Official "1080p Vs. 720p" Thread Discussion - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 1468 Old 12-13-2006, 12:52 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
CruelInventions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 4,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 165
In an effort to reduce the redundant topics that tend to clutter up this forum, we are starting this thread with an intention to "corral" the disussion of this particularly popular topic to this one location, as much as humanly possible.

Above all else, the goal of this "sticky thread" is to be the one-stop information center for new forum members who have questions about 1080p and 720p, and their relative merits. General resolution questions are also fair game in this dedicated thread. Here you may post your facts, observations, questions, relevent links.

Yes, some debate is permitted, however, let's do our best to be dispassionate information providers. Best to leave resolution debates outside the confines of this thread. Again, what we are mainly trying to do here is provide a single location where the more experienced forum members can direct new/inexperienced members to, in order to save us all from repeating the same basic information over and over and over and.. well, you get my drift.

To get us started, I've copied some posting contributions here from another recent thread, which centered around this very same topic. The following opinions are by no means definitive, but hopefully a reasonably good starting point for discussion. Feel free to add your own contributions as you see fit.

FINAL NOTE: This initial thread post is subject to revision, if necessary, upon review of our moderator, MarkRubin, as well as my own subsequent scrutinizing. Perhaps we will add informational links to this first thread post, as they become available.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CruelInventions View Post

The independent experts all tend to agree on this point.. 1080p is just about the least important factor in picture quality particularly if you are seated outside the physical boundaries where our human eye can no longer discern the resolution differences. This is a sliding distance scale which depends on screen size in relation to seating distance. Here's one such chart example:

http://hdguru.com/wp-content/uploads...ance_chart.pdf

Color accuracy, contrast, black levels, scaling/processing all come before resolution in importance. The smaller the panel, the less important resolution becomes UNLESS you will be using the panel as a computer monitor (where you'll often be seated within 4ft. of the display, and at a distance that close, you will much more likely notice & appreciate the difference). On a 37" panel, for example, you have to be within 5ft. to tell the difference. And that's under ideal circumstances.

Disregard any poster who suggests otherwise. They are seeing something other than the true difference between 1080p & 720p when they claim they can tell the difference even on smaller (37"-42") panels beyond 5-6ft. The difference they claim to see is likely to be in the processing of non-native signal, i.e., panels will typically display their native rate better than they can a lesser resolution which the panel then has to scale to match it's own.

If you have a 1080p 42" panel, for example, assuming for a moment that you are seated outside the optimal seating boundary for fully resolving (seeing) 1080p content, the panel will still often look better displaying 1080p content merely because it doesn't have to scale the resolution. Feed the 1080p panel some other lesser resolution which then must be upscaled to match the panels 1080p native rate, then on all but the most expensive panels with excellent processing, the image will look inferior not because 720p is a lesser resolution, but because the panel simply cannot do a very good job scaling it. Or, maybe the panel handles scaling these duties well, but the particular 1080p model just so happens to have better color rendition, contrast, etc., than another particular example of a 720p panel, and as a result, it looks better under any circumstances, regardless of their comparative resolution capabilities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nmlobo View Post

The 1080p sets are the only sets that will display both broadcast formats of 720p and 1080i with no loss of detail. They upconvert (scale) the 720p to 1080p (screen resolution) and deinterlace the 1080i/60 and display 1080p/30 with no detail loss.

A 768 display has to scale every input signal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mongoos150 View Post

] Contrast, color saturation and color accuracy are all more important than resolution. Your display could very well produce a better picture because of better color saturation/contrast and have nothing to do with the bump in resolution. The difference in sets under 42" is negligible - people only think they can see a difference because *usually* they are seeing differences in contrast, color saturation and color accuracy as opposed to resolution differences.


