DON'T BUY 1080p TVs! - Page 10 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-07-2006, 02:17 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: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noose
I think that FP and their supporters will reap the biggest gains from 1080i/p. Projection TV's are too small for the average person to resolve all the detail as noted earlier. I sit 1.5x back from my 105" 576p screen and do notice some pixelation on HD material but I have 20/20 vision. More of an issue for me is motion blur on live sporting events like hockey. Uncompressed 1080i or 1080p movies on a 1080p projector should be stunning but I will have to wait till prices drop.
I agree. Very intelligent poster and consumer.
Auditor55 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 05-07-2006, 02:30 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55
I agree. Very intelligent poster and consumer.
No not actually. That poster continues basic ignorance about screen size. It's not about absolute screen size, but viewing ratio which matters.

Not that I expected your perception of intelligence to be have much merit though...
ChrisWiggles is offline  
Old 05-07-2006, 02:43 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: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles
No not actually. That poster continues basic ignorance about screen size. It's not about absolute screen size, but viewing ratio which matters.

Not that I expected your perception of intelligence to be have much merit though...
You have a nasty attitude and come across as an arrogant, cocky know it all.

According to this article is screen size is a huge factor.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...&page_number=1
Auditor55 is offline  
Old 05-07-2006, 02:54 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Well, I'm tired of the unbelievable arrogance of your assertions which are clearly wrong. Absolute screen size is not at all an issue. It's about viewing ratio. That's the way our human visual system works. If you would like to pretend otherwise to assert inflammatory nonsense, then you're right I'm going to come across harsh and bitter because your behavior here is beyond any pale of reasonable intellectual engagement. It is an arrogant and ignorant crusade that totally obscures the actual issues and considerations here in choosing displays.

There are legitimate discussions to be had with regards to display resolution and how much you really need or want, but you certainly are going out of your way to completely avoid having any kind of legitimate of even half-way educated discussion.

As for your link, clearly you must not read english, because the subtitle reads as follows: Optimize Your Seating Distance For Your Screen Size.


Excerpts from the article: If your combination of screen size and seating distance places you below any particular image-format trace, you're sitting too close.

That is a direct description of Viewing Ratio, which relates the screen size to your viewing distance.

That is close to the recommendation of the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) that the width of a screen should span at least 30° of your field of view (anything below the orange trace).

As might be expected, Lucasfilm THX's recommendation for the comparable angle for watching movies in theaters (light purple trace) is much more demanding, namely 36°.


Again, those are DIRECT and explicit descriptions of Viewing Angle.

When comparing screen size/distance tradeoffs

Another one.

Nowhere in the article ANYWHERE is there any assertion that screen size is the factor in question. The ENTIRE article is about viewing ratios/viewing angles which relates BOTH absolute screen size and viewing distance.

Not that I had expected that you had actually read anything in the article, however.
ChrisWiggles is offline  
Old 05-07-2006, 03:07 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: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles
Well, I'm tired of the unbelievable arrogance of your assertions which are clearly wrong. Absolute screen size is not at all an issue. It's about viewing ratio. That's the way our human visual system works. If you would like to pretend otherwise to assert inflammatory nonsense, then you're right I'm going to come across harsh and bitter because your behavior here is beyond any pale of reasonable intellectual engagement. It is an arrogant and ignorant crusade that totally obscures the actual issues and considerations here in choosing displays.

There are legitimate discussions to be had with regards to display resolution and how much you really need or want, but you certainly are going out of your way to completely avoid having any kind of legitimate of even half-way educated discussion.

As for your link, clearly you must not read english, because the subtitle reads as follows: Optimize Your Seating Distance For Your Screen Size.


Excerpts from the article: If your combination of screen size and seating distance places you below any particular image-format trace, you're sitting too close.

That is a direct description of Viewing Ratio, which relates the screen size to your viewing distance.

That is close to the recommendation of the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) that the width of a screen should span at least 30° of your field of view (anything below the orange trace).

As might be expected, Lucasfilm THX's recommendation for the comparable angle for watching movies in theaters (light purple trace) is much more demanding, namely 36°.


Again, those are DIRECT and explicit descriptions of Viewing Angle.

When comparing screen size/distance tradeoffs

Another one.

Nowhere in the article ANYWHERE is there any assertion that screen size is the factor in question. The ENTIRE article is about viewing ratios/viewing angles which relates BOTH absolute screen size and viewing distance.

