Jump to content

Recommended Posts

HD TV in Australia as far as I know is at best 1080i. Even in America there are no 1080p HD shows.

Since everything shot on film is progressive, every movie you see on 1080i TV is also progressive. Simple weave deinterlacing recovers perfect 1080p from the 1080i video stream.

You can convert 1080p to 1080i and back to 1080p as many times as you want in the digital domain without loss. 1080p content has therefore been available on free to air digital TV since day one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 791
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Since everything shot on film is progressive, every movie you see on 1080i TV is also progressive. Simple weave deinterlacing recovers perfect 1080p from the 1080i video stream.

You can convert 1080p to 1080i and back to 1080p as many times as you want in the digital domain without loss. 1080p content has therefore been available on free to air digital TV since day one.

Understood. By 1080p you are referring to 1080p25, 1080p24 and 1080p30, not 1080p50 or 1080p60 which, I take it from the above, are not really available in any current media (broadcast, BluRay or HD-DVD).

In that case, I'm still not sure why there is an argument over the Hitachi's right to be described as "Full HD". If it can accept 1080p (25 or 30) & 1080i (50 or 60) and display using 1920x1080 pixels, what else is there?

I'm currently trying to decide which 50 inch plasma to get, so I'm trying to understand the issues to help me choose between this and the Panasonic PZ700A, or perhaps a Samsung.

Dave.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Owen.. YES they are shot in progressive.. but alas u feeble minded little human being.. these panels CANNOT output progressive.. just interlaced...

therefore.. and yo answer your question.. yes i do think you may be a little clueless about this topic.. you have just spouted of **** that was probably in a brochure somewhere or that you have been told by a salesperson.. gullible people...

1080p content has therefore been available on free to air digital TV since day one.

The issue is whether the Hitachi maintains two fields on screen, if it does resolution will be 1080. It does not need to update every line simultaneously to have full vertical resolution on still or low motion content, but there may a very slight loss in faster motion depending on the update timing. Even if there is it will be impossible to see unless you get very close to the screen and the source video is exceptional.

and Owen.. this is the biggest load of bullshit that i have seen come out of anyones mouth... by any chance do you work for harvey norman.. you clueless twat.

It is, how so? Look up weave deinterlacing and what it is used for. It’s so simple even a $50 DVD player can implement it perfectly. It recovers PERFECT progressive frames from interlaced video containing progressive content like film.

If you watch DVD’s on a PC, the player can implement weave to give you a perfect progressive image and requires zero CPU overhead to do so.

This only works for video content that was progressive to start with. True interlaced content from an interlaced video camera is a completely different proposition, and very difficult to deinterlace properly.

I do not work in retail, and your reference to me as a “clueless twat” is offensive. Not only is such language and tone inappropriate on any public forum, but it is also a breach of forum rules.

I get the distinct impression you are a troll, so I see no point in continuing this discussion with you any further.

Link to post
Share on other sites
OWEN:

I GOT THIS ONE FOR YOU....ENJOY:

It is all an issue of Image Resolution

There are currently a number of different HDTV formats as adopted by the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC), based on 720p, 1080i, and 1080p - using refresh rates that vary between 24 Hz and 60 Hz.

The main difference between these HDTV formats is one of image resolution.

The 720p is on the lower-end of the scale with an image resolution of 1280 pixels by 720 lines. The other two formats both support 1920 pixels by 1080 lines. In other words, both support the same image resolution but there is a significant difference in the way the 1080i (interlaced) and the 1080p (progressive) formats build up the image.

Surely, image resolution in fixed-pixel displays is a very HOT topic with many HDTV buyers. For many, the obvious choice is to opt for the latest 1080p HDTV - also referred to as ultra-HD or full-HD by some manufacturers ...but there is a price to pay to get the latest in HDTV technology.

On the other hand, the way the 1080i and the 720p formats build up the image may render the lower resolution 720p format more suitable to display certain image content.

In other words, do not simply jump to conclusions as to which HD format is best. As we will see in this article, each of these different HDTV formats has got its strengths and weaknesses.

1080i: Up to a few years ago, this was considered as the reference standard in HDTV. Nearly all first-generation HDTVs were rear-projection sets that supported this standard.

This format boasts a picture resolution of 1920 pixels by 1080 horizontal lines that are painted on the screen in two interlaced halves (hence the 'i' in the '1080i' format) - by first painting all 540 even-numbered lines on the screen (also referred to as the even-field), and then proceed with the painting of the odd-numbered lines (odd-field). These two fields together form a single frame of 1080 lines.

In the process, the screen is painted 60 times per second (50 times in a PAL signal) - each time painting only half of the lines per frame, with the entire screen being painted in two passes 30 times every second.

Because of the way the interlaced process paints the screen, all picture information contained in adjacent odd and even lines in an interlaced image is 1/60th of a second out-of-synch with the next or previous line. This difference between the two halves of the picture would show up in what are referred to as 'interlaced artifact'. This in itself will impact on the type of image content that is best displayed on an interlaced display.

720p and 1080p HDTV: In contrast, in all progressive-scan formats - 480p (EDTV), and 720p and the 1080p HDTV displays - all scanning lines in a single frame are displayed sequentially in a single pass. This means that a progressive scan image is complete in itself. This also explains why progressive images look better when objects in the pictures are in motion.

The Bottom Line

The 1080i format is more widely supported by manufacturers and broadcasters; broadcasters however would normally broadcast only in either 720p or 1080i but not both. This should not be much of an issue in that any HDTV set you buy should be able to display pictures in any HDTV format by up-converting or down-converting to its native format, i.e. the one in which it's designed to produce a picture.

Theoretically, from a pixel-count perspective, 1080i supports better spatial resolution than a 720p HDTV. In theory, 1080i supports a pixel count of over 2 million pixels as against the 0.92 million pixels supported by 720p HDTV, but due to limitations associated with interlacing, the actual difference in effective resolution between 720p and 1080i is almost negligible. What's more, a 720p display is capable of a better flicker-free picture when it comes to fast moving action movie scenes and sports.

The situation with 1080p HDTV is totally different than that of 1080i. 1080p supports the full 1920 x 1080 pixels (2.07 million pixels) while at the same time, enjoys the added benefit that all 1080 lines are displayed in a single pass.

In other words, 1080p HDTV combines the superior resolution of the 1080 format with the smooth stable image of a progressive scan format.

N.B: It is worth mentioning here that interlaced formats aren't really an option in fixed-pixel displays (DLP and LCD rear-projection as well as plasma and LCD flat-panel). This also explains why display manufacturers are shifting away from the 1080i and instead moving directly from 720p to 1080p HDTV.

And What about 1080p HDTV Sets?

Surely, 1080p HDTV represents the latest developments in HD Television technology. A few of these sets have already started to hit the market.

Not surprisingly, there is a premium one has to pay to get the latest and best in the HDTV world. 1080p HDTV sets do not come cheap but the price gap between a 720p and a 1080p has already fallen below the $500 mark from an average of $1,000 to $2,000 a year ago.

Should you opt for a 1080p HDTV Set, and are these sets worth the extra expense?

Well, there is no straight answer here. It all depends on what are your requirements, yet there are a few facts you should know before making any decision:

* Surely, these sets are capable of producing spectacular results with ultra sharp images. But whether you will be able to see the difference in image quality between a 720p display and a 1080i signal displayed on a 1080p HDTV display depends on your TV viewing distance and screen size, more than on the screen native resolution. (It is not the scope of this article to discuss the TV viewing distance but more info in this respect is available at our site at http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.co...-distance.html)

* In reality, it would be very difficult to detect any difference in image detail between 720p and 1080i/p HDTV material on the smaller sets from 10-feet away. Sit closer and feed your 1080p HDTV set with a good quality HD source, and you will start to see the difference.

* Further more, with most of today HD broadcasts, you will be hard pressed to see a difference in picture quality when you compare the image on current 720p sets versus the latest 1080p HDTV models. Surely, if you are thinking of going really big, then the extra image resolution would make the difference. But keep in mind that at present, true 1080p HDTV material is almost non-existent. What's more, none of the major networks has announced 1080p broadcasts - and it is unlikely that they will make such a move in the near future considering the bandwidth requirements.

Nevertheless, one cannot but remark that the whole equation in favor of 1080p HDTV sets has started to change. There are a number of factors that are pointing towards the latest in HDTV - and it is not just the marginal difference in price between 720p and 1080p HDTV sets. In particular, there is the advent of high definition movie players; these will be taking a dominate role in the distribution of off-air HDTV content. It is true that present day first generation HD-DVD do not output in 1080p but first generation Blu-ray will offer it, so HD-DVD will surely have to follow suit at some point in the near future. Meanwhile, 1080p is quickly becoming the new de-facto gold standard for HDTVs, and while - ironically - most pre-2006 1080p HDTV sets did not support a 1080p connection, 1080p inputs are set to become among the basic common supported features in nearly all 2006 HDTVs.

Andrew Ghigo – A Telecoms/Electronics engineer by profession, with specialization in digital switching and telecoms fraud management systems.

ENJOY :)

This is very oversimplified, and there are several misconceptions.

In many respects it is factually accurate; however most of it is not relevant to what we are discussing here.

It is centred around CRT 1080i displays and 1080i video that was captured interlaced via a video camera. It does not address the issues of 1080i video that was created from a progressive source like film, nor does it address the way the Hitachi ALiS system may operate.

These issues relating to 1080i have been discussed at length on this board many times, and I don’t have the time to regurgitate it all again for your benefit.

If you are genuinely interested, use the search function.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Understood. By 1080p you are referring to 1080p25, 1080p24 and 1080p30, not 1080p50 or 1080p60 which, I take it from the above, are not really available in any current media (broadcast, BluRay or HD-DVD).

In that case, I'm still not sure why there is an argument over the Hitachi's right to be described as "Full HD". If it can accept 1080p (25 or 30) & 1080i (50 or 60) and display using 1920x1080 pixels, what else is there?

I'm currently trying to decide which 50 inch plasma to get, so I'm trying to understand the issues to help me choose between this and the Panasonic PZ700A, or perhaps a Samsung.

Dave.

Don’t worry yourself about how the display does what it does; judge the on screen results, that’s all that matters.

If you like the Hitachi better then the opposition for whatever reason, buy it.

Personally I would go for something else, not because of the 1080i/p issue which is unimportant, but because of black levels.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lolz'rs, it is not permissible on this forum to call anyone a "feeble minded little human being". If you persist with that type of offensive comment the forum moderators will no doubt suspend your access.

Dave, I'm responding to your post:-

OK guys. I think I'm still confused - sorry
:blush:

Perhaps answers to the following simplistic questions would make things clearer for me and perhaps others.

Ignoring NTSC based fequencies (30hz & 60hz) for the moment.

1) Can the Hitachi display full progressive 1920x1080 frames at 50hz?
- Probably

By this I mean can it update the & re-display data for every pixel in progressive fashion 50 times per second. I understand that, at an electrical level, each pixel may be refreshed at a higher frequency to ensure that the display doesn't flicker, etc, but that's not what I mean.

2) Can any other 1080p screens accomplish this?
- Yes

3) Do any current sources (HD-DVD, BluRay, etc) offer 1920x1080 at 50hz as described above?
- Not those sources, but some computer games can.

By this I mean full progressive frames captured 1/50th of a second apart.

4) Do any prospective standards offer 1920x1080 at 50hz as described above? -
Not in the immediate future

In short, I'm asking is there is any such thing (at present or on the drawing board) as 1080p50. If not, what is the difference between the Hitachi and other supposed FullHD sets? It would appear that both the Hitachi & others can:

- Accept & display 1080p25

- Accept 1080i50 & deinterlace (with differing levels of sophistication) to 1080p25, then display.

I hope this hasn't added to the confusion.
:unsure:

Dave.

Actually, I think the Hitachi can not only do what Dave mentioned at the end of his post I have copied above, but 1080p60 which is beyond normal currently available formats outside of computer games. It's actual performance is probably all that can be expected of a full HD 1080p panel, even though it addresses and energizes its pixels differently to other panels.

The key to understanding this apparent paradox is that ALIS is not a simple case of address and display all the even lines for 1/50th sec and then address and dispaly all of the odd lines for 1/50th sec, along the lines of an old-fashioned CRT display.

It is a case of update the panel at around 1000 times a second (or more) alternating between the even lines and the odd lines.

However average consumers would find this very confusing so if they demand a refund, a refund may be provided.

Hitachi may have contributed to this lack of understanding, as to the best of my knowledge they have not released technical details on the precise rate at which the updating occurs. Fast updating is required for control of intensity. It needs to be understood that intensity is controlled on Plasma panels by flashing pixels on and off. This differs from LCD panels which can display a true continuous grey. Plasma panel manufacturers may be coy about attempting to explain this sort of detail to the public, as it might seem to some consumers to be an unnatural and indirect way of creating an image.

Edited by MLXXX
Link to post
Share on other sites

Or to quote from THE MAN himself on this particular issue:

Apologies for the long post, but lets put this issue to rest please.

