The (in)famous 1080p truth
This article is making the rounds on the internet so we may as well throw in our two cents. I think there is a lot of confusion and misinformation about HDTV in general and 1080p specifically, and this piece in particular has a lot of both swirling around it.First, let's address the section I've seen quoted most often in forums (usually misinterpreted or presented alone with no context). "How about Blu-ray and HD-DVD? If either format is used to store and play back live HD content, it will have to be 1920x1080i (interlaced again) to be compatible with the bulk of consumer TVs. And any progressive-scan content will also have to be interlaced for viewing on the majority of HDTV sets."
What does that mean? If you have a player that outputs only in 1080i (like the HD-DVD player Ben reviewed) and/or a 1080i TV, you will see ... you guessed it 1080i. Not incredibly complicated or shocking, just something I've seen people go into a frenzy over and suddenly believe 1080p is as real as the boogie man, Easter Bunny or gas that costs less than $2.75 per gallon. Trust me, 1080p is real, but you have to be careful about what you're getting.
As it stands, this piece is at best half done, definitely outdated and somewhat inaccurate.
It tells us that there is not and likely never will be a 1080p broadcast standard. That's fine. It tells us that even movies encoded on Blu-ray or HD-DVD discs at 1080p, will be played at no better than 1080i on most commercially available televisions. Can't argue with that. Afterwards we get a long diatribe about the whys and wherefores many "1080p" TVs don't accept a 1080p input. We hear you buddy.
It never once mentions a situation where a 1080p television can do with a true 1080p source or that if your television does have a good scaler, that it may be able to take that less-than-1080p source and display it on a large screen better than a native 720p TV would due to the greater pixel density. If you read carefully, you can tell from the last line, that this is really a warning about some so-called 1080p televisions, not the avoid-like-the-plague distress signal it has at times been made out to be. Even TVs that don't accept the highest resolution as their input can still provide an excellent picture like the SXRD Matt reviewed.
What does all this mean? A 1080p television or projector might be right for you, but check to see what's really in it first and what it is doing to your signal. Nearly everything you watch will need to be upconverted (until you get a Blu-ray movie player or wait until HD-DVD players add support for output at that resolution), so take a look at the TV while it is displaying content from the source and type you will likely be watching most to see how it handles it. This isn't Blu-ray/HD-DVD/PS3/Xbox 360 fanboy fodder, for the most part people agree that your high definition content looks better on the 1080p TVs that are available.
It's just like any new technology, look very carefully before jumping into the first generation, or else you may be better off saving a bit of money and going with older more stabilized technology. However if you're willing to do the research and maybe spend a little extra, you can enjoy the benefits of the most cutting edge technology without having to make compromises.
Sources for more information:
AVSForum opinions
Sound and Vision Magazine on the challenges of deinterlacing
Interesting discussion on bob-and-weave deinterlacing
[Thanks to all who submitted this]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Big Sam @ Apr 20th 2006 2:53PM
Well said. I was anxiously awaiting your rebuttal of that article :)
SJ @ Apr 20th 2006 3:05PM
"if your television does have a good scaler, that it may be able to take that less-than-1080p source and display it on a large screen better than a native 720p TV would due to the greater pixel density"
I have a hard time believing this. How is it possible that 720p content looks better on a 1080p TV rather than a 720p TV? While I agree that it would still look great on a 1080p TV, 1080p is twice the amount of pixels than 720p, so wouldn't there be 'blockiness' or 'pixellation'? How is that different from playing SD content on a 720p TV (which does look awful at times) ?
