PDA

View Full Version : Question About Full HD 1080 :



pumeco
04-09-2008, 05:48 PM
Does anyone understand the standard regarding Full HD 1080?

Have you ever seen that badge (black with gold writing on it), that often appears on Full HD displays? Would I be right in thinking that in order for a product to have that badge, it would be required to have a vertical resolution of at least 1080 pixels?

Silkrooster
04-09-2008, 06:40 PM
I never seen one long enough to notice, (not enough time in the stores) though I would assume so.
I wouldn't mind knowing why someone thought 1080p was high enough. Since 720 has become the short term default resolution until prices drop. This should allow enough time for an additional step between the 1080p and a higher resolution yet, to be developed. Granted the bandwidth would be greater, but I beleive technology would have caught up by then.
Personally I beleive some of the studio's still fear the death of the movie theaters. who knows, once the resolution matches the silver screen and the prices for renting first run movies are in reach, maybe that will happen. But I still see that long way down the road.
Sorry for going off topic on you. Apparently this has been bothering me for awhile, lol.
Silk

Surrealist.
04-09-2008, 07:40 PM
Does anyone understand the standard regarding Full HD 1080?

Have you ever seen that badge (black with gold writing on it), that often appears on Full HD displays? Would I be right in thinking that in order for a product to have that badge, it would be required to have a vertical resolution of at least 1080 pixels?

These things are all agreed upon by a consortium that consist of groups of manufacturers and/or Hollywood studios, etc.

They put out papers on it and many technical websites exist to explain it all. So you can Google some of the key words. If there is a logo - such as the DVD logo - a manufacturer has to have the equipment/media certified by this consortium and the logos are trademarked so not just anyone can use it.

creativecontrol
04-09-2008, 09:15 PM
Although I'm not certain what the logo means, the correct resolution for full 1080p is 1920x1080 obviously in a progressive scan. Many so called "1080" systems fall way short, often 1440x1080 or even less. New flat screen TV's are the worst ofenders often advertising 1080p and then in small print showing a native resolution of about 1300x768. What a scam! That is likely the reason for a full 1080p logo and standard.

ZumoWrestler
04-10-2008, 12:37 AM
1080p really is just a resolution setting. Say you were to watch espnHD, that broadcasts in 720p. HDDVD and BluRay Movies are in 720p. People buy 1080p screen thinking more resolution better quality when in reality you need to make sure the up-conversion is good or you have a very nice receiver that can do it.

Full HD 1080 which your talking about is simply 1920 x 1080. Marketing companies just add the FULL onto HD to make it sound like its better to try and take away the feeling of 'It says HD but Im not sure it is'. But, naturally if someone says Full HD 1080 I'm going to assume it's in 1920 x 1080 but people like to lie if they can get a buck right away.


This should allow enough time for an additional step between the 1080p and a higher resolution yet, to be developed.

I'm running 1600p for my monitor. The technology is here (at least for TV's camera's I'm not sure about), everything is here. Japan/Korea I believe has made some amazing size screens along with big resolutions but the market isn't ready for it. Actually 1080p has been around since I believe something like the 70's or 80's if not before then. Could this technology be developed further? Yes, but the market has to get to the point to where it can support this development and make a profit from it.

Disclaimer: I'm pulling this stuff from the back of my head. I remember reading about this stuff somewhere but honestly I forgot where and details could have slipped out. If you're really interested and want to know for sure I'd go Google it.

Jim_C
04-10-2008, 01:15 AM
HDDVD and BluRay Movies are in 720p.

Both HD DVD and Blu Ray support full 1080p resolution.

Mitja
04-10-2008, 01:28 AM
For all I know, full HD is 1080p and this should be the standard, but due to high price and "war" between blue ray and HD DVD, the most diffused is HD Ready, which is 720p (I call it Half HD).
That's why, when a friend buys a new 32" LCD Tv and a PS3 and you go visit him to see the beauty of new tecnologies, you become very disappointed: because this HD ready is much less than a PC monitor, which you are used to, thus you say to your friend that what you are seeing is $hitt, and then your friend becomes angry with you...

pumeco
04-10-2008, 02:28 AM
Thanks all, that's interesting stuff.

