Interesting 1080p question for the techies...
|
Bronze Member Username: IdrivearocketPost Number: 62 Registered: Nov-06 | My TV accepts a 1080p signal (at 24Hz only), but is not capable of 1080p display due to the 1365 x 768 pixel layout. (it's the Pioneer PDP-5070) I watch BD discs (usually encoded in 1080p at 24Hz) using my PS3. Now that the latest update for the PS3 allows 24Hz output of 1080p, my Pioneer is now indicating the 1080p signal input format when I watch movies. The Question I have: Which is likely to give a better display... a) having the Pioneer accept the 1080p 24Hz signal from the PS3 and converting it within to display on the 1365x768 screen (ie. no scaling to 30Hz is required since BD discs are already in 24Hz) OR b) having the PS3 convert the 1080p 24Hz disc info down to 1080i 30Hz for output to my screen's native resolution (so the pioneer will not have to recalculate any resolutions Any thoughts on the subject? |
|
Bronze Member Username: IdrivearocketPost Number: 63 Registered: Nov-06 | Nobody has an oppinion...? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_sColumbus, Ohio US Post Number: 1808 Registered: Feb-04 | Your question goes far beyond the expertise of the "techies" that hang around this site. Only a true video engineer fully familiar with this equipment can answer you with any authority. That said, all I can offer is my  Questions like this boil down to which device has the best scaler. Usually my money is on the TV, especially one of this quality. But given the awesome power of the PS3, the answer isn't quite as easy. Nevertheless I will choose option a) because the TV ultimately has to recalculate all incoming signals to its native resolution anyway....regardless of that signal's resolution or frame rate. My question to you is have you tried both and can you see any difference? |
|
Bronze Member Username: IdrivearocketPost Number: 64 Registered: Nov-06 | Thanks for your 2 cents John. Frankly the picture on that Pioneer TV looks Dynomite with any HD source I use, TV, disc or otherwise. I'd be kidding myself if I tried to convince myself there was a difference, especially since I have only watched 1 movie in 24Hz so far. Maybe I would notice some difference in the way motion is displayed after some more viewing experience. (?) I'll keep trying out the 1080p 24Hz for the time being because it just looks cool when the TV says 1080p... thats about the only advantage I can see so far...:-) |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa3Houston, Texas Post Number: 213 Registered: Nov-06 | John is correct. The device with better downscaling capabilities will give te best result. Most likely the display. To tell the difference. You would actually have to have both options side by side at the same time, and look at subtle diffrences versus another simultaneous 1920 x 1080 display standard. Not very likely or worthwhile. |
|
Gold Member Username: TapemanNew York City in-HD, NY Post Number: 1424 Registered: Oct-06 | This TV is never going to display true 1080p 1080p is either 1080/50 or 1080/60 50 is Pal, 60 is NTSC refresh cycle rate For pal 50 is progressive scan 24 is interlaced In some older Plasma TVs 1080p input is actually 1080p down scalled to 720p thru HDMI. So your TV is actually accepts 720p/1080i/1080p but displays at 720p regardless of your source of video input. The part that yo say Discs are encoded to 1080p/24 I see something wrong about this info. It is most likely 1080p/50 or 1080p/60. |
|
Bronze Member Username: IdrivearocketPost Number: 65 Registered: Nov-06 | Thanks for your comments King, I'm pretty sure all (most?) BD discs are encoded at 24fps just the same as their film originals. (In fact they have to be, because my TV will not accept a 1080p input at any other frame rate. I have already tried.) Some of the first BD players like the Samsung, would only output at 30fps and it was criticized for creating artifacts, as it outputed the 30fps created from the BD discs native 24fps. Most of the recent BD players (including PS3 with ver 1.92 software) will output 1080p at 24 fps over HDMI. Most (all?) new flat panels can display progressive scan at 24, 25, 30, 50 or 60 fps... so the 24fps should be no problem. From what I understand, the NTSC format is really a thing of the past because only tube TV's really act in this way. (due to the scan nature of the electron gun) New flat panels really have nothing to do with NTSC, although they are capable of displaying the NTSC type signal, in addition to all the new resolutions. Before the PS3's recent software upgrade to ver1.92, the PS3 would not recognize my TV as having 1080p capability. 