THE FRONT LINE: APRIL 21, 2006
1080P – The Masses Have Spoken
My two articles on the topic of 1080p (1080p Reality Check, published in July 2005, and 1080p Q&A, published in August 2005) have drawn quite a bit of attention lately. In fact, so many letters and comments have come in this past week, they deserve their own article.
Bear in mind that much of the 1080p landscape has changed since last summer. New products have come to market, prices have dropped, and imaging devices and processors have been upgraded in some cases. It’s clearly time to revisit the topic, and you can expect to see a new article on 1080p sometime in May following most of the line shows and NAB 2006.
In the meantime, here is what readers are saying about 1080p and my coverage of it.
1080I AND 720P PROCESSING
Q. You’ve drawn some wrong conclusions in your 1080p article, despite starting with the correct facts. The fact is that a 1080p set will display 720p content about as well as a 720p set (via upsampling), and will display 1080i content much better than a 720p set. A 720p set has to downsample, and as you stated in your article, many if not most of this do it by quickie converting it to 540p then upsampling back to 720p.
The idea that a set capable of 1080x1920 would convert a 1080x1920 signal (albeit one broken into alternating fields) into 540p and them upsample it back up to 1080p is ludicrous. That’s a lot of unnecessary work just to ugly up a signal. The EASY processing is no processing, where you display a full 1080p signal where only alternating scan lines are updated each field.
A. While there is some truth to what you say, it is difficult to know for sure which manufacturers aren’t taking the 540-to-720p system and extending it to 1080p, even as ludicrous as that may sound. Simply de-interlacing a 1080i image and weaving the two resulting fields together is not true 1080p processing; it is in effect sequencing 540p frames that can have very different content due to intra-frame motion.
Holes In The Argument?
Q. I'm sure you've received plenty of E-mail on this topic, some of it probably not civil. I'd like to remain civil while I lambast the content of your article. For someone with the conceit to be "HDTV expert", you show an appalling ignorance of your chosen topic. Where should I begin?
"But these programs must be converted to 1080i/30 (that's interlaced, not progressive scan) before airing on any terrestrial, satellite, or cable TV network." WRONG. Both ABC and ESPN use 720P (progressive) transmission.
"The next generation of high definition DVD players promises the same thing — 1080p content at high bit rates, finally realizing the full potential of HDTV." Nobody has proposed a "high-bit-rate" consumer format. If you do the math on Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, the bit rate is going to suck. The capacity we hear about with either of these varies from week to week, but let's say 30 GB:
30 GB / 7200 seconds (two hours) = .0041667 GB
.0041667 x 1,000,000,000 bytes = 4,166,700 bytes
4.1667 MB x 8 = 33.3 megabits per second
And what do you know, checking the Blu-Ray specs you see cited on the Web, the max data rate is indeed 36 mbps. So we'll have a little over three times the current DVD max data rate for six times the picture data … in the BEST CASE. But chances are we'll never see the best case. Lots of sources still cite single-layer capacity for HD-DVD as 15 GB and Blu-Ray as 25.
Several HD-DVD charts claim four-hour capacity on a single layer and show 8 MEGABITS as the target data rate. That piss-poor rate is inferior to the current DVD maximum! Yeah, yeah, IF anyone uses H.264, it's supposedly more "efficient"; but no way is that going to close the gap. Especially not at anything less than 30 mbps. And with a ceiling of 36 mbps, if disc capacity goes up, we won't be able to take advantage of that with increased data rate.
"There are no off-the-shelf broadcast cameras that can handle 1080p/60.” So what? Nobody is talking about 60 FPS. The western TV standard is 30 FPS. What is the relevance of the above statement? Do you know the difference between fields and frames? The only thing that runs at 60 is FIELDS, which are half a FRAME. The 60 goes away along with the fields, when you're dealing with PROGRESSIVE formats.
"If either format is used to store and play back live HD content, it will have to be 1920x1080i (interlaced again) to be compatible with the bulk of consumer TVs.” Wow, funny how even cheap DVD players today offer progressive output. And why in hell can't the player take 24P content from the disc and do 2:3 pulldown on the fly for delivery to an interlaced TV? Duh, IT CAN.
And while your info on DLP chips thankfully includes the word "may" when it warns about 960x1080 resolution, here's some info for you:
"Texas Instruments' latest Digital Light Processing (DLP) chipset has now achieved 1920x1080p resolution, and the first products to integrate the technology were on display at CEDIA. Toshiba had two 56in. DLP RPTVs that both used TI's latest xHD4 1920x1080p chipset: a TheaterWide model and the premium Cinema series model, which includes a home network connection option to play audio and picture files directly from a networked PC. Mitsubishi's new 62in. and 73in. DLP TVs all feature 1920x1080p resolution.”
I didn't look at any of your other articles, but this one makes you look rather foolish. Maybe you should take your site down and retool your knowledge for a while.
A. Thanks for your comments. I’ll address them in order.
First off, I am well aware that ABC, Fox, and ESPN use the 720p/60 standard. The article was focused on addressing the issue of 1080i to 1080p, not 720p.
As for the bit rate of HD DVD and Blu-ray, it is considerably higher than anything you can get off the air, over cable, or from a satellite connection. ATSC data streams max out at 19.39 Mb/s while the 256QAM standard for digital cable allows a maximum data rate of 38.8 Mb/s. Cable MSOs typically place a pair of HD signals within that bandwidth. Satellite rarely delivers 18 Mb/s — some engineers have audited HD program bit rates and found them as low as 10 to 12 Mb/s. In that context, 35 Mb/s looks like “high” to me — unless you were waiting for SDI (270 to 360 Mb/s) or HD-SDI (1.25 Gb/s) in a consumer product?
By the way, your argument that the 30 — 36 Mb/s rate is by itself still not sufficient for high-quality 1920x1080 sort of backs up what I have been saying about the flaws of rushing into the purchase of a 1080p HDTV — doesn’t it? And I agree with you that H.264 isn’t a magic bullet to improve image quality at the same bit rate as MPEG-2. We’ll find out soon enough as DirecTV and Dish implement it.
As for 60 fps (and 50 fps in Europe), PLENTY of people are talking about it as being the “holy grail” of HDTV. Think video gamers aren’t talking about 1080p/60? I get lots of mail from them, wanting to drive their 1080p/60 video card into their 1080p HDTV and having no luck. What about recorded sporting events and live concerts on HD DVD or Blu-ray? Shouldn’t they be in 1080p/60, too? If not, and 720p/60 is good enough, then why do we need 1080p sets at all?
As for the difference between fields and frames, it looks like you need to do some homework yourself. While you are aware that Fox, ABC, and ESPN use the 720p standard, are you also aware the frame (not field) rate is 60 Hz (59.94 Hz, to be specific)? It’s in the ATSC tables, by the way, and doesn’t “go away with the fields”, as you claim. (As Casey Stengel used to say, “You could look it up!”) The “30” standard” (actually 29.97 Hz in the USA) only applies to 1080i and 480i transmissions. Fox briefly used 480p/60 for a time before adopting 720p/60.
Turning to progressive-scan output — yes, the new generation of HD DVD and Blu-ray players can output 1080p in a progressive mode, albeit 1080p/60 from 2:3 pull-up. But the numbers of HDTV sets that can support this format are miniscule. The vast majority of HDTV sets in use today won’t accept anything other than a 1080i/29.97 (or in some cases 720p/59.94) HD signal, which may be why the HD disc manufacturers for now are only supporting 1080i output.
Moving to the new full-resolution TI chips, they were forced to show them at Cedia Expo last September because JVC and Sony were shipping full resolution devices. While I know all of the LCOS devices (SXRD and D-ILA) are full 1920x1080, I can’t say for certain which new HDTVs are using the new TI chipset — certainly the lower-cost models aren’t; the chips cost too much. Some more detective work is definitely required here (just because a press release says it’s so, doesn’t make it true).
Close Enough To Buy It
Q. I enjoyed reading your 1080p reality-check article. Even if 1080p isn't a reality yet, it seems we are very close to supporting the delivery of this format (at least by optical disk) and it might still be very worthwhile for HDTV buyers to consider this issue, no?
I'm planning to buy a large 1080p flat screen LCD HDTV (with a 1080p input). There are a number of these already on the market. It seems like if I later add a Blu-ray or HD DVD player that has 1080p output (I realize there are none of these currently on sale in the U.S.), and then wouldn't this arrangement enable me to enjoy 1080p? I read, for example, that the HD disks for the movies will be recorded in 1080p, so if the player and monitor support this, then it seems possible.
I'll sit close enough to this TV to see most all the resolution. Second, I'll not watch fast-moving video such that 1080p/24 filming is okay. Third, I'll live with the 3:2 pull-down or whatever they do to convert this to 1080p/60. My understanding is that with this approach they don't loose vertical resolution, so, in the end, doesn't that leave me with a 1080p solution? I think it does.
