Sony PS3: Doom & Gloom → Re: XBox

Actually it is: 1080i film-based content can become true 1080p

The following examples refer to content that is encoded in progressive-scan form during recording or transmission—what would be considered "native" progressive signals. However, where 24 fps film-based material is concerned, a 1080i encoded/transmitted stream can become a true "1080p" signal during playback by deinterlacing to re-combine the split field pairs into their original progressive film-scanned frames. Regarding 24 fps film-source material presented in conventional 1080i60 form, the deinterlacing process that achieves this goal is usually referred to as "3-2 pulldown reversal". The importance of this is that, where film-based content is concerned, all 1080-interlaced signals are potentially 1080p signals given the proper deinterlacing. As long as no additional image-degradation steps were applied during signal mastering (such as excessive vertical-pass filtering), the image from a properly deinterlaced film-source 1080i signal and a native-encoded 1080p signal will look exactly the same. As more and more processors and displays come to market able to apply 3-2 pulldown reversal to film-based 1080i60 signals, the amount of available "1080p" content for viewing expands (encompassing film-based 1080i60 feeds from broadcast HD, cable, and satellite).

Source: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p

If it's outputting 1080i/60, then it can becomes 1080p/30.

look back at the original statment. user said that 1080i could be upconverted to 1080p No comment was made about the original source material. I'm not going to ASSUME that the originating signal is carrying 1080/24f.

again 1080i != to 1080p

Supafly, here's a question...

What film-based content next-gen game do you know that will run at 24 fps?

none.

also, do you really want to play a game at 24fps? I know I dont. 30 is just barely acceptable.

I stand corrected, if it's being upconverted then it's not the same. If the source material is being deinterlaced at half the speed, then we're all good.

I doubt anyone will be playing 1080p games at 60fps anytime soon either.

Which is probably the main reason that no one is releasing any 1080p games at launch.

Interlacing simply takes half of the vertical resolution and places it into a field, instead of a frame. The other hald of the vertical resolution is contained in a second field. The two fields are combined into a frame. The frame plays at the same rate as a progressive frame, BUT each of the two fields within the frame must share their allotted frame-time.

The act of interlacing video is not difficult nor process-intensive, but the reverse is also true: to deinterlace and interlaced frame it is very process-intensive in order to not lose information, or cause deinterlacing anomalies (artifacts).

A lot of manufacturers cheap their way out of deinterlacing by simply throwing away one of the fields in each frame thereby leaving a progressive frame of half the resolution. They then simply line-double this and call it the progressive original resolution. Those people should be shot, IMO.

As video codecs get more and more efficient at compressing video, the task of deinterlacing get's even more difficult. Why? Because, you can only scale a progressive frame, which means deinterlacing comes first. The next part is that deinterlacing must be done in the uncompressed world, and not while compressed in a cozy MPEG-2/4 codec.

The Microsoft Xbox 360 cannot do 1080P, but then again neither can any of the currently available HD DVD players either even though their movies are mastered-to-the disk as 1080P. But the 360 is worse as its mother doesn't believe in anything beyond 720P at this time.