Official "1080p Vs. 720p" Thread Discussion - Page 37 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1081 of 1468 Old 03-01-2009, 12:31 AM
Member
 
matticus008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowbox View Post

It doesn't seem fair for reviewers to say blanket statements like," If you are buying a flat panel under 50" don't worry about 1080p, because it won't make a difference at normal viewing distances."

On the contrary, as you yourself admit ("While the extra resolution in a 1080p screen won't make a difference under 50" screen size") that particular form of "blanket" statement is simple math.

Your point that there tends to be correlation between 1080p sets and better electronics works both ways, as mkoesel has hinted at. The question of 1080p remains irrelevant, and the question you are highlighting is which set uses the best image processing. That is a totally separate question and it does not do anyone any good to conflate the issues.

The issue is not that you should specifically hunt out a 720p set at the relevant viewing distances; rather, it's that you should not use that particular specification as an element of comparison, either to favor or disfavor a particular model. If a good quality television in your budget supports 1080p, that's great, but that fact isn't itself worthy of "points" toward the end decision (unless you are considering a future change in room configuration that might bring you inside the 1080 window, in which case, you have to incorporate that possibility into your end decision).
Quote:
While the extra resolution in a 1080p screen won't make a difference under 50" screen size, it doesn't mean that you won't notice a difference between a 46" 720p screen and a 46" 1080p screen at 11 feet away.

If the only difference between two models is the 720 vs. 1080, then on the contrary, that's exactly what that means. You're talking about a difference other than the resolution of the panel making a difference in image quality: onboard electronics.
Quote:
I would bet that most entry level 720p screens use cheaper scalers, etc.

Now we get into the improper blanket statements. It is sometimes the case that cheaper components all around are combined with cheaper 720p panels to make the budget displays.

However, it is equally common to see (and in the majority of cases with upper-tier brands) that the reason that the television has been placed in the budget line is because of the lower cost of the panel, with the television using otherwise identical processing hardware to models higher in the lineup.

This is doubly true with plasma televisions, which rely on highly expensive PDPs, for which the price difference between the total number of cells is greater than for LCD production methods. Bargain brands are the ones to watch out for, since they cannot further reduce the PDP costs and thus must cut corners in the electronics in order to undercut Pioneer, Samsung, etc.
Quote:
In both cases, it's not the resolution that makes a difference. It's the quality of the electronics. And that is really what you are paying for.

Precisely why using resolution as a stand-in for overall quality is an error.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post

If you look at any manucaturers flat panel display lineup today, you'll see the 720p models positioned at or near the bottom with fewer features

This is becoming increasingly true, with the caveat that most 720 models surviving as of 2009 are simply 1080 models with swapped-out panels, sharing electronics from some portion of the 1080 model line. In terms of electronics, there is usually the "mainline" equipment and the "premium" equipment, with all 720 and most 1080 sets using mainline hardware, and selected model lines using premium parts. There's not a special super-gutted set of electronics on top of that for the ultra-low end in most cases.

It isn't economically efficient to further degrade component quality, because it adds complexity to the logistics, engineering, and manufacturing, all of which eats directly into profit.

More often, the fewer features are in the form of missing components or actively disabled functionality (e.g. the USB ports on lower-end models lacking the necessary firmware to implement photo/music/video playback, though the hardware is present). It's cheaper to do it this way. Combined with the standard practice of having more "fuzzy" tolerances on the lower-end products such that they allow a higher rate of defects through at every stage, this is what makes most low-end products cheaper and thus geared to the low end.
matticus008 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1082 of 1468 Old 03-05-2009, 11:00 AM
Member
 
PatEllis15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'd love to get some feedback on my situation:

Until recently I wasn't giving ANY consideration to a 720P TV. Now I'm thinking about it...

My viewing distance is about 11-12 feet.

I have no short term (at least 1 year, perhaps 2...) plans on purchasing a Blu-Ray player

I have an XBOX 360

I'll be using the 360 as the DVD player (Which I hear isn't the best DVD upconverter)

I plan to buy a "very good" receiver that will upgrade my DVD signal to the TV.
I watch mostly sports, so I'm leaning away from LCD for fear of motion blur (as well is more reports of lag issues when gamig).

My plan was the buy the 50 inch 85u or 800u from Panasonic. Then I was lookig at the G10 and V10 (also 50 inch). I don't have the cash to pull the trigger today.

So, now my thought is, should I just get the 50 inch X10, as I could probably pull the trigger much faster (as the set is about $1000 less than the G10).

I'm otherwise probably looking at waiting at least six more motnhs before I pull the trigger.

I wish that the X10 was the NEO PDP... I also which it had the THX certification, etc etc.

I won't have ANY native 1080P source material for 12-24 months.


So, price vs. performance with my setup/viewing range.

Thoughts?
PatEllis15 is offline  
post #1083 of 1468 Old 03-05-2009, 02:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
StinDaWg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 263 Post(s)
Liked: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatEllis15 View Post

I wish that the X10 was the NEO PDP... I also which it had the THX certification, etc etc.

D-Nice has a source who says the X1 is basically a "crippled" NeoPDP. Not sure what that means yet but it could have the same kind of picture quality without the brightness of the Neo sets. Look for his review in the next couple of days.
StinDaWg is offline  
post #1084 of 1468 Old 03-06-2009, 10:47 AM
Member
 
Research71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 28
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Wow PatEllis15....your predicament is the SAME as mine! All things are the same, with the exception of the x-box. We do not have one of those. I've been struggling with the 720p vs 1080p for a few months. If I were going to buy today, I would get the 46" S1 Panasonic series (new in March 09). Stores don't even have them in stock right now, but list price is $1499.95. Hopefully I can find a good sale to get closer to the $1k I had in mind. But if not, I think I'll save a little longer. One of my favorite quotes is "Don't sacrifice what you want most for what you want now". I'm willing to go from 50" to 46" (not a big diff IMHO). But I think I will regret getting a 720p if I get a BluRay in a year or 2. And hubby will not agree to buy a different TV for resolution! Also, I think the NeoPDP is a feature that will be worth having. I have time to save more and keep researching, but this is where I stand now...
I would welcome comments, thoughts, ideas....
Research71 is offline  
post #1085 of 1468 Old 03-06-2009, 11:16 AM
Advanced Member
 
mlang46's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Posts: 905
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by CruelInventions View Post

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 )

I am in a unique position to judge whether 1080p is better than 720p . I owned a sim2 ht300 720P and replaced it with a sim2 HT380 and on 1080 p material on a wide screen 49 by 115 and I can say with out a doubt the 1080p was dramatically better

Both chips are dark chip3

as an optical engineer I am aware of the 1 minute arc resolution limit for 20/20 and the fact that past the fovea the acuity drops rapidly where at 10 degrees it is only 6 arc minutes under ideal conditions. it is important to distinguish between seeing and resolving. The eye can see a line which subtends less than one arc sec but it can not resolve two lines that close together. This means you can probably detect edge sharpness much better than one arc minute

Those resolution numbers came from old army letter charts and are not directly related to how we perceive images.
mlang46 is offline  
post #1086 of 1468 Old 03-06-2009, 11:33 AM
Member
 
Research71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 28
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlang46 View Post

Ias an optical engineer I am aware of the 1 minute arc resolution limit for 20/20 and the fact that past the fovea the acuity drops rapidly where at 10 degrees it is only 6 arc minutes under ideal conditions. it is important to distinguish between seeing and resolving. The eye can see a line which subtends less than one arc sec but it can not resolve two lines that close together. This means you can probably detect edge sharpness much better than one arc minute


Huh??? Who else feels "dumb" after reading that?? Hopefully someone understands it! Your knowledge is impressive, but WAY over my head. Makes me wonder why I'm even trying to research this stuff...way out of my league....I'll just buy a tv that plugs into the wall and be done with it....HA!
Research71 is offline  
post #1087 of 1468 Old 03-14-2009, 09:47 AM
"Don't PM Me Bro"
 
RandyWalters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: El Segundo, Calif
Posts: 17,491
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked: 476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Research71 View Post

Huh??? Who else feels "dumb" after reading that?? Hopefully someone understands it! Your knowledge is impressive, but WAY over my head. Makes me wonder why I'm even trying to research this stuff...way out of my league....I'll just buy a tv that plugs into the wall and be done with it....HA!

Actually the primary decision to choose either a 768p set or a 1080p set is very simple to make - measure off your exact viewing distance at home then go to some stores, get up real close to a 768p set (like 2 feet away) and visually identify the Screen Door Effect (SDE) so you know what it looks like. Now slowly back away from the screen until the SDE starts to disappear and becomes no longer visible. Measure off this exact distance and see if your home seating position is within this range or not. Everybody has different eyesight so for some people the SDE is only visible at up to 6 or 7 feet, while for others (like me) it's visible at up to 10 feet and beyond and it ruins the image quality for me. I have one of each and i much prefer to watch the 1080p set over my 768p set. Another by-product of a 1080p set is that they tend to have better processing, better edge detail, and often have better colors and black levels and this all amounts to a more natural looking image even beyond the range of visible SDE.

The bottom line is that if you can personally see the SDE at your viewing distance, get the 1080p model instead. In this day and age, i think the only reason someone should pick a 768p set over a 1080p set is if they just can't afford the higher price of the 1080p model.

Randy
TC-P55ST60, TC-P50GT50, TC-P46G10, TH-42PZ700U, TH-42PX50U, HP LC2600N, TiVo Series3, TWC Cisco 8742HDC DVR, Onkyo TX-SR333, URC R40 Remote.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Gallery -
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
RandyWalters is offline  
post #1088 of 1468 Old 03-14-2009, 01:39 PM
Member
 
matticus008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
A set of problematic assumptions here that absolutely require more precision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyWalters View Post

Everybody has different eyesight so for some people the SDE is only visible at up to 6 or 7 feet, while for others (like me) it's visible at up to 10 feet and beyond and it ruins the image quality for me.

This kind of assessment is of no value without stating screen size. For the majority of HDTVs sold, SDE at 10 feet is a physical impossibility. Bear in mind that setups here skew larger and more expensive than reality. Most people do not buy 58" HDTVs.
Quote:


Another by-product of a 1080p set is that they tend to have better processing, better edge detail, and often have better colors and black levels

Again a conflation of two very different issues, and one commonly and distressingly made by veteran posters. The image processing quality has much more to do with the price point of the overall television, and in terms of 2009 models, you can be sure than a 720p set is not going to have the manufacturer's best image processing. But you cannot move from a name brand manufacturer to a generic manufacturer and preserve that kind of assessment.

Telling people that 1080p TVs are likely based on their panel resolution to have better overall pictures is simply wrong. There's no other way to slice it.

Panel resolution and panel electronics are entirely separate issues. If you want to go with a rule of thumb, cheap HDTVs tend to be either 720p or with comparatively low-end electronics (or both), but one still has no bearing on the other. The kind of statement you and many others are making, however, is likely to guide someone to purchase, unnecessarily and in sacrifice of actual technical quality, a generic 1080p HDTV over a similarly budget-friendly 720p HDTV of higher actual quality from a reputable brand.
Quote:


In this day and age, i think the only reason someone should pick a 768p set over a 1080p set is if they just can't afford the higher price of the 1080p model.

Absolutely, with the caveat being that the two models in question must be within the same brand, or same tier of brands.
matticus008 is offline  
post #1089 of 1468 Old 03-14-2009, 02:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
frito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: east SF bay area, ca
Posts: 3,395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
1080p is never wasted as long as your tv is 32"+ even if you dont sit close to a set as small as a 32" its still definately worth having 1080p imho

If you're a gamer or interested in using an LCD TV as a primary monitor take a look at my thread on
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
frito is offline  
post #1090 of 1468 Old 03-17-2009, 07:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kini62's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 2,958
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 120 Post(s)
Liked: 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatEllis15 View Post

I'd love to get some feedback on my situation:

Until recently I wasn't giving ANY consideration to a 720P TV. Now I'm thinking about it...

My viewing distance is about 11-12 feet.

I have no short term (at least 1 year, perhaps 2...) plans on purchasing a Blu-Ray player

I have an XBOX 360

I'll be using the 360 as the DVD player (Which I hear isn't the best DVD upconverter)

I plan to buy a "very good" receiver that will upgrade my DVD signal to the TV.
I watch mostly sports, so I'm leaning away from LCD for fear of motion blur (as well is more reports of lag issues when gamig).

My plan was the buy the 50 inch 85u or 800u from Panasonic. Then I was lookig at the G10 and V10 (also 50 inch). I don't have the cash to pull the trigger today.

So, now my thought is, should I just get the 50 inch X10, as I could probably pull the trigger much faster (as the set is about $1000 less than the G10).

I'm otherwise probably looking at waiting at least six more motnhs before I pull the trigger.

I wish that the X10 was the NEO PDP... I also which it had the THX certification, etc etc.

I won't have ANY native 1080P source material for 12-24 months.


So, price vs. performance with my setup/viewing range.

Thoughts?

I have a Panasonic 50" 720 set that I have my Xbox connected to. I sit a little closer than you are planning to. DirecTV HD looks fantastic.

Xbox360 games look great. And so do the DVDs coming from it. I have no complaints and without a BluRay player there is no way you'll be able to tell the difference. Then even with a BluRay player it's unlikely you would be able to tell any difference from that viewing distance.

Klipsch RF-62II, RC-500, RS-400, SVS PC12+,
Def Tech SC8000
Harman Kardon AVR 1600
PS3, Apple TV, Sharp 70" Qattron
Kini62 is offline  
post #1091 of 1468 Old 03-18-2009, 12:59 AM
Member
 
dblang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by matticus008 View Post

A set of problematic assumptions here that absolutely require more precision.

This kind of assessment is of no value without stating screen size. For the majority of HDTVs sold, SDE at 10 feet is a physical impossibility. Bear in mind that setups here skew larger and more expensive than reality. Most people do not buy 58" HDTVs.

The average person can see SDE on a 50" monitor out to 6 or 7 feet but some people have better than average vision (e.g. Ted Williams had 20/10 vision). A person with 20/10 vision would be able to see the SDE at twice the distance as the average person so it is not a "physical impossibility".
dblang is offline  
post #1092 of 1468 Old 03-18-2009, 10:29 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
CruelInventions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 4,526
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by frito View Post

1080p is never wasted as long as your tv is 32"+ even if you dont sit close to a set as small as a 32" its still definately worth having 1080p imho

thanks for sharing without reading any part of this thread. and if you have, speechless...

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 #1093 of 1468 Old 03-18-2009, 10:37 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
CruelInventions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 4,526
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlang46 View Post

I am in a unique position to judge whether 1080p is better than 720p . I owned a sim2 ht300 720P and replaced it with a sim2 HT380 and on 1080 p material on a wide screen 49 by 115 and I can say with out a doubt the 1080p was dramatically better

Interesting pts. from the parts of your post I've edited out, but as far as your above comments, I don't think anyone has denied the benefit of 1080p for projector sized screens. It's not even a topic of debate within this thread. In other words, quit looking for trouble where there is none.

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 #1094 of 1468 Old 03-18-2009, 04:17 PM
Member
 
matticus008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dblang View Post

The average person can see SDE on a 50" monitor out to 6 or 7 feet but some people have better than average vision (e.g. Ted Williams had 20/10 vision). A person with 20/10 vision would be able to see the SDE at twice the distance as the average person so it is not a "physical impossibility".

Again, imprecise and incorrect. A 50" television is still larger than the majority of units sold, and a person with 20/10 vision will not be able to see SDE at twice the distance because that's not how optics work when you start to get into emissive displays.

More to the point, however, the reason screen size is important is because larger screens have greater pixel pitch as a consequence of the way panels are assembled. SDE is caused by the gaps between pixels. Having a 1080p television does not itself mean that the pixels are closer together than on a 720p television. Just as nearly all computer monitors have a pixel pitch of approximately 0.3mm or less, whether the resolution is 1280x800 or 2560x1600, television pixel pitch is dictated by manufacturing/mechanical concerns and not pixel size. It is certainly the case, however, that the most aggressive pixel pitch is likely to be found on the most expensive displays--but again, that's restating the fundamental problem with many posters in this thread.

The comparison they want to make is between premium 1080p sets and entry-level 720p sets, making all kinds of fallacious claims about SDE, onboard electronics, image clarity, and panel quality. None of that is at issue when comparing two entry-level displays at the same price, one of which is 720 and the other is 1080. In fact, the "1080 tends to have better..." argument really falls apart here because if the two products are the same price, the 1080 one has a significantly more expensive panel, and that cost has to be absorbed somewhere.

But back to the immediate topic, you are again confusing several distinct issues. A person with 20/20 vision is able to resolve one minute of arc at 20 feet--not a glowing object like a television pixel, not an image effect less than a quarter-millimeter across, but a spatial pattern. That would be visible at twice the distance with 20/10 vision.

Even if we're to ignore the "bloom" effect of a glowing object (a rather generous concession to your argument), SDE is physically perceptible with 20/20 vision on a 50" screen, assuming a 0.8mm pixel pitch, at a maximum distance of 6.6 feet, whether the display is 1080p or 720p. A person with 20/10 vision would not in reality be able to move twice as far away and still see the empty space, again due to bloom and because flat acuity is only half of what makes SDE visible--the other part is motion sensitivity.

Once you drop into the size category of the majority of HDTV sales (46" and under), and into the lesser pixel pitch therein (~0.5mm and under), the 20/20 distance, again ignoring the bloom effect, is 5.2 feet. Even hypothetically granting your faulty 20/10 in two eyes sees SDE at double the distance proposal, that is only 10.4 feet.

Add in the bloom effect and the cognitive elements of SDE and that distance drops quite clearly below 10 feet, even for someone with the exceptionally rare combination of having 20/10 vision in two eyes and Ted Williams-level cognitive perception. In other words, physically impossible, just as originally, and much more briefly, stated.
matticus008 is offline  
post #1095 of 1468 Old 03-19-2009, 11:04 AM
Senior Member
 
lpfactor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Although the discussion of 720P and 1080p is very important, I was wondering where one can obtain sound evaluations of the quality of electronics of displays, plasma in particular.
I find the determination of 1080 versus 720 to be insufficient without knowing something more other features of a plasma. Are there specific threads here or sites where such reviews and evaluations about the electronics are considered?
lpfactor is offline  
post #1096 of 1468 Old 03-19-2009, 05:19 PM
Member
 
matticus008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by lpfactor View Post

Although the discussion of 720P and 1080p is very important, I was wondering where one can obtain sound evaluations of the quality of electronics of displays, plasma in particular.
I find the determination of 1080 versus 720 to be insufficient without knowing something more other features of a plasma. Are there specific threads here or sites where such reviews and evaluations about the electronics are considered?

Unfortunately, because this equipment varies from manufacturer to manufacturer, and even among model lines within a single manufacturer, the only way to get advance information is through individual reviews of specific television series (all models of a series will generally have the same onboard electronics, features, and performance, apart from panel size/supplier). They will discuss black levels, sharpness, color accuracy, and the other performance aspects you might care about.

The best way, of course, is to see for yourself in person. Once you narrow it down to 3 models or so, ask them to connect a Blu-ray or DVD player directly to the models you're considering, and test the same scene on each.

Very little information is disclosed to the public about the onboard electronics used (because the general public would mostly be incapable of making a comparison), and a lot about image "quality" is subjective. Actual image quality, with respect to reference standards, is much more objective, but that's not what "looks better" to many consumers. It's about the product that makes you satisfied.

That's the big problem with the "specs race"--coupled with, as frequently evidenced here, people lacking in their understanding of the relevance of those specifications.
matticus008 is offline  
post #1097 of 1468 Old 03-23-2009, 10:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
HarrisonS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,473
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by lpfactor View Post

Although the discussion of 720P and 1080p is very important, I was wondering where one can obtain sound evaluations of the quality of electronics of displays, plasma in particular.
I find the determination of 1080 versus 720 to be insufficient without knowing something more other features of a plasma. Are there specific threads here or sites where such reviews and evaluations about the electronics are considered?

Good point! Actually there are magazine reviews (eg., Home Theater, Sound & Vision, PC Magazine and others) in which the reviewers give details for the specific sets they are reviewing. Some time back, Home Theater magazine even published a long list of displays giving the test results for each. You might also periodically check hdguru http://www.hdguru.com/. After reading reviews for a while you can get a general impression of which brands tend to have the best and worst electronic processing. I have noticed that, among major brands, Pioneer and Sony tend to have the best processing, and Sharp the worst. Panasonic and Samsung tend to fall somewhere in the middle. However these are generalizations and there may be exceptions. If you have the time, it is wise to wait until one of these magazines reviews the particular model you are considering, or one that is very similar (i.e., the same make and line, but in a different size), before "pulling the trigger".
HarrisonS is offline  
post #1098 of 1468 Old 03-23-2009, 05:56 PM
Senior Member
 
lpfactor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks with appreciation to both HarrisonS and Matticus008 for their advice. I found some good clues and information at HD guru and will consult with the other sources mentioned. It looks as if it is worth some investigation time to form a specs/needs list/economic constraint matrix.
lpfactor is offline  
post #1099 of 1468 Old 03-23-2009, 06:45 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
My Panasonic PX500u still puts these new 1080p panels to shame..ok maybe not all of them.
Still, SDE is minimal and it just goes to show you that it's not all about specs with a panel.
I would go 1080p no question if I were buying now.
My next panel will be at least a 60" to make the most of 1080p.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


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 #1100 of 1468 Old 03-24-2009, 05:01 PM
Senior Member
 
duffman13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
it depends on your price point. at the point i bought last xmas i had a hard ceiling of $1k and ended up with a panny 50" px80. I was on the fence between the 50" px80 and the 42" PZ80, but ultimately size was the deciding factor for me at my viewing distance (10ft).

Most people in this day and age looking at 768p displays are looking at less expensive displays and are often shopping between manufacturers as well jus tlooking for the best deal. Getting the 768p panny or sammy is going to be a better than getting a 1080p insignia or vizio of the same size at a certain price point regardless. whether you want to trade size for resolution like i did is a personal choice.

If i did it again i probably would have compromised and payed $100 or so more for the 46" pz80 since i do have a PS3 and watch blu ray now, but I have no real complaints about my display and have gotten nothign but compliments on it.
duffman13 is offline  
post #1101 of 1468 Old 03-24-2009, 10:40 PM
Senior Member
 
DaveC19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatEllis15 View Post

I'd love to get some feedback on my situation:

Until recently I wasn't giving ANY consideration to a 720P TV. Now I'm thinking about it...

My viewing distance is about 11-12 feet.

I have no short term (at least 1 year, perhaps 2...) plans on purchasing a Blu-Ray player

I have an XBOX 360

I'll be using the 360 as the DVD player (Which I hear isn't the best DVD upconverter)

I plan to buy a "very good" receiver that will upgrade my DVD signal to the TV.
I watch mostly sports, so I'm leaning away from LCD for fear of motion blur (as well is more reports of lag issues when gamig).

My plan was the buy the 50 inch 85u or 800u from Panasonic. Then I was lookig at the G10 and V10 (also 50 inch). I don't have the cash to pull the trigger today.

So, now my thought is, should I just get the 50 inch X10, as I could probably pull the trigger much faster (as the set is about $1000 less than the G10).

I'm otherwise probably looking at waiting at least six more motnhs before I pull the trigger.

I wish that the X10 was the NEO PDP... I also which it had the THX certification, etc etc.

I won't have ANY native 1080P source material for 12-24 months.


So, price vs. performance with my setup/viewing range.

Thoughts?


Here is another thought. Since you have an Xbox 360 all games output natively at 720p (most all PS3 games are 720P too but PS3 lacks VGA out, so no 1:1 pixel mapping on most sets). If you connect your 360 via VGA through the PC input and set your 720 set to 1:1 pixel mapping (you will probably get a small black border as most sets are slightly more than 1280 x 720) you will get no scaling and it will look like PC with it's super sharp edges. As soon as something is scaled either up or down edges will become slightly fuzzy (you can see this on an LCD computer monitor if it is set to something other than native res). This is not that noticeable in movies but is VERY noticeable in games because of their relatively hard clean edges and detail. An Xbox 360 through VGA inputs at 1:1 pixel mapping is razor sharp, it is quite stunning.


I would be sure to get a set with VGA inputs.
DaveC19 is offline  
post #1102 of 1468 Old 03-25-2009, 12:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
StinDaWg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 263 Post(s)
Liked: 158
Or you can just get a 1080p tv, set your xbox 360 to 1080p and have 1:1 pixel mapping through hdmi.
StinDaWg is offline  
post #1103 of 1468 Old 03-25-2009, 12:51 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 StinDaWg View Post

Or you can just get a 1080p tv, set your xbox 360 to 1080p and have 1:1 pixel mapping through hdmi.

I think DaveC19 was talking about avoiding scaling altogether though. Few XB360 games render at 1080p (in fact I don't know if any do) so you'd always be upscaling. And if you ran a 1080p display at 1:1 with a 720p signal, you'd be wasting a lot of screen space. A typical 720p display at 1366x768 would waste little space with 1:1 pixel mapped 720p (1280x720) signal.

Of course, the other thing is, the post he replied to mentioned Panasonic plasmas, none of which support 1:1 other than at native resolution. Furthermore, no consumer 720p Panasonic plasmas have a VGA port anyway. And the consumer 1080p Panasonic plasmas that have a VGA port don't support 1080p input through it (that may sound like madness but is 100% true).

Plus, I am skeptical that the upconversion from 720p to 1080p would do much to harm the picture quality anyway.
mkoesel is offline  
post #1104 of 1468 Old 04-01-2009, 12:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
StinDaWg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 263 Post(s)
Liked: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post

I think DaveC19 was talking about avoiding scaling altogether though. Few XB360 games render at 1080p (in fact I don't know if any do) so you'd always be upscaling. And if you ran a 1080p display at 1:1 with a 720p signal, you'd be wasting a lot of screen space. A typical 720p display at 1366x768 would waste little space with 1:1 pixel mapped 720p (1280x720) signal.

Of course, the other thing is, the post he replied to mentioned Panasonic plasmas, none of which support 1:1 other than at native resolution. Furthermore, no consumer 720p Panasonic plasmas have a VGA port anyway. And the consumer 1080p Panasonic plasmas that have a VGA port don't support 1080p input through it (that may sound like madness but is 100% true).

Plus, I am skeptical that the upconversion from 720p to 1080p would do much to harm the picture quality anyway.

The Panasonics can do 1:1 at either 1080i/p. I find no problem running my 360 at 1080p, if anything it makes text a little sharper.

Regarding the upscaling thing, the picture is going to get upscaled either way. It just depends on if the xbox does the scaling or the tv does. If you send a 720p signal to the tv it still has to upconvert it to its native resolution.
StinDaWg is offline  
post #1105 of 1468 Old 04-01-2009, 01:49 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 StinDaWg View Post

The Panasonics can do 1:1 at either 1080i/p. I find no problem running my 360 at 1080p, if anything it makes text a little sharper.

Right, I should have said 1080p or 1080i. Basically any signal with a 1920x1080 spatial resolution.

Quote:
Regarding the upscaling thing, the picture is going to get upscaled either way. It just depends on if the xbox does the scaling or the tv does. If you send a 720p signal to the tv it still has to upconvert it to its native resolution.

1:1 means no scaling. In other words, you only use exactly as many pixels on the screen as are in the source. At 1:1, for any resolution spatially smaller than native, you will have unused pixels which should remain black. Most TVs today don't support this, but some do.

You would probably not want to do this with a 1080p display and a 720p signal because you are wasting so much of your screen. With a 1366x768 display though, you'd be wasting little. Would it be worth it? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how good the processing of the display (or the input device, if you are performing the scaling there) is.
mkoesel is offline  
post #1106 of 1468 Old 04-10-2009, 01:20 PM
Newbie
 
Traveler2530's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Yesterday afternoon I received and set up a 50" TH-50PX80U Panasonic Viera Plasma 720p. Sunday AM I paid $899 inclusive, i.e., no shipping or tax, from NewEgg.

It's really nice. The TV is 10' from our heads on the couch. I have to be 5' 6" from the screen to barely see the pixels, and 4' from the screen to see them as a nuisance when watching.

We played a 1080p DVD of "5th Element" through my HTPC, the picture was unbelievably beautiful, almost breathtaking.

My only complaint is when watching 4:3 programs, there are grey boxes on both sides. I'd rather the letter boxes all around be black.

The manual says I can turn the gray sidebars off so their black, but then I risk burn-in if I watch much more 4:3 TV than full 16:9 TV.

Is burn-in something I need to worry about?
Traveler2530 is offline  
post #1107 of 1468 Old 05-12-2009, 12:53 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
I had to revisit this thread to provide this unbias test by a body of people...

" The 720p/50 format showed better image quality than the 1080i/25 format for all sequences and
for all bitrates;
With decreasing bitrate in the compressed domain, the difference between the 720p/50 and
1080i/25 format became more marked;
The 1080p/50 format was rated equal or better than 720p/50 for the higher bitrates – the extent
depending on the test sequence. However, 720p/50 was rated better than 1080p/50 at the
lower bitrates."

"The demonstration suggests that a progressive format for emission provides the best image quality /
bitrate compromise with MPEG-4 AVC compression. EBU Members have already been advised in
EBU Recommendation R-112 that the 720p/50 emission format is currently the best option."

See the entire article here.

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_308-hdtv.pdf

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


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Sole_Survivor is offline  
post #1108 of 1468 Old 05-14-2009, 05:30 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
Thanks. That's interesting to me, especially the part where the 720 fared better under heavier compression. It probably explains why companies like Apple use 720p for AppleTV. They use very low bitrates (when compared to blu-ray), so that jives with the results found in the article you posted. That article got right to the heart of the 720p versus 1080p discussion.

However, the test conducted did have some flaws/shortcomings:

- The three displays used to display all content were a three year old Pioneer 1080p TV, set to 3% overscan (page 4, "Viewers were also informed about the approximate 3% over-scan of the displays.") The overscan hamstrung the 1080p content.
- The tests were not double blind. Test subjects brought their own prejudices into the mix.

In the conclusion section, this was said: "We believe that 1080p/50 in fact would be an ideal high-quality production format for the future".

I would be interested to see the tests done again, this time done scientifically (double blind), using modern displays with native resolution (720 content on a 720 TV, 1080 content on a 1080 TV) with no overscan. I'de also like to see them add the mpeg-2 compression that is used for OTA broadcast HD in the USA.
jackc04 is offline  
post #1109 of 1468 Old 05-15-2009, 08:03 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
I would agree a high bit 1080p signal would be great? But it still won't cut it for sports, the question is going to remain, is there still going to be a difference at a normal distance?
Most experts would say no. I ended up with a 26 inch 1080p for the PC, hooked up the 1080p HD DVD, nothing jumped out as being better from when I saw the movie on the 768 set.
I have concluded without a doubt that 720p is a far better signal than 1080i.
You will not be able to tell that on a 1080p set because you need 1080 to fill the set.
1080i pushed dark colors, unrealistic colors, like seeing green tones in someones suit, yellowish faces. 720p for some reason is warmer, but more real.
You also won't see a difference jumping from say National geographic 720p to a 1080i station on a 768 set. They have added a lot of 720p channels now. The richness / color of 720p is not appreciated as much on 1080p sets, because again, you need that 1080 signal to fill the set. Converting 1080i signals to 720p is wonderful.
They only way they can broadcast 1080p is a low bit one, and a DVR is needed. I doubt there will ever be high bit 1080p for all channels. If there was would anyone see the difference anyway at 9 feet. The article still chose 720p over low bit rate 1080p.
I think 720p/60 has stood the test, and has many qualities over 1080.

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


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Sole_Survivor is offline  
post #1110 of 1468 Old 05-15-2009, 05:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TomCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor View Post

I had to revisit this thread to provide this unbias test by a body of people...

"􀂁 The 720p/50 format showed better image quality than the 1080i/25 format for all sequences and
for all bitrates;
􀂁 With decreasing bitrate in the compressed domain, the difference between the 720p/50 and
1080i/25 format became more marked;
􀂁 The 1080p/50 format was rated equal or better than 720p/50 for the higher bitrates - the extent
depending on the test sequence. However, 720p/50 was rated better than 1080p/50 at the
lower bitrates."

"The demonstration suggests that a progressive format for emission provides the best image quality /
bitrate compromise with MPEG-4 AVC compression. EBU Members have already been advised in
EBU Recommendation R-112 that the 720p/50 emission format is currently the best option."

See the entire article here.

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_308-hdtv.pdf

It seems this is validation for certain things we've known all along:

1. The actual pixel rate of 720p is about 7/8ths that of 1080i. This is equivalent to the sheer amount of data required to be delivered over a unit of time, which directly affects how hard the encoder must work, or, if you prefer, how severe the encoding parameters must be set for an equivalent amount of artifacting, all else held equal.

2. In the world of MPEG encoding, interlaced content is slightly harder to compress with equivalent artifacting than progressive content is, again, all else held equal.

3. The threshold where artifacts become visible is logarithmic, meaning that an equal reduction in bit rate near the threshold of detection (which differs from viewer to viewer) may provide a larger increase in visible artifacts depending on how close to that threshold (and on what side of it) you designate the starting point.

That is a complicated way of saying that 1 and 2 above might not make much difference if there are lots of bits available (we are significantly below the threshold), will make a lot of difference if we are severely limiting the bits or are over compressing (continually at or over the threshold), and will make no visible difference at all when motion is low but will be visible to some when motion is high (hovering properly right at the threshold).

So the obvious conclusions would be fairly close to the observed report. IOW, when bit rate is plentiful, the artifact level is low for both, and then 1080i trumps 720p for static material due to higher resolution, assuming the source material actually HAS higher resolution, while this can be offset somewhat for content with motion, where 720p shines due to a faster field rate.

This picture changes when compression is high, as the higher level of artifacting for 1080i at such a rate greatly offsets any resolution advantage.

IOW, pretty much "what he said".

Compressionists take all of this into account when they originally compress a program in the production phase, but in the delivery phase, TV stations, networks, DBS/FIOS/cable providers unfortunately quite often use a "one-size-fits-all" approach, as they can't monitor and thereby tailor things for changing types of content or to fit within prescribed bandwidth allocations without some inevitable compromise.

The end result is some content gets secondarily compressed a little more than it should, and this will affect 1080i content more than it does 720p content, which explains the author's conclusion above.

There's no place like 127.0.0.1
TomCat 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