The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sun Nov 24, 2024 10:27 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

If 1080p is out of the question, what HD resolution should content providers broadcast with?
1080i 21%  21%  [ 4 ]
720p 53%  53%  [ 10 ]
Farsky is standard def. 26%  26%  [ 5 ]
Total votes : 19
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:59 pm
Posts: 9412
Answer in the generic; that is, not necessarily tuned directly to your own home setup, but from a standpoint of what (failing 1080p) you'd prefer broadcasters and content providers adopt and offer.

Which do you prefer on a source (cable/satellite feed, optical media, streaming source, etc.), and why?

Please feel free to further qualify in reply posts and expound on how that qualification affects your choice, or just explain what lead you to select the choice you did.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:34 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
720p is plenty.

i is for chumps. ;)

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:58 pm 
Offline
Web Ninja
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:32 pm
Posts: 8248
Location: The Tunt Mansion
My understanding is that interlacing isn't too great for fast-moving visuals. A lot of what I watch in HD is fast, so I'd prefer 720p.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 614
Location: Salem, MA
Well to me 1080i deinterlaced to display on a 1080p TV always looks to result in a bit sharper of an image than 720p interpolated up to 1080p and on a 720p TV a 720p signal does look better than a 1080i, but since almost all HDTV's now are 1080p I picked 1080i.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:43 pm 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Ummmm ...

Really? How does your TV make a full 1080p image out of 2 frames with scan lines that run at 30 hz? Does it reduce it to a 15 hz 1920x1080 series of images? Or does it simply show the same frame 4 times in a row and pretend to be 60 hz?

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 614
Location: Salem, MA
1080i is 60Hz, deinterlaced it's essentially 1080p at 30Hz, 720p is of course 60Hz and thus still 60Hz when displayed on a 1080p display but the resulting frames aren't as clear since it was scaled up and no mater how good the software is a scaled picture never looks as sharp and clear as the original source. And seeing as things like movies are only even recorded at 24Hz 30Hz really is more than adequate thanks to motion blurring in TV broadcasts and movies.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:19 pm 
Offline
Oberon's Playground
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:11 am
Posts: 9449
Location: Your Dreams
720p is more than clear enough. I really don't notice much difference between a 720p broadcast and even a 1080p blu-ray unless I sit very close to my television. I can't say I've seen 1080i. Note, however, that Blu-Ray movies are 24fps, so a 60fps interlaced image is still enough to keep up with blu-ray frames with a little room to spare. Doesn't mean it will look good...I remember interlace resolutions on old CRT monitors, and while I'm sure there are differences, I'm skeptical.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me

█ ♣ █


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:48 pm 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
I voted for "Farsky is standard def"

Mainly because I do not give a rats ***. I plug my Living room TV in with the HDMI plug from my TV Provider and the HDMI plug from my PS3. I plug my Bedroom TV in via the COmposite plugs from my Cable Co. and the HDMI to my XBox 360. It looks a **** load better than the TV in I had before getting an HDTV.

I plug the thing in it looks awesome. That is all I care about. My Bedroom TV is 720p my Living Room is 1080p. Can I tell the two TVs apart? only as far as one is 42" and one is 30"

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 9:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3879
Location: 63368
If you have a good 120 Hz system, go for the 1080i input, otherwise go for the 720p

I never knew Mr Ski was deaf....

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 7:07 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
1080i comes in 25, 30, and 60 hz flavors. The broadcast flavor is 30hz in the U.S. unless otherwise specified by the content provider.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 7:37 am 
Offline
Deuce Master

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:45 am
Posts: 3099
"Farskee is standard def" = "Farskee is gay" ?

I'm confused.

_________________
The Dude abides.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 7:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3879
Location: 63368
Khross wrote:
1080i comes in 25, 30, and 60 hz flavors. The broadcast flavor is 30hz in the U.S. unless otherwise specified by the content provider.

I was talking about the TV

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 7:57 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Doesn't matter how big your TV is if the DVP sucks balls when it comes to de-interlacing, which is more sets than not, Taskiss.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 8:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3879
Location: 63368
Khross wrote:
Doesn't matter how big your TV is if the DVP sucks balls when it comes to de-interlacing, which is more sets than not, Taskiss.

On a good tv, motion interpolation and motion blur tech will add frames and eliminate any perceived difference between 1080i and 1080p (yes, yes, YMMV), that makes the choice effectively between 1080 and 720

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 12:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 614
Location: Salem, MA
Khross wrote:
1080i comes in 25, 30, and 60 hz flavors. The broadcast flavor is 30hz in the U.S. unless otherwise specified by the content provider.


Actually, no, both in the US and europe the broadcasting standard for 1080i is 60hz, in europe however they call it 1080i/30 denoting the fps, each frame is comprised of 2 cycle, totaling 60hz, if it was only 30hz it would only be displaying 15 frames a second which would be very jerky.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 12:34 pm 
Offline
Near Ground
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 6782
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Uh, the standard framerate in Europe is 25fps.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 12:39 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
Yeh. PAL /= NTSC

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 12:47 pm 
Offline
Web Ninja
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:32 pm
Posts: 8248
Location: The Tunt Mansion
Let's not confuse refresh rates with frame rates.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:16 pm 
Offline
Oberon's Playground
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:11 am
Posts: 9449
Location: Your Dreams
Lenas wrote:
Let's not confuse refresh rates with frame rates.


With a CRT, you'd be right. Higher refresh rates actually improved the visual quality independant of the framerates.

On an LCD, the two are really the same. No matter how high the "refresh" rate of the LCD is, it generally does not redraw the screen until it receives a new frame. Conversely, no matter how quickly new frames can be sent, the actual framerate on an LCD or CRT alike, cannot exceed the refresh rate. (Turning off "v-sync" on a computer is cheating.) The LCD never really "redraws" the screen. It simply checks each frame for changes to the previous frame, and alters it accordingly, turning individual pixels on or off as needed. (of course, sometimes a frame is entirely different, so it does, in a defacto way, redraw the entire screen because the entire screen is now different.)

Now, interlaced resolutions may be an exception to this. I would imagine --if designed correctly-- a high-refresh rate television was provided with the two separate portions of an "interlaced frame", it would alternate the two as rapidly as possible in order to provide as clear an image as possible, until a new paired "interlaced frame" was sent to it. That said, I have never looked into how interlaced resolutions work on an HDTV.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me

█ ♣ █


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:26 pm 
Offline
Web Ninja
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:32 pm
Posts: 8248
Location: The Tunt Mansion
Talya wrote:
On an LCD, the two are really the same. No matter how high the "refresh" rate of the LCD is, it generally does not redraw the screen until it receives a new frame.


Not true. If a TV has a refresh rate of 60hz, it's always moving at 60hz. To display 30fps on a TV with a 60hz refresh, each frame is repeated 2 times every 30th of a second. TV's don't look for changes in the frames before they do anything.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:52 pm 
Offline
Oberon's Playground
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:11 am
Posts: 9449
Location: Your Dreams
Lenas wrote:
Not true. If a TV has a refresh rate of 60hz, it's always moving at 60hz. To display 30fps on a TV with a 60hz refresh, each frame is repeated 2 times every 30th of a second. TV's don't look for changes in the frames before they do anything.



You don't understand.

With a CRT, the redrawing of the screen was necessary. The pixels on the screen stopped glowing in tiny fractions of a second if they weren't being hit by that electron gun.

On an LCD, to actually redraw a screen, all pixels have to be turned off, then turned on again. The pixels are all represented by an individual transistor that is either on, or off. (actually, by several transistors that are on or off, to account for color as well, but that gets complicated, so we'll keep it simple.)

A 120Hz refresh rate on an LCD monitor just indicates that it can change the value of the transistors controlling that pixel 120 times in a second. However, it does not do so, unless the actual value of that pixel is supposed to change 120 times in a second. If a particular pixel is to remain white for several seconds because the scene on the screen is not changing, then the pixel simply stays on the entire time. The LCD television does not redraw it at all. To do so would actually lower image quality, since it would introduce an imperceptible flicker as the pixel rapidly shut off and on again. It would also be less accurate, as the pixel would shut off while it was still supposed to be on, and a liquid crystal display can remain in its same state indefinitely without needing a redraw.

LCD screen changes are "incremental" because parts that don't change do not need to be redrawn -- to do so would be a bad thing. A static image is just that -- a static image. The TV is not so stupid as to turn the picture off and on again when it's not changing. The refresh rate of an LCD monitor, at least for non-interlaced resolutions, only indicates the speed at which the screen can adjust individual pixels. The concept of "refresh" is really a misleading term to use on them. Switches that are already on do not get turned off and back on again, nor can they be turned on when they are already on.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me

█ ♣ █


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 614
Location: Salem, MA
FarSky wrote:
Uh, the standard framerate in Europe is 25fps.


oops, yeah, you're right, they are 50Hz 25fps there, regardless though it's most definitely 60Hz 30fps here not 30Hz 15fps.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 12:32 am 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
I still stand by plug the bastard in and get an awesome picture. Everything else is superfluous.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 12:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:48 pm
Posts: 753
Location: In some distant part of the Universe
Talya wrote:
Lenas wrote:
Not true. If a TV has a refresh rate of 60hz, it's always moving at 60hz. To display 30fps on a TV with a 60hz refresh, each frame is repeated 2 times every 30th of a second. TV's don't look for changes in the frames before they do anything.



You don't understand.

With a CRT, the redrawing of the screen was necessary. The pixels on the screen stopped glowing in tiny fractions of a second if they weren't being hit by that electron gun.

On an LCD, to actually redraw a screen, all pixels have to be turned off, then turned on again. The pixels are all represented by an individual transistor that is either on, or off. (actually, by several transistors that are on or off, to account for color as well, but that gets complicated, so we'll keep it simple.)

A 120Hz refresh rate on an LCD monitor just indicates that it can change the value of the transistors controlling that pixel 120 times in a second. However, it does not do so, unless the actual value of that pixel is supposed to change 120 times in a second. If a particular pixel is to remain white for several seconds because the scene on the screen is not changing, then the pixel simply stays on the entire time. The LCD television does not redraw it at all. To do so would actually lower image quality, since it would introduce an imperceptible flicker as the pixel rapidly shut off and on again. It would also be less accurate, as the pixel would shut off while it was still supposed to be on, and a liquid crystal display can remain in its same state indefinitely without needing a redraw.

LCD screen changes are "incremental" because parts that don't change do not need to be redrawn -- to do so would be a bad thing. A static image is just that -- a static image. The TV is not so stupid as to turn the picture off and on again when it's not changing. The refresh rate of an LCD monitor, at least for non-interlaced resolutions, only indicates the speed at which the screen can adjust individual pixels. The concept of "refresh" is really a misleading term to use on them. Switches that are already on do not get turned off and back on again, nor can they be turned on when they are already on.


120 Hz LCD displays are 120 Hz for a reason. They display each frame (assuming a 24 fps Bluray movie) 5 times within each 24th of a second. This is in an effort to eliminate motion blur. Yes, the image may not actually change that often, but it doesn't change the fact that it is being displayed and/or updated faster than 24 fps.

I totally get what you are saying, it doesn't necessarily re-draw the entire screen, unless the particular frame it is displaying requires it to do so. But that doesn't change the fact that the TV is attempting to update the image at a faster rate than traditional 24 fps. And the 120 Hz / 240 Hz technology TV's were made specifically to eliminate a problem with lower refresh rates. So you can't really say that refresh rates and fps are the same thing in LCD TV's because a 24 fps movie really is displayed at 120 Hz. Yes, there are still only 24 separate frames displayed every second, but they are being displayed multiple times, depending on the refresh rate.

Wikipedia wrote:
Many high-end LCD televisions now have a 120 or 240 Hz (current and former NTSC countries) or 100 or 200 Hz (PAL/SECAM countries) refresh rate. The rate of 120 was chosen as the least common multiple of 24 frame/s (cinema) and 30 frame/s (NTSC TV), and allows for less distortion when movies are viewed due to the elimination of telecine (3:2 pulldown). These higher refresh rates are most effective from a 24p-source video output (e.g. Blu-ray Disc), and/or scenes of fast motion.


from the same wiki article:
Quote:
The refresh rate is the number of times in a second that display hardware draws the data. This is distinct from the measure of frame rate in that the refresh rate includes the repeated drawing of identical frames, while frame rate measures how often a video source can feed an entire frame of new data to a display.



And another one for good measure:
Most TV sets today refresh the picture either 50 times per second (50Hz) or 60 times per second (60Hz) depending where in the world you live (different regions use different color formatting.) That rate is fine for most images, but when it comes to fast moving shows like sports events the images can appear blurry on an LCD (liquid crystal display) TV. Doubling the rate at which images are displayed, to 100 or 120 frames per second, makes for a better, more high-definition picture.

_________________
"I Live, I Love, I Slay, and I Am Content."
- Conan the Barbarian


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 1:22 pm 
Offline
Oberon's Playground
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:11 am
Posts: 9449
Location: Your Dreams
I understand everything you said there.

Of course when viewing at 1080p from a Blu-Ray disk, 120Hz would not appear any different than a theoretical 24Hz LCD, even during fast action scenes. 120Hz IS slightly different than 60Hz, simply because 60Hz displays a marginally uneven frame-rate from a 24fps source. (each frame has time to be "redrawn" 2.5 times, which in reality becomes twice for one frame, three times for the next.)

Interlaced resolutions would be far more affected by LCD refresh rate. So are video games, and faster video sources, if they existed, would only be marginally better. (It's unnecessary. Actual camera work captures motion blur, making 24fps appear just as good as 600 fps...your brain isn't going to be able to tell the difference.)

60Hz LCDs would benefit from a variable refresh rate that allowed them to slow down to an exact multiple of the source feed.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me

█ ♣ █


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 169 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
You cannot post attachments in this forum

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