HDTV Movie vs. DVD

[dragonfyr]

I agree with zamboniman. I'm sick of all this crap I hear all the time about how bad 1080i is compared to 720p. If 720p was so superior to 1080i more of the major networks would use it instead of wasting bandwidth with 1080i. They're both excellent formats.

Wow!

720p does have advantages.

Neither format is bad! Regardless of which format that one may argue is technically superior! I certainly never said that either were bad!! Its your money, buy what you want!

More networks, and especially those who have not made previous committments, are increasingly going with 720p.

And personally I don't emotionally care about either, as I'm not spending the big bucks to watch Jerry Springer on either format!

[SCOOTERDOG]

Live sporting events in HD are awesome, truely an amazing picture. I

have seen a few movies in HD that are better then most of my dvd's.

However, most of the movies unless shot in HD are for the most part

about the same as most dvd's. I was watching spiderman II on HBO HD and

it was pretty freakin sweet so I grabbed my superbit version and placed

it in the dvd player. I ran it up to where I was only off by about 30

seconds between the broadcast and the disc. I will say that the HBO HD

picture was just better in 1080i but to most people, I'm not sure they

could tell the difference, I could hands down. I have a pretty nice

player so its not that. Although I would sure like to get a denon 3910

[]

scooter

[toddvj]

Oh, and regarding another issue mentioned, 480p is not HDTV!

I just scanned through all of the posts again, since you have mentioned this twice, and I don't see any posts that say that 480p is HDTV.

[dragonfyr]

Good, as I never said they did!

But you might want to explain that to the folks who persist in comparing 480p with 1080i!!!!!!!! And while you are at it, explain the fundamental differences to those who do not see the differences!

[zamboniman]

Dragonfyr..

I think the 480 debate keeps coming up because the link you provided to explain the merits of each format and how 720 is superior goes out of it's way to "attempt" to explain that 480p is better than 1080i

http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/default.htm

It's a nice looking site with convincing explanation.... However it's full of inaccuracies.

Here's just a quick list that I noticed by just a quick skimming

1. "In the progressive system, 720 lines are presented to the human eye every 1/60th of a second while the so-called 1080I system presents only 540 lines. Therefore a more accurate name for the interlaced system is 540I"

WRONG! 1080i is infact 1080 "unique" lines of resolution... NOT 540.. It draws them 540 at a time true but it's every other line to assemble a true 1080 picture that you see.

2. "Not only is 720P superior to 540I in quality (note the well-known artifact: interlace flickers), but it is cheaper!"

Wrong again... Cheaper for who? It's cheaper to transmit 1080i because it uses less bandwidth due to only 540 lines being needed at one time. It's cheaper to manufacture display circuitry due to less bandwidth required. About the only thing more expensive is the now being released native 1080 digital display devices (actual panels/dlp/lcd)..

Electriclly it's much easier to display 1080i on a crt based display due to lower bandwidth required

Here's the wringer

3. "I have seen 480P and it is wonderful. In fact, I have seen it side-by-side with 720P and 540I (well, 1080I, if you insist) systems, and 480P looks better!"

I don't know what he's smoking but this comment removes all credability.

The only time 480 looks better than 1080 or 720 is when you are watching native 480 content that has been poorly converted to 1080 or 720.

[dragonfyr]

Dragonfyr..

I think the 480 debate keeps coming up because the link you provided to explain the merits of each format and how 720 is superior goes out of it's way to "attempt" to explain that 480p is better than 1080i

http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/default.htm

It's a nice looking site with convincing explanation.... However it's full of inaccuracies.

Here's just a quick list that I noticed by just a quick skimming

1. "In the progressive system, 720 lines are presented to the human eye every 1/60th of a second while the so-called 1080I system presents only 540 lines. Therefore a more accurate name for the interlaced system is 540I"

WRONG! 1080i is infact 1080 "unique" lines of resolution... NOT 540.. It draws them 540 at a time true but it's every other line to assemble a true 1080 picture that you see.

2. "Not only is 720P superior to 540I in quality (note the well-known artifact: interlace flickers), but it is cheaper!"

Wrong again... Cheaper for who? It's cheaper to transmit 1080i because it uses less bandwidth due to only 540 lines being needed at one time. It's cheaper to manufacture display circuitry due to less bandwidth required. About the only thing more expensive is the now being released native 1080 digital display devices (actual panels/dlp/lcd)..

Electriclly it's much easier to display 1080i on a crt based display due to lower bandwidth required

Here's the wringer

3. "I have seen 480P and it is wonderful. In fact, I have seen it side-by-side with 720P and 540I (well, 1080I, if you insist) systems, and 480P looks better!"

I don't know what he's smoking but this comment removes all credability.

The only time 480 looks better than 1080 or 720 is when you are watching native 480 content that has been poorly converted to 1080 or 720.

Wow! This is a classic example of why this site is so damned frustrating.

Such a complete display of disregard for how interlacing works, based upon the persistance of the eye as opposed to progressive scanning and the limitations of technologies other then CRT's to process interlaced video.

And here's a news flash! Like it or not, CRT's are on their way OUT!!!!! And to think that they didn't even ask me!!!! As I am quite satisfied with current CRT technology![] The increased ability to distinguish individual nose hairs on Oprah just doesn't drive my interest. Go figure!!!

And quite frankly, I have NO interest in debating which converted technology looks better on a non-native display! Go find someone else with which to debate such inanities!

If you are interested in a particular format, get the proper display that in fact accurately and completely displays the format without truncation or conversion!

Yes, and I guess Alvey Ray is an idiot if you say so! The difference is that he gets paid lots of money to display his 'ignorance' on the subject, while you do it for free![] The next time you are queried by the standards body for your input you can tell them yourself! And perhaps you can tell Alvey "Hello" when you present your opinions!

Gee, and to think that we could be spending this precious time debating which format reproduces the sound of an exploding star more accurately!

[zamboniman]

Well he and anyone else can come over and see it and decide for themselves....... It's a standing offer

Perhaps it's only my opinon and I'm ok with living it.... I'm done debating this...... This whole topic has been skewed around so much with lots of misinformation. It's unfortunate that it has been confused so much and that the consumer is the real one that loses especially with the lack of standards to adhear to...

Meanwhile.... I'm just going to enjoy my theater and the wonderful picture it produces..... Anyone wants to join just let me know.. I've got a few extra seats down that basement. I must say though that being able to share my ignornace for free provides for an unbiased view. []

[JeffDurbin]

I have to disagree somewhat regarding information in the links provided. The argument of "i" vs "p" has a lot of merit on paper and "electrically" when bandwidth is considered. There's no doubt that 720p has advantages for certain situations.

HOWEVER, the statements that 480p is as good or better than 1080i is downright absurd..... and that when compared side by side that it's indistinguishable.. (given good source material on both sides)

The brain has a wonderful ability to put the interlaced frames together..... And yes it can have more flicker technically (not necessarily noticalble) and jaggies can be seen at times with certain types of motion...

Bottom line is that to the eye and brain.. 1080i IS 1080 lines of resolution (sure it's 540 at a time) but to the brain it's 1080 with only occasional artifacts with 90% of the source material out there.

Anybody wants to argue this fact you have an invite to come over to my place and view it directly on my setup. I'm using a CRT front proj. setup that I can "Natively" drive with whatever resolution I want. If I can send it..... It will show it Natively! No fixed pixel structure to deal with. 100" diagnol 16x9 screen.

Given this setup and screen size differences in 480 I and P ..... 720P .... and 1080I are immediatly noticable... 1080I provides the FAR superior picture 90% of the time.

I think the majority of one's opinions on what looks better with regards to HD is extremely skewed by smaller screen sizes, fixed pixel projection limitations and the internal video processing that goes with it, and lastly compression by content providers.

On smaller screens (say less than 60 or so inches) the differences become much harder to distinguish.... and then it may become a moot point. But for very large displays true HD has been the best thing to happen.

I would say probably 95% of HD displays being sold right now are fixed pixel based with some type of front end conversion processing heading off the signal. This causes a huge issue regarding what you perceive as the better input signal becuase perhaps your display just does a better job with one over the other..

I'm sure this will cause a stir.... but I'll say it again.... You want to see it.... Come on over.. I always give this demo to folks that are interested... And it's always unanimous. 1080i takes the cake for overall content. 720 pretty good... if what you are watching is constantly in high motion?? Auto race?? And 480 p or i is just not in the same league.....

