Official "1080p Vs. 720p" Thread Discussion - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 1468 Old 01-16-2007, 03:25 PM
Member
 
bd8653's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 197
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

Again, and as I said before, 1080p is primarily marketing hype.

Here's a link with a prominent manufacturer admitting that marketing/manipulation/brainwashing of the 1080p hype.

http://www.twice.com/article/CA6349229.html

For those of you who don't understand the implications of this article I might come back and break it down to you.


I don't see where they are admitting anything there really... I read the first three quarters, then scanned the rest as it mostly just sounded like what the projections are for the tvs through the end of they year. I agree that 1080p is mostly hype- and really only significant to those with 60" screens or bigger who use ps3/blu-ray/hddvd- as most everything else will just be 1080i (and compressed unless over the air) or less and at most seating distances the "improved" resolution isn't even noticeable/useful.
bd8653 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 1468 Old 01-16-2007, 03:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cajieboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Space Coast, Florida
Posts: 4,408
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

Again, and as I said before, 1080p is primarily marketing hype.

Here's a link with a prominent manufacturer admitting that marketing/manipulation/brainwashing of the 1080p hype.

http://www.twice.com/article/CA6349229.html

For those of you who don't understand the implications of this article I might come back and break it down to you.

Marketing hype? I don't think so. That link you provided is all about the "selling" of TV's & marketing them to do so. Very little about the actual video tech side of the equation. There IS a difference when you double the resolution in a display. But to see this increase in resolution, you need to sit at an appropriate distance in relation to your screen size. This is true for HD vs. SD/Analog too. The 1080p displays offer the best PQ improvement in their 50+" screen sizes. The larger the screen, the more beneficial to have 1080p. For you movie lovers out there, the Blu-Ray & HD-DVD players & disks offer the very best PQ available when displayed on a 1080p TV, and even though this brand new now, it will be the standard in 18-24 months. Another benefit of a 1080p display is for gamers that are upgrading to XBOX & PS3, as these games & players will 1080p which will require a 1080p TV to achieve the full PQ benefits. Another advantage to 1080p is in the area of HTPC, where 1080p is very important provided the display also has 1:1 pixel mapping & color space controls. In the near future, more & more people will be using 1080p displays w/their computers.

Of course, 1080p being the latest greatest to evolve out of video tech research & development, the pricing is a bit steep. Those prices are going to rapidly drop in a short time, so perhaps you may not want to be an "early adopter", but anyone that has been following this video tech development can easily see which is better.
cajieboy is offline  
post #183 of 1468 Old 01-16-2007, 04:19 PM
 
Auditor55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Silicon Valley, CA.
Posts: 8,795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:


The 1080p displays offer the best PQ improvement in their 50+" screen sizes.

Prove that claim. Present your scientific evidence.
Auditor55 is offline  
post #184 of 1468 Old 01-16-2007, 04:45 PM
Member
 
bd8653's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 197
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

Prove that claim. Present your scientific evidence.


I don't have "scientific evidence", other than 1080p is 2mega pixel and 720p is 1mega pixels.. which according to science (physics/math) 2 is twice as big as 1.
That being said here is an article 50+ inch displays..thumbs up for 1080p

and the portion of the article that talks about it:
SCREEN SIZE AND VIEWING DISTANCE

This may come as a surprise to some of you, but 1920x1080 isn't even necessary for many viewing environments. Over the past year, I've viewed a variety of 1080p displays (all showing 1080i content) at several distances. I have seen a noticeable improvement over 720p and 768p when viewing screens that measure 50 inches or larger, viewed at a maximum distance of 3x the screen height.

Sit farther away or use a smaller screen and you're not likely to see the difference. In fact, you might think in some cases that 720p content looks better than compressed 1080i content, given the tendency for the latter to exhibit mosquito noise and interlaced motion artifacts.
bd8653 is offline  
post #185 of 1468 Old 01-16-2007, 05:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brighton, MI
Posts: 2,489
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 300 Post(s)
Liked: 504
I agree with cajieboy. 1080 lines vs. 768 lines-- it's simple math-- a 1080 display is going to be sharper than a 768 display given you are viewing a 1080p source such as the PS3 or HDDVD. But he's really hit the nail on the head about size relative to viewing distance.

