1080i vs 1080p vs 720p

[Tony Tremble]

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

Ken, just how close are you actually sitting in front of your TV? There was a chart recently that talked about viewing distance and HD resolutions and prety much any TV 50" or smaller with a viewing distance of 10' of more would gain nothing at all by using any resolution higher then 720p. It is my understanding that most HDTV's sold are either 42" or 50" and sit in living rooms with at least a 8' or 10' viewing distance.

I was going to mention this too.

The "Full HD 1080P" is another corporate led initiative to get people to buy a new set when they really don't need to.

In tests with the most popular HDTV size screens and at normal viewing distances consumers are not seeing the difference between 1080i and 1080P and that's on 1080P screens. The more the image is moving the less the resolution is important and other factors dominate. But we know that because we know that HDV/MPEG et al work.

I read another report on 2k vs 4k in cinemas and it came to the conclusion that 4k was OTT because the vast majority of screens in multiplexes are far too small to gain any benefit whatsoever. There will be only a hand full of people who'll ever see 4k. But even then as soon as the image moves the brain's ability to "see" the detail drops like a stone and the image might as well be 2k!

TT

[John Miller]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Yes John, with out NTSC system, many broadcasts suffered quite badly from interlaced artifacts when viewing on a standard NTSC TV. Once pointed out, you'll see them forever. You can certainly see them with a larger screen or relatively close viewing distance. As I said, at my same distance with HDTV, these artifacts are essentially gone...with 1080i or 720p.

Curious. I usually have a critical eye and must just be blind to them (NTSC). I'm sensitive to other odd-ball vision things - such as the red LEDs on transmission towers (I can tell if they are strobed or continuous) and a similar trend with cars' brake lights. And, when I now see PAL material, I find the image too flickery. I must have become used to 59.94i vs 50i.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Tony Tremble

I was going to mention this too.

The "Full HD 1080P" is another corporate led initiative to get people to buy a new set when they really don't need to.

In tests with the most popular HDTV size screens and at normal viewing distances consumers are not seeing the difference between 1080i and 1080P and that's on 1080P screens. TT

Well Tony it's not just the difference between 'i' and 'p', it's more the difference between flat panels that are the norm today (1366X768) vs full rez (1920X1080) panels that are just coming out. In fact today there are only 2 full rez plasmas on the market, a 65" Panasonic and a 50" Pioneer. There are of course many full rez LCDs. People often get confused when they see the 'p' in the 1080p thinking that all they're gaining is going from interlaced to progressive. The fact is that virtually all LCDs & plasma panels sold are progressive, but of the lower, 1366X768 resolution. Fujitsu and Hitachi make an interlaced plasma (ALIS) that does 1080X1080, but that's the only one of its breed that I'm aware of.

So you can see if you're in the plasma market (where the best flat panel pictures are), going to 1080p means you're really going up considerably in the resolution of the display.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by John F Miller

Curious. I usually have a critical eye and must just be blind to them (NTSC). I'm sensitive to other odd-ball vision things - such as the red LEDs on transmission towers (I can tell if they are strobed or continuous) and a similar trend with cars' brake lights. And, when I now see PAL material, I find the image too flickery. I must have become used to 59.94i vs 50i.

I guess it's kind of like the sensitivity that some people have to 'rainbows' in DLPs. Some people see it and it drives them nuts and others simply don't see them at all. I wish I didn't see all these artifacts...it makes finding the ideal display so much more difficult.

[Tom Roper]

This is a very interesting discussion, many good observations from the perspective of personal experience, but also exactly how wrong characterizations are made about a technology as a whole. I'm always surprised how many people shooting HDV are viewing it only on PC/Mac monitors.

Originally Posted by Tony Tremble

In tests with the most popular HDTV size screens and at normal viewing distances consumers are not seeing the difference between 1080i and 1080P and that's on 1080P screens.

Very few have actually seen the true native 1080p60. 1080p24/25/30 is the norm. It's the same bitrate as 1080i60 or less. Upscaling the frame rate to 1080p60 for newer high resolution progressive displays does not alter the fact.

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

The other thing that's simply ignored is the quality of the deinterlacer & scaler in the display itself. A high quality display with high quality scalers and deinterlacers will provide a 1920X1080 picture that's almost completely devoid of interlaced artifacts.

While true, you can't control what type of monitor the viewer is using. This makes progressive the safer bet for the largest audience. Personally, I prefer 1080i60 right now for the same reasons as you.

[Thomas Smet]

But how much this is really a greed factor? Most consumers right now are fine watching DVD on their HDTV's. They really do look very good if they are done right and are progressive to begin with. lets face it most of us are image freaks but the other 98% of the people on the planet are not. In a way it is almost like a SACD thing. Yes it is better but guess what, most humans could really give a rats rump. In fact most people cannot tell the difference and they may never will.

To me HD should have been a way to move away from the restrictions we have had with NTSC and boost the quality to look good on a large screen display. 720p can and does do that. Yes most plasmas are only 13666x768 and most consumers love them to death if they are using them in the correct way.

The way I look at it is that if many consumers are happy with a 480P DVD then why couldn't 720p be enough of a quality boost to move us into the future? 720p would have been more then enough to impress most consumers. I mean this is sort of like saying a Honda CRV isn't good enough and you have to have a Hummer or you don't really have an SUV.

Of course certain forms of 1080p "could" have more detail but the whole point is that maybe only 5% of the whole world actually has the right stuff to really see the difference. Of that 5% maybe only a small portion know how to actually see that difference. Most consumers will not compareside by side either and I bet you if you broadcast something in 1080i on Monday and then broadcast as 720p on Tuesday they would never tell the difference.

As for cable providers, this is how silly this really is. Ken you say that 1080i can look great but only with a certain provider. This should tell you right away that 1080i is harder to deal with or it would all look good. The fact is that 1080i is tough to encode and decode with the same level of quality as 720p. Yes a darn good encoder may be able to pull off some sweet stuff but not every broadcaster can do this. I have no idea how many HD providers there are but to make this simple lets just say there are 10. That means that maybe only 1/10 people ever get to see 1080i HD at a decent level of quality.

Resolution is not everything.

I also never said my HD looked bad from Charter. In fact I think it looks very good. Maybe it isn't the best but I have been somewhat happy with the quality so far. My 720p look perfect. Even if they reduce the bitrate or use a so so encoder that kind of makes the whole point here. 720p is easier to keep a consistant level of quality no matter who or how it is broadcast and that is what I thought a broadcast standard should be. 1080i can be all over the place and no consumer can ever be sure what they are going to get.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

As for cable providers, this is how silly this really is. Ken you say that 1080i can look great but only with a certain provider. This should tell you right away that 1080i is harder to deal with or it would all look good. The fact is that 1080i is tough to encode and decode with the same level of quality as 720p. Yes a darn good encoder may be able to pull off some sweet stuff but not every broadcaster can do this. I have no idea how many HD providers there are but to make this simple lets just say there are 10. That means that maybe only 1/10 people ever get to see 1080i HD at a decent level of quality.

Resolution is not everything.

Tom, in discussing Directv, it is a well known fact that they butcher both the HD signal and their SD signal. Trying to fit so many channels in to a narrow pipe just doesn't work. This forces them to use huge amounts of compression, downrez as well as reduce the bitrate. Reducing the bitrate affects both 720p and 1080i. It results in artifacts on both. Sudden changes in lighting, scenes with explosions or fireworks, all result in a pixellization that is independent of 1080i or 720p. They have well deserved the reputation of being the "HD Lite" provider. In fact there are lawsuits under way contending they are not delivering the product promised. I myself have watched them go downhill during the 10+ years I had them. As soon as I had an alternative, I switched.

As we move in to the very near future, all displays sold will be 1080p. So like it or not, we're going there. Why not? Yes, I agree with the fact that resolution isn't everything, but if the standard allows 1080p, why not go there? To me it would be foolish to not achieve the highest quality we can within the standard we're working with. But as I say, like it or not, it will happen and is currently happening. In about 3-5 years it will be hard for you to find a 720p display....and IMO that's a good thing.