1080i30 was the best I could get, and my TV showed this input detection in the top right of the screen. After the PS3 upgrade, it recognizes the 1080p capability and my TV actually indicates it is getting the 1080p signal in the top right of the screen, only when playing the BD discs (which have 1080p24). If I try to play a video game at 1080p30, my TV will not recognie the 1080p signal. You are right, in that my TV does not have enough pixels to display 1080p resolution, but that is kind of my question. (to which there may be no answer) The question is... which is better, keeping the discs native 24fps on the display, but have the Pioneer recalculate the number of pixels available... or have the correct number of pixes output, but have the PS3 recalculate the BD discs native 1080p24fps into 1080i30fps. As pointed out above, it may just be down to which processor is better at doing what. |
|
Gold Member Username: TapemanNew York City in-HD, NY Post Number: 1425 Registered: Oct-06 | 24fps is an imaging quality made of no pixels Only natural grains of the film quality When convert to 1080p format must be either 1920x1080p or 1440x1080p Some Camera formats like 1920x1080 24fps are not imaging but assimulated to 24 fps scanned then converted to 1920x1080/60 it is not really 35mm quality but best of today's digital technology Anyway Ans. to your question your TV is a 720p for 1080p input video will be down converted to 720p "From what I understand, the NTSC format is really a thing of the past because only tube TV's" For progressive scan playback maybe But for ecoding to 1080p entirely different issue. |
|
Gold Member Username: TapemanNew York City in-HD, NY Post Number: 1426 Registered: Oct-06 | " or have the correct number of pixes output, but have the PS3 recalculate the BD discs native 1080p24fps into 1080i30fps." I don't think yo got much of a control Your final display will be converted to 720p if yo use HDMI If yo got control on frame rate on your PS3 all yo are doing is let the machine repeat or skip frames every 4 or 5 it will all come down to personal preference. If you are in North America we use 60HZ so the refresh rate on your TV is 60 cycles per second. Interlaced is 30 frames per second but still made of 30 odd and 30 even fields to complete all 60 cycles. Progressive is true 60 cycles per second. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa3Houston, Texas Post Number: 218 Registered: Nov-06 | I have done these comparisons. The only real way to know is to have displays side by side simultaneous same media under the differing conditions with your equipment specs compared to a native 1920 x 1080 display. The differences due to resolution are quite subtle in most instances. You are looking for , as an example, accuracy of essentially how video data is put back together; meaning 4 pixels become two ( only as a conceptual example. So if the native video data is 1920 x 1080, and you display on a 1366 x 768 fixed pixel display, data chunks that are meant to be seen across, lets say, 4 pixels, are down scaled to, lets say, two pixels. So how are the slightly changing shades of blue for example, reflected in a lessor number of pixels? Also, the last paragraph in Kings last post isn't correct. Refresh rates are measured in msec and arent a function of the electricity cycles, at least in terms of display specs. Also, his attempt at interlaced versus deinterlaced definitions is flawed as well. Nothing new, but most likely followed by a very long non-sensical monolog with little practical information. Can't wait! Also not related to the current question. So much for the public service announcement. |
|
Bronze Member Username: IdrivearocketPost Number: 66 Registered: Nov-06 | I don't think a progressive image is always at 60fps. (or even cycles per second) You can have a true 24fps image, same as film, but as you say King, converted into pixels for digital purposes. (or 30, or 50, etc) Marc must be onto something about the 60Hz thing because Japan use NTSC, but have 50Hz electricity. Thank you for your comments on resolution. What about a 1080p source at 24fps being converted to 1080i at 30fps inside a PS3. (I assume an interlaced signal must always have 60 fields.) I understand about the 4 pixels to 2 issue, but how to processors generate additional frames, where there is not any data? If this Pioneer TV gets a 1080p 24hz signal and processes it successfully, is it displaying 720p24 or 1080i30 as it's native resolution? |