"Hitachi, ALIS, 1080p and 1080i - Wednesday, 14 November 2007, 12:05 pm

In the post immediately below this one, as explained in the update at the foot of the post, I talk about 1080i and 1080p issues which are not particularly relevant to the current fuss involving Smarthouse and Hitachi.

It turns out that the relevant Hitachi TV does, in fact, accept full 1080p signals. So what is the problem?

What the issue seems to revolve around is Hitachi's use of an ALIS panel in this TV. This is a Hitachi/Fujitsu co-development from a few years ago which simplifies the wiring in plasma panels. Instead of every pixel in the TV having its own two triggering wires, with ALIS panels each two horizontal rows of pixels have three sets of wires. Each row has one dedicated signal wire and a shared one. Consequently, the two rows of pixels cannot be triggered at the same time.

This yields some efficiency improvements, and apparenty increases the brightness of the panel against 'conventional' plasma technology. But it does mean that the panel is natively interlaced, not progressive.

But does this matter? As always with these things, it all depends on implementation. A truly interlaced panel will show one set of scan lines for about 20 milliseconds, and then the second set for 20 milliseconds. These are approximations, though, because plasma panels use phosphors to generate the light that you see. The electrical signal within each plasma cell is applied to some gas that generates a burst of UV light which excites the phosphors into generating visible light. This light isn't just switched on and off instantly. It bursts fairly rapidly into life, and then fades away.

One of the important design criteria for plasma (and CRT) TVs is the 'persistence' of the phosphor. That is, how long does the phosphor continue to glow after it has been excited. If it dies away too rapidly before the next screen 'refresh' (ie. the next frame is offered for display), the whole screen will appear to flicker. If it dies away too slowly, moving pictures will be smeared. The first effect could be seen with some expensive 100 hertz CRT TVs and CRT-based RPTVs before these technologies were overtaken by panels and projectors. They would display DVDs and SDTV gloriously, with a 100 hertz refresh. But if you gave them a progressive scan signal or a HD signal (1080i), they would kick back to 50 hertz and the full screen flicker was appalling.

CRT TVs generally didn't suffer significantly from 'combing' artefacts, despite the fact that fields from different frames were being kind of mixed up together. That's because the brightness of the phosphor on one scan line would have largely died away by the time that the scan lines immediately above and below it were drawn. Remember, they were drawn some 20 milliseconds later.

But you can't do that with a panel TV. Not if you want it to look at all watchable, anyway. What must happen with the Hitachi ALIS TVs is that half the scan lines are 'drawn' in a discrete instant in time, rather than painted down the screen over 20ms like CRT TVs, and then the other half are likewise drawn all together.

Given this, how can the picture look decent, without combing caused by the even field from one frame being displayed on the screen at the same time as the odd field from the next frame? On way would be to use phosphors with short persistence, so that each field has largely faded before the next is shown. But that would result in marked 'interline flicker'. Steady horizontal objects would move up and down between two scan lines fifty times per second. This would not be nice either. Furthermore, it would darken the whole picture because half the pixels would be switched off, more or less, at any one time.

Another solution, and I suspect the one used by Hitachi, is to break with tradition. Why should fields be displayed 20 milliseconds apart from each other? Remember, the screen phosphors are kicked into life, and then they glow for a while on their own. So let's say that the odd scan lines of the frame are fired off, and then the even ones are fired not 20ms later, but 1ms later. They would be so close together in time that the frame would be almost entirely progressive. In fact, you could say that the panel is 95% progressive, 5% interlaced. The residual combing would be so low in level to be imperceptible.

All this is supposition on my part, thinking through how one could employ the ALIS structure of plasma panel to produce a high quality picture. The timings may be different. The second field may have to fire 5ms after the first one, or maybe only 0.5ms. I don't know and I will endeavour to find out. But I would be very surprised if it fires the full 20ms later because the picture quality problems would be pretty obvious.

Is 1080i true high definition? - Monday, 12 November 2007, 4:15 pm

Over at Smarthouse, David Richards seems to have set the cat loose amongst the pigeons over the issue of Hitachi advertising its TVs as 'Full HD'. Richards argues that because these TVs accept only a 1080i signal, not a 1080p one, they are not full high definition.

He assembles a wide range of opinions uniformly in support of his case.

Unfortunately, things aren't quite so simple. I should add that I have yet to review any of the subject TVs, so I cannot offer an opinion as to their capabilities. But I can say that 1080i can indeed to 'Full HD'.

The issue is complicated by the use of the same term to describe two -- actually, three or even four -- different things. First, there is the signal. HD DVD and Blu-ray players can deliver all the usual output resolutions (480i, 576i, 480p, 576p, 720p and 1080i). Almost all of them also deliver 1080p. 1080p can, in turn, be delivered in six different forms (at 24 frames per second, 25fps, 48fps, 50fps, 60fps and 72fps). Of these, all current 1080p-capable Blu-ray and HD DVD players support 50 and 60fps, and some also support 24fps. That is really a story for another day. What's important here is what the differences are between 1080i and 1080p, at whatever resolution. So let us just talk about Blu-ray and HD DVD, and them delivering their video at 1080i60 versus 1080p60.

The problem with the Hitachi TVs seems to be that they will not accept a 1080p signal, only a 1080i one.

The other common use of the term is to describe the 'resolution' of the display. I have for the last few years been using Full HD or True HD to refer to a panel resolution of 1,920 by 1,080 pixels, regardless of whether or not the display is capable of accepting 1080p signals. It appears that these Hitachi TVs do indeed meet my criterion for being Full HD.

But if the TV can't accept a 1080p signal, doesn't that mean that its picture quality is poorer?

Not on that basis alone. If the TV has been well designed, there are in fact some slight, occasional, losses by delivering the signal in 1080i format rather than 1080p, but there is also a gain. The gain is simple: the amount of data having to be transmitted is halved. HDMI cabling quality is less of a consideration with 1080i than it is with 1080p.

Now, with a 1080p signal and a 1080p panel things are straight forward. The HD player grabs the digital data from the disc, decompresses it, and then sends it down the HDMI cable in the form of 60 frames per second. Since most HD discs are film sourced, and films are shot at 24 frames per second, there is an uneven cadence. The first frame is sent twice, the next one three times, the third twice, the fourth three times and so on. The display's job is simply to take each of these frames, pour each into its video memory and, when full, apply this to the display driver. Ideally, each pixel of the signal is displayed in its own allocated pixel on the panel. (In practice, some displays will not permit 1:1 pixel mapping, even with 1080p signals, and should be avoided.)

Things are quite different with a 1080i signal. The HD player takes each frame and breaks it up into two fields. One field consists of 540 horizontal rows of picture pixels: every second row of the full 1080 pixel height of the picture. The next field contains the rest. These are subject to 3:2 pulldown. This is a fairly complex procedure, and to understand this I refer you to my piece Progressive scan in PAL and NTSC. Refer particularly to the section 'NTSC -- where interlacing goes wrong'. The resolution in NTSC video is different (720 by 480 pixels, rather than 1,920 by 1,080), but the interlacing process is the same.

In short, a 1080i signal takes these frames and sends them in a decidedly weird, but regular, order to the display. Now here's the rub: the display can, if it has good quality video processing circuitry, completely reconstitute the original 1080p signal!

For example, today I am using Marantz's fine VP-15S1 home theatre projector. A truly wonderful unit this is. It incorporates Gennum VXP video processing. When I feed it a 1080i signal from HD DVD or Blu-ray, it is quite indistinguishable from when fed a 1080p signal. Or it has been so far with the tests I've got.

The one significant weakness of this projector is that you cannot 'force' it into film mode, so it could potentially misinterpret some film source material as being HD video sourced, and therefore apply a more complicated deinterlacing algorithm, reducing picture quality. It certainly does this from time to time with PAL DVDs delivered in 576i format, so I'd be surprised if it wouldn't do the same thing with Blu-ray and HD DVD. It's just that I have yet to identify suitable torture tests to allow me to closely examine this point.

I also use a DVDO iScan VP50PRO video processor. Amongst its many other virtues, this can also do the same trick, and can be forced into film mode, and so reconstitute a 1080i signal to a perfect 1080p one (and even deliver it at 24, 48 or 72 hertz if your display permits).

Once again, I don't know what kind of video processing the Hitachi TVs have, so they may not be able to do this. But I won't know that until I try it out.

In short, the ability of a Full HD display to accept a 1080p signal is not necessarily an indicator of quality (especially if it lacks 1:1 pixel mapping), but its inability does not necessary mean that it is incapable of displaying full HD pictures. It's just that the progressive scan business happens inside it, instead of outside it.

How competently it does this is the decisive issue.

How can you tell? Read suitable technical reviews that drill down into actual performance issues. If in doubt, purchase a 1080p display. The chances are higher that it will do a good job. After all, these days there's not good reason why a display wouldn't accept a 1080p signal other than penny pinching.

UPDATE (Wednesday, 14 November 2007, 11:19 am): Last night a pleasant fellow by the name of Jacob Campbell emailed me about this matter. He points out that the TV in question, the Hitachi P50X01 will indeed accept 1080p signals. So my discussion above is pretty much irrelevant to the current controversy.

When I wrote this item, I didn't know which TV the matter related to, nor did I particularly care. I was more interested in the general 1080i/p issue. The level of confusion about this seems immense.

For example, I drew the attention of Smarthouse (the online site that has launched the accusations against Hitachi) to this comment and received a call requesting permission to republish this piece. I declined (I write for too many competing publications), but indicated that fair quoting was acceptable. A few hours later a report on my discussion appeared at Smarthouse and, as far as I could tell, quoted this entire piece, but simply broke it up into sections with a little editorial comment wrapped around it. I was also given a byline as a coauthor. I objected, and within the hour half the piece had been dropped and my name removed from the byline. I mention this in case any readers saw the report with my byline.

What was interesting about this incident was not all that stuff, but the fact that Smarthouse apparently felt it relevant to use this discussion. The TV does accept 1080p singals, including 1080p24. So my discussion adds nothing to the debate. Which begs the question of how much Smarthouse knows about this particular issue.

Had I been writing specifically about this TV, I would have learned about the TV and offered a relevant opinion. As I do in the post above. "

Stephen Dawson from his blog

http://www.hifi-writer.com/blog/

Read his bio - he knows his stuff.

Also feel free to check the avsforum.com website - this issue was put to rest over there about 2 months ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Outstanding post mate, but I would like to make a couple of comments if I may.

One of the important design criteria for plasma (and CRT) TVs is the 'persistence' of the phosphor. That is, how long does the phosphor continue to glow after it has been excited. If it dies away too rapidly before the next screen 'refresh' (ie. the next frame is offered for display), the whole screen will appear to flicker. If it dies away too slowly, moving pictures will be smeared. The first effect could be seen with some expensive 100 hertz CRT TVs and CRT-based RPTVs before these technologies were overtaken by panels and projectors. They would display DVDs and SDTV gloriously, with a 100 hertz refresh. But if you gave them a progressive scan signal or a HD signal (1080i), they would kick back to 50 hertz and the full screen flicker was appalling.

CRT TVs generally didn't suffer significantly from 'combing' artefacts, despite the fact that fields from different frames were being kind of mixed up together. That's because the brightness of the phosphor on one scan line would have largely died away by the time that the scan lines immediately above and below it were drawn. Remember, they were drawn some 20 milliseconds later.

But you can't do that with a panel TV. Not if you want it to look at all watchable, anyway. What must happen with the Hitachi ALIS TVs is that half the scan lines are 'drawn' in a discrete instant in time, rather than painted down the screen over 20ms like CRT TVs, and then the other half are likewise drawn all together.

Given this, how can the picture look decent, without combing caused by the even field from one frame being displayed on the screen at the same time as the odd field from the next frame? On way would be to use phosphors with short persistence, so that each field has largely faded before the next is shown. But that would result in marked 'interline flicker'. Steady horizontal objects would move up and down between two scan lines fifty times per second. This would not be nice either. Furthermore, it would darken the whole picture because half the pixels would be switched off, more or less, at any one time.

Another solution, and I suspect the one used by Hitachi, is to break with tradition. Why should fields be displayed 20 milliseconds apart from each other? Remember, the screen phosphors are kicked into life, and then they glow for a while on their own. So let's say that the odd scan lines of the frame are fired off, and then the even ones are fired not 20ms later, but 1ms later. They would be so close together in time that the frame would be almost entirely progressive. In fact, you could say that the panel is 95% progressive, 5% interlaced. The residual combing would be so low in level to be imperceptible.

All this is supposition on my part, thinking through how one could employ the ALIS structure of plasma panel to produce a high quality picture. The timings may be different. The second field may have to fire 5ms after the first one, or maybe only 0.5ms. I don't know and I will endeavour to find out. But I would be very surprised if it fires the full 20ms later because the picture quality problems would be pretty obvious.

100Hz CRT TV’s have problems with visible combing or interlacing artifacts with true interlaced source because every field is draws twice. Field A is drawn followed by field B then field A is repeated and then field B. Because of this filed doubling the phosphors do not get a chance to fade, which virtually eliminates flicker, BUT it also means that two fields are visible together. For progressive sourced content (film) this is not a problem as both field are intended to be “weaved” together, however for true progressive source from an interlaced video camera the fields where never intended to be weaved, as they where captured at separate time intervals. Any horizontal motion in the scene means that the fields do not line up resulting in combing or interlacing artifacts as they are commonly called.

A CRT running at 100Hz with field doubling therefore behaves like a digital panel. All true interlaced content must be deinterlaced prior to display, otherwise combing results.

If the Hitachi was able to display 1080i natively, it would have the same flicker problems as a 1080i CRT. If it does not flicker it must be holding two fields on screen at all times, which requires that all video be progressive or combing artifacts would be very noticeable. It also means the display can show a full 1080 lines, just like a 1080p display.

The issue is complicated by the use of the same term to describe two -- actually, three or even four -- different things. First, there is the signal. HD DVD and Blu-ray players can deliver all the usual output resolutions (480i, 576i, 480p, 576p, 720p and 1080i). Almost all of them also deliver 1080p. 1080p can, in turn, be delivered in six different forms (at 24 frames per second, 25fps, 48fps, 50fps, 60fps and 72fps). Of these, all current 1080p-capable Blu-ray and HD DVD players support 50 and 60fps, and some also support 24fps. That is really a story for another day. What's important here is what the differences are between 1080i and 1080p, at whatever resolution. So let us just talk about Blu-ray and HD DVD, and them delivering their video at 1080i60 versus 1080p60.

Outputting 50 or 60p from a BluRay player offers no visible advantage as the source is only 24p. 60p and 60i are fine if the display is running at 60 or 120Hz, but for 24fps content to be displayed as intended the TV must run at 24, 48, 72, 96 or 120Hz and the repeated fames in 60p or repeated fields in 60i must be discarded to get back 24fps for display. No point in sending data that will be thrown away by the display.

The only real advantage in 24p output is simplicity; the disadvantage is that it is incompatible with 99% of the worlds HD displays. 1080i is compatible with every HD TV ever made.

Note that 120Hz is a common denominator and is divisible by both 24 and 60, that’s why many TV’s are moving to 120Hz, it’s a simpler then having a multisync TV.

Not on that basis alone. If the TV has been well designed, there are in fact some slight, occasional, losses by delivering the signal in 1080i format rather than 1080p, but there is also a gain. The gain is simple: the amount of data having to be transmitted is halved. HDMI cabling quality is less of a consideration with 1080i than it is with 1080p.

There is also no advantage in sending 50p or 60p when the source is only 24p, which can be delivered over a 1080i 60 interface without loss.

Now, with a 1080p signal and a 1080p panel things are straight forward. The HD player grabs the digital data from the disc, decompresses it, and then sends it down the HDMI cable in the form of 60 frames per second. Since most HD discs are film sourced, and films are shot at 24 frames per second, there is an uneven cadence. The first frame is sent twice, the next one three times, the third twice, the fourth three times and so on. The display's job is simply to take each of these frames, pour each into its video memory and, when full, apply this to the display driver. Ideally, each pixel of the signal is displayed in its own allocated pixel on the panel. (In practice, some displays will not permit 1:1 pixel mapping, even with 1080p signals, and should be avoided.)

The importance of 1:1 mapping is grossly overrated IMHO, for video content (not PC graphics) there is very little real world difference if scaling quality is half decent.

Things are quite different with a 1080i signal. The HD player takes each frame and breaks it up into two fields. One field consists of 540 horizontal rows of picture pixels: every second row of the full 1080 pixel height of the picture. The next field contains the rest. These are subject to 3:2 pulldown. This is a fairly complex procedure, and to understand this I refer you to my piece Progressive scan in PAL and NTSC. Refer particularly to the section 'NTSC -- where interlacing goes wrong'. The resolution in NTSC video is different (720 by 480 pixels, rather than 1,920 by 1,080), but the interlacing process is the same.

In short, a 1080i signal takes these frames and sends them in a decidedly weird, but regular, order to the display. Now here's the rub: the display can, if it has good quality video processing circuitry, completely reconstitute the original 1080p signal!

Exactly, but many people just don’t understand that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
~

Stephen Dawson from his blog

http://www.hifi-writer.com/blog/

Read his bio - he knows his stuff.

Also feel free to check the avsforum.com website - this issue was put to rest over there about 2 months ago.

Thanks Chissara. Very much on point.

hi chris, mlxxx, not sure if you are aware but stephen dawson is actually an active & contributing member @ dtv

http://www.dtvforum.info/index.php?showuser=21029

i too have always found his blog very interesting reading. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
hi chris, mlxxx, not sure if you are aware but stephen dawson is actually an active & contributing member @ dtv

http://www.dtvforum.info/index.php?showuser=21029

i too have always found his blog very interesting reading. :)

Yah I knew.

Just didn't want to raise it ;)

Sure he is grinning at what is being said here (or shaking his head)

Irrespective he does put the situation concisely and language that is not too technical.

There have been one or two comments he has made that I do not always agree with (but these are subjective thoughts), but I recognise his expertise is far, far greater than mine. That in itself does not mean I accept implicitly what he says as gospel, but informed. In other words I feel comfortable with what he says and have only ever had the need to double check his views elsewhere on a few occassions a long time ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks very much guys. I feel I have a much better understanding of this rather complex subject. Can't help thinking it's all very artificial. If someone was devising a set of standards from scratch now, without all the baggage of the past, they wouldn't end up with all this complication. Such is technological progress. :mellow:

On a personal note, Lolz'rs, I find your attitude offensive, please calm yourself. None of this really matters in the scheme of things. There is really no need to be rude or insulting to other contibutors. We are all supposed to be trying to assist one another to understand.

Dave.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Hi Guys:

I have had my Hitachi for about ten days now.

I bought a Toshiba HD-DVD E1 player from HN. This cost $439 and I get $100 cashback from Toshiba and 5 free disks. There was an issue with Apollo 13 disk which came with it as it didn't resize to the screen properly(tried to display in 2.35:1 aspect filling therefore only part of the screen). I then rented 'Van Helsing' and I got the most mind blowing HD video and was perfect. Just awesome. It looks like the Apollo 13 disk is meant to be displayed that way or it was faulty so I will rent Apollo 13 tomorrow from the shop and find out.

This whole 1080i/p argument is becoming increasingly laughable. The quality of this Toshiba E1 player is outstanding and it is 1080i, probably 1080i at 50Hz I would imagine which is to say pretty much the same as 1080p/24hz by the time the conversions are done.

So far I can't fault the TV and with HD-DVD, even the sound system sounds terrific with 16W for each speaker, very respectable for a TV.

I got this TV cheap because of this stupid argument and now a Toshiba for the same reason and really if you saw the HD-DVD running on this TV you would be blown away.

