content wise 1080 is better..but some sources are "upconverted" to 1080...and not true 1080...it gets very tricky which i could explain but i really dont feel like it lol. its been discussed many times though. hit us up at www.avsforum.com . :thumbsup:
Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Originally posted by: Nikamichi
Originally posted by: SynthDude2001
mmm, HD pr0n.... oh wait
Hmm, there's nothing wrong with that.
Actually, I've been privy to screenshots and was shocked......TOO MUCH DETAIL!!!....WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT!!!!!
Screenshots, eh? Post them.
Originally posted by: SynthDude2001
Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Originally posted by: Nikamichi
Originally posted by: SynthDude2001
mmm, HD pr0n.... oh wait
Hmm, there's nothing wrong with that.
Actually, I've been privy to screenshots and was shocked......TOO MUCH DETAIL!!!....WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT!!!!!
Screenshots, eh? Post them.
Like I said, I will post shots of 5th. elem in 1080p....that should be far better than any HD porn....
EX:
Rallispec
Lifer
- Jul 26, 2001
- 12,375
- 10
- 81
Originally posted by: Goosemaster
I am talking about content here...not equipment
heh -- well i've voiced my opinoin there too
--- but i'll go ahead and make another post anyways becuase i don't want to be doing work right now. I feel that there are very few situations in which 1080 provides a better picture. I think 99% of video out there looks better and sharper in 720.
I dont know if you can have a definitive answer though - both kick ass.
Originally posted by: Rallispec
Originally posted by: Goosemaster
I am talking about content here...not equipment
heh -- well i've voiced my opinoin there too
I feel that there are very few situations in which 1080 provides a better picture. I think 99% of video out there looks better and sharper in 720.
I dont know if you can have a definitive answer though - both kick ass.
Well, as it stands, I only have one thign in 1080i, and all my other stuff is in 720p.....still, I can't pick a clear winner....
Yeah, but it is way too small. There is no way you could practically enjoy the additional pixels unless you ahve something much larger, or unless you sit right next to the 46''...in which case..HOO-RAH!
Mr.IncrediblyBored
Lifer
- Jun 18, 2000
- 11,208
- 773
- 126
46" is nice for general viewing, like the news and sitcoms. But for a theater setting it just won't do.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/kell.htm
Digital versus Analog -- The Kell Factor
"The smallest detail that can be reproduced in the image is known as a picture element (pixel). Ideally, each [of the smallest] detail of the [original] scene should be represented by one picture element [in the image], that is, each scanning line would be available for one picture element along any vertical line in the image. In practice, however, some of the details in the scene fall between scanning lines, so two [scanning] lines are required for such ... [details that are one scan line high]. Thus some vertical resolution is lost. Measurements of this effect show that only about 70% of the vertical detail [s one scan line high] is prersented by the scanning lines. This ratio is known as the Kell factor; it applies irrespective of the manner of scanning, whether the lines follow each other sequentially (progressive scan) or alternately (interlaced scan)." From K. Blair Benson and Donald G. Fink, "HDTV: Advanced Television for the 1990's", 1991, McGraw Hill, NY, bracketed words added by me.
We are continuing to research this topic, some sources say that the Kell factor only pertains to the degradation caused by interlacing. One source states that the Kell factor is the ratio of the scan line thickness to the scan line spacing, which coincidentally approximates the ratio of lines of resolution to scan lines when it is close to but less than unity. We will use the term "Extended Kell Factor" to relate the resolution as perceived to the number of scan lines taking into account all reasons for the degradation.
There is also recognized the "Interlace Factor" which is the ratio of lines of resolution as perceived in a video picture produced using interlaced scan, divided by the lines of resolution as perceived in the same video picture except produced using progressive scan.
The number of lines of resolution must be less than the number of scan lines or pixels (spanning the same distance) because the scan lines or pixels can straddle picture details so as to yield a total blur. Since the early days of television, the effective resolution has been expressed as a Kell factor. There are probably some more modern formulas for use with digital video today but none have been widely published.
Digital versus Analog -- The Kell Factor
"The smallest detail that can be reproduced in the image is known as a picture element (pixel). Ideally, each [of the smallest] detail
We are continuing to research this topic, some sources say that the Kell factor only pertains to the degradation caused by interlacing. One source states that the Kell factor is the ratio of the scan line thickness to the scan line spacing, which coincidentally approximates the ratio of lines of resolution to scan lines when it is close to but less than unity. We will use the term "Extended Kell Factor" to relate the resolution as perceived to the number of scan lines taking into account all reasons for the degradation.
There is also recognized the "Interlace Factor" which is the ratio of lines of resolution as perceived in a video picture produced using interlaced scan, divided by the lines of resolution as perceived in the same video picture except produced using progressive scan.
The number of lines of resolution must be less than the number of scan lines or pixels (spanning the same distance) because the scan lines or pixels can straddle picture details so as to yield a total blur. Since the early days of television, the effective resolution has been expressed as a Kell factor. There are probably some more modern formulas for use with digital video today but none have been widely published.
But 1080i is 1920x1080 resolution and 720p is 1280x720. Basically the concensus is 1080 looks better but isnt as smooth as 720p.
Speaking from personal experience, I like 1080i MUCH better than 720p. I think it depends on what you watch, mainly.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter