Like many here, I am a constant upgrader if I can get another bit of performance that I can justify the cost to myself. So, like many, I wanted to go "Full HD" and get the best video I can for my Home Theater. So, I ordered a Panasonic 10000 to replace my Panny 900. Last night, I got everything connected and calibrated with Avia and sat down for some tasty 1080 viewing. I tried HDNet, InHD, ESPN and HD-DVD. Let's just say there was no WOW factor. None, nada, zilch. As time passed, I looked HARD for the improvement over my AE900 (100" high contrast screen). Couldn't find it- at all.

Now, I have thought since 1080P started coming out that it would be hard to justify in a FP TV, but I certainly thought my 100" screen would do the trick (seating is about 10 ft.). But it didn't. Sadly, in the wee hours of the morning, I packed up the 10000, reconnected the 900 and went through another hour or so looking for the difference (still didn't see it). Needless to say this "award winner" is going back.

So, my conclusion is this: 1080P doesn't beat 720P- why bother? And, what size would the difference show up? 150"? more?

Your best chance of spotting a difference is with 1080p material and then at viewing distances that many would consider extreme.

Your 1080p panasonic should have had better contrast than your 720p and you should have seen that right off the bat with the right kind of material. Also, the AE900 is notoriously not that sharp because of smoothscreen. You should have seen better sharpness on the 1080p unit.

I couldn't disagree more in my case. I'm watching my dVision 1080p on a 106" wide 1.78:1 screen from 12' ( 1.4 screen widths ) and on a 118" wide scope screen from 12' 6" ( 1.3 screen widths ) and compared to my H79 720p projector, which I could barely see some screen door on the 106" wide screen ( it couldn't fill the 118" screen ) the picture is smoother, more 3d looking, more " real " looking and there is a whole other level of detail with HDTV and HD DVD's. And zero screen door. i could sit closer even, although I think I'm close enough now.

Your best chance of spotting a difference is with 1080p material and then at viewing distances that many would consider extreme.

Your 1080p panasonic should have had better contrast than your 720p and you should have seen that right off the bat with the right kind of material. Also, the AE900 is notoriously not that sharp because of smoothscreen. You should have seen better sharpness on the 1080p unit.
Both of these include smooth screen. Is that possibly why the difference was not noticable?

Hate to burst bubbles (1080P vs. 720P)
No bubbles burst...:)

If you can't see the difference, then by all means save yourself some money and stick with 720p. Heck, even 480p looks great if you sit far enough away from the screen!

If you can't see the difference, then by all means save yourself some money and stick with 720p. Heck, even 480p looks great if you sit far enough away from the screen!

Well put Bob. I think that is the key - how far away you sit from the screen.

I couldn't disagree more in my case. I'm watching my dVision 1080p on a 106" wide 1.78:1 screen from 12' ( 1.4 screen widths ) and on a 118" wide scope screen from 12' 6" ( 1.3 screen widths ) and compared to my H79 720p projector, which I could barely see some screen door on the 106" wide screen ( it couldn't fill the 118" screen ) the picture is smoother, more 3d looking, more " real " looking and there is a whole other level of detail with HDTV and HD DVD's. And zero screen door. i could sit closer even, although I think I'm close enough now.

This is what I expected, but i didn't see it. Had I gone from an AE500 to the 10000, maybe the bang would have been there. The contrast is possibly better on the 10000 than the 900, but wasn't noticable to me. Maybe it does have something to do with the smooth screen, which from my 1.4 seating distance, totally eliminates SDE.

Well put Bob. I think that is the key - how far away you sit from the screen.

But, I even tried sitting at a 1.0 distance and couldn't tell a difference. Anything closer than that makes it hard to follow the action....

Both of these include smooth screen. Is that possibly why the difference was not noticable?

It is possible.

I, for one, don't think that resolution, in and of itself is an improvement (at least going from 720p to 1080p). You need a projector with better optics, better contrast and perhaps other things.

There was a recent thread about this in which a group took two projectors that were identical except for resolution and did a blind study of different kinds of material. No one could tell the difference between the projectors.

Moral of the story: don't shop for a projector based solely on resolution.

Well put Bob. I think that is the key - how far away you sit from the screen.


And also ones eyesight. If the OP cant see a big difference at the distance quoted, there is something badly amiss. The difference for me was pretty big.

And also ones eyesight. If the OP cant see a big difference at the distance quoted, there is something badly amiss. The difference for me was pretty big.

Did you also go from the 900 to the 1000? As I said earlier, had I changed from earlier LCDs, I would have most likely spotted a big difference, but I still am not sure that the resolution would have been that difference.

I wonder how many people going from older 720 PJs to new 1080Pjs are getting the WOW factor from other improvements than the resolution.? That would seem to me to mean it would better to just spend the same $ on a much better 720 machhine.

BTW, my vision is still 20/20 (knock on wood).... :)

No bubbles burst...:)

If you can't see the difference, then by all means save yourself some money and stick with 720p. Heck, even 480p looks great if you sit far enough away from the screen!


Very interesting observation, Bob. Last year I went to the HD-DVD show hosted by Microsoft and the HD-DVD consortium and they had a Marantz VP-11S1 1080p projector but I sat quite far back in their trailer which was set up as a HT. Although the image was excellent, to be honest, I saw very little difference between the Marantz and my 72op Mits HC3000.

Try the new JVC DLA-RS1.

Try the new JVC DLA-RS1.

At this point I might. But, I am thinking it will be the contrast and processing capabilities that might swing it for me, not the resolution.

No surprise there. When it comes to visual acuity, resolution is a distant fourth. Most noticeable with visual perception is: 1 – contrast, 2 – color hue, 3 – color saturation and 4 – resolution. It’s just that resolution is an easy number to market to consumers, the higher the resolution, the better the quality. Not necessarily. The thread about the Athens, Greece shootout is a good read, comparing 1080P to 720P. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=767929&page=1&pp=30

Corrected.

It was Athens, not Georgia but Greece.

Here is the link to this excellent thread.

Link (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=799340&highlight=athens)

No surprise there. When it comes to visual acuity, resolution is a distant fourth. Most noticeable with visual perception is: 1 – contrast, 2 – color hue, 3 – color saturation and 4 – resolution. It’s just that resolution is an easy number to market to consumers, the higher the resolution, the better the quality. Not necessarily. The thread about the Athens, Georgia shootout is a good read, comparing 1080P to 720P.


I believe that shootout was in Athens, Greece! :)

It was Athens, not Georgia but Greece.

Here is the link to this excellent thread.

Link (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=799340&highlight=athens)


Post #20 has a very large error in it. The pixels are not rotated 45 degrees and projected as diamonds.

I own a BenQ W9000 and my pixels are perfect squares and I do not see the dots in the center as depicted in post #20.

Perhaps they received a wobulated W10000 or some image processing error. If it were not for post #20 I would be tempted to agree with some of the conclusions.

Also the PE8720 (720p) was ceiling mounted and the W10000 (1080p) was table mounted.

k

No surprise there. When it comes to visual acuity, resolution is a distant fourth. Most noticeable with visual perception is: 1 – contrast, 2 – color hue, 3 – color saturation and 4 – resolution. It’s just that resolution is an easy number to market to consumers, the higher the resolution, the better the quality. Not necessarily. The thread about the Athens, Georgia shootout is a good read, comparing 1080P to 720P.

Not as simple as that at all. A well colored PJ with good CR @ 480p will die compared to similar compared to 1080p. Ther are limits and a system must be balanced.

If it were as simple as your list then colored SD would be better than an HD black and white.... totally not the case

A person with 20/20 vision should be able to fully resolve a 1920x1080 image from 1.56x the diagonal (16:9). Beyond that you can't fully resolve it. However, you can still see some resolution advantage over 720p until 2.34x the diagonal. Beyond 2.34x the diagonal you can't even fully resolve 720p.

To the OP, maybe your vision is sub par, or your sources are sub par.

Post #20 has a very large error in it. The pixels are not rotated 45 degrees and projected as diamonds.

I own a BenQ W9000 and my pixels are perfect squares and I do not see the dots in the center as depicted in post #20.

Perhaps they received a wobulated W10000 or some image processing error. If it were not for post #20 I would be tempted to agree with some of the conclusions.

Also the PE8720 (720p) was ceiling mounted and the W10000 (1080p) was table mounted.

k

Look at Post #60. Post #20 was an error.

I sit at 1.7 times screen width. If I traded up to 1080 from 720, would I see a difference in resolution, given my seating distance?

IB

Anyone reading this thread may be interested in a recent Secrets article on why 1080p matters.

Very detailed and worth the time to read and understand.

Link:
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_14_1/feature-article-1080p-3-2007-part-1.html

A person with 20/20 vision should be able to fully resolve a 1920x1080 image from 1.56x the diagonal (16:9). Beyond that you can't fully resolve it. However, you can still see some resolution advantage over 720p until 2.34x the diagonal. Beyond 2.34x the diagonal you can't even fully resolve 720p.

To the OP, maybe your vision is sub par, or your sources are sub par.

I have heard this, or similar, information but no one has ever cited to a reputable source for it. Do you have one?

I have heard this, or similar, information but no one has ever cited to a reputable source for it. Do you have one?http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Tech-Corner/Hoffner_features.shtml

I was sitting 1.75 screen widths from a 720p projector and could see screen door. I now sit 1.2 screen widths from a 1080p and can't see any screen door.

Did they give you the special glasses?? I got mine with the Sim 3000 and when i looked closely at the bottom of the screen it said, "I buried Paul"--could never make it out on 720

http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Tech-Corner/Hoffner_features.shtml

That article, while interesting, does not appear to stand for that proposition. If I am wrong about this, please explain it to me because I would like to understand it.

At this point I might. But, I am thinking it will be the contrast and processing capabilities that might swing it for me, not the resolution.


Its a combination of things that make a car great...not one. Same with projectors.

You can ask JVC to build you a 720 version. For the rest of us I'm thinking we may want the 1080p.

Damn you almost burst my bubble ;)

Its a combination of things that make a car great...not one. Same with projectors.

You can ask JVC to build you a 720 version. For the rest of us I'm thinking we may want the 1080p.

Damn you almost burst my bubble ;)

If JVC did build a 720p version that was priced right they might just own the entire market.

Don't get me wrong, 1080p is not bad. It's just that its appears not to be noticable to most people.

If JVC did build a 720p version that was priced right they might just own the entire market.

Don't get me wrong, 1080p is not bad. It's just that its appears not to be noticable to most people.

You are assuming that a 720p unit would be cheaper for them to build. Doubtful, to offer any substantial price savings to the customer.

In fact it may cost more now that 1080p is becoming the standard

When I jumped from 720P (H79) to 1080P (VW50) the resolution was absolutely noticeable with HD material from my seating distance. In fact, I rearranged the room to place the seating closer (front row 9 ft.) to my 110" screen. There are likely many factors including the actual projector technology screen size and material, source, not to mention the viewers vision, preferences, expectations, etc.

When I jumped from 720P (H79) to 1080P (VW50) the resolution was absolutely noticeable with HD material from my seating distance. In fact, I rearranged the room to place the seating closer (front row 9 ft.) to my 110" screen. There are likely many factors including the actual projector technology screen size and material, source, not to mention the viewers vision, preferences, expectations, etc.

I can understand this. When you are 9' from a 110" screen I believe that it is possible for some to see pixel structure (or some effects of the pixel structure) on a 720p PJ.

I can't make out a hint of it at 12' from a 106" screen.

I think that the ability to sit very close is 1080p's main benefit.

For me, the main selling points of my next projector will be contrast and brightness. I am sure that that projector will incidentaly also be 1080p.

I'm with larrimore. I did this same experiment in my home over Christmas with a brand new Epson TW1000 1080p and a brand new Epson TW700 720p. Side by side, same 106" screen, same time, with BluRay and HD-DVD, at ANY distance, I could not see more detail with the 1080p projector.

I saw differences in contrast, colors and brightness, but I tried as hard as I could and was unable to see more detail. My eyesight is 20/20, my wife's eyesight is 20/15. I had top notch sources, top notch equipment, no smoothscreen, and it's simply not there.

No one wants to believe it. They keep whipping out graphs, charts, and articles about how it SHOULD be there. And lots of folks upgraded and are going by memory when they say they saw a "big difference'. It's placebo effect. You go looking for details that you weren't noticing with the old projector. People who've done side by side tests agree, it's not there.

I kept the 1080p projector purely for the lack of screen door, the improved blacks and contrast. But not for more detail.

I was sitting 1.75 screen widths from a 720p projector and could see screen door. I now sit 1.2 screen widths from a 1080p and can't see any screen door.

Exactly! To me, this is the single biggest advantage of 1080p over 720p. I definitely can see SDE on my 720p projector at 1.4 sw.

Exactly! To me, this is the single biggest advantage of 1080p over 720p. I definitely can see SDE on my 720p projector at 1.4 sw.
Agreed, and for the OP using smoothscreen on both, that really didn't come into play, so besides the blacks/contrast improvements of the new D6 panels, he didn't see much change.

Exactly! To me, this is the single biggest advantage of 1080p over 720p. I definitely can see SDE on my 720p projector at 1.4 sw.

And therefore you have exeeded the possible detail of 720. If someone, at that sistance cannot tell the difference between a 1M pixel image and one double that, there is something wrong with the eyes, the source or the display. I can easily see the difference at 1.5 sw. The fact you cant see it doesnt mean its not there. If you can, it means it is.

And therefore you have exeeded the possible detail of 720. If someone, at that sistance cannot tell the difference between a 1M pixel image and one double that, there is something wrong with the eyes, the source or the display. I can easily see the difference at 1.5 sw. The fact you cant see it doesnt mean its not there. If you can, it means it is.

There is a difference between a loss of detail (which was not found) and evidence of pixel structure (which was). I am not sure which is more objectional, I would guess SDE. I would also expect that with LCD projectors, SDE would dramatically decrease between generations as LCDs have now largely conquered that problem. This appears to be confirmed by the posters.

I still would ask for someone to provide some reputable evidence, a study or otherwise, about the human eye's ability to resolve such detail at various distances.

Don't forget about possible scaling artifacts when displaying a 1080 signal on a 720p machine (although I don't think this is a big problem).

hold a 6 inch photo 9 inches fron your face. If you cant see a difference between 1Mpixel and 2M pixel then stick to 720p. I've yet to meet anyone in the real world who cant see the difference at 1.5 sw.

I was sitting 1.75 screen widths from a 720p projector and could see screen door. I now sit 1.2 screen widths from a 1080p and can't see any screen door.
Exactly! To me, this is the single biggest advantage of 1080p over 720p. I definitely can see SDE on my 720p projector at 1.4 sw.

I agree 100%. With 1080p I can now comfortably sit in my first row and not be bothered by SDE.

OP - thanks for posting this. I'm a very happy owner of an AE900 and have been in no particular hurry to upgrade to 1080p. I'm sure that I will at some point but your post, and others like them, help me to simply remain satisfied with the AE900 for now. To those who are suggesting that there is "something wrong with a person's eyes," I would suggest that aging and natural deficiencies such as astygmatism don't equate to our eyes being a problem. Maybe they're just not "1080p-enabled." :)

That article, while interesting, does not appear to stand for that proposition. If I am wrong about this, please explain it to me because I would like to understand it.Sure it does. Take the base assumption of, "Solving the previous equation using an angle of 60 arc seconds or 0.01667 degree, we find that the distance at which the foveal region of the 20/20 eye may resolve lines 1 mm apart is 3,438 mm or about 11.3 feet." and extrapolate it to relate seating distance to the diagonal and you'll get the numbers I quoted earlier.

To be fair, I designed my new home theater specifically for a 1080p projector. I never would have put in as big a screen and had the seating as close if I was designing a theater around a 720p projector. If you are swapping out a 720p machine and keeping the same size screen and same seating distance, you might not see that big an improvement!

I have no illusions that going from 720 to 1080 is going to be an orgasmic experience when viewing standard 16.9 material. But what I am hoping to achieve, is not loosing sharpness when I expand / stretch the image to fill my 2.35 screen. When I stretch my 720 image to fill the screen, there is a noticeable difference in sharpness. More so with SD material. Less with HD.

Is this just wishful thinking on my part?

Sure it does. Take the base assumption of, "Solving the previous equation using an angle of 60 arc seconds or 0.01667 degree, we find that the distance at which the foveal region of the 20/20 eye may resolve lines 1 mm apart is 3,438 mm or about 11.3 feet." and extrapolate it to relate seating distance to the diagonal and you'll get the numbers I quoted earlier.

I follow your math but not your reasoning. The sentence you quote suggests that someone with 20/20 vision can see two lines that are 1mm apart at 11.3 feet. To make your analogy work for detail level wouldn't you need data on what level of detail is being projected on screen? To make your analogy work for pixel structure, wouldn't you need to know how far apart the pixels in each kind of projector are?

Thanks for explaining.

Resolving test patterns and lines of stark contrast difference is not applicable in this case, and that's what folks keep presenting. Try to watch actual material, even pause it on the same screen and see if you can see the difference.

Agreed, and for the OP using smoothscreen on both, that really didn't come into play, so besides the blacks/contrast improvements of the new D6 panels, he didn't see much change.

I guess my point should be 1080P not worth it on Panasonic projectors, or maybe "save money, get a 720P projector with smoothcreen". :D

Resolving test patterns and lines of stark contrast difference is not applicable in this case, and that's what folks keep presenting. Try to watch actual material, even pause it on the same screen and see if you can see the difference.

I can. However, my new 1080p projector has a lens that costs more than a Pearl. So the upgrade for me was bigger than most peoples.

OP - thanks for posting this. I'm a very happy owner of an AE900 and have been in no particular hurry to upgrade to 1080p. I'm sure that I will at some point but your post, and others like them, help me to simply remain satisfied with the AE900 for now. To those who are suggesting that there is "something wrong with a person's eyes," I would suggest that aging and natural deficiencies such as astygmatism don't equate to our eyes being a problem. Maybe they're just not "1080p-enabled." :)

Just for fun, I am thinking about getting a friend's AX1000 and try it out. It has much more brightness and higher contrrast (still 720P). I'll see if the WOW factor is in these factors rather than the resolution.

UPDATE: My friend is going to try to bring his PJ over tonight for a comparison. That is if our wives will let us.

I have no illusions that going from 720 to 1080 is going to be an orgasmic experience when viewing standard 16.9 material. But what I am hoping to achieve, is not loosing sharpness when I expand / stretch the image to fill my 2.35 screen. When I stretch my 720 image to fill the screen, there is a noticeable difference in sharpness. More so with SD material. Less with HD.

Is this just wishful thinking on my part?

I figured in my initial post that some size would certainly make the difference. However, I still don't buy many of the other's contention that they see it. AGAIN- with the Panasonics, there was no difference at 1.0 screen widths. I didn't check closer than that, because I cannot foresee ever sitting closer than that.

Resolving test patterns and lines of stark contrast difference is not applicable in this case, and that's what folks keep presenting. Try to watch actual material, even pause it on the same screen and see if you can see the difference.

I think that you have made a very important point. For instance, someone with 20/20 vision who is able to resolve two lines that are 1 mm apart at 11.3', may be able to do this when concentrating on resolving those stationary lines. I doubt very much whether those same lines could be resolved at that distance with even minimal movement, as would be found in any movie scene.

I can. However, my new 1080p projector has a lens that costs more than a Pearl. So the upgrade for me was bigger than most peoples.

Good post, but I wonder how much of the improvement was simply the resolution? Not much unless you went for a much bigger screen. That's part of my point.

I have no illusions that going from 720 to 1080 is going to be an orgasmic experience when viewing standard 16.9 material. But what I am hoping to achieve, is not loosing sharpness when I expand / stretch the image to fill my 2.35 screen. When I stretch my 720 image to fill the screen, there is a noticeable difference in sharpness. More so with SD material. Less with HD.

Is this just wishful thinking on my part?


Sharpness will not be an issue so long as your original screen height is within the bounds of sensibility and the light output of your PJ. I scoped my 8ft image with a borrowed lens to see if anamorphic was for me. I retracted my screen and threw onto a wall and was rewarded with a razor sharp, near 11 ft image. There is no going back.... My precious.

Here’s an interesting article I read in a trade mag from last year. In a convoluted, round-about way, the engineer makes his point about resolution and perception.

http://televisionbroadcast.com/articles/article_1406.shtml

I figured in my initial post that some size would certainly make the difference. However, I still don't buy many of the other's contention that they see it. AGAIN- with the Panasonics, there was no difference at 1.0 screen widths. I didn't check closer than that, because I cannot foresee ever sitting closer than that.

Try using very contrasty material like darker scenes in movies and see if those show a difference. They should!

I can easily say the increased res from 720 to 1080 offers a clear visible improvement. I went from the Z5 to the RS1 and the RS1 has more fine detail and the image is smoother. I see detail in my hd dvds and bluray discs that I didnt see before as well as other sources like the xbox 360 and HD cable. Yes I know the LCOS vs LCD thing is a reason for that but obviously the increased amount of pixels helps in smoothness as well.

The diff isn't night and day but IMO it is clearly there and is worth having a 1080p pj.

I'm sitting around 1.8x width away.

I can easily say the increased res from 720 to 1080 offers a clear visible improvement. I went from the Z5 to the RS1 and the RS1 has more fine detail and the image is smoother. I see detail in my hd dvds and bluray discs that I didnt see before as well as other sources like the xbox 360 and HD cable. Yes I know the LCOS vs LCD thing is a reason for that but obviously the increased amount of pixels helps in smoothness as well.

The diff isn't night and day but IMO it is clearly there and is worth having a 1080p pj.

I'm sitting around 1.8x width away.

No offense, but at 1.8x, I just don't buy it. I think the contrast, lumen output, etc. has you thinking it is resolution (not to mention the fact that the RS1 is different technology too).

I can easily say the increased res from 720 to 1080 offers a clear visible improvement. I went from the Z5 to the RS1 and the RS1 has more fine detail and the image is smoother. I see detail in my hd dvds and bluray discs that I didnt see before as well as other sources like the xbox 360 and HD cable. Yes I know the LCOS vs LCD thing is a reason for that but obviously the increased amount of pixels helps in smoothness as well.

The diff isn't night and day but IMO it is clearly there and is worth having a 1080p pj.

I'm sitting around 1.8x width away.

I think that those upgrading from 720p LCDs have the most to gain from an upgrade to 1080p, especially when they upgrade to a nice projector like an RS1. You are definitely seeing more detail because your Z5 was incapable of displaying it for a variety of reasons incluidn its dynamic iris, and poor natice panel resolution.

I certainly wouldn't spend even one dollar more on a 1080 plasma or LCD. That one is certainly a marketing ploy. That is of course unless you sit right on top of it.

Good post, but I wonder how much of the improvement was simply the resolution? Not much unless you went for a much bigger screen. That's part of my point.


As i've mentioned on a few threads here before.... I recently swapped out 2 x 720p PJs for 2 x 1080p PJs. Same mount, same screen, same viewing distance. I had been using the 720s for over 2 years and was very familiar with a great deal of material on my media servers. The new PJs took literally 10min each to set up. The difference was immediately obvious. HD-DVD was significanly better. HD-TV was also much better. PC, 360 and PS3 were far better. Photos were in a totally different class.

No placebo effect. If i couldnt see the difference i wouldnt have bought the PJs in the first place.

As i've mentioned on a few threads here before.... I recently swapped out 2 x 720p PJs for 2 x 1080p PJs. Same mount, same screen, same viewing distance. I had been using the 720s for over 2 years and was very familiar with a great deal of material on my media servers. The new PJs took literally 10min each to set up. The difference was immediately obvious. HD-DVD was significanly better. HD-TV was also much better. PC, 360 and PS3 were far better. Photos were in a totally different class.

No placebo effect. If i couldnt see the difference i wouldnt have bought the PJs in the first place.

I do believe you, but going from 2 year old projectors even to newer 720P projectors would have been a big improvement in and of itself. I still think much of the difference comes from improvements other than the number of pixels on the screen.
i think the reason that the two PJs I used was so telling was that the specs on the two in terms of light output are similar and the contrast is not so much higher to be the same as going from my old AE500 to the 900 with its iris.

As i've mentioned on a few threads here before.... I recently swapped out 2 x 720p PJs for 2 x 1080p PJs. Same mount, same screen, same viewing distance. I had been using the 720s for over 2 years and was very familiar with a great deal of material on my media servers. The new PJs took literally 10min each to set up. The difference was immediately obvious. HD-DVD was significanly better. HD-TV was also much better. PC, 360 and PS3 were far better. Photos were in a totally different class.

No placebo effect. If i couldnt see the difference i wouldnt have bought the PJs in the first place.

What 720p projectors did you replace? Don't you think that the image improvement that you see might be attributed to things other than resolution? Things like better brightness or contrast can have a very profound effect on how we view something.

No. Im talking about the effect of resolution. The first source i tried was the 360 and the opening splash screen showeed the difference straight away. The big animated jewel appeared perfectly circular. In 720 edges were visible. Nothing to do with anything other than resolution. Stills on HD DVD and photos prove the fact that extra detail is there. My old PJ were properly ISFd, its not a gamma or CM issue, but a clear resolution improvement. The selfsame reason that many engineering inspection companies use the Sony 4k PJs....far more visible detail.

What 720p projectors did you replace? Don't you think that the image improvement that you see might be attributed to things other than resolution? Things like better brightness or contrast can have a very profound effect on how we view something.

Im not talking about some nebulous general image improvement, im talking about readily noticeable resolution difference.

I can easily say the increased res from 720 to 1080 offers a clear visible improvement. I went from the Z5 to the RS1 and the RS1 has more fine detail and the image is smoother. I see detail in my hd dvds and bluray discs that I didnt see before as well as other sources like the xbox 360 and HD cable.
The diff isn't night and day but IMO it is clearly there and is worth having a 1080p pj.

I'm sitting around 1.8x width away.
So you put the two of them on the same screen side by side with the same source at the same time, correct? If not, there's no way that you can make that conclusion by relying on your memory.

When I went from a Optoma H78 to a Pearl all the factors created an improved picture. But via cable 1080i sources, I was really impressed with that extra resolution. I always look forward to programming on those sources over the 720p ones.

Having said that, the noticeable factor comes on ESPN more than very good production efforts in 720p like "Lost" (which I don't really watch). Things like American Idol are quite impressive in 720p on Fox however too.

Friends that have seen both just comment on the Sony Pearl being better. They don't speak to any technical stuff on resolution, colors, etc. But those comments come unsolicited in just a few short minutes when the power goes on. So yeah, it's discernible (106" HP Dalite screen with seating at 12').

I previously owned the Panny 700 which is quite close to the 900. Until you actually see more 1080 projectors with good 1080i/1080 source material you may not have the full picture.

As i've mentioned on a few threads here before.... I recently swapped out 2 x 720p PJs for 2 x 1080p PJs. Same mount, same screen, same viewing distance. I had been using the 720s for over 2 years and was very familiar with a great deal of material on my media servers. The new PJs took literally 10min each to set up. The difference was immediately obvious. HD-DVD was significanly better. HD-TV was also much better. PC, 360 and PS3 were far better. Photos were in a totally different class.

No placebo effect. If i couldnt see the difference i wouldnt have bought the PJs in the first place.
Same question for you. You put the 720p and 1080p on the same screen, same source, at the same time and compared them, correct? It sounds like not since you commented that you were very familiar with the material. You cannot do this by memory.

Larrimore:

Did you compare HD-DVDs to SD DVD's on both pjs? How would you characterize the difference in the two sources on your ae-900 or the ae-1000? I have the ae900 and am planning to go blu ray and to a 1080 machine in the next year or two, but don't want to get my expectations too high (or waste a bunch of money either).

To the original poster: I have a Panasonic AX1000, which replaced a AE900. The jump to the AX1000 was frankly a disappointment and mistake, which made me extra wary of jumping to the Panasonic AE1000 1080p (though I was very temped). I had a sneaky suspicion I would have the same reaction as you did--and remember reading on the long AE1000 thread a few others who also had this experience. The Smoothscreen on the AE900 and AX1000 is really what makes it possible to sit closer to the screen than on other 720p projectors (overcoming a central limitation of not having 1080p resolution), which I believe is the most important and under-appreciated advantage of the Panasonic 720p projectors. I am now planning on upgrading to the RS1, but not primarily for the 1080p but rather all the other stuff--contrast ratio, better optics, etc. etc. I have my fingers crossed that I will see a big improvement.

Same question for you. You put the 720p and 1080p on the same screen, same source, at the same time and compared them, correct? It sounds like not since you commented that you were very familiar with the material. You cannot do this by memory.


I can quite easily do it by memory as it was a straight out and in swap. Also changeing source resolutions where those sources dont scale to change res but generate the outputs both natively. i.e. On the same machine change your 360 from 720p to 1080p... very noticeable difference. Photos show this very very clearly... roughly 1Mpixel vs 2Mpixel.

Set you PJ to pixel to pixel, download a trailer in 1080p and 720p and see the difference

I can quite easily do it by memory. Also changeing source resolutions where those source dont scale to change res but output both natively. i.e. On the same machine change your 360 from 720p to 1080p... very noticeable difference. Photos show this very very clearly... roughly 1Mpixel vs 2Mpixel.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree completely. I've done this before. I put up the new pj and swore that I saw more detail, things I'd never seen before. So I got the old one out and plugged them up side by side, and lo and behold, all that detail was there before, every bit of it.

If you haven't done this experiment, I encourage anyone who has the resources to do it, you'll be amazed. I was. There is just no way you can do this by memory, no way.

Perhaps it's the equipment...

The AE900 is just one generation behind the ae1000, which means processing is quite similar, and no big improvement was made from the last generation to the new one. Both projectors have smoothscreen technology, which means SDE was never a factor. Their contrast rating is not that different(dynamic iris not considered) and colormetry is probably very close too.
I would say that, under these conditions, unless you're using test patterns or HD sources with very fine lines on the content, you will not see the difference. There is a definitive difference between 1080p and 720p, but you need the correct tests to assess the difference.

Allan

ps. If the projectors have more different factors between them, it would be easier to notice the improvement. Never change projectors that are too close in generations, because they will give you very little improvements for the money spent.

I would really enjoy hearing more frank (negative or positive) impressions of persons who upgrade from something like an ae900 to the RS-1 or another 1080p pj.

Wet1, posted these screen shots of the Mitz HD1000U vs. JVC RS1, post 1398 of that thread. Interesting!http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=755277&page=47&pp=30

Nobody is harping on the point enough, most of the sources you mentioned are 1080i - and we've heard the argument of 1080i vs 1080p enough I believe - but you gotta feed it a native 1080p signal from HD-DVD/bluray (IMO) to see what you're looking for.

Perhaps it's the equipment...

The AE900 is just one generation behind the ae1000, which means processing is quite similar, and no big improvement was made from the last generation to the new one. Both projectors have smoothscreen technology, which means SDE was never a factor. Their contrast rating is not that different(dynamic iris not considered) and colormetry is probably very close too.
I would say that, under these conditions, unless you're using test patterns or HD sources with very fine lines on the content, you will not see the difference. There is a definitive difference between 1080p and 720p, but you need the correct tests to assess the difference.

Allan

ps. If the projectors have more different factors between them, it would be easier to notice the improvement. Never change projectors that are too close in generations, because they will give you very little improvements for the money spent.

I suspect you're right, but the AE1000 is supposed to have the new and improved "C2fine" LCD panel, which was highly touted, as were the better blacks. But real-world viewing experiences may be different, especially with some ambient light.

Wet1, posted these screen shots of the Mitz HD1000U vs. JVC RS1, post 1398 of that thread. Interesting!http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=755277&page=47&pp=30

I do have to say the RS1 does not fare well on some of those shots compared to a supposedly lesser machine. I had noticed that on my own demos of that machine.

Anyone reading this thread may be interested in a recent Secrets article on why 1080p matters.

Very detailed and worth the time to read and understand.

Link:
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_14_1/feature-article-1080p-3-2007-part-1.html

Can some of our technical experts please comment on the enclosed.

I can quite easily do it by memory as it was a straight out and in swap. Also changeing source resolutions where those sources dont scale to change res but generate the outputs both natively. i.e. On the same machine change your 360 from 720p to 1080p... very noticeable difference. Photos show this very very clearly... roughly 1Mpixel vs 2Mpixel.

Set you PJ to pixel to pixel, download a trailer in 1080p and 720p and see the difference


Perhaps I need to better understand what your trying to say here.

Digital displays/ projectors being fixed panels only display their native resolution not matter what resolution signal they're fed. So a 1080p projector can only display 1080p and will SCALE anything it's fed to 1080p. The same for a 720p native projector, will up or downscale any signal to 720p.

Now, if you're comparing a 1080p and 720p trailer on a 1080p projector than what your really comparing is not resolution, but how well or poorly your projector's internal scaler can upscale the 720p feed to be displayed at 1080p.

Perhaps I need to better understand what your trying to say here.

Digital displays/ projectors being fixed panels only display their native resolution not matter what resolution signal they're fed. So a 1080p projector can only display 1080p and will SCALE anything it's fed to 1080p. The same for a 720p native projector, will up or downscale any signal to 720p.

Now, if you're comparing a 1080p and 720p trailer on a 1080p projector than what your really comparing is not resolution, but how well or poorly your projector's internal scaler can upscale the 720p feed to be displayed at 1080p.

you are wrong about only displaying native res. My own can dispalay any res up to 1080 in pixel to pixel. I can view 720 or 1080 natively

pixel to pixel mode involves no scaling whatsoever. Sometimes called 1 to 1 pixel mapping. Most good PJs do pixel to pixel. Picture size difference can be zoomed. The difference is very noticeable.

This is very interesting, what projector would that be ?

Any current or last gen Sim2 ( and some older)can do this. The machine in question is a D80.
Any machine that does this can easily show the difference between 720 and 180 by displaying both natively with utterly no scaling and using identical CM and gamma optics etc. Those that work this way are the only machines that can be totally objective in this matter.
The difference is very easy to see.

you are wrong about only displaying native res. My own can dispalay any res up to 1080 in pixel to pixel. I can view 720 or 1080 natively

pixel to pixel mode involves no scaling whatsoever. Sometimes called 1 to 1 pixel mapping. Most good PJs do pixel to pixel. Picture size difference can be zoomed. The difference is very noticeable.

It would seem to me that scaling would be better than throwing away half your displays resolution and zooming the picture, no?

It would seem to me that scaling would be better than throwing away half your displays resolution and zooming the picture, no?


It does scaling as well. Pixel mapping is only an option. It was a way to compare 720 and 1080 totally identically. The PJ scales automatically as normal if you wish. I use pixel mapping as every source i have can output 1080.

with a button press i can compare native 720 and 1080 with identical color and gamma, brightness, contras, etc etc from native sources on the same screen with the images exactly the same size and imediately see the diffence easily, case closed.

Anyone with a PJ capaple of pixel to pixel can do the same. Try it.

Got ya. I thought you were saying that pixel mapping was always better than scaling to the native resolution.

I went from the AE900U to the AX100U. Then from the AX100U to the AE1000U. My sources were a PS3 for Blu-ray playback by HDMI, an HD-A1 and then an XA2 for HD DVD both by HDMI, an Xbox 360 for those games by component, a HTPC that I've pixel locked to the appropriate resolution by DVI to HDMI, and a Nintendo Wii by component. HDMI out from a Denon 4306 to the projector.

Here's the deal. When I bought the AX100U to replace the AE900U, I noticed an immediate and striking difference. The AX100U was brighter, it had better contrast, and it was sharper because the smoothscreen was much improved.

When I went from the AE1000U, I found the same was true. Even though it was not as bright as the AX100U, the contrast was worlds better. Whites were better, the image was better looking. Oh, and it was still that much sharper. The mask from V for Vendetta, such a big part of that movie, looked so real I could almost reach out and touch it. This is not something I found with either the AE900U or the AX100U.

If you can't see a difference between the AE900U and AE1000U, then consider yourself lucky and enjoy your "gift" of not having to spend money for the latest and greatest. But I certain can see a difference between them. Now keep in mind, on the AX100U, I used Cinema 1, but on the AE1000U, I use Cinema 3, which is the non-lense-filtered version of Cinema 1.

I rather enjoy my AE1000U, but I've been pondering the greener pastures of the JVC just on the other side of the fence...

I certainly wouldn't spend even one dollar more on a 1080 plasma or LCD.
Gee, what a shame. I have 3 Sony 1920x1200 LCD displays on various PC's, and believe me, the image detail difference for both the desktop and HD is significantly better than the 1280x1024 pixel displays that preceded them.

I also have a Sharp 12K and a Sony Qualia 004 in my HT and the difference is night and day. The Sharp 720 looks sharp, because the sharp edges of the pixels fool your brain in to thinking there is actually more detail in the image that the display is capable of delivering.

You need a good test pattern with 1 pixel wide lines at the displays native resolution to draw any real conlusions about the image sharpness of 1080 displays as opposed to the apparent pixel sharpness.

If you can't see any obvious differences, then I would have to question the other components and / or connections in the system.

For example, if you are not running a DVI connection, then you are very possibly throwing away some amount of the added detail of 1080.
If you are switching component through a receiver, than HF rolloff in the video switching circuits could be an issue.
In addition, your source needs to be pixel perfect mapped to the display in order the begin to see the advantages of 1080 displays.
If you are using a PC, the choice of video cards and output rendering surfaces is also critical.

I sit 1.2x the width of my 5' x 12' screen and would never go back to a 720 display for any serious viewing. (The Sharp suffices for what little SD TV we watch in the HT.)
I sit at about 1.0 x width of my PC displays.

I am 63 years old with 20/20 corrected vision.

However, in the end, if you are satisfied with what you see that's what counts.

Vern

Hi,

I value brightness and contrast more than resolution at this point. Since my screen is only 82" diagonal I probably couldn't see the rez difference anyway. So I bought a Sim2 C3x and couldn't be happier! Hail 3-chip ;-)

best regards

The C3X is a machine that, if you are not close enough to need 1080p, will blow almost any other away. If i was not a size junkie i would have bought it in a shot.

Hi,

I value brightness and contrast more than resolution at this point. Since my screen is only 82" diagonal I probably couldn't see the rez difference anyway. So I bought a Sim2 C3x and couldn't be happier! Hail 3-chip ;-)

best regardsWow, that C3X must be mighty bright on that 82" screen. I've also got a C3X and it still puts out over 600 lumens with 850 hrs on the lamp, and it's plenty bright on my 110" diag screen. I see 1080p projectors all the time and I definitely will not upgrade until the 1080p 3-chip DLP's come down a little in price. That could be a long time. :)

ditto.

The sim C3x 3 chip throws a fantastic 3 dimension picture.

I would not consider upgrading until many attributes have improved and the price comes down.

It would take quite a projector for anyone to consider upgrading from a C3x. Throws one of the best images around.

Larrimore:

Did you compare HD-DVDs to SD DVD's on both pjs? How would you characterize the difference in the two sources on your ae-900 or the ae-1000? I have the ae900 and am planning to go blu ray and to a 1080 machine in the next year or two, but don't want to get my expectations too high (or waste a bunch of money either).
Yes I did compare HD dvds but not SD. I did not see a difference that I could tell. I am not sure this completely turns me against 1080p but it does make me appreciate smooth screen.

Wet1, posted these screen shots of the Mitz HD1000U vs. JVC RS1, post 1398 of that thread. Interesting!http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=755277&page=47&pp=30

Those are great high quality pics and definitely remind me of my experience.

Gee, what a shame. I have 3 Sony 1920x1200 LCD displays on various PC's, and believe me, the image detail difference for both the desktop and HD is significantly better than the 1280x1024 pixel displays that preceded them.

I also have a Sharp 12K and a Sony Qualia 004 in my HT and the difference is night and day. The Sharp 720 looks sharp, because the sharp edges of the pixels fool your brain in to thinking there is actually more detail in the image that the display is capable of delivering.

You need a good test pattern with 1 pixel wide lines at the displays native resolution to draw any real conlusions about the image sharpness of 1080 displays as opposed to the apparent pixel sharpness.

If you can't see any obvious differences, then I would have to question the other components and / or connections in the system.

For example, if you are not running a DVI connection, then you are very possibly throwing away some amount of the added detail of 1080.
If you are switching component through a receiver, than HF rolloff in the video switching circuits could be an issue.
In addition, your source needs to be pixel perfect mapped to the display in order the begin to see the advantages of 1080 displays.
If you are using a PC, the choice of video cards and output rendering surfaces is also critical.

I sit 1.2x the width of my 5' x 12' screen and would never go back to a 720 display for any serious viewing. (The Sharp suffices for what little SD TV we watch in the HT.)
I sit at about 1.0 x width of my PC displays.

I am 63 years old with 20/20 corrected vision.

However, in the end, if you are satisfied with what you see that's what counts.

Vern
I'll be sure to run out and get a 1080 ptojector the next time I have friends over for a test pattern party. :) (couldn't resist that one)
Seriously though, of course the difference is there with the right test patterns- after all there are a lot more pixels there to work with. But on normal material it is not evident.

jacksonian, did you turn off the 92% overscan on the Epson 1080 when you still had the 720?

But on normal material it is not evident.

Use a machine with pixel mapping and switch between native sources. The detail difference is clear to me at 1.5sw. This removes other variables. Same PJ, processing ,optics etc. This is the only real way to test properly. Detail not there @ 720p was there @ 1080p. Use native res stills and the difference is even more apparent

You dont need test patterns. This assumes quality imaging from quality sources resolved by normal eyes.
I understand you cant see it but that doesnt mean its not there. When I had my hearing tested last I was unable to hear above 15KHz. One of those i was with could hear upto 19KHz. Just because i couldnt hear the higher 4KHz doesnt mean they cant be heard.

Use a machine with pixel mapping and switch between native sources. The detail difference is clear to me at 1.5sw. This removes other variables. Same PJ, processing ,optics etc. This is the only real way to test properly. Detail not there @ 720p was there @ 1080p. Use native res stills and the difference is even more apparent

You dont need test patterns. This assumes quality imaging from quality sources resolved by normal eyes.
I understand you cant see it but that doesnt mean its not there. When I had my hearing tested last I was unable to hear above 15KHz. One of those i was with could hear upto 19KHz. Just because i couldnt hear the higher 4KHz doesnt mean they cant be heard.

I understand that you can see it by going to ultimate means to get there. But, I have far more experience in home theater than you may realize. I have had and embraced HD sources before most paople and I am just as picky as any of the other posters to this thread. I know the difference is there, but the quality of my sources and of my eyes are not at fault.

Please read my original post and take note. I said with these two projectors (and possibly due to smooth screen) there is no discerable difference. Which leads me to believe that with other projectors of similar quality construction and specs (other than 1080 vs. 720), I wonder how many people would be shouting there is a night and day difference. So, I would issue a challenge to you. Do 1:1 mapping using your HTPC and a side by side comparison of the two projectors I used and then tell me how evident the difference is. I'll thensay my 20/20 vision (verified in January) has changed or that my use of an HD-AX2, or the use of monoprice HDMI cables or my less than $1000 screen or the fact that my walls are not painted black or.....is the fault.

EDIT: OK, my first post was delivered in the heat of battle over returning the Panny so, I reread it myself and maybe it was too matter of fact, however my posts afterward go on to explain my thoughts. So, if one didn't read the entire thread, you would take it that I was making a matter of fact statement, which was unintentional.

BOTTOM LINE: I bought the projector so I could see the difference and it wasn't there. period.

If you feeding 1080i/p into a projector nothing can beat a 1:1 pixel mapping.

The difference between 1080i/p HD content scaled down to 720p on HD Ready displays and Real HD displays is very obvious to me. Scaling and motion artifects are very obvious on the lower resolution 'HD Ready' displays I saw in direct comparison. I can easily see this with screen dimensions below 50" even at 10 ft viewing distance

A very expensive scaler might do a slightly better job than then the scaler build into the display device. But why bother if the simpler and the overall cheaper solution is to go with a 1080 display device?

Use a machine with pixel mapping and switch between native sources. The detail difference is clear to me at 1.5sw. This removes other variables. Same PJ, processing ,optics etc. This is the only real way to test properly. Detail not there @ 720p was there @ 1080p. Use native res stills and the difference is even more apparent

You dont need test patterns. This assumes quality imaging from quality sources resolved by normal eyes.
I understand you cant see it but that doesnt mean its not there. When I had my hearing tested last I was unable to hear above 15KHz. One of those i was with could hear upto 19KHz. Just because i couldnt hear the higher 4KHz doesnt mean they cant be heard.


FYI, during our first (http://) shoot-out , we did use as source two HTPCs with identical Hardware and Software configuration,which fed each projector at its native resolution ( 720p for VP12-S4 and 1080p for VP11-S1) with 1:1 pixel mapping. Also, we used very high quality 1080 HD-Video clips (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9197281&&#post9197281).
One thing I am certain of; You can't judge the resolution resolving capabilities of a projector by memory. Only a side-by-side comparison, can give you some answers..

Doing it natively on the same machine is far superior and is the only way to rule out all factors other than resolution. Also if you used 1080 clips then there is scaling involved not totally native.

Let's suffice to say that I expected way more bang for the buck. For example, one of my first projectors was a Epson Home 10 that cost me $1200. I sat about 10 feet away from an 80" home made screen. I loved it. Then I finished my official home theater room and had more room to work with, so I bought a 106" screen and at 12-13 feet, the SDE was evident, so I ended up buying a Panny AE500. Talk about WOW factor. I was blown away by the differece. THe specs were similar on the two projectors (contrast, light output), but there was some serious bang for the buck going on (I sold the Epson for about $900 and the Panny was on sale for $1500 at the time). We were relocated last year by my job and when we sold the house, the new owners wanted the PJ and screen, so moving here to Virginia, I ended up with the AE900 and a 100" screen, back to about 10 feet away, with full light control. Now I did go about two months without a projector and we are talking a different room and house, so there were no direct comparisons, but to me it was evident that the 900 ($1500 after rebate)was a BIG improvement over the 500 (duh!).
Here we are a year later and I read how much 1080P is the proverbial "cat's meow" and having had great luck with Panasonic, I plunk down over $3K for another improvement. Not only did I not see a huge improvement worth double the price, I found myself literally not seeing ANY- which led to my post.
As I said, I know that the pixels are there, but maybe if you have a good quality 720P PJ (and I'll give you that many on this forum wouldn't consider the 900 good quality compared to some of the higher priced DLPs out there) then the time to buy will come a bit later when always improving CR and output specs reach levels that allow one (me) to see the "bang for the buck".

Larrimore:

I respect your opinion that you cannot see a difference, but I had a 700, then the AX100 720p PJs and now the Panny 1000 and the image is far sharper with the 1000. I agree that with some DirecTV HD the difference is not overwhelming (particularly since some of the channels natively broadcast in 720p). Yet, even upconversion and deinterlacing with 480i channels is a huge improvement with 1000.

However, doing an A/B between my 100 and the 1000 with Blu-Ray and HD DVD sources between 720p and 1080p, the WOW factor hit. To use a frequent A/V cliche, it was like removing gauze from my screen. Although smoothscreen helped reduce visible pixel structure in the 720p PJs, with 1080p the pixels are completely invisible, even from 3 or 4 feet. Also, the picture with King Kong and Kingdom of Heaven is MUCH sharper on the 1080p Panny with deeper color saturation.

Doing it natively on the same machine is far superior and is the only way to rule out all factors other than resolution. Also if you used 1080 clips then there is scaling involved not totally native.

When you compare 2 projectors with different resolution, you cannot use ONE source and expect it to lock at 1:1 with each projector! It will be with the one matching the output resolution of the source! However, when you have 2 identical sources and each one is locked at 1:1 with each source, then you can have 1:1 pixel mapping for both projectors. There will be only one instance of downscaling inside the graphics card of the HTPC which is connected to the 720 model. In any case, with 1080 material and the necessary internal downscaling (1080 to 720) , you surely agree that the 720 model was in disadvantage. However, that was not obvious in real life observation..

Using native sources on the same PJ displaying both natively is the only way to rule out other options, you are comparing 2 different machines, im not. In real life observation it is readily apparent.

No. Im talking about the effect of resolution. The first source i tried was the 360 and the opening splash screen showeed the difference straight away. The big animated jewel appeared perfectly circular. In 720 edges were visible. Nothing to do with anything other than resolution. Stills on HD DVD and photos prove the fact that extra detail is there. My old PJ were properly ISFd, its not a gamma or CM issue, but a clear resolution improvement. The selfsame reason that many engineering inspection companies use the Sony 4k PJs....far more visible detail.

You know that the 360 is 720p native, right? If you have it set to 1080p, the image is being scaled to that resolution. Are you suggesting that scaling somehow adds detail?

Using native sources on the same PJ displaying both natively is the only way to rule out other options, you are comparing 2 different machines, im not. In real life observation it is readily apparent.

So, for you, to draw any conclusion, you have to have a special 720p HD-DVD version for the 720p projector instead of the regular 1080p one.. :rolleyes:

In our end, we prefer to be a bit unfair to the 720p model, but even then, the differences were NOT realily apparent.. Try to duplicate our test and see what happens with your own eyes.. ;)

You know that the 360 is 720p native, right? If you have it set to 1080p, the image is being scaled to that resolution. Are you suggesting that scaling somehow adds detail?

No. Games can generate totally native 1080p since that last update, so the 1080p setting with a 720p game does indeed scale but a 1080p native doesnt. Same also with the HD Drive... 1080p native

So, for you, to draw any conclusion, you have to have a special 720p HD-DVD version for the 720p projector instead of the regular 1080p one.. :rolleyes:

In our end, we prefer to be a bit unfair to the 720p model, but even then, the differences were NOT realily apparent.. Try to duplicate our test and see what happens with your own eyes.. ;)

No. There is plenty of 720 and 1080 native material available... not HD DVD.

No. Games can generate totally native 1080p since that last update, so the 1080p setting with a 720p game does indeed scale but a 1080p native doesnt. Same also with the HD Drive... 1080p native

Not true except that the HD-dvd does output 1080p.

Even if it were, all 360 and most PS3 games have 720p textures. Therefore, the added "detail" that you are seeing at 1080p is either in your head or a scaling artifact.

No. There is plenty of 720 and 1080 native material available... not HD DVD.

You are missing the point...
If a 720 projector with 1080 material is similar in percieved detail with a 1080 projector with the same 1080 material, what is the point feeding the 720 projector with 720 material? :o

Lawguy
yes true. The 360 was recently updated to support 1080p native games. Only the most recent can do this. Prior to the update 1080 out put setting was by upscaling now it can be native.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=12680

yes true. The 360 was recently updated to support 1080p native games. Only the most recent can do this. Prior to the update 1080 out put setting was by upscaling now it can be native.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=12680

There have been 2 1080p games announced. I don't think either has been released.

Please explain how it is possible that the scaled 720p images you were viewing at 1080p were more detailed than the originals at 720p native resolution?

No scaled 720 suff. 720 source shown pixel mapped

Larrimore:

I respect your opinion that you cannot see a difference, but I had a 700, then the AX100 720p PJs and now the Panny 1000 and the image is far sharper with the 1000. I agree that with some DirecTV HD the difference is not overwhelming (particularly since some of the channels natively broadcast in 720p). Yet, even upconversion and deinterlacing with 480i channels is a huge improvement with 1000.

However, doing an A/B between my 100 and the 1000 with Blu-Ray and HD DVD sources between 720p and 1080p, the WOW factor hit. To use a frequent A/V cliche, it was like removing gauze from my screen. Although smoothscreen helped reduce visible pixel structure in the 720p PJs, with 1080p the pixels are completely invisible, even from 3 or 4 feet. Also, the picture with King Kong and Kingdom of Heaven is MUCH sharper on the 1080p Panny with deeper color saturation.

I'll take your observations at face value since you did use the AX as well as the AE. I am glad you can see the difference, however, I'll stand by my position (it is , afterall mine :cool: ). I am sure there are many factors involved. My current thinking on the matter is as follows:

1. Equivalent CR/Lumens/scaling= little difference (I'll venture there may be some level or matterial such as test patterns at which it becomes "findable") at some range around 106" diagonal and less.
2. Apparent improvement occurs at the range over 100" or so and with 2.35:1 setups, in equivalent sizes, etc. and only with 1080 source material.
3. Going from older PJs (2-3 years old and older with inferior CR/Lumens/processors) to "current" technology shows large improvement due to other factors which may be perceived as attributable to the resolution.

There have been 2 1080p games announced. I don't think either has been released.

Wrong again. GRAW2

No scaled 720 suff. 720 source shown pixel mapped

how do you pixel map 720 stuff on a 1080 PJ?

how do you pixel map 720 stuff on a 1080 PJ?


Sims and others can display any signal in 1 to 1 pixel mapping mode if you wish. I explained it fully in this thread.

how do you pixel map 720 stuff on a 1080 PJ?

I think he's down for the count on all of this.

Coldmachine has two very expensive 1080p projectors. They are better than his old 720p projectors. He attributes this improvement to the increased resolution but the evidence he cites supporting this has all been discredited and he can offer no explanation about why one should agree with him.

I am perfectly willing to believe that 1080p, standing alone, has advantages over 720p. There are more pixels. More is better. However, the two experiments conducted in Greece are the closest thing that we have yet seen to a scientific attempt to study this issue. There has been a lot of anecdotal evidence from people who insist that the Greeks are wrong, but I don't think that their conclusion has been dented.

Sims and others can display any signal in 1 to 1 pixel mapping mode if you wish. I explained it fully in this thread.

How is that not scaled? Your Sims are converting a 720p signal to a 1080p signal. That is scaling as defined.

I think he's down for the count on all of this.

Coldmachine has two very expensive 1080p projectors. They are better than his old 720p projectors. He attributes this improvement to the increased resolution but the evidence he cites supporting this has all been discredited and he can offer no explanation about why one should agree with him..
Dude, you are the only one who has made factually incorrect statements. Why do you quote the pixel mapping question? anyone with this feature can test natively. By the way my machines are not in any way very expensive.. They are entry level. You guys seem to have an agenda. I can test exactly the same material totally natively on exactly the same machine.

How is that not scaled? Your Sims are converting a 720p signal to a 1080p signal. That is scaling as defined.


OMG. They dont scale in that mode. Only the pixel count in the signal is illuminated. It only fires 720 pixels no scaling anywhere. Dude this mode is very common knowledge. They can do it with any res up to 1080. You then use the lens to restore the image size. It is 100% native with no scaling.

Dude, you are the only one who has made factually incorrect statements. Why do you quote the pixel mapping question? anyone with this feature can test natively. By the way my machines are not in any way very expensive.. They are entry level. You guys seem to have an agenda. I can test exactly the same material totally natively on exactly the same machine.

What possible agenda could I have. Do I wish to make people suffer with inferior image quality?

Forgive me for not understanding how your projector works. I was wrong to suggest that that what you described was scaling. Although I am sorry for that, I am not sorry for doubting your observations of the x-box. The splash screen that you describe as being more detailed at 1080p is natively 720p. Although I will accept your claim without verifying it that GRAW2 is natively 1080p that does not affect my distrust of your conclusions.

Again, the only group that has looked at this issue in an objective way has twice arrived at the same conclusion. I am more than willing to be proven wrong because the possibility for better image quality is a good thing for everyone. Unfortunately, the way that you have presented your argument on the issue is unscientific and has materially changed as it has developed. Forgive me if you do not persuade me.

Larrimore:

Thanks for the info. Very helpful, along with everything else on this thread and site, in deciding how to spend those precious av bucks.

I have changed nothing at all. Just provideed more detail as asked for.

Your last few posts have been attempts to counter my information, understandably,but all of them have been proven to to be incorrect. Maybe we can just leave it there.

All other issues aside I can have 360 generate GRAW2 and out put native at 720 or 1080, both dispalyed natively. The increase in picture detail is evident in things like explosions, faces , smoke, tracer fire etc. Many many people on the gaming forums have seen the detail increase.

Any other 1080 owners with pixel mapping wish to chime in?

You are missing the point...
If a 720 projector with 1080 material is similar in percieved detail with a 1080 projector with the same 1080 material, what is the point feeding the 720 projector with 720 material? :o

I think what he's proposing is using two of the same 1080p projectors.

On the first, show native 1080P material.

On the second, downscale to 720p, set projector to 1:1 pixel mapping, move/zoom projector to same image size as first projector.

That way, the only variable is the resolution. Everything else - optics, video processing, etc - should be the same (assuming unit-to-unit variation isn't significant).

It can be done on 1 machine. Downscaling involves VP so not valid.

What coldmachine is saying is that he can send the pj a 1280x720 signal and the pj will fill a box in the middle of the screen 1280x720 pixels. This is 1:1 mapping of a 720 signal. He can then zoom the picture to fill the screen. Likewise, he can zoom down and send a 1080 signal mapped 1:1 as well.

GRAW2 looks sensational on my RS-1. How much of this is due to the much higher CR over my old Z4 I can't say. I do know that I now sit 1.2 screen widths away from a 110" diagonal and see no screen door whereas I could see noticeable screen door at 1.75 screen widths on the Z4.

I would think it would be much more difficult to judge the difference between a 720 with rather indistinct pixels and a 1080 with rather indistinct pixels than it would with a machine that is much sharper.

There is certainly detail lost when sending a 720 machine a 1080 signal and no detail gained when sending a 1080 machine a 720 signal.

It can be done on 1 machine. Downscaling involves VP so not valid.

No. The point is that your visual memory is not reliable. You have to compare the two side by side.

You have two projectors and can display one in 720p and the other in 1080p either simultaneously or alternatively.

That would make a good test.

What coldmachine is saying is that he can send the pj a 1280x720 signal and the pj will fill a box in the middle of the screen 1280x720 pixels. This is 1:1 mapping of a 720 signal. He can then zoom the picture to fill the screen. Likewise, he can zoom down and send a 1080 signal mapped 1:1 as well.

GRAW2 looks sensational on my RS-1. How much of this is due to the much higher CR over my old Z4 I can't say. I do know that I now sit 1.2 screen widths away from a 110" diagonal and see no screen door whereas I could see noticeable screen door at 1.75 screen widths on the Z4.

I would think it would be much more difficult to judge the difference between a 720 with rather indistinct pixels and a 1080 with rather indistinct pixels than it would with a machine that is much sharper.

There is certainly detail lost when sending a 720 machine a 1080 signal and no detail gained when sending a 1080 machine a 720 signal.


Cheers dude. Try setting 720p then 1080p on GRAW2 and see the difference for yourself. Its quite evident especially at your 1.2 sw. We ar both probable able to go to about 3 or 4 feet with no SDE but that just being silly......Or is it!!

I think what he's proposing is using two of the same 1080p projectors.

On the first, show native 1080P material.

On the second, downscale to 720p, set projector to 1:1 pixel mapping, move/zoom projector to same image size as first projector.

That way, the only variable is the resolution. Everything else - optics, video processing, etc - should be the same (assuming unit-to-unit variation isn't significant).

He was NOT proposing that! Actually this is EXACTLY what we did in our first shoot-out with the Marantz projectors!

Edit: I just noticed the proposal of using two 1080 projectors. That would not make any sense, since a 1080 projector can never have 1:1 pixel mapping when set at 720p.The best approach is to use 2 projectors (one 720 and one 1080) which have the same optics and electronics like the Marantz and BenQ we used at the shoot-outs and calibate them at D65. Any other way, the comparison may be compromised by quality of the internal scaler of the 1080 projector when set to 720p.

