Why a push to have 1080i content when TVs are 720?

[TNGTony]

This may be a stupid question, but I started to wonder. Why are the HD faithfull compling about TV shows in 720p resolution when most TVs I see in the stores have a native resolution of 768 lines?

I will be the first to admit I know nothing about the new technology and the people who sell the stuff just make things up as they go along. Anyway, I don't want to start a holy war here. I am just wondering why the push to get something now that most TVs one can buy do not have the technical ability to show?

See ya
Tony

 

[rockymtnhigh]

Not 100 percent sure, but it seems to me that the bulk of the cheaper sets are 720p; and that the smaller LCDs tend to also be 720p. But the larger, more expensive sets tend to be 1080i or increasingly 1080p.

 

[VinceT3]

I've had a TV that supports 1080 for over a year. I appreciate the extra clarity I get from it. I also have a second TV that's only 720, now that TV is half the size, so the extra resolution isn't as relevent.

The higher resolutions are most compelling for those who have TV's in the 50+ inch range, that's when you'll start to notice the difference in resolutions. (Most new higher end TV's coming out within the next couple of years will be 1080p, there will always be the cheeper lower resolution TV's)

The resolution isn't quite as important as the compression of the picture. Over compression causes very difficult to watch certain senarios on TV's of that size.

Now I believe and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, that the compression used minimizes what's sent by generally showing differences between the each frame. They can restart the process by sending a specific type of frame that includes the entire images, but doing that pretty much costs bandwidth, so what is generally done is they just keep sending the differences even when the image has changed so drastically that it would require a restart. This starts that blurring effect that can give people headaches, make them dizzy, sick, etc. ('ve personally seen this and had to look away or change the channel when I see this)

We generally see this durring sporting events because well, they're moving at a high rate that requires more restarts. To resolve this most sporting events are dropped in resolution to 720 which uses less bandwidth and can more easily handle this. But again this is done at the cost of image clarity, which most sporting fans are ok with.

Most complaints come from the satellite method of mudding the picture to a non-standard format. They generally keep the rows (1080) and drop the number of columns (1920, aka the columns that make you're wide screen wide) to something in the 1440 or 1280 range. I'm not sure what they do here, most likely use software to make up the lines, giving us roughly a 1080 picture ment for a 4x3 screen, faked to a 16x9. Basically you're paying for 1080 or 720 and not even getting what you're paying for. If it were free, hey couldn't really complains, just find a new source, but when you're contracted into a system who gives you substandard picture for a premium price, thats where the complaints begin.

Hopefully that explains what people are complaining about and why, and hopefully I was correct.

 

[TNGTony]

Thanks for the info about the vertical LOR issue. But still, most TVs I see out there only have 1300 or so columns of pixels.

As to the horizontal LOR

I understand that the sets out there now SUPPORT 1080i and 1080p. But if you look at the actual resolution capability of TVs as expensive as $3000 have only 768 rows of pixels.

For example, here is a Panasonic TH58PX60U which is an awesome looking TV in the showroom and sells for $4000 on sale has native reolution of 1366 x 768 pixels. If I understand that correctly, there are 1366 columns and 768 rows of pixels that make up the picture. If you feed this TV 1080 rows and 1980 columns of of info, it still only displays it using 768 x 1366 lines. The advantage on 1080i would then only be the refresh rate. The advantage of 1080p would be negligible. (48 lines out of 768).

So what am I missing here? $4000 still considered low end for a TV?

I have found some Hitachi TVs with native resolutions of 1024 x 1080 but they bill themselves as World's highest resolution 42". But when I look at them in the show room, they look "fuzzy" by comparison.

I'm not saying that 1080 isn't better, I am saying that, since most TVs out there and most TVs that people have purchased only have the capability of displaying 768 lines of vertical resolution and 1300 or so lines of hodizontal resolution, what is the big deal about 720p or downresed 1080i to 1400 lines of horizontal res? Again the vast majority of TVs do not display (though they might support) 1900 lines?

See ya
Tony

 

[rglore]

When you get a large 1080p set and see a sporting event sent in good HD, it's a whole new experience. I can see on my 56" 1080p set every detail of the players facial expressions and their eyes, not just enough to tell who they are. It's like being there setting on the front row. My wife even watches football games now and enjoys them. She's never watched a complete football game before in her whole life. I also have a 30" direct view HD and it's just not the same experience as the 56".

