Quick Jump Daily Digest
Thank you for your interest in the Quick Jump Daily Digest. Get notified of all new content on QJ in our free Daily Digest. To subscribe, enter your email address below and click the subscribe button.
Can you see the difference between 1080i and 1080p? |
Listed in: PS3 Tags: Activision, CNET, playstation 3 updates, Sony
Ó
The Imaging Science Foundation (ISF), a group that consults for home-theater manufacturers and trains professional video calibrators, says that the most important aspect of picture quality is contrast ratio, the second-most important is color saturation, and the third is color accuracy.So where does resolution come in? It comes in fourth on the ISF list, and according to David Carnoy's CNET article, after you sit watching five TVs lined up side by side, you understand why. He says that a relatively pristine high-def source such as Mission: Impossible III looks sharp on just about any HDTV, and your eye, when looking for differences, is drawn first to things like depth of detail in shadowy material (black levels) and the color of the actors' skin tone and how natural it looks.
He goes on to say a lot of things about resolutions and they even performed several tests to see the difference between 1080p and 1080i. However those tests mainly concerned movie outputs and native resolutions of HD displays. Here's the short of their long tests:
On both of the TVs that they used that were capable of accepting a 1080p source, they noticed differences in the sets' color and blacks, but the level of detail is virtually identical on both sets. The 1080i output had some problems though, as some TVs (Sharp) had problems with 1080i output. But when they switched back and fort between 1080p and 1080i they can't discern any differences between the two outputs.
They used a movie as a point of comparison on that test. We're concerned about games here, so we'll skip to his pertinent observations about HD resolution and games. According to him he's spent some time with the PS3 and this is what he has to say:
...the differences seem very subtle and are ultimately tied into how good graphically the game looks to begin with. For instance, I saw Activision's Marvel: Ultimate Alliance on a 1080p Sony display, and the game looked decent, but it's not graphically stunning to begin with, so it wasn't completely amazing. By comparison, Resistance: Fall of Man looked great--even though the resolution is "only" 720p native, the PS3 exclusive makes far better use of the system's graphical horsepower than the Marvel game, which was simultaneously developed for all home consoles.
He says of course that ultimately it's the game that dictates the graphical quality of what you see on the screen. It's good to note that he was wowed with the "only" 720p native Resistance: Fall of Man. We all know that Sony's box can go all the way up to 1080p. We'll just have to wait for developers to get used to abusing that though.
If you want more info on their tests with the HD displays (just in case you're looking forward to this service) feel free to click the read more link we have below.
| This story sucks? This story rocks! |
|
|












Comments
Progressive scan rules and 1080i should burn in hell. I will never use it. These people are complete morons and I pee on their grave.
You Lose
Reply
Reply
If your TV offers 1080i max, then you'll probably notice the kind of issues associated with interlace output if you look for it. So in this case, 720p would probably look better, especially for games. However, if your TV supports 1080p, then you will not see much difference between 1080i and 1080p on such a TV, because a good TV will deinterlace the signal.
Also, remember that HD-TV broadcast is 1080i max!!! Hence the need for good deinterlacing on TVs.
Every time I see articles on 1080i vs 1080p, they come to the same conclusions. It's only gamers on forums who seem to insist there is a big difference.
HD-TV is 1080i MAX. So are you saying
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
720P vs. 1080i= the winner depends on the game. Why? Because if a game isn't 60fps full of fast action, then the texture graphical quality of a game made to 1080i (or 1080P) spec will always look better than that same game made with 720P quality textures - and only on 50" TVs or greater (or big monitors if you're sitting close). If it's an action game expected to run smoothly (3D fighters like Tekken), then 1080i will look better when paused, 720P will look less choppy and 'feel' better when unpaused.
720P vs. 1080P= Hands down 1080P for gaming. Why? Because your 60fps game plays at 60fps firstly. Also you have smaller pixels which allow for more detailed textures, which end up looking better overall than 720P if the game was made to take advantage of the improved fidelity. This is improvement over a similar 720P game is not as noticible if your TV is less than 50" (or if you have less than a 21" monitor)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Theres a huge difference depending on what frame rate you are viewing.
Lets say a 1080p signal @ 60 Frames Per Second(FPS) will look much better and smoother then a 1080i@60FPS.
Because 1080i@60FPS is like 1080p@30FPS.
The difference between 30 and 60FPS is dramatic.
At 60 FPS everything is much smoother. Ask any PC player if they play at 30 or 60FPS and 100% would say they prefer to play at 60FPS.
