Because you have an SXRD 1080p, That set scales 1080i to p very well. That set is tailor made for the 1080i signal, to weave together the odd & even of fields of 540i to 1080P, 1080i matches the Horizontal pixel lines of your set . (1920) If you had a 768p set you would see a different result. Then converting to 720p would look better. You can't compare the 720p signal to 1080i or p on the same set. I done this with the best 1080i set with a 1080i signal and that same signal cross converted on a 768p set. A real test is get a 720p/60 signal on a 768p/60 set get a 1080i/30 signal on a 1080i set. 1080i looks better on 1080i set then 720p on a 1080i set. Also, a lot of cable companies convert 720p to 1080i over the line, so it's better keeping the box in 1080i if that is the case. Matter of fact the Old Voom sat system also sent out the 720p ESPN in 1080i.
Yeah - same with me. 720p signals look soft and sometimes washed out on my set. HDnut: If I understand you correctly - you're saying then that 720p is not always the best choice right?
I'm saying that 720p/60 is the best ATSC signal. If you have a 1080i native set go with the 1080i signal. 720p is not the best choice for all sets, yes. But again 720p/60 signal on a 768/60 set (up to 50 inches) will provide the best viewing from a ATSC broadcast at a normal distance.
If that is what you were looking for why didn't you clarify? I said earlier "My comparison was with a real 720p/60 signal. Not so much the monitors."
"How can you say that a tv is better because it shows the panel? What you say flys against everything custom installers (the real experts) say. " http://flatscreen.prostate-answers.com/faqs.html
Wrong One, your source is flatscreenbuyersguide.com which tells me they have a bias toward flat panel sets. Two, don't look for a source that promotes your opinion. Find several reputable sources and compare information. Three, what tells me this site is full of it is their disregard for peoples life styles. By that I mean everything I said in my first post and more. I beg you to search my threads. I have done my research and have dealt with mis-information lovers many times. Just pick a topic and include my name in a Google search I know you will find several threads and allot of good info. No. Just no. Regardless of frame rate... 720p = 1280x720 pixels per frame 1080i = 1920x1080 pixels per frame 1080p = 1920x1080 pixels per frame Your comparing the sensation of motion to picture resolution. You feel 720p@60 is better than 1080i@30 because it handles motion better? Well here I must say its all personal preference. I enjoy having as much detail as I can. I don't like the soft picture of 720p. I rather have a more detailed 1080i signal (which is be de-interlaced on 1080p sets to create 1080p@60). It comes down to video processing more than anything. If a 720p tv set makes the signal 540i before changing it to 720p then there will be a loss in detail. But if the tv does it right 1080i will look better than 720p (at least during low motion scenes). [bold]I also feel that the best signal ATSC signal is 1080p@30 not 720p@60 or 1080i@30.[/bold] Wikipedia on ATSC resolution... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC#Resolution Ced
If you think your set is showing you a real 108op/60 you are delusional as some would say their DVD upconverter is giving them a real 1080i. Did you read what I said "The disks..... are 1080p/24.... the disk is like a broadcast signal... it not a real 60 frame signal from the source. The players and monitors can pump 24 fps as fast as they want it is just 2x 3x of the 24. The ATSC broadcast format for 1080p goes as high as 30 fps. A real 720p signal is 60 real frames and the set pumps 60 real frames. Each picture with a 720p/60 signal contains fresh pixels for every frame. If you get a 1080p/24 source, you're more than doubling the frames rates. The sets 60 fps mode does not provide a fresh set of pixels in a different position for each frame as a real 720p signal does. Yes pull downs help for flickering and all like said above. They are not real 60 frame images." 1080i is not more detailed " In the time it takes 720p to paint 720 lines, 1080i paints only 540 lines. And, by the time 1080i does paint 1080 lines, 720p has painted 1440 lines. Contrast and brightness have a greater impact on the human visual system than does resolution. The 720p picture is brighter and has greater contrast than the 1080i picture. In side-by-side subjective testing performed by the Advanced Television Test Center under the auspices of the FCC’s Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Services (ACATS), it was shown that 720p had "no artifacts" under a variety of conditions, while 1080i, under the same conditions, showed "increasing quantization noise and blockiness…" Nevertheless, these distinctions are slight, and the ACATS took pains to note that there was no substantive difference in picture quality between the two formats. " http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/Progressive_FAQ.htm "1080/30i is defined to be 1080 lines of 1920 pixels each delivered every 1/30th of a second (540 of them at a time), but it is implemented by its practitioners as 1035 lines of 1440 pixels each" http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/DTV_Bandwidths.htm AGAIN my point was that the 720p/60 signal is the best because it delivers the most pixels per second, nothing to do with cheap sets that don't de interlace 1080i properly. The max resolution of the eye AT A NORMAL DISTANCE maxes out at around 768px1366 for a single frame, which makes your 1080p case invalid "Talk TV, Smart Guy The average 42-inch-diagonal, 1,280-by-720 plasma or LCD display has pixels that are roughly 0.029 inches wide. (Of course, each model has different inter-pixel spacing, but, for now, we'll assume they don't.) If the same size display had a resolution of 1,920 by 1,080, the pixels would be 0.019 inches wide. As you can see, in a 42-inch display at a distance of 10 feet, your eye can't discern the resolution available even with 720p. Even more resolution is "wasted" at 1,920 by 1,080. Now, assuming that you're not going to move your couch but you want a bigger TV, how does this work with a 50-inch set? The pixels in a 1,280-by-720 display are 0.034 inches wide, which is almost exactly what your eye can