Mourning the disappearance 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  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 1468 Old 12-13-2006, 01:14 PM
Super Moderator
 
markrubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 22,676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 257
excellent

made sticky

please post all 1080p Vs 720p here

Please take the high road in every post
Please do not quote or respond to problematic posts: report them to mods to handle
Link to sponsors
good to be back to vBulletin
markrubin is online now  
post #3 of 1468 Old 12-13-2006, 03:02 PM
slb
AVS Special Member
 
slb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Francisco North Bay
Posts: 1,483
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
We recently upgraded from a 42" Panny ED plasma to a Panny 50" HD plasma. We've had the 42" for 3½ years, so I'm intimately familiar with how good it can look at our normal viewing distance of 10-11 feet (FYI, I have slightly better than 20-20 vision). The 50" display has excellent picture quality for HD and DVDs, but at our viewing distance, I cannot honestly say that it is better than the 42" ED. In fact, the SDTV picture quality of the 50" is much worse than the 42" ED.

I certainly prefer the larger picture provided by the 50"; and because it's a newer generation Panny, it may also have slightly better black levels and shadow detail. But, even though it has 2.5x the resolution of the ED plasma, the picture quality is NOT obviously superior at our viewing distance. Both displays have excellent color accuracy, saturation and contrast, and these are the attributes that are most apparent. For this reason, I still believe that the Panasonic 42" ED plasma can be a great display choice if you watch a mix of HD, DVD and analog SDTV.

-Steve
slb is offline  
post #4 of 1468 Old 12-13-2006, 03:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
richard korsgren's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,562
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by slb View Post

We recently upgraded from a 42" Panny ED plasma to a Panny 50" HD plasma. We've had the 42" for 3½ years, so I'm intimately familiar with how good it can look at our normal viewing distance of 10-11 feet (FYI, I have slightly better than 20-20 vision). The 50" display has excellent picture quality for HD and DVDs, but at our viewing distance, I cannot honestly say that it is better than the 42" ED. In fact, the SDTV picture quality of the 50" is much worse than the 42" ED.

I certainly prefer the larger picture provided by the 50"; and because it's a newer generation Panny, it may also have slightly better black levels and shadow detail. But, even though it has at 2.5x the resolution of the ED plasma, the picture quality is NOT obviously superior at our viewing distance. Both displays have excellent color accuracy, saturation and contrast, and these are the attributes that are most apparent. For this reason, I still believe that the Panasonic 42" ED plasma can be a great display choice if you watch a mix of HD, DVD and analog SDTV.

-Steve





Have had a Panny EDTV panel..42" for several years and it is great. It is superior on dvds and on SD content. On HD content it is 'almost' as good as a HD display. Some one wants to buy my panel (at a great price) and I may sell it to buy (at a great price) a new HD Panny panel. I expect, overall, the picture results to be a little better on Hd and a little worse on SD and dvds. I am only buying it for the larger size. And because it will only cost me $1000 difference.
richard korsgren is offline  
post #5 of 1468 Old 12-13-2006, 03:15 PM
Member
 
mbonsack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 52
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
The viewing-distance argument that favors 720p for long distances seems to make sense from a human-eye resolution standpoint, but what about artifacts? All things being equal, how much worse is a scaled 1080p signal on a 1366x768 display vs. the same signal native into a 1920x1080 panel of the same size? In general, is it easier (read: less artifacts) to scale up or down? If the answer is largely "it depends on the scaler" then the whole 1080p vs. 720p argument boils down to scaler quality and/or necessity, not viewing distance!
mbonsack is offline  
post #6 of 1468 Old 12-13-2006, 05:33 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
The best picture is normally obtained when the input signal matches the display i.e., a 1080 input for a 1080 display. I chose a 1080p display since most HD channels are 1080i. For a 720p input to display on a 1080p panel, 360 NEW lines must be created. Since most 720p sets actually have 768p displays, they will have to scale every input (computers may be an exception). A 1080p display will need to scale only the few 720p signals. Deinterlacing a 1080i signal may also introduce artifacts, if the set has a poor video processor.

I guess this is a long way around to say it is easier to upscale 720p to 1080p or 768p (for display) than to downscale 1080i to 720p because the 1080i must first be deinterlaced and then scaled..... two steps are involved. However this would only come into play with those few 720p channels.

I believe a 1080p display is the better option - the majority of HD inputs do not require scaling while a 768p display has to scale every image prior to display.
Nmlobo is offline  
post #7 of 1468 Old 12-13-2006, 08:23 PM
kuv
Newbie
 
kuv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Alright, you may remember me, I was the one who pretty much asked this question yesterday. "1080p or 720p?". I just recently became interested in an HDTV and have only been reading about them for about 2-3 days now.


So I've been reading all these replies and have a question... What does scaling mean?

I'm in the market for an HDTV. Since it's the holidays I'm limited on cash so I've only got about $1,500 to work with.

I work at a CompUSA and can get any TV at cost. Even with 1500 to spend, it seems as if I can only afford a 720p. I'm mainly looking to use the TV for movies and Gaming. I've done some research and it seems LCD TVs are the best because static images on some games, like HP bars and mini maps have a chance of burning into a plasma screen. I'd mainly be playing an Xbox 360 and watching DVDs, with no plan of a Playstation 3 in my future.

Is buying a 720p even worth it? Or should I just save the extra Cash and get a 1080p at a later date?
kuv is offline  
post #8 of 1468 Old 12-13-2006, 09:03 PM
kuv
Newbie
 
kuv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
DLP TVs seem to be a bit more cheaper. Is that technology too old? Does it not even match up to a LCD/Plasma?
kuv is offline  
post #9 of 1468 Old 12-13-2006, 09:55 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 Nmlobo View Post

A 768 display has to scale every input signal.

But all sets have to scale all input signals, unless you are running them at zero overscan (which isn't even possible on many displays, and it won't give you an acceptable picture with most broadcast signals anyway). And furthermore even a display is not scaling a signal in the proper sense, it is still applying a scaling process to the picture which means the chance for scaling artifacts remains.

I do see your earlier point - that a 1080p set will never have to downconvert - and this is certainly a good thing. Absolutely. I just saw this last statement as slightly misleading.
mkoesel is offline  
post #10 of 1468 Old 12-13-2006, 09:58 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 kuv View Post

What does scaling mean?

It means resizing. Specifically, taking an image of one resolution and growing or shrinking it to another resolution.
mkoesel is offline  
post #11 of 1468 Old 12-13-2006, 10:28 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
Thank God for this thread.

Maybe the 1080p placebo effect will start going away... probably not.

I think scaling is an issue but I also believe that if the scaler is efficent the same "You can't tell if it's 1080p vs. 720p at a certain distance at that screen size" issue comes up again.

The farther you sit the less apparent the resolution is... be it a 768p set downscaling a 1080p source or a 1080p set upscaling a 720p source.

I don't know what I am doing! AHHHHHHH!!!!
johnnybrulez is offline  
post #12 of 1468 Old 12-13-2006, 10:36 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 richard korsgren View Post

Have had a Panny EDTV panel..42" for several years and it is great. It is superior on dvds and on SD content. On HD content it is 'almost' as good as a HD display. Some one wants to buy my panel (at a great price) and I may sell it to buy (at a great price) a new HD Panny panel. I expect, overall, the picture results to be a little better on Hd and a little worse on SD and dvds. I am only buying it for the larger size. And because it will only cost me $1000 difference.

I agree Rich,

Especially at 42, an EDTV Plasma is great. HD (768p) at that screen size has its limits of benefits... let alone 1080p.

I was watching an EDTV plasma at work, 42 inches, and it looked as "HD" as can be with an HD source from a 10 foot seating distance. It's just too hard to notice any information loss with the scaling at that size.

Maybe at 50 inches the benefits will be more noticeable, but I can understand that some people even question 480p vs. 768p all the time. If you're sitting close of course the scanlines begin to get noticed and this isn't a big deal for movies mind you... with games and PC sources, HD vs. ED is quite noticeable.

My conclusion after seeing my many ED, 720, 768, and 1080p sets... is that 768p is enough for the "Small" TV sets of even 50 inches.

Anything beyond that may need 1080p for the fact that the pixels begin to cause screen door effect at bigger than 60 inches.

I don't know what I am doing! AHHHHHHH!!!!
johnnybrulez is offline  
post #13 of 1468 Old 12-13-2006, 10:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
wtfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
If anyone with a 1080p set actually posted pictures of comparisons between the resolutions it would be great.

Right now I believe Ridge Racer 7 on the Ps3 is the only thing out as on now that supports both 1080p and 60 frames per second.

so unless someone can post detailed screenshots of the game running at 720p & then at 1080p on the samem TV, I know we'll never end the debate.
wtfer is offline  
post #14 of 1468 Old 12-13-2006, 11:09 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 wtfer View Post

Right now I believe Ridge Racer 7 on the Ps3 is the only thing out as on now that supports both 1080p and 60 frames per second.

Plenty of PC games support that as well.
mkoesel is offline  
post #15 of 1468 Old 12-13-2006, 11:23 PM
kuv
Newbie
 
kuv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Can i get by, with a DLP instead of a LCD or plasma? Would the picture quality take a dramatic decrease?
kuv is offline  
post #16 of 1468 Old 12-14-2006, 12:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
hifisponge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 7,516
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by kuv View Post

Can i get by, with a DLP instead of a LCD or plasma? Would the picture quality take a dramatic decrease?


Thats a simple question with a rather complicated answer. It really depends what values you hold highest.

DLPs -
Pros: very good black levels, great contrast (they are typically very bright) and the color reproduction is good to excellent. No chance of burn-in.

Cons: In my experience, they tend to highlight noise in the picture, they can tend to obscure shadow detail and can have other picture irregularities like banding between color transitions. Vertical viewing axis is somewhat limited. Not a flat panel technology.

LCD's -
Pros: Bright, punchy color (though not always technically accurate), flat, no chance of burn-in.

Cons: Black levels are still the worst in all of the technologies (they will tend to look dark gray rather than true black, and when you sit off angle, you'll see a shift in black level (it will get lighter), color reproduction isn't quite as accurate as plasma. More expensive than DLP.

Plasma -
Pros: Very good black levels, accurate color reproduction, flat, perfect off-axis viewing angles.

Cons: Not as bright as DLP or LCD (not as good for bright rooms or daytime viewing), can have a noisy looking picture (in the cheaper models), glass screen produces more glare / reflection. More expensive than DLP.

Sony SXRD Rear projection -
Pro's: Very good black levels, accurate color reproduction, smooth film-like image, good shadow detail.

Cons: Because it is a rear projection tech, the Vertical off-axis viewing is somewhat limited (similar to DLP), not a flat TV

In my opinion, if you are looking for a less expensive alternative to plasma and LCD, and you don't care if your TV is flat, I recommend the SXRD over the DLP.

Please understand that my generalizations about each technology are just that, generalizations. Not all of the described qualities will be present in every TV of the same tech type. In the end you really just need to go to a local retailer like Best Buy and stare at the different models in your price range for a while. Use my descriptions only as a starting point.

Good luck!
hifisponge is offline  
post #17 of 1468 Old 12-14-2006, 01:02 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
CruelInventions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 4,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 165
Let's try to avoid asking and responding to questions that aren't at least somewhat related to the main topic. The question about DLP should have been asked in a separate thread. Hifisponge responded with a solid summary of the technologies, so let's not ask any follow-up questions or provide further elaborations regarding that topic wihin this thread. This space will grow plenty bloated on it's own, so let's not make it any worse than it needs to be.

Mourning the disappearance 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 #18 of 1468 Old 12-14-2006, 01:55 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
CruelInventions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 4,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 165
back on topic..

My understanding has always been that it's better to take higher resolution content and scale it down (reduce it) to fit a lesser resolution capable panel than the opposite, which is to take lower resolution content and scale it up to match a higher resolution panel. (The former scenario accounts for the very good result ED/480p panel owners get from HD content scaled down to fit their panels, and I would assume that this would also apply to 720p/768p display panels which get scaled down 1080i/p content).

If this is indeed correct, would this then make for a more compelling case for going with a non-1080p panel, PROVIDED that the greater percentage of your viewing material is non-1080p?

But then based upon Nmlobo's previous posts, we introduce the additional aspect of how many scaling/de-interlacing processes are going on and if this has a lesser or greater impact on content quality. Specifically, is a downscaled image with these two processing steps involved (scaling/de-interlacing) still better than an upscaled image with only one processing/scaling step involved? Or, does mkoesel's comment (about how scaling is always taking place, even in situations where content matches the panels native resolution) neutralize the benefit of lesser processing steps, as claimed by Nmlobo?

Mourning the disappearance 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 #19 of 1468 Old 12-14-2006, 04:56 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mkoesel View Post

But all sets have to scale all input signals, unless you are running them at zero overscan (which isn't even possible on many displays, and it won't give you an acceptable picture with most broadcast signals anyway). And furthermore even a display is not scaling a signal in the proper sense, it is still applying a scaling process to the picture which means the chance for scaling artifacts remains.

You are correct - unless you are displaying with zero overscan there will be some scaling. This is really minor as compared to the scaling of 720 to 1080 (360 lines PLUS additional lines for overscaling). A 1080 display would add just 22 lines to a 1080 input with 2% overscan and 54 lines with 5% overscan. This "should" provide a sharper picture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CruelInventions View Post

back on topic..

My understanding has always been that it's better to take higher resolution content and scale it down (reduce it) to fit a lesser resolution capable panel than the opposite, which is to take lower resolution content and scale it up to match a higher resolution panel. (The former scenario accounts for the very good result ED/480p panel owners get from HD content scaled down to fit their panels, and I would assume that this would also apply to 720p/768p display panels which get scaled down 1080i/p content).

If this is indeed correct, would this then make for a more compelling case for going with a non-1080p panel, PROVIDED that the greater percentage of your viewing material is non-1080p?

But then based upon Nmlobo's previous posts, we introduce the additional aspect of how many scaling/de-interlacing processes are going on and if this has a lesser or greater impact on content quality. Specifically, is a downscaled image with these two processing steps involved (scaling/de-interlacing) still better than an upscaled image with only one processing/scaling step involved? Or, does mkoesel's comment (about how scaling is always taking place, even in situations where content matches the panels native resolution) neutralize the benefit of lesser processing steps, as claimed by Nmlobo?

I agree with you that if the majority of your viewing is non-1080 then a 720/768 display is the way to go. But the majority of HD channels transmit in 1080. If the majority of your viewing is SD then 720/768 may well be the better choice as fewer lines will need to be added for the display.

This is a bit off topic but given the same physical size display, the pixles on a 1080p panel will be much smaller (since there are more of them) than those on a 720/768 panel. This increased pixel size would soften the picture.

I believe the small amount of scaling required for overscan is less than an issue than deinterlacing and then downscaling. Both present an opportunity for the introduction of artifacts but adding 22-54 lines appears to me to be less severe than adding 360 (720 to 1080) PLUS the additional overscan lines.
Nmlobo is offline  
post #20 of 1468 Old 12-14-2006, 06:02 AM
Member
 
furboo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jemez Mountains
Posts: 143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
With low-resolution screens, I often see artifacts at sharp edges in cartoons / games.
So I decided to create a test image.

Unfortunately, I can't upload the image (too big). But it's easily created using something like Illustrator. The image is a black line on a white background. The line is a single pixel wide, at a slight angle from horizontal. Consequently, when viewed close enough, the line appears "stair-stepped" (make sure you turn dealiasing off if using Illustrator). Also, if your display scales the image, or applies any video processing, the stair-stepping may be removed. The test is:

At what distance do you see *no* stair-stepping?

The only "1080" type display I have is a 23", 1900x1200 Apple monitor that I use at work. For this display, I created a 1900x1200 image. I can see stair-stepping at any distance less than about 5 to 6 feet. For a 23" 720p monitor, I assume I would see stair-stepping at roughly (5 feet) * (1200/720), or around 8 feet.

If the image was moving, slowly vertically, the stair-stepping would appear as a "escalator." I suspect I'd be able to detect "escalator" movement at an even greater distance.

I assume that the viewing distance would scale linearly with screen size. So if I bought a 46" 720p display, I'd see stair-stepping up to about 16 feet.

Is this test useful? For most TV content, absolutely not. My point here is that the distance calculators (such as that linked to in the OP) appear to be geared towards typical TV content. There do exist images where the benefits of resolution are real, at pretty large viewing distances.

I'll try to find some other way of supplying the image if folks are really interested.
furboo is offline  
post #21 of 1468 Old 12-14-2006, 06:49 AM
Member
 
BSGfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 88
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
CruelInventions, just a slight technical/interpretative correction of your old quoted example:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CruelInventions View Post

On a 37" panel, for example, you have to be within 5ft. to tell the difference. And that's under ideal circumstances.

Reading the cited distance chart, and a little research (wikipedia), it is clear that the originator of the chart assumes 20/20 vision, ie 1 minute arc resolution. He then calculates the "optimal" distance where someone with that exact visual acuity will discern that pixel size. Aside from the fact that everyone's acuity is different (some better, a lot worse), here's the main point:

At distances between his "1080 optimum" and "720 optimum", I interpret this as one still having some benefit to 1080. That is, you can resolve better than 720, but not the full 1080. So, using your example 37", you would theoretically get the full benefit of 1080p from less than 58", and still some advantage vs 720p up till 87".
BSGfan is offline  
post #22 of 1468 Old 12-14-2006, 07:04 AM
Member
 
Maxion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Great thread, thanks. I've been researching all of this for a few days now and have yet to get a straight answer on a 1080 v 720 question. Maybe you folks can help.

Since lots and lots of content is still not HD, I'll still be watching a lot of standard definition tv for a while. I understand that, for various reasons, SD does not look great on an HD set. I also understand that how good or bad SD looks on an HD set depends to some extent on the particular set's processing of the signal.

What I would like to understand is whether, as a general matter, the quality of an SD picture is better on one or the other. In other words, is SD generally better on a 720 set or on a 1080 set? Or are the lines of resolution irrelevant? My intuition suggests that -- again, as a general matter -- an SD signal would look less crummy on a 720 set than on a 1080 set, since there are fewer extra lines that the set's electronics would have to "fill in", but I suspect there is far more to it than that.

If it helps you provide a more specific answer: I get digital cable from Comcast in Massachusetts, and am looking for a roughly 40 inch set, and am leaning towards either the Sony XBR2 or the Samsung LN-S4096D.

Thanks in advance for your help!
Maxion is offline  
post #23 of 1468 Old 12-14-2006, 07:20 AM
Member
 
furboo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jemez Mountains
Posts: 143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by BSGfan View Post

At distances between his "1080 optimum" and "720 optimum", I interpret this as one still having some benefit to 1080. That is, you can resolve better than 720, but not the full 1080. So, using your example 37", you would theoretically get the full benefit of 1080p from less than 58", and still some advantage vs 720p up till 87".

I totally agree. Your point is also explained well at this link:

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/hit...esolution.html
furboo is offline  
post #24 of 1468 Old 12-14-2006, 07:55 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 Maxion View Post

What I would like to understand is whether, as a general matter, the quality of an SD picture is better on one or the other. In other words, is SD generally better on a 720 set or on a 1080 set? Or are the lines of resolution irrelevant? My intuition suggests that -- again, as a general matter -- an SD signal would look less crummy on a 720 set than on a 1080 set, since there are fewer extra lines that the set's electronics would have to "fill in", but I suspect there is far more to it than that.

There is indeed far more to it than that - and this question is probably a good one for the video processor forum.

In general, a poor scaling algorithm will translate those extra pixels into extra artifacts . However a good scaling algorithm will use every pixel it can to smooth out jagged edges that would otherwise be present on a lower resolution display.
mkoesel is offline  
post #25 of 1468 Old 12-14-2006, 09:01 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
CruelInventions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 4,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 165
I would tend to agree here with mkoesel. Maxion, not taking the quality of processing into account for just a second here, yes, because 720 is closer to SD content than 1080, it will tend to provide the better image.

However, the quality of processing from one panel to the next, or if you are willing to go this far/this expensive.. one outboard separate processor to the next, will likely be the larger determining factor of content quality. I'm not intimately familiar with good processors, but, I suppose it could be argued a good processor will output similar (or too close to differentiate) quality, regardless if it is being fed SD content, or lower-tier HD content.

Mourning the disappearance 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 #26 of 1468 Old 12-14-2006, 09:15 AM
Senior Member
 
eecubed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 456
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Also, some tv's deinterlace 1080i signal by throwing away 1/2 of the field. They then scale the 540p image. Presumably, the 1080 capable tv's don't do this.

veni, vidi, vici
You can't understand something until you can measure it with numbers.
eecubed is offline  
post #27 of 1468 Old 12-14-2006, 09:39 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
CruelInventions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 4,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by BSGfan View Post

CruelInventions, just a slight technical/interpretative correction of your old quoted example:

good catch. Thanks for the additional qualifications to the "rule of the thumb" chart info.

I dunno then. I suppose it all reverts back to the philosophy propogated even among most "experts". That is, in many/most, but certainly not all, viewing circumstances, the added benefit of 1080p is just too small (again, unless you are in the ideal viewing range where the benefit becomes increasingly obvious), and still lesser than the other picture quality determining factors (color, contrast, greyscale, etc.), that the better purchase value is a 720/768 panel.

However, IF..

1. you have a liberal budget and/or..
2. you insist on squeezing out the very last degree of quality and/or..
3. you will be in the sweet viewing range for an amount of time you feel that you can justify the added 1080p expense..

go 1080p now.


And as been often stated on this forum.. when 1080p is no more a cost premium than 720/768p, it then becomes a no-brainer for all. ("well, duh!" is your answer to me )

Mourning the disappearance 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 #28 of 1468 Old 12-14-2006, 11:04 AM
Member
 
Maxion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Sorry to be a bit dense of the viewing distance issues you all are describing, so I'll ask it as a personal 720 versus 1080 question:

We are researching a new flat panel LCD, and our primary viewing spots will be 8 to 12 feet from where it will be placed. Now for various non-tv-related reasons (primarily my wife's decorating sense), I cannot go larger than 40, or maybe 42, inches. I understand that such a size is generally considered to be on the small side for that viewing distance, but if the screen size and viewing distance I describe are fixed parameters, am I reading correctly that the 1080 is wasted on me, and that 720 will provide all the detail I'll be able to make out from that distance? Or do I have it backwards -- do I need all the extra resolution I can get because I'll be sitting so far from my smallish tv?

Also I'd appreciate any other guidance on getting the best possible experience given the size set I am considering and the viewing distance.

Thanks again!
Maxion is offline  
post #29 of 1468 Old 12-14-2006, 11:32 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
CruelInventions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 4,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 165
Well, if you are going LCD for sure, then most of the options in the 40"-42" range already come with 1080p as standard. So, there is no decision required on your part, at least as it pertains to the importance of resolution. It only really becomes an issue if shopping for plasma panels, given their relative dearth of affordable 1080p panel options at this moment in time.

Even if you did put the plasma category back on your consideration list, from 8' to 12', you would very rarely benefit from 1080p, as I see it. For those size panels, even the hardcore 1080p appreciators would be hardpressed to recommend a 1080p plasma (which don't exist in that 42" size anyway, at least as of right now. They are slowly becoming available in the 50"+ range).

Mourning the disappearance 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 #30 of 1468 Old 12-14-2006, 11:33 AM
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 Maxion View Post

Sorry to be a bit dense of the viewing distance issues you all are describing, so I'll ask it as a personal 720 versus 1080 question:

We are researching a new flat panel LCD, and our primary viewing spots will be 8 to 12 feet from where it will be placed. Now for various non-tv-related reasons (primarily my wife's decorating sense), I cannot go larger than 40, or maybe 42, inches. I understand that such a size is generally considered to be on the small side for that viewing distance, but if the screen size and viewing distance I describe are fixed parameters, am I reading correctly that the 1080 is wasted on me, and that 720 will provide all the detail I'll be able to make out from that distance? Or do I have it backwards -- do I need all the extra resolution I can get because I'll be sitting so far from my smallish tv?

Also I'd appreciate any other guidance on getting the best possible experience given the size set I am considering and the viewing distance.

Thanks again!

Yes, 1080 would be wasted... and I think even 720p would be semi-wasted at 12 feet.

I don't know what I am doing! AHHHHHHH!!!!
johnnybrulez is offline  
Reply Flat Panels General and OLED Technology

Tags
720p Vs 1080p , 1080p Vs 720p
Gear in this thread

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