HDMI
- Thread starter maltaron
- Start date
both have resolution of 1920x1080, but 1080p is progressively scanned as opposed 1080i which is interlaced.
1080i = all the odd (or even) lines are painted on the screen in the 1st pass, then the even (or odd) are painted about .03 secs (approx) afterwards in the 2nd pass.
1080p = all lines are painted together in one pass, which gives a smoother image.
If it was just a general question, there is your answer. If you're thinking of choosing a tv, don't bother with 1080p, there's nothing that natively broadcasts in 1080p, not for a long while i'd imagine. There's also hardly any discernible difference between the I and P.
Personally, i've just bought a LG 42PQ6000 plasma, and chose 720p (1080i) but with a refresh rate of >100Hz, rather than 1080p and 50Hz (within my budget).
Hope it helps.
1080i = all the odd (or even) lines are painted on the screen in the 1st pass, then the even (or odd) are painted about .03 secs (approx) afterwards in the 2nd pass.
1080p = all lines are painted together in one pass, which gives a smoother image.
If it was just a general question, there is your answer. If you're thinking of choosing a tv, don't bother with 1080p, there's nothing that natively broadcasts in 1080p, not for a long while i'd imagine. There's also hardly any discernible difference between the I and P.
Personally, i've just bought a LG 42PQ6000 plasma, and chose 720p (1080i) but with a refresh rate of >100Hz, rather than 1080p and 50Hz (within my budget).
Hope it helps.
oooh....as a retired AV techncian, maybe you'd like to check http://www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=181482&highlight= out! 
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 351
- Reaction score
- 29
- Country
The concept of an interlaced vs progressive picture was first described in 1927 and has certainly been a consideraton in all TV broadcasts since broadcasting began............. hardly keeping up to date mate!
Depends if he has BluRay though surely? If so, and depending on screen size, I'd go for 1080p. The differences over 720p are only discernible on 50" up at typical viewing distances though, and even then it's debatable.
32" TVs advertised @ 1080p are just a gimmick imho, unless your face is pressed up against the screen....
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 351
- Reaction score
- 29
- Country
If he watches a lot of blu-ray, the 1080p maybe worth it
........but for SKY HD the movies are broadcast at 1080i @50hz which roughly equals 1080p at 25hz anyway (blu ray being 1080p at 24hz of course) , so its basically the same thing.
........but for SKY HD the movies are broadcast at 1080i @50hz which roughly equals 1080p at 25hz anyway (blu ray being 1080p at 24hz of course) , so its basically the same thing.
Smurfin, yep fair point, but OP did say he was just wondering about it, so i assumed he didn' have blu-ray.
But again, i think unless you havce top nop kit all the way, even blu-ray won't highlight much difference between i and p.
But again, i think unless you havce top nop kit all the way, even blu-ray won't highlight much difference between i and p.
But you will between your 720p telly and a 1080p telly showing a blu-ray disc. 100Hz is sh*t for anything other than sport anyway; it makes ordinary broadcast look 'fake'.
Mine looks fine to me on 720p / 100hz. (or 600hz sub field driving if you buy into the techno-babble!).
Optimum conditions, ie; correct viewing distance and angle, top notch blue-ray player and also quality blue-ray films all make a difference.
If you check out the blue-ray film reviews, some are not much better than the dvd quality efforts.
Too many variables i guess.
I've got the 42LG6100 LCD and the 'Trumotion' is pretty poor for regular viewing eg. Eastenders 
With Winbledon etc. though it comes into its own with blur free viewing.
On the other note - I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) any broadcasts are in 1080p yet? BUT that doesn't mean to say the 1080p screen is useless, you still need a 1080p screen to display 1080i without any loss of detail. For example PS3's output at 1920x1080.
With Winbledon etc. though it comes into its own with blur free viewing.
On the other note - I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) any broadcasts are in 1080p yet? BUT that doesn't mean to say the 1080p screen is useless, you still need a 1080p screen to display 1080i without any loss of detail. For example PS3's output at 1920x1080.
Oh don't ge me wrong, i would have loved a 1080p tv, but my budget wouldn't stretch so i chose the faster refresh rate over the 1080p.
I don't have a blu-ray player as yet, so it made my decision a little easier.....at the time. I'm not disappointed at all though.
I don't have a blu-ray player as yet, so it made my decision a little easier.....at the time. I'm not disappointed at all though.
Fair enough. TBH by the time HD becomes 'mainstream' it will cost a lot less that it does now. You can already pick up 1080p tellys (only 24") for £250 and blu-ray players for under £100 so give it another 6-12 months and we'll all be on the HD bandwagon.
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 351
- Reaction score
- 29
- Country
A 1080p 24 inch tv is a complete waste of time. You'd have to be sat so close your face was actually through the screen.
I don't think it matters the fact that it is 1080p and 24" - you're just saying a 24" tv is a waste of time (I agree to a certain extent - eg. if you put it in a large room).
Would you have made that comment if it were a 720p 24"? They are after all the same sort of price as 1080p ones.
All I was trying to put forward was that pretty soon there are going to be 1080p tv's in the 32" - 37" region for sub £300. This will push the whole 1080p HD marketing thing forward and it will (hopefully) become mainstream, pushing prices ever lower as more people buy the goods.