When was 1080p invented

Don't worry, though, TV processing has gotten really good at this and usually does a lot more than just "averaging" so the result is rather seamless. Now this is where an argument about p -- real p -- becomes worthwhile. A full frame-per-second p video would be awesome. Not because it's a higher resolution than i, but because it's a higher frame rate and not interlaced , so motion will be more detailed.

However, it's highly unlikely most people would ever see a difference. Compression artifacts in the source or edge enhancement in the display are far more detrimental to the image than deinterlacing. Reducing either of those two factors would have a bigger effect on the image.

So with full p, the subtle increase in motion detail isn't likely to be noticed. Movies and the beauty of Movies are, and will be for the foreseeable future, 24 frames per second.

Sure, James Cameron , Peter Jackson , and even Roger Ebert want to up the frame rate, but that's going to be an uphill battle. When it comes down to it, people equate 24fps with the magic of movies and higher frame rates with the real-world reality of video. Changing people's perception is a lot harder than twisting a dial on a video camera.

Note that I'm not arguing for or against higher frame rates here. Maybe in a future article. As we've discussed, this is actually less than i. This is most often due to other factors, like compression. At least, not yet. It maxes out at wait for it i! Funny how that works. Those of you astute at math will be wondering: how do you display 24fps on a 60fps display?

Not well, honestly. The trick is a sequence of frames colloquially referred to as , from pull-down , the method used. When shown on a 60Hz TV, they're arranged in a pattern, like this:. The first film frame is doubled, the second frame is tripled, the third is doubled, and so on. Although this means 60Hz TVs can operate with minimal processing effort, it results in a weird judder due to the bizarre duplication of frames. This is most noticeable during horizontal pans, where the camera seems to jerkily hesitate slightly during the movement.

Ideally, you'd be able to display duplicate frames without the sequence. One of the potential advantages of and Hz LCDs is the ability to display film content at an even multiple of 5x in the case of Hz, and 10x in the case of Hz.

Sadly, not all or Hz TVs have that ability. Some plasmas have the ability, but in many cases, it's a flickering 48Hz 96Hz is way better, and offered on some high-end models.

As an aside, the Soap Opera Effect is the TV creating frames to insert in-between the real film frames to get up to or Hz. This results in an ultra-smooth motion with film content that makes it look like video.

People fall into two distinct categories when they see the Soap Opera Effect: Those who hate it and want to vomit, and crazy people just kidding. For more info on this, check out " What is refresh rate? But what about games? As I discussed in my " 4K for the PS4? Who cares? Most are rendered i. Case in point: Gran Turismo 5 is rendered at 1,x pixels. Additional comments optional. You can offer your link to a page which is relevant to the topic of this post.

May 25, January 8, November 19, October 25, August 21, April 27, May 30, December 31, July 3, August 15, News Developments Ideas. The Development of HD Technology The earliest high-resolution experiments date back to the s and s , when resolution was measured in lines per screen.

But further development of analog HDTV was blocked by limited bandwidth. HD Today HDTV uses a standard called p, which delivers a resolution of xp, equivalent to 2,, pixels per frame 2. Some HDTVs do a better job of this de-interlacing process than others, but usually the artifacts caused by improper de-interlacing are difficult for most viewers to spot.

When I wrote my original article over three years ago, many p TVs weren't as sharp as they claimed to be on paper. By that, I mean a lot of older p sets couldn't necessarily display all 2 million-plus pixels in the real world--technically, speaking, they couldn't "resolve" every line of a i or p test pattern. That's changed in the last few years. Virtually all p sets are now capable of fully resolving i and p material, though not every p TV is created equal.

The 24 refers to the true frame rate of film-based content, and displaying it in its native format is supposed to give you a picture exactly as the director intended you to see it for a full explanation, click here. We still believe that when you're dealing with TVs 50 inches and smaller, the added resolution has only a very minor impact on picture quality.

In our tests, we put p or p sets next to p sets, then feed them both the same source material, whether it's i or p, from the highest-quality Blu-ray player. We typically watch both sets for a while, with eyes darting back and forth between the two, looking for differences in the most-detailed sections, such as hair, textures of fabric, and grassy plains. Bottom line: It's almost always very difficult to see any difference--especially from farther than 8 feet away on a inch TV.

I said so much in a column I wrote called " The case against p ," but some readers knocked us for not looking at high-end TVs in our tests. But the fact is, resolution is resolution, and whether you're looking at a Sony or a Westinghouse, p resolution--which relates to picture sharpness--is the same and is a separate issue from black levels and color accuracy.

Katzmaier stands by his previous analysis: The extra sharpness afforded by the p televisions he's seen is noticeable only when watching i or p sources on a larger screens, say 55 inches and bigger, or with projectors that display a wall-size picture.

Katzmaier also says that the main real-world advantage of p is not the extra sharpness you'll be seeing, but instead, the smaller, more densely packed pixels. In other words, you can sit closer to a p television and not notice any pixel structure, such as stair-stepping along diagonal lines, or the screen-door effect where you can actually see the space between the pixels.

This advantage applies regardless of the quality of the source. If you're just making the leap to HDTV and find the higher end sets out of your price range, you shouldn't feel bad about going with an entry-level p model just getting HD programming is going to make a huge difference.

Also, in a lot of cases, folks are looking at p TVs as second sets for bedrooms or playrooms, and in a tough economy, a few hundred bucks makes a big difference. That savings is enough to buy another inch LCD for another room.

If you're thinking of going big, really big a inch or larger screen , or you like to sit really close closer than 1. To be clear, there are few p sets available in large sizes anymore, though a few older models may be kicking around at good discounts.

Finally, it's a good idea to go with p instead of p if you plan to use your TV a lot as a big computer monitor.

That said, if you set your computer to output at 1,x1,, you may find that the icons and text on the screen are too small to view from far away as a result, you may end up zooming the desktop or even changing to a lower resolution.

But a p set does give you some added flexibility and sharpness when it comes to computer connectivity. If none of those factors jump out at you as true priorities--and you're working on a tight budget and want to save some dough--a p set is going to do you just fine. HD will still look great on your set, I swear. This column's just about p vs.