Well I can tell you the reason I asked is because of this bloody laptop of mine. It's got the black and gold logo on it which says FULL HD 1080 but the screen resolution is actually 1280x800 pixels. It doesn't have the 'i' or the 'p' after it, simply FULL HD 1080. I'm wondering if Sony have pulled a fast one here because I can't see how this display is capable of displaying full HD with a resolution of 1280x800 pixels.

If this turns out to be Sony trying to pull a fast one, they'll be hearing about it for sure. If anyone knows for certain that using this logo on this machine is wrong, please tell me. I'm certainly going to look into this because the only time I've ever seen this logo is on displays with a vertical resolution of at least 1080 pixels.

Cheers :thumbsup:

Qexit
04-10-2008, 02:41 AM
My first stop would be my local Trading Standards Office. Even if they don't go after Sony on your behalf, they should know or be able to point you towards the specific regulations regarding what that label should mean. If Sony are breaking the rules, then they are falling foul of the Trades Description Act and TSO might actually do something about it.

Sande
04-10-2008, 03:07 AM
As far as I know, there isn't any "official" Full HD-standard.
Like said, the badge usually means that the display is capable of producing unscaled 1920x1080-resolution, but it may depend on the manufacturer.

eagleeyed
04-10-2008, 03:34 AM
Ok, I have been looking into this myself for a little bit now.
And these are a few things I have been looking into.

First off, however as I am getting the picture about this that not everyone in this thread knows about this. Saw an article about a month back on www.tomshardware.com where Toshiba has admitted defeat and are no longer making or producing HD-DVD Drives, Disks or Players. So essentually Blu-Ray has won the war, would highly recommend not buying HD-DVD anymore as the prices may be good, but they will become and massive paper-weight soon enough when you can no longer get new movies for them.

I recently brought a HD Video Camera, a Sony which personally I still regret.
Anyway, that was also marked with the Full 1080 mark.
It technically is correct. There are two resolutions:
HD: 1920x1080
HDV:1440x1080

HDV is what MiniDV tapes use, and what most HD shows are being broadcast in at the moment, at least in Australia. I am also pretty sure DVD HD Cameras *shudder* records to that format, or at least the majority of them.

I am yet to see a TV in Australia at the 1920x1080 resolution, I have only seen one mentioned in a ad. book. 1440x1080 definately seems to be what people are selling at the moment.

Here is a quote from this website, that should explain it better: http://www.thedvshow.com/faq-pro/index.php?action=article&cat_id=009&id=62

It is a common misconception that HDV and HD formats are the same. Simply put, HDV is a video format that uses the HD line resolution (1080i or 720p) in a highly compressed format: MPEG-2 Transport Stream. This creates a stream that is small enough (roughly 25 Mbps @1080i, [email protected] 720p) to fit on a standard DV tape. In addition to the data compression of the MPEG-2 format, HDV does not store all of the data that full-resolution HD video has. For example, one form of uncompressed HD is a 1920 x 1080 interlaced frame, but the similar HDV spec stores a 1440 x 1080 interlaced video frame. This combination of MPEG compression with a reduced frame size keeps HDV more manageable while also keeping the quality of the video very high. This technology also makes HD video resolution much more affordable than ever before.

A common analogy used to compare HDV and HD is to compare uncompressed Standard Definition (SD) to an SD MPEG format such as that used for DVDs. An uncompressed SD file is very large file compared to the highly compressed MPEG format, but the can both be the same resolution (720 x 480 is a common example). This is a very similar relationship full HD video and HDV video has with each other.

