: 1080p & 120Hz


Pages : [1] 2

merve04
2007-12-23, 06:41 PM
Lets be honest here, whos got the eyes of an eagle?? Do you really think the human eye can distinguish 1080i from 1080p? Like theres barely any content out there in 1080p besides HD DVD and Blu Ray players and I'm sure if you picked up a HD DVD player that does 1080i and one that does 1080p and plugged one at a time on a 1080p set run the same movie, from both machines, they would both look identical to us. I mean all TV providers offer at best is 1080i and thats not going to change anytime soon considering the problems they already have just delivering a hand full of so called HD Channels.
Secondly this 120Hz BS,, in North America we use the NTSC format which runs at 60Hz, Pal is 50Hz, can you explain me where in the world is the TV finding an extra frame to slap in between each of the already 60 frames being fed to the TV?? No movies are TV shows are delivered with 120 frames, its just rediculous to advertise this 120Hz and to make cosumers think their HD set is now junk and are already in a need for an upgrade or the scam new buyers into buying a more expensive unit cause its 120Hz.
OMG is all I got to say.

Torontoblue
2007-12-23, 07:04 PM
When I lived in the UK I 'upgraded', when they first appeared on the market, to a 100Hz wide screen tv from Phillips (late 90's), and the difference over a conventional 50Hz tv was amazing. It was similar to how much better DVD is over VHS. So, it's not just a marketing gimmick. Adding the extra 'lines' does improve the picture for movies and non-sports programmes. For sports it always left the grass looking like a carpet, which is what we see nowadays with poorly encoded HD.

Stargazer
2007-12-23, 09:22 PM
Do you really think the human eye can distinguish 1080i from 1080p? Like theres barely any content out there in 1080p besides HD DVD and Blu Ray players. I mean all TV providers offer at best is 1080i.

OMG is all I got to say.
By all means, don't believe all the hype and be the first to jump into new technology as soon as it comes out--especially if you're worried about saving money--but that doesn't mean that all the new stuff that's coming out is junk. And just because there aren't 1080p broadcasts right now doesn't mean that it's not coming in the future, or that we should not strive for it. That's human nature, isn't it? Most people want something better than what they have right now. Some new technology fails and is not viable. But if no one bothered to try something new, then we wouldn't really get that far would be? We need leaders (beta-testers ;) ) so that the rest of us can follow the right path.

Anyway, I don't know if I can distinguish between 1080i and 1080p, but I can say for sure that right now that watching a movie in Blu-ray on my 1080p TV looks noticeably better than watching the same movie in a HD movie broadcast on the same set.

rsambuca
2007-12-23, 10:05 PM
Secondly this 120Hz BS,, in North America we use the NTSC format which runs at 60Hz, Pal is 50Hz, can you explain me where in the world is the TV finding an extra frame to slap in between each of the already 60 frames being fed to the TV?? No movies are TV shows are delivered with 120 frames, its just rediculous to advertise this 120Hz and to make cosumers think their HD set is now junk and are already in a need for an upgrade or the scam new buyers into buying a more expensive unit cause its 120Hz.
OMG is all I got to say.OMG, I am afraid you are way off base here. 120Hz technology has two major benefits. One is to reduce the judder that occurs from 2:3 pulldown when viewing film-based material on an HDTV. Conventional film (movies and most primetime shows) are produced at 24 frames per second. To display this on a 60Hz TV, the first frame is displayed 2 times, and the next frame is displayed 3 times, then 2 times for the next frame, etc. This is really the only way to convert 24 frames into 60 frames. Because every second frame is now displayed 1.5 times longer than the previous frame, you see what is called 'judder'. Judder is especially noticeable with slow panning of the camera. The motion is not smooth. With 120Hz televisions, each film-based frame is displayed 5 times, thus motion can be displayed smoothly with filmbased material. It makes a very noticeable difference.

Also, the 120Hz televisions generally use a processor to interpolate between frames so that the motion is smoother than on a conventional 60Hz TV.

ta-kid
2007-12-23, 10:11 PM
:eek:OMG I hearsd there was a 240hz TV coming out in the spring!:D

Jaw
2007-12-23, 11:11 PM
An HD DVD player outputting 1080i vs 1080p SHOULD look the same if the TV does proper 1080i inverse telecine. If it looks worse, the TV is not deinterlacing the 1080i properly.

