Slashdot Mirror


When is 720p Not 720p?

Henning Hoffmann writes "HDBlog has an interesting entry about many home theater displays.
Home theater displays around the resolution of 720p (most DLP, LCD, and LCOS displays) must convert 1080i material to their native resolution for display. No surprise there. But many displays do this by discarding half of the 1080i HD signal, effectively giving 720p viewers an SD signal - not watching HD at all! "

7 of 399 comments (clear)

  1. For the inevitable /.ing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here is tfa for you...

    When is 720p not 720p?

    Tom Norton, in his coverage of the Home Entertainment expo, brought something up that I was unaware of.

    720p displays show native 720p signals directly, of course. They also upconvert SD signals (like DVD) up to 720p for display. And 720p displays must convert incoming 1080i signals to 720p before they can be displayed. No surprise there, this makes sense. But, Silicon Optix claims that most manufacturers do the 1080i conversion just by taking one 540 line field from each 1080i frame (which is composed of two 540 line fields) and scaling that one field up to 720p, ignoring the other field. Reason being, it takes a lot less processing power to do this than to convert the image to 1080p and scale that, which would use all the information in the original signal to derive the 720p signal. If you have a display like this, it means that you're watching 540 lines of resolution upconverted to 720p. This is not HD, just like watching a DVD upconverted to 720p is not HD. Sure, you'll get the full width of the 1080i resolution, but you're only getting half the height. While this is better than DVD, it's not HD in my mind. (Aside: Tom Norton mentions this in his review of the Screenplay 777 projector.)

    If this is indeed the case, most people with 720p (or similar) projectors (and most DLP, LCD, and LCOS home theater projectors are exactly that) are not seeing what their displays are capable of. They're not, technically, even watching HD. This is crazy! How can this be? Why haven't we heard of this before? How are manufacturers getting away with it?

    Over-reacting? Well, if you're an owner of a 720p (or any similar resolution) projector you're either gonna be really upset by this or you're just gonna be laisez-faire about it because there's nothing you can do and you're enjoying your projector just fine thank-you. But me, I don't even own any such projector and I'm a little ticked. But I guess I should really wait for evidence of how properly-done conversion looks in comparison before making any snap judgements. I'm sure that the people selling HQV (a processor chip that does it the RIGHT way) will set something up.

    To me, this is a serious issue. Comments are welcome.

    from: http://www.hdblog.net/

    1. Re:For the inevitable /.ing by Phreakiture · · Score: 5, Informative

      720p is 720 lines scanned at 30 times persecond.

      Mostly incorrect.

      There are 18 recognized MPEG stream formats for HDTV.

      • 640x480 24 fps progressive narrow
      • 640x480 30 fps progressive narrow
      • 640x480 30 fps interlaced narrow
      • 640x480 60 fps progressive narrow
      • 704x480 24 fps progressive narrow
      • 704x480 30 fps progressive narrow
      • 704x480 30 fps interlaced narrow
      • 704x480 60 fps progressive narrow
      • 704x480 24 fps progressive wide
      • 704x480 30 fps progressive wide
      • 704x480 30 fps interlaced wide
      • 704x480 60 fps progressive wide
      • 1280x720 24 fps progressive wide
      • 1280x720 30 fps progressive wide
      • 1280x720 60 fps progressive wide
      • 1920x1080 24 fps progressive wide
      • 1920x1080 30 fps progressive wide
      • 1920x1080 30 fps interlaced wide

      In presenting these on a monitor, your receiver/settop box/whatever is supposed to turn them to a format that your monitor can handle. This will typically be one of these four:

      • 480 row 60Hz interlaced
      • 480 row 60Hz progressive
      • 720 row 60Hz progressive
      • 1080 row 60Hz interlaced
      • It is noteworthy, though, that some videophile monitors can handle, and set-top boxes deliver, 1080 row 60Hz progressive.

        As for the presence/absence of interlacing, I agree that it is very bad to use interlacing at the strem level. This should be eliminated. I would make an exception for the 480 modes, because the material may have been originally captured on NTSC videotape, in which case some sort of conversion would have to take place to get a progressive image, and I feel very strongly that conversions should never be done for broadcast unless absolutely necessary (as when showing PAL/SECAM native material).

