Samsung Blu-Ray player cannot output true 1080p (1 Viewer)

[Rob_Walton]

I'm not sure the premise of this thread is correct. The Broadcom decoder chip in both the Tosh and Sammy is capable of handling 1080p24, the data is then passed to another chip which is where the difference seems to occur. The Samsung has an SiI9030CTU-7 chip which is specd for 1080p output, while the Tosh's chip apparently only reaches 1080i. The Sammy goes to 11! Anyone for chips?

 

[Chris Gerhard]

The issue is the conversion to 1080i and back to 1080p. Although the results should be very good, the preference is for a player that won't make this conversion. Will we see a difference? I believe the answer is sometimes based on my observations with conversations of 480i to 480p, 720p to 1080i, 1080i to 720p, 480p to 720p, etc., etc. that I can do with my sources and 720p and 1080i displays. I prefer to send 720p to my 720p display and 1080i to my 1080i display. I can convert 1080i to 720p and back to 1080i and have done so, just as I can convert 720p to 1080i and back to 720p. Both of my displays accept 480i, 480p, 720p and 1080i and produce acceptable results regardless of source input, just not optimal although the various options don't make profound differences. As with digital to analog and back to digital conversions, I think minimizing the chain of conversions is best.

Chris

 

[Cees Alons]

Christopher,

The earlier confusion about your statement stems (I believe) from the fact that you replied to a question by Steven Simon:

You were referring to the future, but given the context that may not have been clear to anyone on first reading.
Also, according to your logic, it wouldn't have to be THAT surprising that the Samsung wouldn't output 1080p (yet).

I believe all has been cleared up now, and I do hope we can continue this interesting discussion.


Yes, I strongly agree with you, it's the conversions that may spoil the image a bit. And, specifically, from a non-understood 3:2 pulled down stream of frames. A situation not applicable here!


Cees

 

[Chris Gerhard]

I had understood the Samsung player would, but no I am not surprised it doesn't now. My surprise comes from my misunderstanding. My visit to this thread was the first time I had heard this and apparently it is correct. I am excited about Blu-ray and about 1080p displays. Unfortunately I have invested a bunch in D-VHS, upscaling DVD, and 720p and 1080i displays and will be sitting out for a while and observing.

Chris

 

[Rob_Walton]

Is there any indication that the signal will always be fully interlaced by the broadcom chip, passed to the SI chip and pulled down to 60i before being deinterlaced to 1080p60? If the Samsung can output 1080p24 that would be the ideal solution, since every indication is that is what will be encoded on the discs, and handled by the main chips. The fact that it can interlace doesn't mean that it must. Presumably there will be situations (PIP, interactive layer, etc) where the data stream being blended in to the main feature's data stream is interlaced, so they both must be. That would require the chip to have the ability to interlace.

BTW it seems most US HDTVs don't handle 24/48/72Hz, is that correct? Under those circumstances the player would have to apply pulldown anyway, which is a shame, but is more a limitation of currently available TVs.

 

[Sami Kallio]

The problem with those is that you are converting to a different resolution and the image will change in those conversions (lost original pixels). From 1080p to 1080i to 1080p the image should not change at all. If I have understood it correctly the original source is 1080p 24fps and 1080i is 60fps. I haven't looked at what 3:2 pulldown is but logically I would think that is 2 frames of 24fps form 5 frames of 60fps which is the ratio of 60/24 = 2.5, or something similar.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

Yes, that's exactly it. It's not "3:2" as in a ratio, but "3-2", as in, of ever two frames, one is spread across 3 fields and one across 2 fields. They go in sequence, 3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2…, and thus every 4 24-Hz frames [1/6 second] make up 5 30-Hz frames [also 1/6 s]. Obviously, if you can tag the extra fields, you can drop them out and recombine pairs that belong together. The problem comes in detecting the sequence, which normally looks like aa-bbb-cc-ddd-ee-fff-gg… — if you do it right, you get A-B-C-D-E-F-G… [where video fields are miniscule and the corresponding film frames majuscule], but if not, you're liable to get progressive frames which don't represent the original frames, but have motion blurring and other artefacts. Film edited on video can be particularly bad, because the sequence can be interrupted and reversed, and it's even possible fot a film frame to show up in only a single video field. Obviously, when the content on the disc is 24p, and it's only being output at 60i, this problem doesn't occur.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

The problem is if its 1080p output is only really 540p. You know, the dreaded bobbed 1080i signal.

Again, there should be no conversion of the disc's native resolution.

Dan

 

[Rob_Walton]

It would also be a problem if it only outputs black and white. Or only shows the picture upside down. Really, is it worth speculating about all the things that could be wrong when we have no indication that anything is?

 

[Cees Alons]

Why would it be? It's most probably true 1080i from film, which is exactly as good as 1080p, unless poorly converted.

And, BTW, "bobbed" 1080p is NOT like 540p, because (1) there is no downrezzing in the horizontal direction, and (2) bobbing does not really throw away any resolution info. To the human eye, the different information is superimposed, and thus retains a lot of the original resolution.

Therefore, the image certainly doesn't look as good as 1080p (or proper 1080i), but not anywhere near 540p (or -i).

(This is confirmed by the statements of our members who own the HD DVD releases that are supposedly authored from bobbed masters: they all say that the image looks marginally softer, but "to their eyes" still looks beautiful.)


Cees

 

[PeterTHX]

1080i is NOT 540p. This would be true if it was only 30fps.

1080i is 1080. Just interlaced at 60fps. All the resolution is there, just not at the same given half-second.

Really now, if 1080i was 540p that would make DVD 240p (from 480i). We can all see that this isn't so for ourselves. Progressive 480p is performed in the player and looks fantastic. 1080p output should look outstanding, even from a 1080i/60fps source.

 

[Cees Alons]

Peter,

Yes, I strongly agree.

There's much malinformation spread lately about this issue.


Cees