http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/04/20/the-in-famous-1080p-truth/ Engadget HD Comments for The (in)famous 1080p truth http://www.engadgethd.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadgethd.com en-us Copyright 2008 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/04/20/the-in-famous-1080p-truth/http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/04/20/the-in-famous-1080p-truth/Apr 20th 2006 2:53PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2006/04/20/the-in-famous-1080p-truth/http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/04/20/the-in-famous-1080p-truth/
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) ?]]>Apr 20th 2006 3:05PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2006/04/20/the-in-famous-1080p-truth/http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/04/20/the-in-famous-1080p-truth/Apr 20th 2006 3:21PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2006/04/20/the-in-famous-1080p-truth/http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/04/20/the-in-famous-1080p-truth/Apr 20th 2006 3:33PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2006/04/20/the-in-famous-1080p-truth/http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/04/20/the-in-famous-1080p-truth/
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.]]>Apr 20th 2006 4:22PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2006/04/20/the-in-famous-1080p-truth/http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/04/20/the-in-famous-1080p-truth/
As you pointed out I think the biggest misconception with 1080p is that a lot of people assume that it’s only of benefit with a 1080p signal, and then follow through with the conclusion that “if there aren’t 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 don’t 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 doesn’t support 1080p input, then you’re limited to the de-interlacing/scaling capabilities of the display (when dealing with a 1080i signal) for it’s 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!

It’s worth noting that most of the above is currently “niche” HD enthusiast stuff, and wouldn’t be noticed by many regular consumers. It’s 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 isn’t everything!

My 2 cents :)
]]>Apr 20th 2006 4:42PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2006/04/20/the-in-famous-1080p-truth/http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/04/20/the-in-famous-1080p-truth/
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.]]>Apr 20th 2006 4:59PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2006/04/20/the-in-famous-1080p-truth/http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/04/20/the-in-famous-1080p-truth/
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.]]>Apr 20th 2006 5:29PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2006/04/20/the-in-famous-1080p-truth/http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/04/20/the-in-famous-1080p-truth/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.
]]>Apr 21st 2006 12:34AMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2006/04/20/the-in-famous-1080p-truth/http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/04/20/the-in-famous-1080p-truth/


]]>Apr 21st 2006 9:54AM