All this talk about 720p, upscaled 1080p and native 1080p but what about 1080i?

#11CyborgTwentyPosted 10/30/2013 3:40:22 PM
What about 900p and 900i?
#12irregulardullPosted 10/30/2013 4:14:25 PM
MrImpatient35 posted...
I looked this stuff up a LONG time ago, so I could be wrong, but i is interlaced. p is progressive. p is better for fast moving objects, like in most games, so p is the way to go.



Looking further, interlaced video works in 'fields per second', not frames.


Fields work work in pairs to produce a frame. The first field in a pair gives you the odd lines of the frame (lines 1, 3, 5...1075, 1077, 1079), and the following field produces the even lines of the frame (lines 2, 4, 6... 1076, 1078, 1080).

In other words, if something is in 1080i, it's running at 60 fields per second - which is actually 30 frames per second. Needless to say, producing a picture like this will lead to motion blur with fast moving objects.

What's the point of doing this? Saves bandwidth.


It has no practical application is gaming, though.

---
#useless information
#13Board_Collie(Topic Creator)Posted 10/31/2013 10:15:49 AM
irregulardull posted...
MrImpatient35 posted...
I looked this stuff up a LONG time ago, so I could be wrong, but i is interlaced. p is progressive. p is better for fast moving objects, like in most games, so p is the way to go.



Looking further, interlaced video works in 'fields per second', not frames.


Fields work work in pairs to produce a frame. The first field in a pair gives you the odd lines of the frame (lines 1, 3, 5...1075, 1077, 1079), and the following field produces the even lines of the frame (lines 2, 4, 6... 1076, 1078, 1080).

In other words, if something is in 1080i, it's running at 60 fields per second - which is actually 30 frames per second. Needless to say, producing a picture like this will lead to motion blur with fast moving objects.

What's the point of doing this? Saves bandwidth.


It has no practical application is gaming, though.


No practical application in gaming? A lot of my PS3 games ran in 1080i and it had no problems with keeping 60fps.
#14reincarnator07Posted 10/31/2013 11:07:15 AM
Board_Collie posted...
irregulardull posted...
MrImpatient35 posted...
I looked this stuff up a LONG time ago, so I could be wrong, but i is interlaced. p is progressive. p is better for fast moving objects, like in most games, so p is the way to go.



Looking further, interlaced video works in 'fields per second', not frames.


Fields work work in pairs to produce a frame. The first field in a pair gives you the odd lines of the frame (lines 1, 3, 5...1075, 1077, 1079), and the following field produces the even lines of the frame (lines 2, 4, 6... 1076, 1078, 1080).

In other words, if something is in 1080i, it's running at 60 fields per second - which is actually 30 frames per second. Needless to say, producing a picture like this will lead to motion blur with fast moving objects.

What's the point of doing this? Saves bandwidth.


It has no practical application is gaming, though.


No practical application in gaming? A lot of my PS3 games ran in 1080i and it had no problems with keeping 60fps.


Except you can't actually display 60fps at 1080i unless you were running at 120Hz, which would be just as stressful at 1080p60fps.
---
Fan of metal? Don't mind covers? Check out my youtube and give me some feedback
http://www.youtube.com/sircaballero
#15Board_Collie(Topic Creator)Posted 10/31/2013 11:15:27 AM
reincarnator07 posted...
Board_Collie posted...
irregulardull posted...
MrImpatient35 posted...
I looked this stuff up a LONG time ago, so I could be wrong, but i is interlaced. p is progressive. p is better for fast moving objects, like in most games, so p is the way to go.



Looking further, interlaced video works in 'fields per second', not frames.


Fields work work in pairs to produce a frame. The first field in a pair gives you the odd lines of the frame (lines 1, 3, 5...1075, 1077, 1079), and the following field produces the even lines of the frame (lines 2, 4, 6... 1076, 1078, 1080).

In other words, if something is in 1080i, it's running at 60 fields per second - which is actually 30 frames per second. Needless to say, producing a picture like this will lead to motion blur with fast moving objects.

What's the point of doing this? Saves bandwidth.


It has no practical application is gaming, though.


No practical application in gaming? A lot of my PS3 games ran in 1080i and it had no problems with keeping 60fps.


Except you can't actually display 60fps at 1080i unless you were running at 120Hz, which would be just as stressful at 1080p60fps.


Stressful? For what? 120Hz is done by the TV.
#16reincarnator07Posted 10/31/2013 12:33:41 PM
Board_Collie posted...
reincarnator07 posted...
Board_Collie posted...
irregulardull posted...
MrImpatient35 posted...
I looked this stuff up a LONG time ago, so I could be wrong, but i is interlaced. p is progressive. p is better for fast moving objects, like in most games, so p is the way to go.



Looking further, interlaced video works in 'fields per second', not frames.


Fields work work in pairs to produce a frame. The first field in a pair gives you the odd lines of the frame (lines 1, 3, 5...1075, 1077, 1079), and the following field produces the even lines of the frame (lines 2, 4, 6... 1076, 1078, 1080).

In other words, if something is in 1080i, it's running at 60 fields per second - which is actually 30 frames per second. Needless to say, producing a picture like this will lead to motion blur with fast moving objects.

What's the point of doing this? Saves bandwidth.


It has no practical application is gaming, though.


No practical application in gaming? A lot of my PS3 games ran in 1080i and it had no problems with keeping 60fps.


Except you can't actually display 60fps at 1080i unless you were running at 120Hz, which would be just as stressful at 1080p60fps.


Stressful? For what? 120Hz is done by the TV.


For the console. It would still be the equivalent of running at 60fps, which these consoles already seem to be struggling with.
---
Fan of metal? Don't mind covers? Check out my youtube and give me some feedback
http://www.youtube.com/sircaballero
#17SinisterSlayPosted 10/31/2013 12:40:59 PM
reincarnator07 posted...


For the console. It would still be the equivalent of running at 60fps, which these consoles already seem to be struggling with.


Also, it would be a pain to write an engine that only renders every second horizontal pixel....
There would be no value to it.
---
He who stumbles around in darkness with a stick is blind. But he who... sticks out in darkness... is... fluorescent! - Brother Silence
#18ZeroRaiderPosted 10/31/2013 1:20:21 PM
ITT: people who don't understand interlacing or progressive video.
#19ssjgohhkuPosted 11/1/2013 7:04:15 AM
720p is best resolution there is and stomps 1080p and 1080i.
#20BryanPS360Posted 11/1/2013 7:28:42 AM
1080p is good
720p is good

1080i has not been good for me.
---
XBGT:RedHawkDirewolf PSN: RedHawk_Direwolf