apacit @ Apr 20th 2006 3:21PM
Technology and the cost of that technology will always keep changing; however, at times those changes will reach plateaus and the costs will reach certain price points. I think the key to buying technology is identifying the plateaus and making the purchase when you personal price point is met for that plateau. For myself I consider Blu-Ray and/or HD-DVD to be a significant plateau. The top end for these technologies will be 1080p for resolution and DTS-HD for audio. That means I need to look for components that will support these through the entire AV system. We are only now seeing the full 1080p support from input to image engine in the displays. Unfortunately we are not there yet on the audio side because we are waiting for HDMI 1.3. Once that is released manufacturers can support DTS-HD, or Dolby TrueHD if you prefer. If you want lossless audio processed in digital on all components you don't have a coice but to wait. Once all of these components are on the market you just have to wait some more until the price falls to what you can afford. There are plenty of other features to consider, and they make a big difference in price, but I think these are the key features. Hey, if you had to buy a component before we reach this plateau that's fine. There is not a "wrong" decision as long as it works for your situation. Getting a nice 720p display can give you a great picture and you will either save money or get to enjoy it long before I get my 1080p. Just don't try to tell me that I'm wrong for waiting, or that there is no content. The movie studios have to push 1080p on disk to differentiate themselvse from broadcast quality or we wouldn't buy them.
Dimitrios @ Apr 20th 2006 3:33PM
The article linked to in this HDBeat post was from back in June 2005, don't let the 2006 copyright at the bottom fool you. At the time that this guy wrote this article he didn't think that in less then a year, someone could get their hands on a 42inch 1080P panel, that didn't use some sort of bob and weave technology and was available for less then 10K.
madshi @ Apr 20th 2006 4:22PM
Thanks Richard, good post! I fully agree with you. This article is at least half a year old, though. There were already 10-20 threads about the article on avsforum at that time.
I exchanged some emails with the author of the article some months ago. His real intention was to raise awareness that all the brand new 1080p rear projection flooding the store floors at that time were not the real deal and that people often were better off buying a 720p rear projection TV instead at that time. His article sounds like he would think 1080p was a total waste and that it would never be more than that. But I think that was not really what he meant to say. He should have worded his article better. By just stating that he was talking only about "now" and not about the future, he could have gone a long way to avoid these unnecessary long forum threads which were spreading after the article was released.
@SJ, SD content doesn't necessarily have to look bad on a 720p display. It very much depends on the quality of the video processing. Actually with a very good deinterlacer and scaler SD content can look on par or even slightly better on a 720p display compared to a SD display. Unfortunately almost all built in video processing electronics in current displays is grotty. If you want optimal image quality, you should look into external video processors. Not cheap, though.
Simon Reidy @ Apr 20th 2006 4:42PM
Excellent post Richard.
As you pointed out I think the biggest misconception with 1080p is that a lot of people assume that its only of benefit with a 1080p signal, and then follow through with the conclusion that if there arent any 1080p broadcasts why should I bother?. The reality is there are a LOT of benefits a 1080p screen can deliver, but many of them are only relevant if the set supports 1080p input (which many dont yet). Thankfully it seems that most 2nd generation 1080p screens should be equipped to support 1080/60p input (and the better ones will accept 1080/24p 48p 50p and 72p as well).
As far as getting the full benefit of 1080p goes there are many things to take into account, such as seating distance and the quality of the scaling/de-interlacing to the native 1080p resolution of the screen (if using anything less than 1080p input which people obviously will be).
If a 1080p screen DOES support 1080p input then the following are the major benefits of a 1080p display:
1. Much better detail from 1080i and 1080p sources (providing you sit close enough to see it).
2. The ability to accept a native 1080p signal 1:1 mapped (from Blu-Ray/2nd gen HD-DVD players/Playstation3/external scalers or a PC). Result: Zero de-interlacing/scaling artifacts (no uneven interpolation artifacts, no aliasing, better defined edges, and a sharper picture with better detail). Put simply 1080p input means there is no margin for error as there sometimes can be with the scaling and de-interlacing of 1080i sources.
3. 1080p input will often (but not always) mean support for the original native 24p frame rate of film sources, and if so it can apply 2:2 or 3:3 pull-down for display at 48hz or 72hz. Result: No 60hz 3:2 judder (or 4% speedup for people in 50hz countries). In other words a 100% faithful spatial and temporal reproduction of the original 1080/24p film source.
