[mmab9]

I was watching QVC last night and the man selling a TV said on one in this country broadcast in 1080p is this true!.He also said we will only get 1080p in about 4 years time .if so what are we getting then?

[face-off]

HD programmes via Sky HD are transmitted in 1080i.

[mmab9]

Originally Posted by face-off

HD programmes via Sky HD are transmitted in 1080i.

So whats he on about 1080p?

Originally Posted by mmab9

So whats he on about 1080p?

He's talking out of his backside the only way to get 1080p in UK is from a HD DVD/Blu ray players.

Sky and the BBC currently broadcast at 1080i and this manages to take up enough bandwidth on transponders.

Until the codecs are good enough 1080p is a dream for broadcasting

[rjmachin]

If he said that no one in this country broadcasts in 1080p, then he is correct. Our HD channels broadcast in 1080i, which is interlaced, whereas 1080p is progressive, and requires a lot more bandwidth than 1080i.

High Definition media however, such as HD DVD, Blu Ray, and High Definition games on the XBox 360 and PS3, use 1080p.

This is because with HD DVD and Blu Ray, they have the storage capacity to give the full 1080p content.

If you have intentions on using High Definition movies on either HD DVD or Blu Ray in the future, or have/want to have either a XBox 360 or PS3, then you may want to consider this as a factor as to whether or not to get a 1080p TV (known as Full HD) or a 1080i TV (known as HD Ready)

You can now get a 37inch Full HD tv for around £770 for the samsung LE37M87BDX

[mart.stokes]

Originally Posted by rjmachin

If you have intentions on using High Definition movies on either HD DVD or Blu Ray in the future, or have/want to have either a XBox 360 or PS3, then you may want to consider this as a factor as to whether or not to get a 1080p TV (known as Full HD) or a 1080i TV (known as HD Ready)

You refer to the sort of signal these TVs will accept, NOT the resolution. The Samsung you refer to IS, as you indicate, a 1080 resolution TV and will accept all sort of inputs. However, saying that a TV is a 1080i TV does not mean a lot in terms of the resolution, it could be 720, 768 or 1080. ALL LCD and Plasma TVs are progressive (p) in the way they display.

It is common for people to confuse the resolution and what signals a TV will accept. Take the Hyundai HPT 4280, this is "HD Ready" (has a HDMi input and everything), but is only 480 resolution!

[rjmachin]

Appologies for the confusion, this was not my intention at all.

Obviously with any big purchase such as this, it is vital that you do the research first prior to purchase.

This is what I did nearlly two years ago when I bought my Toshiba 32WLT58, which I got at a great price (for the time), and I have been truly happy with it ever since.

I would say that if you have any questions about a particular TV, then ask on these forums or on AV forums, where somebody will be glad to help.

[chriscatt]

Originally Posted by rjmachin

If he said that no one in this country broadcasts in 1080p, then he is correct. Our HD channels broadcast in 1080i, which is interlaced, whereas 1080p is progressive, and requires a lot more bandwidth than 1080i.

High Definition media however, such as HD DVD, Blu Ray, and High Definition games on the XBox 360 and PS3, use 1080p.

This is because with HD DVD and Blu Ray, they have the storage capacity to give the full 1080p content.

If you have intentions on using High Definition movies on either HD DVD or Blu Ray in the future, or have/want to have either a XBox 360 or PS3, then you may want to consider this as a factor as to whether or not to get a 1080p TV (known as Full HD) or a 1080i TV (known as HD Ready)

You can now get a 37inch Full HD tv for around £770 for the samsung LE37M87BDX

Hi, or if you want to you can purchase a 360 HD DVD, couple it to a PC that will output 1080p via Cyberlink's PowerDVD Ultra...
ChrisC

[Jarrak]

Originally Posted by mart.stokes

It is common for people to confuse the resolution and what signals a TV will accept. Take the Hyundai HPT 4280, this is "HD Ready" (has a HDMi input and everything), but is only 480 resolution!

Then it is not HD Ready as defined by the EICTA spec, amazed there are still manufacturers or retailers still cheating the public by incorrect use of the logo/spec.

[NeilPost]

Originally Posted by mart.stokes

You refer to the sort of signal these TVs will accept, NOT the resolution. The Samsung you refer to IS, as you indicate, a 1080 resolution TV and will accept all sort of inputs. However, saying that a TV is a 1080i TV does not mean a lot in terms of the resolution, it could be 720, 768 or 1080. ALL LCD and Plasma TVs are progressive (p) in the way they display.

It is common for people to confuse the resolution and what signals a TV will accept. Take the Hyundai HPT 4280, this is "HD Ready" (has a HDMi input and everything), but is only 480 resolution!

