Page 2 of 3 [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 73,351
Location: Over there

12 Jun 2012, 11:45 am

Television broadcast services have nothing to do with a screen intended for use with a PC on which to play games.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

12 Jun 2012, 11:58 am

If that were the case then why not buy a 2560 x 1440p monitor for gaming?



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 73,351
Location: Over there

12 Jun 2012, 11:59 am

Because the OP is asking for a 1920x1080 monitor.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,266
Location: the island of defective toy santas

12 Jun 2012, 12:00 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
720p with its 60 frames per second motion capture produces the sharpest picture. 1080p only supports 24 frames per second which becomes a blurry mess whenever fast motion is introduced.

my sony z-series bravia does indeed do at least 60 frames per second display. :hmph: plus it upsamples 24 frame per second film-based material to display to 120 frames per second via a judder-elimination process they call "motionflow."
your point about scaling artifacts [720 onto 1080] is noted.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

12 Jun 2012, 12:12 pm

Unless your Sony can turn off the scaling by letter boxing the picture it will cause damage to the picture quality of any 720p broadcast. Motionflow 120 hertz televisions cannot replicate the complexity of motion of a true 60 frames per second broadcast. For purists the only proper way to watch movies like the Hobbit is with a native 720p television with a native Blue Ray player outputting a native 720p, 48 frames per second signal. Only then will you experience full high definition in all its glory.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,266
Location: the island of defective toy santas

12 Jun 2012, 12:41 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
Unless your Sony can turn off the scaling by letter boxing the picture it will cause damage to the picture quality of any 720p broadcast. Motionflow 120 hertz televisions cannot replicate the complexity of motion of a true 60 frames per second broadcast. For purists the only proper way to watch movies like the Hobbit is with a native 720p television with a native Blue Ray player outputting a native 720p, 48 frames per second signal. Only then will you experience full high definition in all its glory.

i was under the impression that the latest hobbit movie was filmed in 8k @ 48 frames per second as a format meant to be displayed in movie theatres [as opposed to the standard but hopelessly outdated 24 frames per second].



Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

12 Jun 2012, 1:23 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
Unless your Sony can turn off the scaling by letter boxing the picture it will cause damage to the picture quality of any 720p broadcast. Motionflow 120 hertz televisions cannot replicate the complexity of motion of a true 60 frames per second broadcast. For purists the only proper way to watch movies like the Hobbit is with a native 720p television with a native Blue Ray player outputting a native 720p, 48 frames per second signal. Only then will you experience full high definition in all its glory.

Why do a 1080p television would be unable to show motion with the same quality as a 720p television? It's the same technology, it's only a difference on the number of pixels. You know, there is some 240Hz 1080p television. Even if somehow 720p are of better quality for 48fps pictures, the purists should still prefer 1080p for showing 24fps Ghibli in all their glory. :wink:


_________________
Down with speculators!! !


androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

12 Jun 2012, 1:40 pm

1080p televisions produce scaling artifacts. When a 720p broadcast is displayed on a 1080p television the odd lines are doubled and the even lines are single. Thus if you are wearing a shirt with stripes it will look as if your shirt had fat lines and skinny lines. The whole picture becomes warped and distorted.

1080p televisions do a good job of displaying movies shot at 24 frames per second. But this can never be called high definition because 24 fps is only standard definition. The International Telecommunications Union has made it very clear. Only formats that have better temporal resolution than standard definition can be called high definition. The 1080i and the 1080p formats failed to meet ITU high definition specifications. Unfortunately When the ITU decided to grandfather in the obsolete 1080i and 1080p formats is when these obsolete formats started to rear their ugly heads by falsely claiming



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

12 Jun 2012, 2:02 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
1080p televisions produce scaling artifacts. When a 720p broadcast is displayed on a 1080p television the odd lines are doubled and the even lines are single. Thus if you are wearing a shirt with stripes it will look as if your shirt had fat lines and skinny lines. The whole picture becomes warped and distorted.

1080p televisions do a good job of displaying movies shot at 24 frames per second. But this can never be called high definition because 24 fps is only standard definition. The International Telecommunications Union has made it very clear. Only formats that have better temporal resolution than standard definition can be called high definition. The 1080i and the 1080p formats failed to meet ITU high definition specifications. Unfortunately When the ITU decided to grandfather in the obsolete 1080i and 1080p formats is when these obsolete formats started to rear their ugly heads by falsely claiming


high definition has nothing to do with the amount of frames pr second you receive and even if it did any system capable of running a higher fps would simply downscale, just like your computer monitor does every time you watch a video.

what high defintion does stand for is the pixel resolution, something that is measured in ratios, ie the amount of pixels horizontally vs vertically, so as long as your 1080p television has a ratio of 16:9 and the same is true for your 720p monitor then the amount fo pixels in relation to the width of the picture is effectively the same.

most (as in 95%) of the sold televisions of today are 16:9, if you go from a 16:10 to a 16:9 you can have troubles but at the moment i can barely understand what you think is happening.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

12 Jun 2012, 2:56 pm

By definition, high definition video, unlike still photography, is all about motion, period. Interlace video formats such has 1080i cannot display motion without literally cutting up the picture like it went through a vegetable slicer resulting in horrible artifacts which cannot be considered full high definition. Progressive formats like 1080p are limited to 24 frames per second capture which might be great compared to a slide show but do not offer full high definition motion fidelity.

