Why is 1080p the best

T

tpfaff

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
2,526
Why is 1080p described as true HD, I know it provides the best picture quality and highest resolutions of any tvs but, why cant their be anything higher than 1080p? Why cant their be 1420p?
 
There can and already is stuff higher than 1080p. But beyond 1080p, there's a new name: Ultra High-Def (yes, that's the real name). For example, the RED digital camera is shooting video at 4-5k resolution (roughly 4x the resolution of 1080p). That's 4520 x 2540 or 2540p.
 
Because "p" come after "i" in the alphabet...same principal as the 'higher numbers are always better" rule. ;)

personally I won't rest easy until the images on my tv are BETTER than live. :p
 
there can be a higher definition and there probably will be later, but for now, 1080p = twice the pixel count as 1080i. That's why it's better.
 
I know why it's better than 1080i but apparently it's possible to get ULTRA HIGH DEF!! lol but I'm just kind of confused why 1080p is boasted as true hd, is that just becasue after 1080p its Ultra high def, why don't wee see ultra high def players or tvs, I dont think its neseccary I just want to know why. I'm sure theyd be more expensive but hey there are 70,000 dollar tvs out right now. What ultra high def res do you think we'll start to see come into tvs first?
 
I just came from a 1986 Sony 20" Tube VCR combo to a MAG 32" LCD TV 1080i High Def tv I picked up for $500 on black friday.


I can already see that I won't be upgrading until 2020 lol :D Hopefully by then we won't need tv and we just have virtual reality implants.


Computer? What computer. Thats what cybernetic optical implants are for.
 
That's what's been standardised on. It largely comes down to the ATSC spec which deals with the transmission of high def content over cable, satellite and the air. The maximum resolution supported under ATSC is 1920x1080 at 30 frames per second, progressive, aka 1080p. This has also lead to HD-DVD and Blu-Ray settling on that as an absolute max. Thus for home theatre apps, it's the max anyone cares about. Building a higher def display would get you nothing since there isn't going to be any formats that support it for a long time.

On computers there are plenty of higher resolution displays, in fact because of the popularity of the 8:5 ratio monitors, the 1920 displays are 1200 vertical rather than 1080.

At any rate 1080p is where it's going to max out in terms of video for some time to come. We haven't even gotten the transition to ATSC done yet, we certainly aren't going to start moving to a new standard.

Also you should note that calling a monitor 1200p or 1536p or the like isn't meaningful. The 480i/p, 720p and 1080i/p are used because they relate to the ATSC spec. By specifying the vertical resolution, the horizontal resolution is implied since there are few allowed. The i/p is specified since there is a great deal of interlaced content and displays out there (normal NTSC is all interlaced).

However for computer displays it doesn't hold much meaning since they are available in all kinds of different aspect ratios and sizes. 1200p doesn't imply anything since you can have a number of different resolutions with 1200 as the vertical component, for example a 4:3 1600x1200 display or a 8:5 1920x1200 display. Also all computer monitors for many years have been progressive only. An interlaced signal would be extremely hard on the eyes on a computer display, and for LCDs interlacing would be worthless.

Computers don't play by the same rules at the broadcast world, largely because they exceeded standard def years ago and have used multi-sync monitors.
 
brentsg said:
The "trueHD" thing is just marketing at work.
Click to expand...
Exactly, it came about becuase of that other lovely bit of marketing hype: "HD Ready". As many people know the "HD Ready" specification is something like this:

support for 720p / 1080i a resolution of at least 1366x768 (not good for computers) and an HDMI port.

Compared to the full potential of the new HD technology (1080p which is good for computers) the "HD Ready" specification came up a bit short. The hardware companies knew that 1080p equipment would be much more desirable so they had to come up with a new buzz word, hense this stupid "Full HD" rubbish.

"HD Ready" was good for one thing though: compatability. consumers could be sure a screen that was "HD Ready" was compatible with an "HD Compliant" source like 'Sky HD', other than that it was not that great.

Something that's relevant for this forum: "HD Ready" screens are usually not good for use as computer monitors whereas "Full HD" screens are. The only downside is the rather high pixel pitch since, at the moment, most "Full HD" (1080p) televisions start at 42".
 
Oh and I'd just like to add that this "Full HD" thing is not a real standard, unlike "HD Ready" is (confirming what 'brentsg' said). Although it should mean the following:

Support for 720p / 1080i as well as a native support for 1080p (a resolution of 1920x1080) and an ability to input and process a 1080p signal. It should also have at least 2 HDMI connections.

In reality you have to really do your homework here and never trust the bogus "Full HD" symbol. A common thing to look out for is the inability to actually input or process a 1080p signal, a few screens that have the 1920x1080 resolution actually downsample and then upsample the image again, most likely through a lack of processing power. Phillips and Toshiba have been guilty of this.
 
I think most are missing the big picture here, 1080progressive is superior to 1080 interlaced and fair warning concerning the technology has been out for some time now however one has to do a compareson between the terms Progressive vs. Interlaced ;)
 
WildSide said:
I think most are missing the big picture here, 1080progressive is superior to 1080 interlaced and fair warning concerning the technology has been out for some time now however one has to do a compareson between the terms Progressive vs. Interlaced ;)
Click to expand...

depending on the size of the screen its sometimes damn near impossible to see the difference between 720p, and 1080 i/p. With a 37" LCD TV 720p will look just as good as 1080i/p IMO, but a 720p screen will not look as good as a 1080i/p screen if used with a computer.
 
Blauman said:
depending on the size of the screen its sometimes damn near impossible to see the difference between 720p, and 1080 i/p. With a 37" LCD TV 720p will look just as good as 1080i/p IMO, but a 720p screen will not look as good as a 1080i/p screen if used with a computer.
Click to expand...
A 1080i screen (there are not many) would look very bad used with a computer because of the interlacing. Also the size of the screen must be looked at in relation to viewing distance otherwise you shouldn't draw such conclusions.

If viewed at the correct distance and if the sources are mastered properly, 1080i and 1080p could look very similar for video (not computer) or at least have different pros and cons. The 1080i video standard has half the vertcal lines of 1080p although has double the frame rate if I'm not mistaken.
 
WildSide said:
I think most are missing the big picture here, 1080progressive is superior to 1080 interlaced and fair warning concerning the technology has been out for some time now however one has to do a compareson between the terms Progressive vs. Interlaced ;)
Click to expand...

in a double blind test

not one person would be able to tell if it is 720p or 1080i or 1080p at anything below 46 inches.

so is it better? higher number is not always better ;)
 
figgie said:
not one person would be able to tell if it is 720p or 1080i or 1080p at anything below 46 inches.
Click to expand...
Do you mean the screen resolution or the source material?
 
figgie said:
in a double blind test

not one person would be able to tell if it is 720p or 1080i or 1080p at anything below 46 inches.

so is it better? higher number is not always better ;)
Click to expand...
False.

Westinghouse 37" LVM-37w3

This one at 1080i
ba1d3e47003df24e1c6cd813d3db7c80-.jpg


This one at 1080p
34b42dd4b189ad0b1c9f99dfcba374e6-.jpg
 
hehe dirty desk :p
but the pics do look dif
would u happen to have ne pics with games or in windows to show dif
 
While I praise the attempt to prove that point these images are not a good example for so many reasons. Please remeber the following if you are going to compare these images:

The camera sensor is very small (very noisy with very low dynamic range)
The photo resolution is too low
The photo compression is too high
The photo has been processed
The image on the screen has been interpolated via the photo

Also note that LCDs do not handle interlacing like CRTs, they don't only display one set of lines at a time, thus depending on the screens processing a 1080i / 1080p still image could be identical anyway. This is especially true if the source material is the same, which it looks like it is.
 
Yeah... and the rest ;), you realise that when I say processed, I mean by the camera, not by you.

Hey I totally agree with your point here, just think some people are going to look at those images and take them at face value. I'm sorry but they are a poor example. I would like to point out that a good example would be really hard to come by because you need the same source material in 720p and 1080i and/or 1080p which I've never seen. You can't just switch the mode on your TV because you don't know what it's doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top