In the end, these TVs have to handle all sorts of conversions and sources and this TV does them as far as I can see impeccably.

Anyone got one and running blu ray?

Grant

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its important and useful that a number of members can explain the differences between 1080i and 1080p, but what it really comes down to is the viewing experience, black levels, viewing distance, intended use etc. Imo this TV is great value for money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone got one and running blu ray?

Grant

Had mine since September. Running HD-DVD via Xbox 360 Elite (with HDMI) and BluRay via PS3. Both look nothing less than stunning.

Last weekend watched Black Crows Freak 'n' Roll on BluRay. Video is 1080i. This is a live concert and I expected it to be pretty average. I was blown away by the video quality.

CARE: Unless you're a Black Crows afficionado, this is probably not one for you.

Rainy miserable day here, might go and watch some movies :rolleyes:

cheers

blairy

Link to post
Share on other sites


I think its important and useful that a number of members can explain the differences between 1080i and 1080p, but what it really comes down to is the viewing experience, black levels, viewing distance, intended use etc. Imo this TV is great value for money.

It would seem that for those people about to buy a HD display (768 or 1080) for the first time that aren't sure what all this stuff means they have an opportunity to buy and future proof themselves. But it would seem that for most people (AV aficiandos aside), the whole 1080i/1080p is a non argument as they are both so close in real world performance that most people couldn't tell the difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It would seem that for those people about to buy a HD display (768 or 1080) for the first time that aren't sure what all this stuff means they have an opportunity to buy and future proof themselves. But it would seem that for most people (AV aficiandos aside), the whole 1080i/1080p is a non argument as they are both so close in real world performance that most people couldn't tell the difference.

Diesel:

I don't think it is even a question of being 'so close' in real world performance.

Number one there is no loss of data or information in the images in the situations everyone is discussing so it is up to the complexities of the electronics in each system to sort out various conversions and display the final processed image.

In other words the 1080i/1080p argument is pretty well irrelevant and people ideally need to see these TVs in action running 1080i broadcasts, normal DVD, blu ray and HD-DVD as well as 720p and normal SD broadcasts in order to find out which TV is best.

This is a pretty hard thing to do in practice mind you. The next best thing is feedback from owners of these sets and when you listen to people who own these sets, the feedback is overwhelmingly positive. Owner feedback is important because we have viewed all sorts of source material and have seen it perform under a variety of conditions, something difficult or impossible to achieve in a shop, especially the month before Xmas.

Hitachi are a very well respected brand and do their homework. As anyone can tell you who owns one these TVs have top rate electronics and it outputs whatever is thrown at it with outstanding results.

Hey there may be better TVs out there but most owners of this Hitachi are pleased as punch with what they have got and a steal at the price.

Grant

Link to post
Share on other sites
Owen.. YES they are shot in progressive.. but alas u feeble minded little human being.. these panels CANNOT output progressive.. just interlaced...

Okay, not trying to light the fire again but to basically get a clear picture (excuse the pun :rolleyes: ) if someone had 1080 progressive source of alternating blue and yellow frames and it was then transmitted via an interlaced signal and then displayed on two screens, what colour would appear on say a Panasonic 1080p panel and what colour would appear on a Hitachi 1080 panel?

Blue, yellow, blue, yellow...

or

Blue, green, yellow, green, blue...

or have I over simplified it? :D

Edited by Redav
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting concept mate. :D

Without actually testing it, I am quite confident you will see and average green on both, as the eye - brain can’t respond fast enough to differentiate colour at such a fast rate of change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys.I might be a newbie but rest assured i have been reading your posts for a long time.I have an interest in this thread cause i'm a happy owner of a Hitachi 1024 x 1024 42' plasma for a long time and almost upgraded to the P50X01 when it was first released.In the end i decided to hold back to compare to the Panasonic and Samsung.Of course in an ideal world i would buy the pioneer but $8k for a tv is not my ideal world atm.Anyway i just thought i would share my thoughts on my look at the 3 way fight between the non pioneer 1920 x 1080 plasma panels.First off when we look at the holy grail of black levels i have to admit the Hitachi is the worst of the three.Blind tommy can see it is not within a bulls roar of the pioneer blacks but then neither are the pana or samsung either.Honestly yes the blacks are better but not by that much that it would compel me to buy it.If i was anal enough to not buy the hitachi cause the pana had better blacks then i would be anal enough to take out a loan for $8k and buy the pioneer.In the real world i had a long hard look at the pana after watching my hitachi for a couple of years and hated it.I think the anti reflection screen sofens the image to the point where there is more detail in my 1024x1024 than there is in the pana.Also the colors are not as vibrant on the pana as they are on both my old and the new hitachi.When i see the P50X01 being fed with good 1080p content all the stunning detail is there to see.I just can't see the same detail there with the pana.Ok now here is the thing that really blew me away is what i will call sideways processing.The weak point of my 42' Hitachi is panning from side to side is very ordinary.Well for sure it is greatly improved on the new pana and samsung but both are still far from perfect.You can still see a noticable stepping between frames on things going sideways.Have a look on the P50X01 being fed with a 1080p source though.I was blown away by the Hitachi in this demo.Slow pans or super fast action this is hands down the best tv i have ever seen in this test.All the BS in the media about 1080i v's p is just that BS if you ask me.Seeing is believing for mine and blacks not being as black as pioneer aside for $5k less with HN offering me this tv for $3k today i think it a freakin wonderful bargain purchase.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 768 50” Kuro is under $4k and unless you are going to be sitting less then 2.5 meters from the screen it’s the way to go IMHO. 1080 is grossly overrated on modest sized screens as far as I am concerned, the better blacks and contrast of the 768 Kuro is vastest more important then a few extra pixels, but that’s just me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The 768 50” Kuro is under $4k and unless you are going to be sitting less then 2.5 meters from the screen it’s the way to go IMHO. 1080 is grossly overrated on modest sized screens as far as I am concerned, the better blacks and contrast of the 768 Kuro is vastest more important then a few extra pixels, but that’s just me.

It's nowhere near under $4k where i live as the pioneers are not a high volume seller.At a guess i would say $4.5k is the lowest i could get one in my local area.I appreciate what your saying on the res as i have seen the full res pio going side by side with the 768 and i thought the 768 if anything looked better detail wise at normal viewing distance :wacko: .I am talking about getting the Hitachi for $3k or maybe even less if i really put the squeeze on cause the HN sales guys seem desperate to get rid of these things.Seems like a deal to good to pass up for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you looked at the 768p Samsung and Panasonic? They should be cheaper then the 1080 Hitachi and are better IMHO.

The Panasonic looks better out off the box, but the Samsung has a lot of potential with a little fine tunning of the settings.

