Visual difference between 480p, 540p, 720p, 960i, 1080i?

[_leech_]

Are there any screenshot comparisons available? Specifically between the unofficial HDTV modes (540p/960i).

[Crazy Legs]

Originally Posted by _leech_

Are there any screenshot comparisons available? Specifically between the unofficial HDTV modes (540p/960i).

Why the unofficial modes? I would suspect that comparisons between 1080i and 720p would be more readily available.

[Trunks0]

Love to see some. hard thing to compare Porgressive and Interlaced though using screen shots though.

Technically 720p is the better format as it is progressive imho. But the 1080i standard seems to have fooled people with a bigger number *shakes head*(thats why you see lots of 540p/1080i TV's, They only have 540 lines of resolution damn it!)

[taz291819]

Originally Posted by Trunks0

Love to see some. hard thing to compare Porgressive and Interlaced though using screen shots though.

Technically 720p is the better format as it is progressive imho. But the 1080i standard seems to have fooled people with a bigger number *shakes head*(thats why you see lots of 540p/1080i TV's, They only have 540 lines of resolution damn it!)

No they don't. They have full 1080 lines, it's just that 540 are shown at a time. This is like telling someone that their DVD player isn't 720x480, it's only outputting 240 lines.

And I also don't know where you get 720p is 'technically' better, because it isn't. It's a preference. And with today's encoders, it depends on the source.

I have yet to see a HD-movie in 720p that looks better than 1080i, and I have over 200 HD movies.

Now if you want to talk about slow-motion replays during sporting events, ok, 720p does look better. But during normal motion, 1080i has got it beat.

And for the record, technically and physically, 1080i takes up more bandwidth than 720p. And technically, 1080i has more horizontal resolution, 1920 compared to 1280.

[Takezo]

Originally Posted by taz291819

No they don't. They have full 1080 lines, it's just that 540 are shown at a time. This is like telling someone that their DVD player isn't 720x480, it's only outputting 240 lines.

And I also don't know where you get 720p is 'technically' better, because it isn't. It's a preference. And with today's encoders, it depends on the source.

I have yet to see a HD-movie in 720p that looks better than 1080i, and I have over 200 HD movies.

Now if you want to talk about slow-motion replays during sporting events, ok, 720p does look better. But during normal motion, 1080i has got it beat.

And for the record, technically and physically, 1080i takes up more bandwidth than 720p. And technically, 1080i has more horizontal resolution, 1920 compared to 1280.

Well not really.

NTSC is 4:3 480i in 60hz

HD NTSC is 16:9 in 720p or 1080i at 60hz

ED NTSC is 4.3 in 480p at 60hz

Its natral for people to think that they are seeing only half of the lines of resolution but that really is not true.

60Hz is the refresh rate for TV. This means the screen gets drawn 60 times in every second. Interlaced scaning means only half of the screen is renderd at 60hz instead of the entire screen. In other words, the entire screen is drawn 30 times every second. Every line that gets drawn has a number, these numbers are divided into feilds, Odds and Evens. These alternate between eachother to give the illusion that the screen is constantly on.

NTSC broadcasts and DVD Movies are in 480i at 29.9 frames per second. This means that only 30 frames are drawn every second. 480i draws the entire screen 30 times a second. Thus a DVD movie with 30 frames per second has all the lines of resolution drawn per each frame. Boo ya!

60hz its the borderline at which the human eye can perceive. So the illusion effect of interlaced scanning creates a blurring effect. If our eyes were any slower, then 480i and 480P would look the same. No illusion = no blur. That is why progressive is better.

1080i is interlaced but the immence resolution makes up for it. 720p may look better in some cases since the illusion blur effect of interlaced scanning.

[AluminumHaste]

Got all of that except the part where you said 60 times a second is the minimum of which the human eye can perceive. Are you talking about animation, or screen flicker or what??

[Trunks0]

Originally Posted by ScreamingBeef

Got all of that except the part where you said 60 times a second is the minimum of which the human eye can perceive. Are you talking about animation, or screen flicker or what??

Lets please not go there, we have already thrown this thread a good ways off-topic (and its somthing that have be argued to death)

I have been searching around on the net to see what I can find for image compaisons but I havn't found any. I have found lots of comparisons but they are all on technical merits of each format. None of them have images for comparison.

[taz291819]

Sorry if my post seemed a little clouded, but I do know how televisions work, as I work in the television business.

You're right about how interlacing works, but only half the lines are 'pure' at any time. After the odd lines are drawn, a television draws the even lines, which at that point, the odd lines are already starting to fade.

This happens so quickly your eyes can't see it. A steady shot which then pans quickly (any direction) will show the shortcomings of interlacing, if you're paying attention.

But at the same time, this happens with film also, so there really isn't a win-win situation. Maybe progressive-video, but personally I can't stand the way video looks for movies, unless it's shot with 24p cameras.

Oh well, in the end, I always tell folks the same thing when buying a set. Find one that looks good to you, take it home, and you'll be happy with it. Or wait until 1080p sets' prices come down.

[scooterman]

i can see interlace lines all the time on 480i, i cant really see them on 1080i very well. The interlance lines are very noticeable on edges of quick motion and fire.

[Darin]

Originally Posted by Takezo

HD NTSC

Anyway... to answer the original question: no, you won't find any screenshots to show you the difference. The difference between interlaced and progressive video can't be fully communicated with still shots.

[Bunsen Burner]

Interlaced and progressive.

BB

[ryoohki]

Armageddon :

CRITERION (TOP)(Upsized to 720p), PAL DVD(Middle), HDTV ABC Broadcast 720p(Bottom)

[_leech_]

Seems upconverting from 480i/p doesn't do much...

[The Grinch]

Upconverting won't do anything. Garbage in, garbage out. Take a 10 dollar bill and then upconvert it to 1000 pennies. In the end you still have $10 no matter how many times you count it.

[Takezo]

Isn't 540p the european EDTV for the standard known as PAL.

I have posted this many times but DVD is only 30 frames a second right.
29.9 to be exact.

whether it's interlaced or not. All 480 lines are drawn for each frame (60hz devided by 2 is 30 duh) . If you would play a DVD on your computer with the deinterlacing filter off, the show will not be half the resolution but just have scan lines.) The truth is DVD is interlaced video to begin with. That's why you need a progressive scan DVD player to watch in progressive scan.

Has any one tried to encode a progressive scan video at 640 x 240? Obviously not.

When somthing's at a lower resolution it will look pixelated and not nessarly blurry.

Why does interlaced look blurry compared to progressive then?

simple. 60Hz is just at the limit at what your eye can perceive. Even when all of the lines are being drawn per each frame, our eye can ever so slightly perceive the rapid change of even and odd feilds and thus the blur effect.

Try wiggling your finger infront of your monitor, see the after image of your finger? Thgat's is what makes interlaced scan blurry, not half the resolution.

[DavoNogo]

Originally Posted by The Grinch

Upconverting won't do anything. Garbage in, garbage out. Take a 10 dollar bill and then upconvert it to 1000 pennies. In the end you still have $10 no matter how many times you count it.

you're wrong on that. Australian HDTV uses good up-converting technology. The Up-Converted High Definition channels are better than the relative Standard Definition channels

Since there's nothing good on atm (it's 2 am here), this comparison will have to do - the SDTV one was originally 704x576, but to keep the aspect ratio, i had to stretch it to 1024x576, the HDTV one was originally 1440x1080i, but to compare it fairly, i downed the resolution to 1024x576:

SDTV:


up-converted HDTV:


btw, i've had to lower the res of the HD screenshot to make it easier to see the difference.. you'll notice the SD screenshot is a bit blurrier than the HD one, and that the colours are more "vibrant" on the HD screenshot (seriously, the watermelon has an orange tinge on the SD shot).. i wish i could show a better comparison, but this'll have to do for now

oh and i've had to save them as jpeg's as imageshack only allows a filesize of 1 meg


back on topic - i think the following site shows a great comparison between the different formats:

http://users.bigpond.net.au/paulgun/xbox/video/

[The Grinch]

All that's happening is that the upconversion is attempting to guess what the missing pixels should be. It's like using a flatbed scanner with interpolation technology to get a higer resolution from a low res source. The problem is, it's not true. Take a look at the skin tones. The second picture (the HD pic) have redish tones compaired to the first. And the panels and edge of the counter top on the island look pale.

[DavoNogo]

actually i was wrong about something... that was a native hd broadcast

so the second image is the way it's supposed to look, and the first image is just "standard" definition

[Lemon]

HDTV's upconvert anyway.

The reason to get a good upscailing DVD player is because the upconversion is so much better than the stock crap in the TVs.

[The Grinch]

http://www.hdtvinfoport.com/digital-hdtv-glossary.html

Scroll to the bottom where it says Upconvert.

[DavoNogo]

australian hdtv up-converts from 576p to 1080i - doing this removes jagged lines seen in images such as this:

Normal Australian SDTV:


Up-Converted Australian HDTV:


also, when our shows are up-converted from SD to HD, it doubles the bandwidth from 6mbps to ~12mbps.. doing that increases detail - images are sharper, and colours are more dynamic, there's no doubt about it... if you see no difference from your local broadcasts, then they're doing it all wrong... it's not just about bumping up the res

in any case, up-converted SD is not a substitution for HD, as you can observe in the following shots:

Up-Converted SD:

Native HD:

Up-Converted SD:

Native HD:

Up-Converted SD:

Native HD:

Up-Converted SD:

Native HD:

[DavoNogo]

Up-Converted SD:

Native HD:

Up-Converted SD:

Native HD:


To add to more confusion, 1080i will display the best possible image, due to the higher res, but 720p will look better in motion, due to there being 50/60 frames per second, unlike the 50/60 fields per second of interlaced video.

The ultimate solution is 1080p, however there are not enough examples of this format lying around (and not enough displays capable of displaying the res either)

goto www.wmvhd.com if you're interested in seeing what 1080p looks like (hint: check out the t2 extreme edition dvd)

[The Grinch]

720p is still broadcasted at 25 or 30fps. You're confusing fps with the refresh rate. It's not quite the same thing. I do understand what you're trying to say though.

As for those upconverted images, I'd really like to see the source image and not just the final output. Some of them look pretty good, but you can see a huge difference in the street car pics. Compair the TEXT on the signs and you will see what I mean. The difference is obvious.

[Trunks0]

Great set of images to compare the two really. The SD shots look allot like what comes out of my TV Tuner when I get a good clean signal

Where as the HD shots are what I wish came outta my TV Tuner

[DavoNogo]

Originally Posted by The Grinch

720p is still broadcasted at 25 or 30fps. You're confusing fps with the refresh rate. It's not quite the same thing. I do understand what you're trying to say though.

As for those upconverted images, I'd really like to see the source image and not just the final output. Some of them look pretty good, but you can see a huge difference in the street car pics. Compair the TEXT on the signs and you will see what I mean. The difference is obvious.

we don't actually get 720p here in australia, but our 576p is 50fps

i just figured 720p would be the same

btw, i don't get what you mean when you say you want to see the "source image not just the final output"... that's how they broadcasted it, the broadcasters up-converted the SD loop into HD.. i made no adjustments.

[The Grinch]

Most video available through normal broadcasting channels is only 25/30fps of "information frame rates". Yes you can have a true information frame rate of 50 or 60, but I don't know anyone that is broadcasting that. It uses a lot of bandwidth.

In the real world, an HDTV set is displaying information frame from a progressive scan source twice, giving you an effective frame rate (or display frame rate) of 50 or 60. So your essentially looking at 1 image twice. That will give you a smoother picture than interlaced video, but I still don't like to consider that a true frame rate.

Think of it in this respect. You could have your computer monitor cranked up to 160HZ (160 refreshes per second), but the computer/video card may only be able to provide an average of 53.3 frames per second in a game like HalfLife2. Which do you think is the frame rate? 160 or 53.3? In TV land people are more like to suggest 160 (53.3 x 3). In computer land you will find it the opposite, and everyone will swear in with 53.3fps. To each his own.

[DavoNogo]

[quote=The Grinch]Most video available through normal broadcasting channels is only 25/30fps of "information frame rates". Yes you can have a true information frame rate of 50 or 60, but I don't know anyone that is broadcasting that. It uses a lot of bandwidth.
QUOTE]

I just said, one of our broadcasters broadcast @ 50fps

When I try and encode the video to DVD, every program I've tried will say the source file is 50fps (TMPGEnc complains so badly, that it refuses to use the file until i re-encode to 25fps)

[The Grinch]

Understood.

As far as your other question about why I wanted a source video, to put it simply, broadcasting corporations, cable companies, whoever... they are all evil shmucks just like any other big company. Allow me to ellaborate...

In the example you provided, not only was of the screen shots "upconverted", but there was also a screen shot of the HDTV original. So let me ask you this. If the original was available in HDTV format to begin with, why would they need to upconvert anything? If at all, a downconvert would be required. For all we know, the upconvert was merely a simulation. That would result in a better looking image. The consumer would never know the difference because most of us blindly trust "the experts".

[DavoNogo]

Originally Posted by The Grinch

Understood.

As far as your other question about why I wanted a source video, to put it simply, broadcasting corporations, cable companies, whoever... they are all evil shmucks just like any other big company. Allow me to ellaborate...

In the example you provided, not only was of the screen shots "upconverted", but there was also a screen shot of the HDTV original. So let me ask you this. If the original was available in HDTV format to begin with, why would they need to upconvert anything? If at all, a downconvert would be required. For all we know, the upconvert was merely a simulation. That would result in a better looking image. The consumer would never know the difference because most of us blindly trust "the experts".

the HD loop wasn't available until only recently... for a few weeks they had been showing the SD upconverted loop.. I'm not sure of the situation of the broadcaster, but my belief is that Channel Ten (the affilate of SCT) originally gave Southern Cross Ten (the one running the loop) an SD tape of the loop. Then a few weeks later, Southern Cross Ten managed to get the proper HD tape from Channel Ten (they were the ones that originally had the loop in the first place)

[ryoohki]

Here another one of my own :

Eurotrip:

First (DVD Nstc upsized to 720p, for far comparison)
Second (HDTV 1080i version downsize to 720p, For space reason)