Darth Editus said:
Look closer:
Thats not a vary fair approach to prove your point. Your using 1080p jpg's that have been modified to actually show the difference. How about a side by side video comparison in 720p. The resolution that the edit will be in.
Mr Ghostface said:
Well obviously Ady has decided the blu-rays are the best source for his HD edit, so there's not much point having an ongoing debate about it. For one, the original HDTV broadcasts were NOT 1080p, they were 1080i, and although some people will argue that, I work for the broadcaster that showed them, and there are NO 1080p broadcasts. Either way the blu-rays are very good, clean transfers for the most part and I think Ady is doing the right thing.You're right, I was just clarifying as people seem to believe the broadcasts were 1080p, which isn't the case. No biggie
All media is interlaced on TV, the cable or dish boxes can either do progressive or interlaced scanning. Progressing scanning will give you a better picture. The problem with cable broadcasts is the inherent ground noise within the signal due to how the signal is transferred. You need a line conditioner to minimize it. I have a line conditioner hooked up to my cable box, and the picture looks fantastic, very clean looking compared to how it looks without one.
Most people don't know this but the 1080i signal is actually a 1920x540 resolution signal where every other frame (actually called a field) is interlaced with the frame after it, giving you a perceived total resolution of 1920x1080.