It really comes down to preference and what you are looking for your display to do. I personally do not see the benefit of 1080p in smaller (42" and less) sets UNLESS you plan on using your tv as your computer monitor. And then again for me and my viewing distance (37" 720p at about 6 feet) I didn't see the performance vs. price advantage when connecting to my pc-- in other words for half the price of a 1080p the 768 looks just fine to me

But note the people on this thread talking about BIG displays, 50+ and we really mean PLUS. If I want the most theater-like experience I go buy a 73" DLP and hook it to my BluRay player... at this point 1080 makes a BIG difference.

Speaking of preference the comments about color and contrast are good ones, and again it comes down to what you want your display to do. (Nevermind that this is really a discussion of display type rather than display resolution) The increased contrast of Plasma is a HUGE advantage over LCD at any size. In terms of overall picture quality I would take a 42" or 46" 720p plasma over a 1080p LCD of equal size any day. But Plasma is simply no good as a computer display and not a good idea for video games (and I don't care what anyone says about burn-in being a non-factor, you really wanna risk your $1500+ display go ahead) so my movie viewing takes a hit... oh well that's my preference.

"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love."

--Carl Sagan
sage11x is offline  
post #186 of 1468 Old 01-22-2007, 06:51 PM
Member
 
gubbi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post

But note the people on this thread talking about BIG displays, 50+ and we really mean PLUS. If I want the most theater-like experience I go buy a 73" DLP and hook it to my BluRay player... at this point 1080 makes a BIG difference.

As you said yourself, depends entirely on viewing distance. The point of dimishing return is when a pixel covers an angle smaller than one arc-minute.

For 1366x768 you get

r/dia= 16/sqrt(16^2+9^2) / (1366 * tan(1/60)) = 2.2

r being the distance from your set, dia being the length of the diagonal.

In other words if you sit further away than 2.2*50" (2.8 meters) from a 50" set, there's little point in going beyond 1366x768.

For 1920x1080: r/dia = 1.56 (that is to go beyond 1920 you'd have to site closer than one and a half times the diagonal away from the TV, that's pretty ****ing close!).

Cheers
gubbi is offline  
post #187 of 1468 Old 01-23-2007, 06:56 AM
Newbie
 
Bram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hi,

thanks for a good thread on the 768p vs 1080p display headache. I'm still trying to decide on what to get. I have to admit that I didn't read all the replies yet, but my impression so far is that too much focus is put on when you are actually noticing the pixel grid. If you do notice the pixel grid, you are sitting about half the distance from the display that you should be sitting. A pixelated image can only guarantee true contrast reproduction when image details are not smaller than 2x2 pixels.

What I am rather certain about, is that a 1080i image source is the main bottleneck. From the marketing department point of view, it's a minor detail to convert 1080i sources to display perfectly on an 1080p panel. If you ask the engineers, they will tell you that 1080i is very close to 540p, and not at all anything like 1080p. Displays treat the 1080i source very similar to a 540p source, because it's not much more that can be done...

In other words, a 720p source contains higher resolution than a 1080i source, and a 768p display have better native pixel resolution than both those sources. That means 1080p displays won't help at all for these sources. Moving closer to the screen, blur or artifacts introduced by image scaling algorithms will be visible long before you start noticing the pixel grid.

The only reason I have for considering a 1080p display right now is for use with a PC. Then I can perfectly match the source resolution to the display pixel grid, getting an exact pixel-to-pixel mapping between source and display. I honestly don't see any other way of taking benefit from 1080p displays over 768p displays right now.
Bram is offline  
post #188 of 1468 Old 01-23-2007, 07:32 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 Bram View Post

I honestly don't see any other way of taking benefit from 1080p displays over 768p displays right now.

