Blu-Ray Players

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I have a lot better idea than you do, at least my monitor is not an antique(much like yourself).

So what are you if I am younger than you....a fossil???

[pixelthis]

So what are you if I am younger than you....a fossil???

SOME of us get seasoned as the years go by, some just get "old".

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

SOME of us get seasoned as the years go by, some just get "old".

If this is the case, you are just getting old. And these statements prove it.

WRONG (as usual). In order to avoid 2:3 pulldown, BLU has a rate of 72hz.
EACH frame is shown three times(72 divided by three= 24). This gives a frame rate
of 24fps without pulldown.
WHEN THIS happens my set displays 1080p24.

If you stated that your 42" LG set was the one that passed the 3:2 pull down, that set is a 768p set, not a 1080p - and that set is only capable of a 60hz refresh rate, so you MUST have 3:2 pull down and all the judder that goes with it. Bluray does not have a rate of 72hz, it does not have anything in any hertz. Bluray is a 24p 1080p carrier of video, it has no refresh rate, that is left up to the set.

AND YOU WANT TO BUY A PLAYSTATION, and pay for a hackers crack addiction

These guys were not trying feed a drug habit, they were trying to hurt and embarrass Sony. It worked on both counts, but you do need to get your facts straight. Those hackers did not diminish my use of my PS3 on bit, I does not depend on the PSN to function, it can and has functioned quite well in the absence of the PSN. Your statement shows your ignorance on the subject.

It doubles the resolution. THIS is the one time (deinterlacing) that you can get a res increase on a signal.

Deinterlacing increases resolution??? That's rich! You cannot get more signal than coming out than went in. Deinterlacing just brings two seperate sequential fields in a frame into one field. That does not increase resolution.

AND dvd does still exist, and if you really wanted you could watch it on an old NTSC
set, but why bother? And any set you watch it on that is HD is going to upconvert it
weather you do or not. SO SURE its natively 480i, but it would cost you to actually watch
it in 480i.

What would it cost you. The signal is 480i, and the display is 480i, so where is the loss? There is none, you are confused as hell.

Wooch has done very well in rebutting your misinformation. The fact that you think you are correct shows just how uniformed you are. Pix, your a legend in the empty space between your ears.

[pixelthis]

If this is the case, you are just getting old. And these statements prove it.

Not older, just better

If you stated that your 42" LG set was the one that passed the 3:2 pull down, that set is a 768p set, not a 1080p - and that set is only capable of a 60hz refresh rate, so you MUST have 3:2 pull down and all the judder that goes with it. Bluray does not have a rate of 72hz, it does not have anything in any hertz. Bluray is a 24p 1080p carrier of video, it has no refresh rate, that is left up to the set.

MORE nonsense that doesnt matter.
Everything I HAVE READ ON THE PLANET...everything, states that 24p is achieved
by a freq of 72hz, each frame is showed three times for a total frame rate of 24p.
I DON'T care how they do it, it looks great. AND blu HAS A RATE OF 24P?
What about all of the viideo I HAVE ON blu THAT IS 60HZ?

These guys were not trying feed a drug habit, they were trying to hurt and embarrass Sony. It worked on both counts, but you do need to get your facts straight. Those hackers did not diminish my use of my PS3 on bit, I does not depend on the PSN to function, it can and has functioned quite well in the absence of the PSN. Your statement shows your ignorance on the subject.

and your statement shows your ignorance of the criminal mind.
THESE morons saw an opportunity after the Japanese earthquake, and all of the confusion created, and took advantage, and were wildly successful

Deinterlacing increases resolution??? That's rich! You cannot get more signal than coming out than went in. Deinterlacing just brings two seperate sequential fields in a frame into one field. That does not increase resolution.

You need to quit talking about things you don't have any comprehension of.
A 1080i pic has less than half of the res of a 1080p pic at any given time.
WHEN AN interlaced pic is deinterlaced (two fields stiched together) twice the
picture info is shown on screen, and that pic is not subject to artifacts, like res loss when theres movement.
One of the reasons I BOUGHT MY FIRST 1080I HD set was to see DVD in 480p(my
set had two native resolutions, 480p and 1080i).
THE 480P DVD pic, while SD, was a lot better than the 480i, because it had twice the picture info onscreen at any given time.
No, there was no "new" resolution created, just more pixels onscreen, creating a
more detailed picture.
This is why progressive has replaced interlaced, progressive has more picture information on screen at any given time.
DENY reality all you want, pull any layman off of the street, ask ANYBODY on this board,
and they will ALL tell you that a progressive pic is sharper, just plain better.
BECAUSE IT HAS MORE PICTURE INFOR MATION THAN AN INTERLACED PIC!!!

