What do I need to know about 1080p?

[Slikkster]

LOL, that's hardly the point. The point is 1080P is not necessary given a decent 1080i set that can do normal deinterlacing. Look, if you want to pay more for something of (currently) dubious benefit, be my guest. My main point is that right now, in 2006, 1080p is not all that useful, and could cost you extra $$$ for what???

Here's the Gamespot explanation on the film in 1080i vs. 1080p:

"Now, here's the crucial difference between 1080i and 1080p, as it relates to movies. With 1080i transmission, the player interlaces the frames during the pulldown and sends the interlaced frames to the TV set to be deinterlaced. With 1080p transmission, the player never interlaces the frames. Click to see how deinterlacing works. Regardless, you will get the exact same result. The only exception is if you have a crap TV that doesn't deinterlace properly, but chances are that TV won't support 1080p anyway."

I can't keep making this same point. Either you get it, or ya don't. Again, someday, 1080p will actually be a benefit. But one should buy a set/monitor based on what their EYES see, not some marketing spec. Why would you want to pay more for that?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: ATLien247

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: ATLien247
Who pissed in your Post Toasties?

So, tell me... How long has HD been available to the consumer? How long have 1080p displays? How many people actually own a 1080p display?

Nobody is going to produce 1080p content if they can't make any money from it...

Nobody pissed in anything of mine, I just find it irritating that you attack other people for not knowing their crap, when in fact, you are so far beyond the realm of reality that it's rediculous.

HDTV was first broadcast in 1988, the first sets hit the market in the US in 1998. Thus, in 8 years we have only gotten what? At most 10 regular channels (excluding movie channels). Out of maybe the 200 or so available on extended cable. Wow, we have 5% of all available channels in HD!!! WHOOPIE!

Not only do we have 5% of channels, but at least half of that 5% only broadcast true HD during only 10% of the day. WOW! AWESOME!!

Not only do we only have 2.5% of channels broadcasting in HD 10% of the day, but most use crappy compression and poor broadcast quality. YAY! Great!

Now, thats at 1080i or 720p. How long do you think it will take them, after it took them 8 years to get to this point, to upgrade to 1080p? It is going to take a *LONG* time. Heck, the #1 morning news show (Today show) only *JUST* went HD within the last couple weeks.

Upgrading to be on the bleeding edge implies that you will have a benefit from that bleeding edge either now or in the near future. However, 1080p offers very little now and a greatly reduced likelihood of near future. Lastly, if this dude is upgrading TVs every couple years, do you think he will wait 10 for the next?

First of all, I didn't attack anyone...

Second, you just proved my point for me!

HD since 1998, yet it has only recently caught on in the mainstream. Why? Because HDTVs have been (and still are to a certain extent) too expensive for your average consumer. You infer that HD hasn't caught on well because of lack of content, and that may be indirectly true.

All I'm saying is that there is no incentive for the media industry to produce 1080p content when there isn't an established consumer base that will provide them with enough profit to make it worth their while.

And why should they when people are still pushing 720p as "good enough"?

I didn't prove your point, I proved mine.

If it's going to be another 8 years before we see 10 channels broadcasting part-time 1080p, then why bother buying it now?

Furthermore, 8 years down the road we will be using sets that are much more advanced than they are now. Look at the HD sets 8 years ago, CRT projection.

 

[wyvrn]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Slikkster
Yeah, Ok...typical copout. That's on you. Here's a blurb from Wiki about film sources and 1080i/1080p:

"As long as no additional image-degradation steps were applied during signal mastering (such as excessive vertical-pass filtering), the image from a properly deinterlaced film-source 1080i signal and a native-encoded 1080p signal will look exactly the same."

Slikkster, you just posted one of the reasons SUPPORTING a 1080p display.

This whole thing is just like the 720p/1080i debates (which were very valid at the time). But with 1080p you get the best of both worlds - progressive, high resolution video.

Just go and look at a 65" 1080p plasma. Then compare to a 720p plasma from the same source. That should prove the point right there.

How is that supporting 1080p? Pay more for technology that has no content yet because it looks the same as the lower standard? That's just a stupid waste of money, imo.

I recently upgraded from an EDTV to HDTV because I thought I would notice a big difference on OTA HD broadcasts, currently the best HD signal you can get (better than my local satellite or cable options). Guess what? There was a marginal difference. I have a bigger set now, but the picture quality overall is the same. There is no way any OTA is using 1080p in the near future when most of the content is native 720p, or upscaled 480p. Most of the local OTA channels here choose to use 2-3 'subchannels' for weather and traffic cams, instead of broadcasting the highest resolution picture that will fit in that channel stream. Why would I buy a 1080p set?

 

[jtvang125]

More marketing than a necessity right now. Only 1080p content is HD-DVD or BR but currently very few people are willing to pay $500-1000 for these players. No 1080p cable/sat/OTA content in sight yet either.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: wyvrn
How is that supporting 1080p? Pay more for technology that has no content yet because it looks the same as the lower standard? That's just a stupid waste of money, imo.

I recently upgraded from an EDTV to HDTV because I thought I would notice a big difference on OTA HD broadcasts, currently the best HD signal you can get (better than my local satellite or cable options). Guess what? There was a marginal difference. I have a bigger set now, but the picture quality overall is the same. There is no way any OTA is using 1080p in the near future when most of the content is native 720p, or upscaled 480p. Most of the local OTA channels here choose to use 2-3 'subchannels' for weather and traffic cams, instead of broadcasting the highest resolution picture that will fit in that channel stream. Why would I buy a 1080p set?

You buy a 1080p set for 1080i and 1080p content. that's the whole point.

 

[ScottFern]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: wyvrn
How is that supporting 1080p? Pay more for technology that has no content yet because it looks the same as the lower standard? That's just a stupid waste of money, imo.

I recently upgraded from an EDTV to HDTV because I thought I would notice a big difference on OTA HD broadcasts, currently the best HD signal you can get (better than my local satellite or cable options). Guess what? There was a marginal difference. I have a bigger set now, but the picture quality overall is the same. There is no way any OTA is using 1080p in the near future when most of the content is native 720p, or upscaled 480p. Most of the local OTA channels here choose to use 2-3 'subchannels' for weather and traffic cams, instead of broadcasting the highest resolution picture that will fit in that channel stream. Why would I buy a 1080p set?

You buy a 1080p set for 1080i and 1080p content. that's the whole point.

That's like buying a DirectX10 card today and paying $200 more than a DirectX9 card that still does a great job. Why do it?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: ScottFern
That's like buying a DirectX10 card today and paying $200 more than a DirectX9 card that still does a great job. Why do it?

I don't know about you, but at least half of my HD viewing is 1080i content and here soon most of my movies will be 1080p.

On top of that MOST of the the TV I watch is in HD. So that means that means most of my viewing is 1080i. That means I need a 1080p display for maximum viewing pleasure.

 

[wyvrn]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: wyvrn
How is that supporting 1080p? Pay more for technology that has no content yet because it looks the same as the lower standard? That's just a stupid waste of money, imo.

I recently upgraded from an EDTV to HDTV because I thought I would notice a big difference on OTA HD broadcasts, currently the best HD signal you can get (better than my local satellite or cable options). Guess what? There was a marginal difference. I have a bigger set now, but the picture quality overall is the same. There is no way any OTA is using 1080p in the near future when most of the content is native 720p, or upscaled 480p. Most of the local OTA channels here choose to use 2-3 'subchannels' for weather and traffic cams, instead of broadcasting the highest resolution picture that will fit in that channel stream. Why would I buy a 1080p set?

You buy a 1080p set for 1080i and 1080p content. that's the whole point.

A better point is there is no 1080p content now and won't be in the near future. What do you get out of your 1080p set?

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: wyvrn
A better point is there is no 1080p content now and won't be in the near future. What do you get out of your 1080p set?

If nothing else he gets a flicker free image from 1080i sources.

 

[wyvrn]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ScottFern
That's like buying a DirectX10 card today and paying $200 more than a DirectX9 card that still does a great job. Why do it?

I don't know about you, but at least half of my HD viewing is 1080i content and here soon most of my movies will be 1080p.

On top of that MOST of the the TV I watch is in HD. So that means that means most of my viewing is 1080i. That means I need a 1080p display for maximum viewing pleasure.

 

[wyvrn]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: wyvrn
A better point is there is no 1080p content now and won't be in the near future. What do you get out of your 1080p set?

If nothing else he gets a flicker free image from 1080i sources.

That's unny, I have a 50" screen and I don't notice a lot of flicker (and yes I know what it is). But to each his ownI guess.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: wyvrn
A better point is there is no 1080p content now and won't be in the near future. What do you get out of your 1080p set?

Full 1920x1080 resolution for 1080i and 1080p sources.

I really don't see why this is so hard to comprehend.

 

[ATLien247]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: ATLien247
First of all, I didn't attack anyone...

Second, you just proved my point for me!

HD since 1998, yet it has only recently caught on in the mainstream. Why? Because HDTVs have been (and still are to a certain extent) too expensive for your average consumer. You infer that HD hasn't caught on well because of lack of content, and that may be indirectly true.

All I'm saying is that there is no incentive for the media industry to produce 1080p content when there isn't an established consumer base that will provide them with enough profit to make it worth their while.

And why should they when people are still pushing 720p as "good enough"?

I didn't prove your point, I proved mine.

If it's going to be another 8 years before we see 10 channels broadcasting part-time 1080p, then why bother buying it now?

Furthermore, 8 years down the road we will be using sets that are much more advanced than they are now. Look at the HD sets 8 years ago, CRT projection.

Whatever, dude...

It'll be another eight years before we see ten channels broadcasting part-time 1080p if the majority of people have mindsets like you.

Fast-forward eight years. I bet you'll be saying the same thing about UHDTVs. Something like: "Don't buy a 4320p display yet, because there ain't enough content!"

 

[SaltBoy]

Originally posted by: wyvrn


A better point is there is no 1080p content now and won't be in the near future.

*ahem* *ahem* Film that is broadcast in 1080i (which basically means all movies and TV dramas) is actually 1080p quality. Don't believe me? Look up Inverse Telecine and prove me wrong.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: SaltBoy

Originally posted by: wyvrn


A better point is there is no 1080p content now and won't be in the near future.

*ahem* *ahem* Film that is broadcast in 1080i (which basically means all movies and TV dramas) is actually 1080p quality. Don't believe me? Look up Inverse Telecine and prove me wrong.

Doesn't really matter though if it is broadcast in 1080i.

 

[SaltBoy]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: SaltBoy

Originally posted by: wyvrn


A better point is there is no 1080p content now and won't be in the near future.

*ahem* *ahem* Film that is broadcast in 1080i (which basically means all movies and TV dramas) is actually 1080p quality. Don't believe me? Look up Inverse Telecine and prove me wrong.

Doesn't really matter though if it is broadcast in 1080i.

I don't understand what you mean by that.

I don't know if we're on the same page here, so please allow me to try to explain the deal with my feeble communication skills.

Film = 24 frames per second
1080i = 30 frames per second
1080i = 60 fields per second, meaning one frame consists of two fields
One field = 1 still picture

With a film-based source, every other line of a 1080i frame, or one field, consists of half of a film frame. The other "every other" lines in a 1080i frame (or one field) consist of either the same half of film that was in the first field or consist of the second half of the film frame. Now, the two fields are together in one frame.

1080i Frame = 1/2 Film Frame #1 + 2/2 Film Frame #1 = 1 Complete Film Frame in 1080p resolution

With deinterlacing and Inverse Telecine applied to a 1080i source, a 1080p TV can pull out 24 complete, 1080p resolution frames in one second. The TV will have to apply 3:2 reverse pulldown, which means the film will stutter, but it still displays a film in 1080p resolution.

Remember, movies and a lot of primetime TV shows are shot on film. Hence, if they are broadcast in 1080i, then somebody with a 1080p display will be able to see a 1080p picture.

Now, if we were looking at a *video*-based source (such as a live football game or the Tonight Show), then we would have a different story. A 1080p display would have to deinterlace 1080i video, which would have a 540p-equivalent resolution, and upconvert it to 1080p. No, the football game would not look as good from a 1080i broadcast as it would from a 720p (or 1080p) broadcast, but again, this is only with a video-based source.

1080i film-based sources will show up as 1080p on a 1080p TV. That's the simple truth.

 

[Staples]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: wyvrn
A better point is there is no 1080p content now and won't be in the near future. What do you get out of your 1080p set?

Full 1920x1080 resolution for 1080i and 1080p sources.

I really don't see why this is so hard to comprehend.

Same thing I was going to say. I don't see why people are so hung up on "but there is no content."

1080i = 1920x1080 interlaced.

720p TVs have a resolution of 1280x720.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Staples
Same thing I was going to say. I don't see why people are so hung up on "but there is no content."

1080i = 1920x1080 interlaced.

720p TVs have a resolution of 1280x720.

I think people are having a hard time wrapping their heads around the fact that 1080i and 1080p are "effectively" the same from a source perspective. But we're talking about a display. I forget the math but 1080 has about TWICE as many pixels as 720.

With the majority of TV content being 1080, it only makes sense to get a display that doesn't throw away resolution.

The proof is in the pudding however; compare a good, large 1080p display (plasma) to a 720p with the same source and see for yourself. I have and the difference is very apparent.

Not bragging, seriously. I have 3 HDTVs (CRT, plasma, DLP) and have had HD viewing for almost 5 years now. I'm looking for a new TV. No way, no how would I NOT purchase a 1080p set. This is based on my eyes regardless of any spec.

To play devils advocate I can say that a very good 720p set will look better than a not so good 1080p set. But a very good 1080p display, and I can't repeat this enough, has the best of both 720/1080 worlds.