My preference for the none Hitachi alternatives has nothing to do with the 1080i issue, but simply black level which is not good on the Hitachi.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you looked at the 768p Samsung and Panasonic? They should be cheaper then the 1080 Hitachi and are better IMHO.

The Panasonic looks better out off the box, but the Samsung has a lot of potential with a little fine tunning of the settings.

My preference for the none Hitachi alternatives has nothing to do with the 1080i issue, but simply black level which is not good on the Hitachi.

Nope i havn't done that comparo,more homework :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a number of picture settings on all these machines.

There is even a black enhancement button on the Hitachi.

Black levels are important but overall differentiation in grey levels is important too.

I guess you have to look at the whole picture. Blacker blacks are good but not at the expense of other elements of the picture.

In the end it is what picture you like best, and this will differ from person to person.

Personally, I doubt if you would be disappointed with any of these full HD plasma tvs, not at least the good ones like the Hitachi, Panasonic and Pioneer.

Grant

Link to post
Share on other sites
The 768 50” Kuro is under $4k and unless you are going to be sitting less then 2.5 meters from the screen it’s the way to go IMHO. 1080 is grossly overrated on modest sized screens as far as I am concerned, the better blacks and contrast of the 768 Kuro is vastest more important then a few extra pixels, but that’s just me.

Where can you get a 50" kuro for under $4k?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Where can you get a 50" kuro for under $4k?

Don’t know who is offering that sort of price, but I seem to remember a price that low mentioned here somewhere. In a month or so it should not be that difficult to find.

I don’t expect you will ever get a Pioneer for the same price as a Hitachi but that’s not the point, you get what you pay for.

The Hitachi is outrageously cheap for a 1080 Plasma, but 768 models from Samsung and Panasonic are cheaper still, and have better blacks.

Unless you set very close, the extra resolution of a 1080 panel is of no practical value, but other aspects of performance like black level will be quite noticeable on any video source as long as you own the set.

Don’t get me wrong I’m not anti 1080, I own a 1080 TV myself, but it’s a 70” not a 50”.

If I where after a 50” for my 2.8-3.0 meter viewing distance I would not interested in a 1080 set unless it offered better performance in areas other then resolution in comparison to 768 models

End of rant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the differences between a 1080 screen and 768 is as obvious as a tarantula on your dining table. Yes, if it is a smaller screen and you sit several metres away you may not notice but at 2.5 - 3.0 m with a 50 inch screen, very noticeable.

Time to update guys!

I know the pioneer screens are very nice but it still can't pull resolution out of the hole it it's bum. If the resolution doesn't exist in the first place, no amount of quality electronics will change that. It just isnt' there. Period.

Having said that all these units upscale nicely to 1080 and the image quality is excellent. I was watching Team America on my HD-DVD player and it was great.

Grant

Link to post
Share on other sites
There are a number of picture settings on all these machines.

There is even a black enhancement button on the Hitachi.

Black levels are important but overall differentiation in grey levels is important too.

I guess you have to look at the whole picture. Blacker blacks are good but not at the expense of other elements of the picture.

In the end it is what picture you like best, and this will differ from person to person.

Personally, I doubt if you would be disappointed with any of these full HD plasma tvs, not at least the good ones like the Hitachi, Panasonic and Pioneer.

Grant

Thats a good point.I bought my current Hitachi 1024 x 1024 based on the fact that i liked the way it looked.Sure i liked the pioneer better at the time but i got the Hitachi for half the price and i have been happy with the bang i got for my buck ever since.It still blows me away with the upscaled dvd of Ghost in the Shell:Innocence and the blu-ray release of Tekkonkinkreet.If i had to list in order the picture i like best of the four 1080 plasma's i've seen it would be Pioneer,Hitachi,Samsung,Panasonic. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the differences between a 1080 screen and 768 is as obvious as a tarantula on your dining table. Yes, if it is a smaller screen and you sit several metres away you may not notice but at 2.5 - 3.0 m with a 50 inch screen, very noticeable.

Time to update guys!

I know the pioneer screens are very nice but it still can't pull resolution out of the hole it it's bum. If the resolution doesn't exist in the first place, no amount of quality electronics will change that. It just isnt' there. Period.

Having said that all these units upscale nicely to 1080 and the image quality is excellent. I was watching Team America on my HD-DVD player and it was great.

Grant

If you compare a range of 768 and 1080 50” displays at 2.5 meters plus and put the difference down to resolution you are making a mistake.

Every display will look differed, some better then others, but the differences are dominated by factors other then resolution.

To make a comparison of resolution alone, try down scaling some top quality 1080 video to 768 and then back up to 1080 on a PC and display the original and scaled version on the same 1080 display. The downscaled version has had all resolution above 768 discarded, yet the on screen picture will be VERY difficult to distinguish from the original 1080.

If a small amount of sharpening is applied the 768 version will be so close to the 1080 version it just does not matter.

I have conducted this test many times myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Owen:

I think for enthusiasts no one will have anything but full HD in a few years time and the prices will get cheaper. The argument is therefore becoming a mute one as prices fall. I mean why bother not having full HD now that they have become so cheap(relatively).

The bigger the screen too the bigger the differences between full HD and lower resolutions.

Am I mistaken in saying that Pioneer are not dropping the prices of their full HD 50 inch plasma?

It seems like they will only ever appeal to a committed minority of enthusiasts if they are 2 - 3 times the price of other plasmas. They are good screens but not good enough to warrant that premium, IMHO.

IMHO wait a few months and pioneer full HD plasma will be well under $5000 and I guess the others maybe even cheaper.

Grant

Link to post
Share on other sites
Owen:

I think for enthusiasts no one will have anything but full HD in a few years time and the prices will get cheaper. The argument is therefore becoming a mute one as prices fall. I mean why bother not having full HD now that they have become so cheap(relatively).

I think Owen is only saying that if a 768p screen can display a better looking PQ than a 1080p screen, why would you buy a dearer 1080p screen? Sure prices are falling, and eventually there will only be Full HD models available (as well as the 'next big thing'), just like SD screens have but disappeared.

If you buy a car, would you buy one that was a joy to drive although it didn't have the best specs, or would you buy the one that had the best specs, but wasn't as enjoyable to drive?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Owen is only saying that if a 768p screen can display a better looking PQ than a 1080p screen, why would you buy a dearer 1080p screen? Sure prices are falling, and eventually there will only be Full HD models available (as well as the 'next big thing'), just like SD screens have but disappeared.

If you buy a car, would you buy one that was a joy to drive although it didn't have the best specs, or would you buy the one that had the best specs, but wasn't as enjoyable to drive?

I personally thinks the Samsung/Pana 1080p models are better than their non-1080p panels for both SD and HD.

The only better 768p screen for the general consumers that could be better than majority of 1080p plasma is the kuro XD.

But that's is still debatable for some people.

However the best Kuro XD price is still dearer by 1k than what I could get for a PZ700. I personally like the 1080p plasma better and 1K cheaper the decision is easy.

And when you do photo gallery show on the 1080p plasma it looks so much better than the 768p models.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think for enthusiasts no one will have anything but full HD in a few years time and the prices will get cheaper. The argument is therefore becoming a mute one as prices fall. I mean why bother not having full HD now that they have become so cheap(relatively).

Yes, 1080p will be the lowest res you we get in a few years, but by then higher resolutions will be all the rage and 1080 will be old hate.

Prices will always fall over time, but the point is at the moment people should be looking at what gives them the best picture at the viewing distance they will use and at the price they are prepared to pay, not buying a 1080 model over a 768 model just because it has a “Full HD” sticker on the front to impress their friends.

The bigger the screen too the bigger the differences between full HD and lower resolutions.

Yes, but not if the set is viewed from a proportionally greater distance. 50” is not a big TV, and you need to sit closer then many people will be prepared to for 1080 to be of much practical advantage.

Am I mistaken in saying that Pioneer are not dropping the prices of their full HD 50 inch plasma?

No doubt Pioneer will drop their prices over time, but so will everyone else.

While ever Pioneer have a superior product they should not be competing on price. If you have to ask the price you cant afford it.

It seems like they will only ever appeal to a committed minority of enthusiasts if they are 2 - 3 times the price of other plasmas. They are good screens but not good enough to warrant that premium, IMHO.

The 1080 Pioneers may be relatively expensive but the 768 models are not.

Remember it’s picture quality you are paying for not pixels, and if it where me, I would take a 768 Kuro over anyone else’s 1080 every time.

IMHO wait a few months and pioneer full HD plasma will be well under $5000 and I guess the others maybe even cheaper.

Probably true, but buy then the other manufacturers will have dropped their prices as well so it will still cost extra for a 1080 Pioneer, as it should IMHO.

You pay your money and you take your choice.

Personally I don’t see what all the fuss is about price. The 1080 50” Pioneer is cheaper then their 768 50” was a year ago and $3k cheaper then the 1080 50” it replaced. Just because other manufacturers have dropped there prices unbelievably does not make the Pioneers expensive, it just means the others are cheaper.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello all...

this is my first post so i hope i do well..... :)

I actually own the Hitachi P50X01AU plasma tv and i must say that i am extreamly unhappy with it.....

i get alot of jidder in the picture during action sequences and most of the on screen text is jagard in appearance.

i know this i a fault with interlaced rendering and had i known that interlaced rendering was going to cause so much picture distortion i would have got a progressive screen instead.

i have read through all of the other posts and have found that this is a confusing topic....everyone seems to be an expert and that they know best!

heres my opinion from actually owing the product in question......I HATE IT!!!! PROGRESSIVE IS BETTER!!!!!

im actually going to go get myself a sony LCD 1080P TV, i know that it will be more expensive but i have seen it against my tv and several other plasmas (all playing the same content) and have found them to be the best!!!!

this 1080i/p is really getting to me...i want to understand, but it is hard when everyone else doesnt understand it as well......

all i want from my tv is, CRYSTAL CLEAR PICTURE, TRUE COLOUR, AND SMOOTH MOTON.

Will this sony do that????

Um your other username isn't lol'zr is it?

Which Sony model are you referring to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris:

Any TV you buy can have problems, whether it is a pioneer, panasonic, hitachi etc.

It can also be source material, connections interference etc.

I have run my Hitachi using all sorts of source material and it is fine.

It is hard to say though. If you are looking very closely at almost any picture bar even HD-DVD/blu ray you may see faults, no picture in fact is perfect. You may find motion judder too in almost any image depending on it's compression level even on HD-DVD I find some disks perfect and others not so. TV broadcasts sometimes highly compress streams so that you can get motion artefacts and jaggedness but this would be the case with any plasma.

This is nothing to do with the Hitachi. If you got a Sony or anything else you may well have the same problems so it pays to work through the problems systematically so that you don't make a time consuming and expensive meal of it.

Of course, it could be the TV but be sure of other things before you rush to that judgement. Start by making sure all your settings are default then maybe get your source like your DVD and player and connect to a unit in the shop and see how it runs.

Grant

Edited by inspecthergadget
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Thats a good point.I bought my current Hitachi 1024 x 1024 based on the fact that i liked the way it looked.Sure i liked the pioneer better at the time but i got the Hitachi for half the price and i have been happy with the bang i got for my buck ever since.It still blows me away with the upscaled dvd of Ghost in the Shell:Innocence and the blu-ray release of Tekkonkinkreet.If i had to list in order the picture i like best of the four 1080 plasma's i've seen it would be Pioneer,Hitachi,Samsung,Panasonic. :)

same here for the money it was the best I could find. and today absolutely love it with both hddvd and blu-ray. the pio to me too at the time I was buying looked washed out and seemed overpriced for me for what it delivered. yep the kuro at the present is sure nice as well but it is pricier and by a significant margin. its somethign every one will weigh up to decide for them selves what is best for them and their needs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello all...

this is my first post so i hope i do well..... :)

I actually own the Hitachi P50X01AU plasma tv and i must say that i am extreamly unhappy with it.....

i get alot of jidder in the picture during action sequences and most of the on screen text is jagard in appearance.

i know this i a fault with interlaced rendering and had i known that interlaced rendering was going to cause so much picture distortion i would have got a progressive screen instead.

i have read through all of the other posts and have found that this is a confusing topic....everyone seems to be an expert and that they know best!

heres my opinion from actually owing the product in question......I HATE IT!!!! PROGRESSIVE IS BETTER!!!!!

im actually going to go get myself a sony LCD 1080P TV, i know that it will be more expensive but i have seen it against my tv and several other plasmas (all playing the same content) and have found them to be the best!!!!

this 1080i/p is really getting to me...i want to understand, but it is hard when everyone else doesnt understand it as well......

all i want from my tv is, CRYSTAL CLEAR PICTURE, TRUE COLOUR, AND SMOOTH MOTON.

Will this sony do that????

Interlaced display will give you smoother motion then a progressive display all else being equal, and true interlaced video most definitely will give you smoother motion then progressive video.

Standard SD CRT TV’s are true interlaced and you won’t find a digital with smoother motion then a CRT.

As for the text issue, its more likely a deinterlacing problem not an interlaced display problem. It’s hard to say without seeing it first hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...