        On the other hand, at the monitor level, if you have an interlaced monitor, I don't think that is a major issue. In 1080 mode, the best picture that can be sent is the 30fps progressive stream. This can be interlaced for presentation on a cRT.

        Now, someone commented that CRT's are dead. Not if you have a budget, they're not! I've owned an HD set for over three years now, and it only ran me $700. It is a CRT. It has a beautiful picture.

        Further, I would put forth that CRT's, in addition to being significantly cheaper than the alternatives, also put out a better picture than LCD (view from any angle; accurate color rendition; no lag), are less susceptible to burn-in than plasma (which will be killed by network bugs) and do not exhibit the rainbow effect of DLP (which, in fariness is not really all that bad). Their major failings are their physical size and power consumption.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
  2. Workaround is to use an HTPC... by Rectal+Prolapse · · Score: 5, Informative

    A Home Theater PC with good quality parts, drivers, and decoders will preserve the 1080i signal - it will combine the 1080i field pair into a single 1080p signal, and then downconvert (ie. downscale) to 720p.

    As a reference, my Athlon XP running at 2.4 GHz (aproximately equivalent to an Athlon XP 3400+) with a Geforce 6800GT and TheaterTek 2.1 software will have (little) trouble achieving this, assuming the 1080i source isn't glitchy itself.

    Alternative is to use the NVIDIA DVD Decoder version 1.0.0.67 ($20 US after 30 day trial) and ZoomPlayer 4.5 beta ($20 beta or nagware) for similar results.

    TheaterTek is roughly $70 US and includes updated NVIDIA DVD Decoders - too bad NVIDIA hasn't updated their official DVD decoders with the bugfixes that is present in the TheaterTek package.

  3. Re:Reminds me of Sound Blaster by Shkuey · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually this is an issue of giving people what they want. In this case an HDTV that isn't a thousand bucks more expensive and doesn't have a video processing delay.

    The first incorrect thing in the /. post is that this is somehow standard definition. It's not, 540 lines is more than 480. Not only that but they process 1920 lines of horizontal resolution (scaled down to 1280 for a 720p display), which is quite a bit more than 640.

    Anyone who is serious about getting the absolute most out of their display will have an external scaler and a device to delay the audio. Frankly as digital display technologies take more of a foothold in the market I'm hoping these interlaced resolutions will become far less common.

    When I first read the headlines I thought they would perhaps talk about 1024x768 plasmas with rectangular pixels being marketed as 720p. That kind of thing is far more blasphemous in my opinion.

    So in summary of TFA: 720p is not 720p when it's 1080i.

  4. spatial vs temporal resolution by Phearless+Phred · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ok, here's the skinny. 1080i is 1920x1080 @ 59.94 fields / second, meaning at any one instant in time, you're looking at a 1920x540 image made up of every other line of the picture (the odd fields, if you will.) Then, ~1/60th of a second later, you see the even fields. 720p is 1280x720 @ 60 FRAMES per second, meaning at any given instant you're looking at EVERY field of the image...not just the odd or even fields. If you were to try and take all 1080 lines from the original signal, they wouldn't really map properly to 720 at any given second because half of data would be from that same ~1/60th of a second later. Scaling the fields up is really the best way to go, at least for stuff that's been shot interlaced.

  5. The clever algorithm is a "Fourier transform" by roystgnr · · Score: 5, Informative

    And when you use it to upsample data, it is a lossless encoding that doesn't degrade the signal (unless you deliberately throw away data - discrete Fourier transforms are also used in lossy encoders).

    It's not a distortion-free transform, since high frequency signals (e.g. sharp edges) in the original image get interpreted as smooth changes and can get blurred between multiple pixels in an upsampled signal. But then again, that's exactly the sort of thing that happens when you digitize a picture in the first place - if you have a sharp black/white edge that passes through the middle of a pixel, the most accurate thing you can do is make that pixel gray.

  6. Re:Reminds me of Sound Blaster by J+Isaksson · · Score: 5, Informative

    Due to interlacing, a single 525 line picture is split into two ~262 line frames for display on the TV screen.

    Lines 243-262 of each frame (off the bottom of the TV) start with 0.3V for 4.7us, and the rest is 0V. This tells the TV to prepare for a new frame.

    This leaves just 242*2=484 lines of effective display.

    http://eyetap.org/ece385/lab5.htm