1080p worth the wait?

N

Nick_g

Guest
Hi, this is my first post so please go easy on me.

Is 1080p worth the wait?

I've been doing a bit of research on LCD's for the last couple of weeks and quite like the look of the Toshiba 42WLT58, especially with the Freemans/Quidco offer knocking it down 25%, but I've also noticed that the new Toshiba models (42WLT66 etc) are released in just over a month and that these support 1080p. This is where I'm getting confused as I've read today (What Video) that current HDMI connections do not support 1080p from a standards point of view. So my question is, are these newly released models going to support true 1080p, i.e. will they support a later revision of HDMI connection and if this is the case is anything likely to utilise 1080p in the near future or is it a standard that will not be widely supported?
Would I be better off making a purchase now and getting a 1080i model instead while the offer still remains?

Thanks.
 

ianh64

Novice Member
HDMI already supports 1080p, but its support is optional. At present, most displays and sources do not support it, but it is a choice of the manufacturer and technical limitations of the device rather than a problem with the HDMI specifications.

My 2 year old upscaling DVD player outputs 1080p via HDMI 1.1 - enabled by a recent software upgrade. My 18 month old LCD display accepts 1080p/50 via DVI. However I will not be using it for 2 reasons: 1080p on a 1366x768 LCD display is no better than 720p and my display struggles with motion when using 1080p (I bit like the SIM engineering demo at the Bristol Show). The latter is a technical limitation of the display probably not having enought processing power to smoothly handle the extra information present in 1080p.

However on a true 1920x1080 screen, 1080p should offer a significant improvement over 1080i especially with true HD sources which probably will initially not be very common especially at 50Hz.
 

AndrewTheMuppet

Novice Member
Sky won't be broadcasting in 1080p any time soon (too much bandwidth required).
Blu-ray is the only hope as long as it wins the race. (HD-DVD only supports 1080i)

You also have to take into account that to really benifit your gonna need at least a 50" screen with 1920x1080 native to see any real difference.
I suspect even a 1080 native res 42" won't look much better than a 768 line 42" but I could be wrong.

Andrew
 

NicolasB

Distinguished Member
AndrewTheMuppet said:
I suspect even a 1080 native res 42" won't look much better than a 768 line 42" but I could be wrong.
It depends how close you sit to the screen. At a viewing distance of 8 or 9 feet there's no point in going above 720p resolution on a 42" screen. But if you have a 65" screen, then 1080p is optimal.

If you sit 5 or 6 feet from the screen, then the higher resolution is useful on a 42" display.

Sky won't be broadcasting in 1080p any time soon (too much bandwidth required).
Blu-ray is the only hope as long as it wins the race. (HD-DVD only supports 1080i)
Remember that 1080i material definitely will be with us, and you need a 1920x1080 display to take full advantage of it. The lack of 1080p source material is really neither here nor there.
 

sweezely

Standard Member
AndrewTheMuppet said:
Sky won't be broadcasting in 1080p any time soon (too much bandwidth required).
Blu-ray is the only hope as long as it wins the race. (HD-DVD only supports 1080i)


HD-DVD and Blu-Ray support both support 1080p.
 

Rob20

Well-known Member
So for the average front room, your gonna need a minimum 50" screen to really see the benefit of 1080p. Will the average family want a 50"+ screen in their living rooms?
 
N

Nick_g

Guest
So how long is this going to take to hit mainstream broadcasting etc, or is it just HD-DVD, Blu-Ray and PS3 that are going 1080p?

If that's the case then it looks like I may be able to live without it. Plus there's no way I can afford a 50" screeen, let alone accomodate it without having to sit 8ft from it.

I just want to make sure that my TV's not out of date or become unsupported before its paid for. Looks like the Freeman's offer has just gone back up to 25%, so these current Toshiba's are looking even more tempting than they did yesterday.
 

Stephen Neal

Distinguished Member
sweezely said:
HD-DVD and Blu-Ray support both support 1080p.

AIUI there are no 1080p output HD-DVD players announced yet? ISTR that the on-disc recording of 1080p source material differed between BluRay and HD-DVD - meaning it was simpler to implement on BluRay, though not impossible with HD-DVD?
 

sweezely

Standard Member
Stephen Neal said:
AIUI there are no 1080p output HD-DVD players announced yet? ISTR that the on-disc recording of 1080p source material differed between BluRay and HD-DVD - meaning it was simpler to implement on BluRay, though not impossible with HD-DVD?

AFAIK, all the content on HD DVD will be encoded in 1080p, and I've never read that there would be any problems with it. The first generation of players won't have 1080p output though. I think only one Blu-Ray player has been announced with 1080p - the Pioneer elite player, at a cost of £7.4 billion (possible exaggeration). So basically, first gen of the new formats will probably be a waste of money if you want 1080p, unless you're willing to pay through the nose.
 

Stephen Neal

Distinguished Member
sweezely said:
AFAIK, all the content on HD DVD will be encoded in 1080p, and I've never read that there would be any problems with it. The first generation of players won't have 1080p output though. I think only one Blu-Ray player has been announced with 1080p - the Pioneer elite player, at a cost of £7.4 billion (possible exaggeration). So basically, first gen of the new formats will probably be a waste of money if you want 1080p, unless you're willing to pay through the nose.

Thinking back on it - ISTR that the HD-DVD format uses 1080/60i as the on-disc recording format for 1080 material. Therefore it can carry 1080/24p material signalled with 3:2 pulldown in a 1080/60i stream, but it can't AIUI carry 1080/60p. AIUI BluRay stores 1080/24p as a 1080/24p stream - but I don't know if that supports 1080/60p either (as a recording format)

I'd expect both to output 1080/24p material as 1080/60p (with 3:2 frame repetition) - though ISTR it is easier for BluRay players to do the 1080/24p bit.
 

StooMonster

Well-known Member
Stephen, are you talking about the codecs (MPEG2, H.264, VC-1) or the structure of data on optical drive (BluRay, HD DVD)?

Isn't what you are describing due to implementations of codecs, which both optical formats support, rather than due to how data is structured on the physical disc itself?

IIRC there were 1080p HD DVD players recently announced as well as the BluRay ones.

StooMonster
 

redpavlos

Novice Member
Nick_g said:
So how long is this going to take to hit mainstream broadcasting etc, or is it just HD-DVD, Blu-Ray and PS3 that are going 1080p?

Many years before we'll see programmes transmitted in 1080p at 50 Hz or 60 Hz. Simply no plans for it anywhere in the world that I'm aware of.

Production in 1080p 50/60 remains a 'holy grail', but so far there is little equipment to support it, with the exception of a few really high-end cameras just beginning to become available. And it's unlikely that anyone will consider transmitting 1080p 50/60 until the next breakthrough in compression technology, which looks to be a number of years away.

Sure, optical disks could in theory hold material in 1080p 50/60. Not much point in doing so though. Remember that film production, whether celluloid or electronically produced, remains unchanged at the rate of 24 picture frames per second.

Maybe some gaming systems will offer 1080p 60 outputs. And some HDTV players might offer 1080p 50/60 upconverted outputs to connect to a new generation of displays able to accept such signals. But film source material won't contain motion at these higher frame rates.

For really larger displays, good to consider a display resolution of 1920x1080 when available. Likely to be a hefty price premium to begin with though.

I currently use a 50" display with a resolution of 1366 x 768. Gives superb pictures when fed from HD sources at 720p or 1080i. Not short of detail. One day I'd like a larger display, probably 60-65". Then I'll consider one with a resolution of 1920 x 1080, if the price is reasonable.

No matter what the paper specifications might suggest, do have a good look at the pictures before you choose what to buy.
 

Chris Muriel

Distinguished Member
Although I am somewhat of a cynic regarding 1080p for domestic use , I thought I would cut 'n paste from part of a work-related email exchange I had today with some of our video guys in the USA......
(See http://www.analog.com/flatpanel ).

"I really liked your presentation on the pitfalls of buying a HDTV.
One area where I disagree is that that 1080p displays are a significant improvement over 720p and they are becoming readily available.
Westinghouse has a 37" 1080p LCD TV that sells for $1,700 at Best-Buy.
We bought one for demos at tradeshows and it looks great!
Even with upscaling 720p and 1080i source content to 1080p, the additional pixels are worth it.
My opinion is that for displays >40", 1080p should be a requirement.
LCD TVs are moving quickly to 1080p for this size, but it will take PDPs a few years to get their cell sizes small enough to do 1080p at 40".
All of our latest analog and HDMI interfaces support 1080p @ 60 frames."

Chris Muriel, Manchester
 

Stephen Neal

Distinguished Member
redpavlos said:
Many years before we'll see programmes transmitted in 1080p at 50 Hz or 60 Hz. Simply no plans for it anywhere in the world that I'm aware of.

Production in 1080p 50/60 remains a 'holy grail', but so far there is little equipment to support it, with the exception of a few really high-end cameras just beginning to become available. And it's unlikely that anyone will consider transmitting 1080p 50/60 until the next breakthrough in compression technology, which looks to be a number of years away.

Sure, optical disks could in theory hold material in 1080p 50/60. Not much point in doing so though. Remember that film production, whether celluloid or electronically produced, remains unchanged at the rate of 24 picture frames per second.

Maybe some gaming systems will offer 1080p 60 outputs. And some HDTV players might offer 1080p 50/60 upconverted outputs to connect to a new generation of displays able to accept such signals. But film source material won't contain motion at these higher frame rates.

For really larger displays, good to consider a display resolution of 1920x1080 when available. Likely to be a hefty price premium to begin with though.

I currently use a 50" display with a resolution of 1366 x 768. Gives superb pictures when fed from HD sources at 720p or 1080i. Not short of detail. One day I'd like a larger display, probably 60-65". Then I'll consider one with a resolution of 1920 x 1080, if the price is reasonable.

No matter what the paper specifications might suggest, do have a good look at the pictures before you choose what to buy.

Yep - however 1080/24p is a production standard in the HD world - so distributing in 24p makes sense, with the player frame repeating to generate a 1080/60p (3:2) output. (Or 25 p 2:2ed to 50p in Europe)

I think this is the only likely 1080p material we'll see for a while.
 

Stephen Neal

Distinguished Member
StooMonster said:
Stephen, are you talking about the codecs (MPEG2, H.264, VC-1) or the structure of data on optical drive (BluRay, HD DVD)?

Isn't what you are describing due to implementations of codecs, which both optical formats support, rather than due to how data is structured on the physical disc itself?

IIRC there were 1080p HD DVD players recently announced as well as the BluRay ones.

StooMonster

I'm talking about the subsets of supported video standards that can be carried within the various supported codecs. ISTR reading that HD-DVD was based around standard video codecs - i.e. 50i, 60i, 50p, 60p - and only supported 24p and 25p as carried within an interlaced video stream, whilst BluRay additionally supported 24p native video encoded within the codec, with the player implementing frame repetition on playback, without having to unpick 3:2 pulldown.

However I also understood that MPEG2 allows 24p to be carried in a 60i friendly manner with 3:2 frame flagging - so I may be confused, or remembering the posts of someone from an earlier discussion.

I do have very definite recollections of a number of posters suggesting that the HD-DVD 24p support was more primitive and more heavily 60i based though.

Could it be that BluRay includes 24p to 60i conversion (with vertical filtering on playback in 60i, but not in 60p) but HD-DVD requires the source material to be pre-filtered prior to mastering, removing the benefit of 24p distribution over 60i with reverse 3:2 generating 24p?
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Samsung TV Launch & QN95A Neo QLED Review, plus Film & TV news & Reviews
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom