namelesstavern.net

The 99 doillar ones that they mass shoved out the door only spec to 1080i. Likewise, the cheaper ones they are trying to sell now max out, also, at 1080i. The Blu-ray players do 1080p.

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.

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.

The $249 HD-DVD A20 and above players output 1080P to your TV, the HD-A3 and HD-A2, output 1080i to your 1080P TV making 1080P anyways. This has already been covered. Pay extra for 1080P if it makes you feel better, the signal being displayed is the same unless your TV is a piece of shit.

Even if they dumped the Samsung BD-P1400 for $49, it's still unfinished hardware and is already obsolete. In fact, every BR player made to date with the exception of the PS3 is an obsolete, unfinished piece of shit and the few people that bought them for $600+ will be pissed off when they realize it if they haven't already. Once we see full spec standalone BR players for $200 then it will be interesting.

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

He already has, he's so full of semen he's blind.

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).

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).

what?

interpolation is completely different from scaling
you are truly a stupid fucker


http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_1 ... art-1.html

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.

1080p differs from 1080i in that the entire 1920 x 1080 raster (all of the 1080 lines side to side) is sampled and/or displayed at one time. No fields. Just full, 1920 x 1080 frames. No combing. No line twitter. Just perfect pictures

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.

any other dumbshit things you'd like for me to clear up for you?

Clear up the part where he's the worst hippie ever. Sort of like being the dumbest smart guy around...

Tikker wrote:what?

interpolation is completely different from scaling
you are truly a stupid fucker

If you take a 480p image and feed it in to a 720p display for upconversion, where do the "extra" pixels come from when the image is "scaled" to the new resolution? Interpolation you say? Thought so.

Tikker wrote:any other dumbshit things you'd like for me to clear up for you?

I know you tried REAL hard to be smart here by posting a bunch of irrelevant info but calling me names didn't help your argument much.

HD content on Blu-Ray or HD-DVD (which is what this thread is about) consists of either 1080p/24 (film) or 1080i/60 50 (hd-video). With a 1080p/24 source (all HD-DVD and BR films AND players for the most part) the data is read off of the disk at 60 fps. That means that each frame of the film is being sampled at least twice and the ENTIRE CONTENTS of each frame is being fed to your display regardless of whether the player is feeding the display progressive signal or interlaced signal, the display outputs 1080p. There is NO JITTER or any of the other bullshit you referenced because we are talking about STATIC individual frames from a film source, NOT A LIVE FOOTBALL GAME. All of the data that existed in the original 24fps film, now exists on the HD-DVD or BR disk in full 1080 resolution. Every pixel of that data is being output to the display in it's entirety. 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. 1080p/24 output mode and the displays that support the signal are exceptions as they eliminate the 3:2 pulldown and result in a smoother moving image as there are no odd frame multipliers going on. This has nothing to do with interlacing though and has to do with the refresh rate on the display matching multiples of the fps of the source material.

If you were talking about what format you should use to MAKE your movie/video, then the links you posted would be relevant. Whether to record your movie/video in 1080i or 1080p/24 and the benefits/drawbacks of each is a completely different argument and one I am not disputing you on. This argument has to do with a source material that we have no choice over. It is what it is.

Do you understand now?

I'm not arguing that a 1080p TV is not better than a 1080i TV, I am arguing that whether the output from the PLAYER is 1080i or p does not matter if the source is 1080p/24 and it's being fed to a 1080p display. This scenario includes MOST HD home theater setups.

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

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

Right. But since we only need 24fps to be true to the source material, we only need 24p fps or 48ifps to display it properly. We are sampling at 60ifps so either way, the entire frame is displayed. All hd players br included, interlace the 1080p/24 source. Whether you have the player or your TV deinterlace the signal doesn't really matter as long as it's done properly.

I'm having a tough time finding reference to blu-ray disk containing 1080i60

I did find this tidbit tho

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.

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.

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.

that's exactly what's quoted above

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.

Actually Lyion, sending your TV 1080i instead of shoddy 1080p in some cases will result in a clearer picture. Look up reviews on the 1080p mode in some of the BR players, specifically the Samsung you referenced above. It's garbage and was added as an afterthought to make people like you happy who think they are getting ripped off if their player doesn't say 1080p on it. It's all marketing hype and bullshit but I guess if it gets gullible people to spend more money, why wouldn't they use it?

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

Although I totally disagree with him on this one, Tossica rules. I've never seen a dude stick to his guns like this. :salute:

You still are a smf though for arguing against all the evidence, sales numbers, testimonies and everything. Seriously Toss, there is no conspiracy to make BluRay appear to be better than HD-DVD...it just is. Bourne Ultimatim ftl.

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

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?!?!?!

As more video games start to use 1080p/60, you will need 1080p/60 output and display or you are losing 1/2 the info. This I agree on and have not once in this entire debate NOT agreed on. Most games today still use a lower rez source and then upconvert to 1080p before it's output but since we are not discussing video games, it's doesn't matter. What you all are saying is that since a HD or BR player outputs 1080p/60 to your display, it's better. This is BULLSHIT and what I have been trying to get across.

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

Tikker wrote:I'm having a tough time finding reference to blu-ray disk containing 1080i60

The disks themselves contain 1080p/24 source in the case of film or 1080i/60 if it's HD-video like some of the Planet Earth series and concert videos, etc.

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

I literally must have said 3-4 times in this thread alone that if you have a player and display capable of 1080p/24, your results will be BETTER than 1080p OR i at 60hz. The trouble is some players and MOST displays DO NOT support refresh rates in multiples of 24, they may ACCEPT the signal but their refresh rates are still 60hz so you end up with interlacing/deinterlacing and 3:2 pulldown. There are a few high end displays that can change their refresh rates to match.

If you have a standard 60hz 1080p display, YOU WILL SEE NO BENEFIT IN HAVING YOUR HD PLAYER OUTPUT 1080p/60 OVER 1080i/60!!!

http://www.hometheatermag.com/gearworks/1106gear/

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080i

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).

http://blog.hometheatermag.com/geoffrey ... 80iv1080p/

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.

Should I go on?

you keep skipping over the deinterlacing of the 1080i signal

gimme a sec to find it

I flashed over it, and forgot to bookmark it earlier, but guy had a site that listed which sets actually do it properly, and it's something like only 10% of tv's actually do it 100% correctly

this wasn't the article, but it looks like it might be a good one to read anyway(i haven't gotten to his conclusions yet)

http://www.hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/ ... index.html

ps, this was exactly 1 post below the stuff you cut and paste

nothing like ignoring the huge caveat to his post

The deinterlacers built in to the players have some of the same issues that the ones built in to the displays have. Unless you are outputting 1080p/24 to a compatible display, you HAVE to deinterlace somewhere along the line as the data is interlaced as it's pulled off the disk in BOTH formats with the exception of the ones that support 1080p/24 output.

If you have more confidence in the deinterlacer built in to the players than the one in your display, by all means, pay extra for the feature but for 99% of the population, it's not going to matter because their TV's either don't accept 1080p OR they will deinterlace well enough that it will be unnoticable during playback especially on screens 47" and smaller. ALL HDTV's accept 1080i so it's a safe bet that it will work with your display.