2006-08-01 10:39:18 · 8 answers · asked by David B 2 in Consumer Electronics ➔ TVs
1080p is considered to be an HDTV video mode. The term usually assumes a widescreen aspect ratio of 16:9, implying a horizontal (display) resolution of 1920 dots across and a frame resolution of 1920 × 1080 or over two million pixels.
2006-08-01 10:48:04 · update #1
1080p is considered to be an HDTV video mode. The term usually assumes a widescreen aspect ratio of 16:9, implying a horizontal (display) resolution of 1920 dots across and a frame resolution of 1920 × 1080 or over two million pixels.
1080p is sometimes referred to in marketing materials as "True High-Definition" or "Full High-Definition", what constitutes high-definition is continually evolving over time.
2006-08-01 10:48:56 · update #2
WHEN EVER YOU SPEND SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR SOMETHING YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S AS UP TO DATE AS POSSIBLE.
FOR EXAMPLE SIX MONTHS AGO CABLE CARDS AND HDMI WERE NEW AND NOW PRETTY MUCH STANDARD FOR LARGER SCREENS. YOUR PROBABLY GONNA WANT TO GET A HD PLAYER (ONE FORMAT OR THE OTHER) AND 1080p IS THE BEST WAY TO HOOK IT UP.
FUTURE PROOF YOURSELF.
2006-08-01 20:27:55 · answer #1 · answered by mchaz60 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
The same amount of information is being displayed with 1080i as in 1080p. In both cases, 1080 vertical scan lines are traced on the display (if the display is a True 1080p display or true 1080i display).
The primary difference is that one video frame will be traced in a single progressive scan with 1080p whereas two interlaced or interleaved scans (fields) of 540 vertical lines will be scanned for 1080i.
If there is a difference, it might occur in very fast moving scenes where one field displays an image from one frame and the other field displays an image from the next frame. This could cause some tearing.
However, I'm not sure that this is that noticable at current display and frame rates in HDTVs. I haven't seen it.
Mostly this is a feature to upsell to the new TVs coming out. It'll require a TV that is true 1080p, HDMI 1.3, and a source or sources capable of 1080p (such as future Blu-ray, HD-DVD players and video games).
Almost every new technology that is introduced is not worth the money in it's first generation. It is priced too high relative to it's value. Within a year or two, the pricing will not be so outrageous and will not be a differentiator but will rather be a requirement.
Current generation HDTVs with two HDMI 1.2 inputs (one for disc player and one for Cable or Satellite box) are quite acceptable HD experiences.
What should be most important to you is whether or not you like the picture of a given display and whether it fits your budget. Not whether it is 1080p, 720p, or 1080i at native resolutions.
2006-08-01 10:58:38 · answer #2 · answered by Knowledge Seeker 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Properly de-interlaced 1080i displayed as 1080p is definitely superior to interlaced. You will get, on average, higher vertical resolution on moving images. With interlaced video, if an object moves between fields, you are only seeing 540 lines of resolution. De-interlacing "fills in" the extra 540 lines (to varying degrees of effectiveness, but often quite good). However, I must add that the issue of displaying i vs p is moot, since scanned displays (CRTs) are disappearing fast, and all fixed-pixel displays display in progressive mode.
The best results will be obtained from true 1080p sources, but at this time that is not available from broadcast, satellite or cable TV. It is available from some video game systems, and is expected to be available from the new high-definition DVD players (both formats). However, many 1080p-displaying TV set do not accept a 1080p input (but it is becoming more common).
2006-08-01 13:08:16 · answer #3 · answered by gp4rts 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No.
There's so little content at this time that you would be far better off if you exercise a bit of patience.
There's only one way to even get a 1080p signal (other than from a PC). That's from Samsung's Blu-ray player and it's bug-ridden. A horrible waste of money at the moment.
1080p/24 with 2:3 pulldown is the holy grail for film buffs. But, it's not ready for prime time.
2006-08-01 10:48:35 · answer #4 · answered by vliam 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if you have a REALLY large display (greater than 60 inches), and sit REALLY close... At smaller screen sizes and sitting further away, the human eye cannot resolve much if any of the difference.. By the way everyone here is talking about 1080i... Most LCD/Plasma tvs are only 720P, they scale the resolution down to 720.
2006-08-01 11:14:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, there isnt suficient material to really enjoy it the way its meant to. I'd give it another 2 years before it really starts to become a nesecity for consumers. of course if your a tech enthusiast, then atleast hold off another 6 months. Items like PS3 and nex gen dvd players will take advantage of the sweet technology. So the answer to your question is no, its not worth it now, but eventually it will.
2006-08-01 11:10:55 · answer #6 · answered by stud989 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Knowledge Seeker has spoken! Anyways not worth the money now. I have a TV that displays 1080i and it still looks good.
2006-08-01 11:16:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
What's a 1080p and how much is the money its going for right now?
2006-08-01 10:42:38 · answer #8 · answered by Information Scavenger 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