What would it cost you. The signal is 480i, and the display is 480i, so where is the loss? There is none, you are confused as hell.

And you are ignorant as "hell".

My electronics teacher told me about forty years ago that any interlaced pic was going to lose up to half its resolution whenever there is movement. JOE KANE and others have said
it, its common knowledge, its something I HAVE TAKEN FOR GRANTED.
You don't even have to take my word for it, set a progressive panel next to an interlaced
CRT, run a 480i DVD picture to the CRT and a progressive 480p to the panel.
EVERYBODY looking at the demo will tell you that the progressive is sharper and all
around better.
What I CAN'T BELIEVE is that I am arguing with a ninny that refuses to face the obvious

Wooch has done very well in rebutting your misinformation. The fact that you think you are correct shows just how uniformed you are. Pix, your a legend in the empty space between your ears.

"Wooch" knows juat enough to get himself into trouble.
IS THIS THE SAME Wooch that is running around saying that a component cable is better than an HDMI? Is this your champion?
FIGURES

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Not older, just better

You are just slight..and I mean slightly better than an idiot.

MORE nonsense that doesnt matter.
Everything I HAVE READ ON THE PLANET...everything, states that 24p is achieved
by a freq of 72hz, each frame is showed three times for a total frame rate of 24p.
I DON'T care how they do it, it looks great. AND blu HAS A RATE OF 24P?
What about all of the viideo I HAVE ON blu THAT IS 60HZ?

This is what I mean by your ignorance of this technology. 72hz is a refresh rate. There is zero within the video stream coming from the player that needs refreshing, that is the job of the set itself. 24p is a video stream - constant bits that when unpacked represent each frame 24 times a second. 72hz is used on some plasma's(my Kuro's has it). to reduce motion judder. There are some televisions with a 48hz rate, but flicker is a problem with them.

and your statement shows your ignorance of the criminal mind.
THESE morons saw an opportunity after the Japanese earthquake, and all of the confusion created, and took advantage, and were wildly successful

This is not what happen. Anonymous is a hacker group that hacked into PSN as payback for Sony going after one of its members for releasing the jail break to the PS3 on the internet. This had nothing to do with the earthquake because the servers they broke in to were in San Diego, not Japan.

You should stay with issues you know about, which means you will have to leave this site permanently.

You need to quit talking about things you don't have any comprehension of.
A 1080i pic has less than half of the res of a 1080p pic at any given time.
WHEN AN interlaced pic is deinterlaced (two fields stiched together) twice the
picture info is shown on screen, and that pic is not subject to artifacts, like res loss when theres movement.

I already provided two links that prove that you don't know what you are talking about. So I won't bother to address this AGAIN!

One of the reasons I BOUGHT MY FIRST 1080I HD set was to see DVD in 480p(my
set had two native resolutions, 480p and 1080i).
THE 480P DVD pic, while SD, was a lot better than the 480i, because it had twice the picture info onscreen at any given time.

First there are ZERO sets that sport a 480p native resolution. 1080i sets have 540p as a alternate display rate. If 480p was the native rate, the set would be throwing pixels away when trying to display full screen DVD's. 540p is either first or second sequential field on a 1080i image from a CRT set.

No, there was no "new" resolution created, just more pixels onscreen, creating a
more detailed picture.
This is why progressive has replaced interlaced, progressive has more picture information on screen at any given time.

If you cannot see the sequential fields being painted on the screen, then there is really no difference between interlaced images and progressive ones. Once again, the links I provided state pretty clearly that when it comes to Bluray, there is no difference between 1080i/p.

DENY reality all you want, pull any layman off of the street, ask ANYBODY on this board,
and they will ALL tell you that a progressive pic is sharper, just plain better.
BECAUSE IT HAS MORE PICTURE INFOR MATION THAN AN INTERLACED PIC!!!

Unless you can see the television painting the sequential images on the screen, you eyes cannot tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p. The screen refreshes faster than we can see, so we never see two fields painted separately or there would be too much flicker. When coming from a bluray disc, there is no more "information" in 1080p than there is in 1080i. All 1080i does(if it can take the native 1080p straight) is interlace the images in to two sequential fields, it throws nothing away in the process. If you television cannot take the 1080p video stream direct, then the player does the interlacing and sends it to the set. No matter which way you slice it, there is no more information in 1080p than in 1080i. A sharper picture is not a result of more information, it is a result of not having to perform any post processing on the incoming stream.

