-
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjp735i
I wasn't saying anyone was calling me a moron, just giving my view on things, but thanks for the tip on the 1080p, Maybe I need to switch to 1080p when I'm watching a blue ray and see. I'm a bit behind on all the new stuff, been quite some time since I have done some upgrading on the audio and video stuff. I have the new TV now and really need to upgrade my old Yamaha receiver that doesn't even have digital input, which I really need.
Thanks,
jjp
One of the vexing truths of new technology is that requires precise compliance in following the chain to receive optimum results. And, also vexingly enough, Pix is correct in his assessment about 1080i.
It is probably also worth stating that Avatar might be one of the worst possible movies to compare DVD v. Blu Ray. While Pix is right in that 1080i will only have 540 lines of continuous resolution, every TV will upscale a picture to fit its native resolution, which often gives the picture a smooth or dreamy or animated quality. With a film like Avatar that was shot with so much CGI the effects may negate some of the perceived quality.
It's probably worth noting too that designating an group of people with a single, non relevant feature as "less than" or inferior is generally frowned upon.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjp735i
I bought into the BR player and I don't see much a difference from my blue ray to DVD, both pluged into a plasma 1080i tv via HDMI. I also have a plasma 720p and I don't see much difference between 1080i and 720p. Maybe if you walk up close to the tv you can see the differences, but who the heck sits that close to 50 and 60" tvs.. So does that make me a moron. I personally think blue ray is BS.
Sorry, but Blu-ray is not BS. It's one thing to say that the difference is negligible, or that it's not worth the fuss. Those views I can respect. But, saying there's no visible difference? Unless there's a problem with the setup, even with a 720p plasma, the difference is obvious at an 8' viewing distance.
BTW, unless you plasma dates back to the late 1990s, it's not native 1080i. All plasma sets built since that time are native progressive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMichael
BR is 1080p. Without a 1080p display, you wouldn't see much difference.
Actually even with a "720p" HDTV, you will see a considerable difference with a Blu-ray. My parents have a 50" 720p plasma, and I ran several comparisons. Even they could see the difference between a Blu-ray and DVD. Of course, they don't really care about the difference -- they just like that nice big picture, regardless of whether or not it looks fuzzy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THIS AGAIN, but a 1080i pic loses half of its rez when things are moving. WHICH knocks it down to roughly 540 lines, which isn't really that much different
from the 480p that a DVD player puts out.
Nope, that's just flat out wrong. Do you REALLY think that a 1080i HD broadcast looks no different than a DVD? Or that the 720p signals transmitted by ABC and Fox are visibly superior to the 1080i signals on CBS and NBC?
1080i simply means that native progressive frames are created by merging two interlaced frames together to create a 1,920 x 1,080 pixel image. This deinterlacing process creates 30 progressive images per second. This is the resolution equivalent of a 1080p30 signal (native resolution of 1080i60), that gets frame-repeated to sync up with the 60 Hz video standard.
The issues with 1080i have nothing to do with the resolution, but rather the artifacts and picture anomalies that can crop up during the deinterlacing process with a less-than-optimal source and/or inferior video processor. The advantage of 720p/1080p sources is that there are fewer processing steps along the way that can impact the picture quality.
Keep in mind that the DVD format is a native 480i format, not 480p. A progressive scan DVD player outputs to 480p using the EXACT same deinterlacing process used to display a 1080i signal. By your logic, are you saying that the DVD format is really only 240 lines?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsticks
One of the vexing truths of new technology is that requires precise compliance in following the chain to receive optimum results.
Actually, the chain is a lot more complicated (and IMO vexing :cool:) with the DVD format than it is with Blu-ray and HD sources.
Consider that in order to display a DVD output onto any HDTV, the image has to be both deinterlaced AND rescaled. Remember that the DVD format has a native resolution of 480i (@60 Hz). The deinterlacing process is exactly the same as with 1080i HDTV, except that the artifacts that can crop up during the deinterlacing process are much more obvious due to the DVD's lower resolution.
With HDTV and Blu-ray, you have native progressive sources (except with 1080i) that don't require the deinterlacing step. Those sources are either displayed natively or rescaled (scaling is a much simpler process than deinterlacing).
