High Definition 1080p Tv

[Cooksta59]

Found this interesting article on 1080p resolution screens.Makes some good points on processing with easy to understand examples.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_14_1...007-part-1.html

Cheers cooksta

[Owen]

That article is a little misleading.

In practice 1080i and 1080p video formats are very comparable.

In fact 1080i 50/60 true interlaced video content usually looks sharper then 1080p 24 film sourced content, and has smoother motion as well.

A 1080 i or p display is required to display 1080i/p video and good quality deinterlacing is a must for true 1080i content.

You also need a big display and sit close enough to it for your eyes to resolve 1080.

[JPP]

...You also need a big display and sit close enough to it for your eyes to resolve 1080.

Hmm, I think you are ignoring scaling artefacts here Owen. But, I think we'll have to agree to disagree here as in the past. . But, I have to wholehartedly agree that high quality motion adaptive de-interlacing is likely to be more important or be a bigger differentiator than scaling - I guess I'm a little spoilt here and take that as a given as I have my VP rather than my display do this job for me.

Phil.

[Cooksta59]

That article is a little misleading.

In practice 1080i and 1080p video formats are very comparable.

In fact 1080i 50/60 true interlaced video content usually looks sharper then 1080p 24 film sourced content, and has smoother motion as well.

A 1080 i or p display is required to display 1080i/p video and good quality deinterlacing is a must for true 1080i content.

You also need a big display and sit close enough to it for your eyes to resolve 1080.

Is it basically factual though?

For current model panasonic plasma owners part 2 gives an insight into why these screens have 1080p processing chips on screens with 1366x768 resolution.

[Zacspeed]

I agree that the article is misleading. However it is interesting and a perfect 1080p24 to 1080i60 to 1080p24 converter would serve a useful purpose if its possible to do.

I guess its similar to having the ADC to DAC converters.

I cant find the link now, but on CNET they had a discussion on the whole 1080p saga. They said something along the lines of at 2.5m or 3m you'll be very hard pressed to notice any difference.

But the interesting thing was that screen resolution performance wise is 4th on the list of criteria, after Contrast, Colour, depth etc.

But its funny how these debates are endless, just in different forms.

It used to be the argument over SD to HD, Interlaced or Progressive, now its HD to True HD.

[Owen]

Hmm, I think you are ignoring scaling artefacts here Owen. But, I think we'll have to agree to disagree here as in the past. . But, I have to wholehartedly agree that high quality motion adaptive de-interlacing is likely to be more important or be a bigger differentiator than scaling - I guess I'm a little spoilt here and take that as a given as I have my VP rather than my display do this job for me.

Phil.

What scaling artefacts?

Sorry, but I have been using a HTPC for 7 years, running a variety of video hardware for scaling as well as FFDShow software scaling ( a process I originated) on 43” 57” and now 70” displays and have never seen a “scaling artefact” what do they look like?

At worst I have seen a little softness due to poor scaling but that’s all, no “artefacts”.

[Owen]

I agree that the article is misleading. However it is interesting and a perfect 1080p24 to 1080i60 to 1080p24 converter would serve a useful purpose if its possible to do.

I guess its similar to having the ADC to DAC converters.

I cant find the link now, but on CNET they had a discussion on the whole 1080p saga. They said something along the lines of at 2.5m or 3m you'll be very hard pressed to notice any difference.

But the interesting thing was that screen resolution performance wise is 4th on the list of criteria, after Contrast, Colour, depth etc.

But its funny how these debates are endless, just in different forms.

It used to be the argument over SD to HD, Interlaced or Progressive, now its HD to True HD.

What gave you the idea that 1080p 24 to 1080i 60 and back again is a difficult or even complicated process?

Simple freeware software decoder systems like Dscaler 5 manage the task using almost zero CPU overhead. Don’t believe everything you read.

Progressive content encoded into interlaced video has never been a major problem to deinterlace, its real interlaced content from an interlaced video camera that has always been the big problem.

