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.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
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.