GolfHos

AskeVille (http://askville.amazon.com/electronics/Topic.do?tag=electronics)

I thought we already had that guy around here?

Cool site.  I'm not crazy about the layout, though. (or maybe it's just the all the animated avatars)

Yeah, animated GIFs were cool back in, oh, Internet '96.   ;)

I need Aske to critique this thread (http://askville.amazon.com/watch-1080p-programming-HD-broadcasted-720p/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=4598827) for me.   [sm_stir]

i'll post about it when i get home tonight.
 8) :o

Zang!!!

Poor Kev still isn't up-to-date.

True dat.  :D

some really bad info from some people there.
do you want a point by point breakdown ?

No, unless you have it handy.

Really just want to know the pros/cons of 1080p vs. 1080i, programming options/availability for both and so on.  Which to buy?

well, it really depends on what you want out of your  display (let's not call them TV's anymore. ;) )  this will get a bit long winded and so I apologize in advance.

1st of all, lets refresh on how many more pixels each offers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Standard_video_res.svg)

the article is generally correct (via several people) that 1080p is not currently broadcast in the US. this does not mean in the future it will not be (nobody really knows this at this time... ).  as with any interlace/progressive scan debate, of course a 1080p signal requires in principle 2x the bandwidth- however, the more advanced video codecs like vc1 and avc currently compress 1080p to 'cinematic transparency to the master' with video bitrates in the range of 10-25 mbps.   currently broadcast 1080i mpeg2 (highly inefficient antique codec) streams via OTA , CAB typically clock in around 19mbps (with DD 5.1 audio included... around 500 kbps).  therefore, it would certainly be feasible to sometime down the road... enhance broadcast capabilities to 1080p. (the more limiting factor than bandwidth would be the retooling of the studio (network level) and network affiliate hardware rooms which were just changed out to 720p/1080i in the last 10 years or so). another factor that would further delay HDTV transition into 1080p is that probably 90% of all displays out there now are 720p or 1080i, not 1080p capable; of course, this might shift to 85/15 or maybe even 80/20 just on the strength of xmas07/new years 08 sales. also, many early adopter (1999,2000,2001,2002) sets will be nearing the end of their life cycles soon (if not already) and be replaced ... likely with 1080p sets.  Also keep in mind many (especially older ones)"1080i" labeled sets are simply 720p native sets that can easily accomodate (via signal processing) a 1080i signal. These sets as such are not truly 2MPixel sets.... 

1080p is the default standard resolution of advanced HiDefMedia (HDM) as featured in HD-DVD and Blu-Ray (BD) next generation optical discs. To see the most* stunning picture these media offer one needs a 1080 display to access every pixel encoded on the disc.  With these new HDM formats one's HiDef experience is not limited to the visual. Both can offer HiDef audio as well. HD-DVD players require at least DD+ and many 'blockbuster' titles feature Dolby TrueHD, a lossless audio codec that is transparent to the studio audio master track in 5.1 or 7.1.  BD offers titles with either Lossless PCM, TrueHD, or DTS-HD(or even DTS-HDMA). Of course LPCM is a very high bitrate demand (think 8 channels of CD audio ;) ). The others are advanced lossless codecs with lower bitrate needs.  HD-DVD also supports DTS-HD, but it is not currently featured on many titles (studio preference?).  Until about last month , no bluray players had internal decoders for DTS-MA  however, so it was useless to the consumer, the reason why LPCM tracks were also included. HD-DVD players include internal decoders for all audio codecs offered on HD-DVDs. Not all BD players do the same.  To take advantage of these codecs, one needs either internal decoding (HD-DVD) output via analog multichannel cables or HDMI cables to a new generation AVR with those inputs, or to a new HDMI 1.3 AVR with AVR-internal codec decoding.  BD players output at 24fps (film speed) although 99+% of displays currently can not display at this rate; a pulldown is used instead. HD-DVD players offer the capability to firmware flash to 24fps on some models.  New generation LCD displays offering 120hZ panels are the ones most poised to take advantage of the 24fps feature.  HD-DVD is a finalized spec. BD is not. Profile 1.1 is supposed to hit 10/31/2007 but may be delayed. Profile 2.0 has no set release date as of now.  Discs authored for P1.1 or P2.0 may* not play in P1.0 players; only time will determine whether this becomes an issue or not.  Aside from the PS3, almost no current P1.0 players are suspected to be firmware flashable or hardware 'pluggable' to move up in the BD profile lists; that is to say it is likely all current 1.0 players will always be limited to 1.0 profile hardware capabilities (aka no internet connectivity, small persistent storage, no IME, etc)... if these features matter to you, i would certainly not recommend any nonPS3 BD player.

