Although HomeTheaterMag has
already told us that there's no (discernable) difference between
1080i and 1080p, it's quite understandable to still be skeptical when television manufacturers are screaming otherwise and touting 1080p as the new "must have" feature. In the latest battle between the two outputs, eagle-eyed testers at CNET compared the 1080p output from the Blu-ray version of the
hot-selling M:I III film on five different displays. With monitors sporting resolutions ranging from 1,024 x 768 to 1,366 x 768 to 1,920 x 1,080, the conclusions were unsurprisingly similar to various other studies. Essentially, reviewers stated that in a vast majority of the scenes, the "level of detail was virtually identical" across the higher resolution sets, and that even the (relatively) low resolution Philips 42PF9631D plasma showed imagery "difficult to discern" from more elite monitors. Overall, testers felt that native 1080p rendered "slightly more detail in near background images in scenes with long depths of field," but was otherwise not really "necessary," and recommended that prospective buyers save their cash for the time being rather than buying in (literally) to the
1080p hype right now.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Steve @ Nov 13th 2006 1:12AM
While I somewhat agree with the general idea (which is why my fairly new set is 720p), the difference in resolution is really only noticeable at larger screens. While DVDs for example look just fine on my 19" monitor or 26" bedroom set, on my 56", the lack of resolution can hurt my eyes. Similarly, 1080p only offers marginal gains for your 40-60" set. Once you go higher, esp with wall projectors, the difference is far more noticeable. Not to mention 1080p sets tend to ship with newer technologies such as higher contrast ratios and so forth.
The value point for most consumers though remains 720p until sets get big enough to warrant the higher resolution / cost.
xeper @ Nov 13th 2006 1:12AM
Every time I read something about this one major key is left out. When I hook my PC up to my HDTV [and I do] it's VERY discernible. When I want to play Half Life 2 on my HDTV, having it run in the full 1920X1080 is quite a sight different from running it in 720p on a same-sized 1366X768 HDTV.
humpty @ Nov 13th 2006 1:32AM
If the detail in the source material isnt fine enough to be captured in 1080, then there will be no significant differences. Using only one source BD movie to compare is being lazy.. use multiple movies and include a standard test pattern.
And, i can notice a difference (786 vs 1080) on my 40 inch 1080p LCD with the feed coming from a PC... the difference is real. And, so just about resolution, but, gradations from light to dark which improves contrast.
And, the proper test is look at the different resolutions on the same panel (or from the same range from the same manufacturer). Otherwise, there are too many confounding issues that will influence the result (contrast etc).
Dave @ Nov 13th 2006 2:25AM
I vote for 1080p ... anyway!
Shiver @ Nov 13th 2006 5:14AM
Well, because a movie is shot in 24fps it seems quite logical that the difference between 1080i and p is not so evident.
I think when you play games at 50-60fps of watch sports the difference are a lot bigger.
Zeno @ Nov 13th 2006 5:15AM
I vote 1080p too, because on my Mac mini I don't have any hardware deinterlacer...and I got crappy results when deinterlacing 1080i sources with VLC....(EyeTV is doing much better though)...but still: go progressive, go!
GhostDoggy @ Nov 13th 2006 5:26AM
There is no difference in pixel resolution. Its not even about resolution. Its about how the image is drawn for you to see. Proper deinterlacing of 1080i is not trivial, and processing intensive, and including a proper-deinterlacing processor makes an display device quite expensive.
Alternatively, send a 1080P signal out of a source and accepting as 1080P and displaying it as 1080P is a heck of a lot easier to do. Makes no difference if this is 24fps, or 50-60Hz. As soon as you force the display device to deinterlace and temporal transcode then you are asking for a lot of processing artifacts in the end result.
Of course, Joe Six-Pack will not understand this.
Ronald van Loon @ Nov 13th 2006 6:42AM
At the last IBC, a comparison was run between original material in 1920x1080p, then shown on 720p, 1080i, and 1080p, all at the same time. At the uncompressed level, not much difference between the three could be seen. As more compression was applied, you could see that the 1080i image rapidly became the one suffering from artifacts, even though the 1080p theoretically should suffer more because of the double bandwidth needed when compared to 1080i. In practice 1080p wins out, because interframe compression apparently allows for better results then half-field compression as with 1080i. The recommendation therefore was to go with 720p for now, and to shoot for 1080p as the next step up.
Jon @ Nov 13th 2006 8:22AM
I love how there NEVER take size into consideration , i have a 60" SXRD Bxr2 1080P .. now theres no way 720 looks as good as 1080P on a 60" set .. yeah maybe for 32" and 42" i will agree .. what about joe blow with a 100" off a projector
Craig @ Nov 13th 2006 8:48AM
one thing i really hate are those "comparison" split screens at best buy that try to show the difference between hd and regular television -- it's not realistic at all. the sd television side is essentially just smeared. i really wonder who they're fooling. who's thinking, "man, all these years i've been looking at an image that looks like bacon grease smeared on a window!"
Jake @ Nov 13th 2006 8:59AM
Wow, there is no much bad info in here....
Your blog post should be "no difference between 720p and 1080p," not 1080i and 1080p.
There is no "discernable difference" between 1080i and 1080p for 2 reasons: first, 1920x1080/60i signals (with good equipment) are deinterlaced to 1920x1080/30p, and second, because there are no televisions that natively display BOTH 1080i and 1080p. A set can ACCEPT both signals, but there are no sets that have a DISPLAY that does both. A display is EITHER 1080i (CRT-RP) OR 1080p (LCD, PDP, or DLP). Thus, a 1080i signal displayed on a CRT-rear projection (with a good deinterlacer) will look no different (in terms of detail) than a 1080i or 1080p signal displayed on a 1080p flat panel. Both sets are giving you all 1920x1080 resolution--its just that one is doing it by interlacing two 540 line fields, while the other is displaying one 1080 line field.