I am yet to see a TV in Australia at the 1920x1080 resolution, I have only seen one mentioned in a ad. book. 1440x1080 definately seems to be what people are selling at the moment.

Qexit
04-10-2008, 03:49 AM
So essentually Blu-Ray has won the war, would highly recommend not buying HD-DVD anymore as the prices may be good, but they will become and massive paper-weight soon enough when you can no longer get new movies for them.While I'd agree that Blu-ray has 'won the war', I'd have to disagree with buying HD-DVD products right now. The HD films will look as good in 2-3 years time as they do today, and can be picked up right now for less than the cost of regular DVD versions in most cases. In some cases, it could be a very long time before films are released as Blu-ray versions so they only way to get HD versions is to buy the HD-DVD discs while they are still available. Also, most standalone HD-DVD players are also excellent DVD upscalers. So your existing SD DVD collection can be played through them and look good on your, hopefully, HD TV set. I don't know about the prices in Australia but here in the UK the cost of a good DVD-upscaling player is significantly more than that of a bargain basement HD-DVD player which might come bundled with several HD films to make the deal even sweeter :D So not such a bad buy really :thumbsup:

P.S. If you want a really bad HD player purchase right now, I would add every single standalone Blu-ray player to your list. As far as I know, the PS3 is the only one that can be upgraded to Blu-ray Profile 2.0. The rest can't so are going to be very expensive door-stops once disks start being released that include Profile 2.0 features, though they will still play the films alright :)

RebelHill
04-10-2008, 08:00 AM
I know exactly the range of Sonys ur on about Pum... The top line AR range have ful 1080 screen res on the built in screen, they aso have HDMI out which wil send a ful 1080 signal... Ur one (FZ range i think) only has a screen res of 1280X800, but the HDMi out still delivers 1920X1080, so if u connect into a 1080 screen, u can set ur dispay res to 1080.

Dexter2999
04-10-2008, 08:26 AM
I wouldn't mind knowing why someone thought 1080p was high enough.

The 1080P standard was to standardize core media for the 720p vs. 1080i war. If media was created in one standard it had to be upconverted to 1080p then converted again to the other standard. It was just bad for overall image quality and adding to production costs. Since everyone was eventually going 1080P anyway it has become the new standard to eliminate production costs.
Really, 1080 is pretty outstanding for standard viewing. Notice I said standard viewing and not critical viewing like looking at your monitor at super high resolutions at close proximity. Most everyone I know watches TV from across the room and 1080P is more than adequate for that type of viewing.

I was watching CES show at my friends house on his Samsung 47" DLP 720p TV. They were showing the new TV's off and his wife said, "Oooooooh, that TV is so pretty! Look at that picture!" And I replied, "Yeah, and that is the picture on YOUR TV." She paused then started to laugh when she realized that she can only see the quality of the TV in her house not the 1080P that the show was trying to present. And you know what? 720P is good enough for alot of people. I don't spend $5,000 on stereo equipment because I can't hear the difference between that and the $500 stereo I have. My ears aren't that good. Many people ( I won't say most) would be just just fine with 720P. Some people can't seem to tell the difference.
I have even seen arguments on forums where one or two wackos claim that Blu-Ray isn't all that much better than standard DVD. So obviously some people CAN'T see the difference.

For those that can't see the difference I tell them to go ahead and get a bargain on a 720P set on sale. If you can tell the difference, look for that badge of FULL HD and check the spec's because you will want best image you can get.

ted
04-10-2008, 10:48 AM
Speaking of HD...what's with "HD" being stuck on Tripods now? :D
I guess they'll next be putting 1080p on Tripods! :D
Marketing, gotta love it. ;D

pumeco
04-11-2008, 03:26 AM
Thanks for the info you lot.

I've been trying to find a website that shows the various logo's and what they're allowed to be used on. I can't find such a site though. According to the Wiki, they can pretty much use the logo on anything remotely to do with HD from the looks of things. Legal or not, I think Sony are pulling a fast one by sticking this logo on a laptop which features a display of 1280x800 pixels.

