Official "1080p Vs. 720p" Thread Discussion - Page 10 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #271 of 1468 Old 04-02-2007, 05:12 PM
Senior Member
 
Sole_Survivor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
There is more programming in 60 frames outside of Sports.
Regardless of how many there is, the fact is, that is that it there.
My conclusions were NOT based upon one TV, they were based upon many factors and many situations of scaling 720 into a 1080P set.
For one people that have watched Monday night football over a friends house and wondered why it looked better on his friends set than his own. When asking, being surprised that the other set was 768p.
1080p proponents are quick to jump on the scaling issue. Most 768 sets are NATIVE 720p. The simply add the pixel count. But for the time being I'm talking about 720p.

1080p proponents are quick to limit the viewing field to 1080p up close. But that is not the situation with all signals or with some peoples preferences.

The scaling issues are more of a factor on paper than it is in reality or to the eye.

I know I have only have 5 posts here, but I speak from experience and have conducted several of my own tests.

Todays high end 768p and 720p TVs, scales 1080i with super picture quality.
I have conducted a test with a 1080i signal on one of the best CRT sets, A 2006 34 inch Sony Widescreen (native 1080i), against it's own Sony KDL V 32 XBR1 (lcd flat screen 768p).
Both with the same 1080i signal both connected HDMI.
There wasn't one person in the room that didn't pick the LCD, and one was scaled the other was not.
So despite the CRT displayed the 1080i signal in it's purest form without scaling, it lost on picture quality.
If scaling was such an issue there would have been a determined conclusive differences in SIDE BY SIDE TESTS, but there was not.

Here is a conducted professional test

"We've done side-by-side tests between two 46-inch LCD HDTVs, one with 1366x768 resolution and the other with 1080p resolution, using the same 1080i source material, and it was extremely difficult for us to see any difference. It becomes even more difficult at smaller screen sizes or farther seating distances--say, more than 1.5 times the diagonal measurement of the screen."
http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5137915-1.html


When they were up close they said it was
"was extremely difficult for us to see any difference"

As they moved back to 6 and a half feet (1.5 times the diagonal measurement of the screen) it became even "more difficult" than what they said was "extremely difficult"


"The good news is that amongst the 1080p sets they used (the 47-inch Westinghouse and the 50-inch Pioneer) the level of detail was "virtually identical." However, when they compared the image to sets with lower resolutions, they noticed it was harder to pick up on the differences in detail. Overall, they concluded it would be "practically impossible" to tell the difference between the image on a 1080p vs a 1080i or 720p. "

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/1080p/108...-it-213983.php

"Surely, you will not perceive any difference in image detail between 720p and 1080i/p HDTV material on the smaller sets from 10-feet away. You need to sit closer and feed your 1080p HDTV set with a good quality HD source to possibly start to see any difference."

http://www.practical-home-theater-gu...080p-HDTV.html

The human eye is always the deciding factor in side by side tests.

Keep in mind that with these 1080p sets, 1080p sets have the advantage because their set was made for the 1080i signal.

The scaling issue is an issue that 1080p jump on but has shown to be irrelevant in SIDE BY SIDE tests.
1080p sets also scale 720p signals.
The 720p signal does not show a poorer signal on the 1080p set because of the scaling issue, but because of adding 360 vertical and 640 horizontal lines to the image. It's not bad, but the 1080p shows better picture quality with the 1080i or p signals compared to when they have a 720p signal going into it.
With the 720p sets there is no big difference in picture quality from ABC.s Lost to the CBS show 1080i CSI Miami.
But there have been many reports, many, that 1080p owners are not satisfied with the ABC or FOX signals compared to their 1080i signals.


1080p proponents have been quick to jump the wasted or thrown out resolution issue of converting 1080i to 720p.

But like the scaling issue, the eyes is always the deciding factor.

Those in the 720p corner, say it's resolution that was never going to be seen at a normal distance and has evidence to back their side....

720p supporters claim that at a normal distance, the resolution is wasted, and their set converted that signal to the max resolution of the eye, if it is Blue Ray or 1080i.

Their side of this is that it is wasted resolution at a normal distance, and again have conclusive tests.

"The average 42-inch-diagonal, 1,280-by-720 plasma or LCD display has pixels that are roughly 0.029 inches wide. (Of course, each model has different inter-pixel spacing, but, for now, we'll assume they don't.) If the same size display had a resolution of 1,920 by 1,080, the pixels would be 0.019 inches wide. As you can see, in a 42-inch display at a distance of 10 feet, your eye can't discern the resolution available even with 720p. Even more resolution is "wasted" at 1,920 by 1,080."
http://blog.hometheatermag.com/geoff...n//index1.html

"For example, despite the fact that a 37-inch LCD with "only" 1,366x768 pixels has to throw away a good deal of information to display a 1080i football game on CBS, you'd be hard-pressed to see more detail on a similar 37-inch LCD with 1,920x1,080 resolution."
http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5137915-1.html


"Now, assuming that you're not going to move your couch but you want a bigger TV, how does this work with a 50-inch set? The pixels in a 1,280-by-720 display are 0.034 inches wide, which is almost exactly what your eye can discern at 10 feet. A 1,920-by-1,080 display has 0.023-inch-wide pixels, smaller than your eye can resolve. A 1,920-by-1,080 display would have to measure more than 70 inches diagonally before you start testing your eyes' limits on the display's resolution (at least at 10 feet)"

http://blog.hometheatermag.com/geoff...n//index1.html




It is not easier for 720p to go into 1080p than to de interlace 1080i to 720p. As professinal tests have concluded de interlacing the signal is irrelavant because the test have concluded so.