Also, resolution is very important to be able to see this detail. Because of reduced bandwidth, much of the detail is lost when there is motion but it returns when things calm down. 720p has less motion bluring but 1080i has finer detail on relatively still scenes. If you're going to buy a new HD set, go for 1080p, else you will not be getting the full HD experience.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

When you get a large 1080p set and see a sporting event sent in good HD, it's a whole new experience. I can see on my 56" 1080p set every detail of the players facial expressions and their eyes, not just enough to tell who they are. It's like being there setting on the front row. My wife even watches football games now and enjoys them. She's never watched a complete football game before in her whole life. I also have a 30" direct view HD and it's just not the same experience as the 56".

Also, resolution is very important to be able to see this detail. Because of reduced bandwidth, much of the detail is lost when there is motion but it returns when things calm down. 720p has less motion bluring but 1080i has finer detail on relatively still scenes. If you're going to buy a new HD set, go for 1080p, else you will not be getting the full HD experience.

But since nothing is broadcast in 1080p except for HD/BlueRay DVDs, why does it matter? Or does the set do an upconvert?

 

[TNGTony]

Again, I understand in concept how 1080 is better than 720, but in reality while watching football OTA (not cable, not downresed, right off the air) games on ABC (720p) and CBS (1080i) I really see no important difference on my TV. And in some ways the 720p picture looks sharper. I am looking at this through a 32" LCD 768 x 1366 screen. Again, no matter how many lines the original signal has, the TV (and most TVs on the shelves today) have a maximum resolution of 768x1366. I'm wondering if the TVs did not display the resolution they are receiving if people could really see the diffence.

I also spent hours comparing the OTA signal to the cable QAM signal. I was looking for all sorts of artifacting. I did a blind test with a friend flipping the switch randomly. I could not tell which was the cable signal and which was the OTA singal. I was only able to guess correctly about half the time (i.e. luck!)

See ya
Tony

 

[VinceT3]

Thanks for the info about the vertical LOR issue. But still, most TVs I see out there only have 1300 or so columns of pixels.

Depends on where you look. My TV has litterally 1920 x 1080 pixels. Giving it 1080p support, mind you it only up converts to this since nothing really supports that standard. If you look at TV's other than LCD especially the rear projection TV's you'll see almost all of them are 1080p now. I've seen a 62" 1080p from Sony marked down to under 2000 dollars just because a newer model came out.

I wouldn't say most TV's are 720p, it really depends on where you are and where you look. The area I'm in caters to the pretty high end, so other than Walmart and Target you don't see as many 720p Tv's anymore.

However visiting my wifes mom who lives in a much more rural area, 720p is mostly what you find.

 

[TNGTony]

I was just at about 5 different stores today before I landed on a Hitachi 42" plasma (1080 x 1366). Almost all the other sets in the same price range had a native resolution of 768 x 1366. Many TV sets supported 1080p. Very few had 1080 rows of pixels on the screen Thanks for the reply.

I am never impressed by "what's coming" until it is actually in the pipeline.

See ya
Tony

 

[cybertrip]

My Samsung HL-S6187 supports 1080p and has a native resolution of 1920x1080. This TV only cost me $2600. Not bad at all.

 

[VinceT3]

I think you're confused with 1080p and 1080i

The only thing that supported 1080i natively without up or down converting was CRT's and they are a thing of the distanct past now.

The only way to take 1080 p or i on an LCD/Plasma/DLP is to have enough pixels to display each one. Which by doing that in essence gives you 1080p support. 1080p wasn't supposed on most of the TV's that first came out that high, because they never expected anyone to use it since nothing supported it. Now that Bluray & HD-DVD support it, the TV manufactures are enabling it.

So to answer the questions you haven't been asking.

Why get a 1080p when nothing supports it?
A) 1920 x 1080 pixels are required to display 1080i without down grading the picture.
B) Bluray. HD-DVD, Xbox 360, and PS3 all support 1080p

 

[TNGTony]

:sigh:

I think you are missing my point and in your reply you made my point for me...

You said: "The only way to take 1080 p or i on an LCD/Plasma/DLP is to have enough pixels to display each one. Which by doing that in essence gives you 1080p support."

I said: Most TVs I saw in the stores just this week ranging in price from $1200-$4000 have 768 horizontal lines of resolution (native resolution).

This means that 1080 lines have to be downconverted to 768 lines. My question remains...for the average joe with a new TV that didn't cost $5000 what is the advantage of 1080i (or p) over 720p? 48 lines?

BTW over the weekend I bought my second "new" TV in a month... (boy that hurts)...this time a Hitachi 42" plasma with 1080 HLoR. Looks great! But you know last night's game on a local channel rebroadcasting ESPN HD on their native 720p was just awesome! (the outcome of the game wasn't, but the picture was).

See ya
Tony