Not that I had expected that you had actually read anything in the article, however.
OK know it all, here's an excerpt from the ariticle that's simple and direct

"If your room layout restricts either your viewing distance or the screen size, you actually have more choices. Say you're limited to a seating distance of around 10 feet and a screen width of 50 inches. In this case buying a 1080i/p set won't get you better resolution than a 50-inch 720p set (the 10-foot/50-inch point lies above the 1080i/p trace). You might be able to save some money by choosing a 720p model."

I think David Ranada makes it simple enough for a fool to understand, I'm sorry you can't understand it. You need to empy your cup to allow more information to come into you.
Auditor55 is offline  
Old 05-07-2006, 03:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
moonhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: La Madera, New Mexico
Posts: 3,238
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55
Those website polls are not scientific so therefore you cannot rely upon them being accurate.
Thankfully, we have your opinions to guide us instead....

______________________

__________

Dave

moonhawk is offline  
Old 05-07-2006, 03:33 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55
OK know it all, here's an excerpt from the ariticle that's simple and direct

"If your room layout restricts either your viewing distance or the screen size, you actually have more choices. Say you're limited to a seating distance of around 10 feet and a screen width of 50 inches. In this case buying a 1080i/p set won't get you better resolution than a 50-inch 720p set (the 10-foot/50-inch point lies above the 1080i/p trace). You might be able to save some money by choosing a 720p model."

I think David Ranada makes it simple enough for a fool to understand, I'm sorry you can't understand it. You need to empy your cup to allow more information to come into you.
I understood that perfectly fine. What does that have to do with anything? If you are limited to a small viewing angle, the advantages of a higher resolution display are moot because you may be able to exceed your visual acuity with a lower resolution display at that smaller viewing angle.

Once again, it agrees with what I've said repeatedly in this thread and in similar threads, the major question to consider when discussion display resolution needs is the viewing ratio at which you'll be watching. I'm sorry that you continue to ignore this basic fact, even in the face of an article which explains this at depth which you yourself posted a link to. Fairly ironic, I must say, that you don't understand what Mr. Ranada is saying, yet you claim it supports your position (which is what, exactly?).
ChrisWiggles is offline  
Old 05-07-2006, 03:36 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Here, let me just post the article in its entirety, since it agrees with my point to a T:

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...&page_number=1

Quote:
Maxing Out Resolution
Optimize Your Seating Distance For Your Screen Size.
by David Ranada
February 2006




Getting the best picture resolution remains one of the chief goals of HDTV shoppers. But as I explained in last month's "Tech Talk," human visual acuity limits how much detail you can see in any image, live or onscreen. This month I'm laying it all on the line - or rather, the several trace lines in the accompanying graphs, which relate diagonal screen size for 16:9 widescreen TVs (in inches across the bottom) to seating distance (in feet on the vertical axis). The two graphs are the same except that the one with curved lines uses a logarithmic scale for the vertical axis (I'll explain the advantages of that below).

The traces indicate for various image formats what combinations of screen size and viewing distance will "saturate" your eyes with detail to the point where any more detail in the image would not be visible. They were calculated using only the horizontal pixel count of each format and assuming progressive display of still images. You won't get quite as much detail with real-world video programs and screens.


If your combination of screen size and seating distance places you below any particular image-format trace, you're sitting too close. That is, a TV of that format and size can't provide all the detail your eye is capable of seeing at that distance, and the picture will look "softer" the closer you get. For example, watching a 60-inch TV at 11 feet puts you below the trace for 720p HDTV, so a high-def program on a 720p HDTV - or a 720p program viewed on a 1080i or 1080p HDTV - might look a little soft.

If your screen-size/distance point puts you above a particular trace, your eyes will be saturated with detail before you reach the resolution limit of an image in that format. Watching a 60-inch screen from 11 feet puts you well above the 1080i/p HDTV trace, meaning that a 1080i program can produce more detail than you can actually make out at that distance. You could even move closer, to around 8 feet, before your ability to see details in the image will max out. That is close to the recommendation of the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) that the width of a screen should span at least 30° of your field of view (anything below the orange trace).

As might be expected, Lucasfilm THX's recommendation for the comparable angle for watching movies in theaters (light purple trace) is much more demanding, namely 36°. Neither a 1080i/p HDTV nor even a 2k Digital Cinema projection is capable of providing full visible resolution for a picture of that width. For a 36° image you'll need to leap to 4k Digital Cinema encoding. Such 4k pictures allow you to sit less than a screen width away, which is what often happens when you arrive late to the theater.


This graph can be used to help set up your system or to shop for a TV. How you use it depends on what you are able to vary in your viewing room - the space allotted for a screen or the distance from the screen to the main viewing area. If you want to go for a full theaterlike presentation, select among 1080i/p screens and sit at just the right distance for your screen size as indicated on the green trace. Only a 1080 set will produce the minimum SMPTE picture width of 30° without running out of resolution.

If your room layout restricts either your viewing distance or the screen size, you actually have more choices. Say you're limited to a seating distance of around 10 feet and a screen width of 50 inches. In this case buying a 1080i/p set won't get you better resolution than a 50-inch 720p set (the 10-foot/50-inch point lies above the 1080i/p trace). You might be able to save some money by choosing a 720p model. Then again, all screen sizes seem to be switching over to 1080i/p pixel counts, and eventually 720p sets may be hard to find.

When comparing screen size/distance tradeoffs, it's easy to go overboard with the straight-line version of the graph, which can be misleading as to the improvements/degradations in resolution you'll get. Transformation of the vertical axis to logarithmic scaling, as in the curved-line version of the graph, will help prevent this. The logarithmic version contains the same information as the "linear" version, but scaled so that the vertical intervals are more perceptually meaningful. Equal vertical movement on the logarithmic version corresponds to equal changes in perceived or possible resolution. For example, descending along the same vertical line from the DVD trace (orange) to the HDV camcorder line (magenta) corresponds to a doubling of horizontal pixel count (from 720 to 1,440) and is the same distance as between the 2k (dark purple) and 4k (dark blue) Digital Cinema traces, which also involves a doubling of pixel count (from 2,048 to 4,096). From the logarithmic version, you can see that slight changes in viewing distance from the 1080i/p line correspond to larger changes in viewing distance from a 720p screen of the same size. The lower-rez screens are more forgiving of seating-distance variations.
Feel free to use any part of that to refute my assertion that the relevant issue is viewing ratio. Go ahead.
ChrisWiggles is offline  
Old 05-07-2006, 06:03 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: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles
Here, let me just post the article in its entirety, since it agrees with my point to a T:

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...&page_number=1



Feel free to use any part of that to refute my assertion that the relevant issue is viewing ratio. Go ahead.
Please explain what you mean by "viewing ratio" because David Ranada doesn't use that terminology in his article. And please explain in way that Joe average consumer could understand.

I believe the purpose of Mr. Ranada's article was to help a consumer who's trying to decide whether or not its beneficial to him/her to pay the extra cost of purchasing a so-called 1080p set over 720p set.
Auditor55 is offline  
Old 05-07-2006, 06:09 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: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonhawk
Thankfully, we have your opinions to guide us instead....
You don't have to agree with my opinions, but please don't cite unscientific website polls as credible because they are not.
Auditor55 is offline  
Old 05-07-2006, 06:19 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Viewing Ratio is an expression that relates the screen size to the viewing distance. Often this is expressed as an angle measurement, or as a viewing distance per screen width, or screen height, or screen diagonal. The point is that this is a ratio, and thus is much more useful than saying "I have a display X inches or feet in size." That is not helpful in discussing resolution, because a person with a larger display may be sitting much farther away, relatively, than a person with a smaller screen. Thus, the person with a smaller screen, but a larger viewing angle, may need a higher resolution display than the person with the larger screen. Using a ratio here then makes it easy to talk about this because if one is sitting 1.5x Screen Widths away, others can relate to that regardless of the absolute screen size.

If I say "I can see screen door on a 720p DLP from 8 feet away" that is a meaningless statement because how big is the screen? If I say "I can see screen door out to 2.0x Screen Widths" that statement is now useful and can be translated to all kinds of screen sizes without problem.

Mr. Ranada is dealing with this in the entirety of the article, that's why the sub-title is "Optimize Your Seating Distance For Your Screen Size." That's the whole point of the article. Honestly, it's not the clearest discussion on the matter, but it certainly does explicitly address the importance of viewing ratios which has consistently been my point and why so many of these threads and your comments are not helpful in the discussion at all because they totally disregard issues of viewing ratios. Basically, if you sit relatively close to a display, you will need more resolution. Depending on your eyes, you may or may not find 720p displays sufficient for some of these closer seating ratios. That's why in some cases 720p (or even less) may be more than sufficient for a particular screen size/viewing distance combination, and why in other cases that may not at all be sufficient.