[Thomas Smet]

Again it is a greed thing. Yes 1080p may look better but very few people will ever notice. 720p would have been more then good enough but 1080i always sounded more impressive to people who didn't really know better. Clearly 1080i is interlaced so it is hard to do so now the holy grail is 1080p 60p which is exactly the same as 720p 60p just with a little bit more detail. Yes perhaps in 3 years there will not be any more 720p displays but a lot of that has to do with marketing and the fact that it just sounds better. Why not go with it? because it costs the consumer more and many of them may not even be able to notice the difference. It is just a way to make more money. They technology keeps moving up before people can even get into it.


Regardless if DirecTV is bad or not, there are a lot of people that have it. Starting this year they are going to have somewhere between 100 and 150 HD channels. To a lot of consumers they would rather have the choice of 100 HD channels then be limited to 20 from a cable provider even if they do look better. It's like VHS vs beta. Beta was better but VHS won because they had 2 hour tapes. The rule of the consumer world is that they don't always go for whats better but for what is either cheaper or what gives them more for the money. Yes the bitrate may be lower and it will harm both 1080i and 720p but the 1080i will suffer more at the reduced bitrate which means for now a lot of cable providers should have stayed with 720p until the world of 1080p 60p was here.

Of course I like 1080p. I also like 720p and find it to be fine and I enjoy it very much on my 50" Perhaps if I had a larger TV I would have wanted a 1080p display but like it or not I am in the norm with thinking a 50" TV is big enough for me right now.

[Marco Wagner]

I now own 4 HDTVs, two of which are identical and the other two (one LCD 32" and the other 42" Plasma). 1080i looks best on ALL 4 displays. Putting a 720p set next to the other set at 1080i with the same ball-game on -720p looks subpar. When a friend brought over some tape shot at 720p AND 1080i I was amazed at how much better the 1080 looked. He was also shooting a local short track race, loads of movement.

720p just doesn't do it for these eyes. It just seems like a hyper 480...

1080i gives that "ah, now that looks nice!" feel to it. I really don't think there'd be a huge visually noticeable difference going to 1080p from i. Sounds like the "You must buy a digital TV" ploy from a couple years ago. The picture never got better on a digital vs. the 5 year old POS I had at that time. In fact it got worse in some cases, but that is a different thread.


my $.02

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

It's like VHS vs beta. Beta was better but VHS won because they had 2 hour tapes. The rule of the consumer world is that they don't always go for whats better but for what is either cheaper or what gives them more for the money.

Sorry, but Beta wasn't better - at least not per se. The truth behind the myth is that Beta machines were always high quality and expensive, from few manufacturers, VHS machines came in a variety of qualities and prices from a variety of manufacturers - JVC licensed the rights.

A friend and I had the chance to test two comparably priced (and expensive) Beta and VHS machines in a lab in the early days, and we were both pretty surprised how comparable they were for picture quality. (Though the Beta machine didn't seem to have as good a drop out compensator.) Subsequently, I saw some pretty ropey VHS machines - but they were far cheaper than any Beta machine on the market.

You have to compare like with like. There was very little difference between VHS and Beta as formats, though I seem to recall VHS tended to be generally ahead with enhancements like hi-fi sound and long play.

[John Miller]

Originally Posted by David Heath

You have to compare like with like. There was very little difference between VHS and Beta as formats, though I seem to recall VHS tended to be generally ahead with enhancements like hi-fi sound and long play.

Sony was ahead of the game with HiFi audio on Betamax - JVC followed more than a year later, copying the same technique - depth multiplexing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betamax suggests that Betamax offered many "firsts" ahead of JVC.

[Ken Hodson]

Originally Posted by Marco Wagner

When a friend brought over some tape shot at 720p AND 1080i I was amazed at how much better the 1080 looked. He was also shooting a local short track race, loads of movement.

Just a question for your observations: What was the cam that shot the dual 1080i and 720p footage. And being that there was loads of movement and you were more impressed with an interlaced image, I am guessing the 720p wasn't shot a 60p?