A. Good points, but I think you can see where you must be careful that what is being delivered to your HDTV is true 1080p. Yes, the discs can be authored with 1080p/24 content and the player can perform the 2:3 pull-up to 60 Hz for display. Several studios including Warner Brothers have said they plan to take this approach — in the future.
The Toshiba HD DVD demo I saw recently output everything at 1080i/29.97 to drive the Mits DLP HDTV (which, by the way, would not accept a 1080p signal). The beauty of 1080p/24 content is that it transfers beautifully to 1080i/29.97. Look at such prime-time shows as CSI, ER, 24, etc. I’m not against anyone buying a 1080p HDTV — I just want that person to be a smart shopper and ask plenty of questions to see how the content is actually mastered and delivered to the HDTV.
PC And HDTV Compatibility
Q. Good article. One clarification you might want to add. What about playing games like Half-Life 2 on 1080p sets using high-end SLI graphics cards which spit out 1920x1080p over DVI without any problem. Are you saying no sets will support that? I use my current 720p Samsung for that type of purpose quite a bit and am pleased, but would like more resolution. Would a 1080p set not give me 1920x1080 non-interlaced from a computer?
A. Some sets will support this format, but they are only coming to market now. The only way to be 100% sure is to connect your PC to the DVI (or HDMI) input. Some new sets won’t handshake with a computer video card unless the HDCP protection bits are present. If your HDTV has an analog RGB input, you may also find that it alone will handle the 1080p/60 signal. Sharp’s PN-455 industrial monitor is a good example. Certainly the vertical refresh rate of 60 Hz isn’t a problem for today’s multi-scan displays.
Can It Get Any Better?
Q. Thank you for the 1080p article explaining the lack of standards. Does using the HQV Video processor help any of these issues or is there just no use for that device? The device is available from NEC as the TheaterSync™ product. Does this device provide any value add when using an HDTV 1080p set?
A. Yes, it does. I will be posting a review of the Theater Sync soon, and it is designed to clean up a lot of problems with 1080i (and 480i) content. Silicon Optix was the first company to point out the “wave” processing (540p + 540p) so common in HDTV sets and their demos in 2005 clearly showed the artifacts that result. Realta HQV does full 1080i to 1080p processing with three-axis interpolation of motion. The trick is getting more manufacturers to incorporate the chip!
1080p And Gaming
Q. I currently have a CRT based 34" HDTV, and I am very happy with it except for maybe two reasons. I cannot get a good video signal to run on it from my PC. The second reason is that my TV is a 34" TV and it is now getting reasonable to get a display that is in the 40-60" category for less than 5G now and that has some appeal to it as well. But, not being able to get a good PC image/ signal is annoying the heck out of me and so a 1080p display seems like a great option.
1080i does not work with text, and the overscan on my Sony display is so bad that my nVidia graphics cards have trouble scaling to the correct size to correct for overscan. My solution to this problem is a 1080p display for my pc, and a video scalar for my video equipment so that the cheap electronics in most TV displays/ monitors can be corrected with some nice hardware that can be reused when my screen burns in, or out. For me a 1080p display is not for broadcast video, but rather video games that run on the PC, Xbox 360 or the up and coming PS3.
A. Sounds like you should check out one of the new 1080p rear-projection or flat-panel LCD (not plasma) HDTVs. Westinghouse Digital has a new 42-inch set (LVM-42W2, SRP $2,499) with 1080p resolution that looked quite nice at their New York City demo in late March. It has analog and digital inputs and the spokesman told me it was definitely aimed at the gaming and PC marketplace. I’ve requested a review sample.
More Holes In The Argument
Q. I stumbled upon your article "1080P — Time for a Reality Check!" and I couldn't help but comment. At first I was inspired to completely bash your article and point out the (somewhat humorous) inaccuracy of the title of your site. This article is at most an attempt to attract readers with a "unique" opinion that scoffs in the face of the popular opinion that 1080p is the big thing. Your use of esoteric terminology and circular logic may confuse many who take the time to read the article, and in the end you may achieve you goal of impressing those who are less familiar with the field than yourself.
You start out here by purporting that Blu-ray/HD-DVD will be released as purely 1080i sources since this is the native format of most (CRT) TVs out there. Fantastic. But you would be incorrect in making such a grossly uninformed statement as every "HD" player being released in the US supports the 1080p format via HDMI. So that's a big oversight … bravo. Your mention of scan rates is entirely useless and lacks any sense of logic. No, 1080i sets will not handle the scans rate associated with 1080p. Great observation. And do a little more research on these specs, as they apply only to CRTs which are quite obviously not the target technology for 1080p. I love the ending as well...you basically conclude that TVs won't support 1080p because manufacturers want to save money. Are you kidding me? Did you really just say that? What was the point of this article? Was it a persuasive paper written to convince the reader that manufacturers won't be making 1080p sets because they're too expensive? I could have sworn this thing started out by telling me why I shouldn't buy a 1080p set. I can't even begin to qualify the absence of logic in (you) arguments … I don't think(s) it's possible via email.