And you are ignorant as "hell".

So what does that make you? Stupid and retarded as hell?

My electronics teacher told me about forty years ago that any interlaced pic was going to lose up to half its resolution whenever there is movement. JOE KANE and others have said
it, its common knowledge, its something I HAVE TAKEN FOR GRANTED.

40 years ago we were not talking about 1080i or 1080p. Now that we are talking 1080i/p, no, interlaced images do not lose half of their resolution with moving objects. It is all about what processing the 1080i set uses. My old dino when placed into its interlace modes only loses 100 lines of information with moving objects as a result of using advance motion processing. That is far better than all LCD panels, and equal to the best plasma panels. Part of why you take these things for granted is because your information is outdated, and does not represent current technology.

You don't even have to take my word for it, set a progressive panel next to an interlaced
CRT, run a 480i DVD picture to the CRT and a progressive 480p to the panel.
EVERYBODY looking at the demo will tell you that the progressive is sharper and all
around better.
What I CAN'T BELIEVE is that I am arguing with a ninny that refuses to face the obvious

Your testing method is pretty stupid considering you would have to consider the quality of the deinterlacing chips in the test. You are going to dismiss this, but considering the fact that not all progressive players can accurately deinterlace an image, your test would be more about the quality of the deinterlacing chips, than the actual capability of the set or the images.

The real test is to run two identical 1080p video streams to a 1080p and 1080i set, and see if we can see a difference. Since I have already done this using a single set in the "butterfly" mode(split screen), nobody could see a difference between the two on my set. They can't because "perceptively" they are seeing identical images(they cannot see the refresh rate in action), and the amount of resolution going to each input is exactly the same. As the link I posted says, there is no difference between 1080p and 1080i when presented a 1080p signal.

"Wooch" knows juat enough to get himself into trouble.
IS THIS THE SAME Wooch that is running around saying that a component cable is better than an HDMI? Is this your champion?
FIGURES

Wooch takes many things into consideration, and goes through great detail to explain his reasoning. You don't. You gloss over all detail in favor of absolutes, and absolutes don't exist when you actually address the detail.

[E-Stat]

72hz is a refresh rate...

Here's a genuine thanks for the detailed and informative posts. More greenies to you! When it comes to video matters, I'm the first to admit that I know what I don't know. Apparently, Pix isn't there yet.

rw

[pixelthis]

Here's a genuine thanks for the detailed and informative posts. More greenies to you! When it comes to video matters, I'm the first to admit that I know what I don't know. Apparently, Pix isn't there yet.

rw

THE FACT that you applaud a know nothing like talky shows
that you most certainly are not "there" yet.
TALK about the ignorant leading the unknowing.

[pixelthis]

You are just slight..and I mean slightly better than an idiot.

WHICH PUTS me about seven levels above you in the evolutionary chain

This is what I mean by your ignorance of this technology. 72hz is a refresh rate. There is zero within the video stream coming from the player that needs refreshing, that is the job of the set itself. 24p is a video stream - constant bits that when unpacked represent each frame 24 times a second. 72hz is used on some plasma's(my Kuro's has it). to reduce motion judder. There are some televisions with a 48hz rate, but flicker is a problem with them.

The "refresh" rate is the frequency (the rate that a picture is refreshed. EVERY video source on the planet has a frequency, usually 60hz THIS is the number of frames a second,
THIS is pretty basic stuff, and all you have to do is look on the
back of a BLU ray box with video content to see that its
60hz. OR MAYBE YOU HAVE READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS.
Any BLU box that contains a film states on the back that
the frame rate is 24p.
This is each frame three times, 72hz, which divided by three
is 24, which is shown in progressive format, 24p.
This is because the freq of a film is 60hz, has to be to be compatible with most sets. BUT IF a set with 24p is detected
a freq of 72hz is used, with each frame shown three times.
This is shown as 24p.
This is what I HAVE READ from every bit of info concerning this subject, BLU uses a frequency rate of 72hz to show 24p, or
24x3, which is shown as 24p.
Video source material is shown at 60hz.

This is not what happen. Anonymous is a hacker group that hacked into PSN as payback for Sony going after one of its members for releasing the jail break to the PS3 on the internet. This had nothing to do with the earthquake because the servers they broke in to were in San Diego, not Japan.

But the company affected was Japan, doesn't matter if the servers were on MARS.
Turns out that Sony was using outdated Apache software, with
no firewall, making them a target of opportunity.
You need to stick with what you know about, which is nothing.

You should stay with issues you know about, which means you will have to leave this site permanently.

You should try using your brain every once in awhile, and come back to this site in about fifty years

I already provided two links that prove that you don't know what you are talking about. So I won't bother to address this AGAIN!

Thanks, I HAVE HEARD ENOUGH OF YOUR NONSENSE.

First there are ZERO sets that sport a 480p native resolution. 1080i sets have 540p as a alternate display rate. If 480p was the native rate, the set would be throwing pixels away when trying to display full screen DVD's. 540p is either first or second sequential field on a 1080i image from a CRT set.

heres a clue, ace, nobody gives a hoot about what an antique
like CRT does.
My last CRT(about half a decade ago) had native resolutions of 480p and 1080i, sorry if my info on obsolete tech is a bit scant.
DON'T HAVE TIME TO WASTE ON HORSE AND BUGGY.

If you cannot see the sequential fields being painted on the screen, then there is really no difference between interlaced images and progressive ones. Once again, the links I provided state pretty clearly that when it comes to Bluray, there is no difference between 1080i/p.

YOU have been stating this nonsense ever since I have been on this site.
Its mostly a justification for your obsolete 1080i CRT rig.
BUT if there wre "no" difference between an interlaced and
a progressive pic, then there would not be an army of DVD players
out there with progressive scan.
THE ACTUAL TRUTH is that most sets are 1080p these days,
and it doesnt matter much what the res of the source material
is. 480i is going to be up converted to 1080p or 720p.
1080i is going to be deinterlaced to 1080p or 720p
.
AND YOUR INTERLACED gear is going to be just as obsolete
tomorrow as it is today, and when theres movement the res is
going to be reduced by up to half.

Unless you can see the television painting the sequential images on the screen, you eyes cannot tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p. The screen refreshes faster than we can see, so we never see two fields painted separately or there would be too much flicker. When coming from a bluray disc, there is no more "information" in 1080p than there is in 1080i. All 1080i does(if it can take the native 1080p straight) is interlace the images in to two sequential fields, it throws nothing away in the process. If you television cannot take the 1080p video stream direct, then the player does the interlacing and sends it to the set. No matter which way you slice it, there is no more information in 1080p than in 1080i. A sharper picture is not a result of more information, it is a result of not having to perform any post processing on the incoming stream.

Total nonsense.
THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL difference between an interlaced pic and a progressive pic.
An interlaced pic loses up to half its res whenever theres movement.
I KEEP SAYING THIS, along with the likes of Joe Kane
and others who actually know something about how video acts
and its nature.
IS AN INTERLACED and a progressive pic the same?
YEP, until theres movement. You can deny this, but a
1080p set has two million pixels at any given time, twice as much
as an interlaced pic.
Interlaced picture tech was a good way to get around limited
airspace in its time, today its a great way to send video and save
space while doing it, but as a display tech, its obsolete.
EVEN 720 LINES progressive is better than 1080 lines interlaced,
which is why Fox and ABC broadcast in 720p, at the time they started most sets were still interlaced, and the 720p
was an improvement. PROGRESSIVE IS ALWAYS AN
IMPROVEMENT over interlaced.
Thats why most sets on the planet(except for a few antiques
like yours) are progressive, why most DVD players have
progressive scan.
ANYBODY looking at a progressive ands an interlaced side
by side who is honest will pick the progressive every
time.
GET OVER IT.

So what does that make you? Stupid and retarded as hell?

If I AM THEN YOU ARE IN BAD SHAPE, because I HAVE FORGOTTEN MORE ON THIS than you have ever known.

40 years ago we were not talking about 1080i or 1080p. Now that we are talking 1080i/p, no, interlaced images do not lose half of their resolution with moving objects. It is all about what processing the 1080i set uses. My old dino when placed into its interlace modes only loses 100 lines of information with moving objects as a result of using advance motion processing. That is far better than all LCD panels, and equal to the best plasma panels. Part of why you take these things for granted is because your information is outdated, and does not represent current technology.

Keep whistling past the graveyard ace, you know I AM
RIGHT.
Really, whats the point of using thousands of dollars of tech
to bring an obsolete CRT system barely up to date, when a
thousand dollar panel from WALMART still outperforms
it by a mile? Nostalgia?
AND YOU STILL HAVE TO LOOK AT YOUR SYSTEM IN THE DARK to even see the darn thing.
Totally irrelevant to 99% of HT enthusiasts, who can't see spending megabucks on an inferiour system that can't
outperform a n average VIZIO.

Your testing method is pretty stupid considering you would have to consider the quality of the deinterlacing chips in the test. You are going to dismiss this, but considering the fact that not all progressive players can accurately deinterlace an image, your test would be more about the quality of the deinterlacing chips, than the actual capability of the set or the images.

deinterlacing chips are of course cheap, but thats more a function of mass production than quality.
DEINTERLACING is very basic and not difficult anyway, and the most poorly deinterlaced pic is still going to look better than
any given interlaced pic

The real test is to run two identical 1080p video streams to a 1080p and 1080i set, and see if we can see a difference. Since I have already done this using a single set in the "butterfly" mode(split screen), nobody could see a difference between the two on my set. They can't because "perceptively" they are seeing identical images(they cannot see the refresh rate in action), and the amount of resolution going to each input is exactly the same. As the link I posted says, there is no difference between 1080p and 1080i when presented a 1080p signal.

Of course theres no difference between a deinterlaced 1080i and a native 1080p signal, because both are shown progressive.
AND YOU CAN split screen an image all you want, total image will either be interlaced or progressive.
1080p SETS were more expensive than interlaced sets, but they
still won in the marketplace, because any unbiased person will
see the obvious superiority of the progressive picture.
You can talk nonsense all day long about interlaced and progressive being the "same", but nobody sides with you.
WHEN MAKING THE MOST IMPORTANT VOTE,
with their wallet, they choose, progressive every time, which
put interlaced viewing displays on the scrap heap.
ARGUE nonsense all you want, you can't argue with that

Wooch takes many things into consideration, and goes through great detail to explain his reasoning. You don't. You gloss over all detail in favor of absolutes, and absolutes don't exist when you actually address the detail.

THATS because his "reasoning" is perception and opinion,
my statements are from training and stated fact.
WOOCH IS QUITE GOOD at blowing sunshine up your skirt,
but most of what he says falls apart on close inspection,
like nonsense such as a "component cable" is better than an HDMI cable.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

WHICH PUTS me about seven levels above you in the evolutionary chain

You are not even in the evolutionary chain.

The "refresh" rate is the frequency (the rate that a picture is refreshed. EVERY video source on the planet has a frequency, usually 60hz THIS is the number of frames a second,
THIS is pretty basic stuff, and all you have to do is look on the
back of a BLU ray box with video content to see that its
60hz. OR MAYBE YOU HAVE READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS.
Any BLU box that contains a film states on the back that
the frame rate is 24p.
This is each frame three times, 72hz, which divided by three
is 24, which is shown in progressive format, 24p.
This is because the freq of a film is 60hz, has to be to be compatible with most sets. BUT IF a set with 24p is detected
a freq of 72hz is used, with each frame shown three times.
This is shown as 24p.
This is what I HAVE READ from every bit of info concerning this subject, BLU uses a frequency rate of 72hz to show 24p, or
24x3, which is shown as 24p.
Video source material is shown at 60hz.

Since you have firmly established that you cannot read, its no wonder that you have this all wrong. You are so stupid, you cannot seperate what the Bluray player does from what the television does. The disc is encoded with a 24fps 1080p visual encode. The player reads the disc, and passes the 24/1080p data stream to the televsion set. Since a 60hz television cannot reproduce a 24p frame rate, 3:2 pulldown must be used. If the LCD set is a 120hz set, it will frame interpolate or frame double(24x5=120) the 24fps frame rate to match the televisions refresh rate of 120hz If the television is a plasma, it can double the frame rate to 48hz. The problem with that is that it introduces flicker. Some plasma's use 72hz, and some use 96hz, and both of these frame rates avoid flicker issues. The bluray PLAYER sends out a pure 24p frame rate, and the TELEVISION adds the necessary frame rates that have been programmed within it. No Bluray player sends out a 72hz frame rate, NOT ONE IN THE WORLD!

But the company affected was Japan, doesn't matter if the servers were on MARS.
Turns out that Sony was using outdated Apache software, with
no firewall, making them a target of opportunity.
You need to stick with what you know about, which is nothing.

Japan is not a company egghead. Sony is the company, its headquarters are in Japan. No servers in Japan were effected, it was the servers in San Diego. Specifically Sony Online Entertainment servers where the ones attacked, not any in Japan. Get your sh!t straight foo.

Remember stupid, you were the one that mentioned a earthquake and tsunami, events that had ZERO to do with the break in.

You should try using your brain every once in awhile, and come back to this site in about fifty years

Even if I did use it once in a while, it would be used far more than yours.