1080p is being touted right now because it is the only vehicle that FLAT-PANEL and DLP manufacturers have for showing all 2 million pixels in a 1920x1080 signal. On a 720p set, the 1080i signal is scaled to 1280x720 (so it can be shown on the display without cropping), and then deinterlaced. But a lot of visual information gets thrown out in that process.
What CNet did was compared 720p panels against 1080p panels, not 1080i CRT sets vs. 1080p flat panels. And what they found was that there wasn't a discernable difference in detail present for most sources.
Jake @ Nov 13th 2006 9:00AM
I meant "so much bad info." Oops.
Prime @ Nov 13th 2006 11:59AM
Wow... Pretty awesome that it mentions the comparison of M:I III on Blu-ray in 1080p, considering no Blu-ray player is capable of outputting a native 1080p source.
Come on over to www.avsforum.com and read all about it.
Porsche 911 @ Nov 13th 2006 2:22PM
"The Samsung Blu-ray player gives you full 1080p native output and up-conversion for your current catalog"
http://www.samsung.com/Products/DVDPlayer/Blu_ray/BD_P1000XAA.asp
Ron White @ Nov 13th 2006 12:23PM
1080P is essential for larger screens 65" and above especually in front throw 110" PJ's as the fill factor reduces pixelation factor or SDE ...
The above mentioned unoticeable differences are typical with pygmy size screens :)
DEEZNUTZ @ Nov 13th 2006 3:00PM
Yeah but internally, the SAMMY converts from 1080P to 1080i, then back to 1080P before it even gets to your display... not a pure signal, and misleading if you ask me.
Schumann @ Nov 13th 2006 2:53PM
Unsurprisingly, CNet makes another Consumer-Reports like inane, uninformed review.
I knew there was a reason why I stopped reading the CNet site & stoppped watching their reviews that I agreed to download to my TiVo.
Now we can say, quite fashionably (and accurately) : "Consumer Reports shuold stick to reviewing Toasters", but what would be a similarly appropriate put-down for these tech-unsavvy CNet folks? :)
TK101 @ Nov 13th 2006 3:43PM
I used to think I needed 1080p, but a good processor can take 720p and make it look amazing. Case in point, I saw a 720p Runco projector and a roughly 9' wide screen playing the Incredibles. BLEW ME AWAY. Still, that was an expensive projector. I imagine that 720p sets would look terrific with a DVDO (or similar) processor for not too much extra cash.
TK
truth @ Nov 14th 2006 2:30AM
Just if it's not noticeable for the so called eagle eye testers that tried to notice a difference makes no impact into changing my judgment that it is better. Life is about the details. The subtle differences in a movie watching experience change the way you react to it, and just because you consciously don't notice it doesn't mean that it doesn't have an effect on you. Anyone who sees an object in their peripheral can be reminded of an event related to it without thinking about it. I'm sick of being told that the advancement of consumer technology is unnecessary and I don't think that holding back a new technology that will immerse the viewer into a more lifelike scene could possibly be something to pass up. I mean look at audio; 5.1 sound is a great feature that I can't stand to lose. Passing on 1080p is really slowing down the switch for all media into greater formats and just accepting less than we deserve. I for one am not waiting anymore for technology that should already be mainstream.
WTF @ Nov 14th 2006 4:30PM
This is just so they can sell the "leftovers" i.e. non-1080p HDTV they have in stock. Watch how they change there tune in 16-24 months where only 1080p HDTV's exist: They will tell why it's SOO important for you to get rid of your "old" 1080i HDTV and that you can't live without a 1080P HDTV. Arguments can be made for or against 1080p but the truth is: less is never more so 1080p is better then 1080i. Anybody telling you otherwize is trying to justify selling or owning a 1080i HDTV, END OF STORY!
inteller @ Nov 20th 2006 9:25AM
If you just watch cable TV, 1080P will never do you any good, since Cable cos send out 1080i only.
Rezfactor @ Dec 31st 2006 5:26AM
Here's what I don't get about this whole 1080p thing:
1. With a few specialized exceptions (Sony HDCAM-SR, Panasonic HVX200/HPX2100), virtually no current broadcast camera/recording systems acquire their HD signals in 1080p. It's either 1080i or 720p. And certainly, no one currently broadcasts 1080p material yet. The most common HDTV acquisiton system in the U.S. (the $90,000 Sony CineAlta HDW-F900) only records in 1080i. The second-most common HDTV acquisiton system in the U.S. (Panasonic Varicam) acquires only in 720p.
2. As for 35mm film-originated, theatrical-release features, my question is: is the digital telecine mastering process for commercial replication of such content (for either HD-DVD or BluRay DVDs) even encoded at 1080p?
3. So, as always, I ask, "What is both the spatial and temporal resolution of the originating acquisition system used to produce the source material used when 'evaluating' these various display systems?" Of course, no one ever knows.
Rezfactor @ Dec 31st 2006 5:32AM
Correction: the model number of the Panasonic "HPX2100" mentioned above was a pre-release designation. The current model number of this still-yet-to-ship camera is the "HPX500."
sem @ Jan 3rd 2007 3:08AM
http://www.avreview.co.uk/news/article/mps/UAN/791/v/1/sp/
hdmi 1.3