1080i vs. 720p is a now years old debate among HDTV fans.  Each has its role.  In theory a 720p signal should show fast motion content (aka sports) with less image distortion than 1080i.  And vice versa 1080i should show still shots with far more detail than 720p.  The latter generally holds true. The former tends to depend on the cameras used, and the video codecs as well.  Fox NFL (720p) broadcasts generally IMHO look far worse than CBS (1080i) NFL broadcasts, but better than NBC (1080i) broadcasts. Another complicating factor in this is whether your local affiliate uses digital multicasting. Here a subchannel is fed in with the main channel over the same overall bandwidth. Therefore your main HDTV channel bitrate decreases by 2-3 mbps. This can* make a huge difference in the video signal quality (macroblocking in particular).. as 15-16 mbps is just too small for complex data in an mpeg2 stream.  You can get your HDTV via OTA, Cable, Satellite, or maybe FIOS.  Generally OTA is the best quality so long as you receive the signal cleanly. Cable in most areas passes the signal with no additional compression (as is from network). Satellites further compress the signal and offer HD-Lite (grrr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_Lite)) ... this is because they do not have enough bandwidth to offer all the 'channel selection' they tout in advertising at full quality. They are also typically engaging in bitstarving the signal as well, but this should improve as the transition to MPG4 happens in the next few months/year.   Of course, in many areas, one has no choice of content providers... such is life.  One good way to truly judge the quality of an HDTV signal is simply to compare it side by side with a HD/DVD or BD of the same content.   OTA is free of course, and CAB/SAT depend on your exact programming packages.  With cable for example, one can get a digitial package with about 20 (for now, also varies greatly by market) HD channels (and 200 or so SD..) for around $100/month with an HD-DVR box.  With Sat, it will be about 30-40 (for now) HD-Lite channels at around $75-$100+ a month but you must buy your own HD-DVR box (about $300-$500 IIRC) if you want to have DVR capability.  Of course again, it really depends where you are, and what exactly you plan to watch.  Unfortunately nobody gives true alacarte plans.

regarding the tv's themselves, 1080p/720{1080i}p TV's tend to show the quality difference on the same 1080p signal once one gets past about 40-42" diagonal. If you plan to go bigger than that , you will likely notice the difference (aka getting your $'s worth by upgrading to the 1080p model) If you go bigger than 60", its almost inconceivable to not pay any premium there is in getting the 1080p model (as you're already paying around $2k+ to begin with). Pricing tends to go FPLCD, FPPLASMA, MDLCOS, MDDLP, MDLCD (FP indicates flat panel, MD indicates MicroDisplay).  Discussing the merits of each technology is beyond the scope of this thread. ;)   Right now, FPLCD's don't really go past 60". Plasmas do, as do MDLCOS and MDDLP.  Of course, if you want to go over 80", you're looking at a front projector (which come in LCOS, 3LCD, and DLP models at 1080p)  At 100"+  you must buy a 1080p projector, the pixel density is simply not high enough (aka they look too big at viewing range!) with a 720p projector. 

Also most modern displays can be used as super large computer monitors.  If you would like to utilize this feature, the higher the refresh rate , and the progressive scan feature will matter to you. Of course, if you want to do this, do NOT buy a plasma as you will burn the image into the screen.

what then is the place of 1080p vs. 1080i?  if you plan to only watch television, on top of that, watch highly compressed satellite HD-lite, and don't care about future-proofing at all, a 720p/1080i model is of course the right choice for you!.  if you plan to watch as much HDM as HDTV, or care about future-proofing, then you should really weigh the cost benefits and decide if you can afford the 25% price premium to get a 1080p model.  If you plan to watch HDM almost exclusively, or if $ is no object, just go 1080p. 

Aske loves HD.

someday you will too  [sm_devil].  Once you go, you don't go back. ... that's for sure.

So, Aske, should I keep this until it burns out?

(http://static.flickr.com/66/156248740_a6faf24e22_m.jpg)

Or should I upgrade to one of these fancy Japanese models?

(http://retrothing.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/sonytrinitron.jpg)

LOL

Have to admit to being lost when it comes to hdtv.  Still watching my 1988 mitsubishi tv screen.  It is going and we will get hdtv.  I read explanatory post and admit to not understanding much.  While reading, was hoping that Aske would summarize and the last paragraph did it beautifully.

I think I read in the post that satelite hd signals are not of the best quality.  Did I understand that correctly?

(http://users.aol.com/aleong1631/pleasant2.gif)

(http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/1/1f/200px-Mysterious_repair_man.jpeg)

yes. it is (at least for now) worst by far among OTA, Cable, FIOS, and Sat.

of course, many people only have Sat as an option.  :sad3: [sm_disgust]

Aske, I'm off to meetings and don't have time to even read that let alone respond.  Quick thanks in advance though.  I'll ply you with questions later.   ;)

Dude........HD good   gleek's rabbit ears bad.  (unless it's that deal where you pull your pockets out of your jeans and go up to a girl, and....That I can't comment on)

In my experience, rabbit ears don't work when placed on the TV set nor when pulled out of my pants. It's not for the lack of trying either.

Thanks Aske.  Post printed for further review.

Initial question:  Is there any way to find out to what level a SAT/CAB provider is degrading the signal on a HD channel-by-channel basis?  I'm stuck with one or the other.  I apparently live in a spot where it's impossible to get a good OTA signal.  Our whole neighborhood deals with the same problem.

i would check AVS (in general) but also specifically for info on cable in your area. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=45
you can find OTA and cable info in this section.  OTA thread could be useful to at least find out which of your affiliates use multicasting subchannels.

SAT will be nationwide issues.  both D* and E* downres typically from 1920x1080 to at most 1440x1080, sometimes even 12__x1080   (of course not applicable to 720p signals).  Both also typically bitstarve to between 10-14 mpbs.  D* of course just rolled out mpeg4 local channels which users report as a big improvement, even at the low bitrates the better codec vastly reduces artifacting.     Cable systems will in (2-3 years) be unveiling switched digital video technology which will ease their bandwidth issues completely.  Right now cable can only treat the bandwidth issue by switching current analog channels to digital... as they do so they gain capacity for more HD.  one HD channel takes less bandwidth than an analog SD channel IIRC. lol.   don't just buy in to a lot of satellite users reports on 'my picture is great!' .   if they have never seen OTA or FIOS or cable HDTV  , or they weren't an early adopter on D*/E*, they have only seen their hd-lite and don't know better ... heheheheh