Comments on: The HDTV, 720p, 1080i and 1080p jungle http://www.larre.com/2008/04/08/the-hdtv-720p-1080i-and-1080p-jungle/ technology, innovation and media Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:48:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: buy dreambox http://www.larre.com/2008/04/08/the-hdtv-720p-1080i-and-1080p-jungle/comment-page-1/#comment-29123 buy dreambox Fri, 12 Nov 2010 08:55:45 +0000 http://www.larre.com/?p=25#comment-29123 As for the 1080p, there is no doubt that the 1080p resolution is the best on the market. However, there is little difference in picture quality between 1080p and 720p at 32 "and under the screen size. As for the 1080p, there is no doubt that the 1080p resolution is the best on the market. However, there is little difference in picture quality between 1080p and 720p at 32 "and under the screen size.

]]> By: larre http://www.larre.com/2008/04/08/the-hdtv-720p-1080i-and-1080p-jungle/comment-page-1/#comment-7836 larre Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:56:54 +0000 http://www.larre.com/?p=25#comment-7836 Conrad, thanks for your comment. I am not sure if I understand this. If I can not compare the pixels directly this is getting difficult. The interlace artifacts is easy to understand, but 1080i50 gives me more pixels pr second than 720p50. If this is like apples and oranges then I just think I will give up trying to understand :-) Conrad, thanks for your comment. I am not sure if I understand this. If I can not compare the pixels directly this is getting difficult. The interlace artifacts is easy to understand, but 1080i50 gives me more pixels pr second than 720p50. If this is like apples and oranges then I just think I will give up trying to understand :-)

]]> By: Conrad Preen http://www.larre.com/2008/04/08/the-hdtv-720p-1080i-and-1080p-jungle/comment-page-1/#comment-7398 Conrad Preen Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:52:38 +0000 http://www.larre.com/?p=25#comment-7398 Your argument: > 720p50 = 921,600 pixels multiplied by 50 (frames pr seconds) = > 46.080.000 pixels pr second > 1080i50 = 2,073,600 pixels multiplied by 50 divided by 2 = 51.840.000 > pixels pr second > This gives me 12,5% more pixels with the 1080i versus 720p. - simply does not stand. You cannot put spatial and temporal resolution into the same bag and come out with a difference of 12.5% - that's like adding apples and oranges. 1080i has 1080/720 times the vertical resolution of 720p, however on content that has a lot of movement the fact that each field is sampled at different times leads to a loss of resolution on moving objects. This is why sports channels have in general chosen 720p whereas movie / general programming channels prefer 1080i. The compatibility of these signals with displays on the market is as you rightly say a real issue. The inevitably cheap scaling engine in the display can destroy much of the broadcasters good work. Last of all - compression. The biggest factor by far in reducing the quality of TV is the data compression used to fit ever more channels into the available bandwidth. If you showed most viewers uncompressed SD they would probably think it was HD. Your argument:

> 720p50 = 921,600 pixels multiplied by 50 (frames pr seconds) =
> 46.080.000 pixels pr second

> 1080i50 = 2,073,600 pixels multiplied by 50 divided by 2 = 51.840.000
> pixels pr second

> This gives me 12,5% more pixels with the 1080i versus 720p.

- simply does not stand. You cannot put spatial and temporal resolution into the same bag and come out with a difference of 12.5% – that’s like adding apples and oranges.

1080i has 1080/720 times the vertical resolution of 720p, however on content that has a lot of movement the fact that each field is sampled at different times leads to a loss of resolution on moving objects. This is why sports channels have in general chosen 720p whereas movie / general programming channels prefer 1080i.

The compatibility of these signals with displays on the market is as you rightly say a real issue. The inevitably cheap scaling engine in the display can destroy much of the broadcasters good work.

Last of all – compression. The biggest factor by far in reducing the quality of TV is the data compression used to fit ever more channels into the available bandwidth. If you showed most viewers uncompressed SD they would probably think it was HD.

]]> By: HDTV http://www.larre.com/2008/04/08/the-hdtv-720p-1080i-and-1080p-jungle/comment-page-1/#comment-5348 HDTV Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:24:32 +0000 http://www.larre.com/?p=25#comment-5348 Thanks for this post, it helps to understand the jungle of HD resolutions, and yes it really is a Jungle for most people. You use to go and buy a TV and that was it! now its all about features, defintions etc. Thanks for this post, it helps to understand the jungle of HD resolutions, and yes it really is a Jungle for most people. You use to go and buy a TV and that was it! now its all about features, defintions etc.

]]> By: larre http://www.larre.com/2008/04/08/the-hdtv-720p-1080i-and-1080p-jungle/comment-page-1/#comment-49 larre Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:57:11 +0000 http://www.larre.com/?p=25#comment-49 he he. I always read that... use 720p. But my brain is not made that way. I need to know why! In my case... I think 1080i from my decoder gives the best result. By the way, I have Discovery HD, and it is really a huge step forward from SD television. The picture is crystal clear, and you really get the feeling of standing in the nature, not watching it on TV. But I must say, that U2 3D gave a more whow-effect than the Discovery HD did :D he he. I always read that… use 720p. But my brain is not made that way. I need to know why! In my case… I think 1080i from my decoder gives the best result. By the way, I have Discovery HD, and it is really a huge step forward from SD television. The picture is crystal clear, and you really get the feeling of standing in the nature, not watching it on TV. But I must say, that U2 3D gave a more whow-effect than the Discovery HD did :D

]]> By: T. Benjamin Larsen http://www.larre.com/2008/04/08/the-hdtv-720p-1080i-and-1080p-jungle/comment-page-1/#comment-45 T. Benjamin Larsen Thu, 10 Apr 2008 08:19:21 +0000 http://www.larre.com/?p=25#comment-45 I think Eyvind that you would do yourself a huge favour by switching of the geek-mode in your brain before starting to deal with this kind of stuff. ;) The rule of thumb is to choose up-scaling rather than down-scaling. The logic behind this is simply that downscaling by nature discards information. In reality a lot of people would even have difficulties telling a properly upscaled progressively-scanned SD picture from a HD source. More importantly: from your normal viewing distance you wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway, so why should you care? Choose 720p sit back and enjoy the show. I think Eyvind that you would do yourself a huge favour by switching of the geek-mode in your brain before starting to deal with this kind of stuff. ;) The rule of thumb is to choose up-scaling rather than down-scaling. The logic behind this is simply that downscaling by nature discards information. In reality a lot of people would even have difficulties telling a properly upscaled progressively-scanned SD picture from a HD source.

More importantly: from your normal viewing distance you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference anyway, so why should you care? Choose 720p sit back and enjoy the show.

]]>