1080i to 1080P is it worth it?

[Wallace666]

I've had a HDTV for over 6 years. It's a 43' with 1080i resolution with component input. I love the set.

I made the jump to HD DVD, yes I choose the loser, but I don't care.

With my current TV I can not use upconverting and I do not use the 1080P feature on my player.

Is it worth the big amount of cash out lay to go from 1080i to 1080P and also to have the ability to upconvert my DVD library.

I've got some one who wants to give me a PS3 for my TV.

Of course then I have to buy a 1080P TV. If the change in resolution between 1080i and P is not that great I might not be too happy with the cash out lay.

Maybe, I should get a up converting, via component, player and leave well enough alone until this TV dies.

Also I'm going to stay with the same picture size and I've read that you really don't get much out of 1080P unless you are 50" or bigger.

Thoughts???

[Brian Shannon]

I think that "worth it" is a highly subjective term.

I would suggest visiting some high end video stores to see if they have displays that you can view or even a-b with the various resolutions. Trust your eyes and decide for yourself if any difference is worth the cost.

[SoSpacey]

Its relative size v. viewing distance.

If you get a PS3 you do nto need a 1080p tv. I run my PS3 on my Panasonic Plasma at 720p and it looks beautiful.

Why can't you upconvert on your current TV?

[Wallace666]

Up converting is only via HDMI and my TV only has component inputs.
Thus a upconverting player via component cables.

Also I'd only get the PS3 if I trade him my old TV.

Thanks

[pinata242]

1080i vs 1080p is only one aspect of your upgrade. Moving to a set that also has all-digital HDMI inputs would be another marked improvement, even if they were "only" 1080i (which they won't be).

[lordzeppelin]

Hmm...you don't have even a single DVI port on the TV?

For what it's worth, here's my recent similar tale... my 6 year old Sony 1080i (component and DVI) was getting a little long in the tooth on the lamps and convergence, and it was going to cost more than I thought was worth it to service (~$400). I decided to put that money towards a new set and never look back. I ended up getting what I wanted (Sony SXRD set) at a damn good price w/ warranty.

Anyways...I didn't think the difference would be much, but in watching HD-DVD, I've noticed a difference. With 1080i content, the upconversion the set does is barely noticeable. I think my games look better (360) because of better pixel definition and response time, not the i-to-p jump.

Now, of course, where I noticed the most difference is in brightness, clarity, and color definition - things that are due to it being a new set, and it will hold these things much better than my old, 3 lamp RPTV, over it's effective lifespan.

One thing to consider, is your stance about size - you say you don't want to go any bigger, but I say why not if you decide to plunge into a new set. going to 50" won't be much of a space issue, and will give you 15% more screen to enjoy the new 1080p goodness with. And if you did go to 50, you could get a deal on one of the last Sony SXRD (KDS-XXA3000 series) at retail (Either sears, BB, CC) with a stand and a warranty for like $1600 delivered, and sell the old set on craigslist for ~$500...(as is my plan).

[kefrank]

i assume your TV is a truly 1080i CRT with no DVI port (I have one of those from about 6 years ago as well, currently collecting dust in my basement, unfortunately).

in addition to what has already been said...
even if you could get some kind of player that would upconvert over component (and you can't, because it's not allowed), you would not really be gaining anything of value with your current setup. the reason is that a 1080i CRT only displays, at most, 540 lines of resolution at a time. so, your TV is able to maximize the 480p signal of a standard DVD, displaying all 480 scan lines of the frame at a time. if you were to upconvert the 480p signal to 1080i, you would "gain" spatial resolution in the frame (added detail created by the upconversion), but introduce temporal artifacts, by going from progressive to interlaced. so, feeding standard DVD at 480p to your current TV is actually the optimal way to do it.

now, would there be a significant difference if you upgraded to a 1080p TV at a similar size? ultimately, that depends on you, but i would suggest that yes, you will see a difference. a 1080i CRT effectively gives you 1080 lines of vertical resolution, but does not effectively have the 1920 lines of horizontal resolution that a fixed-pixel 1080p TV of today would have. so, you would actually be seeing more detail from your 1080 source (HD DVD) than you are now and your SD DVDs would look better, as the temporal resolution would be maintained and the spatial resolution improved by the upconversion.

[pedagogue]

I'm curious why the other guy would do that....but in your shoes I'd make the swap.

[Sdallnct]

Size and distance is important. But so is the quality of set. I still stongly believe the 720p panny and pioneer plasmas have a better overall image then most 1080p sets. DO NOT go get a cheesy, off brand set because it is cheap just to get 1080p.

Most agree that resolution is only about the 4th most important aspect to overall picture quality.

[Spiky]

the reason is that a 1080i CRT only displays, at most, 540 lines of resolution at a time. so, your TV is able to maximize the 480p signal of a standard DVD, displaying all 480 scan lines of the frame at a time.
This is not correct.

1) DVD is 480I. So, if you were correct about how interlaced works (see below), DVD would only be displaying 240 lines at a time. Also, not all DVDs are easy to revert to progressive. And most progressive players really suck at it.

2) 1080i has 1080 lines, not 540. If you want to be truly technical, it only scans 1 line at a time on a CRT. So by your logic, it would be a 1 line resolution picture at 32400Hz. Pretty dull if that were true. The difference in interlaced is the order of refreshing/scanning the lines. If the concept of "540 at a time" bothers you, change how you view 1080i. Call it 1080i30 instead of 1080i60, since it completely refreshes the screen 30 times per second. 60Hz was always a poor way to state it. Keep in mind that film and Bluray/HDDVD redraw the screen 24 times per second, so 30 is hardly a bad number.

3) I will agree that progressive looks better than interlaced. But it also depends on the source. You really have to take both source and display into account. And the relative quality of the electronics. For instance, if the CRT is a Pioneer Elite....mmmm, little can match that.

4) If you want to see DVD in its proper glory, the most common way to do so is on an older CRT model HDTV. One which has a 480p mode to properly display a 480 line source.

[Arpeggi]

DO NOT go get a cheesy, off brand set because it is cheap just to get 1080p.



This is the truth.

[lordzeppelin]

This is the truth.

I'll 3rd that. I've definitely seen 720p/1080i plasmas that blow cheap 1080p panels out of the water. I swear the best place to see this in action is at Sam's Club or Costco - They had a pretty nice 720p Panny, which looked phenomenal next to a cheapie 1080p LCD, and the difference kinda shocked me - so much so that I had to fish the remote out from behind the set and play with them, just to be sure the settings weren't jacked (they were, but not to the point of one being worse than the other...ahh, Vivid is such a bitch of a setting).

[kefrank]

1) DVD is 480I. So, if you were correct about how interlaced works (see below), DVD would only be displaying 240 lines at a time. Also, not all DVDs are easy to revert to progressive. And most progressive players really suck at it.
While DVD is stored on the disc at 480i, his HD DVD player almost certainly outputs SD DVD at 480p over component. The quality of his HD DVD player's ability to output a proper progressive signal depends on the model, so I can't speak to that. Even if the player put out 480i, his television almost definitely has the capability to de-interlace it to display each full 480-line frame on a single 60Hz pass (as suggested in your #4).

2) 1080i has 1080 lines, not 540. If you want to be truly technical, it only scans 1 line at a time on a CRT. So by your logic, it would be a 1 line resolution picture at 32400Hz. Pretty dull if that were true. The difference in interlaced is the order of refreshing/scanning the lines. If the concept of "540 at a time" bothers you, change how you view 1080i. Call it 1080i30 instead of 1080i60, since it completely refreshes the screen 30 times per second. 60Hz was always a poor way to state it. Keep in mind that film and Bluray/HDDVD redraw the screen 24 times per second, so 30 is hardly a bad number.
I do understand how 1080i works, although my wording was apparently rather poor. By "540 lines at a time" I was trying to state in simpler terms that his TV only displays 540 scan lines on a single 60Hz pass. Two 60Hz passes are required to display the whole 1080-line frame, which can result in temporal artifacts. Ignoring any pulldown, that gives a maximum effective frame refresh rate of 30fps as you have pointed out, but that is actually slower than the 48Hz rate of most film projectors (again ignoring the frame-doubling required to display the 24fps source). Let's not confuse the refresh rate of the display with the frame rate of the source. We're talking about how quickly the display can refresh a full-resolution frame of a 24fps source:
1080i signal on his TV - every 1/30 second
48Hz film projector - every 1/48 second
480p signal on his TV - every 1/60 second

The faster a full-resolution frame can be refreshed, the less temporal artifacts there will be (pulldown still notwithstanding). Introducing pulldown into the discussion only furthers my original point, as interlaced 3:2 pulldown results in additional artifacts when fields from two different film frames are displayed in one video frame.

3) I will agree that progressive looks better than interlaced. But it also depends on the source. You really have to take both source and display into account. And the relative quality of the electronics. For instance, if the CRT is a Pioneer Elite....mmmm, little can match that.
Agreed. I was speaking mainly in generalities I suppose.

4) If you want to see DVD in its proper glory, the most common way to do so is on an older CRT model HDTV. One which has a 480p mode to properly display a 480 line source.
Although I didn't state it very well, what you stated here was really the only point I was originally trying to make.

Thanks for the technical accountability! I do appreciate it.

[Wallace666]

Thanks for all the input, but it is all a mute point now as my 43" just died.

[danicus007]

I agree that you should go bigger. I went from a 47" CRT RPTV to a 61" Sammy DLP and wow what a difference. At first it seems huge, but after a couple of weeks it blends right in. Not to mention they are much slimmer than the older CRT RPTV sets and don't really take up that much more room. Trust me, you won't be disappointed.

My sets native resolution is 1080p but I don't notice a difference between my 1080i A3 or my 1080p PS3. Guess my TV has a good scaler.

I also agree that you don't want to spend money on a cheapo brand TV just to get 1080p. If you want it to hold you over another 5 years or so, get a good name brand 1080p TV set with 3 HDMI connections and you should be pretty future proof for a while. There are lots of great, inexpensive options out there.

[Joe Schmoe]

I think the jump from 1080i to 1080p is worth it. I've had a 55" Mitsubishi Diamond Series Rear Screen Projection set for 8 years. The only HD it supports is 1080i. No HDMI or DVI--only component--so no upscaling. 2 weeks ago I got a 73" Mitsubishi Diamond Series DLP set with 1080p. I notice a visual improvement when I watch Blu-rays and DVDs in 1080p on my PS3 using the highest level Monster brand HDMI cable and the PS3's DVD upscaling feature. The Blu-rays are sharper than they were in 1080i when I could only use component cables, especially lettering and the edges of objects and people, and there is no motion blur. Of course, that last part has a lot to do with the 120 Hz feature on the TV. When I watch TV shows in 1080i on my new set, though, I can see some motion blur (pixelation), so viewing material in 1080p does make a difference. DVDs looks better upscaled than not upscaled, but they don't look as sharp as Blu-rays, and the colors are not as bold as HD material.

[Spiky]

Must be nice to be rich.