[Zacspeed]

Yeah you're right, in theory its a simple process. But in practice it doesnt always seem to be so easy with the technology etc used by some companies.

Despite all that, I think some people are getting too far into the resolution factor.

As mentioned elsewhere, resolution isnt the be all and end all.

I can understand that SD is significantly noticable compared to HD, but the change in HD to Full HD isnt so noticable.

But I guess its what people want for ultimate real TV viewing and wank factor.

Ie I used to be a Computer Technician and did sales also. Id have complaints from people because they expected their system to have 6ms caching but their diagnostic tool says its 8ms. In the end its no real difference when observing with your own mind and eyes.

[Owen]

Yes, I agree many manufacturers cant get this process right, nor do many of them have good deinterlacing systems, although thankfully that is improving these days.

For the last 7 years almost all HD TV’s used simple BOB deinterlacing for 1080i content, and only in the last year has that begun to change.

Personally I don’t see much point in reconstruction 1080p 24 from progressive sourced 1080i and then displaying it at 60Hz as almost all displays still do.

At least local TV stations seed up 24fps source to 25fps and encode into 1080i 50Hz.

This only requires simple weave deinterlacing to reconstruct 1080p 25, and that displays fine at 50Hz.

Despite all that, I think some people are getting too far into the resolution factor.

As mentioned elsewhere, resolution isnt the be all and end all.

I can understand that SD is significantly noticable compared to HD, but the change in HD to Full HD isnt so noticable.

But I guess its what people want for ultimate real TV viewing and wank factor.

I could not agree more, in most circumstances 1920x1080 is a wank.

Resolution should be well down the list of priorities if picture quality is of concern.

The majority of people don’t buy large enough displays or sit close enough to get much advantage out of 1920x1080, so for them a top quality 768p or similar display is a better option.

The change from 1080i to 1080p is not noticeable at all if deinterlacing is handled properly. In fact 1080i 50/60 from a video camera usually looks better then 1080p 24 from film source, and certainly has better motion smoothness.

Encoding quality and data rate are more important to final picture quality then the difference between 1080i and 1080p.

[Owen]

Yeah you're right, in theory its a simple process. But in practice it doesnt always seem to be so easy with the technology etc used by some companies.

Yes, I agree many manufacturers cant get this process right, nor do many of them have good deinterlacing systems, although thankfully that is improving these days.

For the last 7 years almost all HD TV’s used simple BOB deinterlacing for 1080i content, and only in the last year has that begun to change.

Personally I don’t see much point in reconstructing 1080p 24 from progressive sourced 1080i and then displaying it at 60Hz as almost all displays still do.

At least local TV stations speed up 24fps source to 25fps and encode into 1080i 50Hz.

This only requires simple weave deinterlacing to reconstruct 1080p 25, and that displays fine at 50Hz.

Despite all that, I think some people are getting too far into the resolution factor.

As mentioned elsewhere, resolution isnt the be all and end all.

I can understand that SD is significantly noticable compared to HD, but the change in HD to Full HD isnt so noticable.

But I guess its what people want for ultimate real TV viewing and wank factor.

I could not agree more, in most circumstances 1920x1080 is a wank.

Resolution should be well down the list of priorities if picture quality is of concern.

The majority of people don’t buy large enough displays or sit close enough to get much advantage out of 1920x1080, so for them a top quality 768p or similar display is a better option.

The change from 1080i to 1080p is not noticeable at all if deinterlacing is handled properly. In fact 1080i 50/60 from a video camera usually looks better then 1080p 24 from film source, and certainly has better motion smoothness.

Encoding quality and data rate are more important to final picture quality then the difference between 1080i and 1080p.

[kootaberra]

What scaling artefacts?

Sorry, but I have been using a HTPC for 7 years, running a variety of video hardware for scaling as well as FFDShow software scaling ( a process I originated) on 43” 57” and now 70” displays and have never seen a “scaling artefact” what do they look like?

At worst I have seen a little softness due to poor scaling but that’s all, no “artefacts”.

Thats an (softness due to poor scaling) artefact.