The thing about 1080i60 is that it actually gives you the best of a few worlds. Right now I think most 1080p implementations are 24fps and 30fps. Until there are mainstream 1080p60 implementations, 1080i60 still has much use. For example, it can encode 1080p24 just fine using a 3:2 cadence and inverse telecine will give you 1080p24 at the other end. It can also encode 1080p30 at a 2:2 cadence and assuming a proper deinterlacer (that can detect it should be able to weave) you will get 1080p30 displayed. The last choice would be true 1080i60 and with a proper deinterlacer, some parts will be bobed and some parts will be weaved, giving anywhere from 1080p30 to 540p60 resolution depending on what is in the scene. Stills or near stills should have full spacial resolution and motion should have full temporal resolution. In short, with good deinterlacers, I don't think 1080p will matter until 1080p60. If we ever hit that!

1080i60 is really the only way to handle all of that. 1080p24 can't encode 30fps sources and 1080p30 can't encode 24fps sources. 1080i60 can do it all right now. So could 1080p60, but the bandwidth requirements would double.

1080p progressive displays are definitely relevant in all this, but I am not sure 1080p transmissions matter unless they are going to be 60fps.

Please correct me if I am wrong because this is my understanding.

120hz as has been pointed out is indeed a benefit if it does 24fps sources using a 5:5 pattern, and also if it uses interpolation or dark frames to improve motion.

kcaudle
2008-01-01, 05:14 PM
Lets be honest here, whos got the eyes of an eagle?? ....
Secondly this 120Hz BS........No movies are TV shows are delivered with 120 frames, its just rediculous to advertise this 120Hz and to make cosumers think their HD set is now junk and are already in a need for an upgrade or the scam new buyers into buying a more expensive unit cause its 120Hz.
OMG is all I got to say.

I guess I must have the eyes of an eagle then because the difference is noticeable,,,,,, at least on the 120hz Panasonic TC-32LX700 it is (32” ).

This set has a demo mode where it split screens 120hz and 60hz ,,,,,, less blur especially noticeable on text running across the screen.

Almost bought it but I like to watch football and hockey where the panning can kill a slow LCD. The Panny was nice but it still didn’t seem to pan as clearly as my 42” Pioneer Plasma. Still sitting on the fence on LCD’s ….. a beautiful HD picture otherwise though.

KC

Hairball
2008-01-01, 06:15 PM
120Hz displays are designed to eliminate motion jutter on 24p material ( like film). Since 24 does not divid evenly into 30 frames we repeat each frame 2 times than 3 times than 2 times than 3 times in this pattern to make all the frames fit .This 2 , 3 effect gives you jerky motion. 24 divides into 120 evenly. You need a 24p source most ,DVDs,and a player that can output 24p. Usually a higher end HD DVD or blu- ray player to really take advantage of this feature. Since this feature is only available in higher end LCD displays you are probably noticing the reduced lag or other features of a better display rather than the 120 hz feature.

Neely2005
2008-01-02, 12:48 PM
I work for a Cable Company and 1080p HDTV isn't coming anytime soon. We're talking next DECADE. 1080i is going to be the best you can get for TV.

Walter Dnes
2008-01-03, 01:39 AM
I work for a Cable Company and 1080p HDTV isn't coming anytime soon. We're talking next DECADE. 1080i is going to be the best you can get for TV.
Given that 1080i already uses up almost all of the 6 mhz bandwidth of an ATSC channel, how do you stuff in twice as much info into the stream? I don't think it's possible without sacrificing PQ, which defeats the whole point of going 1080p in the first place.

merve04
2008-01-05, 08:22 PM
I work for a Cable Company and 1080p HDTV isn't coming anytime soon. We're talking next DECADE. 1080i is going to be the best you can get for TV.
Thank you for proving my point! The best we get from TV providers is 1080i cause thats all that can be sent down at todays current codecs and such and on top of that, even if there was improvements that allowed 1080p, were talking about new equipement and Networks would need to upgrade. Your right atlease a decade. Lets work with what we got and make it a good HD experience.

luckydog
2008-01-05, 10:09 PM
I can remember going to the U.K. a decade ago and being surprised by the noticeable flickering of the TV image over there. The difference between their 50Hz refresh rate and our 60Hz rate was huge, IMO.

Is the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz as large?

Not from what I've read, but that's not to say that it wouldn't be noticeable in some circumstances.

SensualPoet
2008-01-06, 12:01 AM
Hey, merve04!

At a recent high end demonstration at Toshiba HQ Canada in front of about 50 folks, virtually none of us could tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p when calibrated properly and being fed an identical 1080p signal.

