----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
Anthony, there are many things I don't know after reading your below e-mail
that would significantly impact the video quality you saw at the
demonstration. Which TV (presume it was 1080P input since they were using
an external video processor), which video processor, and what was the
source.
1080i requires no scaling. When properly deinterlaced, it is actual 1080p
and contains all the original resolution. Therefore, if the external video
processor was doing the deinterlacing; was it a model that does it properly
or one that drops back to 540 original lines of resolution and then scales
that to 1080p. Will make a difference on visible resolution on a big set.
Not so obvious on a small one.
Some of the sets are better than others. If it wasn't one of the LCOS
Brillians or HP DLP, it probably wasn't receiving 1080P from the processor
and was doing its own deinterlacing of 1080i. This would interject the same
deinterlacing issues mentioned above. Plus, some sets show significantly
more artifacts. Also, the level of artifacts is highly dependent upon how
"features" are set (e.g., SXRD can become a "mess" if you crank up the DRC
functions (reality and clarity), BN smoother, color corrector, clear white,
detail enhancer, black corrector, etc.).
Source does make an obvious difference. 480p (although I would think the
processor was being fed 480i)upconverted will never be great on a large
screen. HD "lite" from D* doesn't make full use of the 1080p's capability.
But, OTA 1080i programming, especially some of the CBS shows, should look
truly outstanding.
I have over 2500 hours on my 60" SXRD which was ISF'ed after around 150
hours. It replaced an ISF'ed 55" CRT Mits RPTV supported by an outboard
Lumagen processor used to upconvert 480i to 1080i. The SXRD does just as
good as the Mits/Lumagen for standard definition (very watchable on either).
I'm using an upconverting Denon at 1080i over HDMI for DVD's. It's a
significant improvement over the Mits. HD "lite" from D* looks better than
DVDs and better than anything provided by the Mits. Artifacts are primarily
a result of the signal and not more obvious to me than what we experienced
with the Mits. OTA 720p looks great and probably very close to HD "lite"
from D*; but with fewer signal related artifacts. OTA 1080i is where the
set really "shines" and provides the full 1920x1080 resolution. Except for
occasional broadcast problems, I am not aware of any artifacts. I fully
expect that HD DVD or BR at 1080i will provide a marginal improvement over
OTA 1080i.
1080p input into a 1080p set obviously has the potential for the optimal
picture. However, with proper deinterlacing, 1080i into a 1080p set can be
basically the same thing; and the sets grayscale calibration, color decoder,
contrast, black level, shadow detail, etc. can be more important than if the
input is 1080i or 1080p.
I won't argue with those who want to wait for 1080p input and/or more 1080p
sources. However, I have never been happier with a purchase than I have
been with the current SXRD and am definitely glad that I didn't wait. It's
deinterlaced picture from a good 1080i source significantly exceeds anything
I had on the 1080i CRT set. It's upconverted 720p picture is definitely
better than what I had on the 1080i set; and it's at least as good with 480i
as the Mits/Lumagen. For me, the total, significant benefits I've had in
the first year will exceed the marginal improvement I would have had in the
next four years (period I will probably keep the set) with any available
1080p input.
Regards,
Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Rizzuto" <
[email protected]>
To: "HDTV Magazine" <
[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 10:24 PM
Subject: 1080p
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> I saw a demo of "1080P" last week. What I saw was not true 1080P. What I
> saw was 1080I and 480P scaled to 1080P on a calibrated display. I can only
> say with regards to up-conversion, G.I.G.O.. Did I see more detail? Yes,
> but in the process any noise, or issues of artifacting were also
> amplified. I came home and looked at the same materials in their native
> format and was far more impressed. I am not condemning 1080P, not by a
> long shot. I will reserve judgment until I see material that is 1080p
> native which will hopefully be when Blu-Ray is finally released. What I
> saw used an external scaler bypassing the internal, so I wonder if my
> impression would have been different had I seen what the internal scaler
> could do. Based on what I did see, I would not break my neck to purchase a
> 1080p display if all I could view was material that had been up converted.
>
> Just my two cents.
>
> Anthony R .
> Orlando, FL
>
> To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
> day) send an email to:
>
[email protected]
To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected] 