1280p vs 1280i

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Hi, I am a newbie here. I have heard that 1280p is significantly better than
1280i, and that Samsung has it, and that Mitsubishi will soon have it, and
that I should wait for the Mitsubishi. Any comments?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 18:35:47 -0700, "Nutating" <nutating@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Hi, I am a newbie here. I have heard that 1280p is significantly better than
>1280i, and that Samsung has it, and that Mitsubishi will soon have it, and
>that I should wait for the Mitsubishi. Any comments?

Yeah, one: You should get your terminology straight. While one of the
dimensions may indeed be 1280 for one flavour of HD, that's not what's
used. 1280 x 720 is usually progressive, so that's 720p. 1920 x 1080
is usually interlaced (the broadcast bandwidth isn't large enough to
do 1920 x 1080 progressive at 59.94Hz), so that's 1080i.

 

[scot]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Karyudo" <karyudo_usenet@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote in message
news:8pkpb1d6d98mlj8clnuj29ak31gtof6c1q@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 18:35:47 -0700, "Nutating" <nutating@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Hi, I am a newbie here. I have heard that 1280p is significantly better
>>than
>>1280i, and that Samsung has it, and that Mitsubishi will soon have it, and
>>that I should wait for the Mitsubishi. Any comments?
>
> Yeah, one: You should get your terminology straight. While one of the
> dimensions may indeed be 1280 for one flavour of HD, that's not what's
> used. 1280 x 720 is usually progressive, so that's 720p. 1920 x 1080
> is usually interlaced (the broadcast bandwidth isn't large enough to
> do 1920 x 1080 progressive at 59.94Hz), so that's 1080i.


1280 x 720 is ALWAYS progressive. Sheesh, and you scold.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 23:19:50 -0700, "Scot" <nowhere@man.com> wrote:

>
>"Karyudo" <karyudo_usenet@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote in message
>news:8pkpb1d6d98mlj8clnuj29ak31gtof6c1q@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 18:35:47 -0700, "Nutating" <nutating@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi, I am a newbie here. I have heard that 1280p is significantly better
>>>than
>>>1280i, and that Samsung has it, and that Mitsubishi will soon have it, and
>>>that I should wait for the Mitsubishi. Any comments?
>>
>> Yeah, one: You should get your terminology straight. While one of the
>> dimensions may indeed be 1280 for one flavour of HD, that's not what's
>> used. 1280 x 720 is usually progressive, so that's 720p. 1920 x 1080
>> is usually interlaced (the broadcast bandwidth isn't large enough to
>> do 1920 x 1080 progressive at 59.94Hz), so that's 1080i.
>
>
>1280 x 720 is ALWAYS progressive. Sheesh, and you scold.

Hey, it takes digging in ATSC A53c to confirm that 720 is, in fact,
always progressive. At least for HD under this spec, which covers a
lot of HD, but maybe not all? It's usually a bad thing on Usenet to
use terms like "always" or "never"-- although this time it looks to
have bitten me in the ass. (For those who want to check for
themselves, it's in Table A3 of ATSC A53 Revision C (including
Amendment No. 1 and Corrigendum No. 1).

Note that the terminology 1280p or 1280i NEVER appears anywhere in the
spec... but then again, neither does 1080i, for example.

Doing a little Google test, though, gives 700+ results for 1280i --
way off the 689,000 for 720p, 662,000 for 1080i, and 270,000 pages for
1080p. Even the non-existent 720i gets several thousand hits.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Sheesh, folks are worrying about 1080p when 75% of the population
doesn't even know what 1080i is or even what it looks like. I'll be
"impressed" when commercials are broadcast in HD OTA. That will be a
good indication of what is valued by advertisers, which it seems to me
in my very humble opinion, will have a significant hand in driving HD
much more mainstream.

Keith

 

[curmudgeon]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Nutating wrote:
> Hi, I am a newbie here. I have heard that 1280p is significantly better than
> 1280i, and that Samsung has it, and that Mitsubishi will soon have it, and
> that I should wait for the Mitsubishi. Any comments?
>
>
First, ... It's 1080...not 1280.
2. Nobody broadcasts in 1080p and there is almost no source material
1080p. So its just a conversion with no additional resolution or detail.
3. It is not significantly better and not 1 person in 100 could see the
difference between the two.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Here is my simple explanation. The experts can correct me as needed. If you
already understand all this, then just never mind.

The "p" stand for progressive, and the "i" stands for interlaced. The number
refers to the number of lines being broadcast. Progressive is usually
better than interlaced when using the same number of lines. So 1080p is
better than 1080i. High definition broadcasts can be done in a variety of
different formats. Today, most signals are usually broadcast at1080i or
720p. In the future, who knows.

So back to your question, 1280p is better than 1280i. The bigger the
television screen, the more important the resolution or the number of
pixels. Also not all pixels are created equal, one company's TV with less
pixels looks better than another company's TV with more pixels. If they are
only going to broadcast 1080i and 720p signals in the near future, what good
does having a TV that can use 1280p signal matter? My 42" TV shows the the
incoming 1080i or 720p picture at 768p. I don't know that I would notice the
difference bewtween my 768p TV and a TV with 1280p, because my TV is only
42".

Then there is the future. The signal infrastructure for TV over the air,
satellite, and cable are going to change, but not change very much. People
wont' stand for having their $1000 TIVO receivers or tuners go obsolete
every couple of years.

noone

"Nutating" <nutating@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xx2ve.5455$B_3.838@fe05.lga...
> Hi, I am a newbie here. I have heard that 1280p is significantly better
than
> 1280i, and that Samsung has it, and that Mitsubishi will soon have it, and
> that I should wait for the Mitsubishi. Any comments?
>
>

 

[scot]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Curmudgeon" <curmudgeon@buzzoff.net> wrote in message
news:HOhve.3377$gr.2770@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> Nutating wrote:
>> Hi, I am a newbie here. I have heard that 1280p is significantly better
>> than 1280i, and that Samsung has it, and that Mitsubishi will soon have
>> it, and that I should wait for the Mitsubishi. Any comments?
> First, ... It's 1080...not 1280.
> 2. Nobody broadcasts in 1080p and there is almost no source material
> 1080p. So its just a conversion with no additional resolution or detail.
> 3. It is not significantly better and not 1 person in 100 could see the
> difference between the two.

Ok folks, some quick facts. We, the consumer, only have to be aware of three
HD formats in the near future.
1- 1920 x 1080i referred to as 1080i ex: CBS, NBC, PBS
2 - 1280 x 720p referred to as 720p ex: Fox, ABC
3 - 1920 x 1080p referred to as 1080p ex: The new HD DVD (or BluRay or a
combination of the two to avoid a format war. It's in the works) format.

Nothing else really matters at this point.

 

[Bob]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

The demand for 1080P will increase significantly once people see it on
HD-DVD or play games on PlayStation 3.
This will hopefully start to bring the prices down.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Nutating wrote:
> Hi, I am a newbie here. I have heard that 1280p is significantly better than
> 1280i, and that Samsung has it, and that Mitsubishi will soon have it, and
> that I should wait for the Mitsubishi. Any comments?
>
>
First, ... It's 1080...not 1280.
2. Nobody broadcasts in 1080p and there is almost no source material
1080p. So its just a conversion with no additional resolution or detail.
3. It is not significantly better and not 1 person in 100 could see the
difference between the two.

>
>
In this case hes talking about 1280 not 1080, 1280 is a higher resolution than 1080.