No. The point is that your visual memory is not reliable. You have to compare the two side by side.

You have two projectors and can display one in 720p and the other in 1080p either simultaneously or alternatively.

That would make a good test.


The images are of totally identical size. a single button press on a remote flashes back and forward between them, even more reliable than turning your head. Its instant comparison.

It can be done on 1 machine. Downscaling involves VP so not valid.

Well, I think the original question is if you're starting with an image with 1080p worth of image detail, can you detect a loss of image detail if viewing at 720p?

In order to make the resolution comparison, at some point, the 1080p source material must be converted to 720P somehow - either creating separate 1080 and 720 masters or via VP. Downscaling is unavoidable, right?

I think he's down for the count on all of this.

Coldmachine has two very expensive 1080p projectors. They are better than his old 720p projectors. He attributes this improvement to the increased resolution but the evidence he cites supporting this has all been discredited and he can offer no explanation about why one should agree with him.

I am perfectly willing to believe that 1080p, standing alone, has advantages over 720p. There are more pixels. More is better. However, the two experiments conducted in Greece are the closest thing that we have yet seen to a scientific attempt to study this issue. There has been a lot of anecdotal evidence from people who insist that the Greeks are wrong, but I don't think that their conclusion has been dented.

To me the conclusion is flawed.

I do see a difference between Real HD and HD Ready displays fed with a native 1080 source signal.
I can easily see blurring and other artifacts in the lower resolution 720 display LCD and PLASMA with screen sizes below 40" at viewing distances greater than 10ft.

A projection based display has the disadvantage of lens and other optical devices in the light path. It could easily be that some 1080 projectors can't really show an improvement if the quality of the optical parts is not up to it.


I do understand why folks who only recently upgraded to 'last years' 720p technology need some sort justification to not have to upgrade again so soon.
:)

No surprise there. When it comes to visual acuity, resolution is a distant fourth. Most noticeable with visual perception is: 1 – contrast, 2 – color hue, 3 – color saturation and 4 – resolution. It’s just that resolution is an easy number to market to consumers, the higher the resolution, the better the quality. Not necessarily. The thread about the Athens, Greece shootout is a good read, comparing 1080P to 720P. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=767929&page=1&pp=30

Corrected.

After fully reading this, I feel vindicated! :)

FWIW, there is only one image in that thread where I perceive a difference and that is the one of the watch faces. To my eye, the jewels in the top image are much sharper than in the bottom image. However, most people seemed to think the bottom image was the 1080P PJ. I am not sure.

To me the conclusion is flawed.

I do see a difference between Real HD and HD Ready displays fed with a native 1080 source signal.
I can easily see blurring and other artifacts in the lower resolution 720 display LCD and PLASMA with screen sizes below 40" at viewing distances greater than 10ft.

A projection based display has the disadvantage of lens and other optical devices in the light path. It could easily be that some 1080 projectors can't really show an improvement if the quality of the optical parts is not up to it.


I do understand why folks who only recently upgraded to 'last years' 720p technology need some sort justification to not have to upgrade again so soon.
:)

Not true, I did want to upgrade, really :)

Well, I think the original question is if you're starting with an image with 1080p worth of image detail, can you detect a loss of image detail if viewing at 720p?

In order to make the resolution comparison, at some point, the 1080p source material must be converted to 720P somehow - either creating separate 1080 and 720 masters or via VP. Downscaling is unavoidable, right?

I know, I'll keep the 1080 machine and mount it under the 720 machine. I'll watch Fox, ABC, and ESPN and play most Xbox games on the top machine. I'll watch all other HD content on the 1080 machine and I'll split SD material between them. Best of both worlds....

A projection based display has the disadvantage of lens and other optical devices in the light path. It could easily be that some 1080 projectors can't really show an improvement if the quality of the optical parts is not up to it.



Frank, do you consider Marantz projectors not up to it?


I do understand why folks who only recently upgraded to 'last years' 720p technology need some sort justification to not have to upgrade again so soon.
:)


Do you seriously believe that we went to all that trouble organizing shoot-outs, just to "defend" our 720 projectors? :confused: Heck, most of us have already pre-ordered the JVC RS-1! And it was NOT for the extra resolution! :p

He was NOT proposing that! Actually this is EXACTLY what we did in our first shoot-out with the Marantz projectors!

Edit: I just noticed the proposal of using two 1080 projectors. That would not make any sense, since a 1080 projector can never have 1:1 pixel mapping when set at 720p.The best approach is to use 2 projectors (one 720 and one 1080) which have the same optics and electronics like the Marantz and BenQ we used at the shoot-outs and calibate them at D65. Any other way, the comparison may be compromised by quality of the internal scaler of the 1080 projector when set to 720p.

If the same optics are used than it's likely that the 1080 projector is at a disadvantage. A 1080 projector needs *better* optics not optics that where initial designed for a 720 resolution in a previous model beefed up with 1080 panel resolution.

If the same optics are used than it's likely that the 1080 projector is at a disadvantage. A 1080 projector needs *better* optics not optics that where initial designed for a 720 resolution in a previous model beefed up with 1080 panel resolution.

You are kidding right? I guess you haven't seen a Marantz projector. FYI, they use the BEST optics in the bussiness. And no, you do NOT need special optics for the 1080 models, you need FINE optics, as the ones Minolta delivers to the Marantz projectors..

I Thougt HD-Ready was infact even lower resolution than 1280x720?

As I understand it HD-Ready simply means you can display an HD image by downscaling it. Whereas 1280x720 IS real HD.

And of course 1920x1080 being HD as well, often called Full HD.

So if this is correct, no wonder an "HD-Ready" screen (with a poor scaler quite often) will look worse than real HD.

Also, seems many here is confusing screendoor with resolution. They are not the same. I think in real program material (not test-patterns) most people will be able to tell the difference in screendoor much more easily than difference in actual resolution.

Also 1080 material (like HD DVD / Bluray) often looks better downscaled on a 720p projector than native 720 material EVEN though there is no scaling involved with the latter.

I think the shootouts in Greece proves that from any reasonable viewing distance, 720p resolution and 1080p resolution can be really hard to tell apart (say more than 1.5 screenwidth).

That being said, I REALLY would like to upgrade from my benq 8720 to the RS1 (or HD1 here in Europe), but resolution has little to do with it. :)

It does scaling as well. Pixel mapping is only an option. It was a way to compare 720 and 1080 totally identically. The PJ scales automatically as normal if you wish. I use pixel mapping as every source i have can output 1080.

with a button press i can compare native 720 and 1080 with identical color and gamma, brightness, contras, etc etc from native sources on the same screen with the images exactly the same size and imediately see the diffence easily, case closed.



It still won't be a true comparison of 1080 vs 720, since at 720 you won't be using the full brightness potential of the projector, and you'll most likely put SDE into the equation. In my opinion, the best way to evaluate the true difference between 720P and 1080P, is watching 1080P material on a 1080P projector, vs. the same material and the same projector, but downscaled to 720P and back. That will also account for the fact that 1080P material looks better than 720P material on a 720P projector, due to compression of the source material. One could argue that the 720P material available doesn't really make full use of a 720P display, whereas 1080P does - and in the same way, 1080P material doesn't make full use of a 1080P display. Because of this, the difference between a 720P and a 1080P projector is probably less with the material available today, than what would be possible with "perfect" sources.

Also, one should understand that 1080P is such a high resolution, that it takes VERY little to decrease the percieved resolution quite a bit - not only in the hardware, certainly in the source material as well. Camera a wee bit out of focus, low bitrate on broadcast HD (compared to HD-DVD/Blu-Ray), a little edge enhancement on the broadcast side etc., and the difference is gone. Same on the playback side: Cheap optics, poor screen, below-par calibration etc could certainly take away the difference very quickly.

The way I see it: The higher the resolution, the harder it is to actually make use of it. You shouldn't think: "I need full HD to make sure I have a good picture", you should think "do I have a good enough picture to make use of full HD?".

If the same optics are used than it's likely that the 1080 projector is at a disadvantage. A 1080 projector needs *better* optics not optics that where initial designed for a 720 resolution in a previous model beefed up with 1080 panel resolution.

Relatively speaking, yes. A 1080P projector needs better optics to make full use of the resolution than a 720P projector. BUT a 1080P projector with the same optics as a 720P, will never have less resolution than the 720P one, it just may be that the difference isn't as big as the numbers imply. If, theoretically speaking, the 1080P only shows 900P worth of detail, it's still better than the 720P. It will never be worse, all else being equal - worst case scenario is no difference.

The way I see it: The higher the resolution, the harder it is to actually make use of it. You shouldn't think: "I need full HD to make sure I have a good picture", you should think "do I have a good enough picture to make use of full HD?".


Great quote. I would add "Do I have a big enough and good enough picture to make use of full HD?"

You are kidding right? I guess you haven't seen a Marantz projector. FYI, they use the BEST optics in the bussiness. And no, you do NOT need special optics for the 1080 models, you need FINE optics, as the ones Minolta delivers to the Marantz projectors..

I have seen a a Marantz 720 but not a 1080.

I'm just wondering why I can easily see scaling artifacts in scaled down 1080 content on 720p ('HD Ready') lcd and plasma screens in a direct comparision while you can't see it between projectors.


I would not count on Marantz reputation they could be using lenses considerd top for 720 but still this top lens can be not good enough for 1080. And if the lens up to it other optical elements in the signal path could be not up to it.

My conclusion stands: Native 1080 content is far better of with 1:1 pixel mapping to a 1080 device.
Scaling and motion artifacts that are bound to occur with 720 displays downscaling 1080 content will be absent.
(These can't be observed through posted screen shots anyway)

Som lcd and plasma scrrens have ****** videoprocessing. Scaling artifacts have little to do with resolution-differences. Poor scaling is poor scaling and will always look bad.

In consumer electroncis, HD Ready means a display has a native HD resolution but no HDTV tuner. They say that some displays are HD Ready becasue they don't have an HD tuner and therefore are not HD TV's. The difference lies in the TV tuner. An ED display (Infocus 48xx, Optoma H31) may accept an HD resolution and downscale it, but nobody calls those HD Ready.

Cheers dude. Try setting 720p then 1080p on GRAW2 and see the difference for yourself. Its quite evident especially at your 1.2 sw. We ar both probable able to go to about 3 or 4 feet with no SDE but that just being silly......Or is it!!

I have looked pretty hard but have found no evidence that GRAW2 is natively 1080p. There are lots of opinions but no facts. Do you have a source for this statement?

As i have stated many times I can easily see the difference, but obviously if i back away there comes a point i cant. There also comes a point at which 480 and 1080 are the same. To take it to mad levels we could back up far enough that our screen becomes the same as 1 pixel, but i dont view at 200 sw. I sit at a distance where the extra detail contained in more than double the resolution is readily appreciated.

I have looked pretty hard but have found no evidence that GRAW2 is natively 1080p. There are lots of opinions but no facts. Do you have a source for this statement?

Its on the damn box

Oh sorry I forgot you never believe anything until you get housed.

Go here and look at specs. This was the first site that appeared on my search.

http://www.gameexpress.com/product_detail.cfm?UPC=008888523475

compare to 1080i

http://www.gameexpress.com/product_detail.cfm?UPC=710425391255&Section=New%20Releases

The problem with 720p is its low horizontal resolution of 1280 (vs. 1920 with 1080p).

You know that the 360 is 720p native, right? If you have it set to 1080p, the image is being scaled to that resolution. Are you suggesting that scaling somehow adds detail?


Im surprised that as a 360 owner you are unaware of its 1080p abilities. You are really missing out.

As i have stated many times I can easily see the difference, but obviously if i back away there comes a point i cant. There also comes a point at which 480 and 1080 are the same. To take it to mad levels we could back up far enough that our screen becomes the same as 1 pixel, but i dont view at 200 sw. I sit at a distance where the extra detail contained in more than double the resolution is readily appreciated.

I am sure you do, or think you do. However, I wonder if in the Athens shootout, they had projected test patterns which I assume could have made it easy to tell the 1080P projector and then projected HD moving images afterward how many people would have magically started noticing the difference?

I am not a naysayer, but you haven't said anything yet that leads me to believe your conculsions are definitive (I am sure mine haven't dented yours either :) ) since you have yet to convince me you are comparing apples to apples. Even your 1:1 pixel mapping argument, although initially compelling to me, doesn't hold up considering you most likely lose some lumens by the process. We'll agree to disagree and leave it at that.

I do, however, take offense at your tone sometimes and of some of the others who seem quick to take the "you don't see it because you're not capable of seeing it" argument. Most everyone on this forum is above the average Joe, that's why we come here. I blame the political climate in Washington where civility died sometime around the Lewinsky scandal and shows like Crossfire and Hannity & Colmes became mainstream.

The problem with 720p is its low horizontal resolution of 1280 (vs. 1920 with 1080p).

That is quite a blanket statement. Care to elaborate?

? could you expand on that? 720p has lower resolution in both horizontal and vertical planes.


The problem with 720p is its low horizontal resolution of 1280 (vs. 1920 with 1080p).

. Even your 1:1 pixel mapping argument, although initially compelling to me, doesn't hold up considering you most likely lose some lumens by the process. We'll agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Pause the image and the extra info is easily seen. Nothing to do with brightness. Leave it native with no zoom and brightness is the same per pixel. Flicking the images even zoomed shown no visible brightness difference. Get closer, the info is there.

Oh sorry I forgot you never believe anything until you get housed.

Go here and look at specs. This was the first site that appeared on my search.

http://www.gameexpress.com/product_detail.cfm?UPC=008888523475

compare to 1080i

http://www.gameexpress.com/product_detail.cfm?UPC=710425391255&Section=New%20Releases

I don't think that that resolves the issue. It says the same thing about Lost Planet, which is definitely a 720p game.

OMG..... Its written on the box. How many times do you need to dispute everything only to be proven wrong.... My PJ functions, scaling,360 basic specs , games, yada yada yada.

Anyone else here with GRAW2 to verify what is written on the box

OMG..... Its written on the box. How many times do you need to dispute everything only to be proven wrong.... My PJ functions, scaling,360 basic specs , games, yada yada yada.

Anyone else here with GRAW2 to verify what is written on the box

That right. It does say it. It also says 1080i and 720p. It can only be native to one even though it supports all three.

Here is what Capcom had to say about similar language on Lost Planet's box:

Link (http://ww2.capcom.com/BBS/showthread.php?t=11035&highlight=1080p)

I am not claiming that GRAW2 is not 1080p. I don't know the answer to that. All I am saying is that no one has demonstrated that it is. If it is not, and you claim this dramatic difference between GRAW2 at 720p and 1080p, wouldn't you agree that you might be wrong?

The engine is native to all thee. Same as a PC renders native in many resolutions. This is another example of you not understanding the 360 again.

OMG..... Its written on the box. How many times do you need to dispute everything only to be proven wrong.... My PJ functions, scaling,360 basic specs , games, yada yada yada.

Anyone else here with GRAW2 to verify what is written on the box

I think this will be hard to verify as it seems all the specs say 720p/1080i/1080p. This could mean that the game could be at either resolution natively and that there is an instruction set in the game which allows the Xbox to scale to any of those output resolutions. Even on Ubisoft's website, there is no mention of native 1080p resolution and one would think that would be a big deal if so. By the way, all native HD games released recently following the Xbox update to allow 1080P say the same.

We're assuming the sources people are comparing actually have detailing at a resolution of 1080p. Just because the source input is 1080p, doesn't mean the image detail has a resolution of 1080p. Apparently there isn't a single movie or TV show that has enough detail to be used in this sort of resolution testing. Video games and PC usage is completely different, in this respect, since there isn't blurring from an external source (post-TV/Movie processing, camera resolution/optics, sampling from masters, etc.). D5 masters used to generated HD-DVDs and BRDs don't even have 1080p of detail just yet, and I would be surprised if TV shows were any better. Computer animations (i.e. Pixar films) are better, but aren't there yet either - the best ones don't even measure 1300 lines, only 20 lines of resolution over the 1280 lines capable on a 720p display (after downscaling, probably closer to 1100 lines).

See here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9206681&&#post9206681), and here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9213169&&#post9213169). Yes the visual acuity math works, but our sources just aren't there yet (except for PC and video game sources). Annoying that we have to rehash this all over again. I guess enough people didn't read John's explanation. Keep in mind that when you're watching a moving image, your pixel per degree acuity is closer to 40, not 60, and only over a very narrow area (since your eye focuses intently on a small spot when attempting to resolve high detail).

The engine is native to all thee. Same as a PC renders native in many resolutions. This is another example of you not understanding the 360 again.

i would be interested in knowing more about this. I never professed to be an expert on the 360, or computer games. So what is native on the disc? The highest resolution? Would 1080i or P make any dfference as to what is on the disc?

The engine is native to all thee. Same as a PC renders native in many resolutions. This is another example of you not understanding the 360 again.

Once in a while when you make factual claim, you might want to cite some authority for it. All I hear from you are opinions. You know what they say about those.

Why is it, coldmachine, that other people disagree but you get rude about it? There is nothing personal here. If you are right, prove yourself to be right. The truth speaks for itself. If I am right, the same is true. Can we proceed in that spirit or perhaps not proceed at all because arguments are no fun if people become too wedded to their positions and make it personal?

OK.. sorry.

Thats how most games work. The engine can be addressed as to what res to render at. When you selecta res in game on a pc thats whay happens. Some consoles do this automatically, 360 being one. Very recent games allow the engine to render at 1080p native after the update was applied months ago.

as to providing proof... I did this with you many times this afternoon.

We're assuming the sources people are comparing actually have detailing at a resolution of 1080p. Just because the source input is 1080p, doesn't mean the image detail has a resolution of 1080p. Apparently there isn't a single movie or TV show that has enough detail to be used in this sort of resolution testing. Video games and PC usage is completely different, in this respect, since there isn't blurring from an external source (post-TV/Movie processing, camera resolution/optics, sampling from masters, etc.). D5 masters used to generated HD-DVDs and BRDs don't even have 1080p of detail just yet, and I would be surprised if TV shows were any better. Computer animations (i.e. Pixar films) are better, but aren't there yet either - the best ones don't even measure 1300 lines, only 20 lines of resolution over the 1280 lines capable on a 720p display (after downscaling, probably closer to 1100 lines).

See here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9206681&&#post9206681), and here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9213169&&#post9213169). Yes the visual acuity math works, but our sources just aren't there yet (except for PC and video game sources). Annoying that we have to rehash this all over again. I guess enough people didn't read John's explanation. Keep in mind that when you're watching a moving image, your pixel per degree acuity is closer to 40, not 60, and only over a very narrow area (since your eye focuses intently on a small spot when attempting to resolve high detail).

Interesting. What would be the "sweet spot" distance for 1080p viewing based on the visual acuity informatuion that you refer to?

i would be interested in knowing more about this. I never professed to be an expert on the 360, or computer games. So what is native on the disc? The highest resolution? Would 1080i or P make any dfference as to what is on the disc?


Its not native on the disk. The engine contains rules for rendering not actual graphics themselves. 720 engines can be updated over live. Some games have been mooted for the U/D

We're assuming the sources people are comparing actually have detailing at a resolution of 1080p. Just because the source input is 1080p, doesn't mean the image detail has a resolution of 1080p. Apparently there isn't a single movie or TV show that has enough detail to be used in this sort of resolution testing. Video games and PC usage is completely different, in this respect, since there isn't blurring from an external source (post-TV/Movie processing, camera resolution/optics, sampling from masters, etc.). D5 masters used to generated HD-DVDs and BRDs don't even have 1080p of detail just yet, and I would be surprised if TV shows were any better. Computer animations (i.e. Pixar films) are better, but aren't there yet either - the best ones don't even measure 1300 lines, only 20 lines of resolution over the 1280 lines capable on a 720p display (after downscaling, probably closer to 1100 lines).

See here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9206681&&#post9206681), and here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9213169&&#post9213169). Yes the visual acuity math works, but our sources just aren't there yet (except for PC and video game sources). Annoying that we have to rehash this all over again. I guess enough people didn't read John's explanation. Keep in mind that when you're watching a moving image, your pixel per degree acuity is closer to 40, not 60, and only over a very narrow area (since your eye focuses intently on a small spot when attempting to resolve high detail).

Post of the day in my book. I would imagine this changing quickly as digital projectors become the norm in Hollywood.

A clean 35mm film is capable of being rendered to at least 6000 lines. There is no problem at all filling all possible detail capacity with 1080p. The same negative is scanned at 1080 for HD-DVD


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_resolution


check the res section.

OK.. sorry.

Thats how most games work. The engine can be addressed as to what res to render at. When you selecta res in game on a pc thats whay happens. Some consoles do this automatically, 360 being one. Very recent games allow the engine to render at 1080p native after the update was applied months ago.

as to providing proof... I did this with you many times this afternoon.


Ok so it would appear that many games now have this capability in them. Is it possible that MS does the same with the splash screen that has been talked about here?

A clean 35mm film is capable of being rendered to at least 4K. There is no problem at all filling all possible detail capacity with 1080p.

Still, this means a bunch of film based material would not be good candidates. Have you done any of you 1:1 mapping with HD video based HD-DVDs or BDs (I think there are at least a few documentaries and/or concerts out there)? I really would be interested in your findings (I only have HD movies, which is 905 of what my projector is used for).

Most are easily capable even old ones. look at Casablanca detail that has never been seen before, same with Forbidden Planet. All my sources are 1:1 pixel mapped


ps I meant 6k not 4k some sequeces are actually 8k to integrate with film.

Ok so it would appear that many games now have this capability in them. Is it possible that MS does the same with the splash screen that has been talked about here?

For such an obvious question, there appears to be no clear answer.

Seethe following three links that seek to resolve the question aof what resolution games are being rendered at. Lots of opinions, no firm answers. The 360 is capable of rendering at different resolutions. No one can confirm whjether any game, GRAW 2 included, renders at 1080p.

Link 1 (http://forums.xbox.com/1979177/ShowPost.aspx)
Link 2 (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/archive/index.php/t-634471.html)
Link 3 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3291043913/m/2451028935)

. The 360 is capable of rendering at different resolutions. No one can confirm whjether any game, GRAW 2 included, renders at 108-p


I dont have time to trawl for info but here is the info for another 2 rendering the statement above redundant.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=12680

A clean 35mm film is capable of being rendered to at least 6000 lines. There is no problem at all filling all possible detail capacity with 1080p. The same negative is scanned at 1080 for HD-DVD


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_resolution


check the res section.
Some of the technicalities preventing filling 1080i/p programming to capacity (currently) are outlined in this post on resolution (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=5667245&&#post5667245). Some of these factors, limiting resolution and effective resolution, are described in more detail in the sublinks, written by authorities. The sublinks Lindahl posted above go into additional limiting factors. -- John

A clean 35mm film is capable of being rendered to at least 6000 lines. There is no problem at all filling all possible detail capacity with 1080p. The same negative is scanned at 1080 for HD-DVD

Just because a source is capable, doesn't mean it is. HD-DVD is capable of 1080p, but we all know no such DVDs show detailing of 1080p resolution. The initial capture is not the real problem. Post-processing and sampling for masters and then sampling again for delivery media is the real resolution killer. You didn't read my links, apparently (or didn't understand them).

EDIT: :D Looks like John beat me to it. Thanks for enlightening me in that other thread, hopefully others will begin to bear the torch of reality as well. And hopefully we'll see some true 1080p movies in the near future.

I dont have time to trawl for info but here is the info for another 2 rendering the statement above redundant.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=12680

That would seem to mean GRAW2 is not native 1080P if VT3 is going to be the first on March 20.

That would seem to mean GRAW2 is not native 1080P if VT3 is going to be the first on March 20.

You're right if that's true.

Interesting. What would be the "sweet spot" distance for 1080p viewing based on the visual acuity informatuion that you refer to?

I use this calculator:

http://home1.gte.net/res18h39/calculator.htm

I know this was mentioned but again I think it would be very important to make sure you are using a 1080p signal and content material. Viewing a high quality Blu-ray movie should show the difference.
Also to those of you that said you saw a difference in upgrading to a new projector, take into account you are probably going from an older bulb to a brand new one. This isn't much going to affect the resolution but it will improve your brightness and the way you see blacks and color levels.

You're right if that's true.


It WAS to be the first. It is was in fact NOT.

Some of the technicalities preventing filling 1080i/p programming to capacity (currently) are outlined in this post on resolution (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=5667245&&#post5667245). Some of these factors, limiting resolution and effective resolution, are described in more detail in the sublinks, written by authorities. The sublinks Lindahl posted above go into additional limiting factors. -- John


The Kell factor is not relevant if the source is other that a digital camera. With pc and consoles there is 100% vertical resolution corellation. This also applies to HD disks as most are from film. The article,you may not have noticed, is using ifo concerning broacast issues and most are not applicable here.

Interesting. What would be the "sweet spot" distance for 1080p viewing based on the visual acuity informatuion that you refer to?
Lots of tables have been linked on HD viewing distance. This archived post (http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=3574882#post3574882) outlines a distance calculation procedure and includes this:
In general, for 1080 HDTV, the desired viewing distance is ~3.1 times the picture height, which is about 1.5 times the image diagonal.
Although limitations to effective resolution (resolvable detail) prevent program material from achieving full-format HD resolutions (generally, to homes), the desirable seating distance is designed to prevent seeing the spacing between horizontal lines of the HD formats. -- John

The Kell factor is not relevant if the source is other that a digital camera. With pc and consoles there is 100% vertical resolution corellation. This also applies to HD disks as most are from film. The article,you may not have noticed, is using ifo concerning broacast issues and most are not applicable here.
Kell factor applies with telecines (from films) and video cameras. Agreed, it doesn't apply with computer-generated images or with test patterns from signal generators. A progressive image derived from film, or 720p camera images, or 1080i deinterlacing, doesn't prevent Kell factor limitations. -- John

This thread is the kind that makes you want to reply, but I felt I had nothing to say until I thought about it.

Let's say I am relieved larrimore did not say the Panasonic AE1000U was worse than a Panasonic 720p projector, as I have a AE1000U sitting here next to me in an unopened box. I wasn't motivated to buy a projector until I could get a 1080p at a relatively decent price (a $400 rebate helps). This is also my first projector other than slide projectors. I have a plasma that scales 1080i too (not native 1080 monitor). A 1080p60 device is the standard, everything else is close to and maybe does an excellant job of showing standard HD.

As you guys know, reading one thread often takes you to another thread explaining something related. One thread or link led me to the two lines 1mm apart can be distinguished at 30 feet by someone with 20/20 premise. Then it was it said for a projected image realistically the acuity goes to 15 feet. Maybe because we are looking at a big screen of data rather than two lines 1mm apart our acuity is even less.

I didn't catch larrimore's screen size so I'll used my 120" diagonal that came this morning (also in the box sitting by me, a really really long heavy box). The Panasonic calculator says that my vertical screen is 58.8mm. At 1080 each line of pixels is at a .0544mm spacing, at 720 it is at .0816mm od spacing, and at 480 it would be .1225. What distance would I have to be to see two lines .0544mm apart? Maybe with all the data on the screen and the spacings used, our visual acuity doesn't really "see" the differences between 720p and 1080p.

Owners of 720p equipment should feel that their current equipment is doing a good job.

This thread is the kind that makes you want to reply, but I felt I had nothing to say until I thought about it.

Let's say I am relieved larrimore did not say the Panasonic AE1000U was worse than a Panasonic 720p projector, as I have a AE1000U sitting here next to me in an unopened box. I wasn't motivated to buy a projector until I could get a 1080p at a relatively decent price (a $400 rebate helps). This is also my first projector other than slide projectors. I have a plasma that scales 1080i too (not native 1080 monitor). A 1080p60 device is the standard, everything else is close to and maybe does an excellant job of showing standard HD.

As you guys know, reading one thread often takes you to another thread explaining something related. One thread or link led me to the two lines 1mm apart can be distinguished at 30 feet by someone with 20/20 premise. Then it was it said for a projected image realistically the acuity goes to 15 feet. Maybe because we are looking at a big screen of data rather than two lines 1mm apart our acuity is even less.

I didn't catch larrimore's screen size so I'll used my 120" diagonal that came this morning (also in the box sitting by me, a really really long heavy box). The Panasonic calculator says that my vertical screen is 58.8mm. At 1080 each line of pixels is at a .0544mm spacing, at 720 it is at .0816mm od spacing, and at 480 it would be .1225. What distance would I have to be to see two lines .0544mm apart? Maybe with all the data on the screen and the spacings used, our visual acuity doesn't really "see" the differences between 720p and 1080p.

Owners of 720p equipment should feel that their current equipment is doing a good job.

Don't mess with the math, yourself. Use the pixels-per-degree calculator I posted in the link at the top of this page. Should tell you everything you need to know about visual acuity (except that it goes WAY down for moving images, ~40 PPD).

This thread is the kind that makes you want to reply, but I felt I had nothing to say until I thought about it.

Let's say I am relieved larrimore did not say the Panasonic AE1000U was worse than a Panasonic 720p projector, as I have a AE1000U sitting here next to me in an unopened box. I wasn't motivated to buy a projector until I could get a 1080p at a relatively decent price (a $400 rebate helps). This is also my first projector other than slide projectors. I have a plasma that scales 1080i too (not native 1080 monitor). A 1080p60 device is the standard, everything else is close to and maybe does an excellant job of showing standard HD.

As you guys know, reading one thread often takes you to another thread explaining something related. One thread or link led me to the two lines 1mm apart can be distinguished at 30 feet by someone with 20/20 premise. Then it was it said for a projected image realistically the acuity goes to 15 feet. Maybe because we are looking at a big screen of data rather than two lines 1mm apart our acuity is even less.