However, most of us easily saw the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz impact of "ClearFrame" (and the same would apply with other manufacturer trade names). With horizontal pans, it is most noticable and really helps create a genuine "film" experience reducing the "judder".

So ... 1080i is ok as it is really as good as 1080p (same amount of info, displayed differently, and your TV probably does a very decent conversion) ... but if you feel like springing for the extra cash, the 120Hz screens of the late 2007 HDTV models will render a more "film-like" image.

By late 2008, this is likely to be standard on all larger screen models; by late 2009 on pretty much all TVs.

David Susilo
2008-01-06, 08:56 AM
Lets be honest here, whos got the eyes of an eagle?? Do you really think the human eye can distinguish 1080i from 1080p? Like theres barely any content out there in 1080p besides HD DVD and Blu Ray players and I'm sure if you picked up a HD DVD player that does 1080i and one that does 1080p and plugged one at a time on a 1080p set run the same movie, from both machines, they would both look identical to us. I mean all TV providers offer at best is 1080i and thats not going to change anytime soon considering the problems they already have just delivering a hand full of so called HD Channels.
Secondly this 120Hz BS,, in North America we use the NTSC format which runs at 60Hz, Pal is 50Hz, can you explain me where in the world is the TV finding an extra frame to slap in between each of the already 60 frames being fed to the TV?? No movies are TV shows are delivered with 120 frames, its just rediculous to advertise this 120Hz and to make cosumers think their HD set is now junk and are already in a need for an upgrade or the scam new buyers into buying a more expensive unit cause its 120Hz.
OMG is all I got to say.

It's only BS if can't see the difference or have never seen the screen.

I've seen the screen and although I can't see the difference between 1080i vs 1080p input (since the inputs are de-interlaced to 1080p anyway by the panel), I can clearly see the 120 Hz advantage)

For the people who comment on things they never witnessed and/or compare... OMG is all I got to say.

David Susilo
2008-01-06, 08:59 AM
I can remember going to the U.K. a decade ago and being surprised by the noticeable flickering of the TV image over there. The difference between their 50Hz refresh rate and our 60Hz rate was huge, IMO.

Is the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz as large?

Not from what I've read, but that's not to say that it wouldn't be noticeable in some circumstances.
I just came back from Indonesia (50 Hz country, like UK) and the flicker is so unbearable I don't watch the TVs over there. To answer your question, yes the difference between 60 Hz and 120 Hz is astounding in pans and fast-action scenes.

Stargazer
2008-01-06, 03:34 PM
For the people who comment on things they never witnessed and/or compare... OMG is all I got to say.
I tend to give more weight to organized comparison tests, than to anecdotal reports from individuals posted on internet forums:

http://reviews.cnet.com/4321-6475_7-6594645.html

Quote:

"...after testing four of these TVs against standard 60Hz models, we really didn't see much difference.... as with any new technology, 120Hz hurts your wallet more than anything else."

Hairball
2008-01-06, 04:23 PM
The problem with cnets review is that they did not specify thier test setup. As I stated in post 8, you need a 24p source to realy see the 120Hz advantage. Horizonal pans smooth right out. If they were using a 30 frame source such as broacast HD or a none 24p capable DVD player than I would agree they probably did not notice much of a difference.

David Susilo
2008-01-06, 04:41 PM
I tend to give more weight to organized comparison tests, than to anecdotal reports from individuals posted on internet forums

Again, have YOU seen it yourself?

Stargazer
2008-01-06, 05:11 PM
My reply is the same as what you quoted me saying.

If Motor Trend does a comparison test and says that my Subaru STI does 0-60 in 4.5 seconds, I will give their opinion more weight than the opinion of someone who posts on a forum that they were able to get theirs to do 0-60 in 3 seconds.

I am not a professional. My skills are far from expert. I have no need to line up my car on the track to see if I can get it to do what Motor Trend says.

So no, I have not personally performed a formal comparison test between 60hz and 120hz television sets--so that's why I never passed judgment on them in this thread at all, but only repeated statements I've seen in reviews that I've read.

David Susilo
2008-01-06, 05:13 PM
the thing is that the difference between 60 Hz and 120 Hz is astounding. One doesn't need to be an expert to see the difference. One only needs to be able to see to see the vast difference between the two technologies.

try it (the Toshiba version at least, the Sharp version is a waste of money, IMHO) and you may not want to go back to the 60 Hz version.