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsticks
While Pix is right in that 1080i will only have 540 lines of continuous resolution, every TV will upscale a picture to fit its native resolution, which often gives the picture a smooth or dreamy or animated quality.
"540 lines of continuous resolution"? That would be true if you're only viewing every other frame on a 1080i60 signal, and we know that's not the case. The image output with 1080i is 1,920 x 1,080 pixels, because you're merging two interlaced frames to create one progressive frame. Even though it requires two frames, this is real resolution. This is not the same as upscaling a 480i DVD to a 1080p output, because the pixels are actually there in the source content.
-
Originally Posted by GMichael
BR is 1080p. Without a 1080p display, you wouldn't see much difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
Actually even with a "720p" HDTV, you will see a considerable difference with a Blu-ray. My parents have a 50" 720p plasma, and I ran several comparisons. Even they could see the difference between a Blu-ray and DVD. Of course, they don't really care about the difference -- they just like that nice big picture, regardless of whether or not it looks fuzzy.
I agree with what you said here. My comment was in response to someone who said that they couldn't see much difference between broadcast HD and a BR disk on their 720p/1080i sets.
-
Gotcha...
...though I was referring to the physical chain of compatibility.
I'm not terribly informed on specifics (nor do I care to go into it any deeper than you have, so thanks for the concise response) so I'll gladly defer to your explanation...but still contend that Avatar is a poor choice of films for comparison...:ihih:
-
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
[Woochifer]Sorry, but Blu-ray is not BS. It's one thing to say that the difference is negligible, or that it's not worth the fuss. Those views I can respect. But, saying there's no visible difference? Unless there's a problem with the setup, even with a 720p plasma, the difference is obvious at an 8' viewing distance.
Blu is amazing, and a huge advance
Quote:
Nope, that's just flat out wrong. Do you REALLY think that a 1080i HD broadcast looks no different than a DVD? Or that the 720p signals transmitted by ABC and Fox are visibly superior to the 1080i signals on CBS and NBC?
NOT much different. There are other improvements besise res in a 1080i pic.
But since most sets deinterlace a 1080p and display it as 1080p this is pretty much a moot point now.
THIS was accidental but turned out great. Most broadcast is 1080i, the TV takes it and makes it 1080p. Space is saved during broadcast, but the consumer sees 1080p
Quote:
The issues with 1080i have nothing to do with the resolution, but rather the artifacts and picture anomalies that can crop up during the deinterlacing process with a less-than-optimal source and/or inferior video processor. The advantage of 720p/1080p sources is that there are fewer processing steps along the way that can impact the picture quality.
Which is why BLU looks better, but really, a lot of joe sixpacks won't notice
[I]Keep in mind that the DVD format is a native 480i format, not 480p. A progressive scan DVD player outputs to 480p using the EXACT same deinterlacing process used to display a 1080i signal. By your logic, are you saying that the DVD format is really only 240 lines?[/QUOTE]
MOST 480i material comes out to about 330. WATCH A DVD with the progressive scan turned off, if you can find a 480i TV. BECAUSE a 1080p TV will up convert the pic to its native res anyway.
Thats the one great thing about modern TV sets, even 720p, and that is that they are
all progressive. Deinterlacing automatically improves any pic, even if you are just deinterlacing to 720p.
My first HDTV sets were 1080i, around 540 lines or so, still looked great, because of the increased color palette and 200 more lines of res.
BUT THE NEW PROGRESSIVE SETS blows the doors off of any interlaced TV,
which is why the one thing anybody can do who still has one of these, to vastly improve
their setup., is to give their outmoded set a toss.
Interlaced TV, still great for content delivery, but good riddance for display.
HAIL the new king, progressive.:1:
-
1 Attachment(s)
I would also like to point out that this has been one of the most contentious issues
on this or any other forum, mainly progressive vs interlaced.
While a 1080i pic had a lot going for it, better color, etc, the deficiency besides a
1080p pic, even one derived from deinterlacing, are obvious.
THIS IS BECAUSE of the loss if res that comes from a 1080i pic whenever there is movement. A lot of people simply refuse to believe this, but you will lose up to
half your res on an interlaced pic whenever there is movement.
No matter how good the interlaced TV is.:1:
|