I didn't catch larrimore's screen size so I'll used my 120" diagonal that came this morning (also in the box sitting by me, a really really long heavy box). The Panasonic calculator says that my vertical screen is 58.8mm. At 1080 each line of pixels is at a .0544mm spacing, at 720 it is at .0816mm od spacing, and at 480 it would be .1225. What distance would I have to be to see two lines .0544mm apart? Maybe with all the data on the screen and the spacings used, our visual acuity doesn't really "see" the differences between 720p and 1080p.

Owners of 720p equipment should feel that their current equipment is doing a good job.

I'd almost buy your math except a 120" diagonal screen probably has a 58.8" vertical if 16:9 mode. I think you messed up with millimeters in there since I compute each pixel to be 0.0544" or 1.38mm at 1080p.

Kevin

Kell factor applies with telecines (from films) and video cameras. Agreed, it doesn't apply with computer-generated images or with test patterns from signal generators. A progressive image derived from film, or 720p camera images, or 1080i deinterlacing, doesn't prevent Kell factor limitations. -- John


But film is scanned for dvd and hd disk use so it doesnt apply.

I'd almost buy your math except a 120" diagonal screen probably has a 58.8" vertical if 16:9 mode. I think you messed up with millimeters in there since I compute each pixel to be 0.0544" or 1.38mm at 1080p.

Kevin


Youre right, hes way off

It WAS to be the first. It is was in fact NOT.

Please let's not go in a circle. If you have some proof please present it.

To John Mason and Lindahl, both of whom are out of my league in every possible way on this, are there any simple, English guidelines that you can outline that might help us understand when (whether at a certain distance or with certain material) 1080 matters over 720p?

Please let's not go in a circle. If you have some proof please present it.

To John Mason and Lindahl, both of whom are out of my league in every possible way on this, are there any simple, English guidelines that you can outline that might help us understand when (whether at a certain distance or with certain material) 1080 matters over 720p?

Its an arc/min for 20/20 acuity. 3/1000 inch per foot distance

To John Mason and Lindahl, both of whom are out of my league in every possible way on this, are there any simple, English guidelines that you can outline that might help us understand when (whether at a certain distance or with certain material) 1080 matters over 720p?

Assuming perfect 720p and 1080p material, and a good compromise for moving/still images of ~50 pixels per degree of visual acuity:

maximum viewing distance (feet) to resolve all 1080p detail:
screen diagonal (inches) x 0.10

maximum viewing distance (feet) to resolve all 720p detail:
screen diagonal (inches) x 0.15

In the real world, the formula is never really this simple. Mostly because our 1080p and 720p sources don't even have close to that much detail.

Assuming perfect 720p and 1080p material, and a good compromise for moving/still images of ~50 pixels per degree of visual acuity:

maximum viewing distance (feet) to resolve all 1080p detail:
screen diagonal (inches) x 0.10

maximum viewing distance (feet) to resolve all 720p detail:
screen diagonal (inches) x 0.15

In the real world, the formula is never really this simple. Mostly because our 1080p and 720p sources don't even have close to that much detail.

decimal problem i believe

Assuming perfect 720p and 1080p material, and a good compromise for moving/still images of ~50 pixels per degree of visual acuity:

maximum viewing distance (feet) to resolve all 1080p detail:
screen diagonal (inches) x 0.10

maximum viewing distance (feet) to resolve all 720p detail:
screen diagonal (inches) x 0.15

In the real world, the formula is never really this simple. Mostly because our 1080p and 720p sources don't even have close to that much detail.

Thanks. That was very helpful.

Its not correct by a factor of 10

I repeat..Its an arc/min for 20/20 acuity. 3/1000 inch per foot distance or 1/30th at 10feet. Well inside the pixel structure for normal screen sizes, therefore totally resolvable.

I repeat..Its an arc/min for 20/20 acuity. 3/1000 inch per foot distance or 1/30th at 10feet. Well inside the pixel structure for normal screen sizes, therefore totally resolvable.

What does this mean in English?

you can detect 1/30th of an inch at 10ft. Smaller than pixel sizes on normal screens so the detail can easily be seen at those distances

Thanks. That was very helpful.


how could it be helpful if it was not correct?

you can detect 1/30th of an inch at 10ft

Thanks. I hate to ask, but do you have some authority for this?

Thanks. I hate to ask, but do you have some authority for this?
Would you ever do some research for yourself?

http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/PenetrantTest/Introduction/visualacuity.htm

Thanks. I hate to ask, but do you have some authority for this?I provided you the same information, but apparently you didn't believe it when it came from me either. If you don't want to believe what we're posting don't, but do your own research if you believe what we're saying to be inaccurate.

I provided you the same information, but apparently you didn't believe it when it came from me either. If you don't want to believe what we're posting don't, but do your own research if you believe what we're saying to be inaccurate.


Its been like that all day with this guy about everything.

Would you ever do some research for yourself?No, he just keeps questioning the information if he doesn't like it.

After all, how do you know what's in the link is correct?

Its not correct by a factor of 10

Are you saying it would be 1X screen diagonal versus 1.5X diagonals (I am somewhere in the middle of that)?


That would make sense. However, it doesn't acccount for smoothscreen. I have to get REALLY close to see pixel gaps on an AE900, it was not so on a Sanyo Z4 I tried out before buying the 900.

Are you saying it would be 1X screen diagonal versus 1.5X diagonals (I am somewhere in the middle of that)?


That would make sense. However, it doesn't acccount for smoothscreen. I have to get REALLY close to see pixel gaps on an AE900, it was not so on a Sanyo Z4 I tried out before buying the 900.


Yes. Those figures with an 8ft screen mean you need to be at about 10 inches which is clearly not the case. Your figures are ok

Ok, but if you have a CIH setup and are stretching the image horizontally and vertically, then a 1080p 2.37:1 anamorphically stretched image should look better than a 720p anamorphically stretched image. Just a thought as to where you may see the benefit.

I still think the main benefit is in the reduction of SDE mainly. That I see with my 720p although it's so minimal it doesn't bother me. Having SDE even less visible, AND having anamorphic material with plenty of resolution should be helpful too. Of course there are fewer pixels when stretched, but vs 720p there are more.

Forgive me but I thought that we were adults here and that we could have an intelligent discussion. If I don't let you get away with an unsupported claim, why should it trouble you? I should also be called on it if I try to pass of my opinion as fact as coldmachine has done. Stereodude, be careful of the allies you make. I don't think that you are the same kind of poster that coldmachine has revealed himself to be both in this thread an in others. Lots of opinions but precious little else, unfortunately.

I think that I have learned all that I can from this thread as it has, as most once interesting threads do, devolved into an attack on something other than the facts or theory presented.

Ok, but if you have a CIH setup and are stretching the image horizontally and vertically, then a 1080p 2.37:1 anamorphically stretched image should look better than a 720p image. Just a thought as to where you may see the benefit.

I still think the benefit is in the reduction of SDE mainly. That I see with my 720p although it's so minimal it doesn't bother me. Having SDE even less visible, AND having anamorphic material with plenty of resolution should be helpful too. Of course there are fewer pixels when stretched, but vs 720p there are more.

I agree. Somwhere early in the thread I stated all bets are off for CH setups. However, the calculator posted up about 10 posts would allow you to input the info using a scope setup I believe. Everything I saw using that calculator would seem to justify my conclusions at my seating distance and screen size- I'll explain the difference by the smoothscreen which really does work..

Edit: Boy was I misreading this. I should have been looking at Critical Distance which is substantially different. That would seem to indicate a much bigger difference. I amy have to rethink the whole thing if that is corrent. I can still say it is smoothcreen though.

SMOOTHSCREEN, SMOOTHSCREEN. :D

I agree. Somwhere early in the thread I stated all bets are off for CH setups. However, the calculator posted up about 10 posts would allow you to input the info using a scope setup I believe. Everything I saw using that calculator would seem to justify my conclusions at my seating distance and screen size.

Right. Was that for an "anamorphically" stretched scope setup? I already have little problem with my CIH setup now, but I can see pixels and sde if I am looking for it, so 1080p solves that problem :) ... or at least greatly reduces it :cool:

Its not correct by a factor of 10

Wrong, those are certainly accurate. Visual acuity is 1/60th of a degree, thus we can resolve 60 pixels per degree. I chose 50 pixels per degree since it more accurately represents what we can perceive in a normal environment, as opposed to an ideal environment (completely still image, staring a small portion of it for several seconds). The rest of the math can be followed by the link I posted a calculator to. Since it's all multiplication and division, a simple scalar value can be derived by doing some number entry on the calculator. Doing a bit more of number-entry, the math syncs up with many resources, including this one from Sound and Vision magazine.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/tips/1137/maxing-out-resolution.html

I'm not sure where you come off, arrogantly saying it's wrong by a factor of 10. You don't even back it up in any way (not that you could). Perhaps you did an extra unit conversion (12 inches = 1 foot = ~factor of 10).

Taken from your own source:
The standard definition of normal visual acuity (20/20 vision) is the ability to resolve a spatial pattern separated by a visual angle of one minute of arc. Since one degree contains sixty minutes, a visual angle of one minute of arc is 1/60 of a degree. The spatial resolution limit is derived from the fact that one degree of a scene is projected across 288µm of the retina by the eye's lens.

Forgive me but I thought that we were adults here and that we could have an intelligent discussion. If I don't let you get away with an unsupported claim, why should it trouble you? I should also be called on it if I try to pass of my opinion as fact as coldmachine has done. Stereodude, be careful of the allies you make. I don't think that you are the same kind of poster that coldmachine has revealed himself to be both in this thread an in others. Lots of opinions but precious little else, unfortunately.

I think that I have learned all that I can from this thread as it has, as most once interesting threads do, devolved into an attack on something other than the facts or theory presented.


Dude i have helped and informed you all day. Its a real drag when all the facts i posted are constantly questioned to a ludicrous level whilst not understanding really basic stuff but being unwilling to research it your self. You quoted many things this afternoon that were counter to mine, and all proved to be wrong... PJ modes, pixel mapping, scaling, 360 res, 360 rendering, engine native res etc etc. I am more than willing to help you but you could help yourself too. It totally destroyed the development of this thread. If I can help i will, just ask.

I agree. Somwhere early in the thread I stated all bets are off for CH setups. However, the calculator posted up about 10 posts would allow you to input the info using a scope setup I believe. Everything I saw using that calculator would seem to justify my conclusions at my seating distance and screen size- I'll explain the difference by the smoothscreen which really does work..

Edit: Boy was I misreading this. I should have been looking at Critical Distance which is substantially different. That would seem to indicate a much bigger difference. I amy have to rethink the whole thing if that is corrent. I can still say it is smoothcreen though.

What you saw in your original post was the limitation of today's source material. To really notice a difference in resolution, you need a PC source or other computer generated graphics that aren't processed in any way. 1080p P3 or X360 games may work, but that depends on how well the graphics are generated.

Wrong, those are certainly accurate. Visual acuity is 1/60th of a degree, thus we can resolve 60 pixels per degree. I chose 50 pixels per degree since it more accurately represents what we can perceive in a normal environment, as opposed to ideal environment (completely still image, staring a small portion of it for several seconds). The rest of the math can be followed by the link I posted a calculator to. Since it's all multiplication and division, a simple scalar value can be derived by doing some number entry on the calculator. Doing a bit more of number-entry, the math syncs up with many resources, including this one from Sound and Vision magazine.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/tips/1137/maxing-out-resolution.html

I'm not sure where you come off, arrogantly saying it's wrong by a factor of 10. You don't even back it up in any way (not that you could). Perhaps you did an extra unit conversion (12 inches = 1 foot = ~factor of 10).

Taken from your own source:

60/th degree is not 60 pixels per degree at all. Its purely an angle of i arc/min or 3/1000ths inch per foot. Your figure should be 1 and 1.5 not 0.1 and 0.15 widths you were in error by a factor of 10.

60/th degree is not 60 pixels per degree at all. Its purely an angle of i arc/min or 3/1000ths inch per foot. Your figure should be 1 and 1.5 not 0.1 and 0.15, you were in error by a factor of 10.

If you can distinguish detail at 1/60th of a degree, and the best detail you can distinguish is a single pixel, then you need to find the distance at which there are 60 pixels per degree, and that is the maximum distance one can distinguish all visible detail in a digital image. This is well documented. I don't know what else I can say, but you're wrong.

human acuity is 1/60 degree or 1 arc/min. Nothing to do with pixel number at all.

human acuity is 1/60 degree or 1 arc/min. Nothing to do with pixel number at all.

It has everything to do with pixels when you're trying to find out how far of a distance you have to be before you can no longer distinguish between pixels (detail for digital images). Are you this frustratingly stupid in real life?

1/60th of a degree is 60 pixels per degree, since the detail item is a single pixel. This is well documented. I don't know what else I can say, but you're wrong.

He will never admit that he is wrong about anything. Long after you leave this thread and forget about it he will be posting how you were wrong. As someone who has a finely honed b.s. detector, coldmachine sets it off big time. As I posted before, he is all opinion, no fact.

If you can distinguish detail at 1/60th of a degree, and the best detail you can distinguish is a single pixel, then you need to find the distance at which there are 60 pixels per degree, and that is the maximum distance one can distinguish all visible detail in a digital image. This is well documented. I don't know what else I can say, but you're wrong.
It is correct that only at a distnce where pixel size = 1 arc minute. Change throw or structure and pixel size at that distance no longer equals 1 arc/min

Sorry, its 1494mm or 58.8 inches, so 1494mm/1080=1.38, 1494/720=2.075.

He will never admit that he is wrong about anything. Long after you leave this thread and forget about it he will be posting how you were wrong. As someone who has a finely honed b.s. detector, coldmachine sets it off big time. As I posted before, he is all opinion, no fact.

I provided you the link with the acuity figures

It is correct that only at a distnce where pixel size = 1 arc minute. Change throw or structure and pixel size at that distance no longer equals 1 arc/min

When you change the throw you also change the screen size, and thus the result of the formula changes accordingly. I assume by structure you mean aspect ratio? My formula is only good for a 16:9 aspect ratio. I can easily derive formulas for any other aspect ratio you'd like.

Human acuity is 1/60th of a degree. This is an angle. It is also known as 1 arc/min. This equates to 3/1000th of an inch per foot distance. Therefore at 10 feet this 1/30th of an inch. That is 20/ 20 acuity. If your pixels are larger than 1/30th of an inch your eye can resolve all the info. HTs normally will not have a pixel pitch anywhere near that fine at the sizes we use.

For figure check the link i provided lawguy

I provided you the link with the acuity figures

Yes you did and if I understand Lindahl correctly, they do not support your argument.

You also base most of your argument on the assumption that an x-box video game, GRAW 2 natively renders at 1080p. I could find no evidence that this was true and some evidence to the contrary. You continue to state that it is a 1080p game because the box lists 1080p as a supported resuolution even though the developer of Lost Planet, a game whose box also says 1080p, has stated that 1080p is achieved through scaling. None of this casts any doubt on your conclusions for soem reason. None.

