I have a 360 1080p problem, can some one help?

[Bitmap Frogs]

greenmedic88 said:

Not correct. Displaying a DVD (480 line signal) at 1080p does not equal a native 1080 signal. The native source of the video signal is still 480 lines of resolution, regardless of how you want to upscale it, whether interlaced or progressive scan.

Similarly, displaying a 480 line signal (ie Wii native output) at 1080p mode does not equal a native 1080 signal. Displaying a Wii video signal on a 1080p display that upscales to 1080p does not equal "HD Wii." Nobody said this. Does anyone even think this? The source video signal is still being rendered at 480 lines of resolution which could be either a 4:3 aspect ratio with a horizontal resolution of 640 pixels, or 16:9 at 720. It's still defined as a 480p signal.

A signal being rendered at 1080 lines of resolution and transmitted via "HD" connection is still being rendered at 1080 simultaenously generated lines or rows of pixels, regardless of whether it's 1920x1080, 1440x1080, 1280x1080 or even a 1:1 aspect ratio 1080x1080. Vertical resolution is the definining factor whether you call them lines or rows of pixels.

It is generally assumed that a 1080p signal is 16:9 aspect ratio (1920x1080), but it still refers to the lines of vertical resolution. To say otherwise is the same thing as saying a 480p signal is only a 480p signal if it renders at 720x480, implying a 640x480 signal is "not 480p" which would be completely incorrect. 

All digital displays display in progressive scan mode by definition in that they generate a full field of pixels at once. Even if there are no cathode ray beams that paint scan lines on the back of a phospor coated tube, the terminology is still used by TV broadcast industry, film industry, etc. It's used internationally. So it's not just some hold over definition from the days of analog scan lines.

 

 

But you've just switched your position. Now you are saying that the output is not the criteria to be used. Then you come back with a bunch of obvious details like the way a progressive scan display works to pad your post.

By the way, it's not generally assumed that a 1080p signal is a 16:9 aspect ratio. That's a direct wikipedia quote, but the ITU paper in which the HD standards were set goes the full way. Vertical resolution stopped being a defining factor alone in itself ages ago beyond being a short-hand moniker for 1920x1080 and 1280x720. Actually, both 1080p and 720p were chosen as shorthands for the full resolution because of the old analog standards naming convention so yes that's pretty much a by-the-book hold over definition.

Write a letter to the SMPTE and ask them wether 1280x1080 qualifies as 1080p or not dude, since you won't take my word for it ask the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers.