Why are there no 1080i dvds?

[venkman]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
meh, ill just say my Panasonic TH42PX700U is one hell of a TV

(need to recalibrate the coloring on it though)

Do the Pannys still have that green push thing going on out of the box?

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: venkman

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
meh, ill just say my Panasonic TH42PX700U is one hell of a TV

(need to recalibrate the coloring on it though)

Do the Pannys still have that green push thing going on out of the box?

dont know, the TV is almost 2 years old, i had the normal panny issue but it was covered under warranty.

 

[Krazy4Real]

over 9000p > 1080p > *

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: venkman

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: venkman

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: venkman

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
1080p>720p > 1080i>480p>720i>

i was upest to learn that the steelers game was only 1080i, it could have looked so much better.

much fail in this post I sense.

much fail in this post I sense.

(either you or I win, but hey, atleast one of us wins)

1080p and 1080i are completely indistinguishably from each other unless you have some retardedly bad deinterlacing going on. Some of the first HD DVD players took the 1080p content, outputed from the player at 1080i, and had the TV deinterlace it back to 1080p (assuming it was a 1080p/60 tv) and there was no visible difference between the PQ from the early HD DVD players to the later HD DVD players or BD equivalents that kept the content entirely in 1080p through the whole process.

720p is indistinguishably from the 1080s unless you have a massive screen and even then some blind comparisons on AVS between 1080 and 720 projectors firing up a 120"+ screen haven't shown much of a visible difference to trained eyes.

720p is massively different from 480p and I've never heard of 720i so I don't know what you are talking about.

i doubt it, 1080p is double the resolution of 720p. on a 120" the pixel density of a 720p would be ridiculously low. you can already see the coarseness of the pixel structure on a 50" 720p plasma, forget a 120" screen. something was wrong with that "test".

What kind of crappy plasma do you have that you can see the pixel structure on it? Or are you standing IN the plasma. I haven't been keeping up with the projector game since I've been happy with my 720p projector and have no need to upgrade. If I did need a new projector today, it would be 1080p simply because the price difference is non existent compared to $2500 when I bought my 720p. There much more important issues to consider over resolution. Back before I had my projector, I went through two HDTVs, a 42" 1080p LCD and a 42" 720p plasma. I would take the plasma any day of the week and twice on Sundays. The PQ was MUCH, MUCH better.

As for the test, I can't find the link since it's a few years old now. It was done by some pretty well respected guys in the AVS community and they used pretty high end Marantz projectors for both. I don't recall any major test issues coming up in the very long thread it generated.

Let's take your monitor. Set it to 1280x720. Then set it to 1920x1080. Now tell me you can't notice the difference.

The reason people can't notice it is because they sit like 12-18 feet away from a 50" screen, so it's not noticeable. If you sit closer using it like a computer monitor, the difference is night and day. Why else do you think we can tell resolution differences so easily on our monitors. By your argument, you might as well stick to playing your games at 640x480 (I know friends who call themselves gamers and are dumb enough to not set their display settings first and I remember they used to play at 640x480 unknowingly).

BTW LCDs are not bad at all, and did you compare top of the line models? I compared an XBR2/3 with a Pioneer Kuro when I was buying. I went with LCD for 1080p. But the downside is the blacks blow and I wish I got Pioneer, but to say there's no difference between 720p and 1080p is false.

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: MrMatt

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
1080p>720p > 1080i>480p>720i>

i was upest to learn that the steelers game was only 1080i, it could have looked so much better.

wait 720p is better than 1080i??? I thought 1080 was like leaps and bounds ahead of 720p?

720p is 60 frames per second, that's the only advantage.

With a good deinterlacer you're not going to be able to tell the difference between 1080p/30 and 1080i/60. That's why 1080p/60 frames per second is so sweet, it's like 720p on steroids.

only on TV though. 720p is 60fps for ATSC broadcasts. Different story when we talk about movies which the OP is wondering about.

 

[MrMatt]

Ok, so do any cable companies actually transmit in 1080p??

 

[newnameman]

fail thread is fail

 

[venkman]

Originally posted by: DLeRium


Let's take your monitor. Set it to 1280x720. Then set it to 1920x1080. Now tell me you can't notice the difference.

The reason people can't notice it is because they sit like 12-18 feet away from a 50" screen, so it's not noticeable. If you sit closer using it like a computer monitor, the difference is night and day. Why else do you think we can tell resolution differences so easily on our monitors. By your argument, you might as well stick to playing your games at 640x480 (I know friends who call themselves gamers and are dumb enough to not set their display settings first and I remember they used to play at 640x480 unknowingly).

BTW LCDs are not bad at all, and did you compare top of the line models? I compared an XBR2/3 with a Pioneer Kuro when I was buying. I went with LCD for 1080p. But the downside is the blacks blow and I wish I got Pioneer, but to say there's no difference between 720p and 1080p is false.