You also insist that the only way to judge the difference between 1080p and 720p material (presumably using Graw2) is from visual memory as opposed to a side by side analysis as the Greek group has twice done. You don't explain why that is. You make no attempt to distinguish what the Greek group did or suggest why they are wrong

If you were acting in good faith you would admit that these things cast doubt on your conclusions. But you are not acting in good faith. You would rather win an argument based on a lie than have your false argument rejected.

I am not without mistakes. I did falsely accuse your projector of scaling when, in fact, it was not. I am sure that I made other mistakes as well, but I was acting at all time in good faith and was prepared to be proven wrong. I don't know a lot about the limits of human vision and this concept is interesting to me.

Coldmachine, say what you want in response. You can have the last word I won't reply because there is no satisfcation in debating someone who does not act in good faith. Have at it.

jacksonian, did you turn off the 92% overscan on the Epson 1080 when you still had the 720?
Yes.

When you change the throw you also change the screen size, and thus the result of the formula changes accordingly. I assume by structure you mean aspect ratio? My formula is only good for a 16:9 aspect ratio. I can easily derive formulas for any other aspect ratio you'd like.


Look at you original formula. It makes the max distance for a 96 inch screen to be 9.6 inches, which is crazy, your figure should be 10 times that. Its roughly 1 diagonal.

What you saw in your original post was the limitation of today's source material. To really notice a difference in resolution, you need a PC source or other computer generated graphics that aren't processed in any way. 1080p P3 or X360 games may work, but that depends on how well the graphics are generated.

Wouldn't that be the same as saying even if there IS a difference, who cares? Not that that's my opinion at all, but if it's impossible to see a difference with good HD-DVD or Blu-Ray movies, what's the point? (for movie buffs anyway)

(I DO think there is a difference that's noticable under the right circumstances, and while I haven't seen an AE1000, I somewhat question the OP's experiences.)

Graphs, charts, math, graphs, charts, math. Got it. But that doesn't tell the story.

Do the experiment and SEE for yourself.

And has been said many times before, if you're saying you can only see these differences with test patterns, then let's stop the discussion right here. Because larrimore and I are talking about watching movies and tv. We're not having "Test Pattern Night at My House, Party!" :D

Ok, but if you have a CIH setup and are stretching the image horizontally and vertically, then a 1080p 2.37:1 anamorphically stretched image should look better than a 720p anamorphically stretched image. Just a thought as to where you may see the benefit.

I still think the main benefit is in the reduction of SDE mainly. That I see with my 720p although it's so minimal it doesn't bother me. Having SDE even less visible, AND having anamorphic material with plenty of resolution should be helpful too. Of course there are fewer pixels when stretched, but vs 720p there are more.

Damn, what was this post all about???

I’m thinking that a couple of you need to go to the parking lot and work things out.

----------------

To anyone interested in the original topic……..

I just placed an order for a Panasonic 1000U from Projector People. It should be on my door step next week sometime and it is replacing my Panasonic 900 with 500 hours on the bulb.

I have a constant image height set up using a Prismasonic 1500 lens and a DVDO VP-50 video processor that handles all my scaling / de-interlacing. The room can be completely light controlled, it’s a dark red and the screen is a Stewart Firehawk G3. 41” X 96” and I sit 12’ away from it.

I am feeding the VP-50 with an Oppo 970 at 480i (hdmi), a HD-AX1 and a PS3.

After I get the new projector, I can take some screen shots and try to post them. I really hope going 1080P isn’t a waste of money, but I’m big enough to admit if it is a waste.

If anyone has some input to how I can do a 720 / 1080 ‘shoot out’ objectively, shoot me a PM.

I Thougt HD-Ready was infact even lower resolution than 1280x720?

As I understand it HD-Ready simply means you can display an HD image by downscaling it. Whereas 1280x720 IS real HD.

And of course 1920x1080 being HD as well, often called Full HD.

So if this is correct, no wonder an "HD-Ready" screen (with a poor scaler quite often) will look worse than real HD.

Also, seems many here is confusing screendoor with resolution. They are not the same. I think in real program material (not test-patterns) most people will be able to tell the difference in screendoor much more easily than difference in actual resolution.

Also 1080 material (like HD DVD / Bluray) often looks better downscaled on a 720p projector than native 720 material EVEN though there is no scaling involved with the latter.

I think the shootouts in Greece proves that from any reasonable viewing distance, 720p resolution and 1080p resolution can be really hard to tell apart (say more than 1.5 screenwidth).

That being said, I REALLY would like to upgrade from my benq 8720 to the RS1 (or HD1 here in Europe), but resolution has little to do with it. :)

Current marketing uses HD Ready mostly for lcd displays with 720p resolution
Full HD is mostly used for 1080 panel resolutions. 720 is real HD but not Full HD.
I did compare some Philips Cineos line displays with the same screen dimension

The Athens shootout did proof that under certain circumstances a real difference between 720 and 1080 is hard to see if at all.

However I do see the difference in my setup. Mostly because to me scaling artifacts and motion artifacts are more obvious on a 720 display. At 4 mtr viewing distance at a 2.8 mtr wide screen I could just see the SDE and the occasional artifacts.
These artifacts are bound to happen even with top notch scaling. Going from 1080 back to 720 is a too small reduction ratio. Aliasing effects will happen on high resolution images with moving image content. (I believe that scaling down to 480 from 1080 can give better results because the ratio is better. The seating distance should be farther though)

My setup with a 1080 projector is now artifact free and no sde at all.
A real improvement in my case.

Human acuity is 1/60th of a degree. This is an angle. It is also known as 1 arc/min. This equates to 3/1000th of an inch per foot distance. Therefore at 10 feet this 1/30th of an inch. That is 20/ 20 acuity. If your pixels are larger than 1/30th of an inch your eye can resolve all the info. HTs normally will not have a pixel pitch anywhere near that fine at the sizes we use.

Yes, all that is correct, and proves what I said. Going from my formula, back to yours:

60 pixels per degree viewing ratio: 0.13

10 feet / .13 = 76.9 in diagonal screen
76.9 in diagonal screen = 37.7 in height
37.7 in / 1080 pixels = .0349

The pixels using my maximum viewing distance are .0349 of an inch - pretty damn close to your 1/30th (.0333) of an inch. Your ratio is actually wrong, due to rounding - rounding at this level will give you inaccurate results. The proper pixel size is .0349 per inch:

tan(1/60) = .000291
10 feet * .000291 * 12 in/feet = .0349 in

As you can see, my calculations are perfectly accurate. Your conclusion that I was off by a factor of 10 is false. I hope you finally admit you were wrong.

Look at you original formula. It makes the max distance for a 96 inch screen to be 9.6 inches, which is crazy, your figure should be 10 times that. Its roughly 1 diagonal.

Like I said before, you were probably making the mistake of ignoring the unit conversion, which you were. The maximum viewing distance is in feet, not inches (9.6 feet, not 9.6 inches). This is why you thought I was off by a factor of 10. Next time read more carefully. ;)

Dude, huge appologies over and over. I missed where it said feet, which is why i saw you to be miles out. I failed to see feet written in brackets. Its been a long day.

Dude, huge appologies over and over. I missed where it said feet, which is why i saw you to be miles out. I failed to see feet written in brackets. Its been a long day.

Not a problem... took us a while to get there, but we did get there.

Wouldn't that be the same as saying even if there IS a difference, who cares? Not that that's my opinion at all, but if it's impossible to see a difference with good HD-DVD or Blu-Ray movies, what's the point? (for movie buffs anyway)

I agree 100%. Hopefully this will change, and we'll have higher effective resolution HD-DVDs and BDs. But until that day, there isn't much point to owning a 1080p projector solely for the extra resolution. Fortunately, for the manufacturers, they're improving in many other areas (that, and the paying public is ignorant :D).

were saying the same thing. For an 8ft diag screen if you are within 9.6 feet you can resolve all available information.

The engineers did all the math and felt there was some difference that could be hidden with smoothscreen, and we can't distinguish the differences with our visual acuity. Well that is a good thing then, because we can sit sit back and enjoy the movie whether 720p or 1080p.

It was hard telling gthe differences in the Greek comparison.

I do like to try to understand some of the science behind it though.

were saying the same thing. For an 8ft diag screen if you are within 9.6 feet you can resolve all available information.

Well, I'd probably only give human vision about a 1/40th of a degree of visual acuity for active images (movies, games, etc.). I only used the 1/50th of a degree figure to give some people the benefit of the doubt - to be on the safe side for those short periods of still images in movies. At 1/40th of a degree, you're looking at ratios closer to .087 and .13 for 1080p and 720p, respectively. Either way, that's too close for most people. Most people don't enjoy watching any closer than 1.3x width for 16:9 and 1.1x width for 2.35. Which is about 1/44th of a degree and 1/48th of a degree, respectively.

I'm a 2.35 guy, myself (CH all the way!). 16x9 screens aren't as pleasing to the eye, since they don't match the horizontal and vertical viewing angle sensitivities. 2.35 screens are a lot better in this regard. We're much more sensitive, vertically, both in acuity and in eye strain. I think this evolved from being worried about bonking our heads on stalagmites or stubbing our toes on rocks, when we lived in caves. :D

I would agree as 1 arc/min is perfect 20/20 with a laboratory test card.

Still cant get over not seeing feet in brackets...what a stool.

Wouldn't that be the same as saying even if there IS a difference, who cares? Not that that's my opinion at all, but if it's impossible to see a difference with good HD-DVD or Blu-Ray movies, what's the point? (for movie buffs anyway)

(I DO think there is a difference that's noticable under the right circumstances, and while I haven't seen an AE1000, I somewhat question the OP's experiences.)

My point exactly. I never said there was no difference. I said there was no difference to me. At all.

Damn, what was this post all about???

I’m thinking that a couple of you need to go to the parking lot and work things out.

----------------

To anyone interested in the original topic……..

I just placed an order for a Panasonic 1000U from Projector People. It should be on my door step next week sometime and it is replacing my Panasonic 900 with 500 hours on the bulb.

I have a constant image height set up using a Prismasonic 1500 lens and a DVDO VP-50 video processor that handles all my scaling / de-interlacing. The room can be completely light controlled, it’s a dark red and the screen is a Stewart Firehawk G3. 41” X 96” and I sit 12’ away from it.

I am feeding the VP-50 with an Oppo 970 at 480i (hdmi), a HD-AX1 and a PS3.

After I get the new projector, I can take some screen shots and try to post them. I really hope going 1080P isn’t a waste of money, but I’m big enough to admit if it is a waste.

If anyone has some input to how I can do a 720 / 1080 ‘shoot out’ objectively, shoot me a PM.

My fingers are crossed for you. And, given the CIH setup I will be waiting to hear from you. I would hope that would do it.

Current marketing uses HD Ready mostly for lcd displays with 720p resolution
Full HD is mostly used for 1080 panel resolutions. 720 is real HD but not Full HD.
I did compare some Philips Cineos line displays with the same screen dimension

The Athens shootout did proof that under certain circumstances a real difference between 720 and 1080 is hard to see if at all.

However I do see the difference in my setup. Mostly because to me scaling artifacts and motion artifacts are more obvious on a 720 display. At 4 mtr viewing distance at a 2.8 mtr wide screen I could just see the SDE and the occasional artifacts.
These artifacts are bound to happen even with top notch scaling. Going from 1080 back to 720 is a too small reduction ratio. Aliasing effects will happen on high resolution images with moving image content. (I believe that scaling down to 480 from 1080 can give better results because the ratio is better. The seating distance should be farther though)

My setup with a 1080 projector is now artifact free and no sde at all.
A real improvement in my case.

I don't think I have ever seen HD ready used for 720P except for FP tvs with no tuners. I see SD (480i), ED (480p), HD (720P) and Full HD (1080). I believe this is the current nomenclature.

Dude, huge appologies over and over. I missed where it said feet, which is why i saw you to be miles out. I failed to see feet written in brackets. Its been a long day.
So what does that mean in English?

So what does that mean in English?

I dont follow you. What do you mean?

Lindahl,

Thanks for pointing out the PPD calculator. I think I understand things a little bit better. I can see why the cinemascope screen might be easier on the eyes. I suppose when a letterboxed movie is used the 1080p might be a better way to display that on a 16:9 screen. I guess I could roll the screen up and use a wider format to see and feel for myself.

Current marketing uses HD Ready mostly for lcd displays with 720p resolution
Full HD is mostly used for 1080 panel resolutions. 720 is real HD but not Full HD.


"Current marketing", at least in the United States, does not use the term "HD Ready" as a description of a display's native resolution.

HD Ready simply refers to a monitor or display that has the ability to display high definition resolutions, but does not have a built-in high definition tuner.

Conversely, HDTV is used to describe a monitor or display that has the ability to display high definition resolution and does have a built-in high definition tuner.

You are, however, correct regarding the use of "Full HD" as describing the ability to display a resolution of 1920 by 1080.

Regards.

He was NOT proposing that! Actually this is EXACTLY what we did in our first shoot-out with the Marantz projectors!

Edit: I just noticed the proposal of using two 1080 projectors. That would not make any sense, since a 1080 projector can never have 1:1 pixel mapping when set at 720p.The best approach is to use 2 projectors (one 720 and one 1080) which have the same optics and electronics like the Marantz and BenQ we used at the shoot-outs and calibate them at D65. Any other way, the comparison may be compromised by quality of the internal scaler of the 1080 projector when set to 720p.

Why can't a 1080p projector display 720p 1:1? Can't it just display a 720p image window boxed into 1080p? Then it would be zoomed out to maintain the same image size.

If you're starting with 1080 source material, it has to be compromised at some point in order to display on a 720p device, either through an extermal VP or the internal scaler of the projector. Isn't that the whole point of this exercise - to find out if this compromise can actually be detected by our eyes?

That's why I think using 2 1080p projectors is a better way to isolate the resolution difference. Everything is identical except the image resolution. Even better would be to use the same projector and toggle back and forth, but you can't do a side-by-side comparison that way.

Regards,
I-Liang

I dont follow you. What do you mean?
Actually, it was answered a few posts down from yours. I wanted final determination onwhat the distances were.

Why can't a 1080p projector display 720p 1:1? Can't it just display a 720p image window boxed into 1080p? Then it would be zoomed out to maintain the same image size.

If you're starting with 1080 source material, it has to be compromised at some point in order to display on a 720p device, either through an extermal VP or the internal scaler of the projector. Isn't that the whole point of this exercise - to find out if this compromise can actually be detected by our eyes?

That's why I think using 2 1080p projectors is a better way to isolate the resolution difference. Everything is identical except the image resolution. Even better would be to use the same projector and toggle back and forth, but you can't do a side-by-side comparison that way.

Regards,
I-Liang
Thats exactly what i was doing, some couldnt grasp pixel mapping, amongst other things, so that slowed us down a bit. The switching is near instant and detail differences are readily apparent