Either way, it's about time some control was had over these as*holes :mad:

CreatvGnius
04-13-2008, 01:35 PM
Does anyone understand the standard regarding Full HD 1080?

Have you ever seen that badge (black with gold writing on it), that often appears on Full HD displays? Would I be right in thinking that in order for a product to have that badge, it would be required to have a vertical resolution of at least 1080 pixels?

Better read the small print, since too often that "badge" is lying to you. Sony has this dastardly habit of pasting said "FULL HD 1080" badge on many of their 1080i consumer camcorders.

1080i is roughly 540 lines merely -- captured each image (field). Utterly pernicious of them, and dumb of them to prey on unsuspecting consumers with that Full HD 1080 labeling -- and crafting it in such an artsy manner so as to make it look like an "official" badge that's rightfully earned! :devil:

-PeterG

Qexit
04-13-2008, 02:07 PM
1080i is roughly 540 lines merely -- captured each image (field). Utterly pernicious of them, and dumb of them to prey on unsuspecting consumers with that Full HD 1080 labeling -- and crafting it in such an artsy manner so as to make it look like an "official" badge that's rightfully earned! :devil:

-PeterGCorrect me if I'm wrong, it happens quite often these days, but 1080i captures two fields per frame (in UK that would be 50 fields per second with 1080i as opposed to 25 frames per second for 1080p) which when played back gives the full 1080 line image every frame. 1080p just grabs the whole lot in one go. With a moving image, 1080i would give the better playback visually than 1080p as more of the movement/changes will be captured so I don't see the problem. More is not necessarily better in this case :)

CreatvGnius
04-13-2008, 02:52 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, it happens quite often these days, but 1080i captures two fields per frame (in UK that would be 50 fields per second with 1080i as opposed to 25 frames per second for 1080p) which when played back gives the full 1080 line image every frame. 1080p just grabs the whole lot in one go. With a moving image, 1080i would give the better playback visually than 1080p as more of the movement/changes will be captured so I don't see the problem. More is not necessarily better in this case :)

Yikes! This 540 fields at 1/60 of a second each, combined with the next field, and thereby counted worthy of comparison to 1080p seems like an industry farce -- and can be likened to digital blasphemy, in my view! :devil:

:D Is there no one on this discussion forum that's adept enough to challenge this seeming heresy? Say it ain't so, gang!
-PeterG

Qexit
04-13-2008, 03:25 PM
It depends what you are looking for. A single, static 540 line field viewed side by side with a single, static 1080 line frame will look very poor in comparison because your eye will be able to see the obvious differences. However, that's not how these things are viewed. This is not a great way of explaining but with fields, the transitions are smoother because there are twice as many per second so motion will appear smoother and, subjectively, as far as the eyes of a viewer are concerned as good if not better than effect produced with half as many full frames passing through in the same time.

This has a lot in common with the nonsense of 24p output from Blu-ray players...but that is a whole different load of cobblers foisted on an unsuspecting public by film companies who want to save themselves the cost of converting their films to a format that plays back properly on domestic equipment. With 24p they can save themselves a lot of expense AND charge people a premium for it :D

CreatvGnius
04-13-2008, 03:30 PM
It depends what you are looking for. A single, static 540 line field viewed side by side with a single, static 1080 line frame will look very poor in comparison because your eye will be able to see the obvious differences. However, that's not how these things are viewed. This is not a great way of explaining but with fields, the transitions are smoother because there are twice as many per second so motion will appear smoother and, subjectively, as far as the eyes of a viewer are concerned as good if not better than effect produced with half as many full frames passing through in the same time.
:thumbsdow
I don't know. Interlaced seems so 20th Century, to my puny mind. We photographers could wish it would just die. So much for "image retention" and other psycho-visual phenomenae! A video frame of 720p paused, if you will -- will blow away 1080i in "pause" mode any day of the week, any time, hands down!

