Official "1080p Vs. 720p" Thread Discussion - Page 22 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #631 of 1468 Old 08-28-2007, 05:28 PM
Senior Member
 
jackc04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 487
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The article stated:

"while our new 1080p TVs now have many more grids to fill in for greater detail potential, there doesn't exist the television or movie content to fill in all those extra spaces in the jump from 720p to 1080p HD. "

Okay, lets break this down:

The "extra space" he is talking about is the extra pixels a 1080p TV has as compared to a 720P TV. So, in the context of that sentence, space = pixels. Agree? Now we can substitute "spaces" with "pixels" in the original statement:

"there doesn't exist the television or movie content to fill in all those extra pixels ". But that is false, because 1080i is 1920x1080 and does fill every single pixel of a 1080P TV.

And lastly, I believe that when the author said this: "in the jump from 720p to 1080p HD" - he was talking about the jump from a 720P TV to a 1080P TV.
jackc04 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #632 of 1468 Old 08-28-2007, 05:39 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 did it again dude!

You quoted part of the article

You keep quoting
""there doesn't exist the television or movie content to fill in all those extra pixels ".

Look at it? He doesn't say pixels he says spaces... Why you attributing words to him that he didn't say? Take it for what he said. OK... not a big deal there... lets move on....

The next words are "in the jump from 720p to 1080p HD"

There isn't even a comma between the words ...spaces and in.
Finish the sentence..

"there doesn't exist the television or movie content to fill in all those extra spaces in the jump from 720p to 1080p HD." In the above paragraph you will notice he was talking about "the difference between 720p and 1080p."

Given that many people view their televisions from 8-10 feet away (if not even more), you would have to have a 65" or larger screen to really notice the difference between 720p and 1080p.

Figure 5 illustrates those ideal viewing distance (D) in graphic form.
Then it goes to the next paragraph!

He says in the same paragraph right before the line you quoted

" we don't currently have the native 1080p content at nearly the same scale."

Read it as a whole his words in blue

"In other words, the ideal viewing distance for a 42" 720p display, for example, is 7.7 feet. If you view it closer than 7.7 feet, most people will be able to see individual pixels, but at distances further than 7.7 feet, you can't see them. In the case of a 42" 1080p display, the ideal viewing distance is only 5.5 feet--beyond that, you can't see the pixels and you can't really appreciate the full resolution of the display. In other words, it would be virtually impossible to distinguish between a 42" 720p display and 42" 1080p at distances of about six feet or more. Given that many people view their televisions from 8-10 feet away (if not even more), you would have to have a 65" or larger screen to really notice the difference between 720p and 1080p.

Figure 5 illustrates those ideal viewing distance (D) in graphic form.


FIGURE 5


The benefits of 1080p resolution appear to be straightforward, but the truth of the matter is that displaying more resolution on screen, "

(He is talking about it being more than 720p) He continues....

or more information on screen is a very complicated matter. As stated earlier in this report, while we may soon have display hardware aplenty to show 1080p, we don't currently have the native 1080p content at nearly the same scale. In other words, while our new 1080p TVs now have many more grids to fill in for greater detail potential,

( more grids than 720p)..... He continues.... read it as a whole... ..and look at the chart above the line you keep quoting .... he is talking about 720p filling a 720p monitor.... in relation on the same scale..... as a 1080p signal would natively fit a 1080p monitor.... )

Cont...
"there doesn't exist the television or movie content to fill in all those extra spaces in the jump from 720p to 1080p HD. This leads us into a discussion of the very important concept of "native" resolution."

He says
"we don't currently have the native 1080p content at nearly the same scale."

Native 1080p to fill 1080p at the same scale as 720p fills 720p....

HD DVD wasn't out yet!


In a nutshell....
We have 720p signals to fit 720p monitors..... but there was no 1080p signal to fit a 1080p set....(at the time)
So about the jump from 720p to 1080p........ On that same scale comparison of the native 720p example... and those are his words.........there was no native 1080p signal to natively fill in the extra grids that 1080p has over 720p (NATIVELY)... To jump to that level on the same scale... there was no content!

He says
"we don't currently have the native 1080p content at nearly the same scale."
I can't make it anymore clearer!

I rest my case.

"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 #633 of 1468 Old 08-28-2007, 09:04 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
CruelInventions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 4,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackc04 View Post

.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor View Post

.




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 offline  
post #634 of 1468 Old 08-29-2007, 07:50 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

You're asking me a question like that mkoesel...

This is a classic moment!

Well, it wasn't really a question, just an observation.

Now, back to the regularly scheduled debate/beating-of-heads-against-desk.

mkoesel is offline  
post #635 of 1468 Old 08-29-2007, 03:02 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 150
I would like to see the pictures of the two televisions to compare them.

I think it could provide a good amount of information, since seeing is believing.
cybrsage is offline  
post #636 of 1468 Old 08-29-2007, 04:32 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 are results from side by side tests all over this thread...

To reach over to my friend .. who wanted to compare sets by taking snap shots...
Well,....You can't judge TV's that way, or have a contest... but I did snap a couple pics from the 1080i HD net a while back with the TIVO converted to 720p on a 768p set.
Digital cmaera was on the low 1.2m as well.
Not too bad ha?.... I cut the edges off.... Not posting this to judge sets...Can't judge sets like that... too many factors involved!
But it's just that I remembered I had them....




"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 #637 of 1468 Old 09-02-2007, 04:01 PM
Newbie
 
WTFSean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
From what I've been reading, the difference between 1080p and 720p is virtually negligible to people who aren't too nitpicky (not saying that nitpicky is a bad thing). Sure, factors such as upscaling and viewing distances gives each format advantages and disadvantages, but I feel like these arguments are showing the immediate impact of purchasing either format now. But what about the future? We're talking about getting the best bang for our buck, but I'm sure the quorum of this forum isn't going to buy a new TV every NFL season, no no. I'm sure that most of us want our TVs to last.

I know that a lot of us are on pretty strict budgets. I, for example, am a first year college student trying to garner enough cash to get a good TV for my room by Black Friday. Am I going to make it? I'm not sure. All I know is that I want a good set which will give me my best bang for my buck into the end of my college career and into my venture into whatever profession I choose.

So, this point has probably been posed. There's 23 pages, but I have to admit, I've only read 6 as multitasking and trying to understanding the information posted has taken me a full hour and a half to do.

What about the long run? I check techbargains.com a good 3-4 times a day. I've noticed the price drops in 1080p TVs. Sharp 46" 1080p LCD TVs for $1600? Amazing.

But, how about a Samsung LN-S4692D? $1250. $350. Is the premium worth it?

So, now to my point in question. Are the advantages of 1080p in the long run enough to purchase it over a 720p now? I understand that it's opinion, but I'm just wondering what's bound to come up in the next few years. Affordable HD movies? Any kind of 1080p capable channels coming up in the next few years?

What do you guys think about that?
WTFSean is offline  
post #638 of 1468 Old 09-02-2007, 05:15 PM
Member
 
Sean_Pelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I was in a similar position and was awfully tempted by the new 720p Pioneer KURO plasmas thanks to the rave reviews. However, I was able to find a Panisonic TH-50PX75U (720p) over at a local (major) B&M for well under MSRP (insane price actually).

Given the fact that black levels are increasing by orders of magnitude lately and the price of 1080p sets will continue to drop like a rock...I'd say go with the best set you can afford with a reasonable budget, but shy away from the "high-end" unless you have disposable income as it will likely be significantly outdone by cheaper sets the following year...

Then again, who knows....All we can be sure of is that we'll always be wanting the next best thing...lol...
Sean_Pelly is offline  
post #639 of 1468 Old 09-03-2007, 07:49 PM
Member
 
easyjacksn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
My question still hasn't been answered. If the difference in resolution can't be perceived, then what's the point of Blu-ray/HD DVD? If the difference in resolution can't be perceived, then a Blu-ray should look identical to a 720p signal. Obviously, visual acuity doesn't max out at 720 or Blu-ray would be pointless. Even moreso, even at the highest resolutions out there, an hdtv still doesn't look identical to real life. Clearly, there is still room for improvement from 1080 resolutions because the difference between 1080 and real life can be perceived. If the difference between 720p and 1080p can't be perceived, then the difference between 720p and real life can't be perceived. This is clearly false.
easyjacksn is offline  
post #640 of 1468 Old 09-03-2007, 08:23 PM
Senior Member
 
Razorback HDTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 208
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by easyjacksn View Post

My question still hasn't been answered. If the difference in resolution can't be perceived, then what's the point of Blu-ray/HD DVD? If the difference in resolution can't be perceived, then a Blu-ray should look identical to a 720p signal. Obviously, visual acuity doesn't max out at 720 or Blu-ray would be pointless. Even moreso, even at the highest resolutions out there, an hdtv still doesn't look identical to real life. Clearly, there is still room for improvement from 1080 resolutions because the difference between 1080 and real life can be perceived. If the difference between 720p and 1080p can't be perceived, then the difference between 720p and real life can't be perceived. This is clearly false.

You're assumption is that resolution is the only factor.
Razorback HDTV is offline  
post #641 of 1468 Old 09-03-2007, 08:34 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
CruelInventions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 4,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 200
+1

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 offline  
post #642 of 1468 Old 09-03-2007, 09:52 PM
Member
 
easyjacksn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razorback HDTV View Post

You're assumption is that resolution is the only factor.

I know the difference between resolution and contrast ratio and color saturation. I've been a hardcore gamer for years. I know what difference in resolution looks like. The difference in resolution between 720 and Blu-ray is astoundingly obvious. Even when comparing a single frame(no motion) the picture is far more smooth and detailed with much less grain. The first time I saw Blu-ray was on a 1080p set at CC where the disc menu was on screen(no motion). I didn't even know it was a Blu-ray disc, I was just floored walking past the viewing area(I wasn't even in the viewing area which was at least 8 or 9 feet from the set to the couch -- I was outside the viewing area which put me at least 12 feet from the set, probably more!). Also, if The difference in resolution was not perceptible, there would be no point in having a Blu-ray signal above 720. Why are Blu-ray signals above 720? Why are there any signals above 720? And most importantly, why can I pick the 1080p's from the 720p's in the store?
easyjacksn is offline  
post #643 of 1468 Old 09-04-2007, 11:06 AM
Senior Member
 
jackc04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 487
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by easyjacksn View Post

I've read through a good portion of this thread and have yet to find a compelling answer to this simple question:

Why is it that when I go to CC and stand 15 feet from a 720p next to a 1080p, the 720p looks pixellated and grainy while the 1080p looks smooth and detailed?

This clear difference seems to hold for every comparison I've made. I can walk from set to set picking out the 720p's from the 1080p's without trouble. I suppose it's possible that they're sending different signals to different sets, but all of the sets seem to be playing the same material synchronously. Can someone explain this?

I know this is old news, but this is an excellent link:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/carltonbale....tion_chart.png

I've seen a lot of 720 and 1080 programming and concur with the chart. If you're seeing that a 1080p TV looks *much* better than a 720p TV at significantly greater distances than in the chart, then the explanation has to be something other than resolution alone. Your eyes simply cannot perceive the extra resolution if you're far enough away. Check this out if you haven't already:

http://www.carltonbale.com/2007/04/a...ay-need-1080p/

It shows how you're eyes can play tricks on you, and how viewing distance is really important.

When you're close enough, all other aspects of PQ being equal, of course 1080 looks better than 720. BTW, tennis looked awesome over the weekend on CBS (1080i). Maria Sharapova never looked better (even though she lost)
jackc04 is offline  
post #644 of 1468 Old 09-04-2007, 02:00 PM
Member
 
easyjacksn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I haven't studied the data in depth, but I have browsed it, and the one glaring omission I'm finding is a lack of double blind testing. Has there been any?
easyjacksn is offline  
post #645 of 1468 Old 09-04-2007, 02:33 PM
Senior Member
 
jackc04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 487
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by easyjacksn View Post

I haven't studied the data in depth, but I have browsed it, and the one glaring omission I'm finding is a lack of double blind testing. Has there been any?

The Carlton Bale charts are based on the human eye's visual acuity. Here's one article that goes into some detail:

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

From the article: "The well-known phrase "20-20 vision" refers to the distance in feet that objects separated by an angle of 1 arc minute can be distinguished as separate objects." So, I think all Carlton Bale did was to use the readily available data for visual acuity (from the Snellen eye chart), and apply it to fixed pixel displays (two pixels in a 1080 display are closer together than two pixels of a 720 display. The eye has limits on how far it can distinguish two objects very small and very close together to be separate).

That picture of the two faces is a perfect example of the limits of visual acuity.

IMHO, a double blind method is not applicable. In other words, someone's personal bias has no impact on how much detail his eye can see. You can either see two distinct objects or you cannot.

Here's another link that talks about visual acuity:

http://www.audioholics.com/education...f-human-vision

So, its pretty hard to debate these numbers. To do so, you'd first have to attack the legitimacy of the Snellen eye chart itself, which has been around unchallenged and virtually unchanged since 1862
jackc04 is offline  
post #646 of 1468 Old 09-04-2007, 03:37 PM
Member
 
easyjacksn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackc04 View Post

The Carlton Bale charts are based on the human eye's visual capability to detect an angular separation of one arc minute. Here's one article that goes into some detail:

http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publi...dwell/ch2.html

I don't think that data was obtained through clinical trials - it was obtained via researching the human eyeball to understand its optical capabilities. Therefore, IMHO, a double blind method is not applicable. In other words, someone's personal bias has no impact on how much detail his eye can see.

It isn't about personal bias. It is about how science works. Science proceeds by observing empirical data(experience) and then going on to create models that account for that data. In other words, if a truly scientific approach to this issue were taken, it would begin with double blind tests(or some other form of testing) to determine whether or not a significant percentage of people could distinguish between various resolutions at various distances with all other PQ factors minimized as far as possible(hopefully eliminated). If no significant deviation from expected results occurrs, then the conclusions drawn from the preestablished science of visual acuity are assumed(the chart you showed me). If a significant deviation does occur, then new models must be created to account for this data. This doesn't seem to be how this issue is being approached. What seems to be happening is that the conclusions drawn from the preestablished science of visual acuity are being assumed and then used to predict that no deviation would occur in a double blind test. This couldn't be more unscientific. Again, the purpose of science is to explain what is experienced -- not to tell us beforehand what experiences we could possibly have. Because of this, no study of this issue that doesn't begin with double blind testing(or some other form of testing) can be considered scientific. Until the empirical data is gathered, we cannot know whether or not any deviation is occurring.

Here is an example of one possible overlooked factor:

A 3 megapixel photo is taken of the Mona Lisa. It is blown up to life size and placed on the wall next to the real thing. The subject is placed at a viewing distance that would eliminate the advantages of a higher resolution according to the science of visual acuity. Supposedly, the two would be indistinguishable. No detail loss would be apparent to the naked eye because the human eye cannot resolve any further detail from that distance(unless I'm mistaken, this is what 1080 detractors claim). However, we do know that there is detail loss from the real Mona Lisa to the 3mp photo. What this means is that there are visual details of the painting that do not exist in the 3mp photo. Many of these details may be visible in the real painting from the established viewing distance, but are simply lost in the transfer to 3mp photo due to the resolution capabilities. Because of this, the 3mp photo will be distinguishable from the real Mona Lisa from the viewing distance that visual acuity claims eliminates resolution as a factor, for those details visible in the painting from this distance are simply not in the photo. In other words, pieces are missing. It remains true that resolution is not technically a factor at this distance, yet the resolution restrictions of 3mp cause the loss of visual data that would be apparent from this distance making the two distinguishable.

This is just one example of many possible overlooked factors here. They go overlooked because, apparently, instead of taking a truly scientific approach to this issue, people are making assumptions about what data we would find if we actually ran an experiment. This is not science, it's dogma.
easyjacksn is offline  
post #647 of 1468 Old 09-04-2007, 03:42 PM
Senior Member
 
jackc04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 487
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I disagree. A blind test method is not always a mandatory element of scientific research. Its required only in cases where one's personal bias (tester or person being tested) can affect the results. I don't need to perform a double blind test to ask someone "how many fingers am I holding up?", or to see how many letters from an eye chart a person can read. In other words, one's personal bias has no impact on that. The Snellen eye chart is not unscientific, nor is it anti 1080p dogma.

BTW, I'm not a 1080 detractor - I have a 1080p TV, and love it.
jackc04 is offline  
post #648 of 1468 Old 09-04-2007, 03:47 PM
Member
 
easyjacksn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackc04 View Post

I disagree. I don't need to perform a double blind test to ask someone "how many fingers am I holding up?", or to look at an eye chart and see how many letters they can read.

I'm not a 1080 detractor - I have a 1080p TV, and love it.

Apparently you didn't read my post. Your response doesn't address anything I said.
easyjacksn is offline  
post #649 of 1468 Old 09-04-2007, 04:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
brentsg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wildwood, MO
Posts: 1,942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by easyjacksn View Post

My question still hasn't been answered. If the difference in resolution can't be perceived, then what's the point of Blu-ray/HD DVD?

The HD disk formats are a blessing because not all of us view content at the same distance. The ability of the eye to perceive differences in resolution are distance based and it's certainly possible to sit close enough to see picture structure with 480p or 720p. It's also nice to have a content format that meets or exceeds the capabilities of the displays available so that the displays don't have to "create" picture information to display at their native resolutions.
brentsg is offline  
post #650 of 1468 Old 09-04-2007, 04:21 PM
Senior Member
 
jackc04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 487
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Ah, but I did respond to a couple points you made. You stated:

"Because of this, no study of this issue that doesn't begin with double blind testing(or some other form of testing) can be considered scientific."

My response addressed that statement - I think you're trying to apply the wrong scientific discipline in this case.

And then you added a little personal attack by claiming that there was an aspect of partisan agenda (or "dogma" as you stated), mixed into all this:

"instead of taking a truly scientific approach to this issue, people are making assumptions about what data we would find if we actually ran an experiment. This is not science, it's dogma."

That was a pretty nifty ad hominem I must say. I wanted to clarify that I have no partisan agenda. Ideally, we should be able to talk about this stuff with no personal attacks whatsoever, and just stick to the facts.

As for your Mona Lisa example, you are trying to build a case that in some instances one can perceive the difference between 1080p and 720p at distances significantly farther than the Bale chart, right? I did read your whole post, but I just don't agree with it. I question your reasoning here:

"Many of these details may be visible in the real painting from the established viewing distance, but are simply lost in the transfer to 3mp photo due to the resolution capabilities. "

Your whole thesis is dependent upon that single point. Are you trying to say that the down scaling process can introduce artifacts into an image that are objectionable? That to me is a leap. You have not backed that up.

Its also apples and oranges. I thought we were talking about visual acuity of the eye, not scaling capability. I have no hard data to back it up, but I've seen enough 1080i on 1366x768 TVs to know that the down scaling is pretty good - I don't see any objectionable artifacts.
jackc04 is offline  
post #651 of 1468 Old 09-04-2007, 05:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,849
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 223
1080 is a larger number than 720.

Case forever closed!
Artwood is offline  
post #652 of 1468 Old 09-04-2007, 05:46 PM
Member
 
easyjacksn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackc04 View Post

Ah, but I did respond to a couple points you made. You stated:

"Because of this, no study of this issue that doesn't begin with double blind testing(or some other form of testing) can be considered scientific."

My response addressed that statement - I think you're trying to apply the wrong scientific discipline in this case.

How so? My main point was that science begins by gathering data, then goes on to explain the data. That is how the scientific method is structured:

1) Observation
2) Hypothesis
3) Prediction
4) Experimentation

All you and others seem to be doing is step 3 -- Prediction. That is not science. That is not even remotely science. It is dogmatism.

Quote:


And then you added a little personal attack by claiming that there was an aspect of partisan agenda (or "dogma" as you stated), mixed into all this:

"instead of taking a truly scientific approach to this issue, people are making assumptions about what data we would find if we actually ran an experiment. This is not science, it's dogma."

That was a pretty nifty ad hominem I must say. I wanted to clarify that I have no partisan agenda. Ideally, we should be able to talk about this stuff with no personal attacks whatsoever, and just stick to the facts.

I'm not sure why you think I was attacking you; I was merely pointing out the dogmatic approach that people in general seem to be taking on this issue.

Quote:


As for your Mona Lisa example, you are trying to build a case that in some instances one can perceive the difference between 1080p and 720p at distances significantly farther than the Bale chart, right?

Wrong. I am pointing out that visual acuity may not be the only factor involved in perceiving different resolutions. I agree that at certain distances, pixellation ceases to be detrimental to PQ; however, it only follows from this that different resolutions are indistinguishable if pixellation is the only factor in resolution differences. Someone will have to show this to be true. I'm not trying to prove that 1080 is better -- I don't know if it's better. I'm trying to point out the dogmatic thinking that seems to be permeating this issue.

Quote:


Your whole thesis is dependent upon that single point. Are you trying to say that the down scaling process can introduce artifacts into an image that are objectionable? That to me is a leap. You have not backed that up.

No. Please reread that second paragraph. I'm saying that the data loss from downscaling an original higher resolution image may include detail that would have been visible "at distances significantly farther than the Bale chart"(to borrow a phrase from you). Pieces of the picture are definitely lost during downscaling, and those pieces might impact visual quality at lower resolutions. I'm suggesting the possibility that visual acuity is not the sole factor in resolution distinction since no one else seems to be doing so.

Quote:


Its also apples and oranges. I thought we were talking about visual acuity of the eye, not scaling capability. I have no hard data to back it up, but I've seen enough 1080i on 1366x768 TVs to know that the down scaling is pretty good - I don't see any objectionable artifacts.

Again, I'm not referring to artifacts. I'm referring to data loss. And by responding that you personally don't see anything objectionable, you're engaging in "personal bias", no?
easyjacksn is offline  
post #653 of 1468 Old 09-04-2007, 05:46 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
Artwood stated
"1080 is a larger number than 720."

And 60 is higher than 24.....

And 1080 sets must fill in over 1 million pixels to 4 720p networks!
Nice try for a cheap shot... not on my time!


The larger number also became irrelavant when it met the max resolution of the eye!

"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 #654 of 1468 Old 09-04-2007, 06:02 PM
Member
 
easyjacksn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor View Post

The larger number also became irrelavant when it met the max resolution of the eye!

It is irrelevant to pixellation. Is this the only factor? How do you know?

(I'm honestly asking, I want to know)
easyjacksn is offline  
post #655 of 1468 Old 09-05-2007, 12:57 AM
Moderator
 
Woodrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 6,673
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Posts removed, again. Please stop bickering/attacking one another.

thank you
Woodrow is offline  
post #656 of 1468 Old 09-05-2007, 10:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,849
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 223
What resolution is reality? The eye seems to be able to see that. Is it never more than 720p?
Artwood is offline  
post #657 of 1468 Old 09-05-2007, 10:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cajieboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Space Coast, Florida
Posts: 4,433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

What resolution is reality? The eye seems to be able to see that. Is it never more than 720p?

Nope. At this stage in video tech, the only positive of buying a 768p display is that it's cheaper. People are basically now trying to justify buying on the cheap. That's fine if it works for you.
cajieboy is offline  
post #658 of 1468 Old 09-05-2007, 11:35 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
CruelInventions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 4,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

What resolution is reality? The eye seems to be able to see that. Is it never more than 720p?

Ha. Ostensibly, this appears to be a clever and viable argument, but it's not very legitimate when you inspect it more closely. Just as you aren't necessarily seeing every detail that is appearing on a screen before you, you are not seeing every detail of the objects that appear before you in real life (your proximity to the real world objects varies the degree of viewable detail, of course). And if you want to get really messy about it.. the human eye is limited to just the visible light spectrum. If we were truly seeing "reality", we'd be seeing all the other spectrum's too.


In any case, I've seen you acknowledge on several occasions that 1080p really demands a reasonably large screen to warrant it's higher resolution benefits. Nobody in their right mind would deny it's benefits for those applications.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cajieboy View Post

Nope. At this stage in video tech, the only positive of buying a 768p display is that it's cheaper. People are basically now trying to justify buying on the cheap. That's fine if it works for you.

If a person is in a viewing circumstance in which they will rarely be able to benefit from the 1080p, and there are still enough of those situations in the viewer marketplace, they would be a little crazy to spend what for some is a significant enough amount of extra cash for the upgrade over 786p. So yes, buying on the cheap absolutely works for many. It's a smart consumer play, repeating once again for the millionth time I'm sure, for some situations. No one has ever claimed otherwise.

When prices are close enough or the same, sure, even those people will opt for the 1080p. why not? Can't hurt and it might to turn out to be useful should they ever alter their viewing environment to take advantage of the extra resolution.

Anyway, this is nothing you haven't heard before cajieboy. You've been around long enough to hear all the arguments, so I doubt anything will alter you viewpoint at this stage. So lets drop the dance, shall we?

.. and with that, ends my single quarterly participation post in this endlessly repetitious thread topic. carry on, folks! and try to be nice or no dessert for you!

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 offline  
post #659 of 1468 Old 09-05-2007, 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by cajieboy View Post

Nope. At this stage in video tech, the only positive of buying a 768p display is that it's cheaper. People are basically now trying to justify buying on the cheap. That's fine if it works for you.


At this stage of the game there are people that realize that 480 converts to 1 million pixels better than to 2 million and it doesn't add more gaps to the 720 signal than there are pixels in that 720p signal.

As far as the 1080 signal....... all the reaches and examples ( numbers artifacts) shown to be irrelevant in demonstrative independent tests ...no differences in side to side tests with the eyes being the deciding factor. "Practically impossible to tell" seemed to be a common denominator in results.


CruelInventions posted
"Anyway, this is nothing you haven't heard before cajieboy. You've been around long enough to hear all the arguments, so I doubt anything will alter you viewpoint at this stage. So lets drop the dance, shall we?"


Like the above quote says...
You want to keep repeating the same stuff for another 600 posts? I will.

There is also something going here that I will bite my tongue about it ... for now.... To whom it applies ... you know what I mean!

"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 #660 of 1468 Old 09-05-2007, 01:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cajieboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Space Coast, Florida
Posts: 4,433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Yeah Cruel, this topic has been chewed over more times than I care to count, and more than enough slide-rule explanations to choke a horse. BTW, Good post. I just know what I plan to buy for my next HT Upgrade, no doubt about it, and I know what I'll recommend to anyone else who cares to ask me.
cajieboy is offline  
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

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