1)Yes, if you sit close enough, you can see a difference between 1080 and 720 on any size screen. I notice a difference because I'm sitting about a 1' away from my 24" monitor. The difference for a 50" screen is in the 3-5' range. Most people sit about 7-9' away from a 50" screen, well outside of the range.

2)Who sits 18' away from a 50" TV? I don't sit that far away from my projector when it's throwing an 80" image.

3)Using a computer, reading a wall of very fine text, etc is a very different experience than watching a movie or playing a game. A 1080p set is far superior for computer use, I never argued that. That argument came up regarding a football game being broadcast in 1080i instead of 720p so that has been my point of reference.

3)Like brand, there are MANY factors I will look for in an HDTV long before I will look for resolution. It isn't a big deal these days since there is no huge price difference between 1080 and 720, but a few years back you were talking about $500-$2500 difference in price.

I'm not too up to date on what's king since I haven't looked into an HDTV since I helped
my Sister pick out an HDTV a year ago (she went with a 50" KURO) and I know the gap has closed between LCD/LED and Plasma quite a bit. The next "upgrade" I will make is OLED. I saw those running at CES and the image quality is nothing short of revolutionary stunning.

 

[spidey07]

venkman, you're agrument is old and untrue.

The year is 2009, 1080p is the only way. 720p is dead.

Plasma is still greater than all. Anybody that say's otherwise is just trying to justify their crap TV purchase.

 

[krylon]

nerd fighting is nerd

 

[Joemonkey]

Originally posted by: spidey07
venkman, you're agrument is old and untrue.

The year is 2009, 1080p is the only way. 720p is dead.

Plasma is still greater than all. Anybody that say's otherwise is just trying to justify their crap TV purchase.

and anyone trying to say plasma is greater than all is trying to justify spending too much on a TV

I have a 42" LCD 1080p tv and it looks JUST AS GOOD as a 42" Plasma 1080p TV I saw right next to it in the store yet was something like $300 less a year ago

then again, I may have something to gain from being a bit colorblind, but if that saved me $300 then I'm ok with it

not to mention you save money with an LCD compared to a plasma based on electricity and heat costs

 

[Narse]

Originally posted by: spidey07
venkman, you're agrument is old and untrue.

The year is 2009, 1080p is the only way. 720p is dead.

Plasma is still greater than all. Anybody that say's otherwise is just trying to justify their crap TV purchase.

I really like my 1080p LCD. I also had a 720p plasma and to me the LCD looks better in almost all regards. The black levels are not as good on the LCD but it's rarely an issue for me.

 

[Rubycon]

Get this and your problems will be solved.

:laugh:

 

[T9D]

...

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: Joemonkey

Originally posted by: spidey07
venkman, you're agrument is old and untrue.

The year is 2009, 1080p is the only way. 720p is dead.

Plasma is still greater than all. Anybody that say's otherwise is just trying to justify their crap TV purchase.

and anyone trying to say plasma is greater than all is trying to justify spending too much on a TV

I have a 42" LCD 1080p tv and it looks JUST AS GOOD as a 42" Plasma 1080p TV I saw right next to it in the store yet was something like $300 less a year ago

then again, I may have something to gain from being a bit colorblind, but if that saved me $300 then I'm ok with it

not to mention you save money with an LCD compared to a plasma based on electricity and heat costs

That's the problem, you saw it in a store environment. No one can compare tv's in a store environment cus it's the worse place to compare them.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: Narse

Originally posted by: spidey07
venkman, you're agrument is old and untrue.

The year is 2009, 1080p is the only way. 720p is dead.

Plasma is still greater than all. Anybody that say's otherwise is just trying to justify their crap TV purchase.

I really like my 1080p LCD. I also had a 720p plasma and to me the LCD looks better in almost all regards. The black levels are not as good on the LCD but it's rarely an issue for me.

Modern LCDs and Plasmas are pretty comparable except for a few areas.

If you're looking for best *overall* picture quality, plasma is going to be your winner. It has truer color reproduction across the whole scale (even though the black levels get all the press). A lot of people get fooled into thinking LCDs are "crisper" because most people run their LCDs way too "hot" (too much brightness). Since the eye is lazy and drawn to brighter colors more than darker details, people think this looks better. If they were stop and examine the actual picture, they would notice that colors bleed into one another much more at higher brightness levels, causing you to actually LOSE detail. The brain is just tricked into thinking otherwise literally by bright colors.

Now, there are a bunch of other variables that enter the equation. A properly calibrated plasma is nigh impossible to view in a brightly lit room, in part because many plasmas still have glass front-plating. The environment just won't allow it. Because of the ambient brightness, LCDs tend to do better in this situation.

Distance from screen also matters too. The per-cell method of imaging used in plasma screens is very obvious if you're sitting too close to the screen, whereas LCDs refresh methods are less obvious under close scrutiny.

