Attention: The forums will be placed on read only mode this Saturday (Oct. 20, 2018)

During this outage (6:30 AM to 8 PM PDT) the forums will be placed on read only mode. We apologize for this inconvenience. Click here to read details

TVs & Home Theaters forum

General discussion


by stewart norrie / April 9, 2006 2:38 PM PDT

has anyone seen a good 1080p demo? iF SO IS THE PICTURE ACTUALLY BETTER THAN 1080i. ? I do know that 1080I really looks awsome on a good disply, So would lets Say blue Ray going to a 1080P display look sharper or would there be a difference at all? And yes another week of solid rain here in San Jose I cant take it any more stewart

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: CAN 1080p REALLY LOOK BETTER THAN 1080i
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: CAN 1080p REALLY LOOK BETTER THAN 1080i
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
I've tested. . .
by Coryphaeus / April 9, 2006 10:43 PM PDT


On a Toshiba and a Mitsu (both DLP). Both TVs had an external hard drive connected by Firewire with a 1080P demo video. I then connected them with HDMI to a Direct TV HD receiver. I couldn't tell any difference.

Collapse -
No Difference Whatsoever Except On Really Fast Motion....
by Psych Doc / April 9, 2006 11:49 PM PDT

...On static or images moving at anything close to normal speeds, there is no diffrerence whatsoever.

Nor would you expect there to be. They are broadcasting in EXACTLY the same resolutions.

The "p" version only comes into it's own on scenes that have VERY fast action. Then it will appear smoother than the "i" version.

Otherwise they are identical.

Collapse -
Then why wait
by Larry Pigeon / April 10, 2006 12:52 AM PDT

Then why wait, if you need a tw now like I do, on HDs that accept 1080p? Then the next question is do you pay $500 or so more for 1080p over 720p display in a larger screen size? Is it worth it? Without side by side comparison will I ever know the difference? If I had never heard there was a differenc would I know there was a difference? These are not retorical questions. They are honest questions. Sorry I have so many questions and no answers.

Collapse -
1080 vs. 720....
by Psych Doc / April 10, 2006 1:14 AM PDT
In reply to: Then why wait

...You might see a tiny difference, especially as the screen size gets bigger where you lose resolution anyway. I really don't think the differences would be particularly noticable, however.

Probably not worth a bunch of extra money. And it'll be years before a majority of programing is available in 1080. Right now, it's tough enough getting good 720 programming.

Collapse -
can anything look better WHATS BETTER THAN BETTER
by stewart norrie / April 10, 2006 10:55 AM PDT
In reply to: Then why wait

HA HA HA Here I go again I look back to 1956 when I bought my family a new R.C.A 21" curved at the sides COLOR t.v. I know I worked two jobs and it took me a year to save the money for this beast around $750 the picture was worse than terrible every 3 months new tubes but it was neet. funny part now for that same money we can buy a huge hi-def t.v. with a picture as good as a movie theater and yet we still nit pick about picture quality, Thats why I love my hi-def t.v. I have something to compare it toI think most of us want cadillac quality at a KIA price and the truth is we can have top performance at cheepio prices have a nice day stewart

Collapse -
What's better that better
by Larry Pigeon / April 10, 2006 11:33 AM PDT

Stewart, you make as much sense as most of us and more than some of us.

Collapse -
CAN 1080p REALLY LOOK BETTER THAN 1080i, yes & no!!
by jcrobso / April 10, 2006 2:15 AM PDT

This weekend I took the time to play my 1080p WMV-HD DVD.
This was a bonus when I bought the I-Max DVD Coral Reef Adventure.
I Took a PC into the living room and hooked it up to my RP-CRT HDTV via DVI. After it booted up I put he HD-DVD in the player and it started. I selected the video setup menue it analised my PC and display(HDTV) and said that I was good for 1080p, I also watched it a 720p latter.
The picture was fanstic. It looked like the Demos at the big box store where the are showing the video from a HD.
I tried to do a comparision by switching to the PBS station and watching thier 1080i broadcast.
The switch the DVD playback to the 720p setting and compaired it to PBS.
The WMV HD DVD did look better but with out an good A-B comparsion with two identical HDTV's it was still subjective. As for the 720p vrs 1080p picture??? Yes the 1080p had a little more detail,,But both were excellent. I still feel that the quality of the source material is far more important than if it is 720p,1080i or 1080p. John

Collapse -
Quality of source
by speleofool / April 18, 2006 9:03 AM PDT


I have a Sony DVD that they used to demo their Wega line of flat-tube TVs when those first came out. It has a few scenes like a train, dolphins swimming, people playing volleyball, etc. Anyway, the point is that this demo reel is much sharper with more vibrant color than virtually any other DVD I own. It's 480p, like any other DVD, so what makes this one so much better? LOWER COMPRESSION.

