HD ready and Full HD

[PostmanPot]

Thanks for the explanation genetic, that clears up a few things.

So HD broadcasters like MC (& Sky in UK for example) purposefully choose to use the 1080i format even though from a bitrate point of view 720p/1080i are roughly similar thus costing more or less the same (in satellite transponder capacity). What I dont get is, if 720p is deemed superior (by the likes of Potman and his experts) why would the engineering professionals/management of these companies make such a choice?

I've only had my HDPVR for a few weeks, so have only been viewing (native) 1080i with no complaints. Was watching the athletics last night and the feed from Zurich (I think) was clear, sharp & fluid at 1080i. I cannot image how reducing it to 720p is going to give me a superior viewing experience?

Lol @ "Potman and his experts". Maybe because I/we like sport, or more vertical lines/definition/clarity?

[video=youtube;Z-JXfyvlPh0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-JXfyvlPh0[/video]

*edit*

Athletics is not fast paced sport! Why not put on some Roland Garros, and then come tell us how fluid your 50Hz entry LCD is.

 

[Quantum Theory]

Trying to explain a concept to people who think they know everything, is like continuously running into a brick wall. Easier to just walk around (or climb over) the wall and continue on your path.

 

[Zenbaas]

Trying to explain a concept to people who think they know everything, is like continuously running into a brick wall. Easier to just walk around (or climb over) the wall and continue on your path.

Shhhhh...he's already won the internetz...no further discussions necessary

 

[genetic]

So HD broadcasters like MC (& Sky in UK for example) purposefully choose to use the 1080i format even though from a bitrate point of view 720p/1080i are roughly similar thus costing more or less the same (in satellite transponder capacity). What I dont get is, if 720p is deemed superior (by the likes of Potman and his experts) why would the engineering professionals/management of these companies make such a choice?

Not sure why they choose 1080i over 720p - possibly because of interlaced's legacy in the broadcasting industry.

 

[Roman4604]

Maybe because I/we like sport, or more vertical lines/definition/clarity?

Watched your video and I disagree with this guy ... today in 2011. This segment comes from 2007, and since then the signal processing/manipulation performance of even budget sets able to compensate for any distortion/artifacting of vertical edges moving horizontally in 1080i. With proper setup I dont get any percievable corruption even if I look close up on the HD channels.

Athletics is not fast paced sport! Why not put on some Roland Garros, and then come tell us how fluid your 50Hz entry LCD is

Oh yes there are, try longjump, highjump, javelin etc. plenty of high speed horizontal movement. And yes I have been watch the French Open, again the 1080i feed is sharp & fluid with no perceivable edge corruption or artifacting.

Trying to explain a concept to people who think they know everything

Yes like the engineering professionals/mgmt that design & operate some of the largest broacasters in the world. Why aren't you in their jobs making the 'right' choice?

 

[Quantum Theory]

Yes like the engineering professionals/mgmt that design & operate some of the largest broacasters in the world. Why aren't you in their jobs making the 'right' choice?

Because you would obviously be better qualified. Can't compete with guys like you... Look at my post at the top of this page. The MC engineer agreed with me and said that sport will definitely go back to 720p. Movies will apparently be shown in 1080i, because there is not so much fast motion. This gives you lots of virtual resolution, on screens with good image processing.

 

[PostmanPot]

...on screens with good image processing.

Such as the LAxxC530? I've heard it's phenomenal.

There is no point in 100Hz LCDs. Total marketing bs.

 

[Roman4604]

Because you would obviously be better qualified.

But its these qualified people you're taking to task.

This is much bigger than MC, many other major broadcasters around the world use 1080i exclusively, for instance BSkyB. So in essence the experts here are claiming that the CTO (and/or exec team) are incompetent at their positions for strategically choosing the 1080i format for all their broadcasts (inc sport).

Sorry if this doesnt gel for me, (sports) broadcasting is a competitive space and I cant see why they would chose an inferior format ... all their customers would run away if the superiority of 720p was so plain to see.

The MC engineer agreed with me and said that sport will definitely go back to 720p.

Fair enough lets see what happens. As above the question still begs, why did they switch exclusively to 1080i recently?

 

[PostmanPot]

...sports broadcasting is a competitive space and I cant see why they would chose an inferior format...

 

[genetic]

Look, PostmanPot, in all due respect, I think Roman4604 is asking very valid questions, but you are not providing a valid argument, and instead are just shooting him down for the sake of it. I doubt you really know how to answer his questions.

 

[PostmanPot]

Look, PostmanPot, in all due respect, I think Roman4604 is asking very valid questions, but you are not providing a valid argument, and instead are just shooting him down for the sake of it. I doubt you really know how to answer his questions.

Apologies for getting a bit ahead of myself. Yes some questions are valid and interesting.