But you are overlooking the fact that there is lots of 1080p source available - its just typically telecined to 1080i/60 for ease of transmission.
mkoesel is offline  
post #189 of 1468 Old 01-23-2007, 08:05 AM
Newbie
 
Bram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post

But you are overlooking the fact that there is lots of 1080p source available - its just typically telecined to 1080i/60 for ease of transmission.

Maybe not so much overlooking it, as complaining about the information loss. If 1080i/60Hz is easier to transmit than 1080p/30Hz, isn't that due to lossy compression? And wouldn't 1080p/60Hz be the ideal source? Interlacing is not an ideal way of compressing the video stream. It introduces a lot of artifacts compared to the achieved compression rate.

I wouldn't call it an available 1080p source until it's distributet without visible compression loss. And the image needs to be sent directly to the displays pixel grid, without any resampling. Interlacing requires resampling to create a progressive image. The achieved progressive image is something similar to 540p/60Hz, and that is actually not the same as 1080p/30Hz, from a spatial resolution perspective.
Bram is offline  
post #190 of 1468 Old 01-23-2007, 08:35 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 Bram View Post

Maybe not so much overlooking it, as complaining about the information loss. If 1080i/60Hz is easier to transmit than 1080p/30Hz, isn't that due to lossy compression?

Well not exactly, no. By ease of transmission, I mean with respect to the broadcast infrastructure and the signal types accept by most consumer electronics products.

It is perfectly possible to convert 1080p source to 1080i/60 signal without losing a thing as long as the source is 30 frames per second or less. As it happens, this covers just about all 1080p source available - including both film and video. The way this is done is by using the telecine process I referred to earlier. It is worth your time to google it because it will clear up what appears to be a misunderstanding on your part.

Quote:


And wouldn't 1080p/60Hz be the ideal source?

1080p/60 would be better than 1080i/60 and 720p/60 yes, but I am not sure it would necessarily be ideal given its high bandwidth and storage requirements. Also keep in mind, there aren't even (to my knowledge) cameras in use yet that are capable of recording at 1080p/60.

Quote:


Interlacing is not an ideal way of compressing the video stream. It introduces a lot of artifacts compared to the achieved compression rate.

You are misinformed. Interlacing is not a compression method. Furthermore, it is perfectly possibly to interlace and then deinterlace a progressive source losslessly. And artifacts you are seeing are introduced via the MPEG encoding process.
mkoesel is offline  
post #191 of 1468 Old 01-23-2007, 09:18 AM
Newbie
 
Bram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post

You are misinformed. Interlacing is not a compression method. Furthermore, it is perfectly possibly to interlace and then deinterlace a progressive source losslessly. And artifacts you are seeing are introduced via the MPEG encoding process.

Traditionally, interlacing was a compression method, wasn't it? But I agree to what you say, it's perfectly possible to use exsisting interlacing infrastructure to split a progressive image onto two interlaced frames, and then combining them at the receiver. The problem then, is that displays seems to be incompatible with this transfer scheme. If I'm misinformed at that point, I agree with you.

However, it's my understanding that the 1080i sources seem to have typical interlacing noise, indicating that the de-interlacing algorithm at the receiver does not understand this trasfer scheme perfectly. Meaning that the source is interpreted as true 1080i/60Hz, rather than 1080p/30Hz mapped on to a interlaced transfer scheme.

I think we agree that 1080p/30Hz has better image quality than 1080i/60Hz. The question is whether the display unit is actually compatible with the transfer scheme you are describing. Because, if the receiver always interprets two consequtive interlaced frames as separated both in the time domain and the spatial domain, you end up displaying an image behaving much like 1080i/60Hz instead of 1080p/30Hz.

I'll try to google it some more... But googling was how I got my current information too. I think even this thread is refering to the interlacing trouble. Thanks for the feedback, anyway.
Bram is offline  
post #192 of 1468 Old 01-23-2007, 09:38 AM
Advanced Member
 
ashutoshsm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ashburn, VA
Posts: 995
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Excellent explanations, mkoesel.

