Okay, I tried searching for some solutions without finding any direct answers to my questions. I'm looking to spend about $2500 on a new HD monitor and I'm exploring my options. I can somewhat take advantage of 1080p because I have an Xbox 360 w/ HDDVD addon, as well as a computer DVI output capable of 1080p. Because my entertainment center will likely be in a relatively small space (I'm a law school student, so I'm living in an apartment), I will likely be close enough to the set to take advantage of 1080p as long as I go 50" or bigger. But, let's be honest, most of my sources will not be native 1008p (Cable HDTV, Xbox 360 games, streaming moveis to my Xbox 360, HDDVDs).

Let's say a source is natively 720p or 1080i. Doesn't that mean a set like the Pioneer 5070HD with a native resolution of x768 would produce a better picture than a display with a resolution of 1080p like a Sony Bravia V2500?

So even if I am within viewing range that takes advantage of 1080p, unless I'm viewing sources that are natively 1080p, the picture will be better on sets that do not natively have a 1080p resolution (like the Pioneer PDP-5070HD).

Thanks for any input in trying to evaluate this issue.

Go to a store. View displays from the distance you'd be viewing them from home. Pick the one that looks best to you. If it's too expensive, start compromising.

I have a 40V2500 and view it from 10 feet. It looks great in HD (1080I). I do not know why there is all this talk about accepting lower resolution if you are too far away. More dots mean more detail, period. But then the question is whether you have a HD feed from cable or dish. If not, you will pay for those dots. A 720I/P input will always look better on a 720P display. But how many inputs are 720I. Most (that I can see on my cable) are either 480P or 1080I.

So, in my opinion, buy the highest amount of pixels you can. This way you won't grow out of it. If you don't have the HD video input, the above statement will be a waste of money until you do get a HD feed.

I have HD available through DirecTV, so most of my sources will be natively 1080i at least. The only ones that won't be are SD channels and my Wii. My Marantz DV7600 can upconvert DVDs to 1080i. DBLASS makes a good point when he says that most sources are not natively 720p. Would 1080i theoretically look better on a 1080p because the TV hardware will de-interlace to 1080p?

I've gone to best buy and looked at the TVs they have on display there. The only problem is, viewing them in the stores is not like viewing them at home. At home I'd have different lighting, different sources, and, perhaps most importantly, i'd have it calibrated with Avia. So unless I used Avia or DVE on every TV in the store, isn't browsing just going to give me an incorrect perception of the PQ of TVs?

I really don't know what to do. The Pioneer PDP-5070HD gets such good press in reviews and on these forums. But 1080p is so tempting for some reason, even though I don't have many native 1080p sources (computer, HDDVD, future Xbox 360 games). So would the PQ of a 1080i signal be greater on the PDP-5070 or on a Sony V2500?

I have a 40V2500 and view it from 10 feet. It looks great in HD (1080I). I do not know why there is all this talk about accepting lower resolution if you are too far away. More dots mean more detail, period.
:) Come on now. As toddlers, or maybe in baby cribs, we all discover finer detail drops off with distance. If you don't care about HD details, sit far enough back so you can't see them. The goal of HD, the reason for more resolution lines, is being able to view ~33-degree-wide (viewing distance), more-immersive images without noticing spacing between lines. -- John

There are only two 1080p 50" plasmas available today ( maybe the panasonics are now shipping I don't know), and both are way more than your 2500 budget. I think that any 50+ inch LCD 1080p would also be way beyond your 2500 budget, so buy the Pioneer 5070, you will be very happy with it. It produces a great picture.

Okay, so I am far sighted but still, look at digital cameras and monitors. The higher the resolution the better the image. Without starting a firestorm here, how many of the experts who say that 720P is fine are promoting display technologies that are challenged by displaying higher resolution (plasmas).

It's actually nothing like a digital camera or a monitor.

The important difference is that cameras and monitors are fed relatively superior source material. The real world and modern graphics cards are way beyond what HDTV can produce.

There's a thread that asks forum members to vote for either the Sony V2500 and the Pioneer 5070, and the overwhelming majority of members voted for the Pioneer. Sure, when the V2500 is fed 1080p material, it will look better than the Pioneer (given that you're within 6 feet or whatever the restraint is for a 46" 1080p set). But when viewing matieral that is 720 or even perhaps 1080i, the 5070 will look better because the v2500 has to process the missing pixels for the 1080p LCd screen.

But, let's be honest, most of my sources will not be native 1008p (Cable HDTV, Xbox 360 games, streaming moveis to my Xbox 360, HDDVDs).There are a few 1080p Xbox 360 games and most HD DVD movies are actually 1080p. Also a 1080p display will be much better at showing 1080i video than a 768p display would.


Let's say a source is natively 720p or 1080i. Doesn't that mean a set like the Pioneer 5070HD with a native resolution of x768 would produce a better picture than a display with a resolution of 1080p like a Sony Bravia V2500?Not at all. In fact a display with a resolution of 768p really isn't optimum for an HDTV. It is a lot easier to scale 480i/p and 720p to 1080p than it is to scale them to 768p. Also 1080i will look far better with a 1080p display than a 768p display if the de-interlacing is done well.


Would 1080i theoretically look better on a 1080p because the TV hardware will de-interlace to 1080p?Yes, when properly de-interlaced the best display for 1080i video is actually a 1080p display.

Would 1080i theoretically look better on a 1080p because the TV hardware will de-interlace to 1080p?

Since most HD is delivered at 1080i, that's ideal. But it's crucial that the deinterlacing (and reverse 2-3 pulldown for 24p movies) circuits do the right job. From reviews, it appears the latest advanced-chip deinterlacers are getting there. But, as tests and model listings by Gary Merson show (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9178202#post9178202) (chronological-order sublinks), not many displays do perform adequately. A very few displays can reconstruct 24p frames extracted from 1080i delivery, use 24p from some HD-disc players and display them correctly at 24p/24p-multiples (not judder-causing 60 Hz), or deinterlace 1080/60i from TV cameras adequately.

Exceptions to all this fixed-pixel processing are 1080i CRT displays that usually don't deinterlace 1080/60i but instead display each 1/60-sec TV field (half-frame) separately, letting your eyes/brain fuse the two 540-line halves/frame. Interlacing has its own problems/artifacts, but sidesteps tracking down 'ideal' video processing for progressive-image viewing. -- John