HD resolution explained

[Mr Peabody]

Here's an interesting article on HD resolution and may help some of us. It will be interesting also to see if our resident videophiles agree.

The comments on 1080p were not what I expected. The article says it's hard to tell much difference between 1080i and 1080p, which to me isn't logical because there's a noticeable difference between 480i and 480p, and then goes on later to sort of contradict himself by saying there's more detail in 1080p. But I've already put in my work day and may have missed a qualifier in the statements.

Here you go: http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5137915-1.html?tag=main.understand

[PAT.P]

Here are some charts on resolution:ihih:

[O'Shag]

Mr. Peabody, I believe this is the same article I read several weeks ago, as CNET sends these updates to my email. I did read a strange comment somewhere concerning the opinion of 'experts' that believe 1920x1080 high def is at or close to the limit of perception of the human eye, ie we really can't process much higher resolution. Now thats interesting. The resolution capabilites of the human eye-brain is an order of magnitude superior to the current limits of consumer technology. As I understand it, there is a technology almost ready for prime time (professional) that is four times the resolution of the current 1920x1080i format - now thats more like it.

I think you're spot on with the 480i to 480p comparision. I own the The Qualia 006 and KDS-R70XBR2. Both are 70" screens and resolution animals. Their inbuilt scalers process all incoming signals and upconvert to 1080p (doesn't compare to a dedicated outboard scaler though). I've checked out Blu-ray, HD-DVD, upconverted-480 DVD and the Voom HD programming on dish network. 1080i programming looks great on dishnet/Voom and despite the superiority of the outboard scaler, the Sony scaler does fairly well producing a 1080p picture.
.

[pixelthis]

Mr. Peabody, I believe this is the same article I read several weeks ago, as CNET sends these updates to my email. I did read a strange comment somewhere concerning the opinion of 'experts' that believe 1920x1080 high def is at or close to the limit of perception of the human eye, ie we really can't process much higher resolution. Now thats interesting. The resolution capabilites of the human eye-brain is an order of magnitude superior to the current limits of consumer technology. As I understand it, there is a technology almost ready for prime time (professional) that is four times the resolution of the current 1920x1080i format - now thats more like it.

I think you're spot on with the 480i to 480p comparision. I own the The Qualia 006 and KDS-R70XBR2. Both are 70" screens and resolution animals. Their inbuilt scalers process all incoming signals and upconvert to 1080p (doesn't compare to a dedicated outboard scaler though). I've checked out Blu-ray, HD-DVD, upconverted-480 DVD and the Voom HD programming on dish network. 1080i programming looks great on dishnet/Voom and despite the superiority of the outboard scaler, the Sony scaler does fairly well producing a 1080p picture.
.

Video has come a long way but is nowhere close to acheiving the quality of film, and wont for several years (or decades)
People tend to "fill in the gaps" of display devices and think they are better than they are.
And the comparison between 1080i and 1080p is getting more and more irrelevant, 1080i is primarily an analog format, for crt mostly
A good 768p display has 1,100,000 pixels, a 1080p two MILLON, a 1080i somewhat less
Anyway I CAN see a worthwile diff between 1080p and 768p, at least to me.
We old audiophile dogs like to talk about the "law of diminishing returns" which is relevant
here I beleive, which is basically you have to spend more and more for less and less improvement.
A 1.000 42 IN LCD will give you a huge improvement over a 289$ sdtv from wallwart,
but the diff between same LCD and a 5,000 dollar plasma not so much, you are basically paying for refinement and features, not to mention bragging rights and ego gratification:1:

[kexodusc]

Our eyes are also only capable of resolving so much detail on a screen at a given distance. The few HD demos I've seen on screens less than 90 Inches made didn't produce big differences between 1080i and 1080p. Even busy scenes. I'd still rather have the capability than not, but as you start getting into 57" and below, like Pixelthis said, we're heavy into diminishing returns. If you're paying that much attention to the PQ then you're probably missing the show.

The difference between 480i and 480p was a whole 'nuther animal...Seems like most TV's are going to be offering 1080p soon enough anyway - might as well have it.

Those charts had a 1440p plot - any consumer home-electronics devices out there with that capability? Any sources?

[PAT.P]

Those charts had a 1440p plot - any consumer home-electronics devices out there with that capability? Any sources?Chi Mei optoelectronics 47" LCD in the making(rumour) 2560x1440:ihih:

[kexodusc]

Chi Mei optoelectronics 47" LCD in the making(rumour) 2560x1440:ihih:
That's cool, but are they any sources (HD-DVD or BluRay) that come in that resolution, or is it just going to be a bragging-rights number with no practical application?

[PAT.P]

That's cool, but are they any sources (HD-DVD or BluRay) that come in that resolution, or is it just going to be a bragging-rights number with no practical application? I'll try to find out! BTW found out that they are the first to make a 56" lcd "Quad Full HDTV" QFHD 3840x2160 8.9 million pixel:21:

[brulaha]

There actually is good reason for 1080p. The article below starts out fairly basic, talking about things I was already aware of, but gets very in depth and precise, at least from my layman's perspective. It's a good read, I learned a lot.

"1080p, or 1080 progressive, is a very high resolution video format and screen specification. It is one of the ATSC HDTV specified formats which includes 720p, 1080i, and 1080p. If you are even casually interested in Home Theater, you no doubt have heard the term 1080p, and if so, you most likely have been misinformed about it. Common misconceptions being spread include that there is no media to carry it, that you need an enormous screen to benefit from it, and on the whole you just shouldn't care about it. Why the industry has persisted in the charade is beyond the scope of this piece, but suffice it to say, if you don't care about 1080p now, you will."

Here's where it gets interesting...

"More importantly, with the exception of some odd, early, and now discontinued plasma models, NO flat panel or fixed pixel display devices "do interlaced". That is, although you can feed them an interlaced signal like 1080i60, one way or another it has to be converted, or "de-interlaced" into a progressive stream, and then scaled or mapped to the device's native resolution, whatever that may be."

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_14_1/feature-article-1080p-3-2007-part-1.html

[Mr Peabody]

There actually is good reason for 1080p. The article below starts out fairly basic, talking about things I was already aware of, but gets very in depth and precise, at least from my layman's perspective. It's a good read, I learned a lot.

"1080p, or 1080 progressive, is a very high resolution video format and screen specification. It is one of the ATSC HDTV specified formats which includes 720p, 1080i, and 1080p. If you are even casually interested in Home Theater, you no doubt have heard the term 1080p, and if so, you most likely have been misinformed about it. Common misconceptions being spread include that there is no media to carry it, that you need an enormous screen to benefit from it, and on the whole you just shouldn't care about it. Why the industry has persisted in the charade is beyond the scope of this piece, but suffice it to say, if you don't care about 1080p now, you will."

Here's where it gets interesting...

"More importantly, with the exception of some odd, early, and now discontinued plasma models, NO flat panel or fixed pixel display devices "do interlaced". That is, although you can feed them an interlaced signal like 1080i60, one way or another it has to be converted, or "de-interlaced" into a progressive stream, and then scaled or mapped to the device's native resolution, whatever that may be."

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_14_1/feature-article-1080p-3-2007-part-1.html


Excellent article.... This shows why they can't see that great of a difference between 1080i and 1080p. I also feel a little bit like the industry got me again. And with all the rumors of higher rez picture quality around the corner, you wonder if you should be on the side lines watching. My TV which is only a couple years old will only do 1080i max. Who knew then there would be 1080p. I have to go to my manual to check my ?x?, I hope I'm not disappointed afterward. This article led be to believe that 1080i is better than 720p, and in fact they sort of leave it out of the story except for a small part. To be honest, I really need to read it again to let it all sink in. But everyone here into HD should take the time to click and read this article.

[O'Shag]

Video has come a long way but is nowhere close to acheiving the quality of film, and wont for several years (or decades)
People tend to "fill in the gaps" of display devices and think they are better than they are.
And the comparison between 1080i and 1080p is getting more and more irrelevant, 1080i is primarily an analog format, for crt mostly
A good 768p display has 1,100,000 pixels, a 1080p two MILLON, a 1080i somewhat less
Anyway I CAN see a worthwile diff between 1080p and 768p, at least to me.
We old audiophile dogs like to talk about the "law of diminishing returns" which is relevant
here I beleive, which is basically you have to spend more and more for less and less improvement.
A 1.000 42 IN LCD will give you a huge improvement over a 289$ sdtv from wallwart,
but the diff between same LCD and a 5,000 dollar plasma not so much, you are basically paying for refinement and features, not to mention bragging rights and ego gratification:1:

35mm film converted to 1080i is positively stunning on a good set. Both film and video have their strong points. I much perfer watching a movie shot with a Panavision camera - and especially love the magic of Technicolor, but video at its best can look more lifelike. Plus its much harder to lug around a Panavision camera than a pro video camera. I've concluded that 1080i looks better than 768p. I was seriously considering high quality plasma TV from Fujitsu a few years ago, and did like the picture. Much perfer plasma than LCD and especially DLP (Its the mirrors ). I find LCD for the most part to look very artificial. I did end up picking Sony's SXRD technology. Its not perfect, but until high res large flatscreen tube TVs make theri debut, I think that its the best TV technology for the consumer. But definitely, Plasma at its best looks better than any LCD TV I've seen..

[pixelthis]

35mm film converted to 1080i is positively stunning on a good set. Both film and video have their strong points. I much perfer watching a movie shot with a Panavision camera - and especially love the magic of Technicolor, but video at its best can look more lifelike. Plus its much harder to lug around a Panavision camera than a pro video camera. I've concluded that 1080i looks better than 768p. I was seriously considering high quality plasma TV from Fujitsu a few years ago, and did like the picture. Much perfer plasma than LCD and especially DLP (Its the mirrors ). I find LCD for the most part to look very artificial. I did end up picking Sony's SXRD technology. Its not perfect, but until high res large flatscreen tube TVs make theri debut, I think that its the best TV technology for the consumer. But definitely, Plasma at its best looks better than any LCD TV I've seen..
That used to be the case, but now you can lower the backlight (the same as decreasing the apeture on your sxrd) and get quite a good picture.
I trade the "brightness" that a lot of people love in LCD for increased contrast and watch
in a darkened room.
And I agree about SXRD, but its not worth the cost and bulkiness of the set, the improvement is too slight for me.
AND I love the new 1080p sets, I noticed the diff right off, but again it will be awhile before I upgrade, just not worth it
One thing people on this site need to do is go to the movies more. I have a state of the art theater in town with DD and rockers and stadium seating, and the worst presentation absolutly embarasses even the best sets I've seen, very humbling really to see just how far we still have to go
And as I have said elsewhere 1080p is an absolute miracle, wasnt supposed to happen for years, the tech is moving quite fast, you can even record video on solid state chips!
Which is why I posit the unpopular view that a weeding out will occure, improvements
in LCD, and the increasing ease of producing that form factor, will pretty soon mean extinction for others, especially DLP. SXRD apeals to vidieots like myself but theres absolutely no reason to buy a DLP. Used to serve a market niche a few years ago but
nowadays theres no reason to buy one, ditto most "microprojection" sets
These type are difficult to produce and when you're selling truckloads, but BOATLOADS
of plasma and LCD then why bother?