Thanks, I HAVE HEARD ENOUGH OF YOUR NONSENSE.

Since I have not spoken a damn thing to ya, you have not heard anything. It seems that READING the truth causes your air head to lose its pressure. Looks like you will have a raisin head pretty soon.

heres a clue, ace, nobody gives a hoot about what an antique
like CRT does.
My last CRT(about half a decade ago) had native resolutions of 480p and 1080i, sorry if my info on obsolete tech is a bit scant.
DON'T HAVE TIME TO WASTE ON HORSE AND BUGGY.

BS. No CRT has ever had native resolution of 480p. It would be throwing away information when it is presented in full screen 16x9. All rear projection based CRT televisions have 540p and 1080i as native refresh rates -as 540p is exactly one field of the 1080i image.

YOU have been stating this nonsense ever since I have been on this site.
Its mostly a justification for your obsolete 1080i CRT rig.

I don't have a 1080i CRT rig. My CRT based rear projection set does not have a native rate. It can take a incoming 480i/p to 1080i/p signal, and display it at that resolution. 480i/p is displayed as 480i/p. 720p is displayed as 720p. 1080i/p is displayed as 1080i/p. That is why it is not obsolete and will never be. It can display signals up to 1440p, so it will never be obsolete. It has more resolution than your little 42" 768p LCD set, that is for sure. So who's set is obsolete? It would probably be yours - it cannot even display full HD(that would be 1080p).

BUT if there wre "no" difference between an interlaced and
a progressive pic, then there would not be an army of DVD players
out there with progressive scan.

For your information stupid, DVD should always be displayed progressively, or line doubled. Its resolution is so low, anti aliasing lines crawl and line twitter become a problem if it remains interlaced. That is why most DVD players are progressive. When you get to 1080 lines of resolution, it does not matter if it is interlaced or deinterlaced, you don't get line twitter or anti aliasing crawl. The offset of the two interlaced fields is too fine to see.

THE ACTUAL TRUTH is that most sets are 1080p these days,
and it doesnt matter much what the res of the source material
is. 480i is going to be up converted to 1080p or 720p.
1080i is going to be deinterlaced to 1080p or 720p

In your particular case, your set has to throw away lines, and downconvert 1080p to 768p. My Dino set has more resolution than that!


.

AND YOUR INTERLACED gear is going to be just as obsolete
tomorrow as it is today, and when theres movement the res is
going to be reduced by up to half.

I don't have any interlaced gear, and even progressively scanned sets lose up to half of their resolution during motion. Your set drops down to 330 lines(from 768) when images move. Tests prove this, and oh look, that more than half!

Total nonsense.
THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL difference between an interlaced pic and a progressive pic.
An interlaced pic loses up to half its res whenever theres movement.
I KEEP SAYING THIS, along with the likes of Joe Kane
and others who actually know something about how video acts
and its nature.

You are a bald face liar, Joe Kane never said this. The only way a interlaced set would lose half of its resolution during movement is if you can see each field being painted separately. Since we cannot, it does not. The reason that LCD panels lose so much information during moving images stems from the fact the pixels do not switch on and off fast enough to keep up with the motion. Since plasma's use fast switching phosphor technology, it does not lose much resolution at all.

IS AN INTERLACED and a progressive pic the same?
YEP, until theres movement. You can deny this, but a
1080p set has two million pixels at any given time, twice as much
as an interlaced pic.

Until your eyes can see each field being updated(of which you cannot), then 1080i and 1080p are perceptively the same resolution. My links prove this, and prove you to be the dumb idiot that you are.

Interlaced picture tech was a good way to get around limited
airspace in its time, today its a great way to send video and save
space while doing it, but as a display tech, its obsolete.
EVEN 720 LINES progressive is better than 1080 lines interlaced,
which is why Fox and ABC broadcast in 720p, at the time they started most sets were still interlaced, and the 720p
was an improvement.

ABC and Fox are major sports programmers, that is why they choose 720p. When it comes to fast moving objects, progressive is better. 1080i is better for stations that most show films, because you are not losing resolution just to support fast moving objects.

720p=1280x720 or 921600 pixels
1080i/p= 1920x1080 or 2,073,000 pixels

720p has a lot less pixels even when all shown at once, which means less resolution than 1080i/p.

PROGRESSIVE IS ALWAYS AN
IMPROVEMENT over interlaced.
Thats why most sets on the planet(except for a few antiques
like yours) are progressive, why most DVD players have
progressive scan.
ANYBODY looking at a progressive ands an interlaced side
by side who is honest will pick the progressive every
time.
GET OVER IT.