You haven't even recognized that point yet, that's why it's so frustrating for me, because there are other things to take into account, such as the sharpness or MTF of the display. Some 720p displays may support closer viewing ratios than others, for instance. Some other things like intentional defocusing, or blurring lenses can also be used to obscure display structure visibility and thus support closer viewing ratios. But again, we aren't even at that point in the discussion, because we're stuck with a bunch of self-serving statements about how nobody really needs anything more than 720p. Quite clearly, that's not true at all, and Mr. Ranadas article illustrates that.
ChrisWiggles is offline  
Old 05-07-2006, 06:34 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55
You don't have to agree with my opinions, but please don't cite unscientific website polls as credible because they are not.
The TV news channels do that all the time! :D
ChrisWiggles is offline  
Old 05-07-2006, 06:36 PM
Member
 
jrkarp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 77
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mboojigga
How would a bundle with a free Blu-ray movie help when not everyone has a HD. Blu-ray is not what is going to drive the PS3 your talking about somthing that is simply an added bonus that is in the system.
You obviously didn't read what I said. I didn't say that Blu-Ray would drive the PS3. I said that the PS3 would drive Blu-Ray.


Quote:
You and a few others may use it for Blu-ray movies but are you seriously telling me this is why you are buying the system for that or the games?
No, I'm not saying that. I never said that. I will buy it for the games first and the movies second.

Quote:
But seriously what is going to drive PS3 is the games no Blu-ray. Its just an added bonus that is making the system more expensive then it really needs to be.
The discussion we were having was about the potential for success and/or failure for HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. That was the context, and my points were about how the PS3 might help drive Blu-Ray's popularity, not the other way around. You either didn't actually read what I said or you just didn't understand it.
jrkarp is offline  
Old 05-07-2006, 06:45 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: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles
Viewing Ratio is an expression that relates the screen size to the viewing distance. Often this is expressed as an angle measurement, or as a viewing distance per screen width, or screen height, or screen diagonal. The point is that this is a ratio, and thus is much more useful than saying "I have a display X inches or feet in size." That is not helpful in discussing resolution, because a person with a larger display may be sitting much farther away, relatively, than a person with a smaller screen. Thus, the person with a smaller screen, but a larger viewing angle, may need a higher resolution display than the person with the larger screen. Using a ratio here then makes it easy to talk about this because if one is sitting 1.5x Screen Widths away, others can relate to that regardless of the absolute screen size.

If I say "I can see screen door on a 720p DLP from 8 feet away" that is a meaningless statement because how big is the screen? If I say "I can see screen door out to 2.0x Screen Widths" that statement is now useful and can be translated to all kinds of screen sizes without problem.

Mr. Ranada is dealing with this in the entirety of the article, that's why the sub-title is "Optimize Your Seating Distance For Your Screen Size." That's the whole point of the article. Honestly, it's not the clearest discussion on the matter, but it certainly does explicitly address the importance of viewing ratios which has consistently been my point and why so many of these threads and your comments are not helpful in the discussion at all because they totally disregard issues of viewing ratios. Basically, if you sit relatively close to a display, you will need more resolution. Depending on your eyes, you may or may not find 720p displays sufficient for some of these closer seating ratios. That's why in some cases 720p (or even less) may be more than sufficient for a particular screen size/viewing distance combination, and why in other cases that may not at all be sufficient.

You haven't even recognized that point yet, that's why it's so frustrating for me, because there are other things to take into account, such as the sharpness or MTF of the display. Some 720p displays may support closer viewing ratios than others, for instance. Some other things like intentional defocusing, or blurring lenses can also be used to obscure display structure visibility and thus support closer viewing ratios. But again, we aren't even at that point in the discussion, because we're stuck with a bunch of self-serving statements about how nobody really needs anything more than 720p. Quite clearly, that's not true at all, and Mr. Ranadas article illustrates that.
If you read this entire thread you will find that I have tried to make that same point. As I've said before, when I owned a 50 inch SXRD I was sitting a 9 feet away and my viewing pretty restricted to that distance, viewing straight on. My situation was similiar to the scenario David Ranada(If your room layout restricts either your viewing distance or the screen size, you actually have more choices. Say you're limited to a seating distance of around 10 feet and a screen width of 50 inches. In this case buying a 1080i/p set won't get you better resolution than a 50-inch 720p set (the 10-foot/50-inch point lies above the 1080i/p trace). You might be able to save some money by choosing a 720p model.) described that and I had to rethink purchasing another 1080p set at that seating distance. In view of the entire article, it is the aforementioned cited statement by David Ranada that resonants with me and others because its on point with our personal situations.

Other folks also have similiar situations where their viewing distance v. screen and or viewing angle will not allow them to see much of a benefit to owning a 1080p display, but yet these folks are wrongfully being encouraged to upgrade and to me that represent unmitigated consumerism.