Although, and my meory may be failing me, I think the DLP cameras ye ole' Gergieboy Lucas wasted on the crappy Star Wars 1, 2, 3 WERE 1080p60, weren't they?

Ignore my (low) opinion about the prequels, feel free to correct me if he also used 1080i60 Sony (etc.) cameras like everyone else

*ashu*
ashutoshsm is offline  
post #193 of 1468 Old 01-28-2007, 06:14 AM
Member
 
shogunprophet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I read this thread very thoroughly before I purchased my new tv. I was dead set on getting a 1080p LCD TV.... so when I got to the store last night, had them hook up an hd-dvd player to both, and viewed them from the distance I would be watching in my living room... the 720p plasma looked 1000x times better than the 1080p lcd tv. Needless to say I now own a 42" Plasma. I got it home last night and watched MI:3 on HD-DVD and was blown away with how clear it was. Certain scenes things just popped right out of the screen.
shogunprophet is offline  
post #194 of 1468 Old 01-28-2007, 10:52 AM
Advanced Member
 
itigap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: DC area
Posts: 970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by gubbi View Post

As you said yourself, depends entirely on viewing distance. The point of dimishing return is when a pixel covers an angle smaller than one arc-minute.

For 1366x768 you get

r/dia= 16/sqrt(16^2+9^2) / (1366 * tan(1/60)) = 2.2

r being the distance from your set, dia being the length of the diagonal.

In other words if you sit further away than 2.2*50" (2.8 meters) from a 50" set, there's little point in going beyond 1366x768.

For 1920x1080: r/dia = 1.56 (that is to go beyond 1920 you'd have to site closer than one and a half times the diagonal away from the TV, that's pretty ****ing close!).

Cheers

Good math that I can support through imperical observation. These distances agree quite closely with my findings as I measure acceptable distances in stores.

Cheers,

Gary
itigap is offline  
post #195 of 1468 Old 01-28-2007, 10:54 AM
Advanced Member
 
itigap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: DC area
Posts: 970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by shogunprophet View Post

I read this thread very thoroughly before I purchased my new tv. I was dead set on getting a 1080p LCD TV.... so when I got to the store last night, had them hook up an hd-dvd player to both, and viewed them from the distance I would be watching in my living room... the 720p plasma looked 1000x times better than the 1080p lcd tv. Needless to say I now own a 42" Plasma. I got it home last night and watched MI:3 on HD-DVD and was blown away with how clear it was. Certain scenes things just popped right out of the screen.

Smart man!

Remember "friends don't let friends buy LCD"

Cheers,

Gary
itigap is offline  
post #196 of 1468 Old 01-29-2007, 06:19 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 Bram View Post

What I am rather certain about, is that a 1080i image source is the main bottleneck. From the marketing department point of view, it's a minor detail to convert 1080i sources to display perfectly on an 1080p panel. If you ask the engineers, they will tell you that 1080i is very close to 540p, and not at all anything like 1080p. Displays treat the 1080i source very similar to a 540p source, because it's not much more that can be done...

I believe you are mistaken. The only way 1080i is close to 540p is in bandwidth, NOT in the actual data or what is displayed. Progressive displays (LCDs and Plasmas) treat 1080i and 540p signals differently. 1080i has 1080 lines in its frame, separated into two groups of 540 lines called a field. It is a frame that is displayed, not a field. If a set properly deinterlaces, a 1080/60i field (540 lines) is held in memory until the next field is received. These two fields are weaved/combined, corrected for motion and then displayed. The result is 1080/30p. 540p has 540 lines in its frame. If you receive a 540/60p signal, the set would uprez the signal to fit your display (line doubling or some other method of creating missing lines) and display that 'softer' picture. Proper deinterlacing of 1080i results with 1920 lines of actual data, not 540 lines uprezed to 1080.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bram View Post

In other words, a 720p source contains higher resolution than a 1080i source, and a 768p display have better native pixel resolution than both those sources. That means 1080p displays won't help at all for these sources. Moving closer to the screen, blur or artifacts introduced by image scaling algorithms will be visible long before you start noticing the pixel grid.

There is absolutely no way a 720p source contains highter resolution than a 1080i source. The resolution of a 720p input is 1280x720, the resolution of a 1080i input is 1920x1080. You seem to be confused with display rate. A 720p source will display 720 lines (a frame) 60 times a second. A 1080i source will display 1080 lines (a frame) 30 times a second.

A 768p set can not have "better native pixel resolution" than a 1080p display. Native resolution refers to the number of lines display on a panel. The last time I checked, 1080 lines is more than 768 lines. A 720p source does not have higher resolution (same as above - number of lines) than a properly deinterlaced 1080i signal. When properly deinterlaced, a 1080i input provides 1920x1080 lines of actual data (on a 1080p panel). A 720p signal (on a 1080p display) will need to 'add' lines to make up the difference between 1280x720 and 1920x1080.

Remember, the majority of HDTV is broadcast in 1080i. A 720p/768p display will have to deinterlace and scale these inputs. With good sets, receiving a good signal, blur and compression artifacts are not significant issues.
Nmlobo is offline  
post #197 of 1468 Old 01-29-2007, 12:24 PM
Member
 
hidefLoans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 58
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Just to add to this thread.

1/23/2007 - David Katzmaier from CNET in his PIONEER PRO-FHD1, a 1080P 50 inch plasma:

"You may ask whether 1080p makes a big difference on this panel, and as usual, the answer is no. We compared the PRO-FHD1 directly to the lower-resolution Panasonic TH-50PH9UK, and in scene after scene of this very sharp disc, the differences were extremely difficult to detect. Only on a couple of scenes did we feel the 1080p Pioneer had any kind of advantage in sharpness. In Chapter 9, for example (52:07 into the film), the horizontal lines hanging behind the projected face looked more distinct on the Pioneer; later in the film, the same line again appeared sharper. From our 7-foot seating distance (Update: This originally said "8-foot," but it is actually 7), it was nearly impossible to see other differences, whether we looked at characters' hair or the texture of the walls or the tiny creases in skin and lips during the film's numerous close-ups. Anyone sitting farther than 7 feet away would likely appreciate no benefit at all from the FHD1's resolution."

Link to source: CNET Review

In summary, 1080p details weren't visible from a 7 foot distance save for a couple of line details in two scenes of a blu-ray movie.

I guess digital animation movies/ games will have many more details shown in 1080p, but most movies wont show any difference.
hidefLoans is offline  
post #198 of 1468 Old 01-29-2007, 02:05 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
Katzmaier is just restating what he and others have been saying all along. You need a display greater than 50-55" before most can see a difference between a 1080p display and 720p/768p display. He also stated:

The biggest item at the top of the Pioneer PRO-FHD1's spec sheet is its pixel count. This is the first plasma to have 1,920x1,080 pixels of native resolution on its screen, which lend the picture more detail with 1080i and 1080p sources than you'll see with lower-resolution panels, which typically have 1,366x768 pixels. All those pixels also provide more detail with computer sources, which can be set to 1,920x1,080 resolution and deliver every pixel, but they won't improve the look of 720p HDTV or standard-definition television.
Nmlobo is offline  
post #199 of 1468 Old 02-04-2007, 08:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,835
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 209
I'll be glad when Plasma and LCD push past the 65-inch barrier. At distances greater than 70+ inches you get the benefit of 1080p and also get more fully immersed in the picture experience.

I think QUALITY rear projection sets in the 50-65-inch range will go the way of the dodo bird in 2 or 3 years. After that they will only be either in the low priced market or in the 70+ inch market.

I'm not wild about rear projection DLP but at 73-inches it does makes sense for the price--I don't see how plasma or LCD will be able to offer 73-inches pus for a cheaper price--better quality at 65-inches yes--better quality and lower price at 73-inches plus--NO!!!
Artwood is offline  
post #200 of 1468 Old 02-08-2007, 06:42 PM
Newbie
 
bottleman2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If your cheap, then buy a cheap tv anyway 1080p overrated. Most people are buying their tv's to watch tv...well 1080p sucks for any HD channel because their terrible broadcast. My tv lets just say is to good for direct tv (at the moment, and dont see that changing because not many people have HD yet). I use my 1080p for computer games maxed out at 1920X1080 and for blue ray movies which wow u can get 5 if your lucky and rich. I dont even watch tv cause it looks like garbage. get a huge F'ing 60" something that is 720p. the games on ps3 will do fine on 720p because their graphics still suck, computers can push way better graphics but people are retarted and buy xbox's and ps3. So wait 2 more years or go 720p that sums it up
bottleman2004 is offline  
post #201 of 1468 Old 02-13-2007, 09:53 PM
Advanced Member
 
terminatorbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Greer, SC
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottleman2004 View Post

If your cheap, then buy a cheap tv anyway 1080p overrated. Most people are buying their tv's to watch tv...well 1080p sucks for any HD channel because their terrible broadcast. My tv lets just say is to good for direct tv (at the moment, and dont see that changing because not many people have HD yet). I use my 1080p for computer games maxed out at 1920X1080 and for blue ray movies which wow u can get 5 if your lucky and rich. I dont even watch tv cause it looks like garbage. get a huge F'ing 60" something that is 720p. the games on ps3 will do fine on 720p because their graphics still suck, computers can push way better graphics but people are retarted and buy xbox's and ps3. So wait 2 more years or go 720p that sums it up

Retarted? um right. If you don't have anything constructive to say then don't say anything at all.

Panasonic TH-42PH9UK
terminatorbob is offline  
post #202 of 1468 Old 02-15-2007, 11:52 AM
Newbie
 
bucknroses's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm completely torn on which is going to be the best TV. I'm looking at 1080P LCD vs. 42" Plasma (most likely the Mitsubishi 46LT231 vs. the Pioneer Elite PRO-940) I don't do much gaming, mainly watching sports and DVDs. My current viewing distance is about 11 ft, but could be closer in the future. My concern with the LCD is motion blur/PQ. My concern with the Plasma is that it isn't 1080P. I know there aren't 1080P signals out now, but I don't want to regret not having 1080P when they come out. I am thinking about waiting to see if the plasmas start rolling out 1080P, but I'm not sure that they will be available under 50" (which is too big for me).
bucknroses is offline  
post #203 of 1468 Old 02-15-2007, 12:52 PM
Member
 
bd8653's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 197
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucknroses View Post

I'm completely torn on which is going to be the best TV. I'm looking at 1080P LCD vs. 42" Plasma (most likely the Mitsubishi 46LT231 vs. the Pioneer Elite PRO-940) I don't do much gaming, mainly watching sports and DVDs. My current viewing distance is about 11 ft, but could be closer in the future. My concern with the LCD is motion blur/PQ. My concern with the Plasma is that it isn't 1080P. I know there aren't 1080P signals out now, but I don't want to regret not having 1080P when they come out. I am thinking about waiting to see if the plasmas start rolling out 1080P, but I'm not sure that they will be available under 50" (which is too big for me).


The general rule of thumb is 720p for sets under 45"
720p or 1080p for sets 45"-60"
1080p for sets over 60"