|
Gold Member Username: TapemanNew York City in-HD, NY Post Number: 1427 Registered: Oct-06 | - When yo watch 35mm motion picture Cinema yes the standard frame is 24fps - Progressive scan from camera source is 60 fps outputs it to 30 true frames, refresh rate is 60 or 120 as yo playback on monitor/display. - Interlaced refresh 30 frames per second but the frame made of odd and even fields to make up all 60. This technique was introduced in early analog television to fool the eye into seeing a continuous picture while keeping the broadcast bandwidth low. - Like I said before 24 frames per second may still look very sharp cuz pixel count is very large infact it is not pixel at all. All claimed 24fps as I said assimilation to true 35mm imaging quality to trick the eye. Modern HD cameras have done excellent progress but still must output to 25/30 or 50/60. (PAL/NTSC) depending on power cycles. - The different formats are usually referred to by the number of vertical lines and the type of screen refresh. The extra information makes for a better television picture but requires better and more expensive electronics in both broadcast transmission and digital recording. - I do this for a living Peter The dude from Texas got zero tech background infact if he engages in any tech discussions just ignore. The only thing he knows is read consumer reports and copy phrases of google. I know he reads my comments so he will learn one day  |
|
Gold Member Username: TapemanNew York City in-HD, NY Post Number: 1430 Registered: Oct-06 | 1080p/24 is an enhanced 720p Same resolution quality Infact I don't know why they call it 1080p/24 Cuz it is 1365x720p 720p is the lowest true HD resolution |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa3Houston, Texas Post Number: 219 Registered: Nov-06 | Um King, lets keep in mind that you actually believe that refresh rates are related to a wall socket instead of a display, as you clearly stated in your post up there. This is another in a very long line of embarrasingly silly and incorrect excuses for "information' which routinely spew forth from you. My only goal is to correct that silly stuff that dribbles out so that people dont actually think what you are saying is correct. I am sorry you have a need to feel defensive and tell everyone your a professional technical person; that makes things worse. This is a forum about displays. I share practical information that makes sense to folks and I don't post about things I don't know. You can learn from that. Just try it. Once. And 1080P/24FPS is "enhanced" 720P?? Are you on drugs? More passage of flatus per your pie hole. |
|
Gold Member Username: TapemanNew York City in-HD, NY Post Number: 1436 Registered: Oct-06 | Bring it on dude Your record is 7/0 against me all K/O His TV is a 720p Go read the specs if yo got any tech background |
|
Gold Member Username: TapemanNew York City in-HD, NY Post Number: 1437 Registered: Oct-06 | Electronics 101 frequency=1/time time=1/frequency frequency is a function time Yo know nothing about cycles No wonder why measured in seconds or m seconds So shut the f up before I wipe your azz I have being doing this for 25 years And stop editing your posts English forums in a different place This is TV electronics P/S I copied your crap to make sure yo don't edit it. I was suspecting yo don't know shiit about electronics but tonight I'm positive yo are an Electronics Illiterate. I'm thru with yo |
|
Gold Member Username: TapemanNew York City in-HD, NY Post Number: 1438 Registered: Oct-06 | More crap before edit "Also, the last paragraph in Kings last post isn't correct. Refresh rates are measured in msec and arent a function of the electricity cycles, at least in terms of display specs" I wounder why the trouble between PAL/NTSC and 50/60 Hz and the relationship between frame rate? According to the man from Texas Every work I have done to broadcast has no basis I bring simple down to earth explaination of electronics terminology that yo won't find anyhere. Even More Crap "Also, his attempt at interlaced versus deinterlaced definitions is flawed as well. Nothing new, but most likely followed by a very long non-sensical monolog with little practical information. Can't wait!" Well dude put your money where your mouth is. Instead of saying simply isn't true. Where is your correction? Do yo need more time to google? Next thing I'll hear HD TV run on fuel Electricity has nothing to do with TV Display or monitors |