Once again, a response devoid of detail and context. 480p is definitely an improvement over 480i. At such low resolution, the images should be deinterlaced or line doubled to keep on screen diagonal lines straight. When you get to 1080i/p, one is barely sharper than the other. Since I have already "butterflied" 1080i and 1080p images on the same set, I can tell you for a fact you can barely tell them apart. So you are once again a liar, people will not always be able to pick them apart. It is not as easy as you are making it, and that is for sure. I seriously doubt you would pass a DBT on this.

So now you get over it liar.

If I AM THEN YOU ARE IN BAD SHAPE, because I HAVE FORGOTTEN MORE ON THIS than you have ever known.

Based on your responses pix, you have not even leaned what you claimed to have forgotten. 72hz to describe a native frame rate? Bluray disc is a 72hz technology? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL, oh yeah, you truly have forgotten something. You don't even know a refresh rate from a frame rate, nor your ass from a hole in the ground.

Keep whistling past the graveyard ace, you know I AM
RIGHT.
Really, whats the point of using thousands of dollars of tech
to bring an obsolete CRT system barely up to date, when a
thousand dollar panel from WALMART still outperforms
it by a mile? Nostalgia?

If my CRT can display a full 1080p image, and your panel can only display a 720p image, which of these is really obsolete? No thousand dollar panel can display a 1440p image, but my CRT can. With moving images, my CRT maintains 1000 lines of resolution, your panel a measly 330 lines of resolution. Your set has very mediocre black levels, and only fair dynamic contrast levels. My set has such deep blacks, that with the lights off, you cannot see the set at all. It also has an excellent dynamic contrast, as all CRT's have over LCD. My set can display a totally accurate Cal Rec 709 color gamut, your set cannot, no LCD can.

I think you have this twisted. My dino set can outperform any consumer based LCD set easily.

AND YOU STILL HAVE TO LOOK AT YOUR SYSTEM IN THE DARK to even see the darn thing.
Totally irrelevant to 99% of HT enthusiasts, who can't see spending megabucks on an inferiour system that can't
outperform a n average VIZIO.

Since all films are made to be viewed in the dark, you have no point here. When you go to a movie theater, do you watch films with the lights on? No you don't, so the only point you made sits conveniently on your head.

A Vizio cannot even outperform your mediocre LG set, let alone my custom CRT big screen.

deinterlacing chips are of course cheap, but thats more a function of mass production than quality.
DEINTERLACING is very basic and not difficult anyway, and the most poorly deinterlaced pic is still going to look better than
any given interlaced pic

If deinterlacing was so basic, then how come so many televisions don't do it so well? The Toshiba 46UX600U, and at least 14 other LCD panels tested by displaymate all show mediocre to poor deinterlacing performance with 1080i and 480i test materials. It is not as easy as you think foo.

Of course theres no difference between a deinterlaced 1080i and a native 1080p signal, because both are shown progressive.
AND YOU CAN split screen an image all you want, total image will either be interlaced or progressive.
1080p SETS were more expensive than interlaced sets, but they
still won in the marketplace, because any unbiased person will
see the obvious superiority of the progressive picture.
You can talk nonsense all day long about interlaced and progressive being the "same", but nobody sides with you.
WHEN MAKING THE MOST IMPORTANT VOTE,
with their wallet, they choose, progressive every time, which
put interlaced viewing displays on the scrap heap.
ARGUE nonsense all you want, you can't argue with that

Sorry pix, but the whole example of a butterfly test is to show each image in its native rate. So on my set, the left image can be progressive, and the right split image can be interlaced. When viewed that way, nobody in the room could 100% guess which was progressive, and which was interlaced - the two looked too similar for that.

I am not interested in who sides with me - I am interested in exposing your lies, misinformation, and just general BS. Since this constitutes all of your posts, I am a busy man.

THATS because his "reasoning" is perception and opinion,
my statements are from training and stated fact.

Exactly what training and fact have you had on Bluray, or 1080i/p? They weren't even thought of when you were in high school. All of your training and supposed stated fact is based on the single gun CRT, and 480i images - two of the lowest forms of image and display technology there is. You have ZERO training with Bluray, and that is demonstrated by your 72hz comment and explanation. The only 1080p images you have seen are at the electronics store, because your display cannot do it.

Wooch has posted links to support his arguments, you have posted your uninformed opinion and that is all. Any person with a ounce of critical thinking would choose Wooch's posts over yours. You have not provided enough proof to support a training bra.