If you have the money and want to have the "latest/greatest" then do 1080p no matter what. If you want to be sensible and get what you pay for (ie the realistic ability to resolve every line of 1080p from a reasonable distance) then the above rules apply.
If your viewing distance is really 11ft then 720p is right for your size of television (under 50"), even if you plan on standing at closest 4 feet from the television I still think you will be happy with the 720p. If you plan on standing closer than 4 feet do the 1080p as you will be able to see the higher detail (if you are in the sub 40" range you need to stand even closer before noticing the detail).
This is based on "expert" recommendations... the best thing you can do is walk into a store and look at the 720p and 1080p television standing at the distances you expect to realistically watch from and see which resolution you like better....if you can even see a difference in resolution. By realistic I mean the fact that yes there have been time I am watching my tv (50" 720p) and walked up to 1-3' of the screen and it's not as sharp as a 1080p television, but that is not a realistic viewing distance for me.
bd8653 is offline  
post #204 of 1468 Old 02-16-2007, 07:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,835
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 209
My advice is only go 1080p at 65-inches are larger.
Artwood is offline  
post #205 of 1468 Old 02-16-2007, 09:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,860
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Artwood, the 37" 1080p Akai I got from Walmart.com rivals my 73" Mits. The Akai works great with my and my sons PS3, XBox 360 and bright days. For any size 1080p/i, only the viewing distance matters.
Bill is offline  
post #206 of 1468 Old 02-16-2007, 09:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,860
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nmlobo View Post

Katzmaier is just restating what he and others have been saying all along. You need a display greater than 50-55" before most can see a difference between a 1080p display and 720p/768p display. He also stated:

The biggest item at the top of the Pioneer PRO-FHD1's spec sheet is its pixel count. This is the first plasma to have 1,920x1,080 pixels of native resolution on its screen, which lend the picture more detail with 1080i and 1080p sources than you'll see with lower-resolution panels, which typically have 1,366x768 pixels. All those pixels also provide more detail with computer sources, which can be set to 1,920x1,080 resolution and deliver every pixel, but they won't improve the look of 720p HDTV or standard-definition television.

I guess the resolution of film is a waste when you only print a standard 3"x5" photo- NOT! Based on this statement an upconverting DVD player is worthles also- NOT! Everything looks better converted or displayed at 1080p. Eventually all sets will be 1080p. Why make two different resolution panels when 1080p will cost little more than 720p panels to make? Then they'll be selling quad sets and I'll be buying one.
Bill is offline  
post #207 of 1468 Old 02-16-2007, 10:02 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bfdtv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 13,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill View Post

Artwood, the 37" 1080p Akai I got from Walmart.com rivals my 73" Mits. For any size 1080p/i, only the viewing distance matters.

What he said.

If you sit 4' from your TV, even a 34" display will show significant benefit with 1080i/1080p.

HDTV Recorder Comparison Chart | DTVPal DVR FAQ | New! TiVo Premiere (Series4) FAQ |
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
bfdtv is offline  
post #208 of 1468 Old 02-17-2007, 07:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,835
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 209
Well if your eye is close enough to a 1-inch screen it will benefit, too but there is a big difference between watching 1080p at 10 feet with a 73-inch than a 34-inch at 4 feet or less.

If this wasn't the case then noboby would go to the movies.

Size isn't everything but there's no substitute for it--at least that's what my wife says!
Artwood is offline  
post #209 of 1468 Old 02-18-2007, 01:59 AM
Newbie
 
bucknroses's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks, but I'm wondering if anyone would recommend getting a 720P 42" plasma over a 1080P 46" LCD? Is the picture quality going to be that much better on the 46" on a 1080 signal to counter the possible motion blur of the lcd and overall picture quality advantage Plasma seems to have. I don't play video games very often - I just watch sports and movies really. I'm looking for a TV, not a computer monitor.
bucknroses is offline  
post #210 of 1468 Old 02-18-2007, 08:07 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bfdtv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 13,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucknroses View Post

Thanks, but I'm wondering if anyone would recommend getting a 720P 42" plasma over a 1080P 46" LCD? Is the picture quality going to be that much better on the 46" on a 1080 signal to counter the possible motion blur of the lcd and overall picture quality advantage Plasma seems to have. I don't play video games very often - I just watch sports and movies really. I'm looking for a TV, not a computer monitor.

That depends entirely on your viewing distance.

HDTV Recorder Comparison Chart | DTVPal DVR FAQ | New! TiVo Premiere (Series4) FAQ |
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
bfdtv 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