what resolution for HD DVD (1 Viewer)

[Jonathan Dagmar]

I was just wondering. Do you think the standad for HD DVD will be 720p or 1080i?

Obviously both have pros and cons. I really don't undersatdn why 1080p was not part of the HDTV spec.

 

[Richard Paul]

Actually both 1080p at 24 and 30 fps is part of the ATSC standard. All ATSC receivers HAVE to be able to receive 1080p and though no broadcasters currently use 1080p I'm sure that within a decade the smarter one's will begin to. The main reason broadcasters haven't used it is because of three big misconceptions about 1080p. First is the misconception that it takes more data to do 1080p then 1080i while in reality it takes slightly less data for 1080p. Second is the misconception that there's no reason not to use 1080i which is wrong since on average 30% of vertical detail is lost when interlace filtering is done to video. This interlace filtering is done on ALL 1080i material and the lost vertical detail can not be brought back by deinterlacing. The third misconception is that 1080i will look better on a 1080i display than 1080p would. Actually 1080p would look as good as 1080i on 1080i displays while also looking much better on future 1080p displays.

Hopefully future HD-DVD will include full ATSC video compatibility along with the DTS and MLP for audio. Currently neither Blu-Ray from Sony or AOD from Toshiba have specifications for pre-recorded video.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

The only quote is that (most of) the industry wish HD-DVD to meet or exceed DVHS. Therefore it'll be 1080, probably i to start with and later move to P

 

[Mark Fitzsimmons]

My guess would be 1080i because most HDTVs sold wont display 720p.

 

[Jonathan Dagmar]

Well. That's interesting. I don't get why 1080i even exists. It seems to me one of the biggest advantages of HDTV is the deaht of interlacing. And yet when i peruse the HDTVs currently available, which I do from time to time even though I cannot afford one, all of them support 1080i, few support 720p, and none suport 1080p.

This makes no sense to me. I guess it is just further evidence that HDTV, and consequently, HD-DVD are a long way off yet.

 

[Jonathan Dagmar]

"Second is the misconception that there's no reason not to use 1080i which is wrong since on average 30% of vertical detail is lost when interlace filtering is done to video"

How does this work thouhg? Surely the deatil that is lost is lost only on half the frame, and our eyes would merge the fields together and not notoice the differecne, aside from the flicker?

 

[Derek Iverson]

Well. That's interesting. I don't get why 1080i even exists. It seems to me one of the biggest advantages of HDTV is the deaht of interlacing. And yet when i peruse the HDTVs currently available, which I do from time to time even though I cannot afford one, all of them support 1080i, few support 720p, and none suport 1080p.

Almost all of this year's RPTV models support 720p. As for none supporting 1080p, you're very wrong. I know for sure that Toshiba has released one.

Check it out:
Toshiba 57HLX82

 

[Richard Paul]

There are two primary reasons that around 30% of the vertical detail is lost. One is that on an interlaced display single line details will blink since only every other field has them. To prevent this from occurring vertical detail is filtered out of the image to minimize these interlaced artifacts. Movement also cause's interlace artifacts to appear requiring vertical filtering that can reach 50%! On average this vertical filtering causes around 30% of the vertical detail to be filtered out. There is no reason that 1080i should ever be used for recording or broadcast. The only reason 1080i is used for broadcasting is because of some very stupid people not quite understanding the advantage of 1080p over 1080i and that ATSC receivers can convert 1080p to 1080i for CRT displays.