Only 720p with its 60 frames per second full frame motion capture can be considered full high definition. Formats such as 1080i should be called 540i because that number truly represents the formats actual picture quality.



Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

12 Jun 2012, 3:09 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
1080p televisions produce scaling artifacts. When a 720p broadcast is displayed on a 1080p television the odd lines are doubled and the even lines are single. Thus if you are wearing a shirt with stripes it will look as if your shirt had fat lines and skinny lines. The whole picture becomes warped and distorted.

It's not a problem if the picture is nativelly 1080p, like in good Blu-Ray.

androbot2084 wrote:
1080p televisions do a good job of displaying movies shot at 24 frames per second. But this can never be called high definition because 24 fps is only standard definition. The International Telecommunications Union has made it very clear. Only formats that have better temporal resolution than standard definition can be called high definition. The 1080i and the 1080p formats failed to meet ITU high definition specifications. Unfortunately When the ITU decided to grandfather in the obsolete 1080i and 1080p formats is when these obsolete formats started to rear their ugly heads by falsely claiming

You didn't finish you're sentence, and most movies have shooted in 24fps anyway.

androbot2084 wrote:
By definition, high definition video, unlike still photography, is all about motion, period. Interlace video formats such has 1080i cannot display motion without literally cutting up the picture like it went through a vegetable slicer resulting in horrible artifacts which cannot be considered full high definition. Progressive formats like 1080p are limited to 24 frames per second capture which might be great compared to a slide show but do not offer full high definition motion fidelity.

Only 720p with its 60 frames per second full frame motion capture can be considered full high definition. Formats such as 1080i should be called 540i because that number truly represents the formats actual picture quality.

You still don't say why 1080p wouldn't be able to show 60fps, (You need at least 120Hz screens for real 24fps anyway, as 60 is not divisible by 24) this is the same technology; which work on a pixel by pixel basis, not by global sweeping like CRT. If a the pixels of a 720p screen can show 48fps, then you only have to take the same pixels and put it on 1080p screen to got a 1080p screen with pixels able of 48fps. Unless you confound 1080p and 1080i.


_________________
Down with speculators!! !


Last edited by Tollorin on 12 Jun 2012, 3:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,266
Location: the island of defective toy santas

12 Jun 2012, 3:11 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
By definition, high definition video, unlike still photography, is all about motion, period. Interlace video formats such has 1080i cannot display motion without literally cutting up the picture like it went through a vegetable slicer resulting in horrible artifacts which cannot be considered full high definition. Progressive formats like 1080p are limited to 24 frames per second capture which might be great compared to a slide show but do not offer full high definition motion fidelity. Only 720p with its 60 frames per second full frame motion capture can be considered full high definition. Formats such as 1080i should be called 540i because that number truly represents the formats actual picture quality.

i'm really glad you're bringing up the topic of motion [temporal] fidelity, as too many people overlook it. judder bothers me a great deal. but my sony tv [which is a true 1080P monitor] can definitely display genuine 29.97 frame per second [ATSC spec] video [not film-based] shot in 1080P/60, and with no motion artifacts that i have been able to discern, and with superior detail to 720P. the motionflow doesn't touch these broadcasts unless they are of native 24 frame per second materials such as films. i watch these 1080 programs from time to time on PBS via over-the-air terrestrial broadcasts. i do notice some stations look worse than others, and i'm guessing that is because they are 720P stations which are not a perfect fit for my tv. i also have an older 720P tv that makes 1080 broadcasts look a bit distorted but of course looks just fine on 720P broadcasts.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

12 Jun 2012, 3:32 pm

The problem is that 1080p Blu-Ray is not full high definition. That is why the 720p format is used for all World Series baseball games that are sold on Blu-Ray discs.

Most movies are shot at 24 fps but this is not high definition. The National Football League uses 16mm movie film shot at 120 frames per second because 24 fps would look horrible.

1080p televisions cannot show 720p broadcasts without introducing scaling artifacts. Native 60 fps content for 1080p is unavailable commercially unless you create your own content and it is not supported by Blu-Ray.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,266
Location: the island of defective toy santas

12 Jun 2012, 7:47 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
Most movies are shot at 24 fps but this is not high definition. The National Football League uses 16mm movie film shot at 120 frames per second because 24 fps would look horrible.

:o wow that would use up a lot of film!



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

12 Jun 2012, 8:37 pm

16mm film is cheaper than 35mm film but it still would cost thousands of dollars per hour to purchase and develop the film. So no wonder everything is going digital.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,266
Location: the island of defective toy santas

12 Jun 2012, 8:59 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
16mm film is cheaper than 35mm film but it still would cost thousands of dollars per hour to purchase and develop the film. So no wonder everything is going digital.

plus, even the most fine-grain 16mm stock is still coarse compared with the best HD.