It is currently Tue Dec 02, 2025 1:39 am

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
  [ 14 posts ] 
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
dvd_pankhaa
PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2003 7:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 7:29 pm
Posts: 127
i was just wondering
what do you guys think the future televisions will be: progressive or interlace?????????
so far it is assumed or wished that they will be progressive
but it seems like HD tv's will be interlace with their highest supported resolution of 1080i? am i making this up?????
so if that is the case, then what is better a progressive dvd or an interlace dvd, assuming everything else is good quality stuff :nopity: :stupid:
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2003 11:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6147
Interlacing was a clever trick to make the max use of the available limited band width for signal transmission when TV was invented. Today, this limitation has disappeared and hence there is no need to interlace.

One comment I heard on TV last week was:
1080i, even though gives higher res than 720P or 480P, it still has a Video feel, not Film feel.

Rana
Top
 Profile  
 
spike86
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2002 4:29 pm
Posts: 672
Location: NY
A well done film to HD(1080i) transfer does have the film look (especially on RPTV or Front projection) and it's a remarkable improvement over 480p DVD. Progressive is the future, some of the new higher end Toshiba tv models that are coming out features 1080p. Most of the reasonably priced HDTVs convertes 720p to 1080i eventhough pure 720p is much more smoother.
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2003 8:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6147
Spike86,
"One comment I heard on TV last week was:
1080i, even though gives higher res than 720P or 480P, it still has a Video feel, not Film feel".

This was commented by one of the Digital Film Producers, from Montreal, interviewed in one of the Indian TV programs. I didn't catch his name but his website is something like http://www.CanadianIndianFilm.com or something similar.

I guess, what he meant by Video feel is the interlacing flicker and artefacts. No doubt. 1080i has a higher res (1080 apparant, 540 real lines) than 480P and apparant better res than 720P. Some people prefer 720P over 1080i, but 1080i is winning as it looks like 1080 res and not 720. Technically, 1080i is better for live sports and fast action scenes, otherwise 720P is preferred by many.

One thing universally everybody agrees. That if the source is 480P, it is better to display it as 480P. Converting to 1080i degrades the PQ.

For immediate future, 1080i is the standard. But, just like present Film DVDs are actually 480i but can be perfectly weaved together to give 480P if encoding is proper. The same way, a properly done (flagged) 1080i DVD can easily be weaved to 1080P.

Rana

1080i = 1920x540x60 per sec
(apparant res = 1920x1080, real res = 1920x540 = 1036800)

720P = 1440x768x60 per sec
(real res = 1440x768= 1105920)
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
rana wrote:
Interlacing was a clever trick to make the max use of the available limited band width for signal transmission when TV was invented. Today, this limitation has disappeared and hence there is no need to interlace.

One comment I heard on TV last week was:
1080i, even though gives higher res than 720P or 480P, it still has a Video feel, not Film feel.

Rana

Isn't "video feel" or "film feel" more a function of framerate rather than interlaced or progressive? Even 30p films like "Oklahoma!" look kind of weird in their motion on TV, even though it is shot on film.
Top
 Profile  
 
spike86
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2002 4:29 pm
Posts: 672
Location: NY
1080i is winning hands down here in the U.S, since ABC being the only station that broadcasts its HD content in 720p. In the future with many tvs converting 1080i to 1080p, we can get rid of the interlaced flickering on railings and such.

Quote:
Isn't "video feel" or "film feel" more a function of framerate rather than interlaced or progressive? Even 30p films like "Oklahoma!" look kind of weird in their motion on TV, even though it is shot on film.


The reverse 3-2 pulldown process can automatically detect mode(film or video) and adjust the framerate resulting in a film like look.
Top
 Profile  
 
oblix
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 4:15 pm
Posts: 17
The main problem with 1080i is the same interlace artifacts, which are the main culprit in 480i. Films are filmed in 24fps and TV sort of does 30fps (60 interlaced fields per sec)(I'm talking about US/NTSC). In order to fit 24 fps film in 480i interlaced display combination of two non -similar film frames is required. Check this the best progressive Vs Interlace article.Progressive Scan

Lot of experts have mentioned that even though 1080i looks good resolution wise - it has motion artifacts. (After comparing D-VHS to DVDs) So not much improvement over 480p signal overall. Still I feel HD-DVD should be 1080i since eventually we will get 1080p displays and 1080i DVDs will just work fine (Just like today almost all DVDs are 480I (frankly, I don't know there's any DVD which is 480P!) and they work great with 480p displays. On other hand, if they go with 720p, converting 720p to 1080p/i will be introducing lot of artfacts. Also lot of todays HD displays can only do 1080i. Another problem with todays displays is that they don't do 3:2 film correction on 1080i input, like they do it on 480i input.
Well, someone has to sort out all this mess before finalizing HD-DVD standard. :nopity:
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2003 11:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6147
oblix wrote:
Also lot of todays HD displays can only do 1080i. Another problem with todays displays is that they don't do 3:2 film correction on 1080i input, like they do it on 480i input.

This is not a problem. This is just how much HDTVs have evolved, at present.

Not many displays can handle 1080P. Many PCs can.

1080i to 1080P line doublers are avail.

Rana

Spike86,
You said, "The reverse 3-2 pulldown process can automatically detect mode(film or video) and adjust the framerate resulting in a film like look---".

I will add in the sentence:
"---converting 1080i to 1080P"



Edited By rana on 1045782602
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2003 11:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6147
Look what experts say about this:

Excerpts from March 2003 WidescreenReview:

1080P/24 is also part of ATSC accepted standards. Many manufacturers claiming compatibility with this, could not deal with 1080P/24 programming. THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE IN FUTURE PRODUCTS. It will be long time before displays are are FULLY capable of 1080P or 1080i for that matter.
It would be MORE EFFICIENT for 1080i stations to SWITCH to 1080P/24 (requiring even less bandwidth than 1080i/60) for transmission AND THEN let the set top boxes convert it to 720P/60 or, HEAVEN FORBID to 1080i/60.

The cost of display device that can take advantage of 1080P is, and will be, out of the range of most high-end consumers for a long time to come.

Rana
Top
 Profile  
 
mhafner
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2003 9:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 8:14 pm
Posts: 1086
oblix wrote:
The main problem with 1080i is the same interlace artifacts, which are the main culprit in 480i. Films are filmed in 24fps and TV sort of does 30fps (60 interlaced fields per sec)(I'm talking about US/NTSC). In order to fit 24 fps film in 480i interlaced display combination of two non -similar film frames is required. Check this the best progressive Vs Interlace article.Progressive Scan

Lot of experts have mentioned that even though 1080i looks good resolution wise - it has motion artifacts. (After comparing D-VHS to DVDs) So not much improvement over 480p signal overall. :nopity:

1080i has little interlace artifacts from film based
sources. If you sit ~3 16:9 screen heights away it's
pretty much a non issue unless you have eyes like a hawk.
It looks much much better than 480p. Also it's trivial
to make 1080/24p out of it with zero motion artifacts
using a DLP projector with built in Faroudja technology
(there are none with 1080p resolution, but that will change
soon). If you use a CRT projector you can have 1080/60p
with a Faroudja 5000, HTPC solutions or soon other video
processors (Digital Leeza...).
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 4:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6147
mhafner wrote:
oblix wrote:
The main problem with 1080i is the same interlace artifacts, which are the main culprit in 480i. Films are filmed in 24fps and TV sort of does 30fps (60 interlaced fields per sec)(I'm talking about US/NTSC). In order to fit 24 fps film in 480i interlaced display combination of two non -similar film frames is required. Check this the best progressive Vs Interlace article.Progressive Scan

Lot of experts have mentioned that even though 1080i looks good resolution wise - it has motion artifacts. (After comparing D-VHS to DVDs) So not much improvement over 480p signal overall. :nopity:

1080i has little interlace artifacts from film based
sources. If you sit ~3 16:9 screen heights away it's
pretty much a non issue unless you have eyes like a hawk.
It looks much much better than 480p. Also it's trivial
to make 1080/24p out of it with zero motion artifacts
using a DLP projector with built in Faroudja technology
(there are none with 1080p resolution, but that will change
soon). If you use a CRT projector you can have 1080/60p
with a Faroudja 5000, HTPC solutions or soon other video
processors (Digital Leeza...).

All agreed Michel.

Actually, what the Widescreenreview article was saying was:

For Film Transmission:
Why break up 24 frames into 60 interlaced fields for transmission.
Instead they could transmit only 24 unbroken film frames requiring 25% less band width. For 1080i interlaced sets (that are not capable of 1080P), the display or set top box can easily break up the signal to 1080i (from 1080P). For those with 1080P capability, they get 24 original Film Frames without having to reassemble them as they had not been separated to begin with.

Rana
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 4:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
I have seen both 1080i and 720p, 720p seems better for fast motion, like games etc! 1080p, will be nirvana! 1080i, does not have any artifacts in general!
Top
 Profile  
 
mhafner
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 4:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 8:14 pm
Posts: 1086
rana wrote:
mhafner wrote:
oblix wrote:
Actually, what the Widescreenreview article was saying was:
For Film Transmission:
Why break up 24 frames into 60 interlaced fields for transmission.
Instead they could transmit only 24 unbroken film frames requiring 25% less band width. For 1080i interlaced sets (that are not capable of 1080P), the display or set top box can easily break up the signal to 1080i (from 1080P). For those with 1080P capability, they get 24 original Film Frames without having to reassemble them as they had not been separated to begin with.

Rana

I'm all for 1080p transmission and local adaptation
to the display in use. And zero vertical filtering.
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 5:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6147
arsh wrote:
I have seen both 1080i and 720p, 720p seems better for fast motion, like games etc! 1080p, will be nirvana! 1080i, does not have any artifacts in general!

1)
'1080i, does not have any artifacts in general!'

I will say it like this, Arsh:

1080i, does not have any, visible or noticreable, artifacts in general!

2)
'720p seems better for fast motion, like games etc'??

Isn't it other way around. 60 captured images per sec is better than '30 captured images per sec with doudle resolution', for fast moving action.

Rana
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
  [ 14 posts ] 

Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group