I'm just trying to encourage my fellow AVS member to really give this 1080p thing so thought before handing the salesharks their credit cards.
Auditor55 is offline  
Old 05-07-2006, 07:04 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Your first post in this thread state:

Quote:
1080P , truthfully speaking is pretty much marketing hype, especially since no native 1080p content exist.
Are you now saying that is not what you have been arguing? I don't at all disagree that in some instances 720p may be fully sufficient. But that's not what you said originally. You originally said that it is "pretty much marketing hype" and then you went on to relate that to the existence of 1080p content (which was both wrong on the existence of 1080 content, and incorrect by confusing the relevance of display resolution with native source resolution: one need not have ANY 1080 content to appreciate the reduction in display structure visibility if one is sitting at a close enough viewing ratio.).

You began this whole thread with a series of statements that attempted to claim that 1080p displays are just a bunch of propaganda with no real imaging merit of thei own(which is wrong) and further that they have no use without native 1080p content (which is also wrong).

Your position has just radically changed to one that postulates that 1080p displays may be overkill for certain restricted viewing environments where one has a relatively small viewing angle.

Those are two very different positions. The latter one has merit, the former does not.

Quote:
I'm just trying to encourage my fellow AVS member to really give this 1080p thing so thought before handing the salesharks their credit cards.
The problem I've had is that up until this point, you have not been acting that way at all, instead you've been asserting essentially that anyone buying a 1080p display is a sucker or is wasting their money on something they don't need at all.

That and the fact that you probably have a 720p display and are super-defensive about that fact and the realization that someone else may have a better display than you. That's fairly childish. I have a display that runs at 720p, but I can still take a critical and objective eye to the issue at hand. If that comes off as arrogant or cocky, fine. Readers will be able to read the points, consider the facts, and make their own conclusions as to who is making reasonable and informed claims.
ChrisWiggles is offline  
Old 05-07-2006, 07:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
ayrton911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast351
It really depends on how closely the tuner adheres to the ATSC spec. For example, even though CRT TVs generally natively only display 480i/p and 1080i, the ones with a built in tuner still tune 720p broadcast signals.

....

Personally, I don't see the advantage of broadcasting 1080P. It's so easy to do a 1080P->1080I->1080P conversion without any loss (assuming native progressively scanned source material), I don't see anyone bothering with 1080P.

Unless you're talking 1080P/60 material, for which there isn't enough room. If you were to compress 1080P/60 into a 19.2 Mbps transport stream, the compression artifacts would be severe. 1080P/30 would almost certainly look much better.

Thank you for helping to explain this to me. I found it very interesting and very helpful.
ayrton911 is offline  
Old 05-07-2006, 09:04 PM
Senior Member
 
Noose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Yorkton SK Canada
Posts: 209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles
No not actually. That poster continues basic ignorance about screen size. It's not about absolute screen size, but viewing ratio which matters.

Not that I expected your perception of intelligence to be have much merit though...
Hey dumb-ass, what part of 1.5x the screen width distance didn't you understand? I just don't feel like sitting 6 feet away from a 60" TV which is where you would have to sit to resolve 1080 resolution. My room is big and requires a big image to achieve proper viewing ratio given my seating configuration.

Sony KDL60EX645 LED 60" TV, Bell 9242 sat,Onkyo 608 rec, XBOX 360, PS3, PS4 Paradigm Mon7v.5,ADP-190,CC-290,PW-2200 sub.
Noose is offline  
Old 05-07-2006, 11:05 PM
Member
 
Jim Conforti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sandy, UT
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55
OK know it all, here's an excerpt from the ariticle that's simple and direct

"You might be able to save some money by choosing a 720p model."

I think David Ranada makes it simple enough for a fool to understand, I'm sorry you can't understand it. You need to empy your cup to allow more information to come into you.
Except that David Ranada doesn't take into account the visual artifacts and loss
of real resolution caused by a less than optimal scaling of the predominant 1080i
material onto a 720p screen. We are talking about HD sets, and scaling 1080i
into 720p is "less than optimal" in most cases.

Jim
Jim Conforti is offline  
Old 05-07-2006, 11:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Monty22001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,057
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
:( This troll thread is turning into a flame war :(
Monty22001 is offline  
Old 05-07-2006, 11:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Supermans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,086
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by dropKickMurphy
When the article was written, there was no 1080p content on the horizon; the price differential between 720p and 1080p sets was much greater; and the 1080p sets did not accept 1080p over HDMI. In April of 2006 that is no longer the state of 1080p.

* At least one major studio (Sony Pictures) maintains that ALL of its films released on will be native 1080p. "No 1080p source exists" will soon be history.