|
Gold Member Username: TapemanNew York City in-HD, NY Post Number: 1443 Registered: Oct-06 | Just to express how severe this dude's illiteracy about electronics. His statement is as bad as saying Mexico is not at the southern border of the US they are on the northern part of South America at least in terms of regional geography. Well dude the pulsing CRT or any display product rely on the AC frequency pulse. They are blinking but your eye won't detect it. And yo just made a muck at yourself making a ridiculous statement like that. In North America it is 60Hz. In Europe it is 50Hz. 1/60 = 16ms or 17ms and 1/50 is 20ms. You are an educated English man. Yo read and speak English very well. Your posts are very persuasive for great choice of vocabulary and grammar. Hundreds of people will pick your advice. I do not enjoy making fun of anyone so do us both a favor DO NOT CHALLENGE MY ELECTRONICS. I make mistakes like any one else. Yo are welcome to correct any technical terms if I make an error just provide your proof and let the reader decide. No need to say "not true or totally wrong" without providing evidence. Next time put your evidence before your comments. This way we can both get along just fine. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_sColumbus, Ohio US Post Number: 1814 Registered: Feb-04 | Ya know King, there's something I don't quite understand here. We know that Peter's TV's native resolution is 1365 x 768, and as you stated earlier that "This TV is never going to display true 1080p". OK so we know that 768 (or 720 interpolated to 768) cannot possibly completely display a 1080 signal without losing data. But later you say "1080p/24 is an enhanced 720p Same resolution quality". So am I to conclude that Peter's TV can display 1080 under the right circumstances? You are right about the 60 Hz line frequency question. That rate was chosen because early TVs could not display a different frame rate due to "noise bars" caused by a flawed basic design that was practical then. So that frequency is still with us today even though modern TVs are independant of it. One of the last things which need standardization is the TV systems of the world, which in the beginning were made to be synchronized to the frequency of the electrical power systems. In those days it would have been too expensive to have used a crystal clock in a consumer TV product. All of todays TVs use crystals and are completely independent of the line frequency. http://www.thebear.org/essays1.html http://books.google.com/books?id=VRailj6TKqUC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=frame+rate+lin e+frequency&source=web&ots=z1SGwQt33U&sig=FVgTX-6Y0DSSu8087QQFM25D0bg#PPA11,M1 http://www.repairfaq.org/samnew/tvfaq/tvhdtvfrgc.htm Today's TVs do not rely on AC line frequency, so the fact that they are called on to operate at 60 fields/sec is simply because that is still the NTSC standard. If there is an advantage for a TV to run at 24fps (and there is for most movies), then a digital display manufacturer can easily make it so. Actually the next generation TVs will run at 120 Hz, which is a whole number multible of 24 and 30. The possibility of an artifact-free 5:5 pulldown gives us the best of both the movie and video worlds. |
|
Gold Member Username: TapemanNew York City in-HD, NY Post Number: 1453 Registered: Oct-06 | Thnx John Great question We can easily have a civilized conversation Unlike the TROLL that argues about things that he got no clue what so ever. - 720 and 768 are same thing - 720 is the actual broadcast transmission, - 768 are the actual pixel capacity - Enhanced (interpolated) 720 to 1080 "The PDP-5070HD features a 1365 x 768-pixel resolution (meaning that 1080p signals via the HDMI connection will be downscaled)" "Independent HDMI inputs (10-bit processing) with interpolated 1080p - 24Hz compatibility" Yo can find these quotes on Amazon which they are straight from the specs. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000G835DA/interactiveda613-20#productDet ails What I meant interpolate 720 to 1080 Instead of stretching (enlarge) the pixel rather fill missing pixels with smaller ones to fit entire frame of 1080. It is not really 1080 at all but rather much better process than stretching. The 50 or 60 Cycles are reference to break each individual frame They are frame by frame (motion picture) more than ever More than even the early days of Analog Television Each frame is broken to 1920x1080 or 1440x1080 or 1280x720 or 1080x720 Each sampled at bits per second or Mega pixel per second similar to the Mega pixel of Digital Cameras. The difference is they are motion pictures. Many Satellite providers still do 1080x720 to save bandwidth like BEV Also many still do 1440x1080 like Direct TV Today's TVs can recognize signals in both Digital and Analog will convert all math thru the processor. 