I am echoing Quantum's post re brick wall. I have no words. It is a fact that motion (sport) is better on 720p. Yet Roman still doesn't want to digest it, because "it/athletics's motion appears good enough to him in 1080i", and continues building straw-man arguments. I will try and sit back and observe from now on.

 

[Zenbaas]

Look, PostmanPot, in all due respect, I think Roman4604 is asking very valid questions, but you are not providing a valid argument, and instead are just shooting him down for the sake of it. I doubt you really know how to answer his questions.

It's give and take on both ends but Roman does not give a single inch hence all the frustration. Difficult to debate with someone who know everything

 

[Roman4604]

Difficult to debate with someone who know everything

But I'm the one posing the questions. I'm trying to figure out why certain notions taken as fact around here, dont reconcile with evidence in the real world.

 

[PostmanPot]

But I'm the one posing the questions. I'm trying to figure out why certain notions taken as fact around here, dont reconcile with evidence in the real world.

Evidence in the real world is that 720p > 1080i, especially for motion. This can be sport, a car driving/high speed chases, a train/helicopter/aeroplane travelling, waves, animals running, etc.. It doesn't matter how advanced your Series 5's internal processing is. If you need more than our opinions (some being experts), then perhaps you should Google it for a more objective understanding?

 

[sn3rd]

Evidence in the real world is that 720p > 1080i, especially for motion. This can be sport, a car driving/high speed chases, a train/helicopter/aeroplane travelling, waves, animals running, etc.. It doesn't matter how advanced your Series 5's internal processing is. If you need more than our opinions (some being experts), then perhaps you should Google it for a more objective understanding?

I disagree that it's a cut-and-dried result. In my experience, sometimes 720p is better (especially when panning), and sometimes 1080i is better (particularly for fixed-camera situations).

At the end of the day, either is adequate, and various other factors (refresh rate, etc) play a much more significant role in determining video quality than simply 720p vs 1080i.

 

[PostmanPot]

...and various other factors (refresh rate, etc)...

And things like a Series 5 50Hz entry LCD having good enough internal processing (and refresh rate) to have no motion blur which can result from 1080 interlaced as per the video I posted?

 

[Roman4604]

And things like a Series 5 50Hz entry LCD having good enough internal processing (and refresh rate) to have no motion blur which can result from 1080 interlaced as per the video I posted?

There is no point in 100Hz LCDs. Total marketing bs.

No, but the tangible benefit is up to the individual.

With 100/120Hz set you're getting a more powerful/faster DSP (& RAM), operating at twice the input frequency. Since the panel is displaying double the source frame rate, it provides the DSP double the opportunity to the re-calculate and alter each soucre frame (i.e. run its interpolation/filtering algorithms) into two transtional frames (four for interlaced).

This does provide a smoother transition between frames with more accurate/granular interpolation and imperfection filtering. The downside is none of this this additional frame data is real (from source) its all mathematically derived leading to a certain level of fakeness to the image.

My previous set was a LG Flatron 100Hz CRT, so when I went looking for a new one I had the mindset of not wanting to downgrade from 100Hz. But after after quite a bit of testing at various stores, the conclusion I came to was that the tangilbe difference between name-brand 50Hz and 100Hz was not enough to sway me.

Dont get me wrong the differences are there, more so for SD than HD where the DSP is also contending with upscaling the image. But ultimately for me I couldn't reconcile the increase in price (~ double) with the increase in tangible benefit (inc better contrast/blacker blacks provided by the LED illumitation of most 100Hz sets).

 

[PostmanPot]

It would seem your eyesight isn't as good as you claim.

That and/or you aren't into motion (sport).

 

[Tim182]

No, but the tangible benefit is up to the individual.

With 100/120Hz set you're getting a more powerful/faster DSP (& RAM), operating at twice the input frequency. Since the panel is displaying double the source frame rate, it provides the DSP double the opportunity to the re-calculate and alter each soucre frame (i.e. run its interpolation/filtering algorithms) into two transtional frames (four for interlaced).

This does provide a smoother transition between frames with more accurate/granular interpolation and imperfection filtering. The downside is none of this this additional frame data is real (from source) its all mathematically derived leading to a certain level of fakeness to the image.

My previous set was a LG Flatron 100Hz CRT, so when I went looking for a new one I had the mindset of not wanting to downgrade from 100Hz. But after after quite a bit of testing a various stores, the conclusion I came to was that the tangilbe difference between name-brand 50Hz and 100Hz was not enough to sway me.

Dont get me wrong the differences are there, more so for SD than HD where the DSP is also contending with upscaling the image. But ultimately for me I couldn't reconcile the increase in price (~ double) with the increase in tangile benefit (inc better contrast/blacker blacks provided by the LED illumitation of most 100Hz sets).

+1, agree with your point 100%.

 

[sn3rd]

And things like a Series 5 50Hz entry LCD having good enough internal processing (and refresh rate) to have no motion blur which can result from 1080 interlaced as per the video I posted?

Progressive vs interlaced actually has nothing to do with motion blur.