4. Compatibility with a 1080/60p signal from a PC, providing a sharper picture, less screen door effect, far better detail and lots more screen real estate.
5. Support for 1080p input from an external scaler (1:1 mapped) for high quality motion adaptive de-interlacing and scaling of all other lower quality sources. This is admittedly a niche enthusiast area, but given the sub-standard de-interlacing/scaling present on the majority of 1080p displays in the US at the moment, this can be a very advantage down the track for those wanting to get the best possible image quality out of their display. Keep in mind if a 1080p set doesnt support 1080p input, then youre limited to the de-interlacing/scaling capabilities of the display (when dealing with a 1080i signal) for its entire lifetime.
6. Many 1080p displays currently use bob de-interlacing for all 1080i input, meaning you are only getting up-scaled 540p at all times, with the addition of aliasing (jagged edges), shimmer, line twitter and moir?rom bob interpolation. 1080p input gives you full 1080 line resolution with no interlacing/interpolation artifacts. However any good 1080p display should definitely also feature weave de-interlacing (for film sources) and in the best case scenario would feature motion adaptive 1080i de-interlacing (for native interlaced 1080i video sources such as sport). Good 1080i de-interlacing is rare on current 1080p displays, but the situation is improving.
7. Compatibility with any future native 1080/60p devices such as Playstation 3.
8. Put simply 1080p input means your display will fully resolve all recognised HD formats on the planet at maximum resolution and detail!
Its worth noting that most of the above is currently niche HD enthusiast stuff, and wouldnt be noticed by many regular consumers. Its also generally accepted that you have to sit very close to a 1080p screen less than 60 to perceive the full level of detail difference over a good 720p/768p screen.
It would seem the HDBeat guys agree that the most importance thing with a 1080p screen is to make sure it has proper weave de-interlacing of 1080i sources (or motion adaptive de-interlacing!), and that it accepts 1080p input. Not to mention people should look for all the typical important image quality factors such as black level, colour rendition and response time. People often get caught up on raw resolution, and its important to remember that a 768p display with good processing and black level will often look better than 1080p panel with poor black level and processing. Resolution isnt everything!
My 2 cents :)
Richard Lawler @ Apr 20th 2006 4:59PM
Thanks for the feedback all, I agree, probably the biggest problem with the article is a lack of a date on it.
1080p has come pretty far and when the second generation displays start hitting in force later this year it really will be a different game.
pete @ Apr 20th 2006 5:29PM
Simon,
Your comment was 1000 times better than the original article itself.
Bravo. Now I'd like to hear a rebuttal from Mr. Putman on your comment and Richard's post.
Maybe all this linkage and traffic will spur a rebuttal from him.
Jeff @ Apr 21st 2006 12:34AM
cool - someone else with know-how , thanks Simon.
1080p is great at the endpoint of the screen and quite honestly there is really no serious issue with 1080i content, people who piss and moan about it i suspect are specs geeks that do not actually own or work much with it. In fact - if you have an LCD screen with the FL2310 chips or DCDi then you will see your 1080i incoming as progressively displayed anyhow.
I author in HDV TS stream format that uses 1.3 pixel aspect ratios from 1440x1080i raw, and flatten when i need to, and only on major hairy ass action shots and bad camera panning is the interlacing much of an issue. I have adaptive bicubic de-interlacing at the editing point. I see interlace problems that are evident in dot crawl and such and they really are the fault of lazy editing as opposed to any format problem.
More of an issue IMHO is compression artifacts.
Most folks could not tell you if the frame rate was 30 , 60 or 24. The framerate is really where progressive rides... 24p like film at 1080 resolution.
in that respect i would hope that all high def DVD formats are consistent.
Ben Hobbs @ Apr 21st 2006 9:54AM
Not sure I agree with the previous posters comments about LCD TV's with the Faroudja chips. LCD TV displays are by their very nature exclusively progressive rather than interlaced - as are DLPs, LCOS and well all digital displays basically, whether or not they contain DCDi or other similar chipsets.