MPEG-2 compression works by storing all of the pixel information for one screen image of video, then storing only the elements that change over the next several frames. By going longer between full frames it's possible to fit a lot more video on one disc. Since the demo reel is only a few minutes long, I wouldn't be surprised if they stored every frame of video in its entirety--hence no data loss resulting in a sharper picture.

As someone who has auditioned several high-end DVD players for video quality, I can definitely confirm that the quality of source material makes a huge difference. It helps to understand the technology you're testing and what kind of source material will best showcase the differences you're looking for. I hate to say it, but just looking at one screen and then another, even playing the same source material, it might be very difficult to spot the differences right away unless the two displays are very mismatched or you know what to look for.

One of the resources that helped me to find test material from my own DVD library is the "Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity" site. They did a huge "shootout" on DVD players, and I borrowed some ideas from them when I did my DVD testing. As it pertains to interlaced video on DVDs, here's what they did to test the difference:

I'll quote a critical caveat from the article here:
"...if you have a progressive-scan DVD player that you are happy with, you probably should not read this report. With some of these artifacts, you are much better off not knowing they are there, because once you start to notice them, they?ll drive you nuts, and then you will inevitably want to replace your player."

I will absolutely second this. There's a real tradeoff in becoming a critic of audio & video quality, which is learning what's bad & being unable to NOT see / hear that stuff. If you're happy enough living with what's out there now, then it may be cheaper to live blissfully in ignorance of all the video artifacts that don't bother you now. Of course, the tradeoff part is that for the right investment of time & money you can find really quality gear that lets you enjoy sublimely *better* video than you have now.


Collapse -
Exactly what I am thinking
by C_519 / April 11, 2006 8:00 AM PDT

I haven't seen demos of 1080p so I can't compare it 1080i.But, like you said 1080i looks great. I'm fairly sure 1080i and 1080p are about as distinguishable as 480i is to 480p.(very little). Can anyone , without getting extremely close to the screen, look at a picture(and not a fast moving one) and say that it formatted 480i or 480p.
Just my thoughts on this issue.

Collapse -
its like digital camera's
by masterying01 / April 11, 2006 2:22 PM PDT

i remember a while back...........3.2megapixel is like the most amazing thing out there. people would say "OH WOW, YOU CAN TAKE THOSE KINDS OF PICTURES WITHOUT FILM?". now you have 8megapixel pictures. and people say the same thing.

the thing is, a lot of people will NEVER use the benefits of a 8megapixel camera.

technology is always advancing...............if it works, dont change it .

Collapse -
$500 toshiba HDDVD vs $1200 pioneer Elite DVD
by gabereyes / April 11, 2006 3:24 PM PDT

Can a $500 HD DVD player look any better then a $1200 pioneer elite standard 480p DVD player, on a 34 inch sony xbr.

Collapse -
by stewart norrie / April 13, 2006 7:19 AM PDT

I have seen mega buck systems at lush budget home theater stores and Using a super expensive d.v.d. player really made a difference in picture quality but for us poor folks I dont think buying an expensive d.v.d. would make any difference o to be rich stewart

Collapse -
The answer should be obvious; sadly it is not.
by cstatchuk / April 21, 2006 5:55 AM PDT

Obviously, you need a 1080p capable display (i.e., display with native 1920 x 1080 resolution) to truly see all details in 1920 x 1080 pixel content.

READ THIS: YOU DO NOT NEED 1080p source material to render 1080p content!!! 1080i content is sufficient - please read on cuz ONLY HALF OF YOU will see it!.

All interlaced content must be converted to progressive (non-interlaced) frames to be properly rendered on an LCD or plasma display.

1080i is actually 1080/60, which is: 60 interlaced fields per second of 1920x540 pixel content. Adjacent fields can be 'stitched' together (with minor time-based artifacts) to produce what is essentially 1080/30p or 30 progressive non-interlaced frames per second of 1920x1080 pixel content. So theoretically 1080/60i can be converted to 1080p with no undue motion or detail artifacts.