Wow, this thread turned into a huge amount of flaming. Here's my contribution. I am using an InFocus 61md10 rear projection DLP HDTV and an OPPO upscaling DVD player. They are connected with a DVI-HDMI cable so I have digital from the DVD to the player to the monitor. When I set my DVD player to upscale to 1080i, I noticed serious jitter that annoyed me almost immediately. I switched to 720p and the edges of the images were virtually as smooth as the 1080i setting but there was no jitter. I have left my settings at 720p ever since.

According to some of the folks at avsforum.com, my HDTV has a native horizontal resolution of 720 and therefore the 720p setting gave me 1:1 pixel mapping. With the 1080i setting, the DVD player was upscaling to 1080 and then the HDTV was downscaling to 720.

IF you are fortunate enough to have a display with a native horizontal resolution of 1080, then I would agree that 1080i should give you a better image than 720p. At least theoretically that is what I would expect.

NOW to swing it back to the original question, I would think that native HD programming that is filmed in HD and transmitted all the way to the display device in HD (whether via cable, DISH or DirecTV, assuming no obscene amounts of compression along the way) should be superior to a DVD which is upscaled to HiDef even if the DVD player has all of the Faroudja / upscaling / blah, blah, blah because the upscaling process makes assumptions (based on algorhythms) of what should be in the missing lines of resolution whereas the true HD broadcasted content actually really has the content there to begin with. The new HD DVDs will do away with this upscaling issue (at least for new DVDs).

Am I wrong here?

[zamboniman]

And to echo that last paragraph regarding HD source compared to upscaling... Yes couldn't have said it better myself.....

[dragonfyr]

I would think that native HD programming that is filmed in HD and transmitted all the way to the display device in HD (whether via cable, DISH or DirecTV, assuming no obscene amounts of compression along the way) should be superior to a DVD which is upscaled to HiDef even if the DVD player has all of the Faroudja / upscaling / blah, blah, blah because the upscaling process makes assumptions (based on algorhythms) of what should be in the missing lines of resolution whereas the true HD broadcasted content actually really has the content there to begin with. The new HD DVDs will do away with this upscaling issue (at least for new DVDs).

Source material that was created at the specified resolution, and subsequently transmitted in that format and displayed upon a monitor capable of accurately reproducing the format without conversion should be superior to current converted DVDs regardless of the processing involved.

You will ALWAYS be limited by the resolution of the original source material!

And this is independent of whatever format source it is transferred to (DVD, or any of the Hi-Def digital formats).

[DTLongo]

Without getting in to a lot of technical detail that is over my head, my two cents:

Mine is a late-2004 Pioneer plasma 50" HDTV. I have a limited cable HDTV selection out here, Discovery HD seems to be best, virtually photographic. DVD's though, on even a modest player, come through on the HDTV plasma as very pleasing, filmic, quite equivalent to a movie theater in quality if not in screen size. The color renditions and gradations are especially smooth, subtle and impressive.

But then a couple of days ago on cable I stumbled on a QUALITY HDTV broadcast of "Amadeus," a film I know very well on DVD. The difference was awesome, no kidding. The DVD is good, but the HDTV was almost three-dimensional. The costumes especially. One felt that one could reach out and virtually stroke the fabric.

Alas, rarely does even an HDTV transmission match that quality. When it does, it is (again) awesome. But it really depends on the quality of the source material. At its best, in terms of clarity, sharpness and "tactility" HDTV blows away even the best film/projection movie theater.

[Zen Traveler]

Wow! This is a classic example of why this site is so damned frustrating...

...Gee, and to think that we could be spending this precious time debating which format reproduces the sound of an exploding star more accurately!

Well, I for one am glad you are here. Every Klipsch function I have gone to I break the ice by introducing myself as "dragonfyr." It's great to see and hear the initial reaction (of course I scan the room to see if anyone is "packin") [].

Insofar as the exploding star issue--Multichannel all the way Baby! []

[JONtheBOMB]

Wow, lots of bickering about nothing.

[nuclearay]

Well this topic got silly quick and it was certainly not my intention for it to go in that direction.

Thank you to all who gave your real world experience -- you know who you are.

I've been able to record a few more HD movies that I already have in my collection but I still haven't been able to watch any to compare. Maybe next weekend.

Should be a fun experiment.