 

[jammur21]

1080p on 50-60" plasma / rear projection -- diminishing returns

1080p on 22"+ Computer LCD -- :thumbsup:

1080p on 100"+ front projection -- :heart:

 

[Schfifty Five]

LegendKiller and ATLien247, you two ladies need to realize that you are both arguing in a circle.

ATLien247 thinks that 1080p isn't happening due to the lack of profit from consumers.

LegendKiller thinks it's b/c there's not enough content to justify buying 1080p...

"We won't make HD b/c not enough ppl will buy it"

"We don't want to buy HD stuff b/c there's not enough content"

Hmm....you guys are both numbnuts.

 

[ATLien247]

Originally posted by: Schfifty Five
LegendKiller and ATLien247, you two ladies need to realize that you are both arguing in a circle.

ATLien247 thinks that 1080p isn't happening due to the lack of profit from consumers.

LegendKiller thinks it's b/c there's not enough content to justify buying 1080p...

"We won't make HD b/c not enough ppl will buy it"

"We don't want to buy HD stuff b/c there's not enough content"

Hmm....you guys are both numbnuts.

Actually, I do realize that it can be seen as a circular argument. A chicken and the egg, if you will. But it doesn't have to be...

Buy the best you can afford at the time, and enjoy it. Don't wait until the next best thing comes along, or you'll end up waiting in perpetuity.

I'm surprised there are so many "wait-and-see'ers" on a technology forum like AT!

[edit]
Oh, and it's 1080p content that I'm arguing isn't happening. There are 1080p displays on the market, which is what the OP was asking about.
[/edit]

 

[ultimatebob]

Right now, 1080p sets are still too expensive for me. I don't have a huge budget for an HDTV right now, so the extra $1,000 for a 1080p set over a 720p/1080i set isn't worth it.

 

[wyvrn]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Staples
Same thing I was going to say. I don't see why people are so hung up on "but there is no content."

1080i = 1920x1080 interlaced.

720p TVs have a resolution of 1280x720.

I think people are having a hard time wrapping their heads around the fact that 1080i and 1080p are "effectively" the same from a source perspective. But we're talking about a display. I forget the math but 1080 has about TWICE as many pixels as 720.

With the majority of TV content being 1080, it only makes sense to get a display that doesn't throw away resolution.

The proof is in the pudding however; compare a good, large 1080p display (plasma) to a 720p with the same source and see for yourself. I have and the difference is very apparent.

Not bragging, seriously. I have 3 HDTVs (CRT, plasma, DLP) and have had HD viewing for almost 5 years now. I'm looking for a new TV. No way, no how would I NOT purchase a 1080p set. This is based on my eyes regardless of any spec.

To play devils advocate I can say that a very good 720p set will look better than a not so good 1080p set. But a very good 1080p display, and I can't repeat this enough, has the best of both 720/1080 worlds.

So if you are effectively seeing 1080i, how does a 1080p display help you?

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: jammur21
1080p on 50-60" plasma / rear projection -- diminishing returns

1080p on 22"+ Computer LCD -- :thumbsup:

1080p on 100"+ front projection -- :heart:

1600p on 30" LCD =

 

[Staples]

Originally posted by: wyvrn

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Staples
Same thing I was going to say. I don't see why people are so hung up on "but there is no content."

1080i = 1920x1080 interlaced.

720p TVs have a resolution of 1280x720.

I think people are having a hard time wrapping their heads around the fact that 1080i and 1080p are "effectively" the same from a source perspective. But we're talking about a display. I forget the math but 1080 has about TWICE as many pixels as 720.

With the majority of TV content being 1080, it only makes sense to get a display that doesn't throw away resolution.

The proof is in the pudding however; compare a good, large 1080p display (plasma) to a 720p with the same source and see for yourself. I have and the difference is very apparent.

Not bragging, seriously. I have 3 HDTVs (CRT, plasma, DLP) and have had HD viewing for almost 5 years now. I'm looking for a new TV. No way, no how would I NOT purchase a 1080p set. This is based on my eyes regardless of any spec.

To play devils advocate I can say that a very good 720p set will look better than a not so good 1080p set. But a very good 1080p display, and I can't repeat this enough, has the best of both 720/1080 worlds.

So if you are effectively seeing 1080i, how does a 1080p display help you?

A 720p TV has a display resolution of 1280x720. 1080p/i has a resolution of 1920x1080.

When you are watching 1080p/i content, whole rows and fields of pixels are cut out of the picture in order for it to be shrunk down. It is just like looking at a 3mp picture on an 800x600 pc monitor. The image is shrunk and quality is lost.