Moderator: Dictators in Training
HD DVD for $219, Blu-ray for $270
Posted by Rick Broida 2 comments
Slowly but surely, prices are inching down on Blu-ray and HD DVD players. Today's deal to beat: Amazon has the Toshiba HD-A3 for $218.60 and the Samsung BD-P1400 for $269.98.
Lyion wrote:The 99 doillar ones that they mass shoved out the door only spec to 1080i.
Cnet pretty much covers the price war. It's pretty much a wash between the two, costwise.HD DVD for $219, Blu-ray for $270
Posted by Rick Broida 2 comments
Slowly but surely, prices are inching down on Blu-ray and HD DVD players. Today's deal to beat: Amazon has the Toshiba HD-A3 for $218.60 and the Samsung BD-P1400 for $269.98.
Tikker wrote:errr, 1080i converted to 1080p isn't the same thing as native 1080p
you have to deinterlace the 1080i, and now you're starting to do some interpolation(educated guessing) on certain portions of the frame
1080i is inferior to true 1080p
if you want to argue this point, there is no hope for you, and anything you ever say again is meaningless in reference to anything even vaguely technical
Tossica wrote:Tikker wrote:errr, 1080i converted to 1080p isn't the same thing as native 1080p
you have to deinterlace the 1080i, and now you're starting to do some interpolation(educated guessing) on certain portions of the frame
1080i is inferior to true 1080p
if you want to argue this point, there is no hope for you, and anything you ever say again is meaningless in reference to anything even vaguely technical
You are wrong.
1080i source and 1080i display is technically inferior to 1080p but 1080i output from a 1080p/24 (film) source to a 1080p display is not. Since 1080i CRT based displays went the way of the dodo with the cheap LCD and plasma technology ALL interlaced signals are being deinterlaced before they are displayed. If you have a 1080p/24 capable player and display, you are in the best position because no 3:2 pulldown needs to occur. This I will agree is "better" than 1080i to 1080p display. Otherwise, the data is pulled off the disk at 60fps which is more than enough to pull ALL of the data from the source in 540p frames and "stitch" them back together (deinterlaced) NO INTERPOLATION TAKES PLACE AT THIS STAGE it's mearly stitching 2 540p frames together to make the full 1080p frame. If you output 1080i from the player at 60fps, your TV handles the 3:2 pulldown to force the 24FPS signal to display properly on your 60FPS display. GIVING YOU EXACTLY THE SAME IMAGE as you would have gotten if the TV received a 1080p source.
The only time "interpolation" happens is when the signal is being scaled either up or down (ie if you have a 720p display or are "upconverting" standard def content).
In a "true" or "native" 1080i HDTV system, the temporal resolution is 60 Hz. The image is sampled, or updated if you prefer, every 1/60 of a second. As with any interlaced format though, only half the available lines are sampled, or updated, every 1/60 of a second. The capture device (say, a video camera) does not sample the entire 1920 x 1080 at one time. Rather, it samples fields. A single field consists of every other line out of the complete picture. So we have the "odds" field which has lines 1, 3, 5, 7, etc and the "evens" field which has lines 2, 4, 6, 8, etc.
....
The shorthand for this format is 1080i60.
The subject being captured is updated every 1/60 of a second, but only half the lines are used for each update. This has one benefit and many drawbacks.
The one virtue of this format is its high subject refresh rate: Think of a sporting event where the ball is traveling fast. We get an update on its position every 1/60 of a second. That's really good compared to film's 24 Hz refresh rate (even IMAX HD is only 48 Hz).
The downside on an interlaced format is that the alternating fields only truly compliment each other if the subject is stationary. If it is, then the alternating fields "sum" to form a complete and continuous 1920 x 1080 picture (everything lines up perfectly between the two fields). If the subject moves though, it will be in one position for one field and another position for the next. The interlaced fields no longer compliment one another and artifacts such as jaggies, line twitter, and other visual aberrations are a normal side effect of the interlaced format.
The wrong way, which of course happens to be the cheap way from a processing and cost perspective, is to simply scale each 540 line field to the native resolution of the display. That means that whether your TV is 720 lines, 768 lines, 1024 lines, or even one of the "Full HD" 1080 line models, if it de-interlaces this way, you are only seeing a picture which is 540 lines strong. Not what you paid for, is it?
Remember we said that if the picture is not moving, fields sum together to form a complete 1920 x 1080 picture?
The right way to process 1080i is to de-interlace it to 1080p (regardless of what the TV's native resolution is) using motion adaptive de-interlacing. This is a process which involves detecting which areas of the picture are moving and which ones are not, and then combining fields in the non-moving areas while interpolating the moving ones (filling in the spaces between the alternating lines with average, in between values) . If you have a 1080p display (which actually displays 1080p without cropping and re-scaling), you're done, because the result is a 1080p signal. If you have a TV of any other resolution, it's then just a matter of scaling the 1080p signal to whatever the native resolution of the device is.
Tikker wrote:what?
interpolation is completely different from scaling
you are truly a stupid fucker
Tikker wrote:any other dumbshit things you'd like for me to clear up for you?
Tossica wrote:The 1080i player is still outputting the full 1080 resolution it is just doing it in two fields which are put back together to form the full frame before they are displayed.
Tikker wrote:Tossica wrote:The 1080i player is still outputting the full 1080 resolution it is just doing it in two fields which are put back together to form the full frame before they are displayed.
this is the part where I'm not sure if we're just mismatching terms, or if you're just not quite right
1080i alternates fields that are updated
1080p is the full raster update every single frame
6 frames in 1080p is not the same as 6 frames of 1080i
1080i60 = 1920 samples x 540 lines delivered 60 times per second.