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

Again it is a greed thing. Yes 1080p may look better but very few people will ever notice. 720p would have been more then good enough but 1080i always sounded more impressive to people who didn't really know better. Clearly 1080i is interlaced so it is hard to do so now the holy grail is 1080p 60p which is exactly the same as 720p 60p just with a little bit more detail. Yes perhaps in 3 years there will not be any more 720p displays but a lot of that has to do with marketing and the fact that it just sounds better. Why not go with it? because it costs the consumer more and many of them may not even be able to notice the difference. It is just a way to make more money. They technology keeps moving up before people can even get into it.


Regardless if DirecTV is bad or not, there are a lot of people that have it. Starting this year they are going to have somewhere between 100 and 150 HD channels. To a lot of consumers they would rather have the choice of 100 HD channels then be limited to 20 from a cable provider even if they do look better. It's like VHS vs beta. Beta was better but VHS won because they had 2 hour tapes. The rule of the consumer world is that they don't always go for whats better but for what is either cheaper or what gives them more for the money. Yes the bitrate may be lower and it will harm both 1080i and 720p but the 1080i will suffer more at the reduced bitrate which means for now a lot of cable providers should have stayed with 720p until the world of 1080p 60p was here.

Of course I like 1080p. I also like 720p and find it to be fine and I enjoy it very much on my 50" Perhaps if I had a larger TV I would have wanted a 1080p display but like it or not I am in the norm with thinking a 50" TV is big enough for me right now.

I think you will find that providers such as Verizon with FIOS will begin to put pressure on other providers for enhanced quality. If FIOS can do it, it can be done. Yes, the started with a brand new infrastructure, but the others will have to catch up as the marketing becomes more intense. Already FIOS is saying they provide the best picture....and they do. Wherever FIOS has shown up, there has been mass defection from Directv HD subs. I don't believe we should cater to the lowest common denominator. I don't believe in 'good enough'. Why not go for the best. I CAN see the difference between the additional detail of 1080i and 1080p will only be better. I CAN see the difference in the gorgeous transfers on many HD DVD movies. So yes, many out there in Joe Six Pack land could care less, but that doesn't mean the industry should cater to this lowest common denominator.

If we did, we'd still be driving Model Ts.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Marco Wagner

I now own 4 HDTVs, two of which are identical and the other two (one LCD 32" and the other 42" Plasma). 1080i looks best on ALL 4 displays. Putting a 720p set next to the other set at 1080i with the same ball-game on -720p looks subpar. When a friend brought over some tape shot at 720p AND 1080i I was amazed at how much better the 1080 looked. He was also shooting a local short track race, loads of movement.

720p just doesn't do it for these eyes. It just seems like a hyper 480...

1080i gives that "ah, now that looks nice!" feel to it. I really don't think there'd be a huge visually noticeable difference going to 1080p from i. Sounds like the "You must buy a digital TV" ploy from a couple years ago. The picture never got better on a digital vs. the 5 year old POS I had at that time. In fact it got worse in some cases, but that is a different thread.


my $.02

Couldn't agree more Marco and this is the common refrain from true videophiles. AVS forum is filled with people who agree that 1080i just provides more of the window effect that we all strive for. 720p is nice, but it just doesn't give quite that same degree of detail that HD is all about. And I agree that the difference going from 720p to 1080i is probably greater than going from 1080i to 1080p.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by John F Miller

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betamax suggests that Betamax offered many "firsts" ahead of JVC.

An interesting article - it does say that there were differences between NTSC and PAL variants, most notably I also never remember the one hour limit with Beta. Maybe there was a significant quality VHS/Beta difference in NTSC machines (at the expense of a time limitation for Beta), which never applied with PAL? I first remember VHS machines appearing in the UK late 1978/early 1979, so a couple of years after the NTSC machines came out, and the comparison we did must have been approximately a year later.

I do remember a service engineer telling me that a big problem with a particular range of Beta machines was a stock fault with the power supply. They weren't any more or less reliable overall, I believe, but they tended to fail at the time of max current - in FF or Rewind. Since the tape wound laced up (unlike VHS), and access to the power supply was via the tape deck, repair inevitably meant destruction of the tape - a big problem at the time as rental tapes were vastly more expensive in real terms than now. In the end his shop just stopped stocking Betamax machines.