| Kwaad said: Yes, you are right, theoreticaly, you could get the same 'picture' out of 1080i and a 1080p source. However due to re-formatting to 1080i, and then BACK to 1080i, there will be substantial loss of image quality. Here's how I feel about it. 1080p from disc... decompressed, sent to TV, I see it. Not, 1080p from disc, de-compressed, re-formatted, sent to TV, remormatted, I see it. But hey, were talking about wal-mart people. My father-in-law, a local imbred as I like to call them. Bought a Polarid (I think) 26 or 32 inch TV from wal-mart, and was bitching about how 'HDTV' sucks, and how the reception is horrible. I told him. 'Your TV dont have a digital tuner. You cant watch HDTV on that TV, without a special tuner box.' He was like "that is stupid. Why is this a HDTV then, if it cant play HDTV?!' There's the southern mentality buying a 800$ TV they dont understand. |
There is no loss of information in "reformatting" a 1080i signal to 1080p, assuming the source material is 24 frames per second. Any display that has 3:2 pulldown capability can reconstruct the 1080p material perfectly with no loss.
@vizunary, yes, an interlaced display can only refresh every other line each cycle, but we were talking about a progressive display accepting an interlaced signal. If the source material is 24 fps, the progressive display can show the full frames all at once instead of interlaced.
