- Jan 3, 2001
- 41,920
- 2,161
- 126
CNet: 1080i and 1080p- little to no difference
- Thread starter Fritzo
- Start date
YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Moderator<br>A/V & Home Theater<br>Elite member
- Aug 6, 2001
- 31,205
- 45
- 91
I don't believe what other people say. I have to see it for myself.
I've had a few people claim that the human eye can't distinguish anything higher than 60 hz and that setting your monitor to anything higher is useless. They can't see it flicker. I, on the other hand, get sick if the refresh rate is that low on a monitor. It's like looking at a strobe light.
I'm also bothered by the LED taillights on cars, since they strobe.
secretanchitman
Diamond Member
- Apr 11, 2001
- 9,352
- 23
- 91
1080p > 1080i.
you have to get 1080p content and compare it side-by-side with 1080i content.
*goes on his 1080p projector*
you have to get 1080p content and compare it side-by-side with 1080i content.
*goes on his 1080p projector*
The thing that seems confusing to me is that the article appears to compare resolution between 1080i and 1080p. The resolution should be the same. The difference is between interlaced and progressive scanning. I think a better test would be to compare smoothness of action (don't ask me how to compare that!). I do agree that right now a 1080i TV set will equal a 1080p TV set but there are more DVD players capable of outputting 1080p coming out all the time and the prices on the DVD players will be dropping in the near future. So IMHO, you would be foolish to buy a TV set with only 1080i if one is available that displayes 1080p and it is similar to what you are looking for in a TV set.
Originally posted by: cubalis
1080p is worth it for 1920x1080 resolution alone. Capable gaming HTPC on 1080p = bliss
Doesn't a 1080i also have a 1920x1080 resolution? Just half the pixals are updated a little sooner then others.
James3shin
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2004
- 4,426
- 0
- 76
Until you see 1080p in action for yourself, don't knock it. 1080p is so motherfmaelkjeiaoej SPfkal;jek YEAHHHHHH!!!!
Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Originally posted by: Insane3D
OH NOES!
/waits for spidey07 and SLCentral....
:Q
RUN!!!
. I'm way too tired to say anything back right now .yes. 720p@60fps is better than 1080p@30fps for video that isn't still pictures.
like things that move, ie football, racing, dancing, basically everything but talk shows.
so 1080p is better if you really like to see the pores in Jay Leno's face.
Originally posted by: iamaelephant
No, he's right. They drive me crazy. Every time I'm stuck behind a caddy the flickering annoys the hell out of me.
I can easily tell the diff between 30gps, 60fps and 90fps.
But the fact that nearly anyone's eyes is bothered by 60hz isnt so much a problem with the framerate as it is the way CRTs scan - they don't flick whole images, but line by line.
Anyway, if you're sitting from a moderately large TV, at a reasonable difference, there is very, very little difference between 720p and 1080i/p. You have to sit absurdly close to a huge TV (5 feet from a 65") in order to see those 1080 lines. It could very well be appropriate for a projection based home theater with a huge screen, but for a regular TV, I'd never sit that close all the time.
Unless you have eagle eyes or something.
That article is so full of misinformation and FUD it isn't funny. That article needs to be withdrawn.
the year is 2007. 1080p is the only way of the future. I'll take flicker free true HD resolution please.
like this golden nugget of idotry...
"While this isn't the most scientific test, both Katzmaier and I agreed that, after scanning through Mission: Impossible III for an hour, it would be very difficult--practically impossible--for the average consumer to tell the difference between a high-definition image displayed on a 1080p-capable TV and one with lower native resolution at the screen sizes mentioned above. At larger screen sizes, the differences might become somewhat more apparent, especially if you sit close to the screen."
no crap you dummy. You were probably not sitting at the correct distance for HD viewing. Not to mention the difference become strickingly clear as you view larger displays. This idiot was watching it on 42 and 50" screens and was most assurably not sitting close enough for HD viewing.
OH - more idiotry. This bozo was switching the output of the player between 1080p and 1080i FOR MOVIES!!! It's well known that you can fully reconstruct 1080p for display when using a 1080i source. what an idiot.
the year is 2007. 1080p is the only way of the future. I'll take flicker free true HD resolution please.
like this golden nugget of idotry...
"While this isn't the most scientific test, both Katzmaier and I agreed that, after scanning through Mission: Impossible III for an hour, it would be very difficult--practically impossible--for the average consumer to tell the difference between a high-definition image displayed on a 1080p-capable TV and one with lower native resolution at the screen sizes mentioned above. At larger screen sizes, the differences might become somewhat more apparent, especially if you sit close to the screen."
no crap you dummy. You were probably not sitting at the correct distance for HD viewing. Not to mention the difference become strickingly clear as you view larger displays. This idiot was watching it on 42 and 50" screens and was most assurably not sitting close enough for HD viewing.
OH - more idiotry. This bozo was switching the output of the player between 1080p and 1080i FOR MOVIES!!! It's well known that you can fully reconstruct 1080p for display when using a 1080i source. what an idiot.
How close do you suggest we sit then?
It's well known that you can, but whether or not it actually does is a different question.
I'd rather see it all come out as 1080p just to simplify things. Interlacing is the devil, and anything else can be downscaled.
But until 1080p sets are the same price as 720p sets, I won't be wasting my money.
I don't know the distance off the top of my head, but there's calculators out there for it. Something about you can't really see all the detail of HD and 1080 resolution unless you are at a particular distanc/ratio.
Haha so I'm supposed to bust out my calculator to figure out how to position my couch when my buddies or girlfriend come over and we want to watch something? Yeah that'll help my social status.
How about, I just sit down wherever my couch is at and enjoy the damn movie. And that default position will *probably* be far enough away for the difference between 1080i and 1080p to be negligible, as the author of the article said. I don't really see why he's such an idiot. He was being practical, ignoring the fact that you if you sit two feet from the set then 1080p is the hands down winner. Who cares?
For the most part, advertising 1080p means the display can actually show 1920x1080. 1080i is advertised for screens that can only do 1366x768. Of which I would say that there is a HUGE difference across "1080p" screen and a 720p/1080i screen.
1080i @ 1920x1080 is very very nice indeed, IMO better than 720p, and considering limitations to 1080p and how it can't yet be pushed @ 60fps, there is no huge advantage it has over 1080i.
1080i @ 1920x1080 is very very nice indeed, IMO better than 720p, and considering limitations to 1080p and how it can't yet be pushed @ 60fps, there is no huge advantage it has over 1080i.
Ya, and I've used those calculators. 5-6 feet from a 60inch+ set is what it takes. Thats too close for comfort.
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Facebook
Twitter