I know all there is to know technically between 1080p vs 720p, however I don't get why some people think 1080p is such a necessity. No tv stations are in 1080p, not very many video games, currently only HD movies are in 1080p. If I do not have a Blu-Ray or HDdvd player what incentive do I have to pay $500-$1000 more for 1080p, just so I can say I have it? Furthermore, since all of my content is less than 1080p, items on screen may actually look slightly worse than they would on a 720p set. I see people recommending 1080p sets all the time to people even when they know they have no 1080p content to view on it.

Furthermore, why is it recommended that once you go above 50", say 60" that 1080p is preferred? Once again, if you don't have Blu-Ray and don't sit 4 feet from your tv why spend the extra cash on something you will never see? I know there will be a day when 720p tvs are no longer produced, but I hope that day does not come soon.

I know all there is to know technically between 1080p vs 720p, however I don't get why some people think 1080p is such a necessity. No tv stations are in 1080p, not very many video games, currently only HD movies are in 1080p. If I do not have a Blu-Ray or HDdvd player what incentive do I have to pay $500-$1000 more for 1080p, just so I can say I have it? Furthermore, since all of my content is less than 1080p, items on screen may actually look slightly worse than they would on a 720p set. I see people recommending 1080p sets all the time to people even when they know they have no 1080p content to view on it.

Furthermore, why is it recommended that once you go above 50", say 60" that 1080p is preferred? Once again, if you don't have Blu-Ray and don't sit 4 feet from your tv why spend the extra cash on something you will never see? I know there will be a day when 720p tvs are no longer produced, but I hope that day does not come soon.

You can sit closer to the display without seeing SDE, and 1080i content can be properly deinterlaced to construct 1080p on the panel.

I know what ur saying, but just for arguements sake, some tv stations broadcast in 1080i, which your tv should de-interlace into 1080p

General rule of thumb...The larger the screen 1080p makes sense. Now that 768p is starting to phase out towards beginning of 2009 the transition becomes mute and the pricing will be the same. IMO, for now 768p is plenty even on 42", 50", and 60" screens. SDE is very hard to detect at normal seating positions.

Chris

Hi everyone,

Been lurking around the last 3~4 years and finally decided to stop being lazy and register.
I completelly agree with the OP as the last couple of years have been a change of mentality to say the least around the whole higher resolution = most important factor for PQ.
Higher resolutions have been available in the computer world for so long (without being synonym of PQ at all) that I am really confused as to why everyone I seem to talk with about HD is ardent about explaning to me how 1080p is the second coming ... (anyone besides avs people of course :p )

Color reproduction, contrast, brightness, where did all that go?

Whenever 1080p is so cheap to manufacture that it doesn't come at a price premium over 720p is when "most" people should look at upgrading.

Right now, the content is just not there most of the times and the premium being charged is a "good" marketing ripoff ... unless money is no object of course.

Cheers,

I went to BB today specifically to check out the SDE of 42" & 50" 768p plasmas. For me, SDE seemed to disappear fully at roughly 4-5' on the 42" display, and more like 7' on the 50" display. I'm still trying to make up my mind. Based on what I saw today, I think I'd be OK with a high quality 1024x768 (720?) 42" display, but the 50" was borderline - I may decide to go full 1080p if I go with that larger screen size. Just my $.02

doesn't video processing also come into play with SDE?

I was checking out the pio 5080 next to a panny 50pz700 a while back at around 4-5 feet and was hard pressed to find many visual differences.

i am not advocating for one set vs. another, but was pointing out that more goes into the picture quality than just screen resolution.

1080p is a superior format. I dont think that contrast is bad at all on mine, in fact an ISF calibrator said its on par with an xbr960 (holy grail of CRT).

As said there is plenty of 1080 content now and going forward.

People complain about not having a 24fps display. Some folks have gripes about SDE. Some people love their 120mhz LCD. All of these could be said to be marketing gimmicks.

they made a 1080 standard, I just want to be able to display it. Also I play games and sit very close. There are valid reasons for a 1080p display. The buyer needs to decide if its right for them.

Some people buy V6 mustangs too.

Also I play games and sit very close. There are valid reasons for a 1080p display.


There's no much game at 1080p resolution, the majority are just supported in 1080p...

Please tell me these 1080p games: Virtua tennis3, i don't remember the others maybe there's many that i don't know...

There's no much game at 1080p resolution, the majority are just supported in 1080p...

Please tell me these 1080p games: Virtua tennis3, i don't remember the others maybe there's many that i don't know...


SDE. Future proof(the next xbox or PS3). Upscaling. PC games.


Edit: I think I read your post wrong. But I got it corrected.

There's no much game at 1080p resolution, the majority are just supported in 1080p...

Please tell me these 1080p games: Virtua tennis3, i don't remember the others maybe there's many that i don't know...

Native 1080p games available for the Playstation 3 (not upscaled PS1 and PS2 titles) include the following 25 titles:

All Pro Football 2K7

Blast Factor

Calling All Cars
College Hoops 2K7

The Darkness

Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver Surfer
flOw
Full Auto 2 Battlines

Harry Potter
High Stakes on the Vegas Strip: Poker Edition

LocoRoco Cocoreccho!

Marvel Ultimate Alliance
Mesmerize™: Distort (Playstation Eye)
MLB The Show

NBA ‘07
NBA 2K7
Ninja Gaiden

Pirates of the Carribean
Pixeljunk Racers
Piyotama

Street Home Court
Super Stardust HD

Transformers The Movie
Tekken 5: Dark Resurrection

Virtua Tennis 3

Native 1080p games available for the Xbox 360 include the following 2 titles:

Street Home Court
Virtual Tennis 3

I hear Xbox 360 1080p labeled games also include 35 titles. These 35 titles have not been confirmed by third party sources as being native 1080p as far as I know. These games could be up-scaled 720p as the 1080p label on X-Box games does not necessarily mean 1080 native where is usually means the game is 1080 native when placed on PS3 game boxes.

The Darkness - actually only 500p upscaled.

Ninja Gaiden Sigma - 960:720p and upscaled to 1080p, 720p mode is 1280:720p


Most other games are done the same way, but those two are some that I could name the res off the top of my head. Very few games are native 1080p on any system. Ridge Racer 7 if full 1080p on the PS3 if I recall correctly.

The PS3 does software scaling to get some games to 1080p, this came out when Halo 3 was discovered to be only 640p and then all of the other games were found out shortly there after.

Thanx there's more than i think... why i forget my Google bar?

As a 360 owner i have a narrowed vision on these 1080p titles...

There is tons of 1080p content out there. Blow-ray & HD-DVD movies/shows, and PC games. Broadcast TV has a ways to go.

I went with 1080p also because it's slightly farther ahead than most technology. I don't want to be the guy that gets a 720p TV, then all broadcast switches to 1080p and go "OMG I need a new TV!". This is my first TV in 12 years. I figure this next one should last me for a while. My income is significantly higher than it was 12 years ago, so my next upgrade may be sooner (depending on technology).

Why all the hype about 720p? Go with 480p or standard def - just sit farther away. :p

I am really confused as to why everyone I seem to talk with about HD is ardent about explaning to me how 1080p is the second coming ... (anyone besides avs people of course :p )

Color reproduction, contrast, brightness, where did all that go?

Welcome aboard, old user.:p

You forgot to add even MORE important keywords there. "Crispness", "Sharpness", and "Punchiness"(well, that actually falls under contrast you mentioned.)

The 1080P Panels cannot provide same level of crispness and punchiness as the 768P panels can. Same goes for the 480P plasmas, having the edge in contrast visuals.

The 768P panel has pretty much of all and a well balanced in all of this aspects. Checked out my Panny picture thread yet? :D

1080p is a matter of time... several years ago there was only 480p content on TV, DVD and game consoles...

Now it's all changing... in no time (lets say end of 2009 for the sake of discussion) many TV signals will be 1080i, many many DVDs will be re-released on BDs just as everything was re-released on DVDs after VHS.

So, if you have limited budget you can get very good 768p panel and enjoy it for many years - many myself included don't see difference on 50" plasma from 10', but if you play games or sit close - consider 1080p.
If you have not-so-limited budget there are plenty of affordable 1080p panels that will take you into the future without compromise....

There is tons of 1080p content out there. Blow-ray & HD-DVD movies/shows, and PC games. Broadcast TV has a ways to go.

I went with 1080p also because it's slightly farther ahead than most technology. I don't want to be the guy that gets a 720p TV, then all broadcast switches to 1080p and go "OMG I need a new TV!". This is my first TV in 12 years. I figure this next one should last me for a while. My income is significantly higher than it was 12 years ago, so my next upgrade may be sooner (depending on technology).

Why all the hype about 720p? Go with 480p or standard def - just sit farther away. :p

1080p won't be standard broadcast for a very long time, heck we are just now getting around to making SD digital signals the standard, 720p/1080i HD broadcasts won't be the standard for a long time since they are just starting to catch on. I don't think that there are any broadcast 1080p signals out there yet either. Oh well my 720p plasma can take a 1080p signal so I'm not worried.

1080p is a matter of time... several years ago there was only 480p content on TV, DVD and game consoles....

That probably varies from area to area, most channels in our area are broadcasting HD, even the shopping schannels :) Full resolution 1080p/30 and 1080p/24 shows are being broadcast now using the 1080i protocol. Most shows on the air are actually shot at 1080p (and then downconverted for the SD TV channels). Many HD sports and live broadcasts remain 720p resolution due to economics. That is changing as cameras capable of capturing 1080p (all 1080 lines at one time) get smaller and cost less money, and the 720p or 1080i cameras get phased out.

The current broadcast transmitting and receiving equipment cannot support the bandwidth needed for higher frame rates like 1080p/60, however. 1080p/30 is about the feasible limit.

1080p is old news, the next evolutionary step will likely be something like 2160p resolution. I think I read somewhere that some movies are being distributed to theaters in this manner.

1080p is a superior format. I dont think that contrast is bad at all on mine, in fact an ISF calibrator said its on par with an xbr960 (holy grail of CRT).

As said there is plenty of 1080 content now and going forward.

People complain about not having a 24fps display. Some folks have gripes about SDE. Some people love their 120mhz LCD. All of these could be said to be marketing gimmicks.

they made a 1080 standard, I just want to be able to display it. Also I play games and sit very close. There are valid reasons for a 1080p display. The buyer needs to decide if its right for them.

Some people buy V6 mustangs too.


Nonsense, it is the superior marketed format to get people to upgrade their panels yet again. The science backs up that 1080p is in fact a superior formate in tech. only. In terms of individual viewing, all studies have shown that less than 10% of people tested couldn't tell the difference between 1080p feeds and 720p feeds on 50" panels veiwing from 6 to 10 feet on average. At 5-3 feet the number jumped to a mind blowing 18% of those tested could tell the difference. In fact every study I've seen on 1080p vs 720p viewing out there has shown similar results. The Bottom line is the vast majority of the viewing public can't see a difference because to their eyes there is none.

In terms of individual viewing, all studies have shown that less than 10% of people tested couldn't tell the difference between 1080p feeds and 720p feeds on 50" panels veiwing from 6 to 10 feet on average. At 5-3 feet the number jumped to a mind blowing 18% of those tested could tell the difference.

Huh? Its pretty obvious at 3ft. Was this a bunch of people with poor vision?

All about SDE for me. I have a 42" Panasonic plasma now and see SDE from about 6', and since i like to game from that distance my next set has to be 1080p. For people who are just watching from their couch 8'+ away, then there's no need for it and it makes far more sense to get a great 720p set instead of an average 1080p set.

Even with 1080p content, you'd be very hard-pressed to see the difference between 1080p and 768p TVs unless you sit close enough for your eyes to resolve the difference between the two resolutions. I must say that everything looks great on my 5080 from 8 feet and farther away. I'm usually 10 feet away, so 1080p is unnecessary. I could've spent a lot more to get the 5010 and wouldn't notice a difference from my viewing distance. Or I could've spent the same amount on a non-Pioneer 1080p TV and gotten a worse picture. I think I made the right choice for me, but it's not the right choice in every situation. If I sat 7 feet from the TV, then I wouldn't have even considered the 5080.

Some people buy V6 mustangs too.

CLASSIC!!! :cool:

The extra money usually includes extra inputs and/or options. so just get what YOU like and be happy. Unless YOU'RE easily pressured.

Many HD sports and live broadcasts remain 720p resolution due to economics.

Various Fox and ABC (incl ESPN) stations are 720p. Perhaps economics was the major reason, but I thought the improved handling of motion like fast action sports was another benefit of 720p vs. 1080i? 1080p would certainly be better at some point in the future, but that's a lot of bandwidth for broadcasters without even more severe compression. Plus you have the government involved...

Blu Ray......

Huh? Its pretty obvious at 3ft. Was this a bunch of people with poor vision?

A lot of people don't notice the difference between a good 480p picture and HD. That isn't to say the differences aren't real. On the other hand, there are certainly diminishing returns on higher resolutions, especially for moderate screen sizes (under 50") and/or longer viewing distances.

Some people claim to hear differences between a $1000 pure silver 1m audio interconnect cable and a high quality $20 copper one. A highly regarded audio/video reviewer once claimed that you could hear the difference between CDs treated with Armor All vs. untreated ones. As with audio, video also really comes down to personal preference. Take the time and do a lot of viewing in a home theater store or make sure you have a good return policy if 720p/1080p concerns you.

Speakers sound a lot different in the home than in the store and there's only one way to be sure you like a pair;-) The same goes for an expensive monitor.

That probably varies from area to area, most channels in our area are broadcasting HD, even the shopping schannels :) Full resolution 1080p/30 and 1080p/24 shows are being broadcast now using the 1080i protocol. Most shows on the air are actually shot at 1080p (and then downconverted for the SD TV channels). Many HD sports and live broadcasts remain 720p resolution due to economics. That is changing as cameras capable of capturing 1080p (all 1080 lines at one time) get smaller and cost less money, and the 720p or 1080i cameras get phased out.


I'm not sure what you mean by 'most shows on the air'? Maybe you are talking about the 4 broadcast networks? All I know is that most basic cable networks do not require production companies to deliver 1080p. I know that Scripps and A&E networks require 1080i. With razor thin margins in an ultra competitive industry, no production co. is going to spend the extra money to deliver the shows in 1080p. Even if some are shooting in 1080p, they are most likely downrezzing to 1080i in the editing process, not the delivery process. The small production companies are already in the hole after getting stuck with the HD equipment bill. I don't see many content suppliers for basic cable networks upgrading to 1080p any time in the near or even mid-future.

Here is an article from Home Theater Mag where they tested the 1080P displays and only when the image is "static" do you achieve 1080P. For anything motion wise, the best plasma was only 880 and that was by Panasonic. They used a BluRay 1080P as the source. That's why I don't believe the 1080P hype either. You can read for yourself here and here.
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/1080p-tvs-never-deliver-1080p-motion-but-some-do-better-than-others-323558.php
http://www.hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/1107hook2/

if one sees a difference in detail between 1080p and 720p sets , does that only pertain to 1080p content??? would 1080 have any visible advantage with 720p, 1080i or even 480i/p content at any distance or size, except for reducing sde???

I was in a circuit city a few weeks back. They had a Sony SXRD 60 + inch set, playing a demo loop from a (not for sale) Sony HDD-250 HDD recorder.

On the lower left hand corner is a "resolution button". I cycled the SXRD through 1080, 720 and 480. (The saleman came over once I moved it to 480 ) There is a difference at that size between 720 and 1080i in terms of detail. At 15-20 feet, though, I could not see much difference. Closer, definitely.

On a 50 inch set, I could see Screen door effect with the 720 vs. the 1080 set. In my setting, I watch at 8-10 feet, so the 1080 was worth it.

On a 42 inch set, I think 1080 would be a waste of money.

find a big box which has identical sets side by side, 720 v 1080, and you'll see.

find a big box which has identical sets side by side, 720 v 1080, and you'll see.

Or like me and the majority on here, you won't see...:D

A lot of people don't notice the difference between a good 480p picture and HD. That isn't to say the differences aren't real. On the other hand, there are certainly diminishing returns on higher resolutions, especially for moderate screen sizes (under 50") and/or longer viewing distances.

At 3ft though like we were talking I'd bet 80%+ of the people with 20/20 vision would notice a big difference provided the source was 1080p. I went 720p because it didn't help much at 9-15ft were I'd be sitting.

I really can't understand this discussion...


Why was Transformers in 1080p on HD-DVD the most clearest and best picture I have ever seen?

I thought it was because it was 1080p, but you people are saying that it's no better?

Or like me and the majority on here, you won't see...:D

yep. Before reading this forum I would go into the stores thinking 1080 must be better... i can see it. After the forums and all the literature people have posted on this debate I agree. It is mostly marketing. My 5080 blows most of the 1080p screens out of the store.


Classic American mentality bigger is better. 1080 is bigger so it MUST be better.

Various Fox and ABC (incl ESPN) stations are 720p. Perhaps economics was the major reason, but I thought the improved handling of motion like fast action sports was another benefit of 720p vs. 1080i? 1080p would certainly be better at some point in the future, but that's a lot of bandwidth for broadcasters without even more severe compression. Plus you have the government involved...

In hindsight, the 720p decision was a very bad one because it didn't take into account the fact that good motion-adaptive 1080i > 1080p deinterlacing chips would fall exponentially in price (Moore's law strikes again) and sooner or later would become an essential feature in consumer displays. It also did not take into account the fact that 1080p would become standard on displays -- I can remember reading articles saying that displaying 1080p with a full modulation transfer function was so difficult that it would not appear in consumer sets in the foreseeable future. This was a CRT-oriented mentality that did not foresee how completely fixed-pixel displays would take over the consumer marketplace.

I recently saw a post on a mailing list devoted to professional broadcast engineering in which a CBS engineer positively gloated about CBS's choice of 1080i.

yep. Before reading this forum I would go into the stores thinking 1080 must be better... i can see it. After the forums and all the literature people have posted on this debate I agree. It is mostly marketing. My 5080 blows most of the 1080p screens out of the store.


Classic American mentality bigger is better. 1080 is bigger so it MUST be better.

yeah i would have to agree with you there bud.

i saw a 720p kuro next to a new samsung 1080p 52", new toshiba 52" regza and a 42 and 47" 1080p philips. have to say apart from the 1080p sets looking over sharpened, the kuro was definitely the winner and i have gone with it.

i was planning to get a 1080p set since ive had 720p sets the past 3 years, but reading the reviews the kuro seemed to be best value for money. no noise, excellent contrast and color, more cinema like. no lag in games.

sure 720p on a 1080p set will look different, but thats because you are trying to fill 1million pixels on a 2 million pixel display etc. but 1080p downscaled by an excellent processor, such as the kuro, will definitely compete well against 1080p sets with not so good processors.

i have also thought 1080p could be a phase that quickly gets out done, seeing movies are starting to be filmed in 4 or 8k video, and now panasonics new plasma is 4000x2000 which matches this much better. this resolution could start to come in 60" plasmas just like they thought 1080p was impossible for 42" and now its there.

its sort of like networking. 10mbps was your progressive scan. 100mbps was your 720p, 1000mbps your 1080p. sure lots of businesses have 1000mbps (to the desktop im talking, not SANs etc). but places like my work in the government have the top grade blue fibre cable that i think will go up to 100gbps once the rest of the technology catches up (memory hdds from platter disks, faster motherboards etc). i can see this happening with 1080p. really its not that much better than 1080i, but say 2160p is a far greater sharpness and that sort of thing could come out just as 1080p starts to be mainstream and before you know it, its over with.

In hindsight, the 720p decision was a very bad one because it didn't take into account the fact that good motion-adaptive 1080i > 1080p deinterlacing chips would fall exponentially in price (Moore's law strikes again) and sooner or later would become an essential feature in consumer displays. It also did not take into account the fact that 1080p would become standard on displays -- I can remember reading articles saying that displaying 1080p with a full modulation transfer function was so difficult that it would not appear in consumer sets in the foreseeable future. This was a CRT-oriented mentality that did not foresee how completely fixed-pixel displays would take over the consumer marketplace.

I recently saw a post on a mailing list devoted to professional broadcast engineering in which a CBS engineer positively gloated about CBS's choice of 1080i.

From a consumer standpoint, I completely agree with you. Life would be much simpler if we only had to worry about 1080i for HD broadcasts. However, I suspect from a broadcast standpoint, it's much easier to deal with 720p60 than 1080i30 when compressing the signal.

In hindsight, the 720p decision was a very bad one because it didn't take into account the fact that good motion-adaptive 1080i > 1080p deinterlacing chips would fall exponentially in price (Moore's law strikes again) and sooner or later would become an essential feature in consumer displays. It also did not take into account the fact that 1080p would become standard on displays -- I can remember reading articles saying that displaying 1080p with a full modulation transfer function was so difficult that it would not appear in consumer sets in the foreseeable future. This was a CRT-oriented mentality that did not foresee how completely fixed-pixel displays would take over the consumer marketplace.

My recollection is that ABC originally selected 720p specifically because they forsaw the end of the CRT, and with it interlace displays. Whereas the 1080i advocates were more into legacy technology - CRTs and old interlace HD video cameras.

720p can be scaled up to 1080p (or any other resolution) without any trouble, so there's really no problem.

Similar thoughts were posted on EngadgetHD's website yesterday (w/reader comments following) - 1080p TVs don't always look better than 720p TVs (http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/01/08/1080p-tvs-dont-always-look-better-than-720p-tvs/) <Link

Enjoying the new year (and my new 50" Pioneer KURO 720p Plasma) - go Brett Favre and the Green Bay Packers!

Similar thoughts were posted on EngadgetHD's website yesterday (w/reader comments following) - 1080p TVs don't always look better than 720p TVs (http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/01/08/1080p-tvs-dont-always-look-better-than-720p-tvs/) <Link

Enjoying the new year (and my new 50" Pioneer KURO 720p Plasma) - go Brett Favre and the Green Bay Packers!"but it should be no surprise that Pioneer believes their 42-inch 720p HDTV looks better than many 1080p LCDs"

If Engadget/Pioneer are going to use primarily the native resolution specification to compare the image rendered by a 720p versus a 1080p display they should confine those comparisions to PDP/PDP or LCD/LCD not PDP to LCD, because most PDP owners reached the conclusion years ago that plasma displays look better than LCDs.

720p can be scaled up to 1080p (or any other resolution) without any trouble, so there's really no problem.

Maybe but not exactly as visually satisfying. Some magic dust makes up the missing pixels from the limited number provided by a 720p source. Making up (guessing at) information always results in visual artifacts. Scaling 720 to 1080 does not provide more satisfactory results than using 1080 directly, but you probably would not notice it much on a screen smaller than say 50 inches... unlest you are a purest with a critical eye.

True that any broadcast must consider the effect on legacy equipment but years ago 720p capture and transmission was proposed for live sporting events because its temporal resolution is, in theory, better than 1080i capture and 1080p capture cameras were not feasible at the time. Theory and practice differed, however, and now that 1080p capture cameras are becoming feasible, the issue is becoming more and more mute. 1080i capture cameras have been used for most HD broadcasts including some live sporting events. 1080p capture has better temporal resolution than 720p capture and, as long as the frame rate is the industry standard 30 or 24 fps, 1080p captured video gets accurately transfered to and displayed by a 1080p panel via the standard 1080i/60 transfer protocol.

There are a wide variety of TV models out there, so the mileage will vary from model to model…. making it not a simple question/answer. And contrast ratio, color accuracy, etc. have more affect on PQ than pure resolution. As a result, many 720 sets look better than 1080 sets. 1080 panels are catching up.. but currently at close to double the price.... I think. Broadcaster are not going to be throwing away equipment, so it will be awhile before 1080p capture is routine.. and by then we will be talking about 2160p or something like that :) .

Here is an article from Home Theater Mag where they tested the 1080P displays and only when the image is "static" do you achieve 1080P. For anything motion wise, the best plasma was only 880 and that was by Panasonic. They used a BluRay 1080P as the source. That's why I don't believe the 1080P hype either. You can read for yourself here and here.
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/1080p-tvs-never-deliver-1080p-motion-but-some-do-better-than-others-323558.php
http://www.hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/1107hook2/

Yea, all set's resolution performance degrades with motion and it was surprising how much, especially LCDs. 720 sets actually displayed like 490... and 490 is as good as 880 I suppose?

What seems to be discussed here, in a round about way, is that contrast ration, accurate colors, black level performance, and good video source is much more important to PQ than resolution. 720 sets with better contrast ratios and better black levels will look better than mediocre 1080 sets. Until recently, 1080 sets have not performed that well. The point some are making is if you take a set with exactly the same performance other than resolution, and use a good video source, the 1080 set will look better than a 720 (768) set.

You can't really go into a store and compare a 720 set to a 1080 set and determine the resolution makes one look better than the other as other performance factors overwhelm any difference in resolution.

Bottom line is everything else being equal, 1080 sets have marginally better PQ, more noticeable with screens 50 inch and larger and short viewing distance. The marginal benefit of the resolution vs cost is subjective. I own highly rated 720 and 1080 sets. The PQ difference is small but there, broadcast TV seams to be close to a wash but the 1080 is more satisfying to movie watch, 1080p/24 native disc to screen is beautiful.

Even if some are shooting in 1080p, they are most likely downrezzing to 1080i in the editing process, not the delivery process

Its easy to misunderstand the technology, the terms and points of references can be misleading, and there is a lot of misleading info out there. Let me try to explain one more time.... 1080i is not a down res of 1080p!!!! You need to forget about that 1080i lower res marketing ploy which may be left over from ancient scanning camera technology. The common marketing ploy of implying that 1080p is higher resolution than 1080i is simply not true.

Taking a 1080p/24 video and sending it at 1080i/60 over the air or wire has no effect on video resolution, its a lossless transfer when done correctly. The receiver assembles the bits and pieces received into the 1080p/24 video sent perfectly. Same thing for 1080p/30. If the TV can't handle 24fps natively, there may be timing artifacts introduced, but no decrease in resolution. Higher frame rates exceed channel bandwidth, but there is no video being recorded for distribution on anything other than 24, 25, or 30 fps. Now there are some video games that provide a 60fps frame rate, but no shows or movies currently over the air or on disc.

What has been confusing is that, for years, the cost effective HD cameras captured (recorded) video at 720p (which captures/records the entire frame of 720 lines of resolution at the same time) or 1080i (which records have the lines one time and the other half the next time). In theory, 1080i video captured in this manner has a lower temporal resolution than 720p video. In practice maybe not.... but I digress.

Currently 1080p camera equipment is becoming more widely available which captures the entire frame at 1080 resolution at one time, similar to 720p cameras. 1080p has better temporal resolution than 720p, right?

Again forget that the 1080i/60 method of transmission will degrade video captured at 1080p/24 or 1080p/30. If done incorrectly (mistakes happen) resolution can be degraded.

As far as video delivery, both 720p and 1080i required the same HD delivery capable channels, they have similar bandwidth requirements using current approaches (consider frame rate differences). To send the video over SD channels, all these shows are downresed to 480 lines and distributed for rebroadcast. We also know that some distributors digitally compress the video to fit into cable or satellite connections, which the distributor’s black boxes decompress for delivery to the TV.. with varying PQ results.

I'm sure that there is some legacy equipment around that constrains PQ for some, but the 1080i vs 1080p vs 720p video resolution discussion is more about the camera and display technology in use than the HD transmission medium.

Huh? Its pretty obvious at 3ft. Was this a bunch of people with poor vision?

Feel free to search the site for the studies they have been posted and re-posted here many times. Remember, just because you see it at 3 feet dosen't mean 90% of the rest of us see it, thats the point. By the way, how many people watch at 3 feet???? My point is really this, the need for 1080p in terms of P.Q. has been way over blown by the companies that would rather sell you higher priced panels by creating a "more is better" marketing agenda. I have no doubt there are people that can see real P.Q. improvement in 1080p, and I also have no doubt there are great many tech-boys out there that have convinced themselves they see it as well. As for me I can see small improvement at 5-3 feet on 58 -60 inch panels but then again I don't watch from 3 feet and I doubt many do. Overall I accept that 1080p panels are a superior tech. for processing purposes alone, however in terms of real impact on P.Q. for the majority of us, it's all hype to move a new market and make more $$$$. Simple, how do you get someone to buy a new expensive panel? You convince them they are missing out on the next great advancement in tech. I.M.O. Contrast ratio, and color reproduction are far more important to P.Q. than 1080p.

Its easy to misunderstand the technology, the terms and points of references can be misleading, and there is a lot of misleading info out there. Let me try to explain one more time.... 1080i is not a down res of 1080p!!!! You need to forget about that 1080i lower res marketing ploy which may be left over from ancient scanning camera technology. The common marketing ploy of implying that 1080p is higher resolution than 1080i is simply not true.

Taking a 1080p/24 video and sending it at 1080i/60 over the air or wire has no effect on video resolution, its a lossless transfer when done correctly. The receiver assembles the bits and pieces received into the 1080p/24 video sent perfectly. Same thing for 1080p/30. If the TV can't handle 24fps natively, there may be timing artifacts introduced, but no decrease in resolution. Higher frame rates exceed channel bandwidth, but there is no video being recorded for distribution on anything other than 24, 25, or 30 fps. Now there are some video games that provide a 60fps frame rate, but no shows or movies currently over the air or on disc.

What has been confusing is that, for years, the cost effective HD cameras captured (recorded) video at 720p (which captures/records the entire frame of 720 lines of resolution at the same time) or 1080i (which records have the lines one time and the other half the next time). In theory, 1080i video captured in this manner has a lower temporal resolution than 720p video. In practice maybe not.... but I digress.

Currently 1080p camera equipment is becoming more widely available which captures the entire frame at 1080 resolution at one time, similar to 720p cameras. 1080p has better temporal resolution than 720p, right?

Again forget that the 1080i/60 method of transmission will degrade video captured at 1080p/24 or 1080p/30. If done incorrectly (mistakes happen) resolution can be degraded.

As far as video delivery, both 720p and 1080i required the same HD delivery capable channels, they have similar bandwidth requirements using current approaches (consider frame rate differences). To send the video over SD channels, all these shows are downresed to 480 lines and distributed for rebroadcast. We also know that some distributors digitally compress the video to fit into cable or satellite connections, which the distributor’s black boxes decompress for delivery to the TV.. with varying PQ results.

I'm sure that there is some legacy equipment around that constrains PQ for some, but the 1080i vs 1080p vs 720p video resolution discussion is more about the camera and display technology in use than the HD transmission medium.

Well the article at the bottom of your page pretty much sums it up............go 1080 especially if you want to buy something that you will keep for many years.
Guess I should go with the 5010 and spend the extra cash.

Well the article at the bottom of your page pretty much sums it up............go 1080 especially if you want to buy something that you will keep for many years.
Guess I should go with the 5010 and spend the extra cash.

Don't fool yourself. Anything you buy today will be out of date in less than 12 months, including a shiny new 1080p plasma. There's always some new technology lurking around the corner.

Buy a 1080p plasma because you want to sit really close to a huge screen. That's the advantage of the extra resolution. Don't buy a 1080p plasma because you want to be future proofed.

I was in a circuit city a few weeks back. They had a Sony SXRD 60 + inch set, playing a demo loop from a (not for sale) Sony HDD-250 HDD recorder.

On the lower left hand corner is a "resolution button". I cycled the SXRD through 1080, 720 and 480. (The saleman came over once I moved it to 480 ) There is a difference at that size between 720 and 1080i in terms of detail. At 15-20 feet, though, I could not see much difference. Closer, definitely.

On a 50 inch set, I could see Screen door effect with the 720 vs. the 1080 set. In my setting, I watch at 8-10 feet, so the 1080 was worth it.

On a 42 inch set, I think 1080 would be a waste of money.

find a big box which has identical sets side by side, 720 v 1080, and you'll see.

Are you talking about about 1080i or 1080p? I don't believe the HDD-250 does 1080p. So you were only seeing the difference between 720p and 1080i. Any set 50 and above will do 1080i and with a 1080i feed, I think you'd be hard pressed to see the difference between a 1080i (1365 x 768) set and 1080p (1920 x 1080) set.

Don't fool yourself. Anything you buy today will be out of date in less than 12 months, including a shiny new 1080p plasma. There's always some new technology lurking around the corner.

Buy a 1080p plasma because you want to sit really close to a huge screen. That's the advantage of the extra resolution. Don't buy a 1080p plasma because you want to be future proofed.

this is the best advice in this thread.

Are you talking about about 1080i or 1080p? I don't believe the HDD-250 does 1080p. So you were only seeing the difference between 720p and 1080i. Any set 50 and above will do 1080i and with a 1080i feed, I think you'd be hard pressed to see the difference between a 1080i (1365 x 768) set and 1080p (1920 x 1080) set.

You're a little off with the resolution numbers you quote here. A 1080i signal has a spacial resolution of 1920x1080 just like a 1080p signal. A TV with a native resolution of 1366x768 takes the 1080i signal, deinterlaces it to 1080p, then scales to the sets native resolution.

Don't fool yourself. Anything you buy today will be out of date in less than 12 months, including a shiny new 1080p plasma. There's always some new technology lurking around the corner.

Buy a 1080p plasma because you want to sit really close to a huge screen. That's the advantage of the extra resolution. Don't buy a 1080p plasma because you want to be future proofed.

Well said! Less than a month after I bought my Kuro (5080), I read about the new Pioneer plasmas with absolute zero black. I'm glad I didn't drop the exhorbitant amount of money on a Pro-150 just so I could have the best-looking plasma out there. I'm also glad I stopped playing the waiting game, because my 27" CRT was getting REALLY small!

Too many people think that 1080p automatically trumps 720p. Those people should read reviews on the Pioneer 5080, which has been termed by many reviewers as the best flat-panel TV ever. They didn't say the best non-1080p flat-panel TV.

Don't fool yourself. Anything you buy today will be out of date in less than 12 months, including a shiny new 1080p plasma. There's always some new technology lurking around the corner.

Buy a 1080p plasma because you want to sit really close to a huge screen. That's the advantage of the extra resolution. Don't buy a 1080p plasma because you want to be future proofed.

Well said. Also, you may be future proofed on resolution, but not on other technical advancements, PQ or otherwise. Most importantly, if you really want to fool yourself into thinking your TV will be future proofed, you should stop reading avsforum. In less than two years, there is a good chance the Pioneers will have zero black levels, significantly thinner and lighter design, and consume a lot less energy. I'm sure there are plenty of people who bought a PRO-FHD1 less than 12 months ago who thought they were fully future proofed as well.

Well said. Also, you may be future proofed on resolution, but not on other technical advancements, PQ or otherwise. Most importantly, if you really want to fool yourself into thinking your TV will be future proofed, you should stop reading avsforum. In less than two years, there is a good chance the Pioneers will have zero black levels, significantly thinner and lighter design, and consume a lot less energy. I'm sure there are plenty of people who bought a PRO-FHD1 less than 12 months ago who thought they were fully future proofed as well.

So true! I particularly like "...if you really want to fool yourself into thinking your TV will be future proofed, you should stop reading avsforum."

This is such a moot argument. By next year, 720p displays will go the way of the crt. It'll be like arguing HD DVD is better than Blu-Ray (sorry, couldn't resist).

I'm all about paying for what you can see. An analogy if you will - When I bought my wife her diamond, I didn't sweat imperfections not noticible to the eye - now she has a beautiful, if slightly flawed rock and no one, including her, need ever be aware of the flaws.

But I did factor in strongly things that could be seen - cut and especially color. The result was something that will looks spectacular, but a professional looking under a microscope will be able to tell the difference between it and a much more expensive stone.

Back to TVs - I wouldn't want to pay for something I can't see. So I fully understand the argument being made by those who say not to spend the money on 1080p sets. But that's four day old fish and I ain't buyin' it because I CAN see a difference, and it's not subtle either. Super resolution was the whole reason I went HD to begin with. There is something completely immersive about watching 1080p TV that I simply don't get when I look at 720p sets - especially when I seen something on Blu-ray but also when I see 1080i broadcasts. The image seems more dimensional and I details pop on 1080p displays in ways they don't pop on 720. I recently was comparing two 50 inch displays side by side with a very good feed showing the same images. There was just no question, at viewing distance - the 1080p display had superior resolution that was noticible. Of course, the 720p display had an impressive picture as well (superior black levels to the 1080p - it was a Kuro).

So for me, at least in the 50" and up category, all other things being equal -1080p is one of those factors that I would pay for because I notice it.

Maybe but not exactly as visually satisfying. Some magic dust makes up the missing pixels from the limited number provided by a 720p source. Making up (guessing at) information always results in visual artifacts.

Not really. Image scaling is a relatively straightforward process (no "magic dust") and doesn't produce artifacts when done well.

Scaling is bad in certain contexts. You wouldn't want scaling with a computer display, because you need the 1:1 pixel mapping to display 1-pixel wide lines and such. But those things don't exist in proper video images.

I remember the 1080i vs 720p debate. 720 was progressive and 60fps so 720p supporters held that over 1080. Now 1080 is progressive and 60fps so obviously the 720 sets have better contrast. :rolleyes:

When 1080p sets take it to the next level with much better contrast and the costs come down then what?

I can agree that 1080p sets have their place as do 720. But based on the format alone 1080p is superior. Maybe not the displays yet, but thats coming too.

I remember the 1080i vs 720p debate. 720 was progressive and 60fps so 720p supporters held that over 1080. Now 1080 is progressive and 60fps so obviously the 720 sets have better contrast. :rolleyes:

This doesn't make sense. There is no 1080p60 content outside of video games. All broadcast sports are either in 1080i30 or the 720p60 format. While the 1080i30 format contains more spacial information, the 720p60 format has more temporal information. This debate actually has little to do with 1080p televisions.

When 1080p sets take it to the next level with much better contrast and the costs come down then what?

Then they will be better. Nobody on the forum is saying that having more pixels is a bad thing. We are however in a transition period and sacrifices have to be made to get that extra million pixels worth of resolution. New 1080p plasmas cost more and many have inferior brightness and/or contrast. Of course some of the new 1080p models do outperform their 768p counterparts.

I can agree that 1080p sets have their place as do 720. But based on the format alone 1080p is superior. Maybe not the displays yet, but thats coming too.

Yes, more pixels is definitely preferable, but there are a lot of other variables to consider. That's why blanket statements like "brand x 1080p" is better than "brand y 720p" are often false.

I remember the 1080i vs 720p debate. 720 was progressive and 60fps so 720p supporters held that over 1080. Now 1080 is progressive and 60fps so obviously the 720 sets have better contrast. :rolleyes:

When 1080p sets take it to the next level with much better contrast and the costs come down then what?

I can agree that 1080p sets have their place as do 720. But based on the format alone 1080p is superior. Maybe not the displays yet, but thats coming too.

You just said it. The 1080p displays aren't there yet. So a 5080 further than 6' away will look better than ALL 1080p's with the exception of the Pio's.
And this will be so for at least another year.
So while the 1080p will be good then(1080p) as it is good now(overall PQ) it will never be great(5080's PQ now).

You just said it. The 1080p displays aren't there yet. So a 5080 further than 6' away will look better than ALL 1080p's with the exception of the Pio's.
And this will be so for at least another year.
So while the 1080p will be good then(1080p) as it is good now(overall PQ) it will never be great(5080's PQ now).


Makes sense to me.

I'll take my 1080p plasma over any 720p LCD I've ever seen. In a plasma forum its really arguing which is the best of the best.

Not really. Image scaling is a relatively straightforward process (no "magic dust") and doesn't produce artifacts when done well.


Scaling 720 to 1080 will NEVER make as sharp an image as 1080 to 1080, defies the laws of physics or conservation of momentum or something like that. You can argue that you or some can't notice it, but on a larger displays or projection screens its obvious to most eyes.

Scaling 720 to 1080 will NEVER make as sharp an image as 1080 to 1080, defies the laws of physics or conservation of momentum or something like that. You can argue that you or some can't notice it, but on a larger displays or projection screens its obvious to most eyes.


I would agree it wouldn't be as sharp, but the overall PQ is different.

There is no 1080p60 content outside of video games. All broadcast sports are either in 1080i30 or the 720p60 format. While the 1080i30 format contains more spacial information, the 720p60 format has more temporal information. This debate actually has little to do with 1080p televisions.


I think you missed that 720p sports shows are captured by the camera at 720p/30, not 60fps. There is no 720p/60 content being made. The tranport medium uses the 720p/60 method to deliver 720p/30 video to the TV. I know its nit picky and not relevant to 1080p screens, unless you bring what content 1080 is useful for. I believe some broadcasters are begining to use 1080p/30 cameras for sports and live shots, like they have been using for shows recorded in HD.

And we know that 720p/30 has more temporal resolution in theory only. Current technology and practices don't seem to be able to deliver on that promise, or maybe its just not as important to the eye as once thought.

Remember that contrast ratio, color accuracy, source quality are all more important than native screen resolution for PQ enjoyment.

I remember the 1080i vs 720p debate. 720 was progressive and 60fps so 720p supporters held that over 1080. Now 1080 is progressive and 60fps so obviously the 720 sets have better contrast. :rolleyes:

When 1080p sets take it to the next level with much better contrast and the costs come down then what?

I can agree that 1080p sets have their place as do 720. But based on the format alone 1080p is superior. Maybe not the displays yet, but thats coming too.

You seem to be missing the point that many here keep bringing up, If the vast majority can't see the difference, then 1080p is not superior to us. I have not seen one post in this thread where anyone claimed 720p to be a superior tech, all many are saying is that if we can't see it, then 1080p makes ZERO difference to us. I mean are you really one of the 10% that see a night a day difference, or do you just like the idea of saying mines better than yours? It's an honest question. As for what happens when 1080p sets improve and come down in price, well don't worry, by then the industry will package some other new tech. together and 10% of the market can then try and convince the rest of us that 1080p isn't good enough and our own eyes are failing us.:rolleyes:

I think you missed that 720p sports shows are captured by the camera at 720p/30, not 60fps. There is no 720p/60 content being made. The tranport medium uses the 720p/60 method to deliver 720p/30 video to the TV. I know its nit picky and not relevant to 1080p screens, unless you bring what content 1080 is useful for. I believe some broadcasters are begining to use 1080p/30 cameras for sports and live shots, like they have been using for shows recorded in HD.

And we know that 720p/30 has more temporal resolution in theory only. Current technology and practices don't seem to be able to deliver on that promise, or maybe its just not as important to the eye as once thought.

Remember that contrast ratio, color accuracy, source quality are all more important than native screen resolution for PQ enjoyment.


What does temporal resolution mean? Does that make
720p better?

I mean are you really one of the 10% that see a night a day difference, or do you just like the idea of saying mines better than yours? It's an honest question. As for what happens when 1080p sets improve and come down in price, well don't worry, by then the industry will package some other new tech. together and 10% of the market can then try and convince the rest of us that 1080p isn't good enough and our own eyes are failing us.:rolleyes:

Night and day difference - no. This is not the difference between SD and HD. But it is a difference that some of us notice. I couldn't care less what people spend their money on and would absolutely say not to spend money on something you can't appreciate. But honestly, there are a few zealots out there who tell me I can't appreciate a difference between 1080p and 720p and that simply isn't correct.

Something else that I want to add. Many of you say there is no "future proofing" by buying 1080p. I don't think that is exactly true for a couple of reasons:

1. TVs are no longer used only to display moving images. Increasingly TVs are used for slide presentations, art and other static images. There is simply no question that static images in 1080p look superior in 1080p. This is certainly a use that some are taking advantage of now, but many will in the future.

2. The vast majority don't have BD or HD DVD -- yet. But in the future many are likely to migrate to BD, thus having access to true 1080p content.

3. It's entirely possible that as the market settles on 1080p as a standard that a channel or two may eventually begin to broadcast in 1080p. It wouldn't surprise me to see a channel such as DiscoveryHD or some similar channel put out a 1080p signal within a couple of years. . .who knows where it will go from there - maybe a sports channel next- though I do grant that 1080p will likely never be broadly available through sat/cable companies.

That being said, this is likely to be the last year such things are debated because frankly the 720p displays will be pulled from the shelves as more folks insist on getting "True HD" or whatever marketing term is used.

My advice to anyone: set a budget and get what looks best at that budget. If you don't appreciate more pixels - you don't have to pay for them.

As it stands all else being equal by all means go for the 1080p device if the price difference isn't much. Keep in mind its newer and a lot of the companies threw out displays that have worse PQ than the 720p ones out there. Way more than 10% of people would be able to notice an increased level of sharpness and detail at close distances but not too much at normal seating distances, practically no difference with crappy source material. Not really worth it if your not going 5010/6010 with little/no PQ difference. Next years models should be better with less price difference.

Night and day difference - no. This is not the difference between SD and HD. But it is a difference that some of us notice. I couldn't care less what people spend their money on and would absolutely say not to spend money on something you can't appreciate. But honestly, there are a few zealots out there who tell me I can't appreciate a difference between 1080p and 720p and that simply isn't correct.

Something else that I want to add. Many of you say there is no "future proofing" by buying 1080p. I don't think that is exactly true for a couple of reasons:

1. TVs are no longer used only to display moving images. Increasingly TVs are used for slide presentations, art and other static images. There is simply no question that static images in 1080p look superior in 1080p. This is certainly a use that some are taking advantage of now, but many will in the future.

2. The vast majority don't have BD or HD DVD -- yet. But in the future many are likely to migrate to BD, thus having access to true 1080p content.

3. It's entirely possible that as the market settles on 1080p as a standard that a channel or two may eventually begin to broadcast in 1080p. It wouldn't surprise me to see a channel such as DiscoveryHD or some similar channel put out a 1080p signal within a couple of years. . .who knows where it will go from there - maybe a sports channel next- though I do grant that 1080p will likely never be broadly available through sat/cable companies.

That being said, this is likely to be the last year such things are debated because frankly the 720p displays will be pulled from the shelves as more folks insist on getting "True HD" or whatever marketing term is used.

My advice to anyone: set a budget and get what looks best at that budget. If you don't appreciate more pixels - you don't have to pay for them.

Your points are fair enough, and your right that within a year or two there won't be any 720p panels anyway. However I stand by my original point, which is that the vast majority don't see a difference in P.Q. and would be very happy with 720p for years to come. Yet the Market is being moved not by the majority of consumers, but the smallest %. That and the much larger proffit margins on 1080p panels. The only thing I disagree with you on is your idea of "future proof", you may well be right that 1080p becomnes the standard res. for some time, (the human eye has limits) however you can be sure there will be some advance in tech. that will be packaged and sold to move the market. ;)

Future proof doesn't make sense if you get a display that accepts 1080p/24 and scales it down to 1366x768 it will accept just as many sources as the 1080p device.

Don't fool yourself. Anything you buy today will be out of date in less than 12 monthsWhich begs the (?)...

is anyone running an iX38 :eek: desktop?

I went back to BB on the intent of comparing the Pio 5080 and 5010. I don't know what the rez of their loop was (some demo disc I'm sure). At ~10 feet, I could see a difference in resolution. I could not see it all the time, only on fine-detail items like hair and grass. Large blocks of colors, like cartoons such as Simpsons or Family Guy, made no difference what-so-ever. Since a large majority of movies have people and animals in them (lots of hair <insert joke here>), I am more than happy with my purchase of a 6010. It really is a tough call on 720p vs 1080p. A large majority of people will be just fine with a 720p set, especially if it saves them money. Picture quality > resolution.

The best way to compare is to feed both HD & FD displays with 1080p source content.

My PRO-150FD provides noticeably more detailed resolution than my 50PX50U but there are a lot of factors that influence my perceptions: 60" versus 50" display, 2007 versus 2005 technology, Pioneer video processing versus Panasonic.

I think you missed that 720p sports shows are captured by the camera at 720p/30, not 60fps. There is no 720p/60 content being made. The tranport medium uses the 720p/60 method to deliver 720p/30 video to the TV. I know its nit picky and not relevant to 1080p screens, unless you bring what content 1080 is useful for. I believe some broadcasters are begining to use 1080p/30 cameras for sports and live shots, like they have been using for shows recorded in HD.

Most dramas recorded in HD are filmed in 1080p24. As far as sports goes, are there any 1080p30 cameras in use? I have no idea.

And we know that 720p/30 has more temporal resolution in theory only. Current technology and practices don't seem to be able to deliver on that promise, or maybe its just not as important to the eye as once thought.

Can you provide a link or something which has some information on this subject?

There is no way that 720p30 contains more temporal information than 1080i30, not even in theory. The latter requires the capture of 540 lines every 1/60th of a second and thus 1080 every 1/30th. At the very worst, you get the same amount of temporal information.

I find it hard to believe that ESPN and ABC would have chosen the 720p format and then proceed to capture at 30 frames per second. They have enough bandwidth for 60, so why not?

I was reading in another post that the material in 1080i(I am using a Comcast HD DVR SA 8300 box) could be deinterlaced to 1080p. On broadcasts that are true 1080i, shows on display on box and info says 1080i, but never 1080 as in 1080p. When I use my bluray player to upconvert a standard DVD it shows 1080(meaning 1080p?) on the info display(Samsung 5884). I guess it just doesn't convert anything other than DVD?

I was reading in another post that the material in 1080i(I am using a Comcast HD DVR SA 8300 box) could be deinterlaced to 1080p. On broadcasts that are true 1080i, shows on display on box and info says 1080i, but never 1080 as in 1080p. When I use my bluray player to upconvert a standard DVD it shows 1080(meaning 1080p?) on the info display(Samsung 5884). I guess it just doesn't convert anything other than DVD?

Your TV is simply display the resolution of the signal you are feeding it, in the case of your Comcast box, 1080i. Now, assuming you have a relatively modern TV (excluding Hitachi) your TV will display any signal you send it as progressive scan. If your TV has a native resolution of 1920x1080, i.e. 1080p, then your TV deinterlaces a 1080i signal to 1080p when displaying the video.

Your TV is simply display the resolution of the signal you are feeding it, in the case of your Comcast box, 1080i. Now, assuming you have a relatively modern TV (excluding Hitachi) your TV will display any signal you send it as progressive scan. If your TV has a native resolution of 1920x1080, i.e. 1080p, then your TV deinterlaces a 1080i signal to 1080p when displaying the video.

thanks, but why does it say 1080i on the info for cable but 1080(no i) on dvd, are they both 1080p in the end?

thanks, but why does it say 1080i on the info for cable but 1080(no i) on dvd, are they both 1080p in the end?

I guess your TV omits the 'p' when fed a 1080p signal. I imagine you have your blu-ray player set to output 1080p correct?

I guess your TV omits the 'p' when fed a 1080p signal. I imagine you have your blu-ray player set to output 1080p correct?

Yes, so it is showing what it is being fed, but it is 1080p either way?

Reply Question:

As the 720's get pulled off the shelves and 1080p's become the sole plasmas available, are we going to see a trend where the new t.v.'s are actually lower quality than the older models? Many of us can look back at goods from times past and remark that "they don't make [blanks] like they used to." In an effort to mass produce the new 1080p technology, is there a chance that other viewing aspects (refresh rates, contrast ratios, etc...) will actually be worse than the older models we have now? Just a curious question.

Yes, so it is showing what it is being fed, but it is 1080p either way?

The source is what it is, meaning that a DVD has 480 lines of information and a Blu-ray disc has 1080 lines of information. Everything you see is scaled to 1080p.

Now if you watch a show like Law and Order which is filmed in 1080p24, then your cable box will send this to your TV as 1080i30. Your TV cannot display interlaced images so it deinterlaces the 1080i60 back to 1080p. In some cases, you get a perfect representation of the original 1080p24 source. However, most of the time there are some minor artifacts due to all the video processing.

I think you missed that 720p sports shows are captured by the camera at 720p/30, not 60fps. There is no 720p/60 content being made. The tranport medium uses the 720p/60 method to deliver 720p/30 video to the TV. I know its nit picky and not relevant to 1080p screens, unless you bring what content 1080 is useful for. I believe some broadcasters are begining to use 1080p/30 cameras for sports and live shots, like they have been using for shows recorded in HD.

And we know that 720p/30 has more temporal resolution in theory only.

This is way confused. 720/60p and 1080/60i are used for sports. 30p doesn't have "more temporal resolution" than 60p or 60i, in theory or otherwise.

This is way confused. 720/60p and 1080/60i are used for sports. 30p doesn't have "more temporal resolution" than 60p or 60i, in theory or otherwise.

I agree with you and I think he's incorrect here. Sports are shot in 720p60 (frames per second) and 1080i60 (fields per second). In this case, the 720p60 format contains more temporal resolution, while the 1080i60 format has more spacial information.

I understand about all the TV broadcasts but what if you have a Blu-Ray player that does 1080p? Wouldnt it be nice to have a TV that does 1080p also?
It should have the advantage for playing Blu-Ray movies.

I understand about all the TV broadcasts but what if you have a Blu-Ray player that does 1080p? Wouldnt it be nice to have a TV that does 1080p also?
It should have the advantage for playing Blu-Ray movies.

Yes, more pixels is definitely preferable, but there are a lot of other variables to consider. That's why blanket statements like "brand x 1080p" is better than "brand y 720p" are often false.

Contrast, color saturation, signal processing, and color accuracy also play a large role in the overall picture quality. If you believe the ISF, most of these are more important than resolution.

Yep, cjm7c you pretty much nailed it. jet757f and many other general publics think 1080p TVs are automatically better.... That is not so.

To me, and many other folks I know in this forum, enjoy the supreme power of the contrast and punchiness the lower resolutions TVs *generally* provide. Don't just go by what's on the paper. You need to actually and seriously observe the differences between a 480P plasma, 768P plasma, and 1080P plasma. Based on my experience, and also from what Rich Harkness has experienced, the 480P plasmas(and especially the Panny) seem to have the best contrast visual experience. The pixels can lit even brighter in the light spot where it needs to be. This is why the shiny part in the picture gets even shinier. That's the effect I get with my specially setup 768P PHD7UY plasma. It is un-freakin-believably shiny and so punchy. I almost pee my pants. No, no exaggerations here. I am serious.....


I don't want a TV that has native 1920 x 1080 resolutions but the picture looks less punchy, giving more flatter looking picture. I can't stand flat pictures. 3D-Depth (contrast) is the most important part than everything else. Keep in mind that the power of 3D-depth also gives you shinier looking picture, like you pour some sort of glaze on an object, like shining crystals. The reflections of the tiny parts on screen is unreal. The resolutions is the last thing you will want to look at. The 1080P Plasmas will have some time to improve, to make it as punchy as the old 768P or 480P set..... but ain't happening for now.

And also check out Apocalypto, Troy, and some others on Blu-Ray shots in my 768P Panny picture thread. I think I shi.t my pants on some of the scenes I have watched on 1080P blu-ray titles.

Yep, cjm7c you pretty much nailed it. jet757f and many other general publics think 1080p TVs are automatically better.... That is not so.

To me, and many other folks I know in this forum, enjoy the supreme power of the contrast and punchiness the lower resolutions TVs *generally* provide. Don't just go by what's on the paper. You need to actually and seriously observe the differences between a 480P plasma, 768P plasma, and 1080P plasma. Based on my experience, and also from what Rich Harkness has experienced, the 480P plasmas(and especially the Panny) seem to have the best contrast visual experience. The pixels can lit even brighter in the light spot where it needs to be. This is why the shiny part in the picture gets even shinier. That's the effect I get with my specially setup 768P PHD7UY plasma. It is un-freakin-believably shiny and so punchy. I almost pee my pants. No, no exaggerations here. I am serious.....


I don't want a TV that has native 1920 x 1080 resolutions but the picture looks less punchy, giving more flatter looking picture. I can't stand flat pictures. 3D-Depth is the most important part than everything else. Keep in mind that the power of 3D-depth also gives you shinier looking picture, like you pour some sort of glaze on an object, like shining crystals. The resolutions is the last thing you will want to look at. The 1080P Plasmas will have some time to improve, to make it as punchy as the old 768P or 480P set..... but ain't happening for now.

Noob...I agree with you and I started the thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12760870#post12760870) here!

Chris

Noob...I agree with you and I started the thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12760870#post12760870) here!

Chris
Thanks for the support and contribution. And you know I like your signature.... :p

:)

My recollection is that ABC originally selected 720p specifically because they forsaw the end of the CRT, and with it interlace displays. Whereas the 1080i advocates were more into legacy technology - CRTs and old interlace HD video cameras.

720p can be scaled up to 1080p (or any other resolution) without any trouble, so there's really no problem.

It can be scaled, but it will never have the horizontal resolution of 1080i. The subjective vertical resolution of 1080i>1080p upscaling will depend a lot on how good the diagonal interpolation of the display's upscaler is. There are already a number of chips available that do this very well. But the vertical resolution of upscaled 1080i may or may not be better than 720p, depending on the program material and the nature of the motion in the image.

Based on my experience, and also from what Rich Harkness has experienced, the 480P plasmas(and especially the Panny) seem to have the best contrast visual experience. The pixels can lit even brighter in the light spot where it needs to be.

The Kuros changed this equation. Their 1080 panels have higher contrast ratio than their 768 panels. I'm not sure about peak brightness.

1080p semi hype..

Considering most of the HD content being broadcast is at 720p it shouldn't make a big difference for most people. If they made it a standard for the broadcasters to broadcast in 1080p it would be an obvious choice.

And now that the format war is pretty much said and done with, 1080p will become the standard for playing movies. But even then, I will be waiting till they come out with the next gen BD players though. I still, will wait even longer for the price to drop to a more reasonable amount.

So for now.. I will be happy with my Sammy 5054 tv and an dvd upconvert player till all the technology catches up to each other

1080p semi hype..

Considering most of the HD content being broadcast is at 720p it shouldn't make a big difference for most people. If they made it a standard for the broadcasters to broadcast in 1080p it would be an obvious choice.


Last I checked most native HD broadcasts were 1080i ever since the beginning except for one channel that went 720p for sports. The big problem is a lot of the channels upconvert SD.

I went back to BB on the intent of comparing the Pio 5080 and 5010. I don't know what the rez of their loop was (some demo disc I'm sure). At ~10 feet, I could see a difference in resolution. I could not see it all the time, only on fine-detail items like hair and grass. Large blocks of colors, like cartoons such as Simpsons or Family Guy, made no difference what-so-ever. Since a large majority of movies have people and animals in them (lots of hair <insert joke here>), I am more than happy with my purchase of a 6010. It really is a tough call on 720p vs 1080p. A large majority of people will be just fine with a 720p set, especially if it saves them money. Picture quality > resolution.

The only sources I trust at Best Buy are the Blu-Ray players in their Magnolia room. Even then, without playing around with the TV settings, it's difficult to get even a halfway decent idea of how the TV should look. I was struggling between the 5080 and 5010, and I noticed quite a large difference in PQ between the two at BB at 8-10 feet away. The 5080 looked more pixely (if that's a word) and more grainy and had more artifacts. I was pretty disappointed, but I decided to put more stock in all of the personal and professional reviews I had read and decided that BB had the 5080 set up wrong. I'm certainly glad I did. I've had the 5080 for 2 1/2 weeks and love it! I sit 10 feet away, and it doesn't have any of the same problems as it did at BB. It looks great with PS3 games and DirecTV HD. Even upconverted DVDs (via the PS3) look great. I can scoot up to 8 1/2 feet away and not notice any SDE or PQ degredation.

1080p semi hype..

Considering most of the HD content being broadcast is at 720p it shouldn't make a big difference for most people. If they made it a standard for the broadcasters to broadcast in 1080p it would be an obvious choice.

And now that the format war is pretty much said and done with, 1080p will become the standard for playing movies. But even then, I will be waiting till they come out with the next gen BD players though. I still, will wait even longer for the price to drop to a more reasonable amount.

So for now.. I will be happy with my Sammy 5054 tv and an dvd upconvert player till all the technology catches up to each other

Most HD broadcasts are 1080i, not 720p, and there are no broadcasts in
1080p and may never be. As for the format war, you have to keep in mind that even if it is over, it wasn't won based on superior tech, it was won on marketing alone. I own both Blue Ray as well as HD DVD and I can tell you when your watching either, your not aware, and do not care which format your viewing. Bottom line is they both work great, the fact that more movies will be on Blue Ray, just means there is more reason to buy Blue Ray, not because it does anything better than HD DVD. Also if your waiting for technologies to catch up to eachother, you'll be waiting a very long time. "Like Forever" J.M.O., but if you own a HD panel of any kind (768p or 1080p)and arn't taking advantage of HD DVD or Blue Ray, then your really missing out.

As for the format war, you have to keep in mind that even if it is over, it wasn't won based on superior tech, it was won on marketing alone.

I agree with this completely. If Sony wasn't paying companies (not the consumer of course) off to go blow-ray only, then people would have the choice to go with the cheaper hddvd player. This similar to why AMD filed a lawsuit against Intel for anti-competitive practices. Having only one format instead of a dual-format player will not allow competition in the market.

I own both Blue Ray as well as HD DVD and I can tell you when your watching either, your not aware, and do not care which format your viewing. Bottom line is they both work great, the fact that more movies will be on Blue Ray, just means there is more reason to buy Blue Ray, not because it does anything better than HD DVD. Also if your waiting for technologies to catch up to eachother, you'll be waiting a very long time. "Like Forever" J.M.O., but if you own a HD panel of any kind (768p or 1080p)and arn't taking advantage of HD DVD or Blue Ray, then your really missing out.

I agree. I have the Pio 1080p 6010FD with a dual format player on a HTPC. It is all about how it was encoded. Most of my movies are HD-DVD (because they were cheaper), but some HD-DVDs look better (picture quality) than blow-ray, and some blow-ray movies look better than the HD-DVD ones. Aeon Flux looks horrible on HD-DVD compared to Shooter on HD-DVD. Even on Shooter, which has an absolutely amazing picture, at 12 feet viewing distance I can still see pixels. Maybe I am one of the few with "magic eyes". :eek:

Night and day difference - no. This is not the difference between SD and HD. But it is a difference that some of us notice. I couldn't care less what people spend their money on and would absolutely say not to spend money on something you can't appreciate. But honestly, there are a few zealots out there who tell me I can't appreciate a difference between 1080p and 720p and that simply isn't correct.

Something else that I want to add. Many of you say there is no "future proofing" by buying 1080p. I don't think that is exactly true for a couple of reasons:

1. TVs are no longer used only to display moving images. Increasingly TVs are used for slide presentations, art and other static images. There is simply no question that static images in 1080p look superior in 1080p. This is certainly a use that some are taking advantage of now, but many will in the future.

2. The vast majority don't have BD or HD DVD -- yet. But in the future many are likely to migrate to BD, thus having access to true 1080p content.

3. It's entirely possible that as the market settles on 1080p as a standard that a channel or two may eventually begin to broadcast in 1080p. It wouldn't surprise me to see a channel such as DiscoveryHD or some similar channel put out a 1080p signal within a couple of years. . .who knows where it will go from there - maybe a sports channel next- though I do grant that 1080p will likely never be broadly available through sat/cable companies.

That being said, this is likely to be the last year such things are debated because frankly the 720p displays will be pulled from the shelves as more folks insist on getting "True HD" or whatever marketing term is used.

My advice to anyone: set a budget and get what looks best at that budget. If you don't appreciate more pixels - you don't have to pay for them.

I think you are missing the point on future-proofing. 1080p alone does not guarantee future proofing. Other advancements beyond resolution are always around the corner. Sure, its ideal to match a 1080p BD player to a 1080p display, but what about contrast, black levels, color, brightness, grayscale, screen size, display depth/weight, power consumption, etc, etc, etc. Believe it or not, good BD content looks stunning on a Kuro 5080 at 9 foot viewing distance. If I'm watching a BD movie with ANY dark scenes, I'd rather watch it on a ~$2k 720p Kuro than a ~$2k 1080p LCD.

I would be surprised if you are able to receive 1080p broadcasts from DiscoveryHD in a couple of years. How will it be delivered? Directv has been one of the the most aggressive in adding HD. Directv is spending lots of money to deliver HD channels and even subsidizing their HR20/21 receivers. Those brand new HD DVRs cannot even output 1080p. I doubt these providers will be willing to spend the extra money for 1080p in the near/mid future.

This will never end....until everyone has a 1080p set.

I think you are missing the point on future-proofing. 1080p alone does not guarantee future proofing. Other advancements beyond resolution are always around the corner.

Well, yeah - I get that. I wasn't saying buying a 1080p future proofs you against all advancements - just against, well, a future of actual uses for 1080p displays. Of course there will be other advancements - OK? Did I really have to qualify that?

[/QUOTE] Sure, its ideal to match a 1080p BD player to a 1080p display, but what about contrast, black levels, color, brightness, grayscale, screen size, display depth/weight, power consumption, etc, etc, etc. Believe it or not, good BD content looks stunning on a Kuro 5080 at 9 foot viewing distance. If I'm watching a BD movie with ANY dark scenes, I'd rather watch it on a ~$2k 720p Kuro than a ~$2k 1080p LCD.[/QUOTE]

Gee, I don't remember advocating buying a crap TV. Sure, good BD content looks great on a Kuro 5080 and even better on an 110fd.

[/QUOTE]I would be surprised if you are able to receive 1080p broadcasts from DiscoveryHD in a couple of years. How will it be delivered?[/QUOTE]

My crystal ball is no better than yours and it was entirely speculative on my part about DiscoveryHD or any other channel for that matter. My point is that as 1080p becomes the industry standard, as it is becoming - then I could see a point down the road where a channel that wants to get more viewers and show off some content may choose to go to 1080p. Will this happen, I don't know. Just saying it's not out of the realm of possibility. Someone was the first to show a color signal, someone was the first to broadcast an HDTV signal, someone may be the first to have 1080p content. Advancement happens.

As for how it will be delivered - geez, I don't know, they point a thing at the sky that sends some sort of beam into space that hits something called a satellite that orbits the earth and that beam is then bounced back to earth. . .something like that? It's all magic to me.

[/QUOTE]Directv has been one of the the most aggressive in adding HD. Directv is spending lots of money to deliver HD channels and even subsidizing their HR20/21 receivers. Those brand new HD DVRs cannot even output 1080p. I doubt these providers will be willing to spend the extra money for 1080p in the near/mid future.[/QUOTE]

A. I paid for the HD DVD sitting in my living room from Direct TV - so the cost isn't borne by them. B. Again, what's to say in two or three years there won't be a market for people with 1080p sets who want 1080p content wherever they can get it. If Discovery and ESPN decided to broadcast in 1080p - there would probably be a market willing to take advantage of it. The real question is whether the bandwidth will be available - I could see that it would be on a limited basis. Not 100 channels of 1080p - but one or two. Again, pure speculation. But - entirely possible. C. regardless of whether any channels output 1080p in the future - a whole bunch output to 1080i. And 1080i, deinterlaced looks better on a 1080p screen than deinterlaced and downscaled on a 720p screen, IMHO.

If I were in the market to purchase a TV today, and I am, I would recommend to myself buy a: 1. Plasma 2. manufactured by Panasonic or Pioneer 3. that is 1080p. I think I'll take my recommendation. My recommendation to myself last year was to buy PS3 over HD DVD - so I'm 1 and 0 so far in this game. But then, I have the extra scratch to spend. My advice would vary for people with more limited budgets.

Sure, its ideal to match a 1080p BD player to a 1080p display, but what about contrast, black levels, color, brightness, grayscale, screen size, display depth/weight, power consumption, etc, etc, etc. Believe it or not, good BD content looks stunning on a Kuro 5080 at 9 foot viewing distance. If I'm watching a BD movie with ANY dark scenes, I'd rather watch it on a ~$2k 720p Kuro than a ~$2k 1080p LCD.

Absolutely right on the money! After owning a Sharp LCD for 2 years, I purchased a new/discounted 50" Pioneer KURO 768p Plasma last month (#5080), and the image quality is just amazing - my viewing distance is right at 10 feet. Love the advanced, image processing selections under the Kuro's "Pure Cinema" option.

Great looking Blu-rays like APOCALYPTO, CARS, RATATOUILLE, etc, and HD-DVDs like KING KONG, 2 FAST 2 FURIOUS, etc are jaw-dropping, with the Kuro's brilliant clarity, contrast, color, and shadow detail (3-D like). I'll never buy an LCD again for home-theater viewing, just for the kitchen or office environment, etc.

This will never end....until everyone has a 1080p set.

Not for nothing but your kidding yourself if you think it will end when everyone does have a 1080p panel. ;)

Not for nothing but your kidding yourself if you think it will end when everyone does have a 1080p panel. ;)

yep something will take its place.

This will never end....until everyone has a 1080p set.

Not until all new content is 1080p. :p

This will never end....until everyone has a 1080p set.

Or until everyone becomes informed that the extra cost for 1080p may not be justified below a certain screen size and/or seating distance. Of course, it's always easier for dealers and integrators to take the path of least resistance and simply let their customers go on thinking that they need 1080p....too much explaining to do.

In 2 more years we'll be arguing over 1440p :( this will never end.

Or until everyone becomes informed that the extra cost for 1080p may not be justified below a certain screen size and/or seating distance. Of course, it's always easier for dealers and integrators to take the path of least resistance and simply let their customers go on thinking that they need 1080p....too much explaining to do.


That's it really, I know many will disagree with me but Companies don't want the market to settle. Three years ago a 50" 768p panel averaged $5,000 dollars to the consumer, it's dropped more than half since that time. The bottom line for me is the market is pushing 1080p when the majority of us really don't need it or want it, and they are not giving the largest % of consumer population the choice.

So what you guys are saying is that if I am buying a big plasma and the difference between 2 models is only 720p and 1080p and the price difference is large, then I should go with the 720p? I won't see any visiable dfference with the 1080p and it won't "future proof" anything because 720p looks as good as 1080p and therefore it will last as long?

Correct?

Depending on your seating distance, yup. If you are buying an expensive plasma today, then be aware that in a few years it will be out dated no matter the resolution of 768p or 1080p. So why not get the best PQ you can now. If you can afford a 1080p of the best, go for it, especially if you want to sit close to be further enveloped.
-jmo

This will never end....until everyone has a 1080p set.480p --> 720p --> 1080p, why wouldn't everyone want more resolution?

The NY Giants looked pretty good beating Dallas yesterday on my 'not-so-Kuro' PRO-150FD display. :)

480p --> 720p --> 1080p, why wouldn't everyone want more resolution?


I was watching baseball yesterday, it was broadcasted in 720p. I was wonder just how much clearer could this get? It looked just so good that I don't know if I would be able to see a difference in higher resolution, and I'm 7' away from a 56" screen.

I see alot of people saying that they would take a 768p kuro over a 1080p lcd anyday, and to that i would agree .. but you are sorta comparing apples to oranges.

the debate should against similar products .. say a 5080HD vs a 5010FD .... 768p vs 1080p

both kuros, both excellent quality, but one has a higher res (and very slightly less peak brightness). I have both of these sets, and while both great, personally I do see a notice difference in viewing with sources that are 1080p (br/hddvd/pc/360/ps3) .. and even with 1080i material, the 5010 does a better job with that aswell, it is noticeable sharper.

is it worth the extra money .. thats subjective, but to say there isn't a difference is just wrong. however, if you are further than say 10-12ft from the set, the differences start to diminish even more.

so basically .. if deciding between the sets .. look at what your content sources are (and what they may be in the future), and look at your viewing distance. If you don't require 1080p, then don't get it. But with the right sources, and viewing distance, I think it is worth it.

480p --> 720p --> 1080p, why wouldn't everyone want more resolution?

The NY Giants looked pretty good beating Dallas yesterday on my 'not-so-Kuro' PRO-150FD display. :)

Because sets like the Pioneer 5080 768p look better than 1080p sets like the Panasonic 700u and the Samsung 5084.
And the midgets were handed that "W". ;)

I see a difference between 720p and 1080i content on my 700U (1080p panel).

Now if that is the difference between broadcasts/compression or whatever I dont know. But the football games on CBS looked better than the Fox sports 720p.

I guess I should start a counter thread "I dont get the 720 hype"..lol.

flood...what you don't understand is that 1080i looks better than 720p on a 768p plasma too.
And either resolution looks better on my Pio 5080 768p than the Sammy and Panny 1080p's.
-IME

I see a difference between 720p and 1080i content on my 700U (1080p panel).

Now if that is the difference between broadcasts/compression or whatever I dont know. But the football games on CBS looked better than the Fox sports 720p.

I guess I should start a counter thread "I dont get the 720 hype"..lol.


Did you notice any pixeling(big and square in the center of logo mainly) on the CBS games, especially when they flashed the NFL logo going in and out of the replays, I noticed it there and in the replays themselves sometimes, not sure why. Thought it could be the cable feed, but it was the same OTA, 5884 1080p.

flood...what you don't understand is that 1080i looks better than 720p on a 768p plasma too.
And either resolution looks better on my Pio 5080 768p than the Sammy and Panny 1080p's.
-IME


Imagine if you had a 1080p Piosneer!

Did you notice any pixeling(big and square in the center of logo mainly) on the CBS games, especially when they flashed the NFL logo going in and out of the replays, I noticed it there and in the replays themselves sometimes, not sure why. Thought it could be the cable feed, but it was the same OTA, 5884 1080p.


I noticed pixelation / macroblocking on both feeds. I think that really is the limitation today is over compressed junk. But the cable HD CBS in my area is better than the OTA broadcast CBS. How F'ed up is that!

You mean a 60" Elite....I know, I wish! :)

I noticed pixelation / macroblocking on both feeds. I think that really is the limitation today is over compressed junk. But the cable HD CBS in my area is better than the OTA broadcast CBS. How F'ed up is that!


wanted to make sure it wasn't just me. So the Pioneer 1080p see it also?

I had a 50PX77u that I returned for a 50PZ77u even my wife (who could care less) was like wow this TV looks much nicer.

;12806794']I was watching baseball yesterday, it was broadcasted in 720p. I was wonder just how much clearer could this get? It looked just so good that I don't know if I would be able to see a difference in higher resolution, and I'm 7' away from a 56" screen.


There are no network broadcasts in 1080p. The baseball game resolution as a factor will look virtually the same on any high quality unit that handles 720p on up.
Other factors are probably more relevant for PQ like color, depth, contrast, etc.
Not sure there will be any 1080p anytime in foreseeable future as the bandwidth issues are prohibitive.

For me-I wanted a plasma unit and I wanted the best PQ I could get within my budget. I also sit 9-12 feet away. Additionally, I have a hard time seeing SDE even from 4-5 feet in the stores. I will never sit that close anyway.

I am a casual movie person and will get a Blu Ray and I am sure will be quite happy with the PQ. HAve seen Blu Ray on 768p sets and it looks wonderful. Blu Ray and High Def is like SACD or DVD Audio-it is based a lot on the mastering of that disk. Blu Ray or HD is not always great.

At my price point-I was advised across the board by several vendors who could have sold me anything in their store that the Pio 5080 was better PQ than comparably priced 1080p plasmas. I did not necessarily want to believe that, but after looking at the sets for several days myself with a variety of sources and reading about the different specs I am happy with my choice.

For my needs and room and viewing habits I am sure I will be quite pleased.
Everyone is different, however.

Its odd when there are countless threads that debunk the extra res as something you'll never notice.

Some people drive V6 mustangs too, because they won't ever notice the upgrade to a V8.

Its all about useage.

Tower......Other brands 768p's are not equal. I noticed a significant improvement from 768p to 1080p with Samsung and Panasonic as well. But also an improvement from their 1080p's to the Pio 768p. - ime

Its odd when there are countless threads that debunk the extra res as something you'll never notice.

Some people drive V6 mustangs too, because they won't ever notice the upgrade to a V8.

Its all about useage.

Wrong...unfortunately not a good analogy ;)
I am pushing my t.v.'s to their limits with, D* HD service, Tosh HD-DVD player and PS3 for BR playback.

Wrong...unfortunately not a good analogy ;)
I am pushing my t.v.'s to their limits with, D* HD service, Tosh HD-DVD player and PS# for BR playback.

But it could be better. I can push a V6 to its limits, which is why I like V8s. Higher limits.

Some folks will never use their TV to view even HD. Some folks use their TVs to play games. Some use it to just watch Bones in HD.

Its all dependant on useage and cost. As a car enthusiast I would enjoy the V8 becaue I'd use it. As a A/V enthusiast I enjoy the 1080p. You should see me play games. I get my steering wheel out and sit about 4-5 feet away from the display. Most people don't do that.

Its all about useage. And obviously I'd rather have a 1080p Piosneer but its out of my price range....as is the new Zr1 Corvette (600+hp). The Zr1 is the best, but I dont knock it because "you'll never notice the difference".

I guess it goes into interior and fit/finish. some car lovers want that. I just want something reliable and fast. Same thing with contrast/size/res/features of a TV. Get what you want, it doesn't mean that there isn't something better to me. I could care less if I have cup holders.

Cup holders is not the same as better PQ, which the 5080 has over all other brands 1080p's.
Now....if the user is going to sit right in front of a big screen(?) then 1080p with lesser PQ is a good option.
But for 'any' normal viewing distance the 768p Pio will look better than any other brands' 1080p no matter what you use it for.

Cup holders is not the same as better PQ, which the 5080 has over all other brands 1080p's.
Now....if the user is going to sit right in front of a big screen(?) then 1080p with lesser PQ is a good option.
But for 'any' normal viewing distance the 768p Pio will look better than any other brands' 1080p no matter what you use it for.

Exactly. There are Ferrari's too. Obviously we have some high rollers on AVS forum (avs forum millionares) but I am not one of them.

I picked a TV that has the features important to me. 1080p is one of them, because I use my TV at a 'normal viewing distance'. You just sit too far away.

4' from a 50" tv is not normal ;)
And with the price of the 6080 lower than the Panny and Sammy 1080p's, well....

4' from a 50" tv is not normal ;)

I hear ya, but my point is valid. There are lots of things to consider and it can be quite different for everyone.
As for the 1080p hype topic of this thread; it makes a difference and isn't just some gimmick.

Sure it isn't a gimmick. but like I said, if you do not sit at abnormally close distance(;)) there are 768p sets that are better.
That said, the 5084 and 700u are both great sets!

Sure it isn't a gimmick. but like I said, if you do not sit at abnormally close distance(;)) there are 768p sets that are better.
That said, the 5084 and 700u are both great sets!

Yep. I agree.

Obviously the screen size = viewing distance. So a 60" 1080p is more useful from further out.

I had more than one factor to consider before I bought my 50 PZ77U. I seriously considered the 5080, the PZ700U and the PZ77U.

Price. At the time the 5080 was more expensive for me. I have the EPP through Pani. It saved me a couple hundred bucks.

Seating position. I have a "L" shaped couch/loveseat layout in my living room. One seating position is as close as three feet from the display and another is ten feet away. SDE is an issue.

Antigalare. I have windows on all three walls of my living room/kitchen area. The PZ77U offers the best antiglare coating of any plasma on the market and I know now I could not function without it.

The point of this thread is less about 1080p vs. 768p and more of a "why buy anything but the 5080?" discussion. The 5080 was at the top of my list. I know it is a great display, but not for my, or many others situations. It is what it is.

I said the same basically. If you are going to sit extremely close to a 50"+ tv, then 1080p is worth it.
The glare issue I will agree to disagree as my living room during the day is like a greenhouse. Skylight, floor to ceiling windows. Windows on three walls.
I lived with crt for how long and both my Sammy 5084 and Pio 5080 are better in glare regards than my crt's were.

Yep. I agree.

Obviously the screen size = viewing distance. So a 60" 1080p is more useful from further out.

60" of 1080P from Panny and Sammy is awesome. If I was looking at a 60" set it would have to be 1080p because of my seating distance and the much larger screen.
And, at that point, I would get the Sammy 5884 or the Panny 58700u, as I could not afford the 6010.

I said the same basically. If you are going to sit extremely close to a 50"+ tv, then 1080p is worth it.
The glare issue I will agree to disagree as my living room during the day is like a greenhouse. Skylight, floor to ceiling windows. Windows on three walls.
I lived with crt for how long and both my Sammy 5084 and Pio 5080 are better in glare regards than my crt's were.

I also have to take my wife's opinion into account and she hated the reflections of most of the other PDPs. It's her tv too.

With information from everyone on this forum and many trips to BB I have decided to get the Pioneer 5010 even though I cant afford it nor do I like the difference in price compared to the 5080.

I feel the 1080 is important. There are 1080 broadcasts and movies that I play with my Blu-Ray player. If Im going to spend the cash getting into plasma I would rather get the best.

I have noticed a downward trend on the pricing of the 5010 along with all of the other models so Im going to wait alittle bit and see what happens.

I also have to take my wife's opinion into account and she hated the reflections of most of the other PDPs. It's her tv too.

I forget that too often as I am not married.

I forget that too often as I am not married.


HD Pr0n?

No, I have yet to go big screen with that. And I've had 50" HD set for over a year.

This discussion is focusing overwhelmingly on the display resolution, without considering the upstream limits on content distribution. The ATSC standard for high definition television defines 1080i/60 and 720p/60 formats, but no 1080p/60 format. If 1080p/60 content existed, it would require double the data rate, or double the compression. This is not going to happen anytime soon. Until the ATSC standard is updated, most HD content is going to be limited to 1080i/60 or 720p/60 format.

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

A 720 x 1280 pixel static image is roughly 1 megapixel, while a 1080 x 1920 image is roughly 2 megapixels. But the 720p image is transmitted progressively at 60 frames per second, while the 1080i image is transmitted interlaced, in the form of two successive 540 x 1920 pixel fields, one after the other, which produce only 30 complete 1080 x 1920 pixel frames per second. The stitched-together 1080i image has twice the spatial resolution, but only half the temporal resolution (30 frames per second, vs. 60 frames per second for the 720p/60 progressive image).

Interlacing is an artifact of NTSC broadcasting standards from the 1930s. Now that almost all displays are progressive, interlacing is a technological dinosaur. The big 1080p displays can interpolate 60 progressive frames per second from a 1080i broadcast, but the vertical image resolution is still only a crude 540 lines, inferior to 720p/60 which is natively progressive and doesn't need interpolation (deinterlacing).

In the absence of 1080p/60 content for the foreseeable future, it's a question of market share for 1080i/60 vs. 720p/60. The 720p/60 format has been adopted by ABC and ESPN, presumably because the progressive images suffer less from motion artifacts. Frankly, 1080i seems to be winning, but probably for the wrong reasons. Many people just assume that more pixels equal a better image. But the interlaced halves of a 1080i image, with their sparse 540 vertical lines (60 lines better than 1950s analog NTSC, w00t!), are also offset horizontally from each other if there's any motion present. What a smeared, smudged mess! Interlacing is a primitive analog technique, which should have been dumped long ago in a digital world.

For shooting your own content, the JVC GY-HD250U, the Panasonic AG-HVX200, and the Sanyo Xacti HD1000 camcorders all offer 720p/60 output, to help eliminate motion artifacts. A 720p/60 display can show this output natively. In camcorders as in displays, the 'megapixel race' has tilted the field toward 1080i/60 camcorders. But I have zero interest in interlaced output in a digital age. It's as anachronistic as Fred Flintstone, cruising around in a car with chiseled stone wheels. For modern progressive images, without ugly motion artifacts, you need 720p/60, the highest-rez progressive HD format. The display need not have the same number of lines (i.e., nothing wrong with upscaling to 1080 lines), but there's still something to be said for native-resolution 720p display without upscaling, particularly when it's more affordable.

Because sets like the Pioneer 5080 768p look better than 1080p sets like the Panasonic 700u and the Samsung 5084.But none look as good as a 5010/6010 or 110/150FD. ;)

And the midgets were handed that "W". ;)How's that?

Because yesterday they looked more like Giants Among Men (http://www.amazon.com/Giants-Among-Men-York-Films/dp/B0009I9DY2) to me. :p

thank you Jessica Simpson (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20171536,00.html) :)

This discussion is focusing overwhelmingly on the display resolution, without considering the upstream limits on content distribution. The ATSC standard for high definition television defines 1080i/60 and 720p/60 formats, but no 1080p/60 format. If 1080p/60 content existed, it would require double the data rate, or double the compression. This is not going to happen anytime soon. Until the ATSC standard is updated, most HD content is going to be limited to 1080i/60 or 720p/60 format.

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

A 720 x 1280 pixel static image is roughly 1 megapixel, while a 1080 x 1920 image is roughly 2 megapixels. But the 720p image is transmitted progressively at 60 frames per second, while the 1080i image is transmitted interlaced, in the form of two successive 540 x 1920 pixel images, one after the other, which produce only 30 complete 1080 x 1920 pixel frames per second. The stitched-together 1080i image has twice the spatial resolution, but only half the temporal resolution (30 frames per second, vs. 60 frames per second for the 720p/60 progressive image).

Interlacing is an artifact of NTSC broadcasting standards from the 1930s. Now that almost all displays are progressive, interlacing is a technological dinosaur. The big 1080p displays can interpolate 60 progressive frames per second from a 1080i broadcast, but the vertical image resolution is still only a crude 540 lines, inferior to 720p/60 which is natively progressive and doesn't need interpolation (deinterlacing).

In the absence of 1080p/60 content for the foreseeable future, it's a question of market share for 1080i/60 vs. 720p/60. The 720p/60 format has been adopted by ABC and ESPN, presumably because the progressive images suffer less from motion artifacts. Frankly, 1080i seems to be winning, but probably for the wrong reasons. Many people just assume that more pixels equal a better image. But the interlaced halves of a 1080i image, with their sparse 540 vertical lines (60 lines better than 1950s analog NTSC, w00t!), are also offset horizontally from each other if there's any motion present. What a smeared, smudged mess! Interlacing is a primitive analog technique, which should have been dumped long ago in a digital world.

For shooting your own content, the JVC GY-HD250U, the Panasonic AG-HVX200, and the Sanyo Xacti HD1000 camcorders all offer 720p/60 output, to help eliminate motion artifacts. A 720p/60 display can show this output natively. In camcorders as in displays, the 'megapixel race' has tilted the field toward 1080i/60 camcorders. But I have zero interest in interlaced output in a digital age. It's as anachronistic as Fred Flintstone, cruising around in a car with chiseled stone wheels. For modern progressive images, without ugly motion artifacts, you need 720p/60, the highest-rez progressive HD format. The display need not have the same number of lines (i.e., nothing wrong with upscaling to 1080 lines), but there's still something to be said for native-resolution 720p display without upscaling, particularly when it's more affordable.


Then why are all of the manufacturers including Pioneer dumping the 720p format and going with 1080? There has to be a reason.......otherwise they would dump the 1080p and stay with the 720p.

Tower......Other brands 768p's are not equal. I noticed a significant improvement from 768p to 1080p with Samsung and Panasonic as well. But also an improvement from their 1080p's to the Pio 768p. - ime

Agreed the Pio is a great TV. There was a difference going from 768 to 1080 with the same brand TV the only real difference between a 50px77u to 50pz77u is res.
So in my case any way it was worth the jump to 1080.

Maybe I sit too close (well I know I do in this house, very small living room), but the issue for me is not so much the detail as the ability to see the individual pixels. At 6-7' away I can see pixels, and hence SDE with a 720p display. I currently have a 1080i CRT (Sony, KVHR32), and any LCD or Plasma I have looked at with 'only' 720p I find the lower res very noticible (and so does my wife) -- I think this is a disadvantage of a relatively high resolution, small display... you get used to very smooth/detailed images.

Then why are all of the manufacturers including Pioneer dumping the 720p format and going with 1080? There has to be a reason.......otherwise they would dump the 1080p and stay with the 720p.
For one thing, it's a megapixel race. Also, movies recorded on high-def DVDs will play natively at 1080p/24, the film rate of 24 frames per second. This output can be telecined to play at 60 frames per second on a 1080p display, without having to scale the image. The larger displays will probably gravitate to 1080 lines for that reason. They will still show motion poorly though (motion blur), compared to a 720p/60 source.

Along with interlaced source material, the 'film look' is another anachronistic obsession. What can you do? :rolleyes:

This discussion is focusing overwhelmingly on the display resolution, without considering the upstream limits on content distribution. The ATSC standard for high definition television defines 1080i/60 and 720p/60 formats, but no 1080p/60 format. If 1080p/60 content existed, it would require double the data rate, or double the compression. This is not going to happen anytime soon. Until the ATSC standard is updated, most HD content is going to be limited to 1080i/60 or 720p/60 format.

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

.

As much as I too use wikipedia it is not always right, at the there is no ATSC standard for HD as far as lines of resolution goes. The FCC and NTSC are also no help.

This is what the FCC recommended

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Medi...s/fcc96207.txt

"9. Format selection: The ATSC DTV Standard supports a variety of scanning
formats. Table I shows the number of scanning lines and horizontal picture elements (or
pixels) per line, which affect resolution. For reference, our rules for NTSC television
broadcasting specify 483 active video lines per frame, with 42 lines in vertical blanking
intervals with no video information, for a total of 525 lines. The 720-line and 1080-line
formats below represent high resolution video and might be used for motion pictures, other
programs captured on film, programs shot with HDTV cameras including sporting events and
concerts, and animation and graphics that might be computer-generated. The lower-resolution
480-line formats accommodate existing NTSC programming and equipment as well as
material designed for viewing on VGA computer monitors.

Table I

1080
1920
16:9
60I 30P 24P

720
1280
16:9
60P 30P 24P

480
704
16:9 4:3
60I 60P 30P 24P

480
640
4:3
60I 60P 30P 24P"
__________________________________________________ _______________

Looks good but here is what was adopted

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1996/fcc96493.txt

"1. In this, the Fourth Report and Order in our digital television ("DTV") proceeding, we
adopt a standard for the transmission of digital television.1 This standard is a modification of the
ATSC2 DTV Standard proposed in the Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making and is
consistent with a consensus agreement voluntarily developed by a broad cross-section of parties,
including the broadcasting, consumer equipment manufacturing and computer industries.3 As
explained below, the Standard we adopt does not include requirements with respect to scanning
formats, aspect ratios, and lines of resolution.4 For clarity, we will refer to this modified standard as
the "DTV Standard.""

They left it up to the industries to do what they want

__________________________________________________ ______
Here is what the NTSC says

http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/fs-1037c.htm

high-definition television (HDTV): Television that has approximately twice the horizontal and twice the vertical emitted resolution specified by the NTSC standard. Note 1: In HDTV, the total number of pixels is therefore approximately four times that of the NTSC standard. Note 2: HDTV may include any or all improved-definition television (IDTV) and extended-television (EDTV) improvements. Note 3: HDTV employs a wide aspect ratio.
__________________________________________________ _____________
Here is what the ATSC says

http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_53-Part-1-2007.pdf

High-definition television (HDTV) – High-definition television has a resolution of
approximately twice that of conventional television in both the horizontal (H) and vertical
(V) dimensions and a picture aspect ratio (H × V) of 16:9. ITU-R Recommendation 1125
further defines “HDTV quality” as the delivery of a television picture which is subjectively
identical with the interlaced HDTV studio standard.

Just for clarity ATSC does adopt the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) standards but they do have 1080p all someone has to do is come up with a way for it to work and the ATSC will use it.

They (SMPTE) also have Ultra HDTV something like 7680x4320 LOL I wonder what size TV you would need to see a differance with that.

Then why are all of the manufacturers including Pioneer dumping the 720p format and going with 1080? There has to be a reason.......otherwise they would dump the 1080p and stay with the 720p.

To make you feel insecure and inspire your emotions into needing something that you obviously feel you need. How else will they MAKE you upgrade to something new. You don't NEED 1080p you WANT 1080p. Thats why. They need to make you feel insecure about your 720p to get more of your money.

Think about it like this. I can be happy with my 5080, oh how happy I am with it right now. Take the 2500 I would spend to own a 5010 and put it into stock for apple. In 2 years when the new super contrast pioneers are out, I will probably have close to 5000-10000 grand in stock money in apple to put towards a new 60 inch or bigger pioneer plasma. So who wins? Me. Twice.

Think about it like this. I can be happy with my 5080, oh how happy I am with it right now. Take the 2500 I would spend to own a 5010 and put it into stock for apple. In 2 years when the new super contrast pioneers are out, I will probably have close to 5000-10000 grand in stock money in apple to put towards a new 60 inch or bigger pioneer plasma. So who wins? Me. Twice.

whereas i don't doubt your happiness with your 5080, and i agree that 1080p is overhyped in most cases, i sure would like you to point me to an investment that will return 300% over the next 2 years... ;)

To make you feel insecure and inspire your emotions into needing something that you obviously feel you need. How else will they MAKE you upgrade to something new. You don't NEED 1080p you WANT 1080p. Thats why. They need to make you feel insecure about your 720p to get more of your money.

Think about it like this. I can be happy with my 5080, oh how happy I am with it right now. Take the 2500 I would spend to own a 5010 and put it into stock for apple. In 2 years when the new super contrast pioneers are out, I will probably have close to 5000-10000 grand in stock money in apple to put towards a new 60 inch or bigger pioneer plasma. So who wins? Me. Twice.

Actually there is about a 1700 price difference between the 5080 and 5010 depending on where you buy them.

whereas i don't doubt your happiness with your 5080, and i agree that 1080p is overhyped in most cases, i sure would like you to point me to an investment that will return 300% over the next 2 years... ;)Well I was stupid enough to not put my money in Google and I was stupid enough to not put my money in apple right before the release of the iPhone and Leopard. Apple went from 60 to the max of 190 and I think it dropped a little to 180 right now, all in 1 year. I don't even know if it split or how many times it did. I stopped following it too much cause it was making me sick. I was getting the stock itch fever. But Apple is almost a sure thing. Then again it is gambling so there are no sure things, right?

Actually there is about a 1700 price difference between the 5080 and 5010 depending on where you buy them.
Talking MSRP. Sure I could buy the 5010 on craigslist for 1000 with a cracked screen, go to best buy and buy a 5010 then put the one with the cracked screen in the box and return it and have a 5010 brand new for 1000. I just know that I will get in a car accident a week later and cause 4000 dollars in damage. I don't like karma. Just talking real world numbers for the majority of people that don't visit AVS. The zombie consumers. That is just my perspective.

By the way I am typing this on a macbook that is 1280x800 with a shiny screen and it looks amazing!!!!!!!

Well I was stupid enough to not put my money in Google and I was stupid enough to not put my money in apple right before the release of the iPhone and Leopard. Apple went from 60 to the max of 190 and I think it dropped a little to 180 right now, all in 1 year. I don't even know if it split or how many times it did. I stopped following it too much cause it was making me sick. I was getting the stock itch fever. But Apple is almost a sure thing. Then again it is gambling so there are no sure things, right?


Talking MSRP. Sure I could buy the 5010 on craigslist for 1000 with a cracked screen, go to best buy and buy a 5010 then put the one with the cracked screen in the box and return it and have a 5010 brand new for 1000. I just know that I will get in a car accident a week later and cause 4000 dollars in damage. I don't like karma. Just talking real world numbers for the majority of people that don't visit AVS. The zombie consumers. That is just my perspective.

By the way I am typing this on a macbook that is 1280x800 with a shiny screen and it looks amazing!!!!!!!


Im talking about the price at BB right now not Craigslist. The prices on the 5010 have dropped quite a bit. There is not a 2500 price difference.

Im typing on my Planar 2611 24" IPS screen at 1900 x 1200 and it looks real sweet!!! No shiny screen either.

Then why are all of the manufacturers including Pioneer dumping the 720p format and going with 1080? There has to be a reason.......otherwise they would dump the 1080p and stay with the 720p.Economies of scale, it is more profitable (less expensive) to manufacture one line of PDPs instead of two.

I don't quite understand why so many people on this forum say that 1080p is just hype or marketing. Most of the detractors don't even have a 1080p plasma, and may have only seen 1080p models in a store environment instead of in a home, or at closer viewing distances, or have not actually seen a side-by-side comparison in a home. Maybe they sit too far from the screen. Or maybe they just have poor eyesight.

I used to believe the many many posts saying that 1080p is just marketing hype, but now that i own one i know for a fact that it's not just hype. The benefits of 1080p are real if one sits close enough to the TV to see those benefits. My viewing distance is 8 feet (can't go further) and i've been suffering with the SDE on my older 42PX50U for a long long time. I went to buy a 4280HD because several people here basically said the Pioneer's better processing made the SDE much less noticeable but when i measured off 8 feet from the screen at various stores the SDE was every bit as prevelant as it is on my old 42PX50U. I was crushed because i really really wanted that Pioneer. So i started looking at the 42PZ700U and was somewhat astounded that it was completely devoid of SDE at my 8 foot distance and even closer. I was able to compare it directly with the Pioneer and the PX75U as well and the lack of SDE was glaringly apparent and i realized that it's not all hype afterall. I went to several BBs and Magnolias in my area and saw the same thing at every store and ultimately bought the 42PZ700U.

Once it was in my home i was able to do a side by side comparison with my PX50U and the PZ700U is a big improvement when watching HD programs, and even analog and digital SD cable channels look a little better. The complete lack of SDE at my viewing distance is a huge benefit and i could never ever go back to watching a 768p set again. I can even see the improvement when i stand in the dining room at 10 feet, but that's probably the better processing of the newer set coming into play. I hate SDE so i have to have a 1080p set.

Its odd when there are countless threads that debunk the extra res as something you'll never notice.

Some people drive V6 mustangs too, because they won't ever notice the upgrade to a V8.

Its all about useage.
If you want a vehicle analogy, then here's a better one. Buying a 1080p TV when you sit too far away to notice the extra resolution over 768p is like buying an F-350 Super Duty to tow your 1,000-pound boat. Will it tow it well? Definitely! Will it tow it any better than a V6 Ford Ranger? Nope! If you want to tow something that's 10,000 pounds, then the extra capacity is there. Just like if you want to watch your 50" TV from 6 feet away, the extra resolution is there. However, while watching a 50" TV from 10 feet away, it's not going to matter if it's 1080p or 768p; just like it won't matter if you tow that boat with an F-350 Super Duty or a V6 Ford Ranger.

You must not tow very often. A F350 will indeed tow a 1,000 lbs better then a Ranger. I have an Explorer (V8) and a F250 (turbo diesel) hands down the 250 tows my jets skis better, its not even close.

If you want a vehicle analogy, then here's a better one.Can someone use a boat analogy instead... somewhere in the 30' category? :D

http://mysite.verizon.net/vzequg9f/boat.JPG

They (SMPTE) also have Ultra HDTV something like 7680x4320 LOL I wonder what size TV you would need to see a differance with that.

It seems there is one, cheap too :eek:

http://www.bhfo.org/news/latest-news/japanese-33-million-pixel-tv-standard.html

I don't quite understand why so many people on this forum say that 1080p is just hype or marketing. Most of the detractors don't even have a 1080p plasma, and may have only seen 1080p models in a store environment instead of in a home, or at closer viewing distances, or have not actually seen a side-by-side comparison in a home. Maybe they sit too far from the screen. Or maybe they just have poor eyesight.

I used to believe the many many posts saying that 1080p is just marketing hype, but now that i own one i know for a fact that it's not just hype. The benefits of 1080p are real if one sits close enough to the TV to see those benefits. My viewing distance is 8 feet (can't go further) and i've been suffering with the SDE on my older 42PX50U for a long long time. I went to buy a 4280HD because several people here basically said the Pioneer's better processing made the SDE much less noticeable but when i measured off 8 feet from the screen at various stores the SDE was every bit as prevelant as it is on my old 42PX50U. I was crushed because i really really wanted that Pioneer. So i started looking at the 42PZ700U and was somewhat astounded that it was completely devoid of SDE at my 8 foot distance and even closer. I was able to compare it directly with the Pioneer and the PX75U as well and the lack of SDE was glaringly apparent and i realized that it's not all hype afterall. I went to several BBs and Magnolias in my area and saw the same thing at every store and ultimately bought the 42PZ700U.

Once it was in my home i was able to do a side by side comparison with my PX50U and the PZ700U is a big improvement when watching HD programs, and even analog and digital SD cable channels look a little better. The complete lack of SDE at my viewing distance is a huge benefit and i could never ever go back to watching a 768p set again. I can even see the improvement when i stand in the dining room at 10 feet, but that's probably the better processing of the newer set coming into play. I hate SDE so i have to have a 1080p set.


Randy, I don't dispute anything you said, but have you considered that a great many people don't see, or can't see what you see? I've pointed to viewing studies that have been posted here many times, and the vast majority of them show that less than 10-15% of people seeing a marked improvment in P.Q. in typical use of 1080p V.s 720p. They didn't make this up, the human eye can only resolve total resolution to a point, after that it's like trying to pick out how many atoms make up a coffee cup, if you get my meaning. So I don't think 1080p is hype, I do see it as being way over blown in terms of how the majority of us need it.

Once it was in my home i was able to do a side by side comparison with my PX50U and the PZ700U is a big improvement when watching HD programs, and even analog and digital SD cable channels look a little better. The complete lack of SDE at my viewing distance is a huge benefit and i could never ever go back to watching a 768p set again. I can even see the improvement when i stand in the dining room at 10 feet, but that's probably the better processing of the newer set coming into play. I hate SDE so i have to have a 1080p set.

And you have bionic eyes.http://liquidlurker.com/gpf/Smileys/default/goofy.gif Not all of us are bothered by it, I have a 42 inch and I see SDE at 6 feet when I look for it, but it is hard to look for when something is shooting at you. I just couldn't see spending an extra $800 (at the time I bought my 42px75) for something with a dimmer yet slightly sharper image. If I was going to spend that much extra, I would have gotten a 50 inch 720p before considering a 1080p. I just can't justify the price increase right now. I watch all my movies at 8 feet and can't see SDE at all.

However with all of the 1080p sets coming out that look to be much better than the previous 720p models I might look into 1080p sets when I start looking for a 50 inch, but I don't see myself in the market again until the ultra thin pioneers come out when ever that will be.

I've pointed to viewing studies that have been posted here many times, and the vast majority of them show that less than 10-15% of people seeing a marked improvment in P.Q. in typical use of 1080p V.s 720p.

Are these the same people who dont even have an HD signal but think they are watching HD because they have an "HDTV"?

The general mass also thinks Transformers is a really good movie. I could care less what they think.

like buying an F-350 Super Duty to tow your 1,000-pound boat. Will it tow it well? Definitely! Will it tow it any better than a V6 Ford Ranger? Nope!

lol...um...V6 ford ranger? In the ranger you'd know for sure you were towing a boat. The F350 would be un-affected. But again, this all comes down to useage. If you have a 1000-lb boat and a V6 Ranger, you obviously aren't a good fisherman or that into trucks.

Are these the same people who dont even have an HD signal but think they are watching HD because they have an "HDTV"?

The general mass also thinks Transformers is a really good movie. I could care less what they think.



lol...um...V6 ford ranger? In the ranger you'd know for sure you were towing a boat. The F350 would be un-affected. But again, this all comes down to useage. If you have a 1000-lb boat and a V6 Ranger, you obviously aren't a good fisherman or that into trucks.


?? Was there a point relevant to the topic here?

The general mass also thinks Transformers is a really good movie. The general mass was correct.

Are these the same people who dont even have an HD signal but think they are watching HD because they have an "HDTV"?

The general mass also thinks Transformers is a really good movie. I could care less what they think.



lol...um...V6 ford ranger? In the ranger you'd know for sure you were towing a boat. The F350 would be un-affected. But again, this all comes down to useage. If you have a 1000-lb boat and a V6 Ranger, you obviously aren't a good fisherman or that into trucks.



And I could care less what you think. Reality is these are fact based scientific studies and they seem to prove that the vast majority of people don't have the visual ability to see any real difference in 720p & 1080p broadcasts. We aren't talking about personal tastes here, or the need for fanboys like you to prove to everyone you've got the newest and greatest thing ever. :rolleyes:Sorry but you need to grow up.

We sit thirteen (13) feet from center of our tv (a 720p). Two questions: at that distance is a 720 or 1080 "better" or will there be no visual difference (we have an LCD now and thinking of going to PLASMA later.........if I can be satisfied glare will not be a problem. It seems the newer plasmas have solved or lessened that problem to a great degree. I'm still in a quandry as to lcd vs. plasma.....yes I've read a lot on the pros and cons and am leaning more toward plasma especially if they can get their power consumption DOWN.

Please reply to: kmil123@msn.com
Thanks!

But it could be better. I can push a V6 to its limits, which is why I like V8s. Higher limits.

Some folks will never use their TV to view even HD. Some folks use their TVs to play games. Some use it to just watch Bones in HD.

Its all dependant on useage and cost. As a car enthusiast I would enjoy the V8 becaue I'd use it. As a A/V enthusiast I enjoy the 1080p. You should see me play games. I get my steering wheel out and sit about 4-5 feet away from the display. Most people don't do that.
Its all about useage. And obviously I'd rather have a 1080p Piosneer but its out of my price range....as is the new Zr1 Corvette (600+hp). The Zr1 is the best, but I dont knock it because "you'll never notice the difference".

I guess it goes into interior and fit/finish. some car lovers want that. I just want something reliable and fast. Same thing with contrast/size/res/features of a TV. Get what you want, it doesn't mean that there isn't something better to me. I could care less if I have cup holders.


Sorry but this is a moronic comparison. Lets see if you can understand this, "Horse -power" , in cars, in trucks, or whatever has a measurable impact on use for everyone that drives regardless of need. A panels resolution at 1080p has a measurable impact on less than 25% of of the people that drive. :rolleyes:

Threads like these generate more misinformation than anything. If you want to know why 1080P is important, check out :

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

We sit thirteen (13) feet from center of our tv (a 720p). Two questions: at that distance is a 720 or 1080 "better" or will there be no visual difference (we have an LCD now and thinking of going to PLASMA later.........if I can be satisfied glare will not be a problem. It seems the newer plasmas have solved or lessened that problem to a great degree. I'm still in a quandry as to lcd vs. plasma.....yes I've read a lot on the pros and cons and am leaning more toward plasma especially if they can get their power consumption DOWN.

Please reply to: kmil123@msn.com
Thanks!

Well that depends greatly on your own vision, the averages say that with a 42" or 50" panel at 13 feet, it's very doubtful you'll see any major difference in P.Q. There are more important factors in P.Q. than max resolution, Contrast Ratio, and color reproduction being much more important IMO.
As for glare, it's always been a problem with plasmas but many of the top brands like Pioneer and Panny have invested alot in reducing glare with various glass coatings. I think you'll find that the latest research done on power consumption, "CRT-site" has plasmas and LCD's of similar size rated very close in terms of power consump.

All you have to know about 1080p is sit close and buy massive--if you do both of those things then it is worth it.

Threads like these generate more misinformation than anything. If you want to know why 1080P is important, check out :

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


Unfortunately, as has been popinted out, all 1080p sets are not equal.
So a lesser 1080p set is not as good as a very good 720p. No matter what you are feeding it.



Artwood has it about nailed.

Threads like these generate more misinformation than anything. If you want to know why 1080P is important, check out :

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

I've seen that a dozen times, and it's all true. However it fails to bring up the single most important fact. Yes it's a better tech. on paper and in theory, but in reality less than 25% of the population is able to percive a great P.Q. improvement. Why should we care? At equal value sure, we should all have 1080p sets, at a 3rd or more in cost over 720p panels, no way. I could care less what the fanboys say.

LOL. I agree.


All you have to know about 1080p is sit close and buy massive--if you do both of those things then it is worth it.

Sorry but this is a moronic comparison. Lets see if you can understand this, "Horse -power" , in cars, in trucks, or whatever has a measurable impact on use for everyone that drives regardless of need. A panels resolution at 1080p has a measurable impact on less than 25% of of the people that drive. :rolleyes:

Features and useage. FEATURES AND USEAGE. Which is exactly what we are talking about.

And I could care less what you think.

Its a two way street.

Sorry but this is a moronic comparison. Lets see if you can understand this, "Horse -power" , in cars, in trucks, or whatever has a measurable impact on use for everyone that drives regardless of need. A panels resolution at 1080p has a measurable impact on less than 25% of of the people that drive. :rolleyes:

Can you please let us know where you get your data from? I'm sure that you aren't pulling these percentages from your ***...

I just love how people can tell me what I will like or dislike and what I need or dont need..............what a minute that sounds like my wife:eek:

A lot of people don't notice the difference between a good 480p picture and HD. That isn't to say the differences aren't real. On the other hand, there are certainly diminishing returns on higher resolutions, especially for moderate screen sizes (under 50") and/or longer viewing distances.

Some people claim to hear differences between a $1000 pure silver 1m audio interconnect cable and a high quality $20 copper one. A highly regarded audio/video reviewer once claimed that you could hear the difference between CDs treated with Armor All vs. untreated ones. As with audio, video also really comes down to personal preference. Take the time and do a lot of viewing in a home theater store or make sure you have a good return policy if 720p/1080p concerns you.

Speakers sound a lot different in the home than in the store and there's only one way to be sure you like a pair;-) The same goes for an expensive monitor.
I like your comment about different resolutions and the esoteric audio community. I have a 42" 480p panny, ISF calibrated and my friend who has a 60" 1080p thought my set was 720p. I finally clued him in and he was shocked. Nearly everyone who views my set can't believe how good it looks and then can't believe it when i tell them it is not HD.

On a different note, I have a chance to buy a 61"Elite 1040HD as a display model for what i feel is a great price, $2500. It also has been calibrated in the showroom by the same ISF tech who calibrated my current set. My dilemma is whether or not i should spring for 1080p. My viewing distance is about 9' from the screen. any advice?

;12824708']The general mass was correct.

Sometimes I wonder about the fate of the nation...720p is the pinacle resolution and Transformers is a great movie.

As I've come to find out from forums, I am in the minority...And thats ok.

Why are you still going at it? 720p is not the pinacle and transformers was entertaining, not great. It's just that some 768p panels are better than some 1080p panels....that simple.

It's just that some 768p panels are better than some 1080p panels....that simple.

Some LCDs are better than some plasmas.
Some Porsche's are faster than some Ferraris.
Some brunets have more fun than some blondes.

Kind of an insipid point isn't it. . . Why the proselytizing on this thread about 720 - isn't this just another factor that's highly specific to tastes, means and environment?

I'm just trying to help some people understand that 1080p in and of itself does not guarantee a better picture. I think that is valuable information and can't be said enough.

I could've bought a 42PZ700u when i was looking for a bedroom panel. I considered it. I could've got it cheaper too. I ended up with a 4280HD. From 9', eyes to screen, i went with the better overall panel (watching Jackass2 on the 42"Kuro as i type, hysterical!). Needless to say, i've bought my last 768 set and i like it.

The speed and towing isn't everything. It's the "handling". You would be amazed that an Acura TL Type-S 6MT WHOOPS both Lexus IS350 and that ugly ass '07 Infiniti G35 Sport in the tracks. The Acura is only 3 seconds slower than a 500HP Shelby GT500 in the same track. You can see horsepower don't mean jack.... I'm not talking about the stupid drag strip tracks... You are missing what the real juice is here... lolz



3 year-old 768P plasma

768P panel viewing 1080p content. It's the "contrast" and "sharpness" what I give a damn about... Picture taken early part of last year.

http://www.aoaforums.com/forum/attachments/digital-image-photo-video-audio-editing/21284d1191107019-a-dscf6822ra9.jpg


Now don't even dare ask about how it will perform viewing 480 and 352 content.... it's even more punchier and extremely 3-dimensional.



For anything upto 58", 768P is fine. It'll give you more than what you will need. Now when the companies stop making 720p and keep releasing 1080p's, you don't have much choice there, do ya. KEEP YOUR OLD PANNY PLASMA LOL!!~!!

@ IamAnoobieCheez

That is an excellent picture :). Your set looks like a window.

@ IamAnoobieCheez

That is an excellent picture :). Your set looks like a window.
hey thanks cjm7c, your words much appreciated. :)

@ IamAnoobieCheez

That is an excellent picture :). Your set looks like a window.

Cheez is right about our old plasma's...they still rock years later...but he wishes he had an IS350....hehe ;)

Sometimes I wonder about the fate of the nation...720p is the pinacle resolution and Transformers is a great movie.

As I've come to find out from forums, I am in the minority...And thats ok.
Ya know what? If you get so upset about other peoples opinions being so different than your own, you should wonder about your own fate, don't ya think?

The speed and towing isn't everything. It's the "handling". You would be amazed that an Acura TL Type-S 6MT WHOOPS both Lexus IS350 and that ugly ass '07 Infiniti G35 Sport in the tracks. The Acura is only 3 seconds slower than a 500HP Shelby GT500 in the same track. You can see horsepower don't mean jack.... I'm not talking about the stupid drag strip tracks... You are missing what the real juice is here...

Exactly. Its all dependant on useage and what the buyer is looking for. Im not saying 1080p is what everyone should want. nor would horsepower be what everyone would want.

I dont know why its so hard for people to grasp that. The ford ranger is fine for people who occasionally tow and didn't want to pay a bunch more money for a feature that isn't important to them. But to say that it can tow just as well as an F250 is just wrong.

No not all 1080p panels are better than 768. But depending on useage it might be ok to sacrifice the ultimate 720 KURO for a 1080p Panny that costs less but has a feature I'd use more often from 5 feet away. (games).

I think we are all on the same page with this, its just hard for people to admit that Res might be a huge factor for some people. they are stuck on the idea that 1080 is a marketing term only and 768 is all a person could ever need.

oh and 3 seconds on a road course is a HUGE difference.

;12826697']Can you please let us know where you get your data from? I'm sure that you aren't pulling these percentages from your ***...

From the viewing studies that have been posted on this very site. If you do a forum search you'll see a ton posted on the topic. The results are pretty straight forward and simple, "more people don't see a major difference in
1080p, than do. To me the research is backed up by what I see, and I can see small P.Q. improvment on a 58" panel at 5 or so feet and none, zero, at 8 to 10 feet. If 1080p fanboys want thump their chest and try and tell the rest of us what we should see, they have another thing coming. I mean I'm not saying 1080p isn't worth it to thoses that see a great P.Q. improvement in 1080p, but I'm not telling them what they are seeing isn't real, so don't tell the rest of us what were seeing is all I'm saying. ;)

;12824708']The general mass was correct.

Sometimes I wonder about the fate of the nation...720p is the pinacle resolution and Transformers is a great movie.

As I've come to find out from forums, I am in the minority...And thats ok.[/QUOTE]

Yeah because that's what's being said really, :rolleyes: I sometimes wonder about the fate of the nation when it seems to be populated by far too many people that can't comprehend the written word.:confused: Is it really so hard for you to imagine that maybe you are one of a minority that has the visual acuity to see a major difference between 720p & 1080p where others do not??? And if in fact thats the case, then why should the rest of us shell out extra hundreds of dollars or something we don't need? How hard a concept is that?

Flood....the Panny isn't cheaper and outside of 6' the Pio 768p's have more "horsepower" than most 1080p panels can dream of.

If you believe 1080P {should} = Clarity

............ but you think it doesn't....


..... Then move closer......


If you believe moving closer {should} make it look better

............. but it doesn't .......


..... Then your TV is too small for 1080P...... and you should have stuck to 720P.

:)

Would it be safe to say, that different people have different needs?

The topic of the thread is "I dont get the 1080 hype". Im just saying that I do and its analogous to other consumer products. Its frustrating to continually hear "1080 is worthless" comments when clearly its not. Maybe to E-A-G-L-E-S it is, but for me its not and I have valid reasons to support it.

I'd rather have an all electric car anyway. Again, apparently I am in the minority and thats ok.

Maybe you should learn to read more thoroughly.
Can you please point to one time I said anything even close to 1080p doesn't matter?
The 1080p Pioneers are the best display you can buy ;)

You are only in the minority of thinking a lesser 1080p is going to be better than a better 768p set solely because it has 1080p resolution.

In theory 1080p is better, but in practicality in depends on the source, display's abilities and distance vs screen size. So 1080p in and of itself does NOT make the set better. If a ~$2K 1080p 50"+ plasma performed better than the 768p Pioneers, then I wouldn't own a 5080.

You are only in the minority of thinking a lesser 1080p is going to be better than a better 768p set solely because it has 1080p resolution.

I dont think I said that.


If a ~$2K 1080p 50"+ plasma performed better than the 768p Pioneers, then I wouldn't own a 5080..

well then you'd better be ready to pony up soon. The SDE on the 5080 at my viewing distance and useage wouldn't work.

Can you name a 1080p plasma for ~$2K that performs better?
Also, usage has nothing to do with it. You sitting 5' from a 50" display has everyhting to do with it.
So for you, you have decided that the time you spend 5' from it playing games is more important than other tv/dvd viewing performance at your normal viewing distance. That was your choice and that's fine. I'm glad you are happy and I've said that I like the Sammy 5084 as well.

Also, usage has nothing to do with it. You sitting 5' from a 50" display has everyhting to do with it.

Um....That is what I use it for. So my usage needs are different.

From my perspective my display performs better in areas that are important to me for my use. From your perspective your display is better than mine for your use. Life is all about perspective.

You only play games on it? Do you play games more than watch tv/dvd?
I would assume the major majority of people buying plasmas are doing so for tv/dvd viewing....and that is why the consensus is that the pio's are better.
For your needs the 1080p to rid SDE is most important, I understand that just fine.

I think you are both saying the same thing. I was choosing between the 5080, the 50PZ700U and the 50PZ77U.

For my wife and I, because of various reasons, we felt the 50PZ77U was the best choice. We were and are aware that the 5080 performs better in certain areas, but there were a few things that it didn't do that were very important.

I can tell you that my wife has no clue what 768p and 1080p are but at 5 ft she said she could see the "little boxes and that it didn't look smooth". We have a seating position that is 3 ft away. She also didn't like the reflections.

I think too many people are worried about wheater or not another display performs better than theirs...at least in some way, instead of asking themselves "does my display do all the things "I" need it to do well?" I might not have purchased the 5080, but I sure do enjoy my 50PZ77U and that's all that matters.

3' from a 50" :eek: Talk about eye strain.

There is no doubt 1080p is superior just because of the resolution, the question becomes is it really beneficial for you. Most people don't even realize how close 5' really is... go get your measuring tape, it's damn close.

There is a question. Like you said 5' is very close and at normal viewing distances of 7-12' the 1080p is not undoubtedly superior.

To each their own and as long as everyone enjoys their set that's all that matters. Not to mention we are all lucky to have such beautiful, big displays.

3' from a 50" :eek: Talk about eye strain.

We have an "L" shaped seating arangement. The closest position is 3 ft. The perfect and most used seating position is exactly 125 inches...one and a half times the diagnal screen size...the perfect distance for a 50 inch display, but the fact remains when we have people over for football, 2 positions are within 5 ft of the display...GO CHARGERS!!

To each their own and as long as everyone enjoys their set that's all that matters. Not to mention we are all lucky to have such beautiful, big displays.

Heck yeah!

...GO CHARGERS!!


I can't figure out who to root for in that one. I wouldn't mind seeing history and shutting up those old Dolphins players. But I hate the Pats and sick of Boston. On the other hand, the Charges all of a sudden are a classless team. Rivers is a ounk, but I love L.T.
Hopefully a good game.

I can't figure out who to root for in that one. I wouldn't mind seeing history and shutting up those old Dolphins players. But I hate the Pats and sick of Boston. On the other hand, the Charges all of a sudden are a classless team. Rivers is a ounk, but I love L.T.
Hopefully a good game.

I do miss Drew Breeze. I don't like rivers much myself. Everyone knows how Charger fans feel about the Pats. My problem will be if San Diego and Green Bay go to the SB. My whole family is from WI and I would love to see Favre go out with a bang, but I really think LT deserves a ring. We'll see!

No matter what, we will all be watching another great round of playoffs on our beautiful displays and that is all that matters!

One advantage of 1080p over 768p is it is actually an official HD resolution. No down rezzing of 1080p/i or up rezzing of 720p required. You can set all your source components to output 1080p or 1080i and sit back and enjoy the view.

I do miss Drew Breeze. I don't like rivers much myself. Everyone knows how Charger fans feel about the Pats. My problem will be if San Diego and Green Bay go to the SB. My whole family is from WI and I would love to see Favre go out with a bang, but I really think LT deserves a ring. We'll see!

No matter what, we will all be watching another great round of playoffs on our beautiful displays and that is all that matters!

Sorry DPowers the GB Giants game should be close, but unless the Pats take pity on the Chargers it wont. Have you seen there interviews? Not the same Sh%* taking they where saying last time :D What was the score of that game again? 38-14 :eek:

One advantage of 1080p over 768p is it is actually an official HD resolution. No down rezzing of 1080p/i or up rezzing of 720p required. You can set all your source components to output 1080p or 1080i and sit back and enjoy the view.

That reminds me of the headaches everyone with a 720p or 768p display was going through when the HDA1 HD DVD player came out. It's 720p scaling was all screwed up and made great looking movies look really soft. So if, at the time, you had a 720p display with subpar processing (like my Sony A20) that bobbed and didn't resolve the max resolution from 1080i you were screwed. It just ate at me.

We have an "L" shaped seating arangement. The closest position is 3 ft. The perfect and most used seating position is exactly 125 inches...one and a half times the diagnal screen size...the perfect distance for a 50 inch display, but the fact remains when we have people over for football, 2 positions are within 5 ft of the display...GO CHARGERS!!





Chargers should count themselves lucky to even step on the field with the Patriots. Pats 42 Dolts 10 ;)

Sorry DPowers the GB Giants game should be close, but unless the Pats take pity on the Chargers it wont. Have you seen there interviews? Not the same Sh%* taking they where saying last time :D What was the score of that game again? 38-14 :eek:

Your not kidding. If they were smart they (we) would keep our mouths shut and play the underdog role. I'm tryin to keep the faith! Should be fun!

The point is that the 1080 is a superior display no matter where you are sitting. The display remains the same no matter where you as a person choose to sit.........it still has 1080 resolution no matter what.

Yes GO Chargers!!!

The point is that the 1080 is a superior display no matter where you are sitting. The display remains the same no matter where you as a person choose to sit.........it still has 1080 resolution no matter what.

Yes GO Chargers!!!

That really is an opinion since you are basically stating EVERY 1080p set is superior to any other resolution which is completely wrong again you are putting resolution as the number one factor in your quote. Example, you think that a 1080p vizio will look better than a 5080, not.

Now I can agree that it will be nicer to have a set resolution standard like 1080p where EVERYTHING is 1080p60 or 1080p24, not 1080i or 720p, and that all sets will be the equivalent. And guess what it is going that directions basically some of you are just early adopters and for that pay the price of adopting early.

That really is an opinion since you are basically stating EVERY 1080p set is superior to any other resolution which is completely wrong again you are putting resolution as the number one factor in your quote. Example, you think that a 1080p vizio will look better than a 5080, not.


If you want to compare I'll return my Samsung for a Vizio and swap out with your 5080HD ;)

The point is that the 1080 is a superior display no matter where you are sitting. The display remains the same no matter where you as a person choose to sit.........it still has 1080 resolution no matter what.

Yes GO Chargers!!!


1. That's completly untrue.

2. F%&^ the Chargers. ;)

1. That's completly untrue.

2. F%&^ the Chargers. ;)


1. so the screen is built the same way as a 720 is built?

2. LOL

1. so the screen is built the same way as a 720 is built?

2. LOL


1. No, but I as I've said many times in this thread, theory is not reality. If the majority of people sitting in front of a 1080p panel can't tell the difference between that and a 768p panel, then it's not superior to them.

2. Still and always F%^& the Chargers.

Man this is funny stuff. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound??

1 Yes it is.

2 that's a little harsh but they will be starting there off season after this weekend.

If you want to compare I'll return my Samsung for a Vizio and swap out with your 5080HD ;)

No, but if you wanted to go to cough cough J&R cough cough, and pick up a 5010 and bring it over, well then we could have ourselves a very nice thread going.

The end goal here is overall PQ-not specs.

I think people here argue to justify their own purchases.

What I will tell you is that I could have bought anything I wanted in a certain price range.
I asked the advice of a few highly respected AVS Forum sponsors/vendors regarding best PQ for my budget (<$2500) in a 50" plasma.

They all had the same answer.

Man this is funny stuff. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound??



Ok...first of all...who told you about the tree? ;)

1. No, but I as I've said many times in this thread, theory is not reality. If the majority of people sitting in front of a 1080p panel can't tell the difference between that and a 768p panel, then it's not superior to them.

2. Still and always F%^& the Chargers.

1. My point is that it doesnt matter where you are sitting or what you see as an individual. The fact remains the same that the 1080 is a superior screen with higher resolution. The screen does not change because you are sitting too far away and cant tell the difference.

2. Chargers are ready!!!

The end goal here is overall PQ-not specs.

I think people here argue to justify their own purchases.

What I will tell you is that I could have bought anything I wanted in a certain price range.
I asked the advice of a few highly respected AVS Forum sponsors/vendors regarding best PQ for my budget (<$2500) in a 50" plasma.

They all had the same answer.

From your post a few days ago ...

"At my price point-I was advised across the board by several vendors who could have sold me anything in their store that the Pio 5080 was better PQ than comparably priced 1080p plasmas. I did not necessarily want to believe that, but after looking at the sets for several days myself with a variety of sources and reading about the different specs I am happy with my choice."

1. My point is that it doesnt matter where you are sitting or what you see as an individual. The fact remains the same that the 1080 is a superior screen with higher resolution. The screen does not change because you are sitting too far away and cant tell the difference.

This is a sticky issue and broad statements like this one just keep fueling the thread. Very often, sacrifices are made to obtain that 1080p resolution. Sometimes that sacrifice is contrast, which can significantly affect picture quality. Until the Kuros hit the market, contrast almost always suffered a bit on the 1080p plasmas compared to their 768p counterparts. However, the extra resolution does reduce the screen door effect.

All things being equal, everyone wants more resolution. Of course, all things are never equal and that is why many threads compare the Panasonic PZ700U to the PZ75U or the Pioneer 5080HD.

All things being equal, everyone wants more resolution. Of course, all things are never equal and that is why many threads compare the Panasonic PZ700U to the PZ75U or the Pioneer 5080HD.

Well they don't make a PZ75u so you can't:D

A bad 1080 set is not as good as a good 768 set I think we all understand that but a PZ750 is far from a bad set.

For me the 5080 was not is not an option so I got a PZ77u.

As far as 1080 hype ask your self this if you could get a 5010 for the same price as a 5080 what would you get?

If 1080 is all hype then I am sure you would take what ever they handed you and be happy right?

Well they don't make a PZ75u so you can't:D

Sorry I meant the PX75U.

As far as 1080 hype ask your self this if you could get a 5010 for the same price as a 5080 what would you get?

This is a no-brainer. Everyone would get the 5010.

If 1080 is all hype then I am sure you would take what ever they handed you and be happy right?

Are you assuming that I think 1080p is all hype? I certainly don't have that opinion. Extra resolution is a fantastic feature, it just costs more. And, since plasmas are in a transitional period, there are still some excellent 768p displays which might yield better value than their 1080p competitors.

We have an "L" shaped seating arangement. The closest position is 3 ft. The perfect and most used seating position is exactly 125 inches...one and a half times the diagnal screen size...the perfect distance for a 50 inch display, but the fact remains when we have people over for football, 2 positions are within 5 ft of the display...GO CHARGERS!!

umm... 125 inches is TWO and a half times 50 inches... 75 inches would be ONE and a half times 50 inches...

personally, i would consider 10 1/2 feet far from "perfect" for 50 inches, regardless of resolution... but that's just me...

From your post a few days ago ...

"At my price point-I was advised across the board by several vendors who could have sold me anything in their store that the Pio 5080 was better PQ than comparably priced 1080p plasmas. I did not necessarily want to believe that, but after looking at the sets for several days myself with a variety of sources and reading about the different specs I am happy with my choice."

It was an odd process. I am actually very heavy into high end audio (will get back to that in a minute).

I started looking several weeks ago.
When I first went out to look at HDTV's I was struck by two things:
1) LCD screens were brighter which I liked in some ways.
2) Any plasma and especially any Pioneer model I looked at had the purest and warmest looking picture which I liked.

With my viewing habits (sports and non gamer) I decided plasma was the way to go.

I was torn about the 1080p versus 768p thing. I did my research like everybody here.
My price point went up a bit and I was considering 50" plasmas from Panasonic,Samsung, and Pioneer. I went to several stores to see every model I was considering.

My first impressions remained the same-in many ways in the stores the LCD's really stuck out with their brightness wow factor and as one viewed the quality of a picture longer the plasmas had a richer presentation.

Just different. All actually very nice.All have some possible oddball technical issues if you read enough about them (dancing green pixels, banding, streaking, buzzing, motion blur, judder,can't handle 1080p/24 ..the list goes on).

Back to audio. Solid state pre and power electronics inevitably have better specs than tube preamps and and tube power amps. Solid State digital sources always have better specs than analog vinyl playback.

It is funny how people spend huge bucks to get a great tube sound or vinyl sound in their solid state setups. Most people end up having tubes somewhere in the chain.

People do not buy based upon specs alone in high end audio. They buy based upon what sounds the best to them and what makes the experience most real.

In the end- I bought what I liked best in terms of the most pleasing picture to me.
I found it surprising to be honest that every single online vendor (4) and every single store I went into (5 different brick and mortars) all said the same thing.

Now, if I had another $1500 to blow-probably would get a 5010. Not convinced I would see any difference (saw it in stores several times and could not discern any), but who knows maybe the 1080p would come in handy.

In the end-buy what makes you happy. All of these units are really nice.

Sorry cjm7c I was only quoting you for the slip (PZ,PX) the rest was for the thouse that think 1080 is just hype.

The point is that the 1080 is a superior display no matter where you are sitting. The display remains the same no matter where you as a person choose to sit.........it still has 1080 resolution no matter what.

Yes GO Chargers!!!


Please, if you feel the need to believe that, at least don't go around serving it up to other people as it is just false information. ;)

Please, if you feel the need to believe that, at least don't go around serving it up to other people as it is just false information. ;)

Do you mean the YES Go Chargers part?

Don't Troll.

Don't Troll.

I dont think that I am trolling when this is the "I dont get the 1080p hype" thread.

Once again my point is that the 1080 screen is made differently than the 720 screen no matter where you are sitting or what you see. The 1080 screen is different. I would really be interested in what Pioneer would say. Im sure they wouldnt say there isnt a difference between the two like you seem to think.

Oh and I almost forgot........Go Chargers!!

When did I say the screens were the same? You are so deep into your hole you are confusing me with someone else.
Chargers , lol, not a chance in the world.

if you don't have Blu-Ray and don't sit 4 feet from your tv why spend the extra cash on something you will never see?

Are you saying you have NO plans to get a source that does 1080p? HD-DVD players price is getting cheap, blu-ray will only get cheaper. Never know what may happen with Sat/Cable or another delivery device.

Considering you may have this panel for a few years, you never know. And if you DID get a device that had 1080p...would you regret you purchase?

Are you saying you have NO plans to get a source that does 1080p? HD-DVD players price is getting cheap, blu-ray will only get cheaper. Never know what may happen with Sat/Cable or another delivery device.

Considering you may have this panel for a few years, you never know. And if you DID get a device that had 1080p...would you regret you purchase?

probably not, because even feeding 1080p to a 1080p display that you aren't sitting close enough to to resolve isn't going to look any "better" than scaling it...

disclaimer: i have a 1080p set. however, it's 60" and i sit 8 feet from it. had i gone with a 50", i would have gotten a 5080 and not spent the money for a 5010.

can someone give me a cliffs notes version of the point jet757 is trying to make? fundamentally, yes, a 1080p screen is different, but that doesn't mean you are going to "see" it any differently if you aren't close enough to resolve it.

Are you saying you have NO plans to get a source that does 1080p? HD-DVD players price is getting cheap, blu-ray will only get cheaper. Never know what may happen with Sat/Cable or another delivery device.

Considering you may have this panel for a few years, you never know. And if you DID get a device that had 1080p...would you regret you purchase?

I have a Blu_Ray player so it is defintely worth getting the 1080.
I like the price of the 5080 better than the 5010 but I really dont want to compromise. If I bought the 5080 I know that I would always be wondering and probably regret it. If I buy the 5010 I dont think that I will regret it.

Oh I can't wait for the next comment of resolving SDE @ 20ft from a 42" 720p panel and not the 1080p panel. :p

probably not, because even feeding 1080p to a 1080p display that you aren't sitting close enough to to resolve isn't going to look any "better" than scaling it...

disclaimer: i have a 1080p set. however, it's 60" and i sit 8 feet from it. had i gone with a 50", i would have gotten a 5080 and not spent the money for a 5010.

can someone give me a cliffs notes version of the point jet757 is trying to make? fundamentally, yes, a 1080p screen is different, but that doesn't mean you are going to "see" it any differently if you aren't close enough to resolve it.


jet757 has stated he is planning on buying a 5010 Pio.
I have seen it many times and it is a wonderful unit and he will be very happy.

probably not, because even feeding 1080p to a 1080p display that you aren't sitting close enough to to resolve isn't going to look any "better" than scaling it...

disclaimer: i have a 1080p set. however, it's 60" and i sit 8 feet from it. had i gone with a 50", i would have gotten a 5080 and not spent the money for a 5010.

can someone give me a cliffs notes version of the point jet757 is trying to make? fundamentally, yes, a 1080p screen is different, but that doesn't mean you are going to "see" it any differently if you aren't close enough to resolve it.

Right now I am sitting 5 to 6 feet from my Sony 1080i TV but at times it might be around 10-12 ft away. I really just dont want to take the chance and as it stands right now I plan on going with the 5010. Yes the price of the 5080 right now is tempting.
The point was made in another thread..........if you had a choice between the 5080 and the 5010 at the same price which one would you take?

I have a Blu_Ray player so it is defintely worth getting the 1080.
I like the price of the 5080 better than the 5010 but I really dont want to compromise. If I bought the 5080 I know that I would always be wondering and probably regret it. If I buy the 5010 I dont think that I will regret it.


For you it is very important for peace of mind.
You should get it.
Don't have to rationalize, but no need to proselytize either.

Everyone has to decide what they are willing to spend. It is all relative.
Normal people go to Walmart or Target and buy Phillips, or Westinghouse, or Vizio and are ecstatic.
If everyone had an unlimited budget we would all have Pio Elite 1080p 60" sets.

Are you saying you have NO plans to get a source that does 1080p? HD-DVD players price is getting cheap, blu-ray will only get cheaper. Never know what may happen with Sat/Cable or another delivery device.

Considering you may have this panel for a few years, you never know. And if you DID get a device that had 1080p...would you regret you purchase?

see it's comments like this that worry me about the purchase of the 768p sets. of course i will eventually get a bd player how much of a resolution loss will i be at if i don't give the bd it's full 1080p potential??

For you it is very important for piece of mind.
You should get it.
Don't have to rationalize, but no need to proselytize either.

Everyone has to decide what they are willing to spend. It is all relative.
Normal people go to Walmart or Target and buy Phillips, or Westinghouse, or Vizio and are ecstatic.
If everyone had an unlimited budget we would all have Pio Elite 1080p 60" sets.

Yes it is piece of mind. The price on the 5010 is a stretch for me. The price of the 5080 is a lot more reasonable to me. Sometimes after reading the threads on forum I am tempted just to go with the 5080 and see how it looks and just upgrade to the 5010 if I am unhappy or have any doubts. This is one of the reasons I will go with a local retailer.

When I bought my Sony HD CRT type TVs I went with the top of the line at the time with the SFP screen instead of settling with a lower model. I never had any regrets and the picture quality is still hard to beat.

Im fairly sure that I will hold on to the 5010 for many years so Im just planning on paying the price now.

see it's comments like this that worry me about the purchase of the 768p sets. of course i will eventually get a bd player how much of a resolution loss will i be at if i don't give the bd it's full 1080p potential??

if you aren't sitting close enough to resolve it, IT DOESN'T MATTER...

if you are sitting close enough, then IT DOES MATTER...

before someone says "but the scaling..."... you won't notice the scaling artifacts on the 768p set if you aren't sitting close enough anyway...

It's funny how a thread starts to dissolve a bit...they all do over time I guess.

Anyway, the hype...yes it is...and it's a speculative word that can either work for you or against you.

I don't know that I needed it, 1080p that is, and don't know now that I'll miss it seeing as how my purchase has been made.

But I do know my original purchase intent changed in recent days going from a need (hyped up?) or maybe desire to have a 52" 1080p 120Hz LCD for my living room. I tried to read all I could about why I would need or want that. No sentence or statement really stood out.

In the end, I let my perception decide. I went to the stores, looked at some TV's. Honestly, I was not blown away by the TV I bought nor was I a gasp at any of them. What I did finally see was a lot of hype, it was bright and loud. And quietly, sitting there doing it's thing (probably with all the settings dumbed down getting fed a downgraded signal) was the TV I ended up purchasing.

Interestingly enough, I don't watch a lot of TV, I'm usually here on the computer, yet I bought another. I just needed to finish out my living room since I've been in the house two years now and it was past time to get a TV in there.

My point is this...the posts/debates that sometimes rage here can often surpass the most aggressive marketing campaigns out there (did I say hype?). At the end of the day, and that's when we all plop ourselves down in front of these things (and no I'm not THAT old), it's our individual perception that matters not what someone tells you should matter.

I got what I wanted, a good TV that is not what I thought I wanted. I can't wait for all the nonsense that will flow out of it!

My point is this...the posts/debates that sometimes rage here can often surpass the most aggressive marketing campaigns out there (did I say hype?).

You must be referring to the LCD community, of course. ;)

see it's comments like this that worry me about the purchase of the 768p sets. of course i will eventually get a bd player how much of a resolution loss will i be at if i don't give the bd it's full 1080p potential??


1) highly unlikely that broadcast TV is going to go 1080p in foreseeable future. The bandwidth issues are prohibitive. It is a mixture of SD, 720p and 1080i.
2) That leaves games and Blu Ray.

The value of Blu Ray will be dependent on the mastering. Go to a store and have them play a new movie mastered for Blu Ray on a 1080p unit and a 768p unit.
See what you think. Both looked fantastic to me if the source was well mastered.
I could not notice any significant differences-and any differences were not necessarily directly related to just the single spec of resolution. It is only one element of PQ.

You may feel better about your purchase if you get 1080p. Then you should get 1080p.

1. My point is that it doesnt matter where you are sitting or what you see as an individual. The fact remains the same that the 1080 is a superior screen with higher resolution. The screen does not change because you are sitting too far away and cant tell the difference.

2. Chargers are ready!!!



1. Fair enough, but my point remains the same, if the vast majority can't "see" a difference, because of typical seating distance or individual vision limitations, then why should we care? My problems not with the tech, it's with the 1080p fanboys that tell the majority of us that we don't know what we are seeing. This debate, really shouldn't be a debate, 1080p fanboys need to look at it this way, if total resolution was doubled from
1080p to say 2160p (just an example), do you think you would be able to see the difference? The human eye has limitations and 1080p is pushing them right now. I just don't understand why so many people can't grasp the concept that "if a person can't see it, then it doesn't exist to them.

2. The Chargers are ready no doubt,,,,,Ready for their season to end. ;)

If YOU can't see the difference, then by all means skip it. But to say that its hype because of that is just silly. I don't have the best eyes in the world (im 40), but on my 50" plasma which is 6 feet away from me i sure as heck can see the difference between 720p and 1080p.

After just watching a few blu-ray discs, even broadcast hi-def is starting to look shabby.

several posts deleted/infractions issued

Well I can tell you, that my eyes *can* discern detail differences of those two resolutions from the distance i'm watching.

How could you honestly tell me that? What two televisions did you compare to prove that to yourself? This is the second time I asked, why aren't you answering?

;12848990']How could you honestly tell me that? What two televisions did you compare to prove that to yourself? This is the second time I asked, why aren't you answering?

Because you are trying to trap me. No manufacturer makes the exact same display in a 720p vs 1080p flavor. So any comparisons are going to be flawed.

I put it to you this way:
I can compare any 1080p screen to any 720p screen. And use that as a good-enough comparison to determine which technology is suitable for me. We aren't talking picture *quality* here, we are just talking about resolvable detail.

And your previous statements about not needing 1080p because you arent going to watch blu-ray hold apply equally here: If I AM going to watch blu-ray, than why would I want a tv thats going to have to drop detail from the source image?

Because you are trying to trap me. No manufacturer makes the exact same display in a 720p vs 1080p flavor. So any comparisons are going to be flawed. No, I am not trying to trap you. There are many comparable televisions from many manufacturers.

I put it to you this way:
I can compare any 1080p screen to any 720p screen. And use that as a good-enough comparison to determine which technology is suitable for me. We aren't talking picture *quality* here, we are just talking about resolvable detail. Remember, this is what YOU said which started this: "I don't have the best eyes in the world (im 40), but on my 50" plasma which is 6 feet away from me i sure as heck can see the difference between 720p and 1080p." And in the end, you can't tell the difference. You say that you can, but you never actually viewed two TVs side by side, so it's all in your mind.

And your previous statements about not needing 1080p because you arent going to watch blu-ray hold apply equally here: I NEVER made that statement, it was either someone else or you are mistaken totally. If you spoke like a grown adult our posts would not have been deleted and you would be able to see that.

As I said, before you got it deleted, I have and love 1080p. But your statement is dead wrong.

Well I can tell you, that my eyes *can* discern detail differences of those two resolutions from the distance i'm watching. In ending, your eyes can't discern the detail differences, because you never had a fair comparison. You are comparing 1080p to 720p on your 1080p television. That's like using a .45ACP handgun to compare 9mm to .45ACP, one of those calibers is not going to work so well, and rightly so.

Basically it comes down to this. If you want a higher res panel get a 1080p set.