* With the release of Samsung's HLS series, the price differential between a 1080p set and (an otherwise equivalent) 720p set is down to $500.00. In a competitive marketplace, the rest of the manufacturers will have to price their 1080p models closely to their 720p models. Some have speculated that 1080p is a scam by manufacturers to push expensive units over the not so profitable 720p's. With the price differential this close, I don't see this as a valid argument. We're now seeing 61" 1080p sets in the $3000 neighborhood.

* The HP DLPs, the Samsung HLS series, and the rest of the 2006 1080p models will accept 1080p over HDMI. Whether or not this makes a noticable difference compared to properly deinterlaced 1080i I can't really say. But the "they're not really 1080p because they can't accept 1080p inout argument" is no longer valid.

With a new 1080p set and a Blu-Ray player connected by HDMI, we will have the ability to watch full 1080p - source to screen, sans upscale, sans deinterlacing - in all its glory.

It is true that the first generation Blu-Ray players are expensive; and it could take several years for the Blu-Ray/HD DVD war to play out. But prices will drop quickly, and both formats will offer 1080p output within the near future.

If I'm about to drop $3K on a new set, I don't see where it would make sense to save a few hundred bucks just because 1080p Blu-Ray is delayed by a couple of months. I would be planning on using this set for a few years, so I would want it to take full advantage of the capabilities of these new players.
Spot on :)

I bought my 720p HLR5087W by Samsung over Christmas because it was a whole lot cheaper than the SXRD sitting next to it. That, and I didn't see that huge of a difference for $3,000 more. Now, move ahead about half a year later and you have models coming out from Samsung which have less overall features than their 2005 counterparts, however they are now 1080p and are able to recieve 1080p thru HDMI which the 2005 SXRD can't. It is my understanding that when the first Blu-Ray players come out, you will have to set the player to output to 1080i on the 2005 SXRD line and then the TV will upconvert to 1080p output. Even if I had the money, I would wait until 2006 SXRD line which solves this issue. Now, I am very happy with my 720p set and feel I don't need a 1080p for at least a few years. Why?? Because I sit 8 to 10 feet away from my TV and it is only 50 inches wide. I already see no discernable pixel seperation, and all my SD-DVD's look the best they've ever looked when upconverted. I would only buy a 1080p set if it was 75 inches or greater.
Supermans is offline  
Old 05-08-2006, 10:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mikelets456's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Booth
How, exactly, did Apple "standardize"? By standadized, do you mean they continued to improve their products until everyone wanted one or the other? eg, the iPod is now the "standard" for measuring portable music players. With 75%+ of the marketshare, iPod is the standard.

My read on it is that Apple didn't standarize... they simply maintained their excellent standards and long history of inovation until the rest of the world figured out just how insanely great their products happen to be. Apple never stopped being Apple except for a period of time when Steve Jobs wasn't at the helm. THAT is the time when they seemed to be moving toward some kind of standard (clones). That was a huge failure for the company (financially speaking).

Mark
Note from CNET news "However, Apple has roughly 1.8 percent of the worldwide PC market, he added." That's hardly a market at all. i did not realize it was that low. One of the reasons I don't own an Apple, is compatibility...There are so many more programs and hardware designed to/for PC's than apple that it's not even funny.

Also, I feel that Apple will be losing market share rapidly because putting any video on your Ipod is gonna cost you. With other MP3 player you don't have to pay for it and you can also play WMA and MP3 files.....can't do it with the Ipods. They'll eventually self destruct...you'll see.

Who would have thought that Dell would also start to deteriorate? Not me, but once again they got too big and greedy and now they are STARTING to pay for it. Their CS has got to be the worst!!!

Anyway, 1080P....Yeah, it will happen, but it's gonna take a long time before we see 1080P players let alone 1080P DVD's. However, I don't think they'll broadcast 1080P for quite sometime...takes up way too much bandwidth. Unless they come up with a new type of compression.

Keep an eye on what Panasonic does. They seem to be able to "sniff out" the types of formats that will be worth investing in. this is just my opinion.

Acts 17:27
"His purpose in all of this was that the nations would seek after GOD and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him-though he is not far from any of us"
Yamaha Drum kit....
mikelets456 is offline  
Old 05-08-2006, 01:37 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: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles
Your first post in this thread state:



Are you now saying that is not what you have been arguing? I don't at all disagree that in some instances 720p may be fully sufficient. But that's not what you said originally. You originally said that it is "pretty much marketing hype" and then you went on to relate that to the existence of 1080p content (which was both wrong on the existence of 1080 content, and incorrect by confusing the relevance of display resolution with native source resolution: one need not have ANY 1080 content to appreciate the reduction in display structure visibility if one is sitting at a close enough viewing ratio.).

You began this whole thread with a series of statements that attempted to claim that 1080p displays are just a bunch of propaganda with no real imaging merit of thei own(which is wrong) and further that they have no use without native 1080p content (which is also wrong).

Your position has just radically changed to one that postulates that 1080p displays may be overkill for certain restricted viewing environments where one has a relatively small viewing angle.

Those are two very different positions. The latter one has merit, the former does not.



The problem I've had is that up until this point, you have not been acting that way at all, instead you've been asserting essentially that anyone buying a 1080p display is a sucker or is wasting their money on something they don't need at all.

That and the fact that you probably have a 720p display and are super-defensive about that fact and the realization that someone else may have a better display than you. That's fairly childish. I have a display that runs at 720p, but I can still take a critical and objective eye to the issue at hand. If that comes off as arrogant or cocky, fine. Readers will be able to read the points, consider the facts, and make their own conclusions as to who is making reasonable and informed claims.

Originally Posted by Fast351
I stated in my original post that I'd done these comparisons. No, it was not a double blind test, but then you already knew that.

If you're convinced there is no difference between 720P and 1080P sets, great for you, you can get the cheaper set and not worry about it.
.



"If your room layout restricts either your viewing distance or the screen size, you actually have more choices. Say you're limited to a seating distance of around 10 feet and a screen width of 50 inches. In this case buying a 1080i/p set won't get you better resolution than a 50-inch 720p set (the 10-foot/50-inch point lies above the 1080i/p trace). You might be able to save some money by choosing a 720p model. Then again, all screen sizes seem to be switching over to 1080i/p pixel counts, and eventually 720p sets may be hard to find." [by David Ranada, S&V Magazine]

Please read the entire article, "Maxing out Resolution", the author scientifically shows that under certain situations, do to human eye sight limitations, you could not possibly tell the difference.


Maximum 360
I compared the SXRD to the 720p JVC beside it and the GWIII. The SXRD was easily the superior set (and this was in vivid....aka torch mode). After I adjusted a few settings, the SXRD looked even better. After 1080 anything, it's hard to go back.


If you haven't been following this thread closely it might as seem as though I'm making contradicting arguments but that is really not the case. I stand by my argument that 1080p is pretty much marketing hype DUE TO THE LACK OF SIGNIFICANT native 1080p content. I think that argument goes to the issue of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD being viable enough to make 1080p a success. I don't think so. As I have mentioned before, where is the demand for 1080p among the global TV set buying public, you don't see it.

I think most people (globally) are just fine with 720p and 1080i. Both formats look fantastic in comparison to normal SDTV. The consumer electronic industry, the manufacturers with their marketeers and corporateers, must convince consumers that what they currently have, 720p and 1080i based TV sets is not good enough or is now obsolete.

If you read the above posts that I cited, made by fellow forum members Fast351 and Maxium360, you will see where I first posted the link to David Ranada's article. Maximum360 had discussed a comparison between the 1080p SXRD and the 720p GWIII (which I don't think compares favorable to other 720p based displays) that he had conducted where the SXRD came out on top, he attributed it to the higher resolution offerred by the SXRD. The one thing he did not do was discribe his test procedures, he did not even let us know the size of the displays he was comparing nor his seating distance. If for example he was sitting 9 feet away from the SXRD and 9 feet from the GWIII , both being 50 inch sets, then based upon David Ranada's article, I highly doubt the credibility of Maximum360 comparison test.

The bottom line, in certain home theater set ups, due to human sight limitations, you will not be able to discern the difference between 720p and 1080p. The manufacturers and the salesharks won't tell you that or provide consumers with the information that David Ranada's did in his article, which btw is a great anti-consumerism article.

Also, I never suggested that anyone who decides to a purchase so-called 1080p set is somehow dumb or stupid, I bought both the JVC and SXRD 1080p sets. I think what I was trying to suggest is that consumers are more like victims, victims or the marketeers and corporateers hell bent of bleeding the consumers out of their hard earned money, rather than being stupid or dumb.
Auditor55 is offline  
Old 05-08-2006, 01:46 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: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Conforti
Except that David Ranada doesn't take into account the visual artifacts and loss
of real resolution caused by a less than optimal scaling of the predominant 1080i
material onto a 720p screen. We are talking about HD sets, and scaling 1080i
into 720p is "less than optimal" in most cases.

Jim
Would not that be a hardware related issue?
Auditor55 is offline  
Old 05-08-2006, 01:53 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
I stand by my argument that 1080p is pretty much marketing hype DUE TO THE LACK OF SIGNIFICANT native 1080p content.
Again, that's clearly wrong on the merits of the argument. It has nothing to do with the existance or prevalence of ANY 1080p content. 1080p displays have merit *regardless* of whether ANY 1080 content is available. And of course 1080i content is very widespread, so again this point is clearly wrong on the facts.

Quote:
The consumer electronic industry, the manufacturers with their marketeers and corporateers, must convince consumers that what they currently have, 720p and 1080i based TV sets is not good enough or is now obsolete.
No, since when is 1080i an issue? If we're dealing with fixed-pixel displays, it's progressive, so naturally you have 1080p since you can't do 1080i on a digital display. I thought that was a pretty obvious assumption here.

Quote:
The bottom line, in certain home theater set ups, due to human sight limitations, you will not be able to discern the difference between 720p and 1080p.
That's the only legitmate point you're making, and I agree with that.

Quote:
I think what I was trying to suggest is that consumers are more like victims, victims or the marketeers and corporateers hell bent of bleeding the consumers out of their hard earned money,
Maybe that's the case, but it's a free country, people buy what they want. Your mistake is conflating an accusation of this to 1080p displays as if marketers are hell-bent on victimizing consumers with 1080p displays. That's nonsense. 1080p fixed-pixel displays have merit on their own both objectively and subjectively. Are they the best choice for some situations? No. But for a lot of people sitting 2.0x SW away is pretty far, so clearly there are a lot of people who would definitely benefit from 1080p panels.
ChrisWiggles is offline  
Old 05-08-2006, 01:57 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55
Would not that be a hardware related issue?
It would be a processing issue, and it is a legitimate point. You won't have scaling artifacts is you stay 1080 with 1080i content, as opposed to scaline to 720p. I don't think a lot of people notice or care about this, but it certainly is an issue. On the other hand, the scaling in a lot of consumer displays is mediocre anyway, so that may be a more significant issue than whether you can keep the source native; however it is an argument for trying to avoid internal scaling for the content, whether it be 720 content or 1080 content. With higher quality processing, it's less of an issue.
ChrisWiggles is offline  
Old 05-08-2006, 03:35 PM
Member
 
jrkarp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 77
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikelets456
Anyway, 1080P....Yeah, it will happen, but it's gonna take a long time before we see 1080P players let alone 1080P DVD's.
HD-DVDs are already released in 1080p. The current HD-DVD players just don't output 1080p. The PS3 will.
jrkarp is offline  
Old 05-08-2006, 05:17 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: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrkarp
HD-DVDs are already released in 1080p. The current HD-DVD players just don't output 1080p. The PS3 will.
How many are there?
Auditor55 is offline  
Old 05-08-2006, 06:13 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55
How many are there?
Again, that is an irrelevant point in this discussion.

If there were no 1080 content available AT ALL (i or p), there is still merit to 1080p displays. That's the fundamental point you're still denying in this part of the discussion.
ChrisWiggles is offline  
Old 05-08-2006, 06:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
gremmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 3,942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles
Again, that is an irrelevant point in this discussion.

If there were no 1080 content available AT ALL (i or p), there is still merit to 1080p displays. That's the fundamental point you're still denying in this part of the discussion.
Our boy Auditor here is a slippery little eel. He refuses to acknowledge any sound counter-argument and will always have just "one more post" to make to drive home his point.

You are a much braver man that I for arguing with him. I don't have the stomach for it. He is not interested in the truth. If he's not a blatant troll (which may be possible, I'm not sure), then clearly his motivation is to win the debate, not to uncover the truth. And since he's already picked a side on this one, trying to argue with him is like talking to a wall.

I put him on IGNORE. The world is so much more peaceful now. Sometimes someone will quote him, and I'll end up seeing part of his post, but somehow seeing his posts second-hand has a sanitizing effect on them. It's like watching news of a murder on the evening news.
gremmy is offline  
Old 05-08-2006, 09:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Zues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,835
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Why does everything have to be so confusing. True 1080p tv that accepts the signal and true 1080p discs=1080p native without scaling. Even if there is scaling i would think current tvs that dont technically accept 1080p will still have a HD picture that will look great. I hear only plasma and dlp are truely digital and every other tv has to convert analog to digital anyway. So would the only true 1080p be a plasma or dlp? :confused:
Zues is offline  
 
Thread Tools


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