Chrizum said:
Actually, 480p is twice the amount of pixels of 480i. It really is a higher resolution. 480i never looks good on an LCD screen, never. |
no that's wrong, the resolution is the same, what changes the is bandwidth required to display a 480p image, infact 480p requires double the bandwidth than 480i, the reason for 480i was that for free to air TV it required less bandwidth and like wise for composite cables cables which meant this technique of displaying the same data was cheaper, it also lost a little quality but it was worth the compromose back in the day.
480p is slightly better than 480i, but nothing beats true 720p/1080p HD.
Also the coments of 480i images not looking good on LCD has todo more with the LCD tv it's self rather than the 480i signal it's self. just remember that all LCD tv screens only accept progressive signals, it's the decoders and in essence the tv graphics chip which handles the de-interlacing of 480i images into 480p, so a cheap tv will of course have a cheap graphics chip and thus the de-interlacing would be crap, a good LCD could do a better job, but of course just feeding the LCD a 480p signal will bypass all this....but then of course you face an issue of the LCD upscaling the image to it's native resolution and this again boils down to the quality of the LCD tv.
So the moral of the story is....you get a good LCD tv so that the image is some what maintained when compared to tube Tv's, or you simply feed your LCD HD tv a HD souce and avoid all this, in this particular case being a bit cheap on the tv won't have to much affect on the image.