50 or 60 are still the reference for best quality picture. The problem with that Troll goes back to early this year attempting to correct my electronics which he knows practically nothing about. Swimming with large size sharks despite can't even swim. "his attempt at interlaced versus deinterlaced definitions is flawed as well. Nothing new" "Also, the last paragraph in Kings last post isn't correct. Refresh rates are measured in msec and arent a function of the electricity cycles, at least in terms of display specs" Well Mr. Sherman next time yo talk put your electronics not your English. |
|
Gold Member Username: TapemanNew York City in-HD, NY Post Number: 1454 Registered: Oct-06 | John "All of today's TVs use crystals and are completely independent of the line frequency." Now we are talking electronics It is true the AC line is not steady peak to peak or even periods of time (cycles) Yes they are independent but they ain't AC generators either, we still work on AC 50/60 120/220 straight from wall power source. All patterns are still same base reference 25/50 or 30/60 Yo got a terrific point |
|
Gold Member Username: John_sColumbus, Ohio US Post Number: 1816 Registered: Feb-04 | Getting back to Peter's original question.... "The Question I have: Which is likely to give a better display... a) having the Pioneer accept the 1080p 24Hz signal from the PS3 and converting it within to display on the 1365x768 screen (ie. no scaling to 30Hz is required since BD discs are already in 24Hz) OR b) having the PS3 convert the 1080p 24Hz disc info down to 1080i 30Hz for output to my screen's native resolution (so the pioneer will not have to recalculate any resolutions" I should correct and clarify my earlier statements that implied that the Pioneer display actually was running at a 24fps rate. As the original product brochure states, the display is perfoming a 3:3 pulldown when it encounters a 24fps film-based signal. Advanced Pure Cinema with 3:3 pull down so that film-based material on DVD, videotape or even regular TV will match the smooth and natural rreproduction seen in a movie theater http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pio/pe/images/portal/cit_3424/318514630PDP-507 0.pdf This means that the display actually runs a 72 Hz refresh rate where it displays each individual film frame 3 times before it moves on to the next. This avoids the old artifact producing 3:2 pulldown that was necessary because of movie and video's odd frame rates. (This 3X repeat isn't really so strange, as movie theater projectors flash each film frame on the screen two times, producing 48 flashes of 24 different frames per second.) 1080p/24 Output So, is the solution a 1080p/24 output from an HD DVD or Blu-ray player? Well, yes and no. It does minimize the processing, but the question is, rather, where is the best processing? If your player does a better job creating the 3:2 sequence than your TV, you'll get a better picture with a 1080p/60 output from the player. If your TV can change its refresh rate to a multiple of 24 (like some Pioneer plasmas' 72 hertz or some Sony and JVC projectors' 96 Hz), then it should be able to extract the 24 out of the 1080p/60 and display accordingly without any loss in resolution or adding artifacts. (Should is the key word.) If, for some reason, that freaks you out, then some Blu-ray players will output 1080p/24 directly. This is a cool (and seemingly obvious) feature but is by no means a major issue. 3:3, 4:4, 5:5 A better request of the TV manufacturers is to make TVs with adjustable refresh rates (like those mentioned above). The 3:2 sequence is inherently juttery. This isn't noticeable most of the time, but slow horizontal pans have a noticeable jutter (the image is jerky, not smooth). If your TV refreshes at 72, 96, or 120 Hz and correctly processes the 24-fps material, this can reduce the jutter. You can't truly eliminate the jutter (as film itself isn't as smooth as video, which has a higher frame rate), but you can certainly make it smoother. Please note that, although there are numerous 120-Hz LCD panels coming out, none do 5:5 pulldown (24 times 5). This is really unfortunate, as 120 is a magic number that is evenly divisible by both 60 (video) and 24 (film). http://hometheatermag.com/gearworks/607gear/ So Peter, that should definitely answer your question. The point here is not sheer resolution as it's a physical impossibility for your display to show all the data in a 1080 signal. The issue is how your display can accept 24fps signals and display them as accurately as possible. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa3Houston, Texas Post Number: 221 Registered: Nov-06 | King- If its easier to accept John telling you refresh rates have nothing to do with AC line frequency instead of me, thats fine. So we can see that your "technical knowledge", beyond being impractical....is simply wrong. Again. Like most things you say. You simply do not have enough practical experience with displays to comment in a knowledgable fashion. You then try to defend yourself with cut and paste technobable. Back to the original question- John I agree that 120 IS a magic number and you are right that many LCDs are coming at with 120 HZ. The 5:5 pulldown comment is most interesting and gives food for thought for me for the next Consumer Electronics show in Vegas, where I get my annual chance to ask lots of questions to the engineers and company reps who actually make the displays/DVD players in question, and get to play around with the displays themselves a little too. I still think its a matter of which device does downscaling better and usually this is the display. IN the end, I use direct set up comparisons vs a 1920 x 1080 display and look for differences. Usually these are subtle, depending on whether the source material is film, video or digitized. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_sColumbus, Ohio US Post Number: 1817 Registered: Feb-04 | Right Marc, what good is a 120 Hz display if it is not capable of 5:5? Yes that high refresh rate all but eliminates motion blur (particularly in LCDs of course), but I think artifact-free movie reproduction is just as important. Maybe that lightning-fast refresh rate requires so much computing power it seriously affects the cost of manufacture. |
|
Gold Member Username: TapemanNew York City in-HD, NY Post Number: 1491 Registered: Oct-06 | It took yo long enough Listen Marc I'm just breaking your balls cuz yo seemed to me like a smart Azz I was just playing with yo to get your attention Yo R ok Kid I won't bother yo again King |
|
Bronze Member Username: IdrivearocketPost Number: 67 Registered: Nov-06 | Not only has this been entertaining commentary, but I have learned a lot too. Thank you gentlemen. If I may summarize, I suppose that a 1080p/24 output from a BD player displaying on my Pioneer Plasma which can do 3:3 72Hz refresh rate, is most likely to yield the best end result. The only downside being that the TV must combine pixels due to the panels lower resolution. Could I also conclude that artifacting is more likely to contribute to "poor" image display than would resolution? (combining of the pixels) especially if you are watching fast moving images... |
|
Gold Member Username: John_sColumbus, Ohio US Post Number: 1818 Registered: Feb-04 | It seems to me that, as important as frame rate processing is, good contrast ratio, black level and accurate color are more important than any motion artifacts (e.g. "jaggies" in difficult to reproduce action scenes) one may occasionally notice. I would also not worry too much about about having "only" a 768 display. If you are viewing this 50" at a reasonable distance, it is questionable whether having a 50" 1080 at the same viewing distance would make a huge difference in PQ (all other factors being equal of course). Later when you upgrade to a bigger screen it could be a different question. But by then everything above 37" will be 1080 anyway.... Another  |
|
Bronze Member Username: IdrivearocketPost Number: 68 Registered: Nov-06 | I'd have to say the reason this Pioneer TV looks so good is the brilliance of the color. Black levels are not spectacular, but pretty decent. And I do agree with your comments on resolution. I originally wanted 1080p just because, but I can not see any flaws in the 720p screen and I'll always watch more TV programming in 720p than BD disc anyway. I went with plasma and not LCD because of motion artifacting. Maybe the new LCD's like the Sharp 92U series have almost solved these dilema's. |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics