1080p or marketing BS ??

[Richard Berg]

Television is typically not shot on film, it's shot on video which is a vastly different technique.

Most comedies, dramas, and sci-fi on major networks are shot on film. Sports, news, reality shows, and anything aired live are always video.

I would hope that shooting HD television would go to 1080/60p and then it would be interlaced (throw away half the lines) for broadcast at 1080i.

It may be awhile. 1080i cameras are still a zillion times cheaper than 1080/60p. Most editing studios are also geared toward 60i. The most watched shows (prime-time dramas) are shot on film anyway. Like it or not, we need sports fans to drive 1080p adoption if it's going to happen at all.

 

[mtrycrafts]

There are two things that I have been watching fairly closely it is 1080p front projection and the HD disc format war. I have ZERO belief that you will hear anything about a universal HD disc player anytime soon. .... Since I don't do a review site or anything I can be as big of a douche as I want about things I don't like.

Well, I am pretty sure then, I will not buy two hd DVD players to see the movies I like and happens to be supported by one or the other company only
Yes, please report what you don't like as well. That too is important.

 

[BMXTRIX]

There are rumors of a Pioneer dual format player. Not sure if it is PC based only or what. But, since I'm following it, I'll not only try to see what's there, but will be asking some questions of whatever companies are representing there. The only reason there wouldn't be dual format players next year is if Blu-ray and PS3 setup for a dominating force next year. With the slow start of Blu-ray though, it may simply never occur. But, that's BD vs. HD-DVD talk which these forums have avoided to this point and way to much speculation of the future which is not known. So, I won't go there.

 

[MACCA350]

And back to the question, I found this article at Projector Central

Both HD-DVD and Blu-ray have all of the progressively scanned 1080-lines per frame of information on the disc, and this information is not lost or compromised in 1080i transmission. The transmission interface is simply a matter of the order in which the scanlines are read and transmitted to the video display. If they are transmitted in 1080p, they are sent sequentially. If they are transmitted in 1080i, they are sent in two fields, with one containing the odd numbered lines and another the even numbered lines. These two fields are then reassembled into sequential frames by the video processor in the TV or projector. Either way you end up with the full 1080p frame being used to create the picture, so there is no difference in the end result.

Also this

So why all the confusion? If live video is originally captured with an HD video camera in 1080p, that is a much higher resolution than capturing in 1080i. The reason is that when an HD camera captures in 1080i, it is scanning 540 odd lines at one moment in time, and the 540 even lines at a subsequent moment in time. So in motion sequences, vertical resolution drops to 540 lines rather than 1080. Furthermore, interlaced capture produces motion offsets in the reassembled frame, resulting in the interlacing artifacts that people don't like. That does not occur with either HD-DVD or Blu-ray 1080p film-sourced material since it is all progressively scanned from film frames that represent single moments in time. So this material can be transmitted from the player to the display via 1080i without introducing interlacing artifacts.

Is this right or are they blowing smoke?
cheers

 

[davo]

One thing I would be interested to know, and this has a lot to do with waiting for new display units to come out, is how fine does the resolution have to get before its not an issue?
You can use the same line of reasoning as with sound. We can only hear between 20hz - 20khz(if you have exceptional hearing abilities) so anything beyond these levels is useless to humans.

The resolution of Ultra High Definition seems to be massive over kill unless you have a display the size of your house and you want to sit 1 meter away from it.
For Joe Average with 50" screen veiwed from 3-4 meters, when does it become a non-issue?

I had this conversation with someone last night and they had this figure of 72 pixels per sq inch was top of our seeing abilities. I didnt get around to arguing veiwing distance.

 

[BMXTRIX]

MACCA350: The information on Projector Central is pretty darn accurate. There is also a line about 1080/24p. Where if you have a display that accepts and displays natively at 1080/24p you will get the absolute 'perfect' image. I would tend to think that any display that can't do 1080/24p in the future is not for me. What is not mentioned is judder. That is, 1080/24p does NOT divide evenly into 60 frames per second. So, you get 2 of one frame, then 3 of the next frame. That works out to 60 frames per second from the 24 original. In panning shots, they may not appear smooth since every other frame is held on screen for 50% longer.

But, the info about 1080i vs. 1080p for display on a 1080p/60 screen when the source is 1080/24p is dead on. A decent display should result in absolutely ZERO difference between the two. Now, video shot at 1080/60p can NOT be deinterlaced to 1080/60i and then back to 1080/60p without a 50% loss in resolution. But, that really isn't relavent at this point.

DAVO: The approximate viewing distance to screen size is what matters for being able to see individual pixels. It should be noted that a single pixel is difficult to distinguish if screen door is minimal on the display, such as from a good DLP projector, which also makes things difficult. Sound and Vision did a article on visual acquity which is the distance a person with 20/20 vision needs to be from a screen with a specific resolution to eliminate visible individual pixels. Just under 1.5x screen width for a 1080p display is about the magic number. So, a 8 foot wide screen (about 110" diagonal) puts the viewer at 12 feet. FYI: This also happens to match up with THX standard optimal viewing distance.

 

[Rob Babcock]

My (probably vain) hope is that in the future, as digital cameras banish film to the dustbin of history, movies will be "shot" (since I can't say filmed ) at higher framerates to remove motion blur and create more solid reproduction of movement. The 24 fps of modern film is a compromise between decent image quality and economy- you could do 60 fps with film but the expense would be great and the film rolls would be huge. Plus, in a digital age the frame rate could be synched with the display device, although we still need to deal with all the "legacy" stuff on film.

 

[davo]

Sound and Vision did a article on visual acquity which is the distance a person with 20/20 vision needs to be from a screen with a specific resolution to eliminate visible individual pixels. Just under 1.5x screen width for a 1080p display is about the magic number. So, a 8 foot wide screen (about 110" diagonal) puts the viewer at 12 feet. FYI: This also happens to match up with THX standard optimal viewing distance.

That info is just what I was after, so thanks for that. It is so much easier to plan a home theatre setup when you know how far you need to aspire to with your equipment. So unless I absolutely need a bigger screen(I know some people will) then a 1080/60 projector will suffice for the life of the projector and me, not inc lamp.

Nirvana is in sight...

 

[ejlmoney]

Thanks for the information it is helpful.

Let me clarify my position on the drive to HD. I think that 1080P will really show off what HD can be & HD-DVD/Blu-Ray will be that cutting edge media. That said, I think "Joe 6 pack" will adopt HD not because of the movies (HD DVD/Blu-Ray) but due to the available NFL, NASCAR, MLB, NBA, etc games in broadcast HD.
Personally, I can say that 50% of the reason I put in my theater was to watch the NFL, College football, & college basketball in HD on a 92" screen. For me, I can see no reason to upgrade to 1080P when broadcasters have no plans to make it available for sports.

Perhaps I'll change my tune when I see a movie in 1080P from a 1080P source........

 

[Duffinator]

I was in Boston this week and had a chance to see the new Sony 60" 1080P set with the Sony BD DVD player using a Sony demo disc at a Sony store. Wow was it impressive looking. The player was not for sale but the sales guy said it was the same one that would be for sale in late October. I wish they would get the HD formats unified so I'll have an excuse to buy a new set.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I was in Boston this week and had a chance to see the new Sony 60" 1080P set with the Sony BD DVD player using a Sony demo disc at a Sony store. Wow was it impressive looking. The player was not for sale but the sales guy said it was the same one that would be for sale in late October. I wish they would get the HD formats unified so I'll have an excuse to buy a new set.

Did you by chance compare it with a standard def DVD in that player?
Was that TV calibrated you think?

 

[Duffinator]

Did you by chance compare it with a standard def DVD in that player?
Was that TV calibrated you think?

No I didn't and I doubt the TV was calibrated but it looked goooood. I was on a business trip and just happened to walk by after dinner with a co-worker that has no interest in electronic toys. It was a Sony store and they were pushing the 1080P to 1080P angle. I've read the Toshiba HD DVD players do an outstanding job of upconverting to 1080i.

Has anyone seen seen an upconverted standard definition DVD on the Samsung or Sony BD DVD players to either 1080i or P?