And may it ever be so!
:D
-PeterG

Qexit
04-13-2008, 03:40 PM
:thumbsdow
I don't know. Interlaced seems so 20th Century, to my puny mind. We photographers could wish it would just die. So much for "image retention" and other psycho-visual phenomenae! A video frame of 720p paused, if you will -- will blow away 1080i in "pause" mode any day of the week, any time, hands down!

And may it ever be so!
:D
-PeterG...but who in their right mind watches moving images in pause mode one frame or field at a time ? When I'm watching something on TV, I want to see the best moving image, not the best static image and at present that means 1080i :D:thumbsup::neener:

CreatvGnius
04-13-2008, 03:52 PM
...but who in their right mind watches moving images in pause mode one frame or field at a time ?

Alas, Kev! Lots do! You must know that still-frame evaluation of motion video is a growing trend -- particularly in sports and also in forensic circles.

And what of the growing demand for progressive video capture among print journalists and photogs, providing for fast retrieval of the perfect "still" shot for print and web?

All this, plus -- I'd rather *know* the image is superior, frame by frame -- whether in pause mode, or no!
:sleeping:
Again, interlaced is oh - so old-school!
-PeterG

Jim_C
04-13-2008, 03:54 PM
Someone reads a lot of marketing literature.

CreatvGnius
04-13-2008, 03:57 PM
...I want to see the best moving image, not the best static image and at present that means 1080i :D:thumbsup::neener:Well Boy, Howdy! Then you should be arguing for 4K images, should we carry your -- er, mis-scanned notion to its illogical conclusion! :D

I'm really gagging with you, Kevin.

Honestly, if you think 1080i looks better than 720P, then go ahead. Indulge yourself, PAL!
:bangwall::confused::twak::ohmy::eek:
:foreheads:
-PeterG

CreatvGnius
04-13-2008, 04:03 PM
Someone reads a lot of marketing literature.Hey, there, Jim. Tee-hee! (I enjoyed your presence in another thread, which will remain nameless).

Um. Do you by chance suspect that this writer has succumbed to the purveyors of marketing lit, relative to the superiority of 720P over 1080i?

I'm thinking -- that in practical terms, there's probably greater benefit in the former over the long-haul. To that end, I suspect that over time, the sense of the "need" for interlace will become less and less prominent as intersecting technologies relative to media delivery continue to improve.
-PeterG

Qexit
04-13-2008, 04:37 PM
Someone reads a lot of marketing literature.Nope, never touch the stuff. Sorry.

Qexit
04-13-2008, 04:41 PM
Alas, Kev! Lots do! You must know that still-frame evaluation of motion video is a growing trend -- particularly in sports and also in forensic circles.This is the very first time I've heard anyone mention it...and that's the honest truth.


And what of the growing demand for progressive video capture among print journalists and photogs, providing for fast retrieval of the perfect "still" shot for print and web?That's a whole different area of TV viewer. Something along the lines of a small but significant minority :lol:

CreatvGnius
04-14-2008, 09:46 AM
That's a whole different area of TV viewer. Something along the lines of a small but significant minority :lol: Note the operative word, "significant" in your response, is in contradistinction with your "who in their right mind...?" query.

Therefore, the response I gave to what you asked is appropriate.
...but who in their right mind watches moving images in pause mode one frame or field at a time ?

Then, you followed up your query with a narrow perspective on HD playback quality:

When I'm watching something on TV, I want to see the best moving image, not the best static image...
Do you honestly believe that 1080i affords "the best moving image?" I trust not, despite your expressed preference for it. :)
-PeterG

clagman
04-16-2008, 09:32 AM
What I'm afraid of is dealing with the "new" clients that want HD resolution 3d. The hit in render speed, let alone memory requirements, have me shuddering. I was just starting to become sated with current hardware on standard NTSC.