Depending on where you stand on the debate, 1080p panels *should* give a better picture displaying 1080i, as they display the interlaced on seperate lines (orshould do) avoiding the interlace effect. However, much of this is moot point, as the standard of much of what is broadcast as HD is rubbish, esp. much of the sub-HD upscaled rubbish on SkyHD, though conversely almost everything gets a pick up from the didgital to screen HDMI, as opposed to analogue SCART.

Blu-ray looks Drop Dead Gorgeous on a 1080p screen, like my Sammy M87. Nothing else comes close, even SkyHD. I first saw Casino Royale via PS3 to my M87 at 1080p, and was blown away. Blu-ray and 1080p is everything DVD never was.

Best HDTV stuff I have seen is probably some of the BBC HD Planet Eath stuff.

I await the bug ridden Sky 'FullHD' in a couple of years :-)

[remlap]

QVC presenters are bit silly, one who was demonstrating a Samsung promised 100 HD channels by the end of 2007 late last year.

[superman775]

ps3 is 1080p your better off getting a ps3 if you love the next gen games are mind blowing.

[geezerbob]

A very good example of quality HD is THE GREAT BRITISH SUMMER running now and again on BBC HD

[mart.stokes]

Originally Posted by Jarrak

Then it is not HD Ready as defined by the EICTA spec, amazed there are still manufacturers or retailers still cheating the public by incorrect use of the logo/spec.

Correct, hence the reason for the quote marks. In fact, I'm certain Hyundai even put it in quotes on some of their literature. Our local Tescos was selling these sets until very recently.

[mart.stokes]

Originally Posted by NeilPost

Depending on where you stand on the debate, 1080p panels *should* give a better picture displaying 1080i, as they display the interlaced on seperate lines (orshould do) avoiding the interlace effect. However, much of this is moot point, as the standard of much of what is broadcast as HD is rubbish

I'll tell you where I stand on the debate. A good source is a good source, whatever the resolution. I think we are falling into a trap of thinking Blu_Ray and HD-DVD 1080p is far superior to 1080i when, as indicated by other posters, this is more to do with the amount of effort (or lack of it) put into conversion/transmission. Mind you, I have to say that a good Blu-Ray IS drop dead gorgeous (but note I still say a "good" Blu-Ray).

[mart.stokes]

Originally Posted by rjmachin

Appologies for the confusion, this was not my intention at all.

Obviously with any big purchase such as this, it is vital that you do the research first prior to purchase.

This is what I did nearlly two years ago when I bought my Toshiba 32WLT58, which I got at a great price (for the time), and I have been truly happy with it ever since.

I would say that if you have any questions about a particular TV, then ask on these forums or on AV forums, where somebody will be glad to help.

Sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound as though you had confused. I think what you said was sound up to a point, I just wanted to make certain we differentiated between resolution and input.

You are absolutely spot on about research prior to purchase. It's just such a confusing subject for many people, I can't imagine my 75 year old parents having to do it next time they want a new telly.

[Chippy99]

Originally Posted by NeilPost

Depending on where you stand on the debate, 1080p panels *should* give a better picture displaying 1080i, as they display the interlaced on seperate lines (orshould do) avoiding the interlace effect.

I don't know what you are trying to say there but it doesn't actually make any sense.

Even if 1980x1080 panels did "display the interlaced" on seperate lines, I don't see how/why that would "avoid the interlace effect".

The reason 1080i looks better on a 1920x1080 panel is simple because a "full hd" panel has twice as many pixels as a typical 720 line panel.

[Bumtious1]

Actually the 1080p debate is complex, all to do with what the eye actually see vs viewing distance.

Resolution is not the most important thing to consider when buying an HD TV.

Colour, greyscale, scalling (processing) blacks are going to have far more bearing on the final result.

At a normal vieing distance of sat 10ft you are going to find it hard to see a difference between a 1080 picture or a 720 one.

AND with tvs under 50" (should actually be 70") because of the distance sat the resolution from a 1080p set is a waste of time and is just marketing spin.

[mart.stokes]

Originally Posted by Bumtious1

AND with tvs under 50" (should actually be 70") because of the distance sat the resolution from a 1080p set is a waste of time and is just marketing spin.

All other things being equal. Unfortunately, they are not. I would agree that a source produced 720 (or 768 if using a 768 display) progressive signal displayed on the appropriate device to match the resolution of the source then what you say is spot-on. However, I contend (and I realise this is very subjective) that carrying forward a 1080 signal all the way through the chain and then scaling it down will have some effect when compared to a native 1080 display.

I may be splitting hairs here, but I still believe I can see some moiring on fine details on 768 panels (downscaled from a 1080 source) that doesn't exist on a 1080 showing a 1080 (i or p) picture. You seem to have to get to much finer detail on a 1080 before it becomes apparent. Of course, your comments about the display device and viewing distance are perfectly valid, and this may have somethign to do with it. It is difficult to compare like with like.

[hx1yamaha]

Also just try & compare pix with pix when the madman on the camera selector thinks 1 second exposure is far to long

[NeilPost]

Originally Posted by mart.stokes

All other things being equal. Unfortunately, they are not. I would agree that a source produced 720 (or 768 if using a 768 display) progressive signal displayed on the appropriate device to match the resolution of the source then what you say is spot-on. However, I contend (and I realise this is very subjective) that carrying forward a 1080 signal all the way through the chain and then scaling it down will have some effect when compared to a native 1080 display.

I may be splitting hairs here, but I still believe I can see some moiring on fine details on 768 panels (downscaled from a 1080 source) that doesn't exist on a 1080 showing a 1080 (i or p) picture. You seem to have to get to much finer detail on a 1080 before it becomes apparent. Of course, your comments about the display device and viewing distance are perfectly valid, and this may have somethign to do with it. It is difficult to compare like with like.

A further thought, on 1080p much of the discussion centres round the 1080 lines, but the 1920 horizonal resolution has a huge impact aswell on well produced output.

The first Bue-ray I saw on my Samsung M87 at 1080p was Casino Royale freebie with the PS/3. It was jaw-droppingly good. SkyHD just isn't in the same ballpark even with HD native output, never mind shoddy upscaled SD content.

Still it's better than anything SCARTED to it as a comparison, but that is a benefit of the HDMI digital to screen, that many people overlook as a general uplift before the HD discuussion kicks off.

[Chorlton Fisher]

I was watching clips of 'How We Built Britain' on BBC HD last night on my 1080i/p LCD and the opening titles were stunning. I was then watching Holby City on BBC1 and the upscaled SD image through the HDMI was also greatly improved.

I'm still at the stage of watching HD because it's HD. I even watched Bristol Rovers v West Ham on Sky Sorts HD2 I guess the novelty will wear off soon.

[Chippy99]

Originally Posted by NeilPost

A further thought, on 1080p much of the discussion centres round the 1080 lines, but the 1920 horizonal resolution has a huge impact aswell on well produced output.

The first Bue-ray I saw on my Samsung M87 at 1080p was Casino Royale freebie with the PS/3. It was jaw-droppingly good. SkyHD just isn't in the same ballpark even with HD native output, never mind shoddy upscaled SD content.

I wonder if that's because (AIUI) lots of so-called "full hd" content is actually shot at 1440x1080 and upscaled to 1920x1080. Whereas you would expect a film transfer to blue-ray would indeed be done at 1920x1080.

There's much misinformation about 1080p vs 1080i with many (most) people claiming that the progressive image carries double the amount of detail.

Well that *would* be true at equal frame rates. i.e. there's twice as much data in a 1080p50 stream compared to a 1080i50 stream. (But only if the data is there in the first place!) Remember a 1080i 50Hz signal produces full 1920x1080 *frames* 25 times per second. That's basically the same amount of data coming off a blu-ray disk at 1080p24.

[mart.stokes]

Originally Posted by Chippy99

Well that *would* be true at equal frame rates. i.e. there's twice as much data in a 1080p50 stream compared to a 1080i50 stream. (But only if the data is there in the first place!) Remember a 1080i 50Hz signal produces full 1920x1080 *frames* 25 times per second. That's basically the same amount of data coming off a blu-ray disk at 1080p24.

You know, although there is much truth in what you say (and your comment about the data being there in the first place is important), I still like to think that "it ain't what you've got, it's what you do with it that counts". The maths holds up, but if I displayed a single pixel in a fixed location refreshed at a billion times a second, I am never going to reproduce an episode of Eastenders (although the single pixel may be more entertaining ). It's a complex thought process and very subjective, the one pixel example is silly I know, but a 12 megapixel photo type picture refreshed ten times a second would look stunning in terms of resolution, but completely unwatchable. I presume some boffin has done research on the amount of data (not compression) and how best to distribute it between resolution and refresh for the human eye.

[mart.stokes]

Originally Posted by NeilPost

The first Bue-ray I saw on my Samsung M87 at 1080p was Casino Royale freebie with the PS/3. It was jaw-droppingly good. SkyHD just isn't in the same ballpark even with HD native output, never mind shoddy upscaled SD content.

Seconded about Casino Royale. That PS3 thing is amazing, Blu-Ray, Media Centre of sorts, excellent upscaled DVD, access to the Web.

Now, what the hell are those strange shaped controllers that came with it all about?

Anyway, I still think that Chippy99's comment about amount of data has some validity. I think Jarrak's comments regarding the conversion "process" used is close to the mark. Things like Blu-Ray Casino Royale do tend to "show up" many of Sky's channels' and partner channels' efforts. I watched "Tears of the Sun" on Blu-Ray the other night and my wife made an interesting comment during one of the many dark scenes, "where's all the noise in the background compared to Sky HD?". She was right, almost no noise at all compared to many scenes with dark backgrounds on Sky Movies.