discern at 10 feet. A 1,920-by-1,080 display has 0.023-inch-wide pixels, smaller than your eye can resolve. A 1,920-by-1,080 display would have to measure more than 70 inches diagonally before you start testing your eyes' limits on the display's resolution (at least at 10 feet). Scan lines are the pixels of the CRT world and, in this case, function similarly. The pixels in some displays are not square, in which case you'll also need to check pixel height. " http://blog.hometheatermag.com/geoffreymorrison/ "In a 50-inch plasma display with an array of 1366x768 pixels, the pitch of individual pixels is typically less than 1 mm (about 0.9 mm), which equals 0.039 inches. Do the math, and you'll see that standing 10 feet from a 50-inch plasma means you can barely perceive the HD pixel structure, and that's only if you have 20-20 vision." http://proav.pubdyn.com/2005_January/13-ProAV-Old Site Content-2005-501proavparallaxview.htm So if your wasting resolution at a normal distance common sense should tell you that you're better off with the signal that will give you the max resolution that your eye can see at a normal distance with THE FRAME RATE YOUR EYE CAN PERCEIVE AND DELIVERS MORE PIXELS PER SECOND. "humans can perceive up to 60+ fps". http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_3.html I had this debate before, and it came down to the guy telling me he was going to pull his chair 2 feet away from the set ... yea that will be good at the next superbowl party. See, I done all this research long before I got into this and spent over 15,000 on equipment. People go in a store and see 1080p, without even taking into consideration what temporal resolution is or mathematics of what their eye can perceive at a normal distance. As far as the flat panel vs RP???, buddy I'm not even going to waste much of my time... Get yourself a real monitor like this one http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pna/v3/pg/product/details/0,,2076_310069731_136753543,00.html Rather than watching blown up postage stamps, and then see. Have a good day.
What? No 1080i@30 will never match 1080p@60 if the source is 1080p@60 but it will retain more detail per frame than 720p@60. FYI: I talk tvs everyday with the people that matter. The people that buy this stuff. And as I said before its personal preference. What makes them happy makes them happy. Thanks for the sources but I don't understand why you feel that a proper balance can't be met in relation to screen size and viewing distance. Everyone here knows how viewing distance relates to what you see on screen. You can use all the numbers you want but I'd rather listen to George Lucas (THX) and Joe Krane (one of two ISF founders) as they seem to know what they are talking about. FYI: I have nothing to prove here my contributions have already been made. You would do better to make some friends before you attempt to debunk Senior Members. Ced
There is no ATSC signal or DVD Disk that is 1080p/60, stop trying to invent one. All you have is augmented upconversions. "Everyone here knows how viewing distance relates to what you see on screen." Just from that statement shows me you don't understand what I posted or you don't want to understand it. Read it good, they're telling you and 1080p is irrelevant from a normal distance. You can't see that resolution from that distance, yea you're seeing the picture but your eyes are not pulling in 2 million pixels. They're telling you the most your eyes can pull in with those screen sizes from that distance is about 1 million progressive. More detail per frame that your eye can't perceive. Wasted resolution my friend for a slower frame rate. It is not me who wrote the articles and did the math, and I showed you more than one source. You have to try to stop bull s..n yourself that you bought the best TV. The reason why 720p looks softer on your set is because the set was not designed for the signal. The FCC and the ATSC the holy grail of DTV did the test the way it should have been and 720p won out. 60 Frames can be perceived that is fact, and the math is fact. You can try to keep going around in circles but facts are strong. "It is not the pixels in a still frame that counts - still video is boring. It is the pixels per second delivered to viewers that matters" http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/Naming_Proposal.htm So, go take it up with these people, the ATSC... the FCC and tell them that they're wrong.... don't take it up with me, these are not my opinions. From 720 painting 720 in the time 1080i pained 540 to what maxes out the eye resolution. Ignoring facts or denying them does not change them.
There you go. It would probably be close to even because of max resolution of the eye, but the temporal resolution will probably tip the scale to 720p. They would probably have different results at different distances. If it is sports 720p would win by a landslide. "1080p/24 is totally inappropriate for broadcasting sports. No sports fan would tolerate the motion blur and loss of fine detail in fast-moving objects. Even 1080i/30 would be a better choice." http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages_b/followup.html
720p sports looks like crap on my set. I don't watch sports on ABC-HD, Fox HD or ESPN HD anymore because I get a headache after 5 minutes.
eatsushi and Ced your right i set my new Oppo OPDV-971H upconverting DVD player to 1080i and it looks better than the 720p on my Sony SXRD 60" BTW it looks amazing!!!! WOW Oppo did a great job with this DVD player
All I want to add is that once you see real HD television that has been shot in HD 1080i or p and is shown at 1080i/p then you would not want to go back to anything else as it looks poor in comparison. Think in terms of mega pixles rather than pixel structure blah blah et etc. Standard deff: 1 mp 720: 2mp 1080: 3 mp Film: 4mp Then, once you realise the greater bandwidth of colour, brightness and contrast, you start to see that HD 1080 really is 'worth it'.
A top guy at the BBC told me that in Japan they had trialed Ultra-HD and people had got motion sickness from it.... i dread to think!
Find out how big it was and how close they were to it! Marketing promos! I saw that too! Always compare these promos to what you would buy as a normal size screen in your home and how far would sit from the screen!!
