Talk:1080p

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007.

Contents 1 Meaningless marketing nonsense 2 Resolution 3 Consumer Television Capabilities 4 collapse 1080i and 1080p into one entry? 5 You need windows to play 1080p VDs? 6 1080p content 7 Cell reference added 8 1080p used by studios? 9 graphic at bottom 10 Video Gaming section 11 1080p broadcasts 12 Ability of the eye to see 1080p section

[edit] Meaningless marketing nonsense

"True High Definition" is meaningless marketing poop and should not be here. Mirror Vax 10:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Poop or not, it is now widely used in the industry and was certainly prominent at the CES. I haven't seen much objection to the term (acually haven't seen any until now).

searchSMB.com Definitions (powered by whatis.com) uses it in its definiton of full HDTV. Searchsmb.com is a resource for small and medium-sized business professionals. Whatis.com is an it encyclopedia. I'm sure you are familiar with CNET as well.

http://searchsmb.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid44_gci1071898,00.html

Hope that helps. Parmaestro 11:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did a Google search and found that the vast majority of references to "true high definition" did NOT refer to 1080p. So in the last CES "true high definition" meant 1080p - next CES it will mean something else. It's not a technical term - it refers to whatever they are currently selling. It doesn't mean anything more than "New and Improved". Mirror Vax 11:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's try to incorporate whatever concerns and objections you have in the text. Parmaestro 12:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since it is a buzzword and used in marketing materials, I changed the sentence to match. Regardless, it is the best available. However, I don't know if there is source material that can be displayed on a 1080p set. Microsoft has some videos, but I don't know if you can use a DVI connector from your computer to display on a 1080p set. I don't have the money to test, but if someone wants to buy me an HDTV set... : ) --Daev 18:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Resolution

I'm pretty sure that "Most 17" computer monitors that support 1280x1024 60hz" would display an 'Out of Range' or similar message if pushed to 1920x1080. Simply forcing a graphics cards output to a certain level does not make the monitor compatible. Also the frequency is 'Hz' not 'hz'

You'd think that, but every single monitor I've seen that does 1280x1024@60Hz can do 1920x1080@60Hz. Horizontal resolution matters not to the monitor, just the pixel clock in the graphics card. Vertical resolution on the other hand does matter, but since 1080 lines aren't that far from 1024 (56 extra lines), these monitors generally dont have any troubles. The physical size of the monitor though (17") doesn't really matter, its just a generalization based on average maximum timings by size.

I agree, the first thing I thought when I read that sentance was "thats a stupid thing to say". If a monitor is capable of running at a resolution such as 1920x1080@60Hz, it should report so when it communicates its abilities over DDC.

DDC only reports standard resolutions.

I tried this on my crappy 6 year old Gateway 17" CRT monitor and 1920x1080 @ 60Hz worked fine, if a bit blurry - I did this with the custom resolution dealy on the Nvidia display control panel thing. However, I don't know how picky LCD monitors are in comparison, though. --Zilog Jones 00:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

LCD Monitors use a completely different display method, however they might show a picture in analog mode, but it would be downsampled to fit the native resolution. Most LCD monitors though would just say "Out of Range".

Most 17" monitors *cannot* display 1920x1080 at any refresh rate - they may take the signal, but they don't have sufficient dot pitch to display the full res (the reason that the Gateway above was blurry). A typical 17" CRT has about 16" viewable in the diagonal, and makes a 3/4/5 triangle - so the horizontal is 16*4/5 = 12.8". For 1920 pixels to crowd into 12.8" you have to have 150 pixels per inch. 150^(-1) = .0067 in, which is 0.169 mm - an unheard of dot pitch on a CRT. For example -At work I have a 19" monitor that does 1280x1024 perfectly, but doesn't look quite right at 1600x1200 - a quick calculation gives the reason - at the monitor's dot pitch, I only have 1400 dots in the horizontal. This monitor *cannot* display UXGA, even if it takes the signal.

[edit] Consumer Television Capabilities

I can see some merit in mentioning capabilities specific to manufacturers. The Samsung comment of accepting 1080p was added by soeone other than myself. I put in the capabilities of the Mitsubishi TVs because they were mentioned in the 2005 CES sentence, and to have a more fair representation than only one brand gaining extra mention.

