high def vs standard def

[harshness]

No, he's a Dish customer. Enough said.

Yeah, nobody defends DIRECTV's business decisions as staunchly I do.

Of course those who think know that the problem isn't the carriers, it is the programmers who bundle the channels. Knowing where to attack is 90% of the battle.

 

[ejb1980]

720p is HD and 1080i is HD. It's not lower quality. If it was, I don't think prominent broadcasters like all Disney (Disney, ABC, ESPN etc) and all Fox owned channels (Fox, FX, all Fox Sports channels) would use 720p.

Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!

 

[harshness]

720p is HD and 1080i is HD. It's not lower quality. If it was, I don't think prominent broadcasters like all Disney (Disney, ABC, ESPN etc) and all Fox owned channels (Fox, FX, all Fox Sports channels) would use 720p.

They're using it because they committed to it, not because it was as good. ESPN reasoned that "104 mph fastballs in baseball and 120 mph shots on goal in hockey" must be better in progressive scan mode. The fallacy of their reasoning is that the human eye does some pretty amazing interpolation and the greater detail of 1080i typically wins out in perceived image quality.

Further supporting their reasoning may have been that many of the HDTVs at the time had less than 800 rows of pixels.

 

[lnbchris]

They're using it because they committed to it, not because it was as good. ESPN reasoned that "104 mph fastballs in baseball and 120 mph shots on goal in hockey" must be better in progressive scan mode. The fallacy of their reasoning is that the human eye does some pretty amazing interpolation and the greater detail of 1080i typically wins out in perceived image quality.

Further supporting their reasoning may have been that many of the HDTVs at the time had less than 800 rows of pixels.

I tried both 1080i and 720p, using both cable and satellite, and would have to agree that the image definition seems to be better at 1080i. I don't really watch a lot of video that was originally shot at 60FPS or even 30FPS since I mostly use it for older movies. In my case it makes sense to use 1080i. Then if/when 1080p becomes more prevalent I will naturally add those to my collection as well. I would just need a device which would be capable of encoding that.

 

[texasbrit]

Most 1080p material is 1080p/24 (which is what DirecTV uses for some PPV movies), that's because movies have traditionally been filmed at 24 fps. And 1080i contains the same information (and uses higher bandwidth). I doubt you are going to see much more material in 1080p, even at 60Hz, with 4K on its way.

 

[Jimbo]

They're using it because they committed to it, not because it was as good. ESPN reasoned that "104 mph fastballs in baseball and 120 mph shots on goal in hockey" must be better in progressive scan mode. The fallacy of their reasoning is that the human eye does some pretty amazing interpolation and the greater detail of 1080i typically wins out in perceived image quality.

Further supporting their reasoning may have been that many of the HDTVs at the time had less than 800 rows of pixels.

I disagree ...

 

[Jimbo]

I tried both 1080i and 720p, using both cable and satellite, and would have to agree that the image definition seems to be better at 1080i. I don't really watch a lot of video that was originally shot at 60FPS or even 30FPS since I mostly use it for older movies. In my case it makes sense to use 1080i. Then if/when 1080p becomes more prevalent I will naturally add those to my collection as well. I would just need a device which would be capable of encoding that.

Don't hold your breath waiting ...

 

[lnbchris]

I do not consider 720p to be Low def
720p is where the HD starts ...

720p has more info to work with than 1080i

If we went back to Progressive viewing, 1080i is less than 720p at 540p.

No, I don't want to go into it all night, just pointing it out.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this still, but I have read from reputable sources that 720p and 1080i have very similar bandwidth, but that similarity is more or less averaged out among different types of programming. For instance, sports which pan around a lot will most likely make less efficient use of 1080i.

As far as I can tell, only the parts of the image which have actually moved from frame to frame need to be changed when displayed in H.264. 1080i interlacing can easily be observed on a computer that is playing a 1080i video, and is either too loaded down or not up to the task. The moving (transient) components will have a "horizontal blind" appearance, only showing up in the parts of the frame which have actually moved, not the entire image at all times.

So the basic concept is that 1080i does much better than 540p, on the average. Those who say that the average similarity in bandwidth between 1080i and 720p alone tells us that there is nearly a 33% improvement on average over just doubling/halving the lines. But nevertheless it could be closer to that for sports.

 

[lnbchris]

Don't hold your breath waiting ...

LOL No, my HD-PVR2 are like gold to me though.

 

[Jimbo]

I'm trying to wrap my head around this still, but I have read from reputable sources that 720p and 1080i have very similar bandwidth, but that similarity is more or less averaged out among different types of programming. For instance, sports which pan around a lot will most likely make less efficient use of 1080i.

As far as I can tell, only the parts of the image which have actually moved from frame to frame need to be changed when displayed in H.264. 1080i interlacing can easily be observed on a computer that is playing a 1080i video, and is either too loaded down or not up to the task. The moving (transient) components will have a "horizontal blind" appearance, only showing up in the parts of the frame which have actually moved, not the entire image at all times.

So the basic concept is that 1080i does much better than 540p, on the average. Those who say that the average similarity in bandwidth between 1080i and 720p alone tells us that there is nearly a 33% improvement on average over just doubling/halving the lines. But nevertheless it could be closer to that for sports.

I look at it a little different ..
A 1080i signal is great in normal situations, like if your watching a comedy or a typical show or the news or things that basically don't move much.
The Interlace being only 1/2 the signal at any time makes this possible.

However, when you need fast moving shows, NFL, Hockey whatnot, progressive signal is better for that type of situation as the Whole screen is filled every time it's populated.

 

[lnbchris]

Most 1080p material is 1080p/24 (which is what DirecTV uses for some PPV movies), that's because movies have traditionally been filmed at 24 fps. And 1080i contains the same information (and uses higher bandwidth). I doubt you are going to see much more material in 1080p, even at 60Hz, with 4K on its way.

Yeah, I think I'll just stick with what I have right now. It works very nicely

 

[lnbchris]

I look at it a little different ..
A 1080i signal is great in normal situations, like if your watching a comedy or a typical show or the news or things that basically don't move much.
The Interlace being only 1/2 the signal at any time makes this possible.

However, when you need fast moving shows, NFL, Hockey whatnot, progressive signal is better for that type of situation as the Whole screen is filled every time it's populated.

So we actually agree, and for all the same reasons. Mainly just different viewing habits. Lots of people on Direct watch sports. I compared Direct and Dish, and besides a couple additional channels I could be enjoying on Dish, the Direct Genie sealed the deal for me.

 

[acostapimps]

I think the HD fee is almost like a leverage for not raising prices to the extreme, thanks to the content providers
although prices is already high and continues to rise, But it could of been at most $300 average for subs or $200 for those that don't pay that much, Although Directv is at fault also as well as content providers for their ridiculous retransmission fees
1.5 billion deal with NFL is one example just to satisfy AT&T possible acquisition, Although Raycom are hampering us subs with their greed for money, and we all will pay for it regardless if locals aren't Raycom owned.

 

[Jimbo]

I think the HD fee is almost like a leverage for not raising prices to the extreme, thanks to the content providers
although prices is already high and continues to rise, But it could of been at most $300 average for subs or $200 for those that don't pay that much, Although Directv is at fault also as well as content providers for their ridiculous retransmission fees
1.5 billion deal with NFL is one example just to satisfy AT&T possible acquisition, Although Raycom are hampering us subs with their greed for money, and we all will pay for it regardless if locals aren't Raycom owned.

Don't think that D* would not have got the NFL package done without att's help, they just made it easier ...
Remember, D* has managed to acquire the ST for all these years on it's own, with exclusivity to boot.

 

[acostapimps]

Yeah without ST it would really kill the company with so many fans especially in sport bars, but that doesn't mean everybody would leave in droves, since all games are locals anyway besides MNF, only for those that's interested with OOM games would possibly switch or cord cut, I guess everybody wants every sports channels available but their bill the same price every year

 

[edisonprime]

I do not consider 720p to be Low def
720p is where the HD starts ...

720p has more info to work with than 1080i

If we went back to Progressive viewing, 1080i is less than 720p at 540p.

No, I don't want to go into it all night, just pointing it out.

480i and 480p are standard definition. 720p is low resolution hi-definition, not low def. 1080i and 1080p are high resolution high definition. 1080 is higher than 720. 2160i and 2160p are 4K UHD; and 4320i and 4320p are 8K UHD.

 

[raoul5788]

480i and 480p are standard definition. 720p is low resolution hi-definition, not low def. 1080i and 1080p are high resolution high definition. 1080 is higher than 720. 2160i and 2160p are 4K UHD; and 4320i and 4320p are 8K UHD.

Can you provide some proof that 720p is considered low def by someone other than you?
Edit: Sorry, I meant to type low resolution hd.

 

[ejb1980]

Can you provide some proof that 720p is considered low def by someone other than you?

I do not think such information exists.

Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!

 

[edisonprime]

Can you provide some proof that 720p is considered low def by someone other than you?
Edit: Sorry, I meant to type low resolution hd.

It's considered low resolution because 720 is lower than 1080. You do know that 720 means 720 pixels and 1080 means 1080 pixels. It's about the amount of pixels.

 

[raoul5788]

You do know that p means progressive, showing the entire picture at once, yes? Pixel count isn't the only factor in picture quality.