Once 1080p@60FPS becomes a standard for PS3 games, there will definitely be a noticeable difference in games, maybe not in graphics, but in the smooth motions. If the Xbox360 ever manages to get a game at 1080p@60FPS then xbox owners will want every game to run at 1080p@60fps because there is such a dramatic difference even on a 20" LCD monitor that my PC uses.
1080i will never look as good as 1080p, end of discussion.
Reply
1080i is a beautiful picture, that is, on CRT TVs. Plasmas and LCD's can't perform 1080i right, so you just get an upscaled 720p image, or 1080i downgraded to 540p.
Reply
No you are wrong. All the reports we see based on hands on TV comparisons of 1080i vs 1080p, comes to the same conclusions (see link below). So what tests have you done Vietone, what comparisons have you made to prove these reports wrong? And where's your links of TV comparison reports which supports your claims?
>"At 60 FPS everything is much smoother. Ask any PC player if they play at 30 or 60FPS and 100% would say they prefer to play at 60FPS."
So what? It depends on the game. RFoM was going to be 1080p @ 30fps, now it's even less than that at 720p @ 30fps, but do I see anyone complaining? Heavenly Sword is also fixed at 30fps (according to the developers). I'm sorry, but I would prefer to play a great game at 30fps than a cr@p game at 60fps, and from all accounts, RFoM is a great game.
>"Once 1080p@60FPS becomes a standard for PS3 games"
1080p@60fps will never be standard in PS3 games. The resolution and framerate will ALWAYS vary from game to game depending on the developer and the game.
>"1080i will never look as good as 1080p, end of discussion. "
On a 1080p TV which deinterlaces properly, 1080i at 30fps looks just as good as 1080p at 30fps. It's only at framerates higher than 30fps (i.e. 60fps) where the difference will be noticed, since 1080i will be stuck at 30fps.
As reported here; http://blog.hometheatermag.com/geoffreymorrison/0807061080iv1080p/
Quote "If you send 1080i, the TV de-interlaces it to 1080p. If you send your TV the 1080p signal, the player is de-interlacing the signal. As long as your TV is de-interlacing the 1080i correctly, then there is no difference....The only time you would see a difference is if you have native 1080p/60 content, which at this point would only come from a PC and maybe the PS3. 1080p/60 does have more information than 1080i/30, but unless you're a gamer you will probably never see native 1080p/60 content."
Reply
THE FIELDS OF AN INTERLACED FRAME DOES NOT HAVE TO BELONG TO THE SAME SOURCE-FRAME!
I mean, they can be the every odd and then every even lines of subsequent source-frames at the rate of the field-rate, which is double the frame-rate. Practically, the fields are shot at 1/50s intervals (in PAL systems). (Hence the difference between fileds of the resulting frames, that have to treated in some form of deinterlace method.)
And so, there is usually 50 movement phases per second in a PAL 50Hz interlaced video-camera sourced material this way!
On the contrary, in case of movie-sourced material, subsequent fields belong to the same source-frame, because those are given, at 24fps. (Well, there is really some trickery here called telecine to compensate the different rates, eg. 24fps vs. 25/30fps.)
Now, it becomes essential when we take into account the given bandwidth constraints. For fast motion, it's better to use interlace at 25/30 frame/s (= 50 fileds/s), than the 25/30 whole-frame/s progressive. Of course, a 50/60 whole-frame/s progressive is even better, but in needs quite much bandwidth at 1920x1080p...
And a note: one have to test things with both video and movie based (sourced) material, at different rates, to look at every aspects. Not just put the disc in, and try to see something, that's amateurish.
Reply
I have a 30 inch widescreen crt. it was only $600 bucks, it's for my game room so the size is OK. Thing is I went to find another one and can't. I can't find one at all anymore. I think the TV companies are making us step up to flat panels even though the tech's not perfected so they can make an extra buck before the prices drop anymore. It suck because I haven't liked the lcds or plasmas I've seen. Too many downsides for the $2000 investment.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
First and foremost the fill rate that has to be archived by the GPU is insane for 1080. Its some ware around 2million pixels per frame compared to the 0.9million pixels of a 720 display. That means that game has half the time to render a pixel in 1080 resolution then in 720 resolution. that means that you get will get half the lighting, texturing, and other fancy effects in the 1080 resolution just to get the same frame rate. That means that the game you are playing will look WORSE in 1080 resolution because developers can't do as much because they need to keep a high frame rate.
Second point screen buffer size on the GPU. I don't think that the PS3 has 15MB frame buffer on its GPU. I believe that it is around 9-10MB. That means that games would not have a big enough back buffer to render to in 1080 resolution.
So my conclusion to despite Sony's PR ALL PS3 games are going to be rendered at 720. That 1080 was put there for movie goers and Blue Ray DVD and not games. But all this a small point if the your tv doesn't support HDMI.
Reply