I'm opening this discussion because this seems like a slippery slope. Should brand-specific information be removed altogether from this section, or limited in some way before even more people come along to make it even more comprehensive? Or should it stand since it's new information and technology, and the issue reevaluated when 1080p sets become more common and the list gets more out of hand?

Eventually most manufacturers will offer sets with 1080p, but at the moment they are not ubiquitous, so having specific information may be helpful to interested viewers. Early sets such as the Qualia have some historical significance. The Samsung HLR was mentioned because it was one of the first sets that were confirmed to accept 1080p. Ditto for the HP MD (possibly the first for HDMI). Shawnc 23:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The CES in Jan 2006 introduced dozens of 1080p displays.[1]. Not all of these would be available initially, but some model-specific details in the main article can probably be removed now. Shawnc 23:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Good call. Sounds much better that way, too.Rsalerno 23:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] collapse 1080i and 1080p into one entry?

they both have duplicate paragraphs, maybe they should just be combined into one entry.

They are distinct formats though. Shawnc 23:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

==> in the range of quality, 1080i is far from 1080p ; one could see 1080i collapsed with 540P, with 720P in between... Also the field rate is important, as flicker artifacts are reported in 1080P24 but not in 1080P59.94 or 1080P60. The Motion Picture industry that could not afford paying for Douglas Trumbull's Showscan was limited to 24fps, with its stroboscopic effects (e.g. spokes rotating backwards, etc...), and then the main reason behind Blu-Ray & Microsoft WMV-HD 1080P24 limit. As much as one would like 1080P60, most agree that artifacts even with the best 2:3 pulldown do not bode well for 24fps material, so even if one has a whole 1080P60 chain [Sony/Dalsa/Kinetta 1080P60 camera, native 1080P60 display], there is still a concern about the 1080P24 display flicker. One could double-flash the frame, so I don't think it's desperate, but the whole 1080P60 origination business is at stake until some Blu-Ray MPEG4 1080P60 can be produced. Microsoft might be able to raise the cap in WMV-HD as well.

But what about PAL, which gets none of this 2:3 crap the other formats get (PAL just gets a 4% speed boost and a SSRC sound tempo change). Some progressive PAL DVD's surpass some NTSC HD-DVDs because of this.

Why are 1080p and 2:3 pulldown being mentioned in the same sentence? 2:3 pulldown only relates to frame rate conversion between 24 and 30 frames whether in 1080 or 720 or standard defintion. Sony has a progressive format that is refered to as psf or progressive segmented frame. Which only says that in laying the progressive frame to tape they dump one half (odd lines) to one field and the other half of the progressive frame (even fields) to the other field. If you have aquired footage shot in true interlace 1080i it will never become progressive in the same sense, because each field is it's own moment in time and is displaced from the previous field and the one ahead by the same duration.

In regards to 24 frame flicker, this is a throw back to the flicker of movie theatres, remember those, where audiences were literally entranced by the flashing of the screen. Some people believe this is a desirable effect...:>

[edit] You need windows to play 1080p VDs?

"Some 1080p and near-1080p content have been released on regular DVD-ROM disks using WMV HD compression. These titles cannot be played in normal DVD players and can only be viewed on a Windows-based computer with a 3.0 GHz or faster CPU, among other hardware requirements.[2]"

Why a windows based computer? And why 3.0GHz? Ever heard of Linux, or Mac for that matter?

That statement refers to WMD-HD only. The info from its webpage:

"Optimum Configuration (Play 1080p video with 5.1 surround sound) Microsoft Windows XP 3.0 GHz processor or equivalent" Shawnc 07:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the source sited, Microsoft's WMV Website, it reads exactly as above "3.0 GHz processor or equivalent". However, the article cited Intel Pentium 4, which is not mentioned in the reference. I removed the brand affiliation. Toastysoul 01 August 2006

[edit] 1080p content

MAc Break is the first 1080p podcast!!!!! --BorisFromStockdale 20:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cell reference added

Quoting a performance threshhold in clock frequency relative to an unspecified device/technology/manufacturer is bad dental hygeine, and grants Intel far more implicit credit than they deserve. I thought Cell would serve as a useful counterpoint, and that it was also pertinent enough as 1080p is easily within Cell's performance wheelhouse, though my text might say more than best serves the article at that juncture.

