 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
64.12.116.195
In Reply to: RE: 1080I vs 1080P posted by HiFi Guy on November 13, 2007 at 08:34:47
Are you sure your Flat Panel is 1080p?
MOST of the panels a year old or older are 720p/1080iDavid
Follow Ups:
Screen size (diagonal) 46"
Display type HDTV
Flat panel technology LCD flat panel
Built-in tuner NTSC/ATSC
Widescreen Yes
Resolution 1080p (1920 x 1080)
Contrast ratio 1000:1
Component video inputs 2
S-video inputs 1
Composite inputs 2
RF inputs 1
DVI (Digital Video Interface) 0
HDMI inputs 2
PC compatible Yes
Regards, Larry
"The only way to test the limits of the possible, is to experiment with the impossible"
Scaling—changing the signal from 720 to 1080—is one operation and de-interlacing is another. They are often done separately so it may not be best to have them done in the one spot.
You've got a satelite receiver that can output in 720p or 1080i but the big question is what is the source signal itself. It may not be the same for each channel you receive.
If I was getting a 720p source signal, I would prefer to send it to the display as 720p and have the display convert to 1080 p. Hopefully there would be a single scaling operation and nothing done about the progressive nature of the signal. If you output the signal from the receiver at 1080i, you have both scaled and converted it to interlaced and the disply is then going to de-interlace it to get back to progressive. That's a scaling, swap from progressive to interlaced, and then back from interlaced to progressive. I'd try to avoid that shift from progressive to interlaced to progressive if I could. The problem is that the display may also do just that when it scales the picture so you may not gain avoid that step by passing the 720 p signal.
If the signal being received is 1080i, then there's no choice since the receiver can't de-interlace it. All you need is a de-interlacing step and the display is the only place you've got to do it.
I'd compare how things look with a 720p signal and whether you get a better picture having the receiver output it as 1080i or letting the display get a 720p signal. My guess is that the 720p option would give the better results but it may not.
If 720p does yield best results, check whether the satelite receiver has an option to output the signal at incoming resolution. That will pass 720p signals as 720p and 1080 signals as 1080i without you having to worry about it. If, on the other hand you get better results when you utput 1080i, just set the receiver to ouptut that for everything.
David Aiken
Use the 1080i. If your set does 1080p it has built-in a de-interlacer as all broadcast HD is either 720p or 1080i. As of now the only 1080p native sources are HD-DVD and Blu-ray.
We're talking about whether or not the output from a satellite receiver should be 720p or 1080i.
The TV can certainly do what you say, but that doesn't mean that you will get the best results setting the satellite receiver output to 1080i for all broadcast signals.
You should definitely set it to 1080i for material broadcast at 1080i. That preserves native resolution and means the only signal processing involved will be de-interlacing in the TV.
It may not be the case for 720 p broadcasts. Setting the receiver output to 1080i for a 720p signal convers the signal to interlaced and also scales it. The TV then has to de-interlace it. Total processing is a single scaling process in the receiver and an interlacing process in the receiver and a de-interlacing process in the TV. Letting the receiver output the signal at 720 p, the only processing will be a scaling process in the TV. You avoid the steps of interlacing the signal then de-interlaciing it again, which may not occur perfectly and which could easily produce image degradation. It's also quite possible that the TV will have a better scaler than the satellite box. My guess is that the image quality will be better if the TV processes a 720p signal if the broadcast is 720p.
As I said, it's going to depend on the broadcast signal and then how good the processing is in the satellite receiver because if you allow it to output a 1080i signal for a 720p broadcast, you are introducing more processing stages than if you simply pass the signal to the TV as 720p.
You may be right and outputting everything at 1080i may be the way to go, but while that is certainly the best way to go for 1080i broadcasts, it is not necessarily the best way to go for 720p broadcasts. You do have 2 processing options there depending on which output you choose from the satellite receiver and which is better is going to depend on how well the satellite receiver and the TV handle the different options.
David Aiken
> > while that is certainly the best way to go for 1080i broadcasts, it is not necessarily the best way to go for 720p broadcasts. < <
Indeed. He could obsess over it and make a list of the resolutions of all the various broadcasts, then reconfigure everything each time he watches TV, all for at best a minuscule improvement in the picture.
Or, he could just pick one setting and watch TV :-)
I have a digital settop box for off air digital broadcasts in both standard and high definition. It offers the option of choosing a specific resolution or passing the signal in its native resolution. I choose to pass it in native resolution so it reconfigures automatically each time the program resolution changes as I swap channels.
I tried a few tests, decided which option I thought was best, set it and now I simply watch TV. Picking a specific output resolution is not the only option with many digital TV receivers.
David Aiken
I skipped the set top box completely. I have my cable (coax) going straight into my TV, and use my digital tuner. I have a separate coax going from an attic antenna to my TV for local OTA channels.
Jack
My TV doesn't have a digital tuner and I get much better picture quality with digital signals, especially on the local OTA high def stations, so I'm stuck with the set-top box until such time as I replace the TV.
Cable isn't an issue for me. I don't have it and, frankly, I don't find my local cable network's offerings enticing.
David Aiken
Its HD has a better picture than the same channels via cable. Idon't watch much cable, only a couple channels.
jack
Don't know about in the US but OTA here in Australia is very nice.
I'm impressed by the improvement I see swapping from the standard def channel to the high def channel for the same broadcast, even on my screen which is 32" and 1366 x 768 resolution.
I only have a standard def disc player at the moment but I'm seriously contemplating a BD player when some version 1.1 players that handle both Dolby and DTS new formats become available here. I think the picture quality I get from a standard def DVD with good image quality is much better than OTA standard def and close to some OTA high def material so I anticipate a high def player doing better than high def OTA quality and that certainly is nothing to sneeze at.
David Aiken
.
.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