1080p advocates criticized cross conversion, but as I have pointed out above, tests have proven to display amazing 1080i conversions to the progressive 700's.

Here is why 1080i looks better on 720p sets in comparison to up-convert 720p to 1080p.

It is up scaling that is more difficult.
This is why you never have true DVD up conversions from 480 to 1080.
There is enough pixels and power in the 1080ix1920 signal to fully cross convert and power to 720p or 768p, where as there is not enough pixels and power in the 720p V signal going into 1080V and 1280H to 1920H.


This is up conversion, and 720p proponents have enough evidence to show that the 1080i signal is converted to the max resolution of the eye from where they are viewing the set and because of wasted resolution that they would have never seen ...
"hard-pressed to see more detail on a similar 37-inch LCD with 1,920x1,080 resolution"
1080p proponents want to exaggerate the lack or actual 60 frame broadcasts. But the fact remains that even if the signal is 720p/30, there is a lack of pixels and power to go into the 1080p set, and dilutes the signal.
Cross conversion and down conversion actually cross convert and down convert, you can never fully up convert as we have evidence with 480i DVD and up-scaliers.
The major OTA broadcasters are FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC.
2 of these 4 are in 720p. The superbowl, the most watched event, was last seen and broadcast in 720p/60.

Even if sports was the only 60 frame content, that fact remains that the signal is there. For the time it takes 1080i to paint 1080i, 720p painted 1440 progressively.
Keep in mind I am now talking about broadcast signals.

The fact of the matter is most people never thought of the frame rate, it is always the VERTICAL resolution mentioned in advertising a set or a signal.

Those in the 1080p corner do no take into consideration the overall function if the set.
We have spoken about 1080 and 720p signals, but 480i signals look better on 720p sets, because the pixel climb to 720p is less.
Directv owners have seen and reported very good results in seeing great picture quality in many 480i broadcasts with their set top in 720p and seen amazing 720p DVD upconversions with the DVD player in 720p/HDMI.

From my experience, 720p owners do not go out of their way to claim superiority the way 1080p owners do.
Taken that they did not consider these factors when buying their 1080p set, they automatically concluded that their set must look better, after all, how can 720p be better than 1080p?. After some developed a cavalier attitude to all other sets, they first heard of these other issues after they have already bought their set. Now they will fire back to justify their purchase.
Overall, 720p sets perform better, we can go back and forth and although this will not change the attitude of the 1080p owners drive to claim superiority or justify their reasons why they first bought the set, they are now realizing this is a BMW VS Mercedes disagreement.
The issue has pro's and cons on both sides for either to claim official superiority.

720p proponents feel they have they have the advantage since they have conclusive professional results that have shown no differences with the 1080i signal at a normal difference and their set does not dilute the 720p signal.


But it a fact that 720p sets display not only better 720p signals, but better 480 signals as well. Because it has less of a climb to 720x1280 than to 1080x1920.
Like I said, those with Directv HD set tops have reported very well up conversion to 720p with the 480i signal.

720p proponents see 1080p sets as an unnecessary task to fill the pixel resolution of set, because it is too much for the eye to perceive at a normal distance.

The majority of the mainstream world do not place their couches love seats and recliners 6 and a half feet from a 50 inch display.

720p proponents feel they had better viewing at 11 feet with average sized big screen because the pixels are bigger in regard max eye resolution factor.

Overall, the 720p sets perform better.

"the evidence before B/TQE at this time suggests
that the best delivery format would be 720p"

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_308-hdtv.pdf
Sole_Survivor is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #272 of 1468 Old 04-03-2007, 08:35 AM
Advanced Member
 
notreally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toto land
Posts: 591
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
And many 720p sets (Sony, JVC, Samsung, Hitachi, RCA, and Philips haven't checked others)show better video on Dishnetwork when the output of the Dish receiver is set at 1080i.

If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life.
Henry David Thoreau
notreally is offline  
post #273 of 1468 Old 04-03-2007, 09:18 AM
Senior Member
 
Sole_Survivor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
3 reasons for this....
1. I'm not sure if it is DN... but I have heard of another Sat. co that is not showing a 720p signal.
I know for a fact my local cable company gets the ABC, & ESPN 720 signals and converts them to 1080i.
2. I have conducted several tests with 480i with Directv and 480i DVD players.
It is very hard to tell a difference on CRT, LCD, and DLP, however, there is very big difference with 720p plasma sets with the set top in 720p compared to 1080i. More detail, smoother color, much better color saturation if the plasma is a native 720p. I have the Panasonic 768p 37 inch plasma as well as other sets.
For sets other than plasma, it's hard to tell so it could be a toss up for some viewers. For some reason that I do not know yet, plasma 720p sets really display the difference between the 2 signals if the set TOP IS DOING WHAT IT SHOULD.
3. Many boxes and TV's were proven to take THE CHEAP route and DO NOT PROPERLY de interlace. For instance when de-interlacing 1080i they do so by chopping off the entire even field of 540, and up-scale the 540 odd field to 720p.
This is why people should check what boxes and TV's passed the proper de interlace test and properly de-interlace all signals the 720p.
Always buy good equipment.

"the evidence before B/TQE at this time suggests
that the best delivery format would be 720p"

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_308-hdtv.pdf
Sole_Survivor is offline  
post #274 of 1468 Old 04-03-2007, 07:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ScottChez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thank you Sole_Survivor for the write up. I now understand why 720P is better with the dot size and everything.

