HDTV Forum

We just had a tv station here do a bit on buying new HD tv's and they said to look out for sets with the 1080p setups because you would only be paying more money for something that wouldn't work due to that no station is broadcasting in that mode. Is that true?

You won't see anything broadcast in 1080p for some time. You can, however, take advantage of your TV's 1080p if:

1) You plan on purchasing a BlueRay or HD-DVD player soon
2) You plan on purchasing a Sony PS3 soon

Experts, correct me if I am wrong.

Also, any idea when we might see 1080p thru cable/satellite?

I bought a sony 1080p for 2k. Not cheap but not bad either. Now I am set for the next 10 years.

In the early days of DVD, 480i was played only as 480i on regular NTSC TVs, and we all know that although that was an improvement from other 480i material, it was inferior to its 480p version.

Since 1998 most HDTVs purchased by early adopters were sold to play the same 480i DVDs as 480p doubling the lines as progressive, a feature that only the DTVs could do, in addition of showing 1080i (or on some exceptions as native 720p, the non-panel era).

The improvement of viewing a progressive version of 480i drove the adoption of HDTV considerably. Simultaneously, DVD players started to appear as 480p deinterlacing 480i as well, giving the option to the owner of both (DTV and 480p player) to let the best piece to do the job better, but the TV had to have 480p inputs to make that happen.

Even though HDTV broadcast, cable, satellite, are mostly 1080i, a similar case than above applies for an "improvement of a already high resolution format to a higher pixel count, temporal (frame rate) or spatial (pixels on each frame) or both", and that is a benefit that can only happen if the display can properly deinterlace to non-1080p material, video and film, which is most of the consumer content out there.

1080p display is particularly important on large screens (we know that larger sizes are gradually being adopted by more people, people that were used to have a 27" set now looks for larger, but the benefit could only be appreciated if the viewing distance is short enough, viewing from the kitchen 20 feet away from a 50" panel would certainly be overkill to pursue it as 1080p.

In other words, large 1080p displays that properly upconvert non-1080p content bring a visual benefit that is not limited to content from 1080p hi def DVD or video games, and that benefit should not be overlooked, and should not be degraded as many articles of various magazines have done lately.

Anyone who remembers 10 years ago the visual improvement of 480i DVD viewed as 480p could get the feeling of the potential of a similar benefit translated to the world of 1080i/720p viewed as 1080p, again, when the deinterlacing is properly done.

I am saying that because many first generation HDTVs in 98/99 were suited with disappointing deinterlacers, even the famous Pioneer Elites RPTV were disappointing on their first line, but that was dramatically improved throughout the years.

The same evolution of the deinterlacing/upconversion/scaling ability (but faster) is happening to 1080p HDTVs, thanks now to the large competition, experience, and availability of chips from various signal processing companies, some only dedicated to professional products before, now at the feet of consumers.

Another benefit of a 1080p display (with 1080p input) is the potential to have a good quality external video processor to upconvert the non-1080p content to 1080p and feed that signal to the TV, which brings the potential of yet another piece on the signal chain to perform that role, not just the player, not just the TV, increasing the choices for handling image improvement without replacing legacy equipment (player, STB, or TV).

So it is important that a 1080p set have 1080p inputs for the Hi-def DVD but also for the function of 1080p upconversion of non-1080p content done out if the TV as alternative.

You might benefit by doing a short reading of a few 1080p articles I wrote recently for this magazine.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

Thanks again for your insight Rudolfo. I have been a subscriber for a few years your knowledge and efforts to promote HDTV are to be commended. I will always come to you guys for the "correct" answer.....

Thanks for the insight, Rodolfo.

When do you foresee cable/satelite actually broadcasting a 1080p signal? 2 years? 5 years? Feb '09?

They are already struggling with MPEG-4 conversions for more HDTV channels at 1080i so I do not see a 1080p (60fps of course) happening in the near future.

The current standard of 1080p broadcast is 24 and 30fps and although a over-the-air STB should have the ability to tune to any of the 18 formats, those included, the formats cannot be viewed as is without objectionable flicker, so they are expected to be displayed at higher frame rate (48 and 60 minimum).

The same would apply to satellite and cable STBs if they decide to repeat broadcast would broadcast jump to 1080p, not happening anytime soon either.

The benefit of 1080p 60 frames per second is temporal resolution (over the 1080i). Both have the 1920 spatial horizontal resolution, but the progressive would capture and transmit full 1080x1920 snap "different" shots of images 60 times x second, rather than 540 lines (x1920) and then another 540 lines on the next 60th of a second, of the 1080i.

In other words, the benefit of 720p 60fps with the benefit of the 1920 spatial resolution of the 1080 systems (720 has only 1280 spatial horizontal resolution).

The negative side of 1080p 60 fps is that it requires the double of bandwidth than 1080i 30 fps interlaced, and that would impose a tremendous demand for distribution systems, any system.

I see 1080p as a benefit for quality pre-recorded media such as 24fps of Hi-def DVD, both formats, because the capacity is there is only one movie (not 20 1080p channels sharing the already limited capacity), no I do not see it happening under the current model of quantity rather than quality.

The reason satellite went to MPEG-4 compression for HD is not for the potential of offering better quality (like going to 1080p), but for more channels, more revenue, and more economic survival.

In order to change that approach there has to be a tremendous pressure from other competitor distribution systems going to 1080p, not from pre-recorded media alone, and no one is capable to do the first move in the near future.

But more powerful compression algorithms would come by, better than MPEG-4, and, with time, the decision of using the higher capacity for quality vs. quantity would come again into question, guess what the decision would be.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

I believe terrestrial broadcasts will never be in 1080p60. Satellite someday could broadcast 1080p60, but they are historically bandwidth stingy and old habits are hard to break. That leaves DVD. Virtually all DVDs are 24 frames per second.

It is technically possible for a monitor to accept 1080i as input and internally convert it to 1080p72 when the source is film. Presently such sets are rare. I would prefer such a set over one that accepts 1080p60 as input. When a good DLP comes on the market that does this I might finally replace my 6-year-old HDTV.

In theory, I see no benefit at all to a set that accepts 1080p60 at its interface. The only reason I see to buy such a set is that someday Motion Compensated Processing might reach the marketplace. In this process the receiver converts 1080i into 1080p60, creating the missing frames by using the MPEG motion vectors. I haven

n theory, I see no benefit at all to a set that accepts 1080p60 at its interface. The only reason I see to buy such a set is that someday Motion Compensated Processing might reach the marketplace.

Hold up a moment...

Let's not forget PC gamers!

And what about the internet...? there is another source for 1080P60...

OK, maybe I should have said,