Digital TV clarifications: It's a 1080i world out there

I heard from more than a few readers of my digital TV column in Saturday's Daily News.

One reader contended with my suggestion that a larger TV might not look so swell up close when compared to a smaller screen of similar resolution.

That reader said that the resolution of such TVs are so good that even bigger screens up close look good.

Since getting my own HDTV in the past few days, a low-rent 22-inch Vizio LCD, I'm almost inclined to believe it. I still think, however, that a 46-inch set sitting a mere 7 or 8 feet from my head just might be a bit overwhelming, especially to my small-TV psyche, which has spend quite a bit of time in front of a 13-inch analog set.

However, I'll amend my recommendation to say that you should still measure the distance and angle from which you'll be regularly viewing the set and still audition potential TV purchases from that angle. Look at everything you can, take notes on quality and price, and then make your decision.

And as I said in the column (although I think this part got cut for space reasons), whatever you buy now is going to be a huge leap forward in quality — especially if you're going to be viewing an HD signal (either over the air, or via cable or satellite), and you'll be pretty much amazed at what you're looking at. With the rapid advancement in TV technology, who knows what'll be available five years from now. I bet it'll be cheaper TVs that process bits and bytes faster, output them to better screens and generally improve the viewing experience by huge leaps.

So just like I suggest with computers, don't overspend for a TV today. Digital TV technology is, if not in its infancy, still in its toddler stage. Buy something in the midrange (or for less) and then feel better about getting something a whole lot better five years down the road, knowing you enjoyed your cheap TV while the industry fell all over itself to build something better, faster, stronger and cheaper.

Another reader pointed out that almost all full-power broadcast stations are transmitting in 1080i resolution and not 720p. That's true.

I got that one wrong. I didn't do enough research, and ABC-TV's Web site led me well astray. As I've seen for myself, the dial is full of 1080i signals.

That same reader pointed out something I already did know: That over-the-air broadcasters can't transmit in 1080p because they don't have enough bandwidth in their signals to do so.

This very smart reader (he's an engineer, I think) also said that a 1080p signal could potentially look too jerky on screen because it doesn't refresh as often as a 1080i signal of the same refresh rate due to the doubled number of passes at creating the image that an interlaced signal has over the progressive-scan signal.

Did I get that right?

All of this terminology is way too technical for the average TV viewer, and I'm having a bit of trouble with it, too.

To clarify again: The cheaper TVs with 720p resolution can receive and display the 1080i signals transmitted by most stations. The more expensive 1080p receivers will display the same signals in 1080i mode. They will also render a Blu-ray DVD at 1080p with more detail.

Manufacturers aren't helping the matter any. All TVs with 1080p resolution seem to advertise and label themselves as such. But the lower-resolution sets are sometimes called 720p, sometimes 1080i, sometimes none of the above.

Again, it's very confusing.

But having two kinds of resolution dominate the TV landscape (720p/1080i and 1080p) isn't profoundly confusing.

And I predict that a couple of years down the road, there will be no more 720p/1080i, just 1080p (with the ability to receive and display all of the digital TV modes out there, just like now).

That will make it easier for TV buyers.

So if I, myself, led any readers astray, I apologize. I'm learning about this just like you.

Technological transitions are always difficult, and buying just about anything is a bit of a gamble.