About halfway through the article you begin to confront the problems associated with broadcasting 1080i. Again, what are you actually trying to convince the reader of? I'm sorry but there are no quality CRT HDTV sets on the market that downscale 1080i to 540p. You really have no idea what you're talking about here. You further utilize this "fact" to assert that the 540p image which has been downscaled on 1080i sets will not look good on 1080p sets. Once again, your lack of logic is maddening.
I can't even begin to pick at all the other flaws and misinformation in this article. If you ever get the chance to write it again, and I hope to god that no one gives you that opportunity, try(ing) writing about how the refresh rate of 1080p will be capped at 30Hz when broadcast, since a 60Hz signal would exceed ATSC standards, while 720p displays a more fluid image at 720p60. Or how about the fact that the typical consumer cannot distinguish between 1080i and 1080p unless a static image is displayed. Or the fact that the majority of 1080p sets on the market today will not be compatible with the new HDMI standard which is still in development, or that many cannot actually accept the 1080p signal, but merely upscale a lower resolution to 1080p.
A. Thanks for your comments. Yes, the point of this article (again, written in July of 2005) was to warn readers not to rush out to buy a new 1080p set because of all the potential problems with the signal chain — not to mention the imaging system in use.
Yes, manufacturers do want to save money, and if it means cutting back on the quality of processing, they’ll do it (and are doing it, as the Silicon Optix Realta HQV 1080i/1080p demos clearly showed last year). CRT sets do run at 33.75 kHz (which is why they won’t accept a native 44.9 kHz signal from a 720p source). The method used for years is to simply sequence the odd and even fields as series of 540 line frames with minimal motion interpolation. The inability of the CRT to resolve detail at much more than 540 lines (it’s about a .75mm spot size on a 34-inch 16:9 screen, do the math) means a lot of this “garbage” that results won’t be noticed. But you sure do see it on a large 1080p display.
By the way, there are still a lot of CRT direct-view and rear-projection HDTVs in use out there, far more than any other technology. Are you saying that those folks shouldn’t bother to buy an HD DVD or Blu-ray player, since they aren’t the target audience? Boy, that’s got to be disappointing to hear.
As it turns out, manufacturers are dragging their heels coming to the 1080p table. I didn’t expect any rush to support this native signal format in July 2005 and it is still happening quite slowly. The PC and video gaming market may change all of that (see letters above). But pricing pressures are still very real. Check out some of the current 1080p HDTV offerings and see if they will actually take a 1920x1080p/60 signal, and if so, through which input?
As for CRT sets downscaling 1080i to 540p, read back three paragraphs. What you are getting is hardly full-resolution 1080i, the CRTs just don’t have the resolving power, unless you have one of the older CRT sets with 8-inch or 9-inch tubes in it. Most of them use 7-inch tubes, which are barely enough for 1280x720 resolution.
I agree with you that average consumers can’t tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p. In fact, put ‘em in front or a pair of 42-inch plasma TVs at 10 feet and they won’t be able to tell which is 480p and which is 768p.
Your closing statement that “ …that the majority of 1080p sets on the market today will not be compatible with the new HDMI standard which is still in development, or that many cannot actually accept the 1080p signal, but merely upscale a lower resolution to 1080p” presents a compelling argument not to rush out and buy a 1080p set right now, which is what the thrust of my argument was. Only the HDMI outputs from HD DVD and Blu-ray players will pass 1080p at any refresh rate, if we are to believe what the members of each consortium tell us. You seem to be agreeing with my position.
In The Nick Of Time
Q. I just wanted to send a quick note to thank you for your article titled "1080P — Time for a Reality Check!” I am a poor man with expensive tastes, so I tend to save up for a while in order to afford the things that I like. You have saved me quite a bit of money and/or time with you article. Thank you so much for the information!
A. Glad to be of help. It never hurts to do some legwork when you are shopping for a new HDTV, it means you spent your money wisely.
Send your letters to letters@hdtvexpert.com. We can’t answer all inquiries, but if your question is of interest to a broad range of readers, we’ll publish it here. Please note that HDTVexpert.com cannot make specific recommendations about products we haven’t reviewed.
