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.