These reasons, among others, are why you typically hear most recommendations based on use of the TV. Because of their accurate colors and picture quality, plasma displays are usually better for sports and movies where these attributes matter the most. For unpredictable environments or if your viewing distances/lighting are all farked up, LCDs will be viewed more favorably because the excessive brightness overpowers the distractions around them at the expense of a little image quality. I watch almost no normal over the air broadcasting. 99% of my TV usage is Blu-Ray and sports, which is why I went with plasma.

Honestly though, all of this is splitting hairs. Modern tech of either type will satisfy 95% of consumers...which, if you'll remember marketing 101, is who the displays are built for after all.

I say shop based on price. If you find a screamin' deal on a good TV, screw the display type. Just buy it. A good deal is way more valuable than the minor differences between tech.

 

[mugs]

This thread is about 40 posts longer than it should have been.

 

[kaname]

Originally posted by: krylon
nerd fighting is nerd

win post is win

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: Joemonkey

Originally posted by: spidey07
venkman, you're agrument is old and untrue.

The year is 2009, 1080p is the only way. 720p is dead.

Plasma is still greater than all. Anybody that say's otherwise is just trying to justify their crap TV purchase.

and anyone trying to say plasma is greater than all is trying to justify spending too much on a TV

I have a 42" LCD 1080p tv and it looks JUST AS GOOD as a 42" Plasma 1080p TV I saw right next to it in the store yet was something like $300 less a year ago

then again, I may have something to gain from being a bit colorblind, but if that saved me $300 then I'm ok with it

not to mention you save money with an LCD compared to a plasma based on electricity and heat costs

That's the problem, you saw it in a store environment. No one can compare tv's in a store environment cus it's the worse place to compare them.

yea its pretty much as bad as comparing speakers on a shelf in a warehouse stores just doesn't work. the only thing that such comparisons draw people to is brightness, all subtlety is lost.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Originally posted by: MrMatt
Ok, so do any cable companies actually transmit in 1080p??

Satellite (Dish and DirecTV) offers 1080p Video On Demand. Not sure if cable offers it as well.

 

[Quasmo]

I think there have been about 4 posts in this whole thread with correct information. I'm way to tried to correct them all.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel

Originally posted by: MrMatt
Ok, so do any cable companies actually transmit in 1080p??

Satellite (Dish and DirecTV) offers 1080p Video On Demand. Not sure if cable offers it as well.

course the question is how stingy are they with the bitrate!

 

[Exterous]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel

Originally posted by: MrMatt
Ok, so do any cable companies actually transmit in 1080p??

Satellite (Dish and DirecTV) offers 1080p Video On Demand. Not sure if cable offers it as well.

course the question is how stingy are they with the bitrate!

Probably pretty stingy. There was already one lawsuit against Direct TV for their compression. IIRC there was also a lawsuit that forced Dish to remove its 'bluray like quality' claim from their 1080P advertisements because they were not, infact, bluray like.

And yes a store environment is a terrible place to compare TVs. Very likely the overhead lighting is nothing like you have at home and you have no idea it it's calibrated or sourced properly. Most TVs have a 'showroom' or so called 'Tourch' mode setting for stores that trades color accuracy and detail for brightness and flashiness.

If you have the environment for it a properly calibrated Plasma will look better than a properly calibrated LCD. And for the record you would be surprised what a calibration can do for your picture quality (some times way more than others)

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: biggestmuff
OMG

*punches wall

*punches wall in the face.

I agree.

 

[CZroe]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: MrMatt

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
1080p>720p > 1080i>480p>720i>

i was upest to learn that the steelers game was only 1080i, it could have looked so much better.

wait 720p is better than 1080i??? I thought 1080 was like leaps and bounds ahead of 720p?

720p is 60 frames per second, that's the only advantage.

With a good deinterlacer you're not going to be able to tell the difference between 1080p/30 and 1080i/60. That's why 1080p/60 frames per second is so sweet, it's like 720p on steroids.

You're right except that almost all of our content is theatrical 24FPS. Therefore 1080i=1080p with reverse pull-down and 720p is decidedly inferior to both. For broadcast HDTV, 720p is only superior if they didn't film it at 24FPS like a theatrical production (they often do; usually on 35mm).

I don't know of any 1080p/60 movies. I know of ONE console game (Wipeout HD). Hell, most consoles have trouble doing 60FPS at 720p (the next "Ratchet and Clank" game promises to).

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: MrMatt

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
1080p>720p > 1080i>480p>720i>

i was upest to learn that the steelers game was only 1080i, it could have looked so much better.

wait 720p is better than 1080i??? I thought 1080 was like leaps and bounds ahead of 720p?

nope.


and this thread is phull of phail.

EDIT: so wtf? when did i > p? it used to be that 720p was years ahead of 1080i. some sort of crazy de-interlacing tech in the last 2 years?