1080p60 - 1920 samples x 1080 lines delivered 60 times per second. This results in 60 frames per second.
To avoid confusion, newer specs use 1080i30 instead of 1080i60, so the number after the "i" or "p" is always in frames per second.
Lyion wrote:Not exactly. Both 1080i and 1080p both represent a 1920x1080 pixel resolution
The difference is the way the signal is sent from a source and displayed in HD. The fields in 1080i are composed of 540 rows of pixels running from the top to the bottom of the screen, with the odd fields displayed first and the even fields displayed second. Together, both fields create a full frame, made up of all 1,080 pixel rows or lines, every 30th of a second.
In 1080p each frame of video is sent or displayed progressively. This means that both the odd and even fields (all 1,080 pixel rows or pixel lines) that make up the full frame are displayed together.
Lyion wrote:Not exactly. Both 1080i and 1080p both represent a 1920x1080 pixel resolution
The difference is the way the signal is sent from a source and displayed in HD. The fields in 1080i are composed of 540 rows of pixels running from the top to the bottom of the screen, with the odd fields displayed first and the even fields displayed second. Together, both fields create a full frame, made up of all 1,080 pixel rows or lines, every 30th of a second.
In 1080p each frame of video is sent or displayed progressively. This means that both the odd and even fields (all 1,080 pixel rows or pixel lines) that make up the full frame are displayed together. This results in a smoother looking image, with less motion artifacts and jagged edges. Thus, your picture above.
What Toss is saying is 1080i can be scaled by the HDTV itself. THis is somewhat true.
Depending on the actual video processors used, there may or may not be a difference in having the TV do the final processing (referred to as deinterlacing) step of converting 1080i to 1080p.
If the TV is utilizing a good processor, such as the ones used in higher-end Sony, Pioneer, Hitachi, and Panasonic sets it may be equal to the processors used in many source components - so the results displayed on screen should be close to native 1080p. Close, but not as good. The bigger your TV, the more noticeable the degradation will be.
For a cheap HDTV, which most people have, getting a cheap HD DVD player will certainly mean a much less clear and good picture, which is probably what some have mentioned in this post, and Toss has wrongly attempted to contradict.
leah wrote:i am forever grateful to my gym teacher for drilling that skill into me during drivers' ed
leah wrote:isn't the only difference the length? i feel like it would take too long to smoke something that long, ha.
Tikker wrote:you need to quit making dumb arguements like that
assuming PRISTINE VIDEO QUALITY, 1080i is inferior to 1080p (we can agree on that, yes?)
Pristine 1080i could very well be better than shitty 1080p but that's not really a good comparison
Tossica wrote:
No, we can't agree on that because you are not listening to what I am saying. 1080p/60 is better than 1080i/60 but since 1080p/60 DOES NOT EXIST IN THE FILM WORLD, what we get is either 1080p/24 or 1080i/60.
DO YOU GET IT NOW?!?!?!
Tikker wrote:I'm having a tough time finding reference to blu-ray disk containing 1080i60
Tikker wrote:Tossica wrote:
No, we can't agree on that because you are not listening to what I am saying. 1080p/60 is better than 1080i/60 but since 1080p/60 DOES NOT EXIST IN THE FILM WORLD, what we get is either 1080p/24 or 1080i/60.
DO YOU GET IT NOW?!?!?!
1080p24 > 1080i60
interlacing will always have to deal with the 3:2 pull down judder
some tv's are going to do a fantastic job of deinterlacing, and it's not going to be noticeable, but you can't honestly sit here and tell me that 1080i60 is exactly equal to 1080p24
they're just not
There Is No Difference Between 1080p and 1080i
My bold-printed, big-lettered breaker above is a little sensationalistic, but, as far as movies are concerned, this is basically true. Here's why. Movies (and most TV shows) are shot at 24 frames per second (either on film or on 24-frame-per-second HD cameras). Every TV sold in the United States has a refresh rate of 60 hertz. This means that the screen refreshes 60 times per second. In order to display 24-frame-per-second content on a display that essentially shows 60 frames per second, you need to make up or create new frames. This is accomplished by a method called 3:2 pulldown (or, more accurately, 2:3 pulldown). It doubles the first frame of film, triples the second frame, doubles the third frame, and so on, creating a 2-3-2-3-2-3 sequence. (Check out Figure 1 for a more colorful depiction.) So, the new frames don't have new information; they are just duplicates of the original film frames. This process converts 24-frame-per-second film to be displayed on a 60-Hz display.
As long as films and broadcasts are limited to a maximum of 1080p24 and 1080p25/30, then apart from upscaling 720p50/60 content, the real benefit of a television with 1080p50/60 input is its connectivity with PCs, videogame consoles, and other nearby digital devices that generate live 1080p high frame-rate content (i.e. above 30 fps).
Short Version
What this all means is this:
• When it comes to movies (as in HD DVD and Blu-ray) there will be no visible difference between the 1080i signal and the 1080p signal, as long as your TV correctly de-interlaces 1080i. So even if you could input 1080p, you wouldn't see a difference (because there is none).
• There is no additional or new information in a 1080p signal from movie based content.
• The only time you would see a difference is if you have native 1080p/60 content, which at this point would only come from a PC and maybe the PS3. 1080p/60 does have more information than 1080i/30, but unless you're a gamer you will probably never see native 1080p/60 content. It is incredibly unlikely that they will ever broadcast 1080p (too much bandwidth) or that 1080p/60 content will show up on discs (too much storage space and no one is using it to record/film).
So all of you people who bought 1080p displays only to be told by the companies that you had bought 1080i TVs, relax. The TV will convert everything to 1080p. Now if you bought a TV that doesn't de-interlace 1080i correctly, well, that's a whole other story.