WOOCH IS QUITE GOOD at blowing sunshine up your skirt,
but most of what he says falls apart on close inspection,
like nonsense such as a "component cable" is better than an HDMI cable.

He never said any such thing liar. Pix, I just saw your nose go past my window and down the street. From this thread alone, you have told enough lies for that beak of your to stretch from Alabama to San Leandro California. It seems that your nose needs the same kind of work that Bristol Palin jaw got. Perhaps those tornadoes have more of an effect than your are willing to admit.....

[Woochifer]

"Wooch" knows juat enough to get himself into trouble.

Actually, I know more than enough to get you wound up into knots by pointing out the errors and contradictions in your posts. I'm not the one trying to claim that deinterlacing a 480i source "doubles" the resolution, or claiming that there's no difference between a 480i source and 1080p source when viewed on a "720p" TV.

IS THIS THE SAME Wooch that is running around saying that a component cable is better than an HDMI?

Ah, back to distortions and lies to win a strawman argument. Bravo! Either that or you got me confused with some other guy named Wooch.

[pixelthis]

[QUOTE=Woochifer;360615]Actually, I know more than enough to get you wound up into knots by pointing out the errors and contradictions in your posts. I'm not the one trying to claim that deinterlacing a 480i source "doubles" the resolution, or claiming that there's no difference between a 480i source and 1080p source when viewed on a "720p" TV.

Oh, gee, then every DVD player ON EARTH has a totally unnecessary feature, mainly progressive playback.
IF a 480p picture is no improvement , then why bother?
FACT is that with a 480i pic you have 240 lines on the screen
at any given time, then another 240 is painted between
them.
IF THERES MOVEMENT, resolution drops to as low as 240 lines.
Deinterlace the pic and 480 lines are painted onscreen one after
the other in a progressive manner.
No, there is no "increase" in res, but there is more resolution,
because the full resolution is displayed.
Really, why do you insist on showing your ignorance?
EVEN ANY LAYMAN, looking at a 480i and a 480p pic side by side will be able to tell which is superiour.
BUT YOU ARE stating there is no difference, basically like stating the world is flat.
SO why have deinterlacing DVD players at all?

Ah, back to distortions and lies to win a strawman argument. Bravo! Either that or you got me confused with some other guy named Wooch.

NO, YOU ARE the same know nothing who believes that a
component cable is better than HDMI, but I bet you use HDMI on your setup. WHICH makes you a hypocrite and a liar,
not to mention uninformed.

[Woochifer]

Oh, gee, then every DVD player ON EARTH has a totally unnecessary feature, mainly progressive playback.
IF a 480p picture is no improvement , then why bother?

Because it's another feature to add to the checklist.

If every DVD player on the planet only output the native 480i resolution, an HDTV would display the output by simply rescaling and deinterlacing it to the native 768p or 1080p resolution.

FACT is that with a 480i pic you have 240 lines on the screen
at any given time, then another 240 is painted between
them.
IF THERES MOVEMENT, resolution drops to as low as 240 lines.
Deinterlace the pic and 480 lines are painted onscreen one after
the other in a progressive manner.
No, there is no "increase" in res, but there is more resolution,
because the full resolution is displayed.
Really, why do you insist on showing your ignorance?
EVEN ANY LAYMAN, looking at a 480i and a 480p pic side by side will be able to tell which is superiour.
BUT YOU ARE stating there is no difference, basically like stating the world is flat.
SO why have deinterlacing DVD players at all?

Man, you are a marketer's dream customer. Throw a bunch of fancy sounding features and specs on a sheet, and you're ready to junk whatever you bought just a few months ago for a brand new one. Like you've done so many times before.

The part that you're missing is that EVERY HDTV will do the deinterlacing to 480p and then do the rescaling to 768p or 1080p when fed a non-native signal. Progressive scan on a DVD player is a redundant feature, and always has been. The only value that it would offer up is in those specific cases where the the DVD player uses a video processor superior to the one inside of the TV.

NO, YOU ARE the same know nothing who believes that a
component cable is better than HDMI, but I bet you use HDMI on your setup. WHICH makes you a hypocrite and a liar,
not to mention uninformed.

Anyone who wants to check who the liar on this thread is can simply check post #29 for themselves and see what I actually wrote. Seems that distorting and misquoting is all you got left.

ACTUALLY HE DID, and on this thread. Guess the "unimpeachable" source he used?
HIS PARENTS.
They though that a signal from component was better, so it must be so!
BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

And again, check post #29 to see what was actually posted everywhere other than in pix's head.