This could be pertinent as well. Here Microsoft claims that 1080p can not be properly supported by games on the current and upcoming generation of game consoles; one must take this FUD with a grain of salt, for while their admission concerning their own XBox-360 is dead on the mark, the Sony PS3 borderlines on being able to pull this off, and perhaps some PS3 games (but not many) will pull this off once the dust finally settles. I might add that pulling this off does not necessarily add anything to the gaming experience; the feat could devolve entirely into adolescent bragging rights.

http://games.kikizo.com/news/200603/101.asp

[edit] 1080p used by studios?

I'm fairly sure that 1080p is not used for filming/editing most movies, the standard resolution in hollywood has 2K lines. Digital projectors in movie houses are also not 1080p.

Listen to This This week in media episode 4 or 5 (I do not remember which one). There they talk about digital movie projectors in cinemas. And most projectors out now are 1080p...--BorisFromStockdale 18:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] graphic at bottom

isn't the NTSC standard 720x486, not 640x480? 68.35.201.102 20:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Digital media designed for NTSC playback is usually 720x480. Some standards (e.g. Super Video CD) use 480x480. But NTSC itself is analogue standard without a precisely defined number of horizontal pixels, so the definition you actually get from it is hard to quantify exactly. JulesH 08:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video Gaming section

Requesting a new Video Gaming Section for talk on Next-gen video game consules and it's abilities to produce 1080p. --Jack Zhang 00:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The two paragraphs that discussed Microsoft (no mention of Sony, etc) and 1080 upgrades in XBox360 software are nothing more than advertising one's fanboyism, they have nothing to do with the 1080 standard and belong in discussion of the video game systems, not in the resolution standard. That passage has been so edited as to be meaningless, and I removed the remaining paragraph.

Resolution is a quality of Gaming Consoles/Games that should be discussed on those pages. Gaming Consoles are not an element of a resolution standard that needs to be discussed on this page. 71.229.160.152 00:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1080p broadcasts

Why isn't anyone broadcasting at 1080p (24fps and 30fps) even though it's an ATSC standard (see http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_53e-with-Amend-1-and-2.pdf ), and has been since ATSC was conceived (not a late addition, see Internet Archive --> atsc.org 1996 for example). Every television with an ATSC tuner (practically every digital TV in the US for example) supports 1080p at film frame rates. I don't know about cable or satellite tv, but it would be logical to broadcast movies and many television series over the air as 1080p in the US instead of degrading quality by encoding interlaced. Or is the article wrong in stating that no one broadcasts in 1080p? What about other standards than ATSC? I live in a country without HDTV so I can't check the bitstreams myself. Totsugeki

At least the Conversion 1080p30 <-> 1080i60 (-> 1080p60-Display) can and should be done losslessly. It is just a Matter of Indicating and Selecting the correct (De-)Interlacingmode. I am unsure, whether 3:2-Pulldown can be reversed losslessly for progressive Displays, but i assume it is, too. The Question is, whether Consumer-Hardware does what it should with the common interlaced Signals. I further assume, the general Compatibility is better with interlaced Signals, especially for CRT-HDTV-Sets. That is just a lot of Assumptions and Semiknowledge, i know. Christoph Päper 13:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ability of the eye to see 1080p section

Can someone clarify this section? It doesn't make any sense. --24.249.108.133 16:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What in the section doesn't make sense? Should we start with the first sentence? Daniel.Cardenas 19:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Persons ability to distinguish small details is described by visual acuity. When the invididual pixels are barely resolvable, increased resolution would indeed bring no benefit for the viewer, unless if the display could be brought closer. Just an anecdote: when I worked in computer helpdesk, some older people complained the tiny size of the pixels at a 1280x1024 resolution in a 17" TfT panel. The "high" resolution brought no advantage to those people, but 1024x768 had to be used instead. The section is misleading tho, because not all people watch displays at the limits of their vision. If a person can clearly see the pixels in a display, the resolution could then be doubled, the pixel size halved and the viewing distance would not need to be changed. The section does not explain the variables pertaining to these scenarios. 62.220.237.65 23:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)