IF YOUR TV OR UPCONVERTING DVD player supports 'stitching' of interlaced 1080i content, you are in luck. 1080i content will be transformed to 1080p and it will be virtually undistinguishable from most 1080p source material.

NOW THE BAD NEWS: About half the high-end plasma and LCD TVs on sale right now DO NOT 'stitch' interlaced 1080i content. They do what is becoming known as 'bobbing' where each interlaced field pair has the first 1920 x 540 pixel field simply upscaled to a 1980 x 1020 pixel frame and its adjacent interlaced field partner discarded. Easy to do but 50% of the 1080p detail is lost. THANKS to 'bobbing', half of you are saying 1080i content does not look as good as 1080p to you (correct). The the other half of you are saying it looks perfect to you (also correct!).

Also note the ambigiuity in the orginal question: What is 1080p?

1080p can be one of 1080/24p, 1080/30p or 1080/60p (1920 x 1080 pixels @ 24, 30 and 60 frames per second respectively). Nothing but 1080/60p source will equal 1080/60p. Seeing true 1080/60p is impressive. But I don't think that was the original question since almost no content is ever encoded at this high frame rate today (few processors can keep up). If 1080/30p rendering is what you are after, then 1080i (1080/60i) source can be good enough (if you got lucky and bought a 'sitching' device.

HEY C-NET!!!! You should write about this topic!!!

Collapse -
HEY C-NET!!!! You should write about this topic
by jcrobso / April 21, 2006 7:15 AM PDT

Yes!!!!! I have written may posts on this subject stating
bascialy what you have said!!!!

"READ THIS: YOU DO NOT NEED 1080p source material to render 1080p content!!! 1080i content is sufficient - please read on cuz ONLY HALF OF YOU will see it!."
This is VERY true since most LCD and Plasma TVs are only 720p, so 1080i/p will NEVER appear on 720p sets.
1080p is mostly just sizzle, not steak!!!!!
"THANKS to 'bobbing'," Also don't forget about "wabalation" Which is more fudge on the cake!!! John

Collapse -
can 1080p be better than 1080i?
by eeblack / May 21, 2006 1:20 PM PDT

i am an HD wanabee who has been using S-video (480p) for many years on 27 and 32 inch screens. to me the difference beteen 240i and 480p was dramatic on the same set.
i don't understand how people can comment on resolution when the size of the screen is not mentioned. i find it difficult to believe the perceived resolution is the same whether the image is projected on a 32" screen or a 96" screen. i may be biased by making photos, but i don't think the laws of physics and the anatomy of the eye can be realisticly ignored. however, i am always open to verification by real data. thank you. eeb

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) well...svideo can't transmit 480p. so.....yea.......
by masterying01 / May 21, 2006 6:04 PM PDT
Collapse -
"difference beteen 240i and 480p was" ?????
by jcrobso / May 22, 2006 1:57 AM PDT

240i??? Since your a wanabee lets clear up some tech terms.
Analog video is now called SD video is 525 interlaced lines with about 480 visable on the screen, some call this 480i. In computer trems this is called EGA 320x240(Commodoor 64), but in video we usually don't refer to this speck, beacuse an analog signal can have a much higher resouliton than EGA 320x240 . All analog signals are basical the same composit and S-video are the same analog SD signal, S-video can have a little better picture quality due to the seprate corma and luminance sepration.

Now for digital specs ED is 640x480 or somtimes it can be 720x480, it can interlaced or progressive.
Analog SD (480i) is not the same as digital ED 480.

Marketing types have made a mess by calling SD video 480i. Many belive that analog SD (480i) and ED 480/i-p are the same, THEY ARE NOT!!

Yes, your eyes can be fooled, but the viewing distance to the screen is also a factor
Can you tell the difference between 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768 on you 17" PC monitor?? The closer to the screen the higher resoultion you can have. On my 21" PC monitor I run it at 1280x1024 and I have the same readability as my 17" did at 1024x768.
There are many factors to be consirdered. Screen size and viewing distance are just two of them. John

Collapse -
SD 480i vs ED 480
by eeblack / May 22, 2006 3:45 AM PDT

i thank for your correction of my misinterpretation of s video.
i am glad you agree that when discussing the quality of a perceived picture that distance and screen size have to be considered along with resolution. eeb

Popular Forums

Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!