Talk:720i

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 January 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to 720p.

Hardware supporting 720i

It seems some Hardware supports 720i. For example:

Definition

Is this really accurate?

According to the Wikipedia article, EDTV has the resolutions 480p60, 576p50, 720i50, 720i60, 720p24, 720p25, 720p30

720p originated because the computer industry didn't want HDTV to use interlace scanning. (It clashes with digital compression and rendering.) They picked that number of scan lines because at 60 fps 720p has about the same number of pixels-per-second as 1080/30i, so the same chips and circuits could be used for both. 720i doesn't really serve any purpose by that logic. The famous "18 format chart" in the refs details all the official recommendations for DTV, and you'll see that 720i is not included, and would drive the number above 18 if you added it. I'll go look at that EDTV article. Algr 15:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be changed, and fixed into a stub. 720i and 720p is entirely different. Interlace and Progressive Scanning Modes. I'm going to fix this. Imper1um 01:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, 720i is not a real standard and is not broadcast or received anywhere. While such a standard is possible, it would serve no purpose given the current trends and advances in technology. Algr 02:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is possible, used in many games (Xbox 360 games), and is fully supported by many American HDTVs. I would know, my work has 450 of them. >.< Imper1um 04:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's still wrong. 720i is not a real HDTV standard used anywhere. If you can cough up a model no. for a TV that actually uses 720i as its highest resolution, I apologize. But for the time being, I will assume you are mistaken, also. RyokoYaksa 13:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong / out of date

There is a section on 720i on the 720p page, so it is not just an mistake that people make. Somebody should sort this out. I do not know enough on the subject to do it myself. Jason404 (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such section. This is just misinformation repeating itself. 720i would not save any bandwidth as compared to 720p, and would cause all sorts of pointless complexity. Please post references if you have them. Algr (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

720i is just a mistake.

IMHO, The most important thing about 720i is that it is just misinformation. This is the main thing that the article should say. Describing the system any further then that risks being original research, so it is more important to discuss why people make this mistake. Algr (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but "typically a typo" and the entire second paragraph are original research. I put theoretical because it is: if there were an interlaced 720-line format, this designation would follow the naming convention. It's not defined by the standard, and I included that. "Erroneous term" would indicate that it's not physically possible; it is, even if it isn't used. Replace "theoretical" with "hypothetical" perhaps, but it needs reliable sources for the rest. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It gets a bit tricky when your source is something that is not said. (The 18 format chart.) But it seems we agree on the facts, and you are right that it could be OR either way. I guess the question is what is the right response to viral misinformation that spreads around the net on forums and such. Most people skim across articles and don't realize they have picked up misinformation, so I think the best response is to clearly state that at the outset. As far as where 720i comes from, in any given post, there are only three possibilities:

1) It is a typo.

2) The writer is misinformed.

3) The writer is intentionally spreading misinformation.

I certainly wouldn't accuse anyone of #3 without hard evidence, and #2 isn't very flattering either, so assuming #1 is more polite. I suppose to be safe we could just eliminate all but this: "720i is an erroneous term found in numerous sources and publications. No proposed or existing broadcast standard permits 720 interlaced lines in a video frame at any frame rate." Algr (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was worried that an assumption like that above was too much original research. I have, however, found a book source that I think will work: HDTV for Dummies, page 13. The official ATSC page showing that there is no 720i in the standard would probably be better as well: [1]. I'll go ahead and source it with those; should be fine. The second paragraph still reeks of OR; maybe a source with technical data would work for that. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know that HDTV for dummies quote sounds close enough to what I wrote to think that they may have gotten the information from here. Should I be scared? Algr (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under What links here there are a few shows listed as being broadcast in 720i. I take it this is a mistake and those should be changed to 720p, right? I'll do so if not one beats me to it, but I'd like confirmation first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.83.100 (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]