<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>mdrejhon - ProductWiki</title>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <link>http://www.productwiki.com/mdrejhon/</link>
    <description>Activity feed</description>
    <item>
      <title>mdrejhon commented on Does 1080p matter? or: How close can I sit to my TV? </title>
      <link>http://www.productwiki.com/mdrejhon/#item-21830</link>
      <description>&lt;div&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;August 29, 2007 at 1:19 pm&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;"For 1080i watching sports motion, there's actually 60 distinct images. Basically, it's 540 scanlines of one image (i.e. the odd scanlines) followed by 1/60th of a second followed by another 540 scanlines of the next images (i.e. even scanlines). These images are called 'fields'. Interlaced images at 30 frames per second have the same temporal resolution as 60 frames per second. (assuming 2 fields per frame -- two frames interleaved into one frame, and then displayed 1/60th of a second apart which results in the original temporal resolution of 60 per second). ... In simple terms, there's no difference in temporal resolution between 1080i/30fps (60i) and 1080p/60fps (60p) when watching full framerate video sources like sports. Therefore, the &amp;quot;30fps versus 60fps&amp;quot; argument doesn't apply here.&amp;nbsp; Granted, images can look better because they don't need to be deinterlaced, but 1080p/60 doesn't have the temporal resolution advantage that some people think, because they misunderstand the relationship between temporal resolution and framerate when it comes to interlaced displays -- the framerate is actually 60, but we call it the 'fieldrate' since a frame needs to be full resolution.&amp;nbsp; Two distinct images at half vertical resolution constitute one frame, and so, 2 separate images (taken 1/60th of a second apart by the videocamera), are woven ('interleaved') into one frame.&amp;nbsp; When broadcast/played/etc from a video-based source (not film-based), you get the original temporal resolution (at half vertical resolution per image) of 60 images per second.&amp;nbsp; Therefore, 1080p/60fps ('60p')&amp;nbsp;has no temporal resolution advantage over 1080i/30fps ('60i').&amp;nbsp; Just spatial resolution advantage, and no need to deinterlace.Some video cameras take 30fps and some take 60fps -- you can tell apart 30fps vs 60fps converted to 1080i, and you can tell apart 30fps vs 60fps broadcast at 1080p, simply because the temporal resolution of both 1080i and 1080p are both 60. (60 fields per second for 1080i, and 60 frames per second for 1080p) P.S. - I have worked in the video industry, and also have designed some scaler/deinterlacer algorithms.&amp;nbsp; So as an engineer, I know what I am speaking about.&amp;nbsp; (Terminology can vary though - you have seen some sites confuse 1080i/30 with 1080i/60 -- without saying whether that's the framerate (30) or fieldrate (60) .... You get what I mean.)"&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:19:30 -0400</pubDate>
      <author>mdrejhon</author>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.productwiki.com/mdrejhon/#item-21830</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>mdrejhon joined the site </title>
      <link>http://www.productwiki.com/mdrejhon/#item-163558</link>
      <description>&lt;div&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;August 29, 2007 at 1:02 pm&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:02:47 -0400</pubDate>
      <author>mdrejhon</author>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.productwiki.com/mdrejhon/#item-163558</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
