconda isn't all that great (apparently) but I can't help feeling that CRT ought still to be able to produce a far superior HD image to anything plasma or LCD can come up with, so long as one is prepared to put up with a rather long, heavy set. But oh no, the consumers don't care what the picture looks like, so long as it's flat. :mad:


    I would be surprised if the movie segments had been captured at a resolution higher than 1920x1080, but I suppose it's possible.

    The highest res LCD panel that I am aware of that is widely available here in the UK is the 30" Apple Cinema HD display, which has a res. of 2560x1600. But the UK is always ten years behind the whole of the rest of the world when it comes to AV. :(
     
  30. bmurphygbr

    bmurphygbr
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Messages:
    40
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    Essex, England
    Ratings:
    +0
    Assuming money isn't to much a problem, the highest res LCD computer screen I've seen is one sold by both Iiyama and IBM.

    IIyama model is AQU5611DTBK, only 22.2" but the res is 3840x2400 (think about four 1920x1200 displays on a single panel! 9.2 megapixels!!

    IBM also sold this as the T221 along with a special graphics card to drive it.

    Iiyama's web site suggests an ATI Fire GL X1, Matrox Parhelia HR256 or a Radeon 9800 (??) Given its specs, I'm not sure it would be suitable for games or films.

    (Had a look around and found the T221 at the £5k mark and the 5611 at a little more.)

    Bren
     

Share This Page

Loading...