QUESTION: since all HDTVs plan to go to 1080P in the next couple of years, would it be better to buy a 1080P set now and just set it to 720P for the better picture? That way your future proofed for when real 1080P content is more wide spread like if HD DVD and BLUE is everywhere.
ScottChez is offline  
post #275 of 1468 Old 04-04-2007, 03:58 AM
Senior Member
 
Sole_Survivor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
You can't really change a sets native resolution, all you can do is change the signal going into it.
Real 1080p content will not be provided everywhere.
Other than disk, broadcast TV will not go 1080p/24

The only one I heard that was thinking of going 1080p was HD net, but they have to evaluate if such a jump will register a big difference from 1080i. There is also problems with Sat and Cable companies wanting to hande that bandwidth. Some have already cut 1080px1920i to 1035x1440. There are also other factors to consider.

1080p has Problems with artifacts
"A high-resolution image with image artifacts such as motion smearing, incorrect white balance or color points, and grayscale rendering problems may not look as realistic as a lower-resolution image without these problems."
http://proav.pubdyn.com/2005_January...rallaxview.htm

720p best for sports
1080p/24 is totally inappropriate for broadcasting sports. No sports fan would tolerate the motion blur and loss of fine detail in fast-moving objects. Even 1080i/30 would be a better choice.
http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages_b/followup.html

There could compression problems that can hurt the 1080p image.
"It would take too much bandwidth to do it. 1080i barely fits for some types of content-for example, sports-and concerts and specials," Beyler says. "For some types of content there just are not enough bits with 1080i. 1080p would be even that much more demanding."

http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA422050.html

"the evidence before B/TQE at this time suggests
that the best delivery format would be 720p"

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_308-hdtv.pdf
Sole_Survivor is offline  
post #276 of 1468 Old 04-04-2007, 05:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Nmlobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Yorktown, VA
Posts: 2,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Sole_Survivor, the majority of your references deal with broadcast issues, not the actual display - which the OP questioned. We can't do anything about the signal, it is what it is - either 1080i (the majority of HD) or 720p. You are correct in that we need sets that properly deinterlace, properly perform 3:2 pull down and scale.

ScottChez, 720p does not necessarily provide the best picture. The more processing required the more artifacts that may be introduced. The majority of HDTV is broadcast/transmitted as 1080i - there are far more 1080 'channels' than 720 'channels'.

With a 1080p display: "If" you set an STB to output 720p, the STB will have to deinterlace and downscale a 1080i signal to 720p. When this 720p signal is received by your set it will have to rescale the picture to 1080p (or to 768p if you have a lower resolution display). Three video processing steps. In the previous case you are betting the STB has a better processor than your TV as it is doing the majority of processing - very unlikely. If the received signal is 720p, the STB will pass it to the TV which will have to upscale the picture to 1080p or 768p . In either case, the signal will have to be scaled to fit the display. Only one step required.

If the received input is 1080i (majority of hdtv) the STB will pass the signal directly to your tv which will deinterlace and display 1080/30p. One step. If your display is 768, the tv will have to down scale the deinterlaced 1080p to 768p for display. Two steps.

With the majority of hd signals, less video processing is required when the display is 1080p.
Nmlobo is offline  
post #277 of 1468 Old 04-04-2007, 12:58 PM
Senior Member
 
Sole_Survivor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
"With the majority of hd signals, less video processing is required when the display is 1080p."

Like I said in my long post the de-interlacing of 1080i on 720p sets has shown to be irrelevant in SIDE BY SIDE tests.

One set had the 1080i signal in it's purest form on a 1080i set and the 768 LCD had better PQ with that same signal.

See my above posts for actual conclusive results.

I dealt mainly with broadcast signals because that is what we have going into all sets if people wish to use their sets for anything other than Blue Ray disk monitor.

But I did mention 1080/24 in my long post

"720p supporters claim that at a normal distance, the resolution is wasted, and their set converted that signal to the max resolution of the eye, if it is Blue Ray or 1080i."


The max resolution of the eye is the max resolution of the eye with certain size sets at certain distances, I don't care if you have 2000p going into the set.

If you have a true 1080/24 signal that does not have a lot of fast motion, I would admit that if you place yourself close enough to the screen, 1080p viewers have their moment.
This was to show the max resolution of the eye at a normal distance, and there are times when 720p will have the upper hand.

60 frames can be perceived by the eye, .

"humans can perceive up to 60+ fps".
http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_3.html

and it's better undiluted on 720p sets

Like i said, I don't expect this post to settle anything.
Very few times in my life did I ever hear a debate end with a side admitting the other was right.

But these posts will stand as reasons for 720p, if you agree or disagree, that's fine, some vote democrat some Republican.

"the evidence before B/TQE at this time suggests
that the best delivery format would be 720p"

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_308-hdtv.pdf
Sole_Survivor is offline  
post #278 of 1468 Old 04-04-2007, 02:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mkoesel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 2,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor View Post

60 frames can be perceived by the eye, and it's better undiluted on 720p sets

"undiluted" is pretty misleading here, no? I mean, there are very few 1280x720 displays - at least when we talk about flat panel displays (which this forum specifically discusses). And if we limit the discussion to HT-sized flat panel displays (37" and over - and incidentally where the 1080p vs. 720p debate is centered in the first place) then there are exactly zero 1280x720 flat panel televisions available. So, at the very least, you still have to scale that 720p signal to 768p. Agreed? And this is still completely ignoring the fact that there will be overscan present as well.

Now, given this, I openly wonder here why you don't find yourself a good 1280x720 DLP or RP to achieve your 720p/60 nirvana?

In any case, your entire argument seems to hinge on the notion that the best looking 720p picture you can get on a flat panel today is on a 768p display rather than a 1080p one. I don't think that this is clear cut at all. All you can do is hypothesize it is so based on published tests performed on some small subset of displays on the market and your own anecdotal evidence. Not an entirely weak argument, I will admit. But not exactly sound science either.
mkoesel is offline  
post #279 of 1468 Old 04-04-2007, 02:13 PM
Advanced Member
 
ashutoshsm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ashburn, VA
Posts: 995
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Not to mention ESPN and ABC often broadcast 720p30 programming, not the 720p60 Nirvana Sole-Survivor generously endorses

As for your "side by side" 1080i and 720p comparison, what kind of 1080i TV were they using? there is NO SUCH THING as a 1080i direct view display (this includes LCD, Plasma, DLP, SXRD, D-IL). Only OLD, obsolete CRT or rear projection displaysa re NATIVELY 1080i capable. Comparing different kinds of displays voids the premise of your side by side test.

1080i CAPABLE TVs abound (and they include among their ranks TVs with NATIVE resolutions 1920x1080, 1366x768, 1024x1080, 1024x768, 1024x1024 and even EDTVs running 720x480). All that means is they can handle a 1080i souce. They ALL deinterace and downsample 1080i signals. What you compared was merely two TVs' capabilities in thsoe two realms.

NMLobo has a very concise and accurate post above - I would recommend you read that instead of insisting on postnig more confusing, inaccurate information!

Oh, and for all of Sole_Survivors 1080p24-dissing, that is hte HD format camera/specs currently used by the movie industry. And when interlaced to 1080i60 and rebroadcast (as STARZ, HBO, CineMAX, TMC, TNT, inHD, HDNet all do), ONLY a 1080P TV can (with the right flags and handling of those flags) PERFECTLY (yes, I said PERFECTLY) display that signal. A 720P TV will downconvert it. And on equally good, identical display technology units (barring the resolution) you WILL notice the difference if you have good eyesight. Not from beyond a certain distance, but that distance/chart thing varies *wildly* based on source quality, compression and eyesight!

*ashu*
ashutoshsm is offline  
post #280 of 1468 Old 04-04-2007, 03:07 PM
Senior Member
 
Sole_Survivor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Once conclusive results are achieved, and confirmed by other separate tests that come to the same conclusions, it not hypothesized...

The 768 set, at least mine, has a native resolution of 720p. It seems to have a contradiction, but it is not. There is display and native resolution. The XBR LCD I spoke of is native 720p (designed for the 720 signal) the way 1080i is for 1080p.
You can have TV with native 720p, and display resolution of 768p

Here are the video specs of the Sony KDL V 40XBR1


Video

Native Resolution: 720p

Contrast Ratio: 1300:1

Display Resolution: 1366 x 768



As far as this statement
"As for your "side by side" 1080i and 720p comparison, what kind of 1080i TV were they using? there is NO SUCH THING as a 1080i direct view display (this includes LCD, Plasma, DLP, SXRD, D-IL). Only OLD, obsolete CRT or rear projection displays re NATIVELY 1080i capable. Comparing different kinds of displays voids the premise of your side by side test."

Obsolate???????
Please do some research..... it's being sold today.... Circuit City etc... go to Sonystyle.com and puch up the set... KD-34XBR970



Display

Screen or Display Technology: FD Trinitron®

Display Resolution : HD (1080i)


I said it was a CRT read above...

"I have conducted a test with a 1080i signal on one of the best CRT sets, A 2006 34 inch Sony Widescreen (native 1080i), against it's own Sony KDL V 32 XBR1 (lcd flat screen 768p).
Both with the same 1080i signal both connected HDMI."

As far as the 1080p set to 768p test, 1080p sets were designed for the 1080i signal. So the 1080p set had the advantage in this test because like I said, 1080p sets are designed to weave together the two fields of 540, and there was no conclusive differences.
So nice try trying to void it.
As far 720/30 programming, I mentioned that also if you read above... I stated....

"But the fact remains that even if the signal is 720p/30, there is a lack of pixels and power to go into the 1080p set, and dilutes the signal."

Don't want to believe professional tests and their results. That's fine. There are people that sincerly believe that the Earth is flat.
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djubl...rthsociety.htm

I never claimed a Nirvana .
I said each side and set has it pros and cons and it's moments.
Have a good day

"the evidence before B/TQE at this time suggests
that the best delivery format would be 720p"

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_308-hdtv.pdf
Sole_Survivor is offline  
post #281 of 1468 Old 04-04-2007, 04:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ScottChez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This is all good information, keep it up. Thanks everyone, this helps a lot as I am looking for a 50" or 58" HDTV.
ScottChez is offline  
post #282 of 1468 Old 04-04-2007, 04:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mkoesel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 2,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor View Post

You can have TV with native 720p, and display resolution of 768p

Not if you use the definition of native resolution as it has been established by the industry and used and understood by the vast majority of people in the on this forum.

Quote:


Here are the video specs of the Sony KDL V 40XBR1

...

Display Resolution: 1366 x 768

Right, the panel has a resolution of 1366x768. So just like I said, you are not seeing the signal "undiluted". You are seeing it scaled from 720p (1280x720) to 1366x768. So in fact you, as you must agree, you are making a compromise regardless of whether you have a 1080p display or not. Furthermore a poor scaler could easily produce a worse 720p picture on a 1366x768 display than a good scaler could on a 1080p display.
mkoesel is offline  
post #283 of 1468 Old 04-04-2007, 05:05 PM
Senior Member
 
Sole_Survivor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
"you are making a compromise regardless of whether you have a 1080p display or not"

LOL!!!!

It is still made for the 720p signal. I also have a 720p x1280 set as well. Actually there is no difference in the 720p signal on the 720p set and the 768p set because they are both native 720p.
If you're looking to level the fields off that both the 768p sets and 1080p sets delute the 720p signal may I print your response and bolt to the wall?. You are talking for 768 .......48 Vertical and 86 horizontal. There is a reason for this that I don't want to get into right now it's a long story about wide screen 720p

But for you to respond in front all these people that both are equally deluted and are trying to level the field off in comparing

48 Vertical and 86 horizontal to
360 Vertical & 640 horizontal? Like I said... that will be a classic.
There is enough power in the 720p signal to power to 768, the set was made for that signal, but not to 1080p.
The 768 set was designed for that signal... 720p native.

However, most high end 768p sets don't display 720p at 768, it's displayed at 720p...768, being the max resolution of the set that scales NON native signals (1080i) to 768p. Do you know how you can change the screen resolution on your monitor to more pixels interpolated?
It's the same size monitor but the pixel sizes change and interpolation occurs to compress the signal into its highest max resolution.

Do a study and native vs maximum display resolution.

There is complaints in 1080p owners are not seeing as good as a picture with 720p sources as with their 1080i ones. But you don't see complaints with 768 or 720p owners with either of the HD signals.
Also for to reach for poor 768 sets for examples ....you show your goal here.
I said ...BUY GOOD EQUIPMENT... I use the the best of both worlds.

If this is best you can come back with you prove my point...

Go look at a real 72op signal on a 768 set and then on 1080p set.

"the evidence before B/TQE at this time suggests
that the best delivery format would be 720p"

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_308-hdtv.pdf
Sole_Survivor is offline  
post #284 of 1468 Old 04-04-2007, 05:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Elemental1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Zion
Posts: 3,315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have to laugh at the 1080p braggers. Do they really think they are even approaching 1080p OTA or with Cable/Sat?
Do they really think the source content isn't already converted and there is actually inverse telecine to be done with broadcast signals?
1080p....it's nice but it's not that critical.

My HT

In the words of English philosopher Edmund Burke, ÂAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.Â
Elemental1 is offline  
post #285 of 1468 Old 04-04-2007, 05:19 PM
Senior Member
 
Sole_Survivor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
.... that last one was a good one!

"the evidence before B/TQE at this time suggests
that the best delivery format would be 720p"

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_308-hdtv.pdf
Sole_Survivor is offline  
post #286 of 1468 Old 04-04-2007, 07:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nmlobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Yorktown, VA
Posts: 2,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Inverse telecine is a proven technology. Some sets do not properly implement 3:2 pull down some people just do not understand or don't want to believe test results because their favorite set failed. As others have posted, you have to make sure you have a set that correctly deinterlaces and performs 3:2 pulldown. This article may help http://www.hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/1106hook/

There is good 1080i available OTA and from 'some' cable - satellite providers are known for HD-Lite. Of course you can get 1080p from hd-dvd and blu-ray

I will also agree that a 1080p display is not critical.
Nmlobo is offline  
post #287 of 1468 Old 04-04-2007, 08:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Elemental1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Zion
Posts: 3,315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nmlobo View Post

Inverse telecine is a proven technology. Some sets do not properly implement 3:2 pull down some people just do not understand or don't want to believe test results because their favorite set failed. As others have posted, you have to make sure you have a set that correctly deinterlaces and performs 3:2 pulldown.
Of course you can get 1080p from hd-dvd and blu-ray

Proven...yes, as you mentioned about HD-DvD/BRD.
You have absolutely no idea what is being sent to your panel (broadcast) and how much the original has been degraded or altered.
If IT was working on 1080i broadcasts, why do panels that pass not show any advantage over sets that don't?

My HT

In the words of English philosopher Edmund Burke, ÂAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.Â
Elemental1 is offline  
post #288 of 1468 Old 04-04-2007, 08:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nmlobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Yorktown, VA
Posts: 2,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elemental1 View Post

Proven...yes, as you mentioned about HD-DvD/BRD.
You have absolutely no idea what is being sent to your panel (broadcast) and how much the original has been degraded or altered.
If IT was working on 1080i broadcasts, why do panels that pass not show any advantage over sets that don't?

I do have an idea of what is being sent to my set. There is a broadcast engineer thread for my area. Engineers from all but one local ota station participate. Earlier this year, I posted on the thread and asked a question about 1080i signals. The answer I received was that they do send a full 1920x1080i signal (or 720p for Fox and ABC). They do compress, but proper compression does not reduce resolution and should not reduce quality. I believe I showed you that reply as well as the results of a Cox STB feed - it also showed a 1920x1080i signal being processed.

I have read posts where people complain of judder. This would be a good indicator of poor 3:2 processing. 3:2 processing does not have to occur within a tv, it can be accomplished in a STB or DVD. The best test would be from an OTA signal or from an STB with the capability to pass through the signal.

I have never seen two sets, one known to properly perform 3:2 and one that failed, sitting side by side and playing the exact same movie. Perhaps you have?
Nmlobo is offline  
post #289 of 1468 Old 04-04-2007, 09:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Elemental1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Zion
Posts: 3,315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nmlobo View Post

I have never seen two sets, one known to properly perform 3:2 and one that failed, sitting side by side and playing the exact same movie. Perhaps you have?

Yes, a Pio 1130HD vs a 500u and I think there were a few other DLP's and LCDs also that passed nearby. Only the 1130 was close.
Did SD and HD comparisons (very limited) and was feeding the 500u via RF so no interference.
My 'failed' 500u beat them all.
Hey maybe IT is working but then what does that say about resolution.

My HT

In the words of English philosopher Edmund Burke, ÂAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.Â
Elemental1 is offline  
post #290 of 1468 Old 04-05-2007, 09:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mkoesel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 2,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor View Post

But for you to respond in front all these people that both are equally deluted and are trying to level the field off in comparing

Actually I never said that at all. Not even close, in fact.

All I said was that you are not seeing the signal "undiluted", which was what you had originally claimed. The point is that you are glossing over many details or what happens to the signal between the time it enters your television and gets displayed onto the screen (nevermind all the processing that has occured before that to boot). I just want to make sure everyone reading understands that fact.

Quote:


There is enough power in the 720p signal to power to 768...

There's what now? "Power"? Resolution is not a function of power its a function of the device used to record the source (and any compression/downconversion that happens thereafter). You can't just add more power and increase detail. That's got to be one of the most bizzare claims I've read on this forum. That's good stuff.

Quote:


However, most high end 768p sets don't display 720p at 768, it's displayed at 720p...768, being the max resolution of the set that scales NON native signals (1080i) to 768p.

Well here we go - yet another amazing claim. So then, if I display a 720p signal on a 768p display and its not being scaled, then how could it possibly fill up the screen?

Quote:


Go look at a real 72op signal on a 768 set and then on 1080p set.

I have. The 50" 1080p plasma took the 768p LCD and pounded it into a bullion cube. It was not even close. And in fact the 1080p plasma was also 100%indistinguishable from its 768p counterparts with this material as well.
mkoesel is offline  
post #291 of 1468 Old 04-05-2007, 09:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mkoesel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 2,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nmlobo View Post

I will also agree that a 1080p display is not critical.

Absolutely. And that goes especially for broadcast. Of course, I'd still buy a 1080p display if I purchased today for BluRay, gaming, and HTPC use.
mkoesel is offline  
post #292 of 1468 Old 04-05-2007, 11:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cajieboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Space Coast, Florida
Posts: 4,374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post

Absolutely. And that goes especially for broadcast. Of course, I'd still buy a 1080p display if I purchased today for BluRay, gaming, and HTPC use.

Well, 1080p is definitely "critical" to me. I refuse to buy another HD-Lite TV. I like to keep my Tv's around for 6-7 years, and for that my friends, you'll do yourself one big favor and get the full banana 1080p display. Just be sure it is a display that has very good video processing, and can perform proper 3:2 inverse telecine and deinterlacing duties. Over 80% of ALL HD broadcasting in the US is 1080i, and it won't be that long before NO ONE will be broadcasting 720p...in less than 24 months, you'll be hard pressed to even FIND a 768p display in the marketplace.
cajieboy is offline  
post #293 of 1468 Old 04-05-2007, 12:02 PM
Senior Member
 
Sole_Survivor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
mkoesel Stated

"Well here we go - yet another amazing claim. So then, if I display a 720p signal on a 768p display and its not being scaled, then how could it possibly fill up the screen?"

Because the pixels size change....
Like your computer monitor... you can change the pixel resolution and it interpolates... with some 768 sets the size of the pixels is different than when it has a native 720p signal on some 768p sets..... because the set is native 720p.
So the pixels you're seeing when it's a native 720p are bigger because it is not interpolated, native 720p fills up the screen.
The 1080i signal interpolates smaller pixels to create more pixels into the same space to 768x1366 because of interpolation. I'm not going try to explain it anymore, I spoke to Sony engineers about it. Most people don't know this.
It' hard to explain...

mkoesel stated..
"I have. The 50" 1080p plasma took the 768p LCD and pounded it into a bullion cube. It was not even close. And in fact the 1080p plasma was also 100%indistinguishable from its 768p counterparts with this material as well. "

Yes I'm sure you did, I can just see with your sledge hammer in your yard LOL!!!
To bad professional tests disagree as I have provided that information....
Yea I lit my 1080p set on fire too... who can't say that? LOL!
You're the best... That says it all of who I'm trying to logically communicate facts with.


720p is not HD lite, another false statement by 1080p proponents.
HD lite is a lowered interlaced resolution that some to do when broadcasting the 1080i signal.
Even if 100% of the signals were 1080i,.... professional tests showed no difference at an average distance... see my above links and actual evidence.
But 720p sets look better at 10-11 feet because the pixels are bigger, and the fact remains that there is 720p broadcasting by 4 networks.
ESPN 1
ESPN 2
ABC
FOX
If you have something new to throw on the table that will provide information that it did not cover, please let me know.

cajieboy Stated,

"and it won't be that long before NO ONE will be broadcasting 720p...in less than 24 months, you'll be hard pressed to even FIND a 768p display in the marketplace. "

You show me an official statement from any of the 4 720p networks that they are switching to 1080.
This statement displays ignorance and bias.
A bias statement and wishful thinking from 1080p proponents lacking any evidence as they always do.

Also 768p sets have 3.2 pull down.
The full resolution is the max resolution of the eye.
Tests by professionals have concluded it is "wasted" resolution what the eye can not pull from a normal distance.

"the evidence before B/TQE at this time suggests
that the best delivery format would be 720p"

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_308-hdtv.pdf
Sole_Survivor is offline  
post #294 of 1468 Old 04-05-2007, 12:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
johnnybrulez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,680
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by cajieboy View Post

Well, 1080p is definitely "critical" to me. I refuse to buy another HD-Lite TV. I like to keep my Tv's around for 6-7 years, and for that my friends, you'll do yourself one big favor and get the full banana 1080p display. Just be sure it is a display that has very good video processing, and can perform proper 3:2 inverse telecine and deinterlacing duties. Over 80% of ALL HD broadcasting in the US is 1080i, and it won't be that long before NO ONE will be broadcasting 720p...in less than 24 months, you'll be hard pressed to even FIND a 768p display in the marketplace.

The thing is, IF the downscaling of 1080p into 768p pixels was SO MUCH worse, then I would agree with what you are saying. The sad thing is, even at 50 inches and some even say 60, the difference of the downscaling isn't very noticeable to the human eye. Even if you're sitting right up close to the television it isn't really the lack of detail that you lose going from 1080p to 768p. It's the lack of screen door effect you lose. Step back 6 feet and it's all gone. Sometimes SDE is hard to notice anyway. Depends on the viewing material.

We're not sitting and watching video patterns. We're watching real video, and countless times 1080p unscaled on 50 inches vs. 1080p scaled down to 768p at 50 inches is a wash at a certain distance. 7-8 feet is where the differences are totally indistinguishable... and anything closer and the differences are slight.
I had 2 1080p sets and my current 768p set beats the snot out of both of them. One of them I returned.

There's no doubt 1080p is better. I just think people are so caught up in the numbers game they don't understand how the human eye works, and that you can only discern so much detail... even with 20/20 vision. You need a huge screen to start noticing the extra detail 1080p gives you. And I mean huge.

This is also considering all other PQ aspects equal. Did you know contrast ratio plays a much more important role in terms of SHARPNESS on TV screens where 1080p resolution is wasted? Fun fact.. but true.

I don't know what I am doing! AHHHHHHH!!!!
johnnybrulez is offline  
post #295 of 1468 Old 04-05-2007, 01:22 PM
Newbie
 
ChachiB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Newbie here...I have spend the past 4 hours reading pretty much ever thread here, so thanks to everyone for your un-biased (and sometimes biased ) advice. Here is my situation, I am looking to buy a new TV (obviously). Right now I am leaning towards a Panasonic plasma 50' 768p, viewing it from around 8-9 feet. I am not a gamer, and will be using this for mostly HD broadcast TV and DVDs, with no intention of going the HD-DVD route in the near future. From what I can gather from all of your posts, viewing 720p HD vs. 1080p HD (regardless of if it is 720p input, or 1080i input) from this distance at this size television is negligable. This is why I am leaning toward this 720p model. From what I can gather, 1080p is only useful for sets bigger than 50', when you are sitting relativly close, and of course using a 1080p input. So since I am not using any 1080p inputs, I would not benefit from spening the extra $$ and getting a smaller LCD 1080p over the 50' 720p plasma. I know I made a few generalizations here, but are my assumtions correct for the most part? Thanks for any comments at all. :-)
ChachiB is offline  
post #296 of 1468 Old 04-05-2007, 03:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mkoesel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 2,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor View Post

mkoesel Stated

"Well here we go - yet another amazing claim. So then, if I display a 720p signal on a 768p display and its not being scaled, then how could it possibly fill up the screen?"

Because the pixels size change....

Wow, this just keeps getting better. So the pixels actually change in size, do they? Excellent. This is excellent.

Quote:


Like your computer monitor... you can change the pixel resolution and it interpolates... with some 768 sets the size of the pixels is different than when it has a native 720p signal on some 768p sets..... because the set is native 720p.

You are priceless man, priceless.

Quote:


So the pixels you're seeing when it's a native 720p are bigger because it is not interpolated, native 720p fills up the screen.
The 1080i signal interpolates smaller pixels to create more pixels into the same space to 768x1366 because of interpolation. I'm not going try to explain it anymore, I spoke to Sony engineers about it. Most people don't know this.
It' hard to explain...

Oh I'll bet it is hard to explain. Still, if you could just try harder, I'd love to learn all about it. I'm curious and eager to learn. Oh yes. Do tell.

Quote:


That says it all of who I'm trying to logically communicate facts with.

I could not agree more.
mkoesel is offline  
post #297 of 1468 Old 04-05-2007, 03:49 PM
Member
 
bd8653's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 197
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChachiB View Post

Newbie here...I have spend the past 4 hours reading pretty much ever thread here, so thanks to everyone for your un-biased (and sometimes biased ) advice. Here is my situation, I am looking to buy a new TV (obviously). Right now I am leaning towards a Panasonic plasma 50' 768p, viewing it from around 8-9 feet. I am not a gamer, and will be using this for mostly HD broadcast TV and DVDs, with no intention of going the HD-DVD route in the near future. From what I can gather from all of your posts, viewing 720p HD vs. 1080p HD (regardless of if it is 720p input, or 1080i input) from this distance at this size television is negligable. This is why I am leaning toward this 720p model. From what I can gather, 1080p is only useful for sets bigger than 50', when you are sitting relativly close, and of course using a 1080p input. So since I am not using any 1080p inputs, I would not benefit from spening the extra $$ and getting a smaller LCD 1080p over the 50' 720p plasma. I know I made a few generalizations here, but are my assumtions correct for the most part? Thanks for any comments at all. :-)


Your assumptions are correct. Also, remember that extremely rarely does someone say "I wish I had bought the smaller tv!", so if you can get a 50" 720p over a smaller 1080p you are on the right track.

I have a 50" 720p with only one 1080p source, there was no justifiable reason for me to spend the extra since that only source is my pc and I don't use it to display 1080p content. 720p from the computer is completely enjoyable/usable from my seating distance.

You have the basics with educating yourself, just remember the most important thing and pick the picture that looks the best to you.
bd8653 is offline  
post #298 of 1468 Old 04-05-2007, 04:09 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
CruelInventions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 4,512
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 175
Yes ChachiB, you summarized it well for yourself. The only other thing I would like to add is that even if you should opt to go the HD-DVD/BluRay route in a year or few, you will still benefit from that upgrade, as the higher-res content will be scaled down to your panel beautifully, looking better than standard resolution dvds.

Mourning the disappearing usage of the -ly suffix. Words being cut-off before they've had a chance to fully form, left incomplete, with their shoelaces untied and their zippers undone. If I quote your post (or post in your thread) without comment, please check your zipper.
CruelInventions is online now  
post #299 of 1468 Old 04-05-2007, 04:28 PM
Senior Member
 
Sole_Survivor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnybrulez View Post

There's no doubt 1080p is better. I just think people are so caught up in the numbers game they don't understand how the human eye works,



I agreed with everything you said except that.
There are times that 720p is the better signal


"1080p/24 is totally inappropriate for broadcasting sports. No sports fan would tolerate the motion blur and loss of fine detail in fast-moving objects. Even 1080i/30 would be a better choice.
http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages_b/followup.html "

And 720p is best viewed on a set with a native 720p resolution.
The frame rate must not be ignored.

We have all concluded that at a normal distance that max resolution of the eyes is max out. That is demonstrable proven mathematics.

But 60 frames is perceivable....
"humans can perceive up to 60+ fps".
http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_3.html

And delivers faster motion with more pixels per second.

1080p/24 49766400 pixels per second
720p/60 55296000 pixels per second.
So there are times that 720p sets clearly has the edge.
The only time 1080p has it's moment is to watch a 1080 signal that does not have fast motion, at an abnormal close distance from the set.
Several tests has shown no differences with the 1080i signal on the 768 sets in side by side tests to the 1080p monitors at normal distances.

HD-DVD/BluRay will convert to the max resolution of the eye on a 768p set at a normal distance.
At 10 feet or more, the 720p set has the overall advantage.

mkoesel
Do a study on native VS max resolution... talk to sony techs like I did..
all you did was just how ignorant you are to listening to other people extensive research with technicians.


Change the pixel resolution on your PC monitor and see what happens to the picture on the same screen. Pixel interpolation occurs. A different array of pixels is inside the same space. No Pixel interpolation occurs with a native signal.
This is why some sets have a different native resolution to the max one.
I called Sony and asked about it and this is what I was told about the difference between the different numbers in resolutions with the same set.

"It is actually pretty simple. Every projector that uses microdisplays, whether they are LCD panels, or DLP or LCOS chips, has a fixed array of pixels on those microdisplays. That fixed array of pixels is known as the native resolution of the projector. So native resolution is the actual, true, physical resolution of the projector. The projector will never be able to display more actual pixels than it has on those panels or chips.

So then what is maximum resolution? Well, that number has nothing to do with the projector's physical display. Instead it has to do with signal formats. Computer and video signals come in a wide variety of resolution formats. And every projector is programmed to recognize many of those different signals. Maximum resolution is the highest resolution signal that the projector has been programmed to process and display."

http://www.projectorcentral.com/maximum_resolution.htm

"So native resolution is the actual, true, physical resolution of the projector."

KDL-V40XBR1


Native Resolution: 720p

Contrast Ratio: 1300:1

Display Resolution: 1366 x 768

"the evidence before B/TQE at this time suggests
that the best delivery format would be 720p"

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_308-hdtv.pdf
Sole_Survivor is offline  
post #300 of 1468 Old 04-05-2007, 04:48 PM
Member
 
(l)user's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by cajieboy View Post

Well, 1080p is definitely "critical" to me. I refuse to buy another HD-Lite TV. I like to keep my Tv's around for 6-7 years, and for that my friends, you'll do yourself one big favor and get the full banana 1080p display. Just be sure it is a display that has very good video processing, and can perform proper 3:2 inverse telecine and deinterlacing duties. Over 80% of ALL HD broadcasting in the US is 1080i, and it won't be that long before NO ONE will be broadcasting 720p...in less than 24 months, you'll be hard pressed to even FIND a 768p display in the marketplace.


Well, you seem to forget that the difference between 1080i and 720p is not only the resolution but the fact that 720p is broadcasted in progresive while 1080i in interlaced format. 720p can provide better quality and picture stability especially with a dynamic material like sports...
Now I wish my 50'' plasma would natively support 1080 but it does not and I can't go with an LCD since I can't stand their picture quality: it too much resembles the laptop on which I work every day. As far as broadcsting is considered let's pray that broadcaster stop compressing their signal beyond recognition, display resolution does not help with poor signal quality...

HD: TOSHIBA HD-A2
TV: PHILIPS 50PF9731
SACD: SONY AVD-S50ES
DAP: PHILIPS Streamium SL-400 (LOSSLESS)
MEDIA SERVER: TwonkyMedia/Buffalo Linkstation
(l)user is offline  
Reply Flat Panels General and OLED Technology

Tags
720p Vs 1080p , 1